1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

2: \usepackage{cite}

3: 

4: \jot = 1.5ex

5: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}

6: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt

7: \evensidemargin 0.0in   \oddsidemargin  0.0in

8: \textwidth  6.4in       \textheight 8.9in

9: \topmargin -1.0cm       \headsep    1.0cm

10: 

11: \parindent 0pt

12: 

13: \usepackage{a4wide}

14: \usepackage{epsfig}

15: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

16: \def\ee{\end{equation}} 

17: \def\ol{\overline} 

18: \def\ul{\underline} 

19: \def\o{\over} 

20: 

21: \def\h{\hbox} 

22: \def\l{\left} 

23: \def\r{\right} 

24: 

25: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

26: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

27: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

28: %\def\gs{\mathrel{

29: %   \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}

30: %\def\ls{\mathrel{

31: %   \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}

32: %\newcommand{\Slash}[1]{\mbox{$#1\hspace{-.6em}/$}}

33: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}  

34: \newcommand{\bad}{\begin{array}{ccc}}

35: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

36: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

37: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

38: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle} 

39: 

40: %\newcommand{\lsim}{{\;\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

41: %\;}} 

42: %\newcommand{\gsim}{{\;\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

43: %\;}} 

44:  

45: \usepackage{a4,graphicx}

46: \usepackage{amsmath}

47: \usepackage{psfrag}

48: \usepackage{rotating}

49: \input{standard.def}

50: \input{math.def}

51: \input{physics.def}

52: \input{willi.def}

53: \input{spezial.def}

54: 

55: \begin{document} 

56: \thispagestyle{empty}

57: %\rightline{hep-ph/03xxxx}

58: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

59: \setcounter{footnote}{1}

60: \rightline{DO-TH 03/06}

61: \vspace*{3mm}

62: %\begin{center}

63: \centerline{\Large \bf Possible test for $CPT$ invariance with correlated neutral}

64: \vspace*{3.6mm}

65: \centerline{\Large\bf $B$ decays}

66: \vspace*{7mm}

67: %\medskip

68: \begin{center}

69: {\large\bf {K.R.S. Balaji\footnote{\texttt{balaji@hep.physics.mcgill.ca}}}, 

70: {Wilfried Horn\footnote{\texttt{Wilfried.Horn@udo.edu}}},}

71: {\large\bf{ and E.A. Paschos\footnote{\texttt{paschos@physik.uni-dortmund.de}}}}\\

72: 

73: \medskip

74: \vspace*{5mm}

75: {\em Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Dortmund,}\\

76: {\em Otto-Hahn-Stra{\ss}e 4, 44221 Dortmund, Germany}\\[3mm]

77: \end{center}

78: \noindent

79: \vspace*{18mm}

80: 

81: \begin{abstract} 

82: We study breakdown of $CPT$ symmetry which can occur in the decay process 

83: $B \bar B \to l^\pm X^\mp f$ with $f$ being a $CP$ eigenstate. 

84: In this process, the standard model expectations 

85: for time ordered semi-leptonic and hadronic events, i.e. which of the

86: two decays takes place first,

87: can be altered in the case that there

88: is a violation of the $CPT$ symmetry. To illustrate this possibility,

89: we identify and study several time integrated observables. We

90: find that an experiment with $10^{9}$ $B\bar B$ 

91: pairs, has the capability for improving the bound on $CPT$ violating 

92: parameter or perhaps observe $CPT$ violation.

93: \end{abstract} 

94: 

95: %\vspace{0.2cm} 

96: 

97: %\leftline{PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff, 12.20.Fv, 14.60.Pq, 14.60.St}  

98: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

99: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

100: 

101:  

102: \newpage 

103:  

104: \section{Introduction} 

105: 

106:  In recent years the physics of the standard model (SM) has moved to the 

107: investigation of flavor physics and in particular $CP$ violation in the

108: $B$ meson decays. In the case of the neutral $B$ decays, the mixing induced 

109: $CP$ violation measurements involves a good knowledge of both the mass and 

110: width differences for which there is an extensive literature. 

111: 

112:  Most of the analyses involving physics of neutral $B$ mesons 

113: assume the validity of $CPT$. The

114: $B$ meson with their special properties provide unique opportunities of 

115: testing the $CPT$ symmetry. Given the eventual need for an accurate 

116: description of the SM $CP$ parameters, and/or tests for new physics, it is 

117: pertinent to also account for a possible violation of $CPT$ invariance and 

118: its consequences. In this regard, it is noteworthy 

119: that the existing experimental limits on $CPT$ violation

120: are not very stringent and thus it becomes necessary to allow for this

121: possibility in measurements of $B$ decays. An argument for this was presented 

122: in \cite{Kobayashi:1992uj} which questions the validity of $CPT$ theorem 

123: for partons which are confined states. 

124: 

125: It is usually assumed that $CPT$ is an exact symmetry which is hard to break.

126: One of the first attempts to consider the (spontaneous) breaking of  

127: $CPT$ came from string physics \cite{strings}. For 

128: instance, $CPT$ may not be a good discrete symmetry in many higher 

129: dimensional theories of which the SM is an effective low energy 

130: description \cite{Kostelecky:1991ak}. In addition, the existence of mixed 

131: non-commutative fields could also break $CPT$ \cite{Mocioiu:2001fx}. There 

132: are many tests for $CPT$ symmetry and we refer to \cite{Colladay:2003tj} for 

133: a review on this subject.

134: 

135: We present in this article a study of $CPT$ violations that originate on the

136: mass matrix and the analysis is model independent. We express the effects in 

137: terms of a complex parameter $\delta$,

138: whose presence modifies the expressions for width and mass differences and

139: affects the time development of correlated $B$ states. Precise measurements

140: of the time development of the states are sensitive to the presence of

141: $CPT$ violation. However, such studies may require large number of 

142: events and hence

143: it is preferable to have integrated rates. This motivates us 

144: to consider correlated decays of $B$ mesons which are time ordered. The 

145: procedure 

146: presented here requires a time ordering of leptonic/hadronic events 

147: (which decay happens first) without 

148: demanding any detailed time development of states. One reason for following 

149: this time ordering is because it enables for a direct extraction of the width 

150: differences \cite{Sinha:1998aj}. The same procedure is also 

151: expected to be sensitive to the presence of nonzero $\delta$ values which 

152: can affect the width difference. We use the time ordered rates to form 

153: asymmetries which 

154: are sensitive to $CPT$ violation. We find that our results depend on the 

155: width difference $y = \Delta\Gamma/(2\Gamma)$ and thus for large 

156: $CPT$ violating parameter $\sim O(y)$, the effects of $CPT$ can become 

157: significant. Our analysis is more sensitive to 

158: $B_s$ decays where the effects of $CP$ violation can be neglected. 

159: We expect that the results obtained here will complement the existing

160: tests for $CPT$ violation, and in particular for the $B_s$ system

161: where there is no information available as yet. For a recent general analysis 

162: of $CPT$ violation in neutral mesons, and its extraction we refer 

163: to \cite{kos2001}. 

164: 

165: Briefly, the 

166: possibility of $CPT$ violation has been studied in $B$ decays using 

167: both time dependent and integrated methods. There are several analyses 

168: performed which in 

169: most cases also involve a detailed time dependent study and/or flavor tagging

170: \cite{Xing:1994ep,Kostelecky:1996fk,Banuls:2000ki,Dass:2000fb,Datta:2002wa}.

171: In comparison with other known $CPT$ studies, we find 

172: certain qualitative similarities as well as differences.

173: Following our analysis, we find that we can restrict the strength of the

174: $CPT$ violating parameter to about $10\%$ which is similar to an earlier

175: detailed estimate \cite{Kostelecky:1996fk}. We point out that if the 

176: strength of

177: $CPT$ violating parameter is below this limit $(\sim 10\%)$, then using

178: our approach, it is hard to pinpoint genuine $CPT$ effects. 

179: In general, we find a sensitivity to $CPT$ 

180: effects even if the width difference is vanishingly small. This we expect

181: due to the particular time ordering procedure which can also extract 

182: corrections to the width difference due to nonzero $\delta$. In general,

183: in the presence of nonzero width difference, the

184: $CPT$ violating observables can measure

185: both the real and imaginary parts of the $CPT$ parameter;

186: while on the other hand, for zero width difference, the effects are 

187: sensitive only to the real part of the $CPT$ violating parameter

188: \cite{Banuls:2000ki}.

189: The latter feature is similar to what we find in our present analysis

190: when we assume negligible $CP$ effects. On the other hand, as

191: observed in \cite{Dass:2000fb},

192: for zero width difference, the $CPT$ violating observable is

193: sensitive to the imaginary part of the $CPT$ violating parameter. This

194: is different in our case (when we neglect $CP$ violation), as

195: we shall show when we discuss the $B_s$ system. 

196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

197: 

198:  Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the

199: general formalism for the time evolution of a neutral $B$ meson in the 

200: presence of $CPT$ violation. In section \ref{cptvrate} we define the 

201: observables which can extract signals for $CPT$ violation and are 

202: theoretically clean.  This is followed by a brief numerical analysis for a 

203: specific decay channel and we compare the results with the $B_d$ system.   

204: We finally conclude with a brief summary in section \ref{summary}.

205:    

206: \section{The time evolution}

207: \subsection{Basic setup and definitions}

208:  In this section, we review the basic formalism for the 

209: decay of correlated $B \bar B$ pair in the presence of $CPT$ violation

210: \cite{Chou:1999wn}. 

211: Starting with a quantum state which is a linear combination of the $B$ and 

212: $\bar B$ states denoted as

213: \begin{align}

214: \ket{\psi(t)}&=\psi_1(t)\ket B+\psi_2(t)\ket {\bar B}~, 

215: \label{matrixformalism}

216: \end{align}

217:  the time evolution of the $B\bar B$ system can be described by 

218: a two dimensional Schroedinger equation 

219: \begin{align}

220: i\frac{d}{dt}\vect{\psi_1(t)\\\psi_2(t)}=

221: {\begin{pmatrix} 

222: \mathcal{M}_{11}&\mathcal{M}_{12}\\\mathcal{M}_{21}&\mathcal{M}_{22}\end

223: {pmatrix}}\vect{\psi_1(t)\\\psi_2(t)}.

224: \label{matrix1}

225: \end{align}

226: The mixing matrix is non-Hermitian and can be written as 

227: \be

228: \mathcal{M}=M-\frac{i}{2}\Gamma~,

229: \label{matrix}

230: \ee

231: with $M$ and $\Gamma$ being Hermitian $2\times 2$ matrices 

232: $\left(M=M^\dagger,\Gamma=\Gamma^\dagger\right)$. Invariance under $CPT$ 

233: gives

234: \be

235: \mathcal{M}_{11}=\mathcal{M}_{22} \Rightarrow M_{11}=M_{22} 

236: \quad\textrm{ and }\quad  \Gamma_{11}=\Gamma_{22}~,

237: \ee

238: while there is no constraint on the off-diagonal elements. As a result, to 

239: test $CPT$ invariance one needs to parametrize the difference of the 

240: diagonal elements of the mixing matrix. A sensible parameterization

241: has to be invariant according to a re-phasing of the meson

242: states \cite{Paschos:1989ur}. In particular, when a re-phasing of the type 

243: $\ket{{B}^\prime}\to e^{i\gamma} \ket{B}$ is done, the anti-meson state 

244: is altered according to 

245: $\ket{\overline{B}^\prime}\to e^{-i \gamma} \ket{\overline{B}}$. 

246: Following this, we have in the matrix elements 

247: \begin{align}

248: \mathcal{M}_{11} \to \mathcal{M}_{11}~;~  \mathcal{M}_{22} 

249: \to \mathcal{M}_{22}~;~

250: \mathcal{M}_{12} \to e^{-2i\gamma} \mathcal{M}_{12} ~;~\mathcal{M}_{21} 

251: \to e^{2i \gamma} \mathcal{M}_{21}~.

252: \end{align}

253: This means the diagonal elements in (\ref{matrix}) remain the same 

254: after re-phasing while the product of the off-diagonal elements are re-phase 

255: invariant. Besides, the eigenvalues of (\ref{matrix}) are re-phase

256: invariant. This leads to several possibilities to parameterize $CPT$ 

257: violation and in this analysis, we choose a parameter

258: \begin{equation}

259: \delta=\frac{\mathcal{M}_{22}-\mathcal{M}_{11}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{M}_{12}

260: \mathcal{M}_{21}}}~. 

261: \label{delta}

262: \end{equation}

263: In addition, there are other possible parameterizations which 

264: are rephase invariant and have been used for $CPT$ studies. Among them

265: we refer to parameterization in references 

266: \cite{Kobayashi:1992uj,cptkos,lavoura}.

267: 

268: In the presence of $\delta \neq 0$, the width and mass differences of the 

269: two $B$ states are obtained by calculating the eigenvalues of 

270: (\ref{matrix}). We obtain these to be

271: 

272: \bea

273: \lambda_1&=& \mathcal{M}_{11}+\sqrt{\mathcal{M}_{12}\mathcal{M}_{21}} 

274: \left(\sqrt{1+\frac{\delta^2}{4}}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)~,\nonumber\\

275: \lambda_2&=& \mathcal{M}_{22}-\sqrt{\mathcal{M}_{12}\mathcal{M}_{21}} 

276: \left(\sqrt{1+\frac{\delta^2}{4}}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right )~.

277: \label{cptev}

278: \eea

279: We define $\mathcal{M}_{ij} = m_{ij} - i\Gamma_{ij}/2$ and 

280: \be

281: \lambda_1-\lambda_2

282: = -2 \sqrt{\mathcal{M}_{12}\mathcal{M}_{21}} \sqrt{\frac{\delta^2}{4}+1}=

283: \Delta m -\frac{i}{2}\Delta \Gamma~.

284: \label{egv}

285: \ee

286: Therefore upon equating the real and imaginary parts in (\ref{egv}) 

287: results in the width difference and mass difference

288: \bea

289: \Delta \Gamma &\equiv \Gamma_1-\Gamma_2 &= -4\abs{m_{12}} \textrm{Im}

290: \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\abs{\Gamma_{12}}^2}{\abs{m_{12}}^2}

291: -i \textrm{Re} \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{m_{12}}} 

292: \sqrt{\frac{\delta^2}{4}+1}~,\nonumber\\

293: \Delta m&\equiv m_1-m_2&=2\abs{m_{12}} \textrm{Re}\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{4}

294: \frac{\abs{\Gamma_{12}}^2}{\abs{m_{12}}^2}

295: -i \textrm{Re} \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{m_{12}}} \sqrt{\frac{\delta^2}{4}+1}~.

296: \label{cptwd}

297: \eea

298: Furthermore, from the eigenvalue equation,

299: \bea

300: \mathcal{M}_{11}p_{1,2}+\mathcal{M}_{12}q_{1,2}&=&\lambda_{1,2}p_{1,2}

301: ~,\nonumber\\

302: \mathcal{M}_{21}p_{1,2}+\mathcal{M}_{22}q_{1,2}&=&\lambda_{1,2}q_{1,2}~,

303: \label{egnv}

304: \eea

305: we obtain the ratios

306: \bea

307: \frac{q_1}{p_1}&=&\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal{M}_{21}}{\mathcal{M}_{12}}}\left[

308: \sqrt{1+\frac{\delta^2}{4}}+\frac{\delta}{2}\right]~,\nonumber\\

309: \frac{q_2}{p_2}&=&\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal{M}_{21}}{\mathcal{M}_{12}}}\left[

310: \sqrt{1+\frac{\delta^2}{4}}-\frac{\delta}{2}\right]~. 

311: \label{q2p2}

312: \eea

313: Introducing the mass eigenstates for the $B$ mesons as

314: \bea

315: \ket{B_{1}}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_1^2+q_1^2}}

316: \left[p_1\ket{B}+q_1\ket{\overline{B}}\right]\label{bl}~,\nonumber\\

317: \ket{B_{2}}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_2^2+q_2^2}}

318: \left[p_2\ket{B}+q_2\ket{\bar{B}}\right]~, \label{bh}

319: \eea

320: the time development of $B$ and $\bar B$ is evaluated to be

321: \bea

322: \ket{B(t)}&=&\frac{1}{1+\omega} \left[f_+ \ket{B}+\kappa_1 f_- 

323: \ket{\overline{B}}\right] \label{cpt01}~,\nonumber\\

324: \ket{\bar{B}(t)}&=&\frac{1}{1+\bar \omega}\left(\bar f_+ 

325: \ket{\overline{B}} +\bar \kappa_1 f_-\ket{B}\right)~,

326: \label{cpt02}

327: \eea

328: with

329: \bea

330: f_+ &=&e^{-i\lambda_1 t}+\omega e^{-i\lambda_2 t}~;~ 

331: \bar f_+=e^{-i\lambda_1 t}+\frac{1}{\omega} e^{-i\lambda 2 t}~,\nonumber\\

332: f_-&=&e^{-i\lambda_1 t}-e^{-i\lambda_2 t}~;~ 

333: \kappa_1=\frac{q_1}{p_1}=\frac{1}{\bar \kappa_1} ~;~

334: \omega=\frac{p_2q_1}{q_2p_1}~\mbox{and}~\bar\omega = \omega^*~.

335: \label{notations}

336: \eea

337: 

338: The information on $CPT$ violation is encoded in the complex parameter 

339: \be

340: \omega =\frac{p_2q_1}{q_2p_1}

341: =1+\delta+\frac{\delta^2}{2} + ~\mbox{higher order terms in}~\delta~.

342: \label{omega}

343: \ee

344: Given that $\delta$ is re-phase invariant, $\omega$ is also re-phase invariant 

345: and deviates from unity in case of $CPT$ violation.

346: 

347: \subsection{The decay channel $B \bar B\to l^\pm X^\mp f(\bar f)$}

348: In the previous section we described the formalism for $CPT$ violation that

349: occurs in the mass matrix. We apply it to the decays of a correlated 

350: $B\bar B$ pair where one of them decays semi-leptonically while the 

351: other decays hadronically, i.e., 

352: $B \bar B\to l^\pm X^\mp f(\bar f)$. The amplitude for a 

353: neutral $B$ meson decaying into a final state with a lepton $l^+X^-$ at time

354: $t_0$ and the $\bar B$ decaying in to a final state $f$ at time $t$ can be 

355: expressed as

356: \bea

357: A[l^+({t_0}),\bar f({t})]&=&\braket{X^- l^+}{B(t_0)}\braket{f}

358: {\overline{B}(t)}+ C 

359: \braket{X^- l^+}{\overline{B}(t_0)}\braket{f}{B(t)}~,\nonumber\\

360: \label{lpf}

361: \eea

362: with $C$ denoting the charge conjugation of the $B\bar B$ pair.

363:  The individual decay amplitudes for the hadronic channels are

364: \bea

365: \braket{f}{B}&=&A_1 e^{i\Phi_1} e^{i\eta_1}~;~

366: \braket{f}{\overline{B}}=A_2 e^{i\Phi_2} e^{i\eta_2}~,\nonumber\\

367: \braket{\bar f}{B}&=&A_2 e^{-i\Phi_2} e^{i\eta_2}~;~

368: \braket{\bar f}{\overline{B}}=A_1 e^{-i\Phi_1} e^{i\eta_1}~.

369: \label{def1}

370: \eea

371:  In (\ref{def1}), the $A_i$ denote the absolute values for the amplitudes

372: and $\eta_i$ and $\phi_i$ are the strong and weak phases respectively. 

373: Using this, along with the notations  

374: \be

375: r=\frac{A_2}{A_1}~;~\Phi=\Phi_2-\Phi_1-2\phi_m~;~

376: \eta =\eta_2-\eta_1 ~;~\xi=\abs{\xi}e^{2i\phi_m} =

377: \frac{e^{2i\phi_m}}{\sqrt{1+ {\textrm{Re}[\delta]}}}~,

378: \ee

379: with the phase due to mixing denoted by $\phi_m$, the amplitudes are now:

380: 

381: \bea

382: A[l^+f]

383: &=&\frac{\omega}{(1+\omega)^2}\abs{\xi}FA_1 e^{i\Phi_1}e^{i\eta_1}

384: e^{2i\phi_m}\nonumber\\

385: &&\left\{\left[f_+(t_0)f_-(t)-f_-(t_0)f_+(t)\right]

386: +\frac{r}{\abs{\xi}}e^{i\Phi}e^{i\eta}\left[f_+(t_0)\bar 

387: f_+(t)-f_-(t_0)f_-(t)\right]

388: \right\}~,\nonumber\\

389: A[l^+\bar f]

390: &=&\frac{\omega}{(1+\omega)^2} \bar F A_1 e^{-i\Phi_1}e^{i\eta_1}\nonumber\\

391: &&\left\{\left[f_+(t_0)\bar f_+(t)- f_-(t_0)f_-(t)\right]

392: + r\abs{\xi}e^{-i\Phi}e^{i\eta}\left[f_+(t_0) f_-(t)-f_-(t_0)f_+(t)\right]

393: \right\}~,\nonumber\\

394: A[l^-f]

395: &=&\frac{\omega}{(1+\omega)^2} \bar F A_1 e^{i\Phi_1}e^{i\eta_1}\nonumber\\

396: &&\left\{{\left[f_-(t_0)f_-(t)-

397: \bar f_+(t_0)f_+(t)\right]}

398: +\frac{r}{\abs{\xi}}e^{i\Phi}e^{i\eta}{\left[f_-(t_0)\bar f_+(t)-

399: \bar f_+(t_0)f_-(t)\right]}

400: \right\}~,\nonumber\\

401: A[l^-\bar f]

402: &=&\frac{\omega}{(1+\omega)^2} \bar F A_1 \frac{1}{\abs{\xi}} 

403: e^{-i\phi_m}e^{-i\Phi_1}e^{i\eta_1}\nonumber\\

404: &&\left\{\left[f_-(t_0)\bar f_+(t)-\bar f_+(t_0)f_-(t)\right]

405: +r\abs{\xi}e^{-i\Phi}e^{i\eta}\left[f_-(t_0) f_-(t)- \bar f_+(t_0)f_+(t)

406: \right]\right\}~.\nonumber\\

407: \label{amp}

408: \eea

409:  In (\ref{amp}), $F$ denotes the amplitude for the decay $B\to l^+ X^-$ and the

410: corresponding amplitude for the $CP$ conjugated process is denoted by 

411: $\bar F$.  The decay to a lepton is measured at $t_0$ while $t$

412: is the time when the decay to state $f$ occurred. An explicitly

413: time dependence in the l.h.s. of (\ref{amp}) is assumed. 

414: The $B\bar B$ pair is 

415: taken to be the one produced at a $\Upsilon$ resonance and hence, the

416: $B\bar B$ charge parity, 

417: $C=-1$ in (\ref{lpf}). In addition, the state $f$ is chosen to be a $CP$ odd

418: eigenstate. This sets $\eta = 0$ and $r=-1$.

419: 

420: \section{The $CPT$ violating rate}

421: \label{cptvrate}

422: 

423: Following the above construction,

424: for the decay process $B \bar B \to l^\pm X^\mp f$ we define two time 

425: correlated observables: (i) $R_S$ denotes the number of events in 

426: which the hadronic decay 

427: precedes the semi-leptonic one (which in our context the time ordering is

428: $t < t_0$) and (ii) similarly, we define the number of events where the 

429: semi-leptonic decay precedes the hadronic decay denoted by $R_L$. To 

430: illustrate, if we choose positively charged leptons, we have the rates

431: \be

432: R_S\left[l^+f\right]=\lint_0^\infty dt_0 \lint_0^{t_0} dt \abs{A[l^+f]}^2~;

433: ~

434: R_L\left[l^+f\right]=\lint_0^\infty dt_0 \lint_{t_0}^{\infty} dt 

435: \abs{A[l^+f]}^2~.

436: \label{rsrl}

437: \ee

438:  Using (\ref{rsrl}), for CP eigenstates \footnote{This choice

439: sets $f= \bar f$ in (\ref{lpf}).} we can define the following 

440: ratios

441: \begin{eqnarray}

442: R^\pm_1&=&\frac{R_S\left[l^+ f\right]\pm R_L\left[l^- f\right]}

443: {R\left[l^+ f\right]+R\left[l^- f\right]}~,\nonumber\\

444: %\begin{eqnarray}

445: R_2&=&\frac{R_L\left[l^+ f\right]- R_L\left[l^- f\right]}

446: {R\left[l^+ f\right]+R\left[l^- f\right]}

447: ~,\nonumber\\

448: R_3&=&\frac{R_S\left[l^+ f\right]- R_S\left[l^- f\right]}

449: {R\left[l^+ f\right]+R\left[l^- f\right]}

450: ~.

451: %\label{cpt2}

452: %\end{eqnarray}

453: \label{cpt0}

454: \end{eqnarray}

455: where the rates without the subscripts $L$ or $S$ denote total time integrated

456: rates without any time ordering. The exact expressions for the above ratios

457: can be obtained by substituting the expressions for the rates given in the

458: appendix (section \ref{appendix}) of this paper. Due to the extensive nature 

459: of the analytic expressions involved, we avoid from presenting them in the

460: main text as they are also not illustrative. 

461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

462: \subsection{Numerical analysis}

463: \label{numerical}

464: The effects discussed in this section were calculated using the 

465: exact expressions for the event rates which are given in the

466: appendix (section \ref{appendix}) of this article. In these expressions and

467: for our specific case, where we are interested in $CP$ odd eigenstates,

468: we set $\eta = 0~\mbox{and}~r=-1$.

469: In this analysis, we have varied both $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and

470: $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ in the range between $-0.5$ to $0.5$. 

471: It has been shown in \cite{Datta:2002wa} that this range is not 

472: excluded yet by the of the recent Belle data, according to 

473: which $|m_B - m_{\bar B}|\sim 10^{-14}m_B$ \cite{Leonidopoulos:2001ci}.

474:  Figs.\ref

475: {bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen} and 

476: \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} show the results for the $B_s$

477: system and for appropriate values of the variables. We mainly analyse the

478: $B_s$ system and also briefly present the results for the $B_d$ system

479: where one has to account for $CP$ effects arising from mixing.

480: 

481: In Fig. \ref{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen} we show the ratio

482: $R_1^-$ as a function of $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and for three values of

483: $y$ consistent with the current estimates \cite{lepbosc}.

484: In the $CPT$ conserving limit, the value for $R_1^-$ can be read off on

485: the axis $\textrm{Re}[\delta] = 0$ and its range is 

486: $-0.10 \leq R_1^- \leq -0.025$. When $\textrm{Re}[\delta] \neq 0$ there are

487: deviations from this range and for 

488: $\textrm{Re}[\delta] \simeq \pm 0.1$ the deviations for 

489: $R_1^-$ is $\sim O(0.10)$ from the central line. Thus if a deviation of that

490: order is observed it will come either from violation of the

491: $CPT$ symmetry or there is a large width difference of $y\geq 0.12$ either

492: of which is very interesting. 

493: 

494: Taking $y=0.12$ and $x=19$, in Fig. 

495: \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} we show the 

496: ratio $R_2$ as functions

497: of $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$. Again there are sizable

498: deviations when $\text{Re}[\delta] \neq 0$. The structure of the curves in

499:  Fig. \ref{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen} and 

500: Fig. \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} can be accounted for examining

501: the small $\delta$ limit of the ratios in (\ref{cpt0}). For instance, 

502: defining $y=\Delta\Gamma/(2\Gamma),~ x=\Delta m/\Gamma$, in the

503: small $\delta $ limit which we take such that

504: $(\textrm{Re}[\delta],\textrm{Im}[\delta])\leq 0.1$, we find

505: \begin{eqnarray}

506: R_1^-&\approx&\frac{y}{2}+\textrm{Re} \left[\delta\right] \left[\frac{x^2+y^2}

507: {2\left(x^2+1\right)} \right] + O(\delta ^2)~.

508: %\nonumber\\

509: %R_1^+ &=& \frac{1}{2} +\textrm{Re}[\delta](\frac{y}{2}) 

510: %- \textrm{Im}[\delta]\frac{x(1-y^2)}{2(1+x^2)}~.

511: \label{cpt1}

512: \end{eqnarray}

513: Thus, a linear dependence of $R_1^-$ as a function of $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ 

514: is evident near the origin of the plot in

515: Fig. \ref{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen}. 

516: Note that in the limit $y=0$ and 

517: in the absence of any CP or CPT violation we would expect an equal number of 

518: $l^+$ and $l^-$ events.

519: 

520: Similarly, we observe in Fig. \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} that for 

521: small $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ a linear behavior in $R_2$ and this is again 

522: understood by examining the $R_2$ in the small $\delta $ limit wherein 

523: \begin{eqnarray}

524: R_2&\approx&\frac{1-y}{2(1+x^2)}\Big(\textrm{Re}[\delta]\frac{x^2-y}{2} + 

525: \textrm{Im}[\delta]x(y+1)\Big)

526: ~ \approx \frac{\textrm{Re}[\delta]}{4}~\mbox{for}~y\ll x~.

527: \label{cpt2}

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: In Fig. \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} for all values of

530: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$, the

531: sensitivity to $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ is almost negligible. This feature

532: is shown by the flatness of $R_2$ as a function of $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$. 

533: In addition without imposing the small $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ limit, we have 

534: also numerically checked the dependence of $R_1^-$ on $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ 

535: and we find it to be too small $\sim O(0.001)$. This can be attributed to 

536: the largeness of $x$ for the $B_s$ system which is also brought out in our

537: approximate analytic expressions discussed above. 

538: 

539: As a consistency check, upon using (\ref{cpt1}) and (\ref{cpt2}) we easily 

540: find the relation 

541: \be

542: R_1^- - 2R_2 = \frac{y}{2}~.

543: \label{cpt3}

544: \ee

545: This relation can be verified by combining

546: the results in Fig. \ref{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen} and

547: Fig. \ref{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero} where we find 

548: our numerical results are consistent with (\ref{cpt3}) for the small

549: $\delta$ limit. Furthermore, as is evident, the ratio $R_2$ is nonzero only 

550: in the presence of $CPT$ violation and serves as consistency check for 

551: (\ref{cpt3}). In addition, we note that in the case

552: of $B_s$ system, for $y\ll x$, in the small $\delta $ limit, we have the 

553: approximation

554: \be

555: R_2\approx R_3 =

556: \frac{\textrm{Re}[\delta]}{4} + \frac{y\textrm{Im}[\delta]}{2x} 

557: \approx \frac{\textrm{Re}[\delta]}{4}~.

558: \label{cpt3a}

559: \ee 

560: This calls for the following remark. As a consequence of

561: the equality, the sum of these two ratios $(R_2 + R_3)$ would prove to be 

562: a good observable as it does not require time ordering. However, since the 

563: equality is a result of a specific limit, we may still plot them separately.

564: 

565: 

566:  It is interesting to ask what is required in experiments in order to observe

567: these $CPT$ violating effects. First of all, the effects which are discussed

568: here are for $C=-1$ state, which is satisfied in $e^+e^-$ colliders; provided

569: these machines are tuned at higher energies to be able to produce

570: $B_s\bar B_s$ pairs. A promising 

571: channel is $B_s \bar B_s \to l^\pm X^\mp J/\psi \phi$ where the lepton and

572: $J/\psi \phi$ are detected at two different times  with the identification

573: of the time ordering at the decays, i.e. which decay happened first. The

574: measurement of the ratios requires an accuracy of $1\%$ and we need

575: about $10^{4}$ decays to the channels under consideration. 

576: Given the semi leptonic branching fraction of $B_s$ to be  $10\%$ and the 

577: decay to $J/\psi\phi$ to be $10^{-3}$ we have a branching fraction for this 

578: process of $\sim 10^{-4}$. Consequently, we require roughly 

579: $10^{8}$ $B_s \bar B_s$ pairs produced through a $C=-1$ state. This also

580: suggests that with the comparable number of events, a reasonable bound

581: can be set for $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$. Alternatively, if no significant 

582: deviation from the above mentioned range for say $R_1^-$, is found, then

583: one can conclude that the data are consistent with zero or rather small

584: $CPT$ violating effects. Here, by small, we mean $\textrm{Re}[\delta] <

585: 0.1$. This limit can be improved if in future we have better

586: handle on the values of $y$ which currently suffers from large errors.\\

587: 

588: 

589:  We now turn to discuss briefly the effects of $CPT$ violation for the 

590: $B_d$ system and we choose the process, 

591: $B_d \bar B_d \to l^\pm X^\mp J/\psi K_S$. In contrast to the $B_s$ mesons, 

592: for the case of the $B_d$ system, one cannot

593: neglect the presence of the $CP$ violating phase. We show in Figs.

594: \ref{DependenceOnPhiR1Plus} and \ref{DependenceOnPhiR1Minus} the variation

595: of $R_1^\pm$ with $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and $\Phi$. In these two plots,

596: we have set $\textrm{Im}[\delta] =0$ while setting $x=0.755$ and

597: $y = 10^{-3}$. The variation of 

598: $R_1^-$ with $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ is significant and we show this in

599: Fig. \ref{R1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen}. The width in the

600: plot is due to the allowed range of values in $x$ and $\Phi$. Presently,

601: their ranges are $\sin\Phi = 0.735 \pm 0.055$ \cite{Pan:2002eg}

602: with $x = 0.755 \pm 0.015$ and $y \sim 10^{-3}$ \cite{Hagiwara:2002fs}.

603: The range of $R_1^-$ is now smaller as compared to the $B_s$ case and will

604: require more events to reach the bound of 

605: $\textrm{Re}[\delta] \leq \pm 0.1$

606: Finally, the ratio $R_3$ depends on both 

607: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ and illustrated in 

608: Fig. \ref{R3Minus3DPlotPhiEquals2Beta}. For this plot, we use the values

609: $\sin\Phi =  0.735$, $x=0.755$ and

610: $y = 10^{-3}$ . It is interesting that, we can observe the impact of 

611: $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ which was not so significant in other plots. In 

612: contrast to this analysis, the effects of $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ 

613: (with $\textrm{Re}[\delta] = 0$) on width measurements and $CP$ asymmetries 

614: for the $B_d$ mesons has been examined in reference \cite{Datta:2002wa}. 

615: 

616:  Finally, we address the question of nonzero $CP$ violation. 

617: Although, the present analysis is most effective for the $B_s$ system, we 

618: note that the ratios in (\ref{cpt0}) can still be used to test for $CPT$ 

619: violating effects even if the system has a nonzero $CP$ violation. In the pure

620: $CP$ conserving limit, for instance, independent of $y$, the ratio $R_1^+$ can 

621: show a numerical deviation from the value of $1/2$ in the presence of $CPT$

622: violation. This becomes evident by examining the small $\delta$ limit where

623: \begin{eqnarray}

624: R_1^+ &\approx& \frac{1}{2} +\textrm{Re}[\delta](\frac{y}{2}) 

625: - \textrm{Im}[\delta]\frac{x(1-y^2)}{2(1+x^2)}~.

626: \label{cpt4}

627: \end{eqnarray}

628: 

629: In the presence of $CP$ violation the ratio $R_1^+$  

630: gets modified as follows, $R_1^+ \to R_1^+ + r^+$, where the typical 

631: strength of $r^+$ is a linear combination of the

632: form $r^+ \sim (\sin\Phi/x, ~\cos\Phi

633: \cdot \textrm{Re}[\delta]/x)$. Thus, for the $B_s$ system, given the 

634: expectations for 

635: $x \sim 19$ and a small $CP$ phase such that $\sin \Phi \sim 10^{-2}$

636: \cite{bigisanda}, the ratio $R_1^+$ is sensitive to $CPT$ effects 

637: for all values of 

638: $(\text{Re}[\delta], \text{Im}[\delta]) \geq r^+ \sim 10^{-3}$.

639: 

640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

641: In the case of CP and CPT conservation we expect the rates $R_S[l^\pm f]= 

642: R_L[l ^\pm f] = 1/2(R[l^- f]+ R[l^+ f])$ which means that the decays into hadrons 

643: before the leptonic decay are equal to the hadronic decays which occur after the 

644: leptonic decay. The equality of the above decay rates is modified in the case that

645: there is CP or CPT violation.  For $B_d$  decays the $CP$ violation has

646: been observed and will produce such a difference; an interesting

647: question here is whether the CP-violation present in $R_1^+$ is

648: consistent with the CP violation established in other channels,

649: like $J/\psi K_s$.  Deviations will be attributed to new physics

650: and/or CPT violation.

651: Furthermore,

652: in light of the recent discrepencies in the measurements of $CP$ violation in the 

653: decays $B_d \to J/\psi K_s$ and  $B_d \to \phi K_s$ one could envisage new physcis 

654: contribution involving new penguin operators \cite{gudrun}. Such operators could 

655: induce 

656: modifications to mixing matrix defined in (\ref{matrix}) and hence modify the 

657: expected signals from the ratio $R_1^+$. In

658: the present analysis, we do not consider these possible corrections which may be

659: required if the present signals for new physics persists and becomes statistically

660: significant.

661:  The effects in $B_s$ decays will be even more interesting,

662: because it is still possible that in extended models  $\sin(\Phi)/x$ is larger than

663: 0.04 and comparison among various channels, like $J/\psi K_s$ with

664: $\phi K_s$ will be interesting to establish the origin of the effect;

665: whether the new physics originates in the CP or CPT sector or from both.

666: 

667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

668:  However, we note

669: that in principle, by strictly measuring $R_1^+$ alone, one cannot ensure the

670: deviation from $1/2$ as an unambiguous signal for pure $CPT$ violation or pure

671: $CP$ violation. 

672: On the other hand, any corrections due to $CP$ can affect 

673: the ratio $R_1^-$ only at the sub-leading level which is suppressed by 

674: $(\text{Re}[\delta], \text{Im}[\delta])$ and hence is not significant.

675: In the present numerical analysis, we consider much larger values 

676: $(\text{Re}[\delta], \text{Im}[\delta])\sim O(0.1)$ which are not excluded by 

677: current available data. Clearly, at this level the effects due to $CP$ 

678: violation are expected to be small for the $B_s$ system. In the case for the $B_d$ 

679: system, the impact of $\Phi \neq 0$ can be important and must be studied

680: explicitly in the analysis of the data.

681: 

682: \section{Summary}

683: \label{summary}

684: We discussed indirect $CPT$ violation as it appears in the $B$ meson system. 

685: The break down of the $CPT$ symmetry occurs in several theories and modifies 

686: the time development of the states. The development is characterized in 

687: terms of a parameter $\delta$ which is phase-convention independent

688: \cite{Chou:1999wn}. Consequences of the break down of the $CPT$ symmetries 

689: manifests

690: itself in the time development of the states.

691:  Our attention is addressed to the

692: production of $B_s\bar B_s$ and $B_d\bar B_d$

693: pairs in a odd charge conjugation state. In the case of $B_{s}$ and 

694: $\bar B_{s}$ system, the decay depends on the $CPT$ violating 

695: parameter $\delta$ while the influence of the $CP$ phase is negligible. 

696: One way to observe the difference (due to $\delta$) is to study the time 

697: development of the decays. However, because of the large number of the events

698: required, we propose time integrated rates. Once the $B_s\bar B_s$ pair is

699: produced, we encounter two different decays; one of them can be semi-leptonic

700: and the other one can be hadronic. We also defined a time-ordering among 

701: them, meaning which one of these events occurs first. 

702:  

703:  The time ordered ratio $R_S$ denotes all the

704: events where the semi-leptonic decay follows the hadronic one; similarly, 

705: $R_L$ includes the events where the semi-leptonic decay occurs before the

706: hadronic \cite{Sinha:1998aj}. These two rates are different for two reasons: 

707: the width differences

708: and because of $CP~\mbox{and/or}~CPT$ violation. 

709:  The ratios were calculated

710: using the formulas given in the appendix and the results were

711: presented in section \ref{numerical}.

712:  We calculated the asymmetries involving $R_{L,S}$ as functions of the

713: parameter $\delta$ and the observed width difference $y$. We summarised our 

714: numerical results in section \ref{numerical} and through 

715: Figs. \ref{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen} to 

716: \ref{R3Minus3DPlotPhiEquals2Beta}. The formalism presented here

717: holds for $B_d$ system as well and our conclusion is that experiments

718: with $10^9$ $B_s\bar B_s$ or $B_d \bar B_d$ pairs will be able to restrict

719: the $\text{Re}[\delta]$ smaller than $10\%$ or otherwise observe an effect.

720: These considerations are within reach of the present experiments 

721: \cite{Leonidopoulos:2001ci,aubert}.

722: 

723: It is important to note that 

724: due to the specific nature of the time ordering, the various 

725: ratios considered here are sensitive

726: to $y$ and hence simultaneously to any $CPT$ pollution which can

727: affect $y$. The impact of $CPT$ violation was shown qualitatively for the 

728: small $\delta$ limit. In this limit, 

729: for zero $CP$ violation, which is a good approximation for the $B_s$ system, 

730: the ratios show a very simple dependence on the parameters $x$ and $y$; thus 

731: allowing for a direct dependence on $\delta$ under suitable limits 

732: $(x\gg y)$. We remark that for this limit, the impact of $CPT$ effects 

733: becomes sensitive to the strength of 

734: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]~\mbox{and}~\textrm{Im}[\delta]$, more so to 

735: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ due to large $x\gg y$; and thus tests the magnitude and

736: phase of the $CPT$ violating parameters.

737: To get a qualitative feeling for the $CPT$ effects, we find from 

738: (\ref{cpt1}) that for $\textrm{Re}[\delta] \sim y$, one can envisage the

739: ratios to exhibit 

740: $CPT$ violating effects $\sim \textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and thus can be

741: large\footnote{As mentioned earlier,

742: this effect is observable provided $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ does not get washed 

743: out due to the errors in $y$.} $\sim O(0.10)$. In a similar spirit, 

744: from (\ref{cpt3}) we can expect deviations (here of $O(0.02)$) which is 

745: relatively independent of the parameters $x$ and $y$. To our knowledge, this 

746: situation is in contrast with many 

747: other interesting alternative methods known in the literature where such a 

748: simple dependence is perhaps not observed in the limit of a small $CPT$ 

749: violating parameter and thus show a different sensitive to $CPT$ effects 

750: than the method prescribed here.

751: 

752: %\newpage

753: 

754: \begin{appendix}

755: \section{Appendix}

756: \label{appendix}

757: 

758:  In this section, we present exact expressions for the rates calculated

759: from (\ref{amp}) using the definition

760: 

761: \bea

762: R_S\left[l^\pm (f, \bar f)\right]&=&\lint_0^\infty dt_0 \lint_0^{t_0} dt 

763: \abs{A[l^\pm (f, \bar f)]}^2~,\nonumber\\

764: R_L\left[l^\pm (f, \bar f)\right]&=&

765: \lint_0^\infty dt_0 \lint_{t_0}^{\infty} dt 

766: \abs{A[l^\pm (f, \bar f)]}^2~.

767: \label{rsr}

768: \eea

769:  In our notation, $\Omega$ represents the phase of

770: $\omega \approx 1 + \delta$. Defining the overall prefactor

771: \be

772: K = \frac{1+|\omega|^2+2|\omega| \cos \Omega}{2\Gamma^2 |\omega|^2 

773: \left(1+x^2\right)\left(y^2-1\right)}~,

774: \label{factor}

775: \ee

776: we have:

777: \begin{eqnarray}

778: R_S[l^+f]&=&-K\Bigg\{2(x^2+y^2)|\omega|^2|\xi|^2

779: +2|\xi\omega| r\Big[(1+y)(x^2+y)|\omega|

780: \cos(\eta+\Phi)\nonumber\\ &-&(y-1)(y-x^2)

781: \cos(\eta+\Phi-\Omega)+ x(1+y)[|\omega|

782:   \sin(\eta+\Phi)+\sin(\eta +\Phi-\Omega)]\Big]\nonumber\\

783: &+ & r^2[(1+x^2)(1+|\omega|^2+y(|\omega|^2-1))+2(y^2-1)|\omega|

784: (x\sin \Omega-\cos \Omega)]

785: \Bigg\}~,\nonumber\\

786: %\end{eqnarray}

787: %\begin{eqnarray}

788: R_L[l^+f]&=& K\Bigg\{

789: -2(x^2+y^2)|\xi|^2|\omega|^2+r^2(1+x^2)

790: (-1-y+(-1+y)|\omega|^2)\nonumber\\

791: &+&

792: 2r|\omega|\Big\{(-1+y^2)\{r\cos\Omega-x|\xi|(|\omega|+

793: \cos\Omega)\sin(\eta+\Phi)\}\nonumber\\

794: &+&(1+y)\{rx(-1+y)+(x^2+y)|\xi|  \sin(\eta+\Phi)\}\sin\Omega\nonumber\\

795: &+&|\xi|\cos(\eta+\Phi)\{(1+y)(x^2+y)

796: \cos\Omega+(y-1)[(x^2-y)|\omega|+x(1+y)\sin\Omega]\}

797: \Big\}

798: \Bigg\}~.\nonumber\\

799: \end{eqnarray}

800: 

801: \begin{eqnarray}

802: R_S\left[l^-f\right]&=&K\Bigg\{

803: -2r^2(x^2+y^2)+(1+x^2)|\xi|^2(-1-y+(y-1)

804: |\omega|^2)-|\xi|\big[2r\big((1+y)(x^2+y)\nonumber\\ &\times&

805: \cos(\eta+\Phi)+(y-1)

806: [(x^2-y)|\omega|\cos(\eta+\Phi-\Omega)+x(1+y)(\sin(\eta+\Phi)\nonumber\\ &+& 

807: |\omega|\sin(\eta+\Phi-\Omega))]\big)\big]

808: +2|\xi|^2\left(y^2-1\right)|\omega|\left[\cos\Omega+x\sin\Omega\right]\Bigg\}~,

809: \nonumber\\

810: %\end{eqnarray}

811: %\begin{eqnarray}

812: R_L\left[l^-f\right]&=&-K\Bigg\{2r^2[x^2+y^2]+(1+x^2)|\xi|^2(1+|\omega|^2+y

813: (|\omega|^2-1))-2(y^2-1)|\xi|(|\xi\omega|\cos\Omega\nonumber\\

814: &+&rx(1+|\omega|\cos\Omega)

815: \sin(\eta+\Phi)-2(1+y)|\xi\omega|(-x(y-1)\xi+r(x^2+y)\sin(\eta+\Phi))

816: \nonumber\\ &\times&

817: \sin\Omega +2r|\xi|\cos(\eta+\Phi)(-(1+y)(x^2+y)\nonumber\\ &\times&

818: |\omega|\cos\Omega+(y-1)(-x^2+y+x(1+y)|\omega|\sin\Omega))

819: \Bigg\}~.\nonumber\\

820: \end{eqnarray}

821: 

822: 

823: \begin{eqnarray}

824: R_S\left[l^+\bar f\right]&=&-K\Bigg\{

825: 2r^2(x^2+y^2)|\xi|^2|\omega|^2

826: +(1+x^2)(1+|\omega|^2+y(|\omega|^2-1))+2(y^2-1)|\omega|

827: \nonumber\\ &\times&(x\sin\Omega-\cos\Omega)

828: +|\omega|\big[

829: 2r|\xi|\big((1+y)(x^2+y)|\omega|\cos(\eta-\Phi)+(y-1)

830: ((x^2-y)\nonumber\\ &\times&\cos(\eta-\Phi+\Omega)

831: +x(1+y)(|\omega|\sin(\eta-\Phi)+\sin(\eta-\Phi+\Omega)))

832: \big)\big]\Bigg\}~,

833: \nonumber\\ 

834: %\end{eqnarray}

835: %\begin{eqnarray}

836: R_L\left[l^+\bar f\right]&=&K\Bigg\{

837: -(1+x^2)(1+y)+((1+x^2)(y-1)-2r^2(x^2+y^2)|\xi|^2)|\omega|^2

838: +2r(x^2-y)\nonumber\\ &\times&(y-1)

839: |\xi||\omega|^2\cos(\eta-\Phi)+2(y^2-1)|\omega| \cos\Omega

840: +2|\omega|\big[r(1+y)(x^2+y)|\xi|\nonumber\\ &\times&

841: \cos(\eta-\Phi+\Omega)

842: +x(y^2-1)(\sin\Omega+r\xi(|\omega|\sin(\eta-\Phi)+\sin(\eta-\Phi+

843: \Omega)))\big]\Bigg\}~.\nonumber\\

844: \end{eqnarray}

845: 

846: \begin{eqnarray}

847: R_S\left[l^-\bar f\right]&=&K

848: \Bigg\{-2y^2-r^2|\xi|^2+r^2|\xi|^2(y+|\omega|^2-y|\omega|^2)-x^2(2+

849: r^2|\xi|^2(1+y+|\omega|^2-y|\omega|^2))\nonumber\\ &-&2r(1+y)(x^2+y^2)

850: |\xi|\cos(\eta-\Phi)+2r(y-1)|\xi|[r(1+y)|\xi\omega|\nonumber\\ &\times&

851:   \cos\Omega+(y-x^2)|\omega|\cos(\eta-\Phi+\Omega)

852: +x(1+y)(\sin(\eta-

853: \Phi)+r|\xi|\omega\sin\Omega)\nonumber\\ &+&

854: 2rx(y^2-1)|\xi\omega|\sin(\eta-\Phi+\Omega)

855: \Bigg\}~, 

856: \nonumber\\ 

857: %\end{eqnarray}

858: %\begin{eqnarray}

859: R_L\left[l^-\bar f\right]&=&-K\Bigg\{2(x^2+y^2)

860: +r|\xi|\Big[r|\xi|((1+x^2)(1+|\omega|^2+y(|\omega|^2-1))+2|\omega|(y^2-1)

861: \nonumber\\

862: &\times&(-\cos\Omega+x\sin\Omega))+2\Big[(y-1)(y-x^2)\cos(\eta-\Phi)-

863: (1+y)(x^2+y)\nonumber\\ &\times&|\omega|\cos(\eta-

864: \Phi+\Omega)

865: +x(y^2-1)(\sin(\eta-\Phi)+|\omega|(\eta-\Phi+\Omega))\Big]

866: \Bigg\}~.\nonumber\\

867: \end{eqnarray}

868: \end{appendix}

869: 

870: \begin{center} 

871: {\bf Acknowledgments} 

872: \end{center} 

873: This work has been supported by the

874: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie,

875: Bonn under contract no. 05HT1PEA9. We also like to thank Yuval Grossman,

876: Amitava Datta and Anirban Kundu for useful comments and discussions.

877: 

878: \newpage

879: %\bibliography{dipl}

880: %\bibliographystyle{utphys}

881: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

882: 

883: \bibitem{Kobayashi:1992uj}

884: M.~Kobayashi and A.~I. Sanda, {\em Phys. Rev.

885:   Lett.} {\bf 69} (1992) 3139.

886: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,3139;%%.

887: 

888: \bibitem{strings}

889: V.A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D39} (1989) 683;

890: {\em ibid} {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 63} (1989) 224.

891: 

892: \bibitem{Kostelecky:1991ak}

893: V.~A. Kostelecky and R.~Potting, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B359} (1991) 545.

894: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B359,545;%%.

895: 

896: \bibitem{Mocioiu:2001fx}

897: I.~Mocioiu, M.~Pospelov, and R.~Roiban, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D65} (2002) 107702.

898: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108136;%%.

899: 

900: \bibitem{Colladay:2003tj}

901: D.~Colladay, {\tt hep-ph/0301223} and references therein.

902: 

903: \bibitem{Sinha:1998aj}

904: N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 116001.

905: 

906: \bibitem{kos2001}

907: V. A. Kostelecky, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D64} (2001) 076001.

908: 

909: \bibitem{Kostelecky:1996fk}

910: V.~A. Kostelecky and R.~Van~Kooten, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D54} (1996) 5585.

911: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607449;%%.

912: 

913: \bibitem{Xing:1994ep}

914: Z. -z. Xing, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) R2957; {\em ibid Phys. Rev.} {\bf

915: D55} (1997) 196.

916: 

917: \bibitem{Banuls:2000ki}

918: M.~C. Banuls and J.~Bernabeu, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B590} (2000) 19.

919: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005323;%%.

920: 

921: \bibitem{Dass:2000fb}

922: G.~V. Dass, W.~Grimus, and L.~Lavoura, {\em JHEP} {\bf 02} (2001) 044.

923: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012131;%%.

924: 

925: \bibitem{Datta:2002wa}

926: A.~Datta, E.~A. Paschos, and L.~P. Singh, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B548}

927:   (2002) 146.

928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209090;%%.

929: 

930: \bibitem{Chou:1999wn}

931: K.~C. Chou, W.~F. Palmer, E.~A. Paschos, and Y.~L. Wu,

932:   {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C16} (2000) 279.

933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911466;%%.

934: 

935: \bibitem{Paschos:1989ur}

936: E.~A. Paschos and U.~Turke, {\em Phys.

937:   Rept.} {\bf 178} (1989) 145.

938: %%CITATION = PRPLC,178,145;%%.

939: 

940: \bibitem{cptkos}

941: V. A. Kostelecky and A. Roberts, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 096002;

942: and ref. \cite{kos2001} for a detailed description.

943: 

944: \bibitem{lavoura}

945: L. Lavoura, and J.P. Silva, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 056003.

946: 

947: \bibitem{Leonidopoulos:2001ci}

948: {BELLE} Collaboration, C.~Leonidopoulos, {\tt hep-ex/0107001}.

949: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107001;%%.

950: 

951: \bibitem{lepbosc}

952: Coyle, Lucchesi, Mele, Parodi, and Spagnolo, 

953: {\em Combined results on {${\Delta\Gamma}/{\Gamma}$}}. 

954: LEP working group on B oscillations, 2001.

955: 

956: \bibitem{Pan:2002eg}

957: Y.-b. Pan, {{\tt hep-ex/0209071}}.

958: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209071;%%.

959: 

960: \bibitem{Hagiwara:2002fs}

961: {Particle Data Group} Collaboration, K.~Hagiwara {\em et al.,}

962: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} (2002) 010001.

963: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%.

964: 

965: \bibitem{bigisanda}

966: I.~I.~Bigi and A.I.~Sanda, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B193} (1981) 85;

967: Jonathan L. Rosner, {\tt hep-ph/0305315}. 

968: 

969: \bibitem{gudrun}

970: David Atwood and Gudrun Hiller, hep-ph/0307251.

971: 

972: \bibitem{aubert}

973: {BABAR} Collaboration, B.~Aubert, {\tt hep-ex/0303043}.

974: \end{thebibliography}

975: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

976: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

977: 

978: \begin{figure}[h]

979:  \begin{minipage}{0.42\textwidth}

980:     \begin{center}

981:       \psfrag{x}{$R_1^-$}

982:       \psfrag{y}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

983: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen.eps}  % Filename.eps

984:       \caption{Ratio $R_1^-$ versus $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ for 

985: the $B_s$ system. The three curves correspond to 

986: $|y|= 0.05$ (upper line), $|y|= 0.12$ (middle line) and $|y|=0.19$ 

987: (lower line).}

988:       \label{bsR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen}

989:     \end{center}

990:   \end{minipage}

991: %\end{figure}

992: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

994: %\begin{figure}[h]

995:   \begin{minipage}{0.68\textwidth}

996:     \begin{center}

997:       \psfrag{z}{$R_2$}

998:        \psfrag{x}{$\textrm{Im}\left[\delta\right]$}

999:         \psfrag{y}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

1000:  \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero.eps}  

1001: % Filename.eps

1002:       \caption{3D Plot for $R_2$ showing the dependence on 

1003: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ for the $B_s$ system. }

1004:       \label{bR2MinusDelta3dPlotPhiEqualZero}

1005:     \end{center}

1006:   \end{minipage}% Dies Prozent ist wichtig! (kein horiz. Abst. zw. minipages)

1007: \end{figure}

1008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1010: \begin{figure}[h]

1011:   \begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}

1012:     \begin{center}

1013:       \psfrag{z}{$R_1^+$}

1014:       \psfrag{x}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

1015:       \psfrag{y}{$\Phi$}

1016:       \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bDependenceOnPhiR1Plus.eps}  

1017: % Filename.eps

1018:       \caption{The ratio $R_1^+$ as a function of $\Phi$ for the $B_d$ 

1019: system. The phase $\Phi$ is given in radians.}

1020:       \label{DependenceOnPhiR1Plus}

1021:     \end{center}

1022:  \end{minipage}% Dies Prozent ist wichtig! (kein horiz. Abst. zw. minipages)

1023: %\end{figure}

1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1026:   \begin{minipage}{0.04\textwidth}

1027:      \hfill % Damit die getrennte Beschriftung auch Abstand hat

1028:   \end{minipage}%

1029:   \begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}

1030:     \begin{center}

1031:       \psfrag{z}{$R_1^-$}

1032:       \psfrag{x}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

1033:       \psfrag{y}{$\Phi$}

1034:       \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bDependenceOnPhiR1Minus.eps}

1035:       \caption{ The same as Fig. \ref{DependenceOnPhiR1Plus} for the ratio

1036:  $R_1^-$.}

1037:       \label{DependenceOnPhiR1Minus}

1038:     \end{center}

1039:   \end{minipage}

1040: \end{figure}

1041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1043: \begin{figure}[h]

1044:   \begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}

1045:     \begin{center}

1046:       \psfrag{y}{$R_1^-$}

1047:       \psfrag{x}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

1048:       \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bR1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen.eps}  % Filename.eps

1049:       \caption{ Dependence of $R_1^-$ on $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ 

1050: for the $B_d$ system. The width in the plot is due to the errors in $y,x$ and

1051: $\Phi$. The range of these values are specified in the text.}

1052:       \label{R1MinusDelta_2DPlot_RealPart_Streifen}

1053:     \end{center}

1054:   \end{minipage}% Dies Prozent ist wichtig! (kein horiz. Abst. zw. minipages)

1055: %\end{figure}

1056: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1058:   \begin{minipage}{0.04\textwidth}

1059:      \hfill % Damit die getrennte Beschriftung auch Abstand hat

1060:   \end{minipage}%

1061:   \begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}

1062:     \begin{center}

1063:       \psfrag{z}{$R_3$}

1064:       \psfrag{x}{$\textrm{Im}\left[\delta\right]$}

1065:        \psfrag{y}{$\textrm{Re}\left[\delta\right]$}

1066:       \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bR3Minus3DPlotPhiEquals2Beta.eps}

1067:       \caption{3D Plot for the ratio $R_3$ its dependence on 

1068: $\textrm{Re}[\delta]$ and $\textrm{Im}[\delta]$ for $B_d$ system. 

1069: One can see that the imaginary part is detectable.}

1070:       \label{R3Minus3DPlotPhiEquals2Beta}

1071:     \end{center}

1072:   \end{minipage}

1073: \end{figure}

1074: 

1075: 

1076: \end{document} 

1077: 

1078: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1079: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1080: