1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}
3: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}
4:
5: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
6: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
7: % first citation.
8:
9: % A useful Journal macro
10: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
11:
12: % Some useful journal names
13: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
14: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
15: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
16: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
17: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
18: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
19: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
20: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
21:
22: % Some other macros used in the sample text
23: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
24: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
25: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
26: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
27: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
28: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
29: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
30: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
31: \def\ko{K^0}
32: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
33: \def\al{\alpha}
34: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
35: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
36: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
37: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
38: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
39: \def \bo{B^0}
40: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
41: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
42: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
43: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
44: \def \cn{Collaboration}
45: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
46: \begin{document}
47: \rightline{EFI 03-17}
48: \rightline{hep-ph/0304240}
49: \bigskip
50: \centerline{\it Presented at the XXXVIII Rencontre de Moriond:
51: Electroweak Interactions}
52: \centerline{\it and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, March 15--22, 2003}
53:
54: %\def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
55: %temp replacement due to no font
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: % %
58: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
59: % %
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61: %\vspace*{4cm}
62: \vspace*{2cm}
63: \title{P AND CP VIOLATION IN $B$ DECAYS}
64:
65: \author{Michael Gronau\footnote{Permanent Address: Physics
66: Department, Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa,
67: Israel.}}
68:
69: \address{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,\\
70: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637}
71:
72: \maketitle\abstracts{
73: While the Kobayashi--Maskawa model of CP violation
74: passed its first crucial precision test in $B\to J/\psi K_S$,
75: other CP asymmetries in $B$ and $B_s$ decays will have to be measured
76: in order to critically test and overconstrain the model in
77: an unambiguous way. On another front, the chirality of weak $b$-quark
78: couplings has not yet been carefully tested. We discuss recent proposals
79: for studying both the chiral and CP-violating phase structures of these
80: couplings in $B\to D^*\rho$ and $B\to D^*a_1$.
81: }
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84: The Kobayashi--Maskawa model for CP violation was suggested
85: thirty years ago~\cite{KM} to explain the tiny CP non-conservation
86: observed in $K$ decays. In the past two years the model passed in a
87: remarkable way its first crucial test in $B$ decays~\cite{sanda} when
88: a large CP asymmetry was measured~\cite{psiKS} in $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$,
89: in excellent agreement with expectations. The great virtue of this
90: decay mode is the absence of hadronic uncertainties~\cite{gold} in
91: predicting the {\em mixing induced asymmetry} in terms
92: of a fundamental phase parameter $\beta\equiv \phi_1$ of the Standard
93: Model. This opens a new era, in which other CP asymmetries in $B$ and
94: $B_s$ decays will have to be measured in order to test the weak phase
95: structure of $b$ quark couplings in an unambiguous way. Hopefully, this
96: will lead to a point where deviations from the simple CKM framework will
97: be observed. An important step in this direction would be a measurement
98: of the phase $\gamma\equiv \phi_3$, usually associated with {\em CP
99: violation in direct decays}. Several methods along this line, in which
100: experimental progress has been made recently, were discussed at this
101: meeting.\,\cite{Rosner,Nakadaira,Hamel,Tomura,Swain}
102:
103: The most accessible experimental tests for $\gamma$, in processes such as
104: $B~(B_s)\to~\pi\pi$~$(KK)$ and $B~(B_s) \to K\pi$, involve theoretical
105: hadronic uncertainties due to penguin amplitudes, which may be
106: resolved by applying approximate symmetries such as isospin or flavor
107: SU(3) including SU(3) breaking effects.\,\cite{Rosner} Other tests,
108: including $B^\pm\to DK^\pm$,\,\cite{Swain,GW} which
109: are free of such uncertainties, usually require a larger number of $B$
110: mesons than produced so far. Our present discussion will focus on two
111: theoretically clean studies of $B^0 \to D^-\rho^+$ and $B^0\to D^-a^+_1$,
112: where time-dependent CP asymmetries are sensitive to the weak phase
113: $2\beta + \gamma$, combining the mixing phase $2\beta$ and the decay phase
114: $\gamma$. While these studies are very challenging from an experimental
115: point of view, and require much more data than accumulated so far, we will
116: explain first what can be learned from existing data of these processes,
117: without performing time-dependent measurements. In particular, we will
118: show how to test the left-handed chirality of the weak $b$ quark coupling,
119: for which very little evidence exists.\,\cite{MG}
120:
121: Our motivation for calling for chirality tests of $b$ quark coupling is
122: both phenomenological (1) as well as theoretical (2):
123: \begin{enumerate}
124: \item The very small charged current $b$ quark couplings,\,\cite{PDG}
125: $|V_{cb}| = 0.04,~|V_{ub}| = 0.003-0.004$, are more sensitive to new
126: types of interactions, such as right-handed currents, than the lighter
127: quarks' couplings.
128: \item An artificial left-right asymmetry is introduced by hand in the
129: Standard Model in order to account for the low energy weak interaction
130: phenomenology. Ultimately, left-right symmetry may be restored at high
131: energies.\,\cite{LR} If parity violation and the observed quark mass
132: hierarchy (also introduced by hand in the Standard Model in terms of
133: arbitrary Yukawa couplings) have a common origin, then it may be
134: expected that right-handed couplings grow with quark masses and are
135: larger for the $b$ quark than for $s$ and $d$ quarks.
136: \end{enumerate}
137:
138: Our discussion will start with chirality tests for the $b$ coupling and will
139: end with studies of CP violation.
140: In Section 2 we study helicity amplitudes in $B\to D^*\rho$, pointing
141: out the success of predicting these amplitudes using
142: factorization and heavy quark symmetry. Application of the same assumptions
143: to $B \to D^*a_1$ is shown in Section 3 to permit a test of V--A for the
144: $b$ quark coupling. In Section 4 time-dependent CP asymmetries
145: in $B\to D^*\rho$ and $B \to D^*a_1$ are studied in order
146: to learn $2\beta +\gamma$, while Section 5 concludes.
147:
148: \section{The decay $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$}
149: \subsection{Helicity amplitudes}
150: The decays $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}~(\to D^0\pi^+)~\rho^-~(\to \pi^-\pi^0)$,
151: in which each of the two vector mesons decays to two spinless particles
152: whose momenta are measured, can be used to study the vector meson
153: polarization.\,\cite{KG} Using an angular momentum decomposition, the decay
154: amplitude can be written in terms of
155: three helicity amplitudes, $H_0,~H_+,~H_-$, corresponding to the three
156: polarization states of the vector mesons,
157: \beq\label{A}
158: A = \frac{3}{2\sqrt {2\pi}}\left [H_0\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2 +
159: \frac{1}{2}(H_+ e^{i\phi} + H_- e^{-i\phi})\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\right ]~~.
160: \eeq
161: Here $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are the angles between each of the two vector
162: mesons' momenta in the $B$ rest frame and the momenta of the corresponding
163: daughter particles in the decaying vector mesons' rest frame; $\phi$ is
164: the angle between the $D^*$ and $\rho$ decay planes.
165: We use a convention in which the normalized decay angular
166: distribution is given by $|A|^2$,
167: \beq
168: \frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d^3\Gamma}{d\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2 d\phi} =
169: |A|^2 ~~\Rightarrow~~
170: |H_0|^2 + |H_+|^2 + |H_-|^2 = 1~~.
171: \eeq
172:
173: The decay distribution is symmetric under $(H_0,~H_+,~H_-) \to
174: (H^*_0,~H^*_-,~H^*_+)$, implying that rates into left and right
175: polarizations, $|H_-|^2$ and $|H_+|^2$ respectively,
176: are indistinguishable. Namely, one cannot distinguish in this process
177: between left- and right-polarized vector mesons. As will be explained in
178: the next section, this follows from the lack of a parity-odd observable
179: when each of the vector mesons decays into two spinless particles.
180: Thus, while the rate into the longitudinally polarized state $|H_0|^2$
181: can be measured, only the magnitude of $|H_+|^2 - |H_-|^2$ is measurable,
182: but not its sign.
183:
184: \subsection{Factorization and heavy quark symmetry}
185: The three helicity amplitudes $H_{0,\pm}$ can be calculated using
186: factorization and heavy quark symmetry.\,\cite{BBNS2}
187: Factorization implies
188: \beq
189: \langle D^*\rho | H_{\rm eff}| \bar B\rangle \propto
190: \langle D^* |V_\mu - A_\mu | \bar B\rangle \langle \rho |V^\mu |0\rangle~~,
191: \eeq
192: where $\langle \rho(\epsilon) |V^\mu |0\rangle \propto \epsilon^\mu$.
193: In the heavy quark symmetry limit the $V-A$ current matrix element can
194: be written in terms of a single form factor multiplying a purely kinematic
195: factor,
196: \beq
197: \langle D^*(v', \epsilon') |V_\mu - A_\mu| \bar B(v)\rangle \propto
198: i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon'^{\nu}v^\alpha v'^\beta +
199: \epsilon'_\mu(1 + v\cdot v') - v'_\mu\epsilon'\cdot v~~,
200: \eeq
201: where $v\equiv p/m$. In this approximation, the three normalized helicity
202: amplitudes can be written in terms of meson
203: masses. For a $\bar c \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) b$ current one
204: finds~\cite{factor}
205: \beq\label{H}
206: H_0 = \left (1 + \frac{4y}{y + 1}\epsilon^2\right )^{-\frac{1}{2}}~~,~~~~~
207: H_\pm = \left ( 1 \mp \sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\right )\epsilon
208: \left (1 + \frac{4y}{y + 1}\epsilon^2\right )^{-\frac{1}{2}}~~,
209: \eeq
210: where $y \equiv (m_B^2+m_{D^*}^2-m_{\rho}^2)/2m_B m_{D^*} = 1.476,~\epsilon
211: \equiv
212: m_\rho/(m_B - m_{D^*}) = 0.236$. Thus, one obtains the values
213: \beq\label{Hi}
214: H_0 = 0.940~,~~~~ H_+ = 0.125~,~~~~H_- = 0.318~~.
215: \eeq
216: These predictions of the Standard Model apply to $\bar B^0$ decays,
217: while in $B^0$ decays the values of $H_+$ and $H_-$ are
218: interchanged. In the case of a $\bar c \gamma_\mu (1 + \gamma_5) b$
219: current, the roles of $H_+$ and $H_-$ are interchanged.
220:
221: The following values were reported very recently by the CLEO collaboration
222: for $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$:\,\cite{CLEO}
223: \bea\label{CLEO}
224: |H_0| & = & 0.941 \pm 0.009 \pm 0.006~~,\nonumber \\
225: |H_+|~{\rm or}~|H_-| & = & 0.107 \pm 0.031 \pm 0.011~~,\nonumber \\
226: |H_-|~{\rm or}~|H_+| & = & 0.322 \pm 0.025 \pm 0.016~~.
227: \eea
228: The collaboration quotes a value for $|H_+|$ which is
229: smaller than $|H_-|$, assuming that the $D^*$ predominantly carries
230: the chirality of the $c$ quark, as would follow from a
231: $\bar c\gamma_\mu(1 - \gamma_5)b$ coupling. While it is impossible to
232: check this assumption in this experiment, it is important to verify it
233: elsewhere.
234:
235: The experimental results (\ref{CLEO}) are in very good agreement with
236: the amplitudes calculated in Eq.~(\ref{Hi}). In particular, the measured
237: value of $|H_0|$ agrees with the Standard Model prediction at
238: a very high precision.
239: The agreement between theory and experiment for $|H_{\pm}|$ is
240: somewhat surprising, since one expects sizable deviations from
241: factorization in these amplitudes which are by themselves
242: subleading in $1/m_b$. In principle, order $1/m_b$ corrections to
243: factorization in these amplitudes could be as large as the amplitudes
244: themselves.
245: There are some hints in the data~\cite{CLEO} for possibly nonzero relative
246: final state interaction phases between $H_{\pm}$ and $H_0$, which would
247: indicate deviations from factorization.
248: We note that, in spite of this outstanding agreement
249: between factorization predictions and
250: experiment, measurements of $|H_{\pm}|$ cannot distinguish
251: between $V-A$ and $V+A$ currents. The present experimental precision in
252: the measured values of $|H_{\pm}|$ allows also for an admixture of the two
253: opposite chiralities in the $b \to c$ coupling.
254:
255: \section{The decay $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}a^-_1$}
256: \subsection{What's unique about $B\to D^*a_1$?}
257: In the previous Section we noted that in $B$ meson decays to two vector
258: mesons, each of which decays to two spinless particles whose momenta are
259: measured, one cannot distinguish between left- and right-polarized vector
260: mesons. Therefore, these processes are unsuitable for chirality tests for
261: the $b$ quark coupling. A chirality measurement for one of the two decay
262: particles requires that the particle decays subsequently to a three body
263: final state.
264: The sequence of arguments proving this statement is straightforward:
265: (a) Chirality is a parity-odd quantity, (b) Hadronic quantities
266: multiplying the chirality in the decay distribution must be parity-odd,
267: (c) A pseudoscalar quantity containing the smallest number of hadron
268: momenta is a triple product, $\vec p_1\cdot (\vec p_2\times\vec p_3)$.
269: Thus, chirality measurements can be performed in $B$ meson decays into a
270: vector meson and an axial-vector meson, which decays subsequently to
271: three pseudoscalars. We note in passing that decays into two vector mesons,
272: one of which decays to three pseudoscalars, do not contain sufficient
273: invariants to permit such a measurement.\,\cite{GGPR}
274:
275: This leads us to the decay $\bar B^0\to D^{*+}a^-_1$,
276: in which the $a_1$ is observed through $a_1^- \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$.
277: This decay mode is unique in the following sense.\,\cite{GPW}
278: A triple product $\vec p_1\cdot (\vec p_2\times\vec p_3)$ is not only
279: parity-odd but also time-reversal-odd, which requires a nonzero phase due
280: to final state interactions. Usually, such a phase is incalculable and would
281: render measurements which cannot be interpreted theoretically in a simple
282: manner. In the case of $a_1 \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$, the decay occurs
283: through an interference of two intermediate $\rho^0$ states, the
284: amplitudes of which are equal by isospin. Thus, the final state phase
285: is calculable in terms of the $\rho$ width.
286:
287: \subsection{Distinguishing between left-handed and right-handed helicities}
288: The decay amplitude for $\bar B^0\to D^{*+}a_1^-,~
289: a_1^-\to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$ is written in terms of weak helicity amplitudes
290: $H'_i$, in analogy with (\ref{A}),
291: \beq
292: A(\bar B^0\to D^{*+} \pi^-(p_1)\pi^-(p_2)\pi^+(p_3)) = \sum_{i=0,+,-}
293: H'_i A_i~~.
294: \eeq
295: The strong amplitude $A_i$ involves two terms, corresponding to two
296: possible ways
297: of forming a $\rho$ meson from $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs, each of which can be
298: written
299: in terms of two invariant amplitudes:
300: \beq\label{a1rhopi}
301: A(a_1(p,\varepsilon)\to \rho(p',\varepsilon') \pi) =
302: A(\varepsilon\cdot \varepsilon'^*) + B(\varepsilon\cdot p')
303: (\varepsilon'^*\cdot p)~,
304: \eeq
305: convoluted with the amplitude for $\rho^0(\varepsilon') \to
306: \pi^+(p_i)\pi^-(p_j)$, which
307: is proportional to $\varepsilon'\cdot(p_i - p_j)$.
308: One finds \cite{GPW}
309: \bea\label{a1amp}
310: & & A(a_1^-(p,\varepsilon) \to \pi^-(p_1) \pi^-(p_2) \pi^+(p_3)) \propto
311: C(s_{13}, s_{23}) (\varepsilon\cdot p_1) +(p_1 \leftrightarrow p_2)~,\\
312: \label{C}
313: & & C(s_{13}, s_{23}) = [A + B m_{a_1} (E_3-E_2)] B_\rho (s_{23}) +
314: 2A B_\rho (s_{13})~~,
315: \eea
316: where $s_{ij} = (p_i+p_j)^2,~B_{\rho}(s_{ij}) = (s_{ij} - m^2_{\rho} -
317: im_{\rho}
318: \Gamma_{\rho})^{-1}$, and pion energies are given in the $a_1$ rest frame.
319: The amplitudes
320: $A$ and $B$ are related to $S$- and $D$-wave $\rho\pi$ amplitudes.
321: When neglecting the small $D$-wave amplitude,\,\cite{PDG} they
322: obey~\cite{SD}
323: \beq\label{AB}
324: B = -A \left(1-\frac{m_\rho}{E_\rho}\right)\frac{E_\rho}{m_\rho \vec
325: p_\rho\,^2}~~.
326: \eeq
327:
328: Defining an angle $\theta$ between the normal to the $a_1$ decay plane,
329: $\hat n$, and the direction opposite to the $D^*$ in the $a_1$ rest frame,
330: one calculates the $B\to D^* 3\pi$ decay distribution,
331: \bea\label{dist}
332: \frac{d\Gamma}{ds_{13}ds_{23}d\cos\theta} & \propto &
333: |H'_0|^2 \sin^2\theta |\vec J|^2 +
334: (|H'_+|^2 + |H'_-|^2)\frac12 (1 + \cos^2 \theta) |\vec J|^2\nonumber \\
335: & + & (|H'_+|^2 - |H'_-|^2) \cos\theta\,\mbox{Im}[(\vec J\times
336: \vec J^*)\cdot \hat n]~~,
337: \eea
338: where
339: \beq\label{J}
340: \vec J = C(s_{13}, s_{23}) \vec p_1 + C(s_{23}, s_{13}) \vec p_2~~.
341: \eeq
342: A fit to the angular decay distribution enables separate measurements
343: of the three terms $|H'_0|^2,~|H'_+|^2 + |H'_-|^2$ and $|H'_+|^2 -
344: |H'_-|^2$.
345: We note that when calculating the quantity $\vec J$ {\em free of any
346: parameter}, using Eq.~(\ref{AB}), we have only assumed for the $a_1$
347: an $S$-wave $\rho^0\pi^-$ structure, without using the $a_1$ resonance
348: shape and width, which would have involved a large uncertainty.\,\cite{PDG}
349: A small $D$-wave correction can also be incorporated in the calculation.
350:
351: \subsection{Factorization and a chirality test}
352: In the heavy quark symmetry and factorization
353: approximation,\,\cite{BBNS2,factor} using
354: (\ref{H}) where $y \equiv (m_B^2+m_{D^*}^2-m_{a_1}^2)/2m_B m_{D^*} = 1.432,~
355: \epsilon \equiv m_{a_1}/(m_B - m_{D^*}) = 0.376$ , the results for a
356: $\bar c\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)b$ current are
357: \beq\label{H'i}
358: H'_0 = 0.866~,~~~~ H'_+ = 0.188~,~~~~H'_- = 0.463~.
359: \eeq
360: These values, which depend somewhat on $m_{a_1}$, can be verified by
361: measuring the decay distribution (\ref{dist}).
362:
363: In order to define a measure for the sensitivity of determining the
364: chirality of the $b$ quark coupling,\,\cite{better} let us consider the
365: following P-odd up--down asymmetry of the $D^*$ momentum direction with
366: respect to the
367: $a_1$ decay plane:
368: \beq
369: {\cal A} = \frac{\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{d\Gamma}{d\theta}d\theta -
370: \int_{\pi/2}^\pi \frac{d\Gamma}{d\theta}d\theta}{\Gamma}~~.
371: \eeq
372: One has
373: \beq\label{As}
374: {\cal A} = \frac{3}{4} \frac{\langle \mbox{Im }[\hat n\cdot (\vec J\times
375: \vec J^*)]
376: \mbox{sgn }(s_{13}-s_{23})\rangle}{\langle |\vec J|^2\rangle}
377: \frac{|H'_+|^2 - |H'_-|^2}{|H'_0|^2+|H'_+|^2 + |H'_-|^2}~~,
378: \eeq
379: and integration over the entire Dalitz plot gives
380: \beq
381: {\cal A} = -0.237 \frac{|H'_+|^2 - |H'_-|^2}{|H'_0|^2+|H'_+|^2 + |H'_-|^2}~~.
382: \eeq
383: Measuring this asymmetry determines $|H'_+|^2 - |H'_-|^2$.
384: Using Eq.~(\ref{H'i}), one obtains ${\cal A} = 0.042$.
385:
386: The sign of the asymmetry provides an unambiguous signature for
387: a $V-A$ coupling, in contrast to $V+A$ which would yield an opposite sign.
388: In the center-of-mass frame of $\pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$ {\em the $\bar B^0$ and
389: $D^{*+}$ prefer to move in the hemisphere defined by the direction
390: $\vec{p}(\pi^-)_{\rm fast}\times \vec{p}(\pi^-)_{\rm slow}$}. In order
391: to measure an asymmetry at this level one needs about 5000 identified
392: $B \to D^*a_1$ events. A very large sample of $18400 \pm 1200$ partially
393: reconstructed events was reported recently
394: by the BaBar collaboration,\,\cite{BABARa1}
395: in which the $a_1$ was reconstructed via the decay
396: chain $a^-_1 \to \rho^0\pi^-,~\rho^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$ while the $D^*$ was
397: identified by a slow pion. A correspondingly smaller
398: sample of fully reconstructed events seems sufficient for an up-down
399: asymmetry measurement.
400: A more precise measurement of $|H'_+|^2 - |H'_-|^2$ than from the
401: asymmetry alone may be obtained by fitting data to the energy- and
402: angle-dependent decay distribution given in Eq.~(\ref{dist}).
403:
404: \section{Determining $2\beta + \gamma$ in time-dependent decays}
405: Both $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$ and $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}a^-_1$ belong to
406: a class of processes, which also contains $\bar B^0 \to D^+\pi^-,
407: D^{*+}\pi^-,~D^+\rho^-$,\,\cite{ID} from which the weak phase
408: $2\beta + \gamma$ can be determined with no hadronic
409: uncertainty. Using the well-measured value \cite{psiKS} of $\beta$
410: this would fix $\gamma$. The difficulty in these methods
411: lies in having to measure a very small time-dependent
412: interference between $b\to c \bar u d$ and doubly-CKM-suppressed $\bar b
413: \to \bar u c \bar d$ transitions, where $|V^*_{ub}V_{cd}/V_{cb}V^*_{ud}|
414: \simeq 0.02$.
415:
416: In decays to $D^+\pi^-,~D^{*+}\pi^-,~D^+\rho^-$ the resulting
417: analyses are sensitive to the square of a doubly-CKM-suppressed
418: amplitude, a precise knowledge of which is very challenging.
419: In decays to two vector mesons, $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$,
420: one avoids the need to determine this small quantity by using an
421: interference between helicity amplitudes of CKM-allowed
422: and doubly-CKM-suppressed decays. This was claimed~\cite{LSS} to
423: improve the sensitivity, but requires a detailed angular analysis in
424: addition to time-dependent measurements. The feasibility of using an
425: angular analysis for measuring the helicity amplitudes in the dominant
426: CKM-allowed channel was demonstrated by the CLEO collaboration~\cite{CLEO}
427: as discussed above.
428: It will require considerably more statistics to measure the time and
429: angular dependent interference of helicity amplitudes with such disparate
430: magnitudes. Here we will assume that sufficient statistics
431: is gained,\,\cite{Wilson}
432: and will describe this method for determining $2\beta + \gamma$, first
433: in $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$,\,\cite{LSS} and then in $\bar B^0 \to
434: D^{*+}a^-_1$,\,\cite{GPW} where a discrete ambiguity in the weak phase
435: will be shown to be resolved.
436:
437: \subsection{$\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*+}\rho^-$}
438: It is convenient to write the amplitude $A \equiv A(\bar B^0 \to
439: D^{*+}(\to D^0\pi^+)
440: \rho^-(\to\pi^-\pi^0))$ in a linear polarization basis (a so-called
441: transversity basis~\cite{factor,DQSTL}), in which the
442: $D^*$ and $\rho$ transverse polarizations are either parallel or
443: perpendicular to one another,
444: $H_{\parallel,\perp} = (H_+ \pm H_-)/\sqrt{2}$, and to similarly expand
445: $a \equiv A(B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-)$ in terms of $h_{0,\parallel,\perp}$:
446: \bea\label{Aa}
447: A & = & \frac{3}{2\sqrt {2\pi}}(H_0g_0 + H_\parallel g_\parallel +
448: iH_\perp g_\perp)~,~~
449: a = \frac{3}{2\sqrt {2\pi}}(h_0g_0 + h_\parallel g_\parallel +
450: ih_\perp g_\perp)~,\\
451: \label{gt}
452: g_0 & = & \cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2~,~g_\parallel =
453: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\cos\phi~,~g_\perp =
454: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\sin\phi~~.
455: \eea
456: The transversity amplitudes can be written as
457: \beq
458: H_t = |H_t|\exp(i\Delta_t)~~,~~~~~~h_t = |h_t|\exp(i\delta_t)\exp(i\gamma)~~.
459: \eeq
460:
461: The time-dependent rate for $\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*+}\rho^-$ has the
462: general form
463: \bea\label{Bt}
464: \Gamma(t) & \propto & e^{-\Gamma t}\left [(|A|^2 + |a|^2) + (|A|^2 -
465: |a|^2)\cos\Delta mt\right .
466: + \left. 2 {\rm Im}\left( e^{-2i\beta} A a^*\right)\sin \Delta
467: mt\right ]\nonumber\\
468: & = & e^{-\Gamma t}\sum_{t \le t'}\left (\Lambda_{tt'} +
469: \Sigma_{tt'}\cos\Delta mt
470: + \rho_{tt'}\sin\Delta mt \right )g_tg_{t'}~.
471: \eea
472: Each of the coefficients in the sum can be measured by performing a
473: time-dependent
474: angular analysis. Denoting $\Phi \equiv 2\beta + \gamma$, this
475: determines the following quantities:
476: \bea\label{terms}
477: & & |H_t|^2~,~~~|H_0||H_\perp|\sin(\Delta_0 - \Delta_\perp)~,~~~
478: |H_\parallel||H_\perp|\sin(\Delta_\parallel -
479: \Delta_\perp)~~,\nonumber \\
480: & & |H_t||h_t|\sin(\Phi +\Delta_t -\delta_t )~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
481: (t = 0,\parallel,\perp )~~,
482: \nonumber \\
483: & & |H_\perp|h_0|\cos(\Phi + \Delta_\perp - \delta_0) -
484: |H_0|h_\perp|\cos(\Phi + \Delta_0 - \delta_\perp)~~,\nonumber \\
485: & & |H_\perp|h_\parallel|\cos(\Phi + \Delta_\perp - \delta_\parallel) -
486: |H_\parallel|h_\perp|\cos(\Phi + \Delta_\parallel - \delta_\perp)~~.
487: \eea
488: One does not rely on knowledge of the small $|h_t|^2$ terms,\,\cite{LSS}
489: in which uncertainties would
490: be large. Decays into the charge-conjugate state $D^{*-}\rho^+$
491: determine similar quantities, where $\Phi$ is replaced by $-\Phi$. It is
492: then straightforward to show that
493: this overall information is sufficient for determining $|\sin\Phi|$.
494: However, the sign of $\sin(2\beta +\gamma)$ remains ambiguous.
495:
496: \subsection{What is new in the time-dependence of $\bar B^0(t)
497: \to D^{*+}a^-_1$ ?}
498: The amplitudes $A'\equiv A(\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}(3\pi)^-_{a_1})$ and $a'
499: \equiv A(B^0 \to
500: D^{*+}(3\pi)^-_{a_1})$ are written in analogy with (\ref{Aa}):
501: \bea
502: A' = \sum_{t=0,\parallel,\perp} H'_t A_t~~,~~~~
503: a' = \sum_{t=0,\parallel,\perp} h'_t A_t~~.
504: \eea
505: Instead of the {\em real} functions $g_t$ in Eq.~(\ref{gt}) of the angular
506: variables $\theta_1,~\theta_2$ and $\phi$, one has calculable {\em complex}
507: amplitudes $A_t$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{a1amp}). These are functions of
508: $\theta$ defined above, an angle $\chi$ describing a common angle of
509: rotation for the three pions in the $a_1$ decay plane, and an angle $\psi$
510: determined by the $D^*$ decay plane.\,\cite{GPW} The latter
511: defines the angle between the two intersection lines of the $D^*$ decay
512: plane and of the $a_1$ decay plane with a plane perpendicular to the $D^*$
513: direction.
514:
515: One measures $\Gamma(\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*+}(3\pi)^-_{a_1})$
516: and $\Gamma(\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*-}(3\pi)^+_{a_1})$, with time-dependence
517: as in Eq.~(\ref{Bt}), as a function of $\theta$ and $\psi$ while
518: integrating over $\chi$.
519: Instead of the product of geometrical functions $g_tg_{t'}$ in $B\to D^*\rho$,
520: the sum in Eq.~(\ref{Bt}) now involves calculable functions of the angles
521: $\theta$ and $\psi$, defined as $R_{ij}\equiv (1/2\pi)\int\mbox{d} \chi
522: {\rm Re}(A_iA^*_j)$ and $I_{ij}\equiv (1/2\pi)\int\mbox{d} \chi
523: {\rm Im}(A_iA^*_j)$, ($i,j=0,\parallel,\perp$). The nine independent
524: functions are given by
525: \bea
526: R_{00} & = & \frac12\sin^2\theta |\vec J|^2~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
527: R_{\parallel\,\parallel} = \frac12(1 - \cos^2\psi\sin^2\theta)
528: |\vec J|^2~,\nonumber \\
529: R_{\perp\perp} & = & \frac12(1 - \sin^2\psi\sin^2\theta)|\vec J|^2~~,~~~~~
530: R_{0\parallel} = \sin\psi\sin\theta J^2_n~, \nonumber \\
531: R_{0\perp} & = & \frac{1}{4}\sin\psi\sin 2\theta |\vec J|^2~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~
532: R_{\parallel\perp} = \cos\theta J^2_n~, \nonumber \\
533: I_{0\parallel} & = & -\frac{1}{4}\cos\psi\sin 2\theta |\vec J|^2~~,~~~~~~~~~~~
534: I_{0\perp} = -\cos\psi\sin\theta J^2_n~, \nonumber \\
535: I_{\parallel\perp} & = & -\frac{1}{4}\sin 2\psi\sin^2\theta |\vec J|^2~~,
536: \eea
537: where $J^2_n \equiv (1/2)\mbox{Im}[(\vec J\times \vec J^*)\cdot \hat n]$.
538:
539: The complex amplitudes $A_t$, in
540: contrast to the real functions $g_t$, imply
541: that one can measure both real and imaginary interference terms between
542: transversity amplitudes $H'_t$ and $h'_{t'}$. This includes terms similar to
543: those in Eq.~(\ref{terms}) in which the cosines and sines are interchanged.
544: These additional terms provide information which enables resolving the
545: ambiguity in the sign of $\sin(2\beta + \gamma)$.\,\cite{GPW}
546:
547: The advantage of $B\to D^*a_1$ in determining {\em unambiguously} the
548: CP-violating phase
549: $2\beta + \gamma$ can be traced back to the parity-odd measurables
550: that occur
551: in this process but not in $B \to D^*\rho$. As noted, $|H'_+|^2 -
552: H'_-|^2 = 2{\rm Re}
553: (H'_\parallel H'^*_\perp)$ is P-odd, and so is ${\rm Im}[e^{2i\beta}
554: (H'_\parallel h'^*_\perp +
555: H_\perp h^*_\parallel )]$. These terms, which do not occur in the
556: time-dependent rate of
557: $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$, do occur in $\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*+}a_1^-$
558: multiplying a P-odd function
559: of $\theta$, $\cos\theta\,\mbox{Im}[(\vec J\times \vec J^*)\cdot
560: \hat n]$. A practical advantage of
561: $\bar B^-\to D^{*+}a^-_1$ over $\bar B^0 \to D^{*+}\rho^-$ is the
562: occurrence of only charged pions
563: in the first process. A slight disadvantage of the first process may
564: be an intrinsic uncertainty in the amplitudes $A_t$ calculated in
565: Eq.~(\ref{a1amp}), due to a possible small D-wave $\rho\pi$ amplitude.
566:
567: \section{Conclusion}
568: Predictions of factorization and heavy quark symmetry for helicity
569: amplitudes in $\bar B^0 \to D^{*-}\rho^+$ agree very well with
570: experiment, but do not distinguish between positive and negative
571: helicities. Parity-odd measurables in hadronic $B$ decays are quite
572: rare. We identify such a measurable in $\bar B^0\to D^{*-}a_1^+$
573: in terms of the up-down asymmetry of the $D^*$ momentum direction with
574: respect to the $a_1$ decay plane. Measurement of this asymmetry using
575: current data can test the chirality of the weak $b$ quark coupling.
576: Time-dependent CP asymmetry measurements in $B \to D^*\rho$ and
577: $B \to D^* a_1$, which entail the potential for a clean determination
578: of $2\beta + \gamma$, require considerably more data than acquired
579: so far. Study of $\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*-} a_1^+$ complements that of
580: $\bar B^0(t) \to D^{*-}\rho^+$, and resolves a discrete ambiguity in
581: the CP-violating phase.
582:
583: \section*{Acknowledgments}
584: I thank Dan Pirjol and Daniel Wyler for an enjoyable collaboration
585: on a study of $B\to D^*a_1$, and David London, Nita and Rahul Sinha
586: for pointing out the virtue of $B\to D^*\rho$.
587: I am grateful to the CERN Theory Division and the Enrico Fermi
588: Institute at the University of Chicago for their kind hospitality.
589: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of
590: Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
591:
592:
593: % Journal definitions
594: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
595: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
596: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polon. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
597: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
598: \def \art{and references therein}
599: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
600: \def \cn{Collaboration}
601: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
602: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
603: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
604: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
605: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
606: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
607: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
608: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
609: #2 (#3)}
610: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
611: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
612: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
613: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
614: \def \npb#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
615: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
616: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
617: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
618: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
619: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
620: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
621: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
622: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
623: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
624: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
625: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
626: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
627: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
628: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
629: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
630: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
631: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
632: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
633: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
634: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
635: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Z.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
636:
637: \section*{References}
638: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
639:
640: \bibitem{KM} M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, \ptp{49}{652}{1973}.
641:
642: \bibitem{sanda} A. B. Carter and A. I. Sanda, \prd{23}{1567}{1981};
643: I. I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, \npb{193}{85}{1981}.
644:
645: \bibitem{psiKS} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite,
646: %\prl{87}{091801}{2001}; \prd{66}{032003}{2002};
647: \prl{89}{201802}{2002}; Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite,
648: %\prl{87}{091802}{2001}; \prd{66}{032007}{2002};
649: \prd{66}{071102}{2002}.
650:
651: \bibitem{gold} M. Gronau, \prl{63}{1451}{1989}; D. London and R. L.
652: Peccei, \plb{223}{257}{1989}.
653:
654: \bibitem{Rosner} J. L. Rosner, these Proceedings.
655:
656: \bibitem{Nakadaira} T. Nakadaira, these Proceedings.
657:
658: \bibitem{Hamel} G. Hamel de Monchenault, these Proceedings.
659:
660: \bibitem{Tomura} T. Tomura, these Proceedings.
661:
662: \bibitem{Swain} S. Swain, these Proceedings.
663:
664: \bibitem{GW} M. Gronau and D. Wyler, \plb{265}{172}{1991};
665: M. Gronau, \plb{557}{198}{2003} and references therein.
666:
667: \bibitem{MG} M. Gronau, {\it B Decays}, ed. S. Stone (World Scientific,
668: Singapore, 1994), p. 644; T. G. Rizzo, \prd{58}{055009}{1998}.
669:
670: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\em et al.},
671: \prd{66}{010001}{2002}.
672:
673: \bibitem{LR} J. C. Pati and A. Salam, \prd{10}{275}{1974}; R. N. Mohapatra
674: and J. C. Pati, \prd{11}{566}{1975}.
675:
676: \bibitem{KG} J. G. K\"orner and G. R. Goldstein, \plb{89}{105}{1979}.
677:
678: \bibitem{BBNS2} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda,
679: \npb{591}{313}{2000}; C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart,
680: \prl{87}{201806}{2001}.
681:
682: \bibitem{factor} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3732}{1990}.
683:
684: \bibitem{CLEO} CLEO \cn, S. E. Csorna \ite,
685: %Cornell Report CLNS 03/1813,
686: hep-ex/0301028, submitted to Phys. Rev. D.
687: % CLEO \cn, M. S. Alam \ite, \prd{50}{43}{1994}.
688:
689: %\bibitem{FSI}
690:
691: \bibitem{GGPR} M. Gronau, Y. Grossman, D. Pirjol and A. Ryd, \prl{88}
692: {051802}{2002}; M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \prd{66}{054008}{2002}.
693:
694: \bibitem{GPW} M. Gronau, D. Pirjol and D. Wyler, \prl{90}{051801}{2003}.
695:
696: \bibitem{SD} N. Isgur, C. Morningstar and C. Reader, \prd{39} {1357}{1989};
697: M. Feindt, \zpc{48}{681}{1990}.
698:
699: \bibitem{better} A fit to the complete energy and angular dependence
700: (\ref{dist}) would be a more sensitive probe for the chirality than the
701: asymmmetry ${\cal A}$.
702:
703: \bibitem{BABARa1} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, Conference Report
704: BABAR-CONF-02/10, hep-ex/0207085; see also
705: ARGUS \cn, H. Albrecht \ite, \zpc{48}{543}{1990};
706: CLEO \cn, M. S. Alam \ite, \prd{45}{21}{1992}, {\bf 50}, 43 (1994).
707:
708: \bibitem{ID} I. Dunietz, \plb{427}{179}{1998}; D. A. Suprun, C. W. Chiang
709: and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{054025}{2002}.
710:
711: \bibitem{LSS} D. London, N. Sinha and R. Sinha, \prl{85}{1807}{2000}.
712:
713: \bibitem{Wilson} F. Wilson, these Proceedings.
714:
715: \bibitem{DQSTL} I. Dunietz, H. R. Quinn, A. Snyder, W. Toki and H. J.
716: Lipkin, \prd{43}{2193}{1991}.
717:
718: \end{thebibliography}
719: \end{document}
720:
721:
722: