1:
2: %*******************
3: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig,floats]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle{report}
5: %
6: %******************DEFINITIONS FOR FIGURES******************
7: % These should work on Mac's and Unix machines. You need epsf.def.
8: \input epsf.tex
9: \def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
10: % Null macro in case the ones above don't work.
11: %\def \DESepsf(#1 width #2){\bf #1 here: just uncomment the macro.}
12: %******************END DEFINITIONS*************************
13: %
14: \begin{document}
15: %
16: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{}}}
17: \draft
18: \title{
19: CP Violation in Hyperon Decays}
20: %
21: \author{Xiao-Gang He
22: \footnote{Plenary talk presented at the Kaon2001,
23: International Workshop on CP violation,
24: Pisa Italy, 12-17, June, 2001
25: }}
26: %
27: \address{
28: Department of Physics, National Taiwan University,
29: Taipei, Taiwan}
30: %\date{}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: In this talk I review theoretical predictions
37: for CP violation in non-leptonic hyperon decays in the Standard Model
38: and models beyond. In the Standard Model the CP violating
39: observable $A$ in the polarization asymmetries of $\Lambda \to p \pi^-$
40: and $\Xi^- \to \Lambda \pi^-$
41: decays are predicted to be in the ranges $(-0.61\sim 6.8)\times 10^{-5}$
42: and $-(0.1\sim 1)\times 10^{-5}$, respectively. These ranges are below the
43: sensitivity of $1.4\times 10^{-4}$ for $A(\Lambda^0_-)+A(\Xi^0_-)$
44: for E871 experiment at Fermilab. When going beyond the SM, such as,
45: Supersymmetric and Left-Right symmetric models,
46: $A$ can be as large as $10^{-3}$ and a few times of $10^{-4}$, respectively.
47: Studies of hyperon
48: decays can provide important information about CP violation.
49: \end{abstract}
50: %
51: \baselineskip=14pt
52: %
53: \newpage
54: \section{CP Violating Observables in Hyperon decays}
55:
56: The decay amplitude $M$ for a non-leptonic hyperon decay
57: $B_i\to B_f \pi$ can be written as
58:
59: \begin{eqnarray}
60: M = G_F m^2_\pi \bar B_f(q_f) (\tilde A-\tilde B\gamma_5) B_i(q_i).
61: \nonumber
62: \end{eqnarray}
63: In the literature one often uses
64: $S=\tilde A$ and $P = \tilde B |\vec q_f|/(E_{f}+m_{f})$.
65:
66: The polarization asymmetry interest for CP violation study
67: is related to the polarization parameter $\alpha$
68: defined as follow,
69: \begin{eqnarray}
70: {d\Gamma \over d\Omega} = {\Gamma\over 4\pi}(1
71: +\alpha \hat q_f\cdot \vec \omega_i),\nonumber
72: \end{eqnarray}
73: where $\vec\omega_i$ is the initial hyperon polarization direction
74: and $\hat q_f$ is the final baryon momentum direction,
75: and
76: $\alpha = 2Re(S^* P)/(|S|^2+|P|^2)$.
77:
78: If particle and anti-particle decays are measured,
79: one can construct a CP violating
80: observable\cite{1},
81:
82: \begin{eqnarray}
83: A(B_i\to B_f \pi)
84: = {\alpha + \bar \alpha\over \alpha - \bar \alpha}.
85: \end{eqnarray}
86: In the CP conserving limit, $\alpha = -\bar \alpha$, and
87: therefore $A =0$.
88:
89: So far only
90: upper bounds
91: of $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ and $A(\Xi^-_-)$ for $\Lambda \to p \pi^-$ and
92: $\Xi^-\to \Lambda \pi^-$ have been obtained\cite{2}.
93: The experiment E871 at Fermilab underway can measure $A(\Lambda \to p \pi^-) +
94: A(\Xi^-\to \Lambda \pi^-)$ with a sensitivity of $1.4\times
95: 10^{-4}$\cite{3}. With this sensitivity, it is possible to distinguish
96: several different models. Therefore important information
97: for CP violation can be obtained.
98:
99: To the leading order $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ and $A(\Xi^-_-)$
100: are given by the
101: following\cite{2},
102:
103: \begin{eqnarray}
104: A(\Lambda^0_-)
105: \approx -\tan (\delta^p_1 - \delta_1^s) \sin(\phi^p_1 - \phi^s_1),
106: \;\;A(\Xi^-_-)
107: \approx -\tan (\delta^p_2 - \delta_2^s) \sin(\phi^p_2 - \phi^s_2),
108: \nonumber
109: \end{eqnarray}
110: where $\delta^{s,p}_{1,2}$ and $\phi^{s,p}_{1,2}$ are the CP conserving
111: final state interaction phases and CP violating weak interaction phases of
112: the $\Delta I = 1/2$ isospin amplitudes,
113: respectively.
114: $\delta^{s,p}_1$ extracted from data are: $\delta_1^s = 6.0^\circ$ and
115: $\delta^p_1 = -1.1^\circ$ with errors of order $1^\circ$\cite{4}. There is no
116: experimental information on $\delta^{s,p}_2$. Theoretical calculations
117: give $\delta^s_2 = 0.5^\circ$ and $\delta^p_2 = -1.7^\circ$\cite{5}.
118: We have
119:
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: A(\Lambda^0_-) \approx 0.125\sin(\phi_1^p-\phi_1^s),\;\;\;\;
122: A(\Xi^0_-) \approx 0.04 \sin(\phi^p_2-\phi^s_2).
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: To finally obtain $A$ one needs to calculate the phases $\phi_{1,2}^{s,p}$.
125: In order to minimize uncertainties, we use experimental data for the
126: CP conserving amplitudes and calculate the CP violating
127: amplitudes to obtain these phases.
128:
129: \section{Standard Model Predictions}
130:
131:
132: The CP violating decay amplitude $ImM$ is given by
133:
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: Im M &=& Im(<\pi B_f| H_{eff}|B_i>) = {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}V_{us}V_{ud}^*
136: Im(\tau)
137: \sum_i <B_f \pi |y_i O_i|B_i>.\nonumber
138: \end{eqnarray}
139: Here $H_{eff}$ is the effective $\Delta S =-1$ Hamiltonian.
140: $\tau =- V_{td}^*V_{ts}/V_{ud}^*V_{us}$, and
141: $O_i$ are operators composed of quarks and gluons up to dimension six.
142:
143: Calculations show that the dominant
144: contribution is coming from
145: $O_6 =\bar d_i \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s_j
146: \sum _{q'=u,d,s} \bar q'_j \gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5) q'_i$.
147: We will use results obtained in Ref.\cite{1}
148: MIT bag model as the reference
149: values. We have
150:
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: &&\phi^s_1 \approx 0.42 y_6 Im\tau B_{\Lambda s}^6,
153: \;\;\;\;\phi_1^p \approx 2.24 y_6
154: Im \tau B_{\Lambda p}^6;\nonumber\\
155: &&\phi^s_2 \approx 0.29y_6 Im\tau B^6_{\Xi s},
156: \;\;\;\;\phi^p_2 \approx -0.92y_6 Im \tau B_{\Xi p}^6,
157: \nonumber
158: \end{eqnarray}
159: where $y_6=-0.0995$.
160: In the above, we have introduced the parameters $B^6_i$ to quantify the
161: uncertainty in these matrix elements with $B^6_i=1$ for bag model calculations.
162: To reflect uncertainties due to our poor understanding of the hadronic
163: matrix elements, in our numerical
164: analysis we will, conservatively, use $0.5 < B^i_{j s} < 2$ and allow
165: $B^i_{j p}$ to vary in the range of $0.7 B^i_{js} < B^i_{j p} <
166: 1.3 B^i_{j s}$.
167:
168: Here we also give bag model calculations for $O_{11}=
169: {g_s\over 8 \pi^2} \bar d \sigma_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu} (1+\gamma_5) s$ which
170: will be important for our discussions on new physics.
171: We have\cite{6}
172:
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: &&\phi^s_1 \approx 0.13 y_{11} Im\tau B^{11}_{\Lambda s},
175: \;\;\;\;\phi_1^p \approx 0.15 y_{11} B^{11}_{\Lambda p}
176: Im \tau;\nonumber\\
177: &&\phi^s_2 \approx 0.08y_{11} Im\tau B^{11}_{\Xi s},
178: \;\;\;\;\phi^p_2 \approx -0.04y_{11} Im \tau B^{11}_{\Xi p}.
179: \nonumber
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: In the SM $y_{11} = -0.34$.
182:
183: Combining above information, we have
184:
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: &&A(\Lambda^0_-) = [0.28(B^6_{\Lambda p} - 0.19B^6_{\Lambda s})
187: y_6 + 0.019(B^{11}_{\Lambda p} - 0.87 B^{11}_{\Lambda s}) y_{11}]
188: Im(\tau), \nonumber\\
189: &&A(\Xi^-_-) = -[0.037(B^6_{\Xi p} + 0.32B^6_{\Xi s})y_6
190: +0.0016(B^{11}_{\Xi p} + 2.0 B^{11}_{\Xi s})y_{11}]Im(\tau).\nonumber
191: \end{eqnarray}
192:
193: Using the expression $Im(\tau) = -A^2\lambda^4\eta$ with
194: $\lambda = 0.2196$,
195: $A = 0.835$\cite{4}, the best fit value $\eta= 0.34$\cite{7} and
196: $B_j^{6,11} =1$,
197: we obtain
198:
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: A(\Lambda^0_-) = 1.2\times 10^{-5},\;\;\;\;A(\Xi^-_-) = -0.27\times 10^{-5}.
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: Other model
203: calculations give similar values\cite{8}.
204:
205: Using the 95\% C.L. allowed range of $0.22\sim 0.50$ for $\eta$ and the
206: conservative allowed ranges for $B^6_{i, (s,p)}$,
207: we obtain
208:
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: A(\Lambda^0_-) =
211: (-0.61\sim 6.8)\times 10^{-5},\;\;\;A(\Xi^-_-) = -(0.1\sim 1.0)\times 10^{-5}.
212: \end{eqnarray}
213:
214: We consider the above the most conservative allowed ranges for the SM
215: predictions. $|A(\Lambda^0_-)|$ is larger than $|A(\Xi^-_-)$.
216: This is a general feature in
217: all models. From now on we will only discuss
218: $A(\Lambda^0_-)$.
219:
220: \section{ Beyond the Standard Model}
221:
222: When going beyond the SM, $A$ can be larger.
223: Model independent analysis shows that $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ as
224: large as $10^{-3}$ is
225: possible\cite{8}. Here we consider two typical models, Supersymmetric and
226: Left-Right symmetric models, to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to have
227: a large $A$.
228:
229: \subsection{
230: Supersymmetric Model}
231:
232: In a general supersymmetric model there are more CP violating phases
233: and new operators.
234: Among them gluonic dipole operators with new CP violating phase
235: due to exchange of gluino and
236: squark with left-right mixing in the loop can produce a $A(\Lambda^0_-)$
237: considerably larger than the SM prediction.
238: This new interaction has been shown to make large contribution to
239: $\epsilon'/\epsilon_K$\cite{9} also.
240:
241: The effective Hamiltonian for the gluonic dipole
242: operator is\cite{10},
243: \begin{eqnarray}
244: {\cal H}_{\it eff} &=& C_{g}
245: {g_s\over 8\pi^2} m_s \bar d \sigma_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}
246: (1+\gamma_5) s +
247: \tilde{C}_{g}
248: {g_s\over 8\pi^2} m_s \bar d \sigma_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}
249: (1-\gamma_5) s ~+~{\rm h.c.},\nonumber
250: \nonumber
251: \label{effh}
252: \end{eqnarray}
253: where
254: \begin{equation}
255: C_{g} = (\delta^d_{12})_{LR}
256: {\alpha_s \pi \over m_{\tilde g} m_s}
257: G_0(x) \;,\;
258: \tilde{C}_{g} = (\delta^d_{12})_{RL}
259: {\alpha_s \pi \over m_{\tilde g} m_s}
260: G_0(x) .\nonumber
261: \label{wilco}
262: \end{equation}
263: The parameters $\delta_{12}^{d}$ characterize the mixing in
264: the mass insertion approximation, and
265: $x=m_{\tilde g}^2/m_{\tilde q}^2$,
266: with $m_{\tilde g}$, $m_{\tilde q}$ being the gluino and averaged
267: squark masses, respectively. The loop function can be found in Ref.\cite{10}.
268:
269: Using our previous MIT bag model results, we obtain\cite{11}
270: \begin{eqnarray}
271: \lefteqn{
272: A(\Lambda^0_-)_{SUSY} =
273: \left({\alpha_s(m_{\tilde{g}}) \over \alpha_s(500~{\rm GeV})}
274: \right)^{23\over 21}
275: \left({500~{\rm GeV}\over m_{\tilde{g}}}\right)
276: {G_0(x)\over G_0(1)}
277: } \nonumber \\
278: &\times&
279: \left((2.0 B_p - 1.7 B_s) {\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^d)_{LR}
280: +(2.0 B_p + 1.7 B_s) {\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^d)_{RL} \right).
281: \nonumber
282: \label{cpasym}
283: \end{eqnarray}
284:
285: There are constraints from $\epsilon_K$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon_K$.
286: $\epsilon'/\epsilon_K$ constrains the linear combination of
287: $Im((\delta_{12}^d)_{LR} - (\delta^d_{12})_{RL})$ while
288: $\epsilon_K$ constrains $Im((\delta^d_{12})_{LR} + (\delta^d_{12})_{RL})$.
289: We consider three cases with results shown in Fig.\ref{figure}:
290: a) ${\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^d)_{RL}=0$ (hatched horizontally),
291: b) ${\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^{d})_{LR}=0$ (hatched diagonally), and
292: c) ${\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^d)_{RL}$ = $
293: {\rm Im}(\delta_{12}^d)_{LR}$ (below the shaded region or
294: vertically hatched), for illustrations.
295: The regions allowed, by the requirements that $(\epsilon'/\epsilon_K)_{SUSY}$
296: and $(\epsilon_K)_{SUSY}$ not to exceed their experimental values, for
297: the three cases discussed are shown in
298: Fig.~\ref{figure}.
299: It is clear that the SUSY contribution can be very different than that in the
300: Standard Model. $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ can be as large as $1.9\times 10^{-3}$.
301:
302: \begin{figure}[t]
303: \vspace{5.5cm}
304: \special{psfile=hyperon13.eps voffset=-90 hoffset=-30
305: hscale=60 vscale=50 angle=0}
306: \vspace{1cm}
307: \caption{\it
308: Allowed region for $|A(\Lambda)|$.
309: \label{figure} }
310: \end{figure}
311:
312:
313: \subsection{Left-Right Symmetric Model}
314:
315: In Left-Right symmetric model, there are two charged gauge bosons,
316: $W_L$ and $W_R$. In general
317: there are mixing between these two bosons.
318: The effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic hyperon decays can be written
319: as
320:
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: H_{eff} = H_{SM} + H_{R} + H_{LR}.\nonumber
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: In the limit of no left-right mixing,
325: $H_{SM}$ reduces to the SM effective Hamiltonian.
326: $H_{R}$ is due to the exchange of the heavy $W$ boson which can
327: be obtained from $H_{SM}$
328: by replacing $m_W = m_{W_1}$ by the heavy boson mass $m_{W_2}$,
329: the left-handed KM matrix $V_L$ by the right-handed KM matrix
330: $V_R$, and $1\pm \gamma_5$ by $1\mp \gamma_5$.
331: $H_{LR}$ is due to a non-zero parameter $\xi$ for the left-right mixing.
332: It is given by
333:
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: H_{LR} &=& {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}
336: {g_R\over g_L} \xi
337: [ V_{Lud}^*V_{Rus} \bar d \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) u \bar u
338: \gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5) s \nonumber\\
339: &+& V_{Rus}^*V_{Lus}\bar d \gamma^\mu (1+\gamma_5)
340: u \bar u \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5) s\nonumber\\
341: &+& \sum_i \tilde G(x_i){g_s\over 8\pi^2}
342: m_i \bar d \sigma^{\mu\nu} G_{\mu\nu}
343: (V_{Rid}^*V_{Lis}(1-\gamma_5) + V^*_{Lid}V_{Tis}(1+\gamma_5) )s],\nonumber
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: where $\tilde G(x) = -3x\ln x/2(1-x)^3 - (4+x+x^2)/4(1-x)^2$ and
346: $x_i = m_i^2/m_W^2$.
347:
348: The contributions from $H_R$ is suppressed by a factor of $m^2_W/m^2_{W_2}
349: <10^{-3}$
350: compared with the SM ones if the elements in
351: $V_{L}$ and $V_{R}$ are similar in
352: magnitudes.
353: However, $H_{LR}$ can have large contributions even though there is a
354: suppression factor $\xi < 4\times 10^{-3}$\cite{12}. The reason is that
355: there is a chiral enhancement factor $m^2_K/(m_u+m_d)(m_s-m_u)$
356: for the four quark operators in $H_{RL}$. Also there is an enhancement
357: factor $m_t/m_s$ for the gluonic dipole operator compared with the
358: SM one.
359:
360: For the four quark operator contributions in $H_{LR}$, with QCD corrections,
361: one obtains\cite{13}
362:
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: \phi^s_1 = -12.3 \xi^u_-,\;\;\;\;\phi^p_1 = -0.33 \xi^u_+,
365: \
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where $\xi^i_\pm = \xi Im(V_{Lid}^*V_{Ris}\pm V_{Rid}^*V_{Ris})$.
368: Using $\xi = 4\times 10^{-3}$, $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ can be as large as
369: $10^{-4}$ if $Im(V_{Rud}^*V_{us})$ is larger than 0.1 which is not ruled.
370:
371: The contributions from the gluonic dipole interactions can be obtained in a
372: similar way as in the SUSY case. Including QCD corrections we
373: obtain\cite{13}
374:
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: \phi_1^s = -0.54\sum_i \xi^i_- \tilde G(x_i) {m_i\over \mbox{GeV}},\;\;\;\;
377: \phi^p_1 = 0.63\sum_i\xi^i_+ \tilde G(x_i) {m_i\over \mbox{GeV}}.
378: \end{eqnarray}
379: The above contributions are similar to that considered in the previous section
380: for the SUSY contributions.
381: However there are some differences that the parameters $\xi$ and the elements
382: of $V_{L,R}$ are constrained from other experimental data and unitarity of
383: $V_{L,R}$ which are sever than constraint from $\epsilon_K$.
384: $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ can not be as large as that in the SUSY case.
385: With $|V_{L td}| =0.003$ and $V_{R ts} \approx 0.04$, one obtains a
386: $A(\Lambda^0_-)$ in the order of a $\mbox{few}\times 10^{-4}$.
387:
388: \section{Conclusions}
389:
390: In the Standard Model the CP violating
391: observables $A(\Lambda, \Xi)$
392: in the polarization asymmetries of $\Lambda \to p \pi^-$
393: and $\Xi^-\to \Lambda \pi^-$
394: decays are predicted to be in the ranges $(-0.61\sim 6.8)\times 10^{-5}$
395: and $-(0.1\sim 1.0)\times 10^{-5}$. These asymmetries are
396: below the sensitivity of
397: $1.4\times 10^{-4}$ of E871 at Fermilab
398: experiment. When going beyond the SM, such as,
399: Supersymmetric and Left-Right symmetric models,
400: $A$ can be as large as $10^{-3}$ and a few times of $10^{-4}$, respectively.
401: Studies of hyperon
402: decays can provide important information about CP violation.
403:
404: This work was supported in part by NSC of R.O.C. under grant number
405: NSC89-2112-M-002-058 and by NCTS.
406: I thank D. Chang, J. Donoghue, H. Murayama, S. Pakvasa, H. Steger
407: and G. Valencia
408: for collaborations on materials presented in this paper.
409: \vspace{1cm}
410:
411:
412: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
413:
414:
415:
416: \bibitem{1} J. Donoghue and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 162 (1985);
417: J. Donoghue, X.-G. He and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D34}, 833 (1986).
418:
419: \bibitem{2} R608 Collaboration,
420: P. Chauvat et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B163}, 273(1985);
421: DM2 Collaboration, M. Tixier et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B212},
422: 523(1988); P. Barnes et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf C54}, 2842(1996);
423: E756 Collaboration, K. Luk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
424: {\bf 85}, 4860(2000); CLEO Collaboration, D. Jaffe et al.,
425: e-print hep-ex/0009037.
426:
427: \bibitem{3} M. Longo, in this proceeding.
428:
429: \bibitem{4} Particle Data Book, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C3}, 1 (1998);
430: O. Overseth, Phys. Lett. {\bf 111}, 286(1982).
431:
432: \bibitem{5} M. Lu, M. Savage and M. Wise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B337},
433: 133 (1994); A. Datta and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett. {\bf B344}, 430 (1995);
434: A. Kamal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 077501 (1998); J. Tandean and G. Valencia,
435: Phys. Lett. {\bf B451}, 382 (1999); A. Datta and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev.
436: {\bf D56}, 4322 (1997).
437:
438: \bibitem{6} N. Deshpande, X-G. He and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett.
439: {\bf B326}, 307(1994).
440:
441: \bibitem{7}, X.-G. He et al., hep-ph/0011337 (Phys. Rev. D in press).
442:
443: \bibitem{8} X.-G. He, H. Steger, and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. {\bf B272},
444: 411 (1991); M. Iqbal and G. Miller, Phys. Rev. {\bf D41}, 2817(1990);
445: X.-G. He and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 5257 (1995).
446:
447: \bibitem{9} A.~Masiero, in this proceedings; L. Silvestrini,
448: in this proceedings.
449:
450: \bibitem{10} F. Gabbiani {\it et al.}\/,
451: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B447}, 321 (1996);
452: A. Buras, {\it et. al.}\/, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B566},
453: 3(2000).
454:
455: \bibitem{11} X.-G. He et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 071701(2000).
456:
457: \bibitem{12} J. Donoghue and B. Holstein, Phys. Lett. {\bf B113}, 382(1982);
458: I.I. Bigi and J.-M. Frere, Phys. Lett. {\bf B110}, 255(1982).
459:
460: \bibitem{13} D. Chang, X.-G. He and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. Lett.
461: {\bf 74}, 3927(1995).
462: \end{thebibliography}
463:
464: %
465: \end{document}
466: