1:
2: % Uses LaTeX with ReVTeX 3.0.
3: % Preprint:
4: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,floats,epsfig]{revtex}
5: % Galley style:
6: %\documentstyle[prd,aps,twocolumn]{revtex}
7: % EPSF format:
8: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,epsf]{revtex}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: \tighten
13:
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15:
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \draft
19:
20: \pagestyle{empty}
21:
22: \preprint{
23: \noindent
24: %\begin{minipage}[t]{3in}
25: %\begin{flushleft}
26: \today \\
27: %\end{flushleft}
28: %\end{minipage}
29: \hfill
30: \begin{minipage}[t]{3in}
31: \begin{flushright}
32: LBL--51250 \\
33: %UCB--PTH--02/xx \\
34: %hep-ph/0208xxx \\
35: %August 2002
36: \end{flushright}
37: \end{minipage}
38: }
39:
40: \title{$\Lambda$ hyperon as helicity analyzer of $s$ quark
41: in $B$ decay}
42:
43: \author{Mahiko Suzuki}
44:
45: \address{
46: Department of Physics and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\
47: University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
48: }
49:
50: %\date{\today}
51: \maketitle
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54:
55: We explore how well one can probe the $s$ quark chirality of the
56: fundamental weak interaction of nonleptonic $B$ decay using the
57: spin-analyzing property of the $\Lambda$ hyperon. We present the
58: prediction of the Standard Model as quantitatively as possible
59: in a perturbative QCD picture avoiding detailed form-factor
60: calculation involving quark mass corrections. A clean test of
61: chirality will be possible with $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$.
62:
63:
64: \end{abstract}
65: %\pacs{}
66: \pacs{PACS number(s): 13.25.Hw,13.30.Eg,14.20.Jn,12.15.-y}
67: %\newpage
68: \pagestyle{plain}
69: \narrowtext
70:
71: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
72:
73: \section{Introduction}
74:
75: In the Standard Model only the left-chiral quarks enter
76: the fundamental weak interaction. Short-distance loop
77: corrections generate the penguin-type transition $b\to
78: s_L(d_L)$ as an effective decay interaction. This chiral
79: property leads to simple testable constraints on light meson
80: helicities in final states of $B$ decay if the final-state
81: interaction is perturbative\cite{Suzuki}. In order to determine
82: chirality of weak interaction, we must measure sign of a meson
83: helicity, $h=+1$ or $h=-1$, more than just transverse
84: ($h=\pm 1$) or longitudinal ($h=0$). Spin analysis
85: of $B\to 1^-1^-$ through angular correlations was formulated
86: by Dighe {\em et al}\cite{Dighe} and the data were analyzed
87: for $B\to J/\psi K^*\to l^+l^-K\pi$\cite{J/psi1,J/psi2}.
88: Without lepton spin measurement, however, this analysis is not
89: capable of distinguishing between $h=+1$ and $h=-1$ since it
90: leaves a twofold ambiguity in the transverse helicities\cite{S2}
91: A complete helicity determination can be achieved only with
92: spin and angular correlations, as shown in a more general
93: formulation by Chiang and Wolfenstein\cite{Chiang}.
94:
95: It has been argued that the penguin transition such as
96: $b\to g^*s$ and $\gamma^{(*)}s$ is more sensitive to a
97: nonstandard weak interaction than the tree interaction.
98: The interaction $\overline{b}\to \gamma\overline{s}$ leads
99: to $B\to\gamma K^*$ among others. In the Standard Model,
100: $K^*(=\overline{s_L}q)$ ought to be produced in the helicity
101: $+1$ state in this decay in the limit of $m_s=0$ and zero
102: transverse momentum. If we wish to prove experimentally that
103: $\gamma$ and $K^*$ are emitted with helicity $+1$ as predicted,
104: we have to make a demanding measurement of lepton spin in
105: $B\to\gamma^*K^*\to l^+l^-K\pi$\cite{gamma}.
106: An alternative proposal was made to study
107: the angular distribution of the process $B\to\gamma K_1\to
108: \gamma K\pi\pi$\cite{Gronau}. In this case the strong phase
109: difference due to the overlapping resonances $\rho K$ and
110: $K^*\pi$ of $K\pi\pi$ will allow us to obtain the $K_1$ spin
111: information. Experimental efforts are being made on
112: $B\to\gamma K\pi\pi$\cite{exp}.
113:
114: Determination of the helicity sign is difficult in the cascade
115: decays so far considered since parity is conserved in the
116: second step of decay. If an intermediate particle of nonzero
117: spin decays into final particles with a parity violating
118: interaction, it is easy to determine the helicity sign through
119: the spin-angular correlation $\langle{\bf s}\cdot{\bf p}\rangle$.
120: The $B$ decay into a $\Lambda$ hyperon will provide us with such a
121: an opportunity since $\Lambda$ decays into $\pi N$ with the
122: well-measured large parity asymmetry. Furthermore, according to
123: hadron spectroscopy, $\Lambda$ has the unique property that its
124: spin is equal to the spin of the valence $s$ quark. Consequently
125: the $s$ quark helicity can be determined by measuring the
126: $\Lambda$ spin through a simple angular correlation of
127: $\Lambda\to\pi N$. To probe a nonstandard weak interaction,
128: therefore, it makes sense to explore the $s$-quark chirality
129: in the QCD penguin interaction with $\Lambda$ as a spin analyzer.
130:
131: \section{$\Lambda$ helicity versus strange quark helicity}
132:
133: Ground-state baryons are made of three valence quarks totally
134: in $s$-wave. Inside $\Lambda$ the $u$ and $d$ quarks form a
135: spin singlet. As it is well known, therefore, the $\Lambda$
136: spin is made entirely of the $s$-quark spin in the static quark
137: model. Boosting it to a moving frame, the helicity of
138: $\Lambda$ is equal to that of the $s$ quark. The boost does not
139: generate a new helicity component $l_z$ from the orbital motion
140: since the distribution of $s$ quark is spherically symmetric
141: inside $\Lambda$. When this $s$ quark comes directly from weak
142: interaction, the handedness of $\Lambda$ tells us of the
143: $s$-quark chirality in weak interaction. The $s$ quark can
144: also be generated through pair production by gluons.
145:
146: The first task is to determine the helicity content of $s_L$
147: in flight that determines the $\Lambda$ helicity. If we could
148: ignore the $s$ quark mass, the whole story would be trivial.
149: In the real world, however, the $s$ quark carries mass and
150: transverse momentum. When an $s$ quark is produced with
151: momentum ${\bf p}_s$ from the left-chiral field
152: $\overline{s_L}$, projection of a plane wave shows that
153: it is in the helicity $h=\pm\frac{1}{2}$ states with the
154: amplitude ratio of
155: \begin{equation}
156: \frac{A_{+\frac{1}{2}}}{A_{-\frac{1}{2}}}
157: = \frac{E_s+m_s-|{\bf p}_s|}{E_s+m_s+|{\bf p}_s|}
158: = \frac{m_s}{E_s + |{\bf p}_s|}, \label{ratio}
159: \end{equation}
160: where $E_s = \sqrt{m_s^2+{\bf p}_s^2}$. Inside $\Lambda$, the
161: transverse quark momentum is part of the constituent quark
162: mass. Therefore it is appropriate to replace $m_s$ with the
163: constituent mass $M_s$ when we later express $A_{+1/2}/A_{-1/2}$
164: of $\Lambda$ in $|{\bf p}_{\Lambda}|$. Short-distance QCD
165: interactions can alter the ratio of
166: Eq.(\ref{ratio}) by $O(\alpha_s M_s/\pi E_s)$ for $M_s\ll E_s$.
167: This is relatively a small correction even for only moderately
168: fast $\Lambda$; for instance, $\alpha_s M_s/\pi E_s \simeq 0.08$
169: for $\alpha_s = \frac{1}{2}$ and $\gamma (= E_s/M_s) = 2$ in the
170: $\overline{B}$ rest frame. Our argument would obviously break
171: down when a long-distance interaction plays a role in $\Lambda$
172: production, for instance, when $\Lambda$ is produced by
173: $\overline{B}\to\Sigma(1385)X\to\pi\Lambda X$. It is easy to
174: remove such a $\Lambda$ resonance band, if any.
175:
176: Which reference frame should we choose for Eq.(\ref{ratio})?
177: In a fast-moving frame of $\overline{B}$ where the $s$ quark moves
178: even faster, the $\overline{s_L}$ field would produce the $s$
179: quark almost entirely in $h=-\frac{1}{2}$. Boosting it back to
180: the $\overline{B}$ rest frame, one might reason that the $s$ quark
181: and therefore the $\Lambda$ hyperon are almost 100\% in the
182: $h=-\frac{1}{2}$ state since helicity is invariant under the
183: Lorentz boost. On the other hand, if one made the helicity
184: projection in the $s$-quark rest frame, the $\overline{s_L}$
185: field would lead to $h=\pm\frac{1}{2}$ in a 50-50 probability.
186: This apparent frame dependence is not physical, of course. The
187: reason is that Eq.(\ref{ratio}) is only a projection of the
188: $s$-quark plane-wave by $1-\gamma_5$. The complete decay amplitude
189: is frame independent after the remainder of matrix element is
190: combined. To see the point, we show the frame independence
191: for the hadronic two-body decay $\overline{B}\to
192: \Lambda({\bf p}h)\overline{p}({\bf p}'h')$ instead of a quark
193: process. The decay amplitude is of the form
194: $\overline{u}_{{\bf p}h}(A+B\gamma_5)v_{{\bf p}'h'}$.
195: In the two-component helicity spinors, it can be expressed as
196: \begin{equation}
197: \chi^{\dagger}_{h}\biggl(-A\sigma_3\sinh\frac{\eta-\eta'}{2}
198: + B\cosh\frac{\eta-\eta'}{2}\biggr)\chi_{h'},
199: \end{equation}
200: where $\eta(\geq 0)$ and $\eta'(\leq 0)$ are the rapidities ($
201: \tanh\eta=p/E$) of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{p}$, respectively.
202: (For $\eta >\eta'\geq 0$, $\chi_{h'}\to\chi_{-h'}$). Therefore
203: the ratio of two $\Lambda$-helicity amplitudes is given by
204: \begin{equation}
205: \frac{A_{+\frac{1}{2}}}{A_{-\frac{1}{2}}}=
206: \frac{B-A\tanh\frac{1}{2}(\eta-\eta')}{
207: B+A\tanh\frac{1}{2}(\eta-\eta')}\;\;\;
208: {\rm for}\;\; B\to\Lambda\overline{p}. \label{ratioA}
209: \end{equation}
210: This is manifestly frame independent since the rapidity
211: difference is invariant under the longitudinal Lorentz boost.
212: In the $\Lambda$ rest frame, for instance, the $\Lambda$
213: helicity is determined by the helicity of the fast
214: moving $\overline{p}$ through overall angular momentum
215: conservation. In fact, Eq.(\ref{ratioA}) holds more generally.
216: For $\overline{B}\to \Lambda X$, we can lump $X$ together into
217: a single spinor of general spin and write the decay amplitude
218: as $\overline{u}_{{\bf p}h}(A+B\gamma_5)p_{\mu}p_{\nu}\cdots
219: v^{\mu\nu\cdots}_{{\bf p}'h'}$ since $\gamma_{\mu}$,
220: $\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5$, and $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$ either reduce to
221: $1$ and $\gamma_5$ or drop out by the Dirac equation or by the
222: subsidiary conditions on $v^{\mu\nu\cdots}_{{\bf p}'h'}$. Then
223: Eq.(\ref{ratioA}) is reproduced. The boost invariance of
224: Eq.(\ref{ratioA}) is nothing more than Lorentz invariance of the
225: entire decay amplitude. The frame-independence argument holds
226: likewise at the quark level though the individual emission and
227: absorption vertices of quarks and gluons are not scalars nor
228: pseudoscalars. We shall use the form of Eq.(\ref{ratioA}) as
229: a guide to make our choice of frame.
230:
231: The choice of frame would not be an issue if the $s$-quark mass
232: were zero ($A_{+1/2}/A_{-1/2}\to 0$). If we approach the
233: problem by computing weak decay form factors, we have to know
234: all relevant form factors including the quark-mass and
235: transverse-momentum corrections. The numerator of
236: Eq.(\ref{ratio}) is such a correction term arising
237: from difference of two large form factors.
238: In perturbative QCD and the light-cone description of hadrons,
239: we can obtain it, in principle, by computing higher twist terms
240: with spin-dependent quark distribution functions. In practice,
241: however, it is difficult to reach quantitatively reliable
242: answers even for the $B$ decay into two mesons.\footnote{
243: Spin dependence was studied extensively by theorists
244: for $B\to J/\psi K^*$. In this decay the dominant contribution
245: to the $h=\pm 1$ final helicities arises from $m_c\neq 0$, not
246: from $M_s\neq 0$. While theoretical predictions have converged
247: to the experimental values\cite{J/psi1,J/psi2} with time, one
248: sees how widely theoretical predictions used to spread when
249: no data were available.\cite{J/psi1}}
250: No factorization limit exists for $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$.
251: Giving up computing the $O(M_q)$ terms of form factors, we shall
252: present alternative semiquantitative results by stretching the
253: perturbative QCD picture to the limit.
254:
255: There is one basic problem about quark rapidities. While we
256: can determine a hadron rapidity directly from experiment, a quark
257: rapidity inside a hadron has a continuous distribution which we
258: do not know precisely. We circumvent
259: this problem by introducing an approximation. Since $\Lambda$ is
260: an $s$-wave ground state in the rest frame, one reasonable
261: approximation is to substitute $E_s$ and ${\bf p}_s$ with their
262: average values inside $\Lambda$:
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: E_s &\to& \langle E_s\rangle
265: \simeq\frac{M_s}{M_u+M_d+M_s}E_{\Lambda}, \nonumber \\
266: {\bf p}_s&\to&\langle{\bf p}_s\rangle
267: \simeq\frac{M_s}{M_u+M_d+M_s}{\bf p}_{\Lambda},
268: \label{ave}
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: where $M_s/(M_u+M_d+M_s)\simeq 0.45$. Eq.(\ref{ave}) means
271: that the $s$ quark moves on average with the same Lorentz factor
272: $\gamma$ as $\Lambda$ does in a moving frame.
273:
274: Now we choose the frame in which the helicity amplitude ratio
275: is determined with Eqs.(\ref{ratio}) and (\ref{ave}). The rest
276: frame of $\overline{B}$ may come to our mind as an obvious
277: choice. But a better alternative is the rest frame of $X$ for
278: $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$. In this frame, rapidity $\eta'=0$ in
279: Eq.(\ref{ratioA}) or its generalization to $\overline{B}\to\Lambda
280: X$ so that the helicity ratio depends only on $\eta$. If we want
281: to express the ratio in terms of the energy-momentum of $\Lambda$
282: quark alone without involving $X$, therefore, we should choose
283: the rest frame of $X$. The helicity amplitude ratio is given by
284: Eq.(\ref{ratio}) with the energy-momentum $E'_{\Lambda}$ and
285: ${\bf p}'_{\Lambda}$ of the $X$ rest frame:
286: \begin{equation}
287: \frac{A_{+\frac{1}{2}}}{A_{-\frac{1}{2}}}
288: = \frac{E'_{\Lambda}+ m_{\Lambda}-|{\bf p}'_{\Lambda}|}{
289: E'_{\Lambda}+ m_{\Lambda}+|{\bf p}'_{\Lambda}|}
290: =\frac{m_{\Lambda}}{E'_{\Lambda}+|{\bf p}'_{\Lambda}|},
291: \label{ratio1}
292: \end{equation}
293: where $M_u+M_d+M_s\simeq m_{\Lambda}$ has been used for the
294: constituent quark masses. We would obtain Eq.(\ref{ratio1}) if
295: we simply project the $\Lambda$ field onto
296: $(1-\gamma_5)\psi_{\Lambda}$.\footnote{
297: That is what we expect since the $\Lambda$ spin is equal
298: to the $s$-quark spin, and $\Lambda$ and $s$ move with the
299: same Lorentz factor. Such a projection is obviously not valid
300: for the decay $\Lambda\to \pi N$ since the process involves
301: very strong nonperturbative effects, the long-distance
302: $\Delta I = \frac{1}{2}$ enhancement.}
303: The ratio of Eq.(\ref{ratio1}) can be expressed in terms of
304: the quantities in $B$ rest frame as
305: \begin{equation}
306: \frac{A_{+\frac{1}{2}}}{A_{-\frac{1}{2}}} =
307: \biggl(\frac{m_{\Lambda}}{E_{\Lambda}+|{\bf p}|}\biggr)
308: \biggl(\frac{m_X}{E_X+|{\bf p}|}\biggr)
309: \equiv \delta(E_{\Lambda}),
310: \label{ratio2}
311: \end{equation}
312: where $|{\bf p}|^2 = E_{\Lambda}^2-m_{\Lambda}^2$, $E_X=m_B
313: - E_{\Lambda}$, and $m_X^2=m_B^2-2m_BE_{\Lambda}+m_{\Lambda}^2$.
314:
315: \section{Tree and penguin interactions}
316:
317: Even in the Standard Model, a hard $s_R$ can contribute to
318: formation of $\Lambda$ through the penguin interaction. To test
319: the Standard Model with the $\Lambda$ helicity, therefore, we
320: need to know the $s_R$ contribution of the penguin interaction.
321: For the purpose of separating this $s_R$ from $s_L$, we
322: parametrize relative importance of the penguin interaction
323: to the tree interaction by
324: \begin{equation}
325: p=\frac{d\Gamma_{\rm penguin}/dE_{\Lambda}}{
326: d\Gamma_{\rm tree}/dE_{\Lambda}},
327: \end{equation}
328: where $p$ is generally a function of $E_{\Lambda}$.
329: Even in the two-body meson decays, $B\to K\pi$ and
330: $B\to\pi\pi$, the relative weight of the two types of
331: interactions has not been well determined from experiment.
332: It is generally agreed among theorists that when $X$ has net
333: strangeness zero, the dominant interaction is the penguin
334: interaction, {\em i.e.}, $p>1$ though the tree interaction
335: may not be totally negligible. Theoretical uncertainties are
336: smaller for inclusive decays, but the limited accuracy of
337: $V_{ub}$ at present still makes it difficult to determine
338: the value of $p$ with certainty; $p\approx 3-10$ for
339: $|V_{ub}|= 0.0025-0.0048$. Fortunately, however, the Standard
340: Model prediction turns out to be insensitive to the value of $p$.
341: When $X$ has one unit of net strangeness ($X_{\overline{s}}$),
342: the penguin interaction $(\overline{b}d)(\overline{s}s)$ and the
343: tree interaction $(\overline{b}u)(\overline{u}d)$ followed by
344: $\overline{u}u\to\overline{s}s$ are responsible for the decay.
345: As for the relative strength between $X$ of $X_{\overline{s}}$,
346: the smallness of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$ suppresses
347: $X_{\overline{s}}$ relative to nonstrange $X$. In the two-body
348: meson decays, this statement suggests $B(B\to K\overline{K},
349: \pi\pi)\ll B(B\to K\pi)$; experimentally\cite{kpi,PDG},
350: $B(B\to K^+\pi^-)/B(B\to\pi^+\pi^-)\simeq 3.3\pm 0.5$ and
351: $B(B\to K^+\pi^-)/B(B\to K^+K^-) >15$. ItTherefore, its
352: reasonable to expect that net strangeness of $X$ is most often
353: zero in $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$. We proceed with the
354: approximation that $X$ has net strangeness zero. When a value
355: of $p$ is relevant, we choose $p\gg 1$ to reflect the penguin
356: dominance in $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$; more specifically,
357: in the range of
358: \begin{equation}
359: p \approx 6\pm 3.
360: \end{equation}
361:
362: \section{Helicity ratio from angular asymmetry}
363:
364: The angular distribution of the cascade decay $\overline{B}\to
365: \Lambda X\to \pi^- pX$ can be written in the form
366: \begin{equation}
367: \frac{d^2\Gamma}{dE_{\Lambda}d\cos\theta}
368: =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\Gamma}{dE_{\Lambda}}
369: (1+\overline{\alpha}\cos\theta),
370: \label{asym}
371: \end{equation}
372: where $\theta$ is defined as the emission angle of proton in the
373: $\Lambda$ rest frame that is measured from the direction of the
374: $\Lambda$ momentum ${\bf p}$ of the $\overline{B}$ rest frame.
375: Knowing the ratio $\delta(E_{\Lambda})$ for $\Lambda$ helicity
376: from Eq.(\ref{ratio2}), we can relate $\overline{\alpha}$ to the
377: $\Lambda$ decay asymmetry parameter $\alpha_{\Lambda}
378: = 0.642\pm 0.013$\cite{PDG}. Taking account of coexistence of the
379: tree and penguin interactions, we can express $\overline{\alpha}$
380: in terms of $\alpha_{\Lambda}$ by counting left and
381: right-chiral $s$ fields in $(\overline{b}u_L)(\overline{u_L}s_L)$
382: of the tree interaction and $(\overline{b_L}s_L)(\overline{q_L}q_L
383: +\overline{q_R}q_R)$ ($q=u,d,s$) of the QCD penguin interaction:
384: \begin{equation}
385: \overline{\alpha} =
386: - \biggl(\frac{1+\frac{4}{5}p}{1+p}\biggr)
387: \biggl(\frac{1-\delta(E_{\Lambda})^2}{
388: 1+\delta(E_{\Lambda})^2}\biggr) \alpha_{\Lambda}.
389: \label{alpha}
390: \end{equation}
391: where we have ignored the electroweak penguin interaction,
392: the interference between the tree and the QCD penguin (an
393: approximation better for inclusive than exclusive decays), and
394: the phase space difference between $u/d$ and $s$. The first
395: factor varies only from $0.9$ to $0.8$ over
396: the range of $p$ from 1 to $\infty$. The second factor in the
397: right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{alpha}) is practically unity over
398: a wide range of $E_{\Lambda}$ except near the low energy end.
399: The asymmetry $\overline{\alpha}$ approaches zero in the slow
400: limit of $\Lambda$ ($\delta(m_{\Lambda})=1$). This limiting
401: value is a kinematical constraint since no preferential direction
402: exists in space in this limit where all momenta are either zero or
403: integrated over. The asymmetry $\overline{\alpha}$ moves rapidly
404: from 0 to about $-0.4$ at $E_{\Lambda}= 1.5$ GeV and then
405: approaches slowly $-\alpha_{\Lambda}$ up to the factor
406: $(1+\frac{4}{5}p)/(1+p)\simeq 1$. The negative $\overline{\alpha}$
407: means the $h=-\frac{1}{2}$ dominance for the $s$ quark from
408: the $\overline{s_L}$ field.
409:
410: If a nonstandard interaction generates the QCD penguin interaction
411: $\overline{b}(1-\kappa\gamma_5)s(\overline{q}q)$, the asymmetry is
412: \begin{equation}
413: \overline{\alpha}=
414: -\biggl(\frac{1+8\kappa p/5(1+\kappa^2)}{1+p}\biggr)
415: \biggl(\frac{1-\delta(E_{\Lambda})^2}{
416: 1+\delta(E_{\Lambda})^2}\biggr)\alpha_{\Lambda}.
417: \end{equation}
418: If a significant amount of $s_R$ mixes in the QCD penguin
419: interaction, $\overline{\alpha}$ would be close to zero or even
420: positive in contrast to the negative values predicted for
421: the Standard Model. While a precise value of asymmetry
422: depends on the value of $p$, $\overline{\alpha}$ would show a
423: marked departure from the prediction of the Standard Model in
424: this case. This is the helicity test that we propose in
425: this paper.
426:
427: Plotted in Figure 1 is the asymmetry $\overline{\alpha}$ expected
428: for $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$ in the Standard Model. The curve
429: is plotted for $p=3$ so that it is subject to a small uncertainty
430: of $\pm 2\%$ (for $p$ = 3 to 9). The perturbative QCD correction
431: below $m_b$ of $O(\alpha_sM_s/\pi E_s)$ is the main uncertainty,
432: which is $O(10\%)$ at the higher half of the $E_{\Lambda}$.
433: While the QCD correction is process dependent, a deviation of
434: 20\% or more from the curve in Figure 1 will be a clear warning
435: sign of a wrong helicity $s$ quark in weak interaction, or else,
436: breakdown of perturbative QCD in final-state interactions.
437:
438: %\input psfig
439: \noindent
440: \begin{figure}[h]
441: %\epsfig{file=Lambda.eps,width=0.47\textwidth}
442: \epsfig{file=L.eps,width=7cm,height=5cm}
443: \caption{The asymmetry $\overline{\alpha}$ in the Standard Model
444: plotted against the $\Lambda$ energy in the $B$ rest frame
445: (for $p=3$).
446: \label{fig:1}}
447: \end{figure}
448:
449: A comment is in order on the background from the
450: $b\to c$ transition. The interaction $b\to c_L\overline{u_L}
451: (\overline{c_L})s_L$ can only lower $\overline{\alpha}$, that
452: is, increase the magnitude of $|\overline{\alpha}|$ since the
453: $s$ quark field is left-chiral. The final state of the lowest
454: mass for $b\to c_L\overline{u_L}s_L$ is $\Lambda D\overline{N}$
455: ($5.26$ GeV vs $m_B$= 5.28 GeV). The phase space suppression
456: virtually eliminates this mode. The cascade weak decay
457: $\overline{B}\to\Lambda_c X\to\Lambda X'$ through
458: $b\to c_L\overline{u_L}d_L
459: \to s_L\overline{u_L}d_L\overline{u_L}d_L$ is more favorable
460: in phase space and in the quark mixing. The
461: branching fraction of $\Lambda_c\to\pi\Lambda$ is about $1\%$
462: and the inclusive branching to $\Lambda X$ is $\sim 10\%$. If
463: the decay process $c_L\to s_L\overline{d_L}{u_L}$ occurs
464: perturbatively, the final $s$ quark is left-chiral so that it
465: tends to lower $\overline{\alpha}$. In any way we can separate
466: the $\Lambda_c$ band, if necessary. Therefore the $b\to c$
467: transition will not pose a problem.
468:
469: \section{Remark and conclusion}
470:
471: Analysis in the $B$ decay modes feeding $\Lambda$ is still at
472: an early stage. Only an upper bound has been set on the
473: branching to two-body baryonic channels, {\em e.g.},
474: $B(B^+\to p\overline{\Lambda})<2.2\times 10^{-6}$\cite{Belle0}.
475: However, the decay into three bodies, $B^{\pm}\to p\overline{p}
476: K^{\pm}$\cite{Belle2} has been observed with the branching
477: fraction of $(4.3^{+1.1}_{-0.9}\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-6}$.
478: The decay $B\to p\overline{\Lambda}\pi$ and the conjugate occur
479: presumably at the same level of branching fraction. The
480: inclusive decay events $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$ will be seen
481: abundantly in near future.
482:
483: To conclude, measurement of the $\Lambda$ decay asymmetry in
484: $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$ is a sensible test to probe the
485: chirality structure of the fundamental weak interaction.
486: It will test whether the QCD penguin interaction possibly
487: contains a nonstandard term such as $(\overline{b}s_R)
488: (\overline{q}q)$ or not. Our numerical predictions contain
489: inevitable uncertainties as we have delineated. Nonetheless,
490: experimental determination of helicity with $\Lambda\to\pi^- p$
491: will be cleaner than that with the radiative $B$ decay. We believe
492: that the decay $\overline{B}\to\Lambda X$ will be competitive
493: with, if not superior to, $B\to\gamma^{(*)}X$ in testing the
494: chiral structure of the penguin interaction at B factories.
495: It also has an advantage over $\Lambda_b\to\gamma\Lambda$ at
496: hadron colliders where the $\Lambda_b$ polarization introduces
497: another uncertainty.
498:
499:
500: \acknowledgements
501:
502: This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of
503: Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division
504: of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under
505: contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science
506: Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.
507:
508: \begin{references}
509:
510: \bibitem{Suzuki} M. Suzuki, hep-ph/0206291.
511: \bibitem{Dighe} A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H.J. Lipkin, and J.L. Rosner,
512: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 369}, 144 (1996).
513: \bibitem{J/psi1} B. Aubert {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
514: 241801 (2001).
515: \bibitem{J/psi2} K. Abe {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 538}, 11
516: (2002).
517: \bibitem{S2} D. Bernard, BaBar Note \#509 (2000); S. T'Jampens,
518: Babar Note \#515 (2000); M. Suzuki,
519: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 117503 (2001).
520: \bibitem{Chiang} C.H. Chaing and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61},
521: 074031 (2000).
522: \bibitem{gamma} D. Melnikhov, N. Nikitin, and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B
523: {\bf 442}, 381 (1998); F. Kr\"{u}ger, L.M. Sehgal,
524: N. Sinha and R, Sinha, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 114028
525: (2000); C.S. Kim, Y.G. Kim, C.D. L\"{u}, and T.
526: Morozumi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 034013 (2000).
527: \bibitem{Gronau} M. Gronau, Y. Grossmann, D. Pirjol, and A. Ryd, Phys.
528: Lett. {\bf 88}, 051802 (2001); M. Gronau and D. Pirjol,
529: hep-ph/0205065.
530: \bibitem{exp} Belle Collaboration, S. Nishida {\em et al.},
531: hep-ex/0205025.
532: \bibitem{kpi} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\em et al.},
533: hep-ex/0205082.
534: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, D. Groom {\em et al.}, Eur. Phys.
535: J. C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
536: \bibitem{Belle0} K. Abe {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 091103
537: (2002).
538: \bibitem{Belle2} K. Abe {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88},
539: 181803 (2002).
540: \end{references}
541:
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543:
544: %%\input psfig
545: %\noindent
546: %\begin{figure}[h]
547: %%\epsfig{file=Lambda.eps,width=0.47\textwidth}
548: %\epsfig{file=L.eps,width=7cm,height=5cm}
549: %\caption{The asymmetry $\overline{\alpha}$ in the Standard Model
550: % plotted against the $\Lambda$ energy in the $B$ rest frame
551: % (for $p=3$).
552: %\label{fig:1}}
553: %\end{figure}
554:
555: \end{document}
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561:
562:
563:
564:
565:
566:
567:
568:
569:
570:
571:
572:
573:
574:
575:
576:
577: