1: %====================================================================%
2: % BLOIS 2002 %
3: %====================================================================%
4:
5: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
6: \usepackage{blois2002,epsfig}
7: %\documentstyle[11pt,blois2002,epsfig]{article}
8: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
9: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
10: % first citation.
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: % %
14: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
15: % %
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: \begin{document}
18: \vspace*{4cm}
19: \title{DETERMINING STRONG AND WEAK PHASES IN
20: $B_d \rightarrow D^{(*)\pm}D^{(*)\mp}$ DECAYS}
21:
22: \author{Z.Z. XING}
23:
24: \address{Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O. Box 918 (4),
25: Beijing 100039, China}
26:
27: \maketitle\abstracts{
28: We show that both the weak phase $\beta$ and the strong phase $\delta_d$
29: can be determined from the time-dependent measurement of
30: $B_d \rightarrow D^{*\pm}D^{\mp}$ decays, whose final states are
31: non-CP eigenstates. It is also possible to extract $\beta$ from
32: $B_d \rightarrow D^{*\pm}D^{*\mp}$ transitions without doing the
33: angular analysis. Possible final-state rescattering effects in
34: $B_d \rightarrow D^{(*)\pm}D^{(*)\mp}$ channels are discussed by means of
35: the isospin analysis. We emphasize that it is worthwhile to check
36: whether the naive factorization approximation works or not for
37: such $B$-meson decay modes into two heavy charmed mesons.}
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40:
41: Weak decay modes $B_d \rightarrow D^+D^-$, $D^{*+}D^-$,
42: $D^+D^{*-}$ and $D^{*+}D^{*-}$ are interesting
43: for the study of CP violation and final-state interactions
44: at $B$-meson factories. The experimental result for the
45: branching fraction of $B_d \rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$ is
46: ${\cal B} (D^{*+}D^{*-}) = (9.9^{+4.4}_{-3.5}) \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{PDG}.
47: Recently the Belle Collaboration has reported the first
48: measurement of $B_d\rightarrow D^{\pm}D^{*\mp}$ decays.
49: The sum of their branching fractions is \cite{Belle}
50: ${\cal B}(D^+D^{*-} \oplus D^-D^{*+}) =
51: (1.17 \pm 0.26^{+0.22}_{-0.25}) \times 10^{-3}$
52: (full reconstruction method) or
53: $(1.48 \pm 0.38^{+0.28}_{-0.31}) \times 10^{-3}$
54: (partial reconstruction method).
55: We hope that a measurement of $B_d \rightarrow D^+D^-$ will
56: soon be available.
57:
58: The $B_d \rightarrow D^{(*)+}D^{(*)-}$ channels are associated
59: with the weak CP-violating phase
60: \begin{equation}
61: \beta \; \equiv \; \arg \left (- \frac{V^*_{tb}V_{td}}
62: {V^*_{cb}V_{cd}} \right ) \; ,
63: % (1)
64: \end{equation}
65: where $V_{ij}$ (for $i=u,c,t$ and $j=d,s,b$) are elements of
66: the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. A determination of
67: $\beta$ from CP-violating asymmetries of $B_d \rightarrow
68: D^{(*)+}D^{(*)-}$ transitions will be useful, not only to cross-check the
69: extraction of $\beta$ from $B_d \rightarrow J/\psi K_S$, but
70: also to shed some light on the relevant penguin effects and final-state
71: interactions. In addition, it is important to test whether the
72: naive factorization approximation works or not for such $B$ decay modes
73: into two heavy charmed mesons.
74:
75: \section{Determining strong and weak phases in
76: $B_d\rightarrow D^{\pm}D^{*\mp}$ decays}
77:
78: The transitions $B^0_d \rightarrow D^{*\pm}D^{\mp}$ can occur through
79: both tree-level and loop-induced (penguin) quark diagrams,
80: The penguin contribution to the overall amplitude of each decay mode
81: is negligible \cite{Xing98}. In this good approximation, one may define
82: two interference quantities between decay amplitudes and
83: $B^0_d$-$\bar{B}^0_d$ mixing:
84: \begin{eqnarray}
85: \lambda_{D^{*+}D^-} & \equiv & \frac{q^{~}_d}{p^{~}_d}
86: \cdot \frac{A(\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^-)}
87: {A(B^0_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^-)} \; =\;
88: \frac{V^*_{tb}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V^*_{td}}\cdot
89: \frac{V_{cb}V_{cd}^*}{V^*_{cb}V_{cd}}
90: ~ \zeta_d ~ e^{{\rm i}\delta_d} \; =\;
91: \zeta_d ~ e^{{\rm i} (\delta_d + 2\beta)} \; , \nonumber \\
92: \bar{\lambda}_{D^{*-}D^+} & \equiv & \frac{p^{~}_d}{q^{~}_d}
93: \cdot \frac{A(B^0_d\rightarrow D^{*-}D^+)}
94: {A(\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^{*-}D^+)} \; =\;
95: \frac{V_{tb}V^*_{td}}{V^*_{tb}V_{td}}\cdot
96: \frac{V^*_{cb}V_{cd}}{V_{cb}V^*_{cd}}
97: ~ \zeta_d ~ e^{{\rm i}\delta_d} \; =\;
98: \zeta_d ~ e^{{\rm i} (\delta_d - 2\beta)} \; ,
99: % (2)
100: \end{eqnarray}
101: where $q^{~}_d/p^{~}_d = (V^*_{tb}V_{td})/(V_{tb}V^*_{td})$
102: describes the $B^0_d$-$\bar{B}^0_d$ mixing
103: phase in the box-diagram approximation, $\zeta_d$ and
104: $\delta_d$ denote the ratio of the real hadronic matrix elements and
105: the strong phase difference between
106: $\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^-$ and $B^0_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^-$.
107: In the naive factorization approximation, we have
108: $\zeta_d = [f_D \cdot A^{B_dD^*}_0(m^2_D)]/[f_{D^*} \cdot
109: F^{B_dD}_1 (m^2_{D^*})] \approx 1.04$,
110: where the relevant decay constants and formfactors are
111: self-explanatory. Comparing the experimental and theoretical results of
112: $\zeta_d$ will provide a clean test of the factorization
113: hypothesis for neutral-$B$ decays into two heavy charmed mesons.
114:
115: The imaginary parts of $\lambda_{D^{*+}D^-}$ and
116: $\bar{\lambda}_{D^{*-}D^+}$ are of particular interest for
117: the study of CP violation. It should be noted, however, that
118: ${\rm Im}\lambda_f$ and ${\rm Im} \bar{\lambda}_{\bar{f}}$ (for
119: $f = D^{*+}D^-$) themselves are not CP-violating observables! Only
120: their difference ${\rm Im} (\lambda_f - \bar{\lambda}_{\bar{f}})$,
121: which will vanish for $\beta =0$ or $\pi$,
122: measures the CP asymmetry.
123: The time-dependent rates of $B_d\rightarrow D^\pm D^{*\mp}$ modes
124: read as \cite{Xing98}
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: {\cal R} \left [ \stackrel{\langle - \rangle}{B^0_d}(t)
127: \rightarrow D^{*+}D^- \right ]
128: & \propto & \left [\frac{1 +\zeta^2_d}{2} \stackrel{\langle - \rangle}
129: {+} \frac{1 -\zeta^2_d}{2} \cos (x_d \Gamma_d t)
130: \stackrel{\langle + \rangle}{-}
131: \zeta_d \sin (\delta_d + 2\beta) \sin (x_d \Gamma_d t)
132: \right ] , \nonumber \\
133: {\cal R} \left [ \stackrel{\langle - \rangle}{B^0_d}(t)
134: \rightarrow D^{*-}D^+ \right ]
135: & \propto & \left [ \frac{1 +\zeta^2_d}{2} \stackrel{\langle + \rangle}
136: {-} \frac{1 -\zeta^2_d}{2} \cos (x_d \Gamma_d t)
137: \stackrel{\langle - \rangle}{+}
138: \zeta_d \sin (\delta_d - 2\beta) \sin (x_d \Gamma_d t)
139: \right ] ;
140: % (3)
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: where $x_d \approx 0.7$ is the $B^0_d$-$\bar{B}^0_d$ mixing parameter,
143: and $\Gamma_d$ denotes the $B_d$ decay width. Then
144: we may extract the weak phase $\beta$ and the
145: strong phase $\delta_d$ up to a four-fold ambiguity:
146: \begin{eqnarray}
147: \sin^2 (2\beta) & = & \frac{1}{2} \left [(1 -S_+S_-)
148: ~ \pm ~ \sqrt{(1-S^2_+) (1-S^2_-)} \right ] \; ,
149: \nonumber \\
150: \sin^2 \delta_d & = & \frac{1}{2} \left [(1 +S_+S_-)
151: ~ \pm ~ \sqrt{(1-S^2_+) (1-S^2_-)} \right ] \; ,
152: % (4)
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: where $S_{\pm} \equiv \sin (\delta_d \pm 2\beta)$.
155: Indeed only a two-fold ambiguity in $\sin(2\beta)$
156: exists, as $\sin (2\beta) >0$ has been experimentally verified
157: within the standard model \cite{PDG}.
158: If final-state interactions were insignificant in the decay modes
159: under discussion, $\delta_d$ might not deviate too much from zero.
160: In this case, $S_+ \approx - S_-$ would be a good approximation.
161:
162: \section{Extracting $\beta$ from $B_d\rightarrow D^{*\pm}D^{*\mp}$ decays
163: without angular analysis}
164:
165: A comparison between the value of $\sin 2\beta$
166: to be determined from $B_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$ and that
167: already measured in $B_d\rightarrow J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ is no doubt
168: important, as it may cross-check the consistency of the standard-model
169: predictions. Towards this goal, a
170: special attention has to be paid to possible uncertainties
171: associated with the CP asymmetry in $B_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$.
172: One kind of uncertainty comes from the penguin contamination,
173: as the weak phase of the penguin amplitude is
174: quite different from that of the tree-level amplitude.
175: Another kind of uncertainty arises from the $P$-wave dilution,
176: because the final state $D^{*+}D^{*-}$ is composed
177: of both the CP-even ($S$- and $D$-wave)
178: and the CP-odd ($P$-wave) configurations. Of course an
179: analysis of the angular distributions of $B^0_d$ vs
180: $\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$ transitions allows us
181: to distinguish between the CP-even and CP-odd
182: contributions \cite{AA}. Here we like to emphasize that
183: the direct measurement of $\beta$ can be made in
184: $B_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$ decays without doing the angular
185: analysis \cite{Pham}.
186:
187: Taking the $P$-wave dilution and the penguin contamination
188: into account, one may write
189: the characteristic measurable of indirect CP
190: violation in $B_d\rightarrow D^{*+}D^{*-}$ as follows
191: \begin{equation}
192: \Delta_d \equiv {\rm Im} \left (
193: \frac{V^*_{tb}V_{td}}{V_{tb}V^*_{td}} \cdot
194: \frac{\langle D^{*+}D^{*-}|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|
195: \bar{B}^0_d\rangle}
196: {\langle D^{*+}D^{*-}|{\cal H}_{\rm eff}|B^0_d\rangle} \right )
197: = P_d \left ( 1 - Q_d \right ) \sin 2\beta \; ,
198: % (5)
199: \end{equation}
200: where $P_d$ and $Q_d$
201: represent the $P$-wave dilution factor and the penguin-induced
202: correction, respectively.
203: With the help of the effective weak Hamiltonian, the naive factorization
204: approximation and the heavy quark symmetry, we obtain \cite{Pham}
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: P_d & = & \frac{m^3_B - 3 m^{~}_B m^2_{D^*} + 10 m^3_{D^*}}
207: {m^3_B + m^{~}_B m^2_{D^*} + 2 m^3_{D^*}} \;\; ,
208: \nonumber \\
209: Q_d & = & \frac{c_y + c_z}{c_x} \cdot \frac{\cos 2\beta}{\cos\beta}
210: \cdot \left | \frac{V_{tb}V_{td}}{V_{cb}V_{cd}} \right |
211: \;\; ,
212: % (6)
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: where $c_x \approx 1.045$, $c_y \approx -0.031$ and
215: $c_z \approx -0.0014$ are the effective Wilson coefficients.
216: Typically taking $\beta = 26^\circ$, which is favored by current
217: BaBar and Belle data \cite{Beta}, we find
218: $P_d \approx 0.89$ and $Q_d \approx -0.021$.
219: This result indicates that the penguin contamination in $\Delta_d$
220: is negligibly small, while the $P$-wave dilution to $\Delta_d$
221: should be taken seriously.
222:
223: It is worth remarking that the approach advocated here may be
224: complementary to the angular analysis considered in the literature.
225: Hopefully both will soon be confronted with the new data from $B$-meson
226: factories.
227:
228: \section{Final-state rescattering effects in
229: $B_d\rightarrow D^{(*)\pm}D^{(*)\mp}$ decays}
230:
231: The effective weak Hamiltonian responsible for
232: $B^-_u\rightarrow D^-D^0$, $\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^+D^-$
233: and $\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0$ decay modes
234: has the isospin structure $|1/2, -1/2\rangle$.
235: The decay amplitudes of these transitions can be written in terms
236: of the isospin amplitudes \cite{Sanda}:
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: A^{+-} & \equiv & \langle D^+D^- |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}| B^0_d\rangle \; = \;
239: \frac{1}{2} \left ( A_1 ~ + ~ A_0 \right ) \; , \nonumber \\
240: A^{00} & \equiv & \langle D^0\bar{D}^0 |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}| B^0_d\rangle
241: \; = \;
242: \frac{1}{2} \left ( A_1 ~ - ~ A_0 \right ) \; , \nonumber \\
243: A^{+0} & \equiv & \langle D^+\bar{D}^0 |{\cal H}_{\rm eff}| B^+_u\rangle
244: \; = \; A_1 \; ,
245: % (7)
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: where $A_1$ and $A_0$ are the isospin
248: amplitudes with $I=1$ and $I=0$, respectively.
249: Clearly the isospin relation $A^{+-} + A^{00} = A^{+0}$ holds,
250: and it corresponds to a triangle in the complex plane.
251: Denoting $A_0/A_1 \equiv z e^{{\rm i}\theta}$, we obtain
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: z = \sqrt{\frac{2 \displaystyle \left ( |A^{+-}|^2 + |A^{00}|^2 \right )}
254: {|A^{+0}|^2} - 1} \; , ~~~~
255: \theta = \arccos \left ( \frac{|A^{+-}|^2 - |A^{00}|^2}
256: {z |A^{+0}|^2} \right ) \; ;
257: % (8)
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: If $z=1$ and $\theta =0$, for example, we find that $|A^{00}|=0$, i.e.,
260: the decay mode $B^0\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0$ is forbidden.
261: One may get similar isospin relations for the decay modes
262: $B^+_u\rightarrow D^+\bar{D}^0$, $B^0_d\rightarrow D^+D^-$ and
263: $B^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0$.
264:
265: It is worth mentioning that the same isospin analysis can be done for
266: $B\rightarrow D\bar{D}^*$ and $B\rightarrow D^*\bar{D}$ decays. Of course,
267: the isospin parameters $z$ ($\bar{z}$) and $\theta$ ($\bar{\theta}$) in
268: $B\rightarrow D\bar{D}$, $D\bar{D}^*$ and $D^*\bar{D}$ may be different
269: from one another due to their different final-state interactions.
270: As for $B\rightarrow D^*\bar{D}^*$,
271: the same isospin relations hold separately for the decay amplitudes
272: with helicity $\lambda=-1$, $0$, or $+1$ \cite{Xing00}.
273:
274: The time-independent measurements of those decay modes
275: mentioned above allow us to construct the relevant isospin triangles.
276: Consequently the isospin parameters $z$ ($\bar{z}$)
277: and $\theta$ ($\bar{\theta}$) are extractable in the absence of any
278: time-dependent measurement. If the branching ratios of $B^0_d\rightarrow
279: D^0\bar{D}^0$ and $\bar{B}^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0$ are too small to be
280: observable, then large cancellation between the isospin amplitudes $A_1$
281: ($\bar{A}_1$) and $A_0$ ($\bar{A}_0$) must take place. In the case that
282: $B^0_d\rightarrow D^+D^-$ and $B^+_u\rightarrow D^+\bar{D}^0$ have been
283: measured earlier than $B^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0$, a lower bound on the
284: rate of the latter decay mode is model-independently achievable from
285: the isospin relations obtained in Eq. (7). Since $\cos\theta \leq 1$,
286: we get from Eqs. (7) and (8) that
287: \begin{equation}
288: {\cal B} (B^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0) \geq \left [ \sqrt{\frac{
289: {\cal B} (B^0_d\rightarrow D^+D^-)}{{\cal B}
290: (B^+_u\rightarrow D^+\bar{D}^0)}} - 1
291: \right ]^2 {\cal B} (B^+_u\rightarrow D^+\bar{D}^0) \; ,
292: % (9)
293: \end{equation}
294: where tiny isospin-violating effects induced by the mass difference
295: $m^{~}_{D^0} - m^{~}_{D^-}$ and the life time difference $\tau^{~}_{B_d}
296: - \tau^{~}_{B_u}$ have been neglected. This bound is useful to
297: set a limit for the results of
298: ${\cal B} (B^0_d\rightarrow D^0\bar{D}^0)$ obtained
299: from specific models of hadronic matrix elements.
300: Similarly one can find the lower bounds for the
301: branching ratios of $B^0_d\rightarrow D^{*0}\bar{D}^0$, $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$
302: and $D^{*0}\bar{D}^{*0}$.
303:
304: \section{Concluding remarks}
305:
306: Some conclusions can be drawn from our results:
307: (a) $B_d\rightarrow D^{\pm}D^{*\mp}$ modes are useful to
308: determine the weak CP-violating phase $\beta$ and the strong phase
309: shift $\delta_d$; (b) $\beta$ can also be determined from
310: $B_d\rightarrow D^{*\pm}D^{*\mp}$ transitions without doing the angular
311: analysis; (c) it is worthwhile to investigate final-state rescattering
312: effects in $B\rightarrow D^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ channels, and to check
313: whether the naive factorization approximation works or not for such
314: $B$ decays into two heavy charmed mesons.
315:
316: Similar analyses can be done for $B_s\rightarrow D^{(*)\pm}_sD^{(*)\mp}_s$
317: decay modes.
318:
319: \section*{Acknowledgments}
320:
321: I would like to thank J. Tran Thanh Van for his encouragement and
322: hospitality. I am also grateful to L. Oliver for
323: useful communications and R. Aleksan for helpful discussions.
324:
325: \section*{References}
326: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
327:
328: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
329: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
330:
331: \bibitem{Belle} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.},
332: hep-ex/0206014.
333:
334: \bibitem{Xing98} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 443}, 365 (1998).
335:
336: \bibitem{AA} I. Dunietz, H.R. Quinn, A. Snyder, W. Toki,
337: and H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 2193 (1991);
338: G. Kramer and W.F. Palmer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 193 (1992);
339: R. Aleksan, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P$\acute{\rm e}$ne,
340: and J.C. Raynal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 317}, 173 (1993);
341: C.W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 014017 (2000).
342:
343: \bibitem{Pham} X.Y. Pham and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 458}, 375 (1999).
344:
345: \bibitem{Beta} The BaBar (hep-ex/0203007) and Belle (hep-ex/0205020)
346: Collaborations have reported $\sin 2\beta = 0.75\pm 0.09\pm 0.04$ and
347: $\sin 2\beta = 0.82\pm 0.12\pm 0.05$, respectively.
348:
349: \bibitem{Sanda} A.I. Sanda and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 341 (1997).
350:
351: \bibitem{Xing00} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 014010 (2000).
352: Estimates of penguin effects in $B_d\rightarrow D^+D^-$ can also be found
353: in: Z.Z. Xing and D. Du, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 261}, 315 (1991);
354: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 270}, 51 (1991).
355:
356:
357:
358: \end{thebibliography}
359:
360: \end{document}
361:
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: % End of blois2002.tex %
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365: