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{Exploring the construction of ``Reference'' triangle
44: through unitarity}
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, we have explored
54: the possibilty of construction of
55: reference unitarity triangle
56: using the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the existence of nonzero
57: CP violating phase $\delta$ and the
58: experimental values of the well known CKM elements,
59: without involving any inputs from the processes which might include
60: the new physics effects.
61: The angles of the reference triangle are evaluated by finding
62: $\delta$ through the Jarlskog's rephasing
63: invariant parameter $J$. The present data and the unitarity of the
64: CKM matrix give $\delta=50^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, which translates
65: to $130^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ in the
66: second quadrant. The corresponding range for \sin2~
67: is 0.21 to 0.88. This range is
68: broadly in agreement with the recently updated
69: BABAR and BELLE results. However,
70: a value of \sin2$\leq$0.2, advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein
71: as a benchmark for new physics, would
72: suggest a violation in the three generation unitarity and would hint
73: towards the existence of a fourth generation. Further, the future
74: refinements in the CKM elements will push the lower limit on \sin2~
75: still higher.
76: \vskip .1cm
77: \noindent
78: {\bf PACS} ~~11.30.Er, 12.15.Hh, 13.25.Hw \\
79: {\bf Keywords}~~ CKM matrix, unitarity, CP violating phase,
80: reference triangle
81: \end{abstract}
82: The recent measurements of the time dependent CP asymmetry
83: $a_{\psi K_S}$ in $B^o_d({\bar B}^o_d) \rightarrow \psi K_S$
84: decay by BABAR and BELLE collaborations, for example,
85: \beqn a_{\psi K_S}& =&0.12 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.09~~~~~~~~ {\rm BABAR}~
86: \cite{babar}, \label{babar} \\
87: a_{\psi K_S}&=&0.45^{+0.43~+0.07}_{-0.44~-0.09}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm BELLE}~
88: \cite{belle}, \label{belle} \eeqn
89: look to be smaller compared to the CDF measurements \cite{cdf},
90: for example,
91: \be a_{\psi K_S}^{{\rm CDF}}=0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}~, \label{cdf} \ee
92: as well as compared to the recent standard analysis of the unitarity
93: triangle \cite{burasrev} with
94: $|\epsilon_K|$, \rub, $\Delta m_d$ and $\Delta m_s$
95: as input, given as
96: \be a_{\psi K_S}^{{\rm SM}} = 0.67 \pm 0.17.
97: \label{burasrev} \ee
98: This disagreement gets reduced in the recently updated measurements
99: of BABAR and BELLE, for example,
100: \beqn a_{\psi K_S}& =&0.34 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.05~~~~~~~~ {\rm BABAR}~
101: \cite{babar1}, \label{babar1} \\
102: a_{\psi K_S}&=&0.58^{+0.32~+0.09}_{-0.34~-0.10}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm BELLE}~
103: \cite{belle1}, \label{belle1} \eeqn
104: however, the possibility of the $a_{\psi K_S}$ being lower than the
105: predictions of Standard Model (SM) is still not ruled out.
106: In the SM, $a_{\psi K_S}$ is related to the angle $\beta$
107: of the unitarity triangle as,
108: \be a_{\psi K_S} = Sin2\beta. \label{sin2} \ee
109:
110: Recently, several authors \cite{kagan} - \cite{nxb} have
111: explored the implications of the possibility of low
112: value of \sin2~ in comparison to the CDF measurements
113: as well as to the global analysis of the unitarity triangle.
114: These analyses lead to the general consensus that the
115: possibility of new physics could be more prominent
116: in the loop dominated processes, in particular the
117: $B^o - \bar{B^o}$ mixing. Further, it is realized that the new
118: physics will not affect the tree level decay processes and
119: the unitarity of the three generation CKM matrix in the SM approaches
120: as well as in its extensions \cite{kagan}-\cite{ut5}.
121: In this connection, for better appraisal of new physics,
122: it has been generally recommended to construct a universal
123: or reference unitarity triangle \cite{kagan},\cite{ut1}-\cite{ut5},
124: wherein the inputs are free from the processes which might include
125: the new physics effects, in particular the
126: $B^o - \bar{B^o}$ mixing and $K^o - \bar{K^o}$ mixing parameters.
127: Keeping this in mind several strategies,
128: model dependent \cite{ut1,ut2} as well as model independent
129: \cite{ut3,ut4,ut5}, have been formulated to construct the triangle,
130: however by and large both approaches rely on the
131: rare decays. The reference triangle to be constructed is defined as,
132: \be V_{ud}V_{ub}^{*} + V_{cd}V_{cb}^{*} + V_{td}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
133: \label{db} \ee
134: obtained by employing the orthogonality of the
135: first and third column of the CKM matrix (henceforth referred to as
136: triangle $db$).
137: In this triangle the elements involving $t$ quark
138: have not been experimentally measured as yet and hence to
139: construct the triangle, the inputs from rare decays
140: involving elements $V_{td}$ and $V_{tb}$ through loops
141: have to be used.
142:
143: In this context, it is interesting to note that
144: despite several analyses of the CKM
145: phenomenology in the past \cite{burasrev}, \cite{jarlskog}
146: -\cite{parodi}
147: yielding valuable information,
148: the implications of three generation unitarity have not been
149: examined in detail in the construction of the reference triangle.
150: A reference triangle constructed purely from the considerations of
151: unitarity as well as using experimentally measured CKM elements
152: will be free from the effects of new physics and hence could serve
153: as a tool for deciphering deviation from the SM in measuring the
154: CP asymmetries.
155:
156: The purpose of the present communication is to explore
157: the construction of
158: the triangle $db$ using unitarity of the three generation CKM matrix
159: as well as the existence of nonzero CP violating phase $\delta$,
160: by evaluating the Jarlskog's Rephasing Invariant Parameter $J$
161: and consequently the $\delta$. In particular,
162: we intend to evaluate angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$
163: of the triangle $db$ and study the implications of the low value of \sin2~
164: for unitarity.
165:
166: To begin with, we consider the six non diagonal relations
167: implied by the unitarity of the
168: CKM matrix. One of the relations corresponds to equation
169: \ref{db} and the other five are as follows,
170: \beqn
171: ds~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{us}^{*} + V_{cd}V_{cs}^{*} + V_{td}V_{ts}^{*} = 0,
172: \label{ds} \\
173: sb~~~~~~~V_{us}V_{ub}^{*} + V_{cs}V_{cb}^{*} + V_{ts}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
174: \label{sb} \\
175: ut~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{td}^{*} + V_{us}V_{ts}^{*} + V_{ub}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
176: \label{ut} \\
177: uc~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{cd}^{*} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{*} + V_{ub}V_{cb}^{*} = 0,
178: \label{uc} \\
179: ct~~~~~~~V_{cd}V_{td}^{*} + V_{cs}V_{ts}^{*} + V_{cb}V_{tb}^{*} = 0.
180: \label{ct}
181: \eeqn
182: The letters before the equations denote the respective triangles.
183:
184: As mentioned above, in the triangle $db$ the elements
185: $V_{td}$ and $V_{tb}$ are not experimentally
186: measured, therefore the triangle cannot be constructed
187: without additional inputs.
188: This also corresponds to our ignorance of the CP
189: violating phase $\delta$ of the CKM matrix, defined as \cite{pdg}
190: \be V_{CKM}= \left( \ba {lll} c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} &
191: s_{13}e^{-i\delta} \\
192: -s_{12} c_{23} - c_{12} s_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
193: c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12} s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
194: & s_{23} c_{13} \\
195: s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
196: - c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12}c_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
197: c_{23} c_{13} \ea \right), \label{ckm} \ee
198: with $c_{ij}=cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}=sin\theta_{ij}$ for
199: $i,j=1,2,3.$
200: In the above representation, the mixing angles $s_{12}$, $s_{23}$
201: and $s_{13}$ can be obtained from the experimentally well known elements
202: \vus, \vcb~ and
203: \rub~ given in Table
204: \ref{tabinput}, hence the CP violating phase
205: $\delta$ remains the only unknown parameter in determining the triangle
206: $db$. The phase $\delta$, however, is related to the
207: Jarlskog's rephasing invariant parameter $J$ as
208: \be J = s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}
209: c_{23}c^2_{13}sin \delta. \label{j} \ee
210: Therefore, an evaluation of $J$ would allow us to find $\delta$ and
211: consequently the angles $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ of the
212: triangle $db$. To evaluate $J$, we make use of the fact
213: that the areas of all the six triangles (equations \ref{db}-\ref{ct})
214: are equal and that the area of any of the unitarity triangle
215: is related to Jarlskog's Rephasing Invariant Parameter $J$ as
216: \be J = 2 \times {\rm Area~ of~any~ of~ the~ Unitarity~ Triangle.}
217: \label{area} \ee
218: This, therefore affords an opportunity to evaluate $J$
219: through one of the unitarity triangle whose sides are
220: experimentally well known, for example, triangle $uc$.
221: The triangle $uc$ though is quite well known, but is highly
222: squashed, therefore one needs to be careful while
223: evaluating $J$ through this triangle.
224: The sides of the triangle represented by $|V_{ud}^*V_{cd}|~(=a)$ and
225: $|V_{us}^*V_{cs}| ~(=b)$ are of comparable lengths while the third side
226: $|V_{ub}^*V_{cb}| ~(=c)$ is several orders of
227: magnitude smaller compared to $a$ and $b$.
228: This creates complications for evaluating the area of the triangle
229: without violating the existence of CP violation.
230: To avoid these complications, without violating the
231: unitarity, we have incorporated the constraints
232: $|a|+|c| > |b|$ and $|b|+|c| > |a|$ \cite{branco},
233: this ensures that the triangle exists and has nonzero area.
234: Using these constraints and the experimental data given in the
235: table \ref{tabinput}, a histogram can be plotted,
236: shown in figure \ref{fig1}, to which a gaussian is
237: fitted yielding the result,
238: \be J = (2.59 \pm 0.79) \times 10^{-5}
239: \label{jpdg1s}. \ee
240: Calculating $s_{12},~ s_{23}$ and $s_{13}$ from
241: the experimental values of \vus, \rub,~
242: and \vcb~ given in table \ref{tabinput}, one can plot a
243: distribution for $\delta$ as well using equation \ref{j} and
244: \ref{jpdg1s} and incorporating the above mentioned constraints.
245: Again the distribution for \del~ is gaussian and yields,
246: \be \delta = 50^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}, \label{del1} \ee
247: which in the second quadrant translates to,
248: \be \delta = 130^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}. \label{del2} \ee
249:
250: This value of $\delta$ apparently looks to be the consequence
251: only of the unitarity relationship given by equation \ref{uc}.
252: However on further investigations, as shown by Branco and Lavoura
253: \cite{branco}, one finds that this $\delta$ range is consequence
254: of all the non trivial unitarity constraints. In this sense the above
255: range could be attributed to unitarity of the
256: CKM matrix. It needs to be noted that with the above range of $\delta$
257: and the experimental values of \vus, \vcb~ and
258: \rub~ given in Table \ref{tabinput}, the CKM matrix thus evaluated
259: is in excellent agreement with PDG CKM matrix \cite{pdg}. In
260: particular \vtd, the element with the most sensitive dependence on
261: \del~ comes out to lie in the range,
262: \be V_{td}=0.0046 ~{\rm to}~ 0.0134, \label{vtd} \ee
263: in comparison with the PDG range, $V_{td}=0.004 ~{\rm to}~ 0.014.$
264:
265: In order to reinforce our conclusion regarding $J$, we
266: have also evaluated $J$ through other unitarity triangles given in
267: equations \ref{db} to \ref{ct}.
268: Without getting into the details,
269: which will be published elsewhere, we
270: have considered the evaluation of $J$ through the two unsquashed triangles
271: $db$ and $ut$. Since these triangles involve elements which are
272: not experimentally known, for them we have used their PDG values
273: based on the unitarity considerations. Following the procedure used
274: for evaluating $J$ through triangle $uc$, we get the
275: following values for $J$ evaluated through
276: $db$ and $ut$ respectively,
277: \beqn J &=& (2.51 \pm 0.87) \times 10^{-5}, \label{jdb} \\
278: J &=& (2.45 \pm 0.91) \times 10^{-5}. \label{jut} \eeqn
279: Quite interestingly, we find that
280: $J$ values evaluated through these triangles are very much in agreement
281: with the $J$ evaluated through the
282: triangle $uc$. We, therefore, would like to emphasize that our
283: evaluation of $J$ and $\delta$ from the squashed triangle $uc$ is
284: very much consistent with the unitarity based evaluation of
285: CKM matrix by PDG.
286:
287: After having obtained $\delta$, the triangle $db$
288: can be constructed, however without involving inputs from
289: the phenomena which may have influence from the new physics as
290: well as without the inputs from the rare decays.
291: The angles $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ of the triangle can be
292: expressed in terms of the CKM elements as,
293: \be \alpha = arg\left(\frac{-V_{td}V_{tb}^*}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^*} \right),
294: \label{alpha} \ee
295: \be \beta = arg\left(\frac{-V_{cd}V_{cb}^*}{V_{td}V_{tb}^*}\right),
296: \label{beta} \ee
297: \be \gamma = arg\left(\frac{-V_{ud}V_{ub}^*}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^*}\right),
298: \label{gamma} \ee
299: where CKM elements are as given by the PDG representation in the
300: equation \ref{ckm}. In Table \ref{tabinput} we
301: have listed the experimental values of the
302: CKM elements as given by PDG \cite{pdg} as well as their future values.
303: Making use of the PDG representation of CKM matrix given in
304: equation \ref{ckm}, experimental values of \vus,~ \vcb~
305: and \rub~ from table \ref{tabinput} and
306: \del ~ given by equations \ref{del1} and \ref{del2}, one can easily find out
307: the corresponding ranges for the three angles.
308: In the Table \ref{tab1}, we have listed the corresponding results for
309: $J$, $\delta$, $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$.
310: The ranges for $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ are as follows,
311: \beqn \alpha& \simeq &19^{\rm o}~ {\rm to}~ 139^{\rm o}
312: \label{alphauni}, \\
313: \beta& \simeq &6^{\rm o} ~{\rm to} ~ 31^{\rm o} \label{betauni}, \\
314: \gamma &\simeq &30^{\rm o} ~{\rm to} ~ 70^{\rm o}~~~~~
315: {\rm in~ I~ quadrant, ~~~ and} \\
316: & & 110^{\rm o} ~{\rm to} ~ 150^{\rm o}~~~~~
317: {\rm in ~II~ quadrant}. \label{gammauni} \eeqn
318: While evaluating the three angles, we have taken care that the triangle
319: is closed.
320: The range of \sin2~ corresponding to equation \ref{betauni} is given as,
321: \be sin2\beta = 0.21~ {\rm to} ~0.88 \label{sin2uni}. \ee
322: It needs to be emphasized that this range for \sin2~ is obtained by
323: making use of unitarity and the well known CKM elements listed
324: in Table \ref{tabinput}. The above range has considerable overlap
325: with the BABAR and BELLE results,
326: however if \sin2~ is found to be $\leq$0.2, a benchmark for new physics
327: as advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein \cite{silva}, then one may
328: conclude that even the three generation unitarity may not be valid and
329: one may have to go to four generations to explain the low values of \sin2.
330: In such a scenario, the widely advocated assumption \cite{kagan}
331: -\cite{ut5} that the non SM physics
332: resides in loop dominated processes only may not be valid.
333:
334: A few comments are in order.
335: It needs to be pointed out that while evaluating the area of the
336: unitarity triangle $uc$, we have assumed that CP violating phase
337: $\delta$ is nonzero and that the triangle $uc$ exists and hence
338: has nonzero area. In order to incorporate this in plotting the
339: histogram we have not considered the entries corresponding to area
340: of the triangle being zero and the case corresponding to one of the
341: sides being larger than the sum of the other two sides. Both of these
342: possibilities are not unambiguously ruled out by the present data because of
343: the fact that the uncertainties in the two larger sides are greater
344: than the third shorter side.
345: However, the important point to be noted is the fact that our evaluation
346: of $J$ and $\delta$ obtained by incorporating the above mentioned
347: constraints does reproduce the PDG CKM elements based on the
348: experimental input and unitarity.
349:
350: It is interesting to examine the consequences of the future refinements
351: in the CKM elements.
352: While listing the future values of the elements we have considered only
353: those elements where the present error is more than 15$\%$,
354: for example \rub~ and \vcs. The future values of these
355: elements are listed in column III of Table
356: \ref{tabinput}.
357: One finds from the Table \ref{tab1} that the refinements in \rub~
358: and \vcs~ would improve the lower bound on \sin2~ from 0.21 to 0.31.
359: This would give a clear signal for physics beyond the SM
360: in case \sin2~ is measured to be $\leq$ 0.2. To emphasize this conclusion,
361: we have also considered all the future inputs at their 90$\%$ CL
362: and this gives the lower limit of \sin2=0.18.
363: %, which again is a
364: %marginal case for the three generation unitarity to be valid.
365:
366: It may be of interest to mention that recent investigations
367: involving texture 4 zeros quark mass matrices
368: and unitarity \cite{massmat},
369: yield the following range for \sin2,
370: \be Sin2\beta = 0.27~ {\rm to}~ 0.60, \label{massmat} \ee
371: which looks to be compatible with the present unitarity based
372: calculations. A value of \sin2 $\leq$ 0.2 therefore, will have far
373: reaching consequences for unitarity as well as for texture
374: specific mass matrices \cite{massmat,massmat1,ito}.
375:
376: It is interesting to compare our results (equation \ref{sin2uni}) with
377: those of Buras (equation \ref{burasrev}), obtained
378: from the measurements of $|\epsilon_K|$, \rub, $\Delta m_d$
379: and $\Delta m_s$, which look to be much
380: narrower compared to ours. This is easy to understand when one considers
381: the definition of \b~ given in equation \ref{beta}, wherein the magnitude
382: and phase of $V_{td}$ play an important role. For example, the
383: range of $\delta$ given by equation \ref{del1} and
384: \ref{del2} yields the
385: $V_{td}$ range as 0.0046 to 0.0134, whereas the
386: range corresponding to Buras's analysis is 0.0067 to 0.0093,
387: which is narrower
388: primarily due to restrictions imposed by $|\epsilon_K|$, $\Delta m_d$
389: and $\Delta m_s$. Our preliminary investigations wherein we have incorporated
390: the constraints due to $|\epsilon_K|$, $\Delta m_d$
391: and $\Delta m_s$ along with the unitarity lead to results
392: which are in agreements with those of Buras.
393:
394: To conclude, we have explored the possibility of construction
395: of a reference unitarity triangle by making
396: use of the three generation unitarity of the CKM matrix,
397: the existence of nonzero
398: CP violating phase $\delta$ and the
399: experimental values of the well known CKM elements,
400: without involving any inputs from the processes which might include
401: the new physics effects, in particular the
402: $B^o - \bar{B^o}$ mixing and $K^o - \bar{K^o}$ mixing parameters
403: as well as the rare decays.
404: The angles of the triangle have been
405: evaluated by finding the CP violating phase $\delta$ through the
406: Jarlskog's rephasing invariant parameter $J$. Also, the $J$ and
407: $\delta$ evaluated through the triangle $uc$ lead to the magnitudes
408: of CKM matrix elements which are in full agreement with the
409: PDG CKM matrix.
410: The present data and the unitarity of the
411: CKM matrix give $\delta=50^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, which translates
412: to $130^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ in the
413: second quadrant. The corresponding range for \sin2~
414: is 0.21 to 0.88. This range is
415: broadly in agreement with the recently updated
416: BABAR and BELLE results and
417: also has considerable overlap with the range found from the
418: texture 4 zeros quark mass matrices and the unitarity of the
419: CKM matrix. However,
420: a value of \sin2$\leq$0.2 advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein
421: as a benchmark for new physics would
422: imply a violation in the three generation unitarity and would hint
423: towards the existence of a fourth generation. Further, the future
424: refinements in the CKM elements will push the lower limit on \sin2~
425: still higher, for example from 0.21 to 0.31, thus
426: giving a clear signal for physics beyond the SM
427: in case \sin2~ is measured to be $\leq$ 0.2. This remains valid
428: even when the future values are considered at their 90$\%$ CL.
429: \vskip 1cm
430: {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}\\
431: M.G. would like to thank S.D. Sharma for useful discussions.
432: M.R. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for
433: financial support and also the Chairman, Department of Physics,
434: for providing facilities to work in the department.
435: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
436:
437: \bibitem{babar}David G. Hitlin, BABAR Collaboration, hep-ex/0011024.
438:
439: \bibitem{belle}Hiroaki Aihara, BELLE Collaboration, hep-ex/0010008.
440:
441: \bibitem{cdf} T. Affolder {\it et al.}, CDF Collaboration,
442: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 072005(2000).
443:
444: \bibitem{burasrev} Andrzej J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336 and references
445: therein.
446:
447: \bibitem{babar1} B. Aubert {\it et al.}, BABAR Collaboration,
448: hep-ph/0102030.
449:
450: \bibitem{belle1} A. Abashian {\it et al.}, BELLE Collaboration,
451: hep-ph/0102018.
452:
453: \bibitem{kagan} A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, hep-ph/0007360.
454:
455: \bibitem{silva} J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, hep-ph/0008004.
456:
457: \bibitem{nxb} G. Eyal, Y. Nir and G. Perez, hep-ph/0008009;
458: Z. Z. Xing, hep-ph/0008018; Y. Nir, hep-ph/0008226;
459: A. J. Buras and R. Buras, hep-ph/0008273.
460:
461: \bibitem{ut1} T. Goto, N. Kitazawa, Y. Okada and M. Tanaka,
462: Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 6662(1996).
463:
464: \bibitem{ut2} A. J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager and
465: L. Silvestrini, hep-ph/0007085.
466:
467: \bibitem{ut3} Y. Grossmann, Y. Nir and M. P. Worah, Phys. Lett.
468: {\bf B407}, 307(1997).
469:
470: \bibitem{ut4} A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre, A. E. Nelson,
471: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78} 2300(1997).
472:
473: \bibitem{ut5} G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. Lett.
474: {\bf 83}, 4486(1999).
475:
476: \bibitem{jarlskog} CP violation, Ed. L. Wolfenstein, North Holland,
477: elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1989;
478: CP violation, Ed. C. Jarlskog, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte.
479: Ltd, 1989.
480:
481: \bibitem{gupta} Manmohan Gupta and P. S. Gill, Pramana {\bf 38}, 477(1992);
482: P. S. Gill and Manmohan Gupta, Mod. Phys.
483: Lett. {\bf A13}, 2445(1998).
484:
485: \bibitem{ckmph}
486: L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 1945(1983);
487: %
488: Stefan Herrlich and Ulrich Nierste, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52},
489: 6505(1995);
490: %
491: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett.
492: {\bf 76}, 1200(1996);
493: %
494: H. Fritzsch and Z. Z. Xing, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}, 49(1999);
495: %
496: J.L. Rosner, hep-ph/0005258;
497: %
498: A. Ali, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C9},
499: 687(1999); hep-ph/0002167;
500: %
501: I. I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, hep-ph/9909479;
502: %
503: R.D. Peccei, hep-ph/9904456; hep-ph/9909236; hep-ph/0004152.
504: %
505:
506: \bibitem{parodi} M. Ciuchini, G. D'Agostini, E. Franco,
507: V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and
508: A. Stocchi, hep-ph/0012308 and references therein.
509:
510: \bibitem{pdg} D.E. Groom {\it et al.}, Particle Data group, Euro. Phys.
511: J. {\bf C15}, 1(2000).
512:
513: \bibitem{branco} G.C. Branco and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. {\bf B208},
514: 123(1988).
515:
516: \bibitem{massmat} Monika Randhawa and Manmohan Gupta,
517: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 097301(2001).
518:
519: \bibitem{massmat1}
520: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. {\bf B353}, 114(1995);
521: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}, 49(1999);
522: R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Romanino,
523: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B551}, 93(1999).
524:
525: \bibitem{ito} T. Ito and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev {\bf D55},
526: 1509(1997); T. Ito, N. Okamura and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev.
527: {\bf D58}, 077301(1998).
528: \end{thebibliography}
529: \newpage
530:
531: \begin{table}
532: \bc \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline
533: Parameter & PDG values \cite{pdg} & Future values \\ \hline
534: \vud & 0.9735 $\pm$ 0.0008 & 0.9735 $\pm$ 0.0008 \\
535: \vus & 0.2196 $\pm$ 0.0023 & 0.2196 $\pm$ 0.0023 \\
536: \vcd & 0.224 $\pm$ 0.016 & 0.224 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
537: \vcs & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.16 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
538: \vcb & 0.0402 $\pm$0.0019 & 0.0402 $\pm$0.0019\\
539: \rub & 0.090 $\pm$ 0.025 & 0.090 $\pm$ 0.010 \\
540: & & \\ \hline
541: \end{tabular}
542: \caption{Values of the CKM parameters used throughout the paper.}
543: \label{tabinput}
544: \ec \end{table}
545:
546: \begin{table}
547: \bc
548: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
549: & With PDG values &
550: With future values & \bt{c} With future values \\ at their
551: 90$\%$ CL \\ \et \\ \hline
552: & & & \\
553: $J$ & $ (2.59 \pm 0.79) \times 10^{-5} $ &
554: $(2.79 \pm 0.49) \times 10^{-5} $ & $ (2.61 \pm 0.78)
555: \times 10^{-5}$ \\ & & & \\
556: $\delta$ & \bt{c} 50$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, \\
557: 130$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ \\ \et &
558: \bt{c} 60$^{\rm o} \pm 18^{\rm o}$, \\
559: 120$^{\rm o} \pm 18^{\rm o}$ \\ \et &
560: \bt{c} 55$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, \\
561: 125$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ \\ \et \\
562: & & & \\
563: $\alpha$ & $19^{\rm o}$ to $141^{\rm o}$ &
564: $28^{\rm o}$ to $124^{\rm o}$ & $19^{\rm o}$ to $143^{\rm o}$ \\ & & & \\
565: $\beta$ & $ 6^{\rm o}$ to $31^{\rm o}$ &
566: $9^{\rm o}$ to $31^{\rm o}$ & $5^{\rm o}$ to $36^{\rm o}$ \\ & & & \\
567: $\gamma$ & \bt{c} 50$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, \\
568: 130$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ \\ \et &
569: \bt{c} 60$^{\rm o} \pm 18^{\rm o}$, \\
570: 120$^{\rm o} \pm 18^{\rm o}$ \\ \et &
571: \bt{c} 55$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$, \\
572: 125$^{\rm o} \pm 20^{\rm o}$ \\ \et \\ \hline
573: \end{tabular}
574: \caption{$J$, $\delta$ and corresponding $\alpha$, $\beta$
575: and $\gamma$ with PDG and the future values of
576: input parameters listed in Table 1}
577: \label{tab1}
578: \ec \end{table}
579:
580: \newpage
581:
582: \begin{figure}
583: \centerline{\psfig{figure=j.eps,width=5in,height=5in}}
584: \caption{Gaussian fitted to the histogram of $|J|$ plotted
585: by considering the triangle $uc$ with the input constraints
586: $|a|+|c| > |b|$ and $|b|+|c| > |a|$, where $a = |V_{ud}^*V_{cd}|$,
587: $b=|V_{us}^*V_{cs}|$ and
588: $c=|V_{ub}^*V_{cb}|$.}
589: \label{fig1}
590: \end{figure}
591:
592: \end{document}
593:
594: