1: % Theoretical Issues in b Physics
2: % Talk at LHC Symposium by J. Rosner
3: % Draft as of June 27, 2003
4: % Fermilab, May 3, 2003
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: % This is e.tex -- version 1.1
7: % Dear Author,
8: % please overwrite all Xxxxxx. All you have to do!
9: % This is actually your whole manuscript!!!! Easy! Isn't it.
10: % and send this file as yourname.tex (in small letters 6 digits only)
11: % to pol@springer.de.
12: % We will accept it only if it runs without errors.
13: % Thank you The Editorial Urda Beiglb"ock
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15:
16: \documentclass{article} % for standard LaTeX (LaTeX2e)
17: \usepackage{e} % for standard LaTeX (LaTeX2e)
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19: %\documentstyle[e]{article} % for the elder LaTeX (LaTeX 2.09)
20: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
22: \def \b{{\cal B}}
23: \def \bb{\overline{{\cal B}}}
24: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
25: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
26: \def \gb{\overline{\Gamma}}
27: \def \gs{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
28: \def \ket#1{|#1 \rangle}
29: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
30: \def \ol{\overline}
31: \begin{document}
32: %
33: \branch{C} % Please specify the branch of EPJ
34: %%\DOI{123} % do not fill in
35: %%\idline{C}{1, 1--11}{1} % do not fill in
36: %%\editorial{}{}{}{} % do not fill in
37: %
38: \title{Theoretical Issues in $b$ Physics}
39: %
40: \author{J. L. Rosner \inst{1}}
41: %
42: \institute{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics \\
43: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 USA \\
44: EFI 03-26; hep-ph/0305315; e-mail: rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}
45: %
46: \PACS{11.30.Er, 11.30.Hv, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd}
47: %
48: \maketitle
49: %
50: \begin{abstract}
51: Examples are given of some current questions in $b$ physics to which LHC
52: experiments may provide answers. These include (i) the precise determination
53: of parameters of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix; (ii) measurements
54: of CKM phases using $B$ decays to CP eigenstates; (iii) the search for direct
55: CP asymmetries in $B$ decays; (iv) rare radiative $B$ decays; (v) the study
56: of $B_s$ properties and decays, (vi) excited states of $B$ and $B_s$ mesons,
57: and (vii) the search for heavier quarks which could mix with the $b$ quark.
58: \end{abstract}
59: %
60: % Section 1
61: \section{Introduction}
62: The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will permit the exploration of physics at
63: unprecedented energy scales toward the end of this decade, but it will also
64: produce $b$ quarks more copiously than any other accelerator. If the
65: hadrons containing these quarks can be identified, many questions we now
66: face can be addressed, while undoubtedly others will arise. In this talk I
67: would like to give some examples of {\it current} questions in $b$ physics to
68: which we would like answers. Others may well be more timely in the LHC era.
69:
70: In Section \ref{sec:CKM} we review information on weak quark transitions as
71: encoded in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. We then discuss CP
72: asymmetries in $B$ decays to CP eigenstates (Section \ref{sec:eig}) and
73: to self-tagging modes (``direct asymmetries,'' Section \ref{sec:dir}).
74: Rare radiative $B$ decays, mentioned briefly in Section \ref{sec:rad}, provide
75: useful information on possible new physics. Hadron colliders such as the LHC
76: are the tool of choice for the study of strange $B$ ($B_s$) properties and
77: decays (Section \ref{sec:bs}). Excited states of $B$ and $B_s$ mesons, for
78: which there have been interesting parallel developments in the charm sector,
79: are discussed in Section \ref{sec:exc}. The search for heavier quarks which
80: which could mix with the $b$ quark is noted in Section \ref{sec:exo}, while
81: Section \ref{sec:sum} concludes.
82:
83: % Section 2
84: \section{Weak quark transitions \label{sec:CKM}}
85: The relative strengths of charge-changing weak quark transitions are
86: illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans}. This pattern is one of the central
87: mysteries of particle physics, along with the values of the quark masses.
88: We shall not address its deeper origin here, but will seek better knowledge of
89: strengths and phases of the transitions, to see whether all weak phenomena
90: including CP violation can be described satisfactorily via this pattern.
91:
92: % This is Figure 1
93: \begin{figure}
94: \includegraphics[height=3in]{trans.ps}
95: \caption{Pattern of charge-changing weak transitions among quarks. Solid
96: lines: relative strength 1; dashed lines: relative strength 0.22;
97: dot-dashed lines: relative strength 0.04; dotted lines: relative strength
98: $\le 0.01$. Breadths of horizontal lines denote estimated errors for masses.
99: \label{fig:trans}}
100: \end{figure}
101:
102: \subsection{The CKM matrix}
103: The interactions in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans} may be parametrized by a unitary
104: $3 \times 3$ matrix, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. A convenient
105: form \cite{WP,Battaglia}, unitary to sufficiently high order in a small
106: quantity $\lambda$, is
107: \beq \label{eqn:WP}
108: V_{\rm CKM} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
109: 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda & A \lambda^3 (\rho - i \eta) \\
110: - \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
111: A \lambda^3 (1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta) & - A \lambda^2 & 1 \end{array}
112: \right]~~~,
113: \eeq
114: where $\bar \rho \equiv \rho (1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2})$ and
115: $\bar \eta \equiv \eta (1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2})$.
116: The columns refer to $d,s,b$ and the rows to $u,c,t$. The parameter $\lambda =
117: 0.224$ \cite{Battaglia} is $\sin \theta_c$, where $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo
118: angle. The value $|V_{cb}| \simeq 0.041$, obtained from $b \to c$ decays,
119: indicates $A \simeq 0.82$, while $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| \simeq 0.09$, obtained from
120: $b \to u$ decays, implies $(\rho^2 + \eta^2)^{1/2} \simeq 0.4$. We shall
121: generally use the CKM parameters quoted in Ref.\ \cite{CKMf}.
122:
123: \subsection{The unitarity triangle}
124:
125: The unitarity of the CKM matrix implies that the scalar product of any column
126: with the complex conjugate of any other column is zero; for example,
127: $V^*_{ub}V_{ud} + V^*_{cb} V_{cd} + V^*_{tb} V_{td} = 0$. If one divides by
128: $-V^*_{cb} V_{cd}$, this relation becomes equivalent to a triangle in the
129: complex $\bar \rho + i \bar \eta$ plane, with vertices at (0,0) (angle $\phi_3
130: = \gamma$), (1,0) (angle $\phi_1 = \beta$), and $(\bar \rho, \bar \eta)$ (angle
131: $\phi_2 = \alpha$). The triangle has unit base and its other two sides are
132: $\bar \rho + i \bar \eta = -(V^*_{ub}V_{ud}/ V^*_{cb} V_{cd})$ (opposite
133: $\phi_1 = \beta$) and $1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta = -(V^*_{tb}V_{td}/V^*_{cb}
134: V_{cd})$ (opposite $\phi_3 = \gamma$). The result is shown in Fig.\
135: \ref{fig:ut}.
136:
137: % This is Figure 2
138: \begin{figure}
139: \begin{center}
140: \includegraphics[height=1.5in]{ut.ps}
141: \caption{The unitarity triangle.
142: \label{fig:ut}}
143: \end{center}
144: \end{figure}
145:
146: In addition to the direct measurements of CKM parameters mentioned above,
147: flavor-changing loop diagrams provide a number of indirect constraints.
148: CP-violating $K^0$--$\ol K^0$ mixing is dominated by the second-order-weak
149: virtual transition $\bar s d \to \bar d s$ with virtual $t \bar t$ and
150: $W^+ W^-$ intermediate states, and thus constrains Im$(V_{td}^2) \sim
151: \bar \eta (1 - \bar \rho)$, leading to a hyperbola in the $(\bar \rho,
152: \bar \eta)$ plane. $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing is similarly dominated by
153: $t \bar t$ and $W^+ W^-$ in the loop diagram for $\bar b d \to \bar d b$, and
154: thus constrains $|V_{td}|$ and hence $|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta|$. By
155: comparing $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ and $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing, one can reduce
156: dependence on unknown matrix elements and learn a lower limit on
157: $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ or an upper limit on $|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta|$. The
158: range of parameters allowed at 95\% c.l.\ \cite{CKMf} is $0.08 \le \bar \rho
159: \le 0.34$, $0.25 \le \bar \eta \le 0.43$ (but see, e.g., \cite{Ciu} for more
160: a more optimistic view of our present knowledge).
161:
162: % Section 3
163: \section{$B$ decays to CP eigenstates \label{sec:eig}}
164: One can learn CKM phases from decays of neutral $B$ mesons to CP eigenstates
165: $f$, where $CP \ket{f} = \xi_f \ket{f}$, $\xi_f = \pm 1$. As a result of
166: $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing, a state which is $B^0$ at proper time $t=0$ will evolve
167: into one, denoted $B^0(t)$, which is a mixture of $B^0$ and $\ob$. Thus
168: there will be one pathway to the final state $f$ from $B^0$ through the
169: amplitude $A$ and another from $\ob$ through the amplitude $\bar A$, which
170: acquires an additional phase $2 \phi_1 = 2 \beta$ through the mixing.
171: The interference of these two amplitudes can differ in the decays $B^0(t) \to
172: f$ and $\ob (t) \to f$, leading to a time-integrated rate asymmetry
173: \beq
174: {\cal A}_{CP} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\ob \to f) - \Gamma(B^0 \to f)}
175: {\Gamma(\ob \to f) + \Gamma(B^0 \to f)}
176: \eeq
177: as well as to time-dependent rates
178: \beq
179: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \Gamma[B^0(t) \to f] \\ \Gamma[\ob (t) \to f]
180: \end{array} \right\} \sim e^{- \Gamma t} [ 1 \mp {\cal A}_f \cos \Delta m t
181: \mp {\cal S}_f \sin \Delta m t ]~~~,
182: \eeq
183: where
184: \beq
185: {\cal A}_f \equiv \frac{|\lambda|^2 - 1}{|\lambda|^2 + 1}~~,~~~
186: {\cal S}_f \equiv \frac{2 {\rm Im} \lambda}{|\lambda|^2 + 1}~~,~~~
187: \lambda \equiv e^{-2 i \beta} \frac{\bar A}{A}~~~,
188: \eeq
189: where ${\cal S}_f^2 + {\cal A}_f^2 \le 1$. More details may be found in
190: Refs.\ \cite{BaBarPhys,TASI}. I now note some specific cases.
191:
192: \subsection{$B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$ and $\phi_1 = \beta$}
193: For this decay one has $\bar A/A \simeq \xi_{J/\psi K_S} = -1$. One finds that
194: the time-integrated asymmetry ${\cal A}_{CP}$ is proportional to $\sin(2
195: \phi_1) = \sin(2 \beta)$. Using this and related decays involving the same
196: $\bar b \to \bar s c \bar c$ subprocess, BaBar \cite{Babeta} finds $\sin(2
197: \beta) = 0.741 \pm 0.067 \pm 0.033$ while Belle \cite{Bebeta} finds $0.719 \pm
198: 0.074 \pm 0.035$. The two values agree with each other; the world average
199: \cite{avbeta} is $\sin(2 \beta) = 0.734 \pm 0.054$, consistent with other
200: determinations \cite{CKMf,Ciu,AL}.
201:
202: \subsection{$B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\phi_2 = \alpha$}
203: Here two amplitudes contribute to the decay: a ``tree'' $T$ and a ``penguin''
204: $P$. The decay amplitudes are
205: \beq
206: A = - (|T|e^{i \gamma} + |P| e^{i \delta})~~,~~~
207: \bar A = - (|T|e^{-i \gamma} + |P| e^{i \delta})~~~,
208: \eeq
209: where $\delta$ is the relative $P/T$ strong phase. The asymmetry
210: ${\cal A}_{CP}$ would be proportional to $\sin(2 \alpha)$ if the penguin
211: amplitude could be neglected. However, one must account for its contribution.
212:
213: An isospin analysis \cite{GL} of $B$ decays to $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $\pi^\pm \pi^0$,
214: and $\pi^0 \pi^0$ separates the contributions of decays involving $I=0$ and
215: $I=2$ final states. Information can then be obtained on both strong and weak
216: phases. Since the branching ratio of $B^0$ to $\pi^0 \pi^0$ may be very small,
217: of order $10^{-6}$, I shall discuss instead methods \cite{GR02,GRconv} in which
218: flavor SU(3) symmetry is used to estimate the penguin contribution
219: \cite{SW,GHLR,Charles}.
220:
221: The tree amplitude for $B^0 (= \bar b d) \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ involves
222: $\bar b \to \pi^+ \bar u$, with the spectator $d$ quark combining
223: with $\bar u$ to form a $\pi^-$. Its magnitude is $|T|$; its weak phase
224: is Arg($V^*_{ub}) = \gamma$; by convention its strong phase is 0. The
225: penguin amplitude involves the flavor structure $\bar b \to \bar d$, with the
226: final $\bar d d$ pair fragmenting into $\pi^+ \pi^-$. Its magnitude is
227: $|P|$. The dominant $t$ contribution in the loop diagram for $\bar b \to \bar
228: d$ can be integrated out and the unitarity relation $V_{td} V^*_{tb} =
229: - V_{cd} V^*_{cb} - V_{ud} V^*_{ub}$ used. The $V_{ud} V^*_{ub}$ contribution
230: can be absorbed into a redefinition of the tree amplitude, after which
231: the weak phase of the penguin amplitude is 0 (mod $\pi$). By definition, its
232: strong phase is $\delta$.
233:
234: The time-dependent asymmetries ${\cal S}_{\pi \pi}$ and ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$
235: specify both $\gamma$ (or $\alpha = \pi - \beta - \gamma$) and $\delta$,
236: if one has an independent estimate of $|P/T|$. One may obtain $|P|$ from $B^+
237: \to K^0 \pi^+$ using flavor SU(3) \cite{SW,GHLR,GR95} and $|T|$ from $B \to
238: \to \pi l \nu$ using factorization \cite{LR}. An alternative method
239: \cite{GRconv,Charles} uses the measured ratio of the $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ and
240: $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratios
241: to constrain $|P/T|$. I shall discuss the first method.
242:
243: In addition to ${\cal S}_{\pi \pi}$ and ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$, a useful quantity
244: is the ratio of the $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratio $\bb(\pi^+ \pi^-)$
245: (averaged over $B^0$ and $\ob$) to that due to the tree amplitude alone:
246: \beq
247: R_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac{\bb(\pi^+ \pi^-)}{\bb(\pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree}}
248: = 1 + 2 \left| \frac{P}{T} \right| \cos \delta \cos \gamma
249: + \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|^2~~~.
250: \eeq
251: One also has
252: \beq
253: R_{\pi \pi} {\cal S}_{\pi \pi} = \sin 2 \alpha + 2 \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|
254: \cos \delta \sin(\beta - \alpha) - \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|^2 \sin 2 \beta
255: ~~~,
256: \eeq
257: \beq
258: R_{\pi \pi} {\cal A}_{\pi \pi} = - 2 |P/T| \sin \delta \sin \gamma
259: ~~~.
260: \eeq
261: The value of $\beta$ is specified to within a few degrees; we shall
262: take it to have its central value of $23.6^\circ$. The value of $|P/T|$
263: (updating \cite{GR02,GRconv}) is $0.28 \pm 0.06$. Taking the central value,
264: one can plot trajectories in the (${\cal S}_{\pi \pi},{\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$)
265: plane as $\delta$ is allowed to vary from $- \pi$ to $\pi$.
266:
267: The experimental situation regarding the time-dependent asymmetries is not
268: yet settled. As shown in Table \ref{tab:sa}, BaBar \cite{Bapipi} and Belle
269: \cite{Bepipi} obtain very different values, especially for ${\cal S}_{\pi
270: \pi}$. Even if this conflict were to be resolved, however, there is a
271: possibility of a discrete ambiguity, since curves for different values of
272: $\alpha$ intersect one another. The discrete ambiguity may be resolved with
273: the help of $R_{\pi \pi} = 0.62 \pm 0.28$, but the error is still too large
274: to be helpful. At present values of $\phi_2 = \alpha >
275: 90^\circ$ are favored, but with large uncertainty. It is not yet settled
276: whether ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi} \ne 0$, corresponding to ``direct'' CP violation.
277:
278: % This is Table 1
279: \begin{table}
280: \caption{Values of ${\cal S}_{\pi \pi}$ and ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$ quoted by
281: BaBar and Belle and their averages. Here we have applied scale factors
282: $S \equiv \sqrt{\chi^2} = (2.31,1.24)$ to the errors for
283: ${\cal S}_{\pi \pi}$ and ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$, respectively.
284: \label{tab:sa}}
285: \begin{center}
286: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
287: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Bapipi} & Belle \cite{Bepipi} &
288: Average \\ \hline
289: ${\cal S}_{\pi \pi}$ & $0.02\pm0.34\pm0.05$ & $-1.23\pm0.41^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ &
290: $-0.49 \pm 0.61$ \\
291: ${\cal A}_{\pi \pi}$ & $0.30\pm0.25\pm0.04$ & $ 0.77 \pm 0.27 \pm 0.08$ &
292: $0.51 \pm 0.23$ \\ \hline \hline
293: \end{tabular}
294: \end{center}
295: \end{table}
296:
297: \subsection{$B^0 \to \phi K_S$ vs. $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$}
298: In $B^0 \to \phi K_S$, governed by the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude,
299: the standard model predicts the same CP asymmetries as in those processes (like
300: $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$) governed by $\bar b \to \bar s c \bar c$. In both cases
301: the weak phase is expected to be 0 (mod $\pi$), so the indirect CP asymmetry
302: should be governed by $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing and thus should be proportional to
303: $\sin 2 \beta$. There should be no direct CP asymmetries (i.e., ${\cal A}
304: \simeq 0$) in either case. This is true for $B \to J/\psi K$; ${\cal A}$ is
305: consistent with zero in the neutral mode, while the direct CP asymmetry is
306: consistent with zero in the charged mode \cite{Babeta}. However, a different
307: result for $B^0 \to \phi K_S$ could point to new physics in the $\bar b \to
308: \bar s$ penguin amplitude \cite{GW}.
309:
310: The experimental asymmetries in $B^0 \to \phi K_S$ \cite{Baphks,Bephks} are
311: shown in Table \ref{tab:phks}. For ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$ there is a substantial
312: discrepancy between BaBar and Belle. The value of ${\cal S}_{\phi K_S}$, which
313: should equal $\sin 2 \beta = 0.734 \pm 0.054$ in the standard model, is about
314: $2.7 \sigma$ away from it. If the amplitudes for $B^0 \to \phi K^0$ and $B^+
315: \to \phi K^+$ are equal (true in many approaches), the time-integrated CP
316: asymmetry $A_{CP}$ in the charged mode should equal ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$. The
317: BaBar Collaboration \cite{Aubert:2003tk} has recently reported
318: $A_{CP} = 0.039 \pm 0.086 \pm 0.011$.
319:
320: % This is Table 2
321: \begin{table}
322: \caption{Values of ${\cal S}_{\phi K_S}$ and ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$ quoted by
323: BaBar and Belle and their averages. Here we have applied a scale factor of
324: $\sqrt{\chi^2} = 2.29$ to the error on ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$.
325: \label{tab:phks}}
326: \begin{center}
327: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
328: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Baphks} & Belle \cite{Bephks} &
329: Average \\ \hline
330: ${\cal S}_{\phi K_S}$ & $-0.18\pm0.51\pm0.07$ & $-0.73\pm0.64\pm0.22$ &
331: $-0.38 \pm 0.41$ \\
332: ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$ & $0.80\pm0.38\pm0.12$ & $-0.56\pm0.41\pm0.16$ &
333: $0.19 \pm 0.68$ \\ \hline \hline
334: \end{tabular}
335: \end{center}
336: \end{table}
337:
338: Many proposals for new physics can account for the departure of ${\cal S}_
339: {\phi K_S}$ from its expected value of $\sin 2 \beta$
340: \cite{npphks}. A method similar to that \cite{GR02,GRconv} used in analyzing
341: $B^0 \to \pi \pi$ for extracting a new physics amplitude has been developed
342: in collaboration with Cheng-Wei Chiang \cite{CR03}. One uses the measured
343: values of ${\cal S}_{\phi K_S}$ and ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$ and the ratio
344: \beq \label{eqn:rphks}
345: R_{\phi K_S} \equiv \frac{\bb(B^0 \to \phi K_S)}{\bb(B^0 \to \phi K_S)|_{\rm
346: std}} = 1 + 2 r \cos \phi \cos \delta + r^2~~~,
347: \eeq
348: where $r$ is the ratio of the magnitude of the new amplitude to the one in
349: the standard model, and $\phi$ and $\delta$ are their relative weak and
350: strong phases. For any values of $R_{\phi K_S}$, $\phi$, and $\delta$, Eq.\
351: (\ref{eqn:rphks}) can be solved for the amplitude ratio $r$ and one then
352: calculates
353: \bea
354: R_{\phi K_S} {\cal S}_{\phi K_S} & = & \sin 2 \beta + 2 r \cos \delta
355: \sin(2 \beta - \phi) + r^2 \sin 2(\beta - \phi)~~\\
356: R_{\phi K_S} {\cal A}_{\phi K_S} & = & 2 r \sin \phi \sin \delta~~~.
357: \eea
358: The $\phi K_S$ branching ratio in the standard model is calculated using the
359: penguin amplitude from $B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+$ and an estimate of electroweak
360: penguin corrections. It was found \cite{CR03} that $R_{\phi K_S} = 1.0 \pm
361: 0.2$.
362:
363: Various regions of $(\phi, \delta)$ can reproduce the observed values of
364: ${\cal S}_{\phi K_S}$ and ${\cal A}_{\phi K_S}$. As errors on the observables
365: shrink, so will the allowed regions. However, there will
366: always be a solution for {\it some} $\phi$ and $\delta$ as long as $R$
367: remains compatible with 1. (The allowed regions of $\phi$ and $\delta$ are
368: restricted if $R \ne 1$ \cite{CR03}.) Typical values of $r$ are of order 1;
369: one generally needs to invoke new-physics amplitudes comparable to those in
370: the standard model.
371:
372: The above scenario envisions new physics entirely in $B^0 \to \phi K^0$ and
373: not in $B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+$. An alternative is that new physics
374: contributes to the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude and thus appears
375: in {\it both} decays. Here it is convenient to define a ratio
376: \beq
377: R' \equiv \frac{\gb(B^0 \to \phi K^0)}{\gb(B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+)}~~~,
378: \eeq
379: where $\gb$ denotes a partial width averaged over a process and its CP
380: conjugate. Present data indicate $R' = 0.78 \pm 0.17$. The $B^0 \to \phi K^0$
381: amplitude contains a contribution from both the gluonic and electroweak penguin
382: terms, while $B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+$ contains only the former. Any departure
383: from the expected ratio of the electroweak to gluonic penguin amplitudes
384: would signify new physics. Again, the central value of ${\cal S}$ would
385: suggest this to be the case \cite{CR03}, but one must wait until the
386: discrepancy with the standard model becomes more significant. At present
387: both the decays $B^0 \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP = +}$ and $B^0 \to \eta' K_S$
388: display CP asymmetries consistent with standard expectations.
389:
390: \subsection{$B^0 \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP=+}$}
391: The Belle Collaboration \cite{Bephks} finds that for $K^+ K^-$ not in the
392: $\phi$ peak, most of the decay $B^0 \to K_S K^+ K^-$ involves even CP for the
393: $K^+ K^-$ system ($\xi_{K^+ K^-} = +1$). It is found that
394: \bea
395: - \xi_{K^+ K^-} {\cal S}_{K^+ K^-} & = & 0.49\pm0.43\pm 0.11^{+0.33}_{-0.00}
396: ~~~,\\
397: {\cal A}_{K^+ K^-} & = & -0.40 \pm 0.33 \pm 0.10^{+0.00}_{-0.26}~~,
398: \eea
399: where the third set of errors arise from uncertainty in the fraction of the
400: CP-odd component. Independent estimates of this fraction have been performed
401: in Refs.\ \cite{GLNQ} and \cite{GRKKK}. The quantity $- \xi_{K^+ K^-} {\cal
402: S}_{K^+ K^-}$ should equal $\sin 2 \beta$ in the standard model, but additional
403: non-penguin contributions can lead this quantity to range between 0.2 and
404: 1.0 \cite{GRKKK}.
405:
406: \subsection{$B \to \eta' K$ (charged and neutral modes)}
407: At present neither the rate nor the CP asymmetry in $B \to \eta' K$ present
408: a significant challenge to the standard model. The rate can be reproduced
409: with the help of a modest contribution from a ``flavor-singlet penguin''
410: amplitude, the need for which was pointed out \cite{DGR95} prior to the
411: observation of this decay. One only needs to boost the standard penguin
412: amplitude's contribution by about 50\% via the flavor-singlet term in order to
413: explain the observed rate \cite{DGR97,CR01,FHH,CGR}. (An alternative treatment
414: \cite{BN} finds an enhanced standard-penguin contribution to $B \to \eta' K$.)
415: The CP asymmetry is
416: not a problem; the ordinary and singlet penguin amplitudes are expected
417: to have the same weak phase Arg$(V^*_{ts}V_{tb}) \simeq \pi$ and hence one
418: expects ${\cal S}_{\eta' K_S} \simeq \sin 2 \beta$, ${\cal A}_{\eta' K_S}
419: \simeq 0$. The experimental situation is shown in Table \ref{tab:etapks}.
420: The value of ${\cal S}_{\eta' K_S}$ is consistent with the standard model
421: expectation at the $1 \sigma$ level, while ${\cal A}_{\eta' K_S}$ is consistent
422: with zero.
423:
424: % This is Table 3
425: \begin{table}
426: \caption{Values of ${\cal S}_{\eta' K_S}$ and ${\cal A}_{\eta' K_S}$ quoted by
427: BaBar and Belle and their averages. Here we have applied scale factors
428: $S \equiv \sqrt{\chi^2} = (1.48,1.15)$ to the errors for
429: ${\cal S}_{\eta' K_S}$ and ${\cal A}_{\eta' K_S}$, respectively.
430: \label{tab:etapks}}
431: \begin{center}
432: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
433: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Baphks} & Belle \cite{Bephks} &
434: Average \\ \hline
435: ${\cal S}_{\eta' K_S}$ & $0.02\pm0.34\pm0.03$ & $0.76\pm0.36^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ &
436: $0.37 \pm 0.37$ \\
437: ${\cal A}_{\eta' K_S}$ & $-0.10\pm0.22\pm0.03$ & $0.26\pm0.22\pm0.03$ &
438: $0.08 \pm 0.18$ \\ \hline \hline
439: \end{tabular}
440: \end{center}
441: \end{table}
442:
443: The singlet penguin amplitude may contribute elsewhere in $B$ decays. It is
444: a possible source of a low-effective-mass $\bar p p$ enhancement \cite{Kpp} in
445: $B^+ \to \bar p p K^+$ \cite{JRbbbar}.
446:
447: % Section 4
448: \section{Direct CP asymmetries \label{sec:dir}}
449: Decays such as $B \to K \pi$ (with the exception of $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$) are
450: {\it self-tagging}, i.e., their final states indicate the flavor of the
451: decaying state. For example, the $K^+ \pi^-$ final state is expected to
452: originate purely from a $B^0$ and not from a $\ob$. Since such self-tagging
453: decays do not involve a CP eigenstate, they involve both weak and strong
454: phases. Several methods permit one to separate these from one another. We
455: give some examples.
456:
457: \subsection{$B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ vs.\ $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$}
458: The decay $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ is a pure penguin ($P$) process, while the
459: amplitude for $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ is proportional to $P + T$, where $T$ is a
460: (strangeness-changing) tree amplitude. The ratio $T/P$ has magnitude $r$, weak
461: phase $\gamma \pm \pi$, and strong phase $\delta$. The ratio
462: $R_0$ of these two rates (averaged over a process and its CP conjugate) is
463: \beq \label{eqn:Rval}
464: R_0 \equiv \frac{\gb(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)}{\gb(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)} =
465: 1 - 2 r \cos \gamma \cos \delta + r^2 \ge \sin^2 \gamma~~~,
466: \eeq
467: where the inequality holds for any $r$ and $\delta$. For $R_0 < 1$
468: this inequality can be used to impose a useful constraint on
469: $\gamma$ \cite{FM}. On the basis of branching ratios \cite{Babrs,Bebrs,CLbrs}
470: summarized in Ref.\ \cite{JRmor} and using the $B^+/B^0$ lifetime ratio from
471: Ref.\ \cite{LEPBOSC}, one finds $R_0 = 0.99 \pm 0.09$, which is
472: consistent with 1 and does not permit application of the bound. However,
473: using additional information on $r$ and the CP asymmetry in $B^0 \to K^+
474: \pi^-$, one can obtain a constraint on $\gamma$ \cite{GR02,GRKpi}.
475:
476: The CP asymmetry ${\cal A}_{CP}$ (2) can be written for $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ as
477: \beq \label{eqn:asy}
478: {\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-) \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+)
479: - \Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)}{2 \gb(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)} = - \frac{2 r \sin
480: \gamma \sin \delta}{R_0}~~~.
481: \eeq
482:
483: One may eliminate $\delta$ between this equation and Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:Rval})
484: and plot $R_0$ as a function of $\gamma$ for the allowed range of
485: ${\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)$. The value of $r$, based on present branching
486: and arguments given in Refs.\ \cite{GR02,JRmor,GRKpi}), is $r=0.17 \pm 0.04$.
487: The latest BaBar and Belle data imply ${\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-) = -0.09
488: \pm 0.04$ \cite{CGR}, leading us to take $|{\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)| \le 0.13$
489: at the $1 \sigma$ level. Curves for ${\cal A}_{CP} =0$ and $|{\cal A}_{CP}| =
490: 0.13$ (the $K^+ \pi^-$ final state is to be understood) are
491: shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:R0}. The lower limit $r = 0.13$ is used to generate
492: these curves since the limit on $\gamma$ will be the most conservative.
493:
494: At the $1 \sigma$ level, using the constraints that $R_0$ must lie between 0.90
495: and 1.08 and $|{\cal A}_{CP}|$ must lie between zero and 0.13, one can
496: establish that
497: $\gamma \gs 60^\circ$. No bound can be obtained at the 95\% confidence level,
498: however. Despite the impressive improvement in experimental precision (a
499: factor of 2 decrease in errors since the analysis of Ref.\ \cite{GR02}),
500: further data are needed in order for a useful constraint to be obtained.
501:
502: % This is Figure 3
503: \begin{figure}
504: \begin{center}
505: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{Racp.ps}
506: \caption{Behavior of $R_0$ for $r = 0.13$ and ${\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-) = 0$
507: (dashed curves) or $|{\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)| = 0.13$ (solid curve) as a
508: function of the weak phase $\gamma$.
509: Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental limits on $R_0$,
510: while dot-dashed lines denote $95\%$ c.l. ($\pm 1.96 \sigma$) limits.
511: The upper branches of the curves correspond to the case $\cos \gamma
512: \cos \delta <0$, while the lower branches correspond to $\cos \gamma
513: \cos \delta >0$.
514: \label{fig:R0}}
515: \end{center}
516: \end{figure}
517:
518: \subsection{$B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ vs.\ $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$}
519: The comparison of rates for $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ also
520: can give information on $\gamma$. The amplitude for $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ is
521: proportional to $P + T + C$, where $C$ is a color-suppressed amplitude.
522: Originally it was suggested that this amplitude be compared with $P$ from $B^+
523: \to K^0 \pi^+$ and $T+C$ taken from $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ using flavor SU(3)
524: \cite{GRL} using a triangle construction to determine $\gamma$. However,
525: electroweak penguin amplitudes contribute significantly in the $T+C$ term
526: \cite{EWP}. It was noted subsequently \cite{NR} that since the $T+C$ amplitude
527: corresponds to isospin $I(K \pi) = 3/2$ for the final state, the
528: strong-interaction phase of its EWP contribution is the same as that of the
529: rest of the $T+C$ amplitude, permitting the calculation of the EWP correction.
530:
531: New data on branching ratios and CP asymmetries permit an update of previous
532: analyses \cite{GR02,NR}. One makes use of the quantities (see \cite{CGR} for
533: values)
534: \bea
535: R_c & \equiv & \frac{2 \gb(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)}{\gb(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
536: = 1 - 2 r_c \cos \delta_c~(\cos \gamma - \delta_{\rm EW}) \nonumber \\
537: & + & r_c^2(1 - 2 \delta_{EW} \cos \gamma + \delta_{EW}^2)
538: = 1.30 \pm 0.15~~, \label{eqn:Rc}
539: \eea
540: \beq \label{eqn:Accp}
541: {\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0)
542: = - \frac{2 r_c \sin \delta_c \sin \gamma}{R_c} = 0.035 \pm 0.071~~~,
543: \eeq
544: where $r_c \equiv |(T+C)/P| = 0.20 \pm 0.02$, and $\delta_c$ is a strong
545: phase, eliminated by combining (\ref{eqn:Rc}) and (\ref{eqn:Accp}).
546: One must also use an estimate \cite{NR} of the electroweak penguin parameter
547: $\delta_{\rm EW} = 0.65 \pm 0.15$. One obtains the most conservative (i.e.,
548: weakest) bound on $\gamma$ for the maximum values of $r_c$ and $\delta_{\rm
549: EW}$ \cite{GR02}. The resulting plot is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Rc}. One
550: obtains a bound at the $1 \sigma$ level very similar to that in the previous
551: case: $\gamma \gs 58^\circ$. The bound is actually set by the curve for
552: {\it zero} CP asymmetry, as emphasized in Ref.\ \cite{NR}.
553:
554: % This is Figure 4
555: \begin{figure}
556: \begin{center}
557: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{Rcacp.ps}
558: \caption{Behavior of $R_c$ for $r_c = 0.22$ ($1 \sigma$ upper limit) and
559: ${\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0) = 0$ (dashed curves) or $|{\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0)|
560: = 0.11$ (solid curve) as a function of the
561: weak phase $\gamma$. Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental
562: limits on $R_c$, while dotdashed lines denote 95\% c.l. ($ \pm 1.96 \sigma$)
563: limits. Upper branches of curves correspond to $\cos \delta_c(\cos \gamma -
564: \delta_{EW}) < 0$, while lower branches
565: correspond to $\cos \delta_c(\cos \gamma - \delta_{EW}) > 0$. Here we have
566: taken $\delta_{EW} = 0.80$ (its $1 \sigma$ upper limit), which
567: leads to the most conservative bound on $\gamma$.
568: \label{fig:Rc}}
569: \end{center}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: \subsection{$B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$}
573: The possibility that several different amplitudes could contribute to
574: $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$, thereby leading to the possibility of a large direct
575: CP asymmetry, has been recognized for some time \cite{GR95,DGR95,DGR97,BRS,AK}.
576: Contributions can arise from a tree amplitude (color-favored plus
577: color-suppressed) $T+C$, whose magnitude is estimated to be $\sqrt{2/3}$ that
578: occurring in $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, a penguin amplitude $P$, obtained via
579: flavor SU(3) from $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, and a singlet penguin amplitude $S$,
580: obtained from $B \to \eta' K$.
581:
582: In Table \ref{tab:etapi} we summarize branching ratios and CP asymmetries
583: obtained for the decay $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$ by CLEO \cite{CLeta}, BaBar
584: \cite{Baeta}, and Belle \cite{Bebrs}. We assume that the $S$ and $P$
585: amplitudes have the same weak and strong phases. The equality of their weak
586: phases is quite likely, while tests exist for the latter assumption \cite{CGR}.
587:
588: % This is Table 4
589: \begin{table}
590: \caption{Branching ratios and CP asymmetries for $B^ \to \pi^+ \eta$.
591: \label{tab:etapi}}
592: \begin{center}
593: \begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
594: & $\bb~(10^{-6})$ & $A_{CP}$ \\ \hline
595: CLEO \cite{CLeta} & $1.2^{+2.8}_{-1.2}~(< 5.7)$ & -- \\
596: BaBar \cite{Baeta} & $4.2^{+1.0}_{-0.9} \pm 0.3$ & $-0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$ \\
597: Belle \cite{Bebrs} & $5.2^{+2.0}_{-1.7} \pm 0.6$ & -- \\
598: Average & $4.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$ \\
599: $|T+C|^2$ alone & 3.5 & 0 \\
600: $|P+S|^2$ alone & 1.9 & 0 \\
601: \hline \hline
602: \end{tabular}
603: \end{center}
604: \end{table}
605:
606: If the amplitude $A$ for a process receives two contributions with differing
607: strong and weak phases, one can write
608: \beq
609: A = a_1 + a_2 e^{i \phi} e^{i \delta}~~,~~~
610: \bar A = a_1 + a_2 e^{-i \phi} e^{i \delta}~~~.
611: \eeq
612: The CP-averaged decay rate is proportional to $a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2
613: \cos \phi \cos \delta$, while the CP asymmetry is
614: \beq
615: A_{CP} = - \frac{2 a_1 a_2 \sin \phi \sin \delta}
616: {a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos \phi \cos \delta}~~~.
617: \eeq
618: In the case of $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$ the rates and CP asymmetry suggest that
619: $|\sin \phi \sin \delta| > |\cos \phi \cos \delta|$. Details of this pattern
620: and its implications for other processes are described in Ref.\ \cite{CGR}.
621: It is predicted there that $\bb(B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta') =
622: (2.7 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-6}$ (below current upper bounds) and that
623: $A_{CP}(\pi^+ \eta') = -0.57 \pm 0.23$.
624:
625: % Section 5
626: \section{Rare radiative $B$ decays \label{sec:rad}}
627: A number of processes in which a $B$ or $B_s$ decays to final states with
628: photons or lepton pairs are particularly sensitive to non-standard physics.
629: An example is $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$, for which the standard model predicts
630: $\b(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) = (3.1 \pm 1.4) \times 10^{-9}$ \cite{Bobeth}.
631: Charged Higgs boson exchanges or other effects could enhance this branching
632: ratio significantly while respecting the constraint associated with the
633: branching ratio for $b \to s \gamma$, which appears compatible with standard
634: model predictions. For a good discussion of this process and of $B \to X_s
635: \ell^+ \ell^-$ see Ref.\ \cite{Hiller}, as well as several presentations at the
636: present conference \cite{CMSAT}. In the latter decay the forward-backward
637: asymmetries
638: exhibit interesting behavior as a function of $m(\ell^+ \ell^-)$, with signs
639: and a characteristic zero in the standard model which can be different in
640: variant theories.
641:
642: % Section 6
643: \section{$B_s$ properties and decays \label{sec:bs}}
644: \subsection{$B_s$--$\overline B_s$ mixing}
645: The ratio of the $B_s$--$\overline B_s$ mixing amplitude $\Delta m_s$ to the
646: $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing amplitude $\Delta m_d$ ($B_d \equiv B^0$) is given by
647: \beq
648: \frac{\Delta m_s}{\Delta m_d} =
649: \frac{f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2 B_{B_d}} \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}
650: \left| \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}} \right|^2 \simeq 48 \times 2^{\pm 1}~~~.
651: \eeq
652: Here $f_{B_{d,s}}$ are meson decay constants, while $B_{B_{d,s}}$ are
653: numbers of order 1 expressing the degree to which the mixing amplitude can be
654: calculated by saturating with vacuum intermediate states. The latest lattice
655: estimate of the ratio $\xi \equiv (f_{B_s}/f_{B_d})\sqrt{B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}}$
656: is $1.21 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.05$ \cite{Bec}. We have taken a generous range
657: \beq
658: |V_{td}| = A \lambda^3|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta| = (0.8 \pm 0.2) A \lambda^3
659: \eeq
660: with $|V_{ts}| = A \lambda^2$ and $\lambda = 0.22$. With \cite{LEPBOSC}
661: $\Delta m_d = 0.503 \pm 0.007$ ps$^{-1}$ one then predicts
662: \beq
663: \Delta m_s = 24~{\rm ps}^{-1} \times 2^{\pm 1}~~~.
664: \eeq
665: The lower portion of this range is already excluded by the bound \cite{LEPBOSC}
666: \beq
667: \Delta m_s > 14.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}~(95\%~{\rm c.l.})~~~.
668: \eeq
669: When $\Delta m_s$ is measured it is likely to be known fairly well
670: immediately, and will constrain $\bar \rho$ significantly.
671:
672: \subsection{Decays to CP eigenstates}
673: \subsubsection{$B_s \to J/\psi \phi,~J/\psi \eta, \ldots$.}
674: Since the weak phase in $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar s$ is expected to be zero
675: while that of $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ mixing is expected to be very small [in the
676: parametrization of Eq.\ (1) an imaginary part Im($V_{ts})= -A \lambda^4 \eta$
677: was not
678: written explicitly], one expects CP asymmetries to be only a few percent in
679: the standard model for those $B_s$ decays dominated by this quark subprocess.
680: The $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ final state is not a CP eigenstate but the even and
681: odd CP components can be separated using an angular analysis. The final
682: states of $B_s \to J/\psi \eta$ and $B_s \to J/\psi \eta'$ are CP-even so no
683: such analysis is needed.
684:
685: \subsubsection{$B_s \to K^+ K^-$ vs.\ $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.}
686: A comparison of time-dependent asymmetries in $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ and $B^0 \to
687: \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{RFKK} allows one to separate out strong and weak phases
688: and relative tree and penguin contributions. In $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ the $\bar b
689: \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude is dominant, while the strangeness-changing
690: tree amplitude $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar s$ is subsidiary. In $B^0 \to \pi^+
691: \pi^-$ it is the other way around: The $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar d$ tree
692: amplitude dominates, while the $\bar b \to \bar d$ penguin is
693: Cabibbo-suppressed. The U-spin subgroup of SU(3), which interchanges $s$ and
694: $d$ quarks, relates each amplitude in one process to that in the other aside
695: from the CKM factors.
696:
697: \subsubsection{$\overline B_s,~B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$.}
698: A potential problem with $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ and $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is that
699: the mass peaks will overlap with one another if analyzed in terms of the same
700: final state (e.g., $\pi^+ \pi^-$) \cite{Jesik}. Thus, in the absence of good
701: particle identification, a variant on this scheme employing the decays
702: $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$ (also related to one another by
703: U-spin) may be useful \cite{GRKpi00}. For these final states, kinematic
704: separation may be easier. A further variant is to study the time-dependence
705: of $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ while normalizing the penguin amplitude using $B_s \to
706: K^0 \ol K^0$ \cite{GRKK}.
707:
708: \subsection{Other SU(3) relations}
709: The U-spin subgroup of SU(3) allows one to relate many other $B_s$ decays
710: besides those mentioned above to corresponding $B_d$ decays \cite{MGU}.
711: Particularly useful are relations between CP-violating rate {\it differences}.
712: One thus will have the opportunity to perform many tests of flavor SU(3) and
713: to learn a great deal more about final-state phase patterns when a variety of
714: $B_s$ decays can be studied.
715:
716: % Section 7
717: \section{Excited states \label{sec:exc}}
718: \subsection{Flavor tagging for neutral $B$ mesons}
719: One promising method for tagging the flavor of a neutral $B$ meson is to
720: study the charge of the leading light hadron accompanying the fragmentation
721: of the heavy quark. This method was initially proposed by Ali and Barreiro
722: \cite{AB} to identify the flavor of a $B_s$ via the charge of the accompanying
723: kaon. It was utilized in Refs.\ \cite{GNR,GRtag} to distinguish $B^0$'s from
724: $\ol B^0$'s. An initial $b$ will fragment into a $\ol B^0$ by ``dressing''
725: itself with a $\bar d$. The accompanying $d$, if incorporated into a charged
726: pion, will end up in a $\pi^-$. Thus a $\pi^-$ is more likely to be ``near'' a
727: $\ol B^0$ than to a $B^0$ in phase space. This correlation
728: between $\pi^-$ and $\ol B^0$ (and the corresponding correlation between
729: $\pi^+$ and $B^0$) is also what one would expect on the basis of non-exotic
730: resonance formation. Thus the study of the resonance spectrum of the excited
731: $B$ mesons which can decay to $B + \pi$ or $B^* + \pi$ is of special
732: interest \cite{EHQ}. The lowest such mesons are the P-wave levels of a $\bar
733: b$ antiquark and a light ($u$ or $d$) quark.
734:
735: \subsection{Surprise: Excited $D_s$ state below $DK$ threshold}
736: A new sensation has been reported by the BaBar Collaboration \cite{BaDs}
737: and confirmed by CLEO \cite{CLDs}. Partial information on the P-wave levels of
738: a charmed quark $c$ and an antistrange $\bar s$ consists of candidates for
739: $J=1$ and $J=2$ states at 2535 and 2572 MeV \cite{PDG}. These levels have
740: narrow widths and are behaving as would be expected if the spin of the $\bar s$
741: and the orbital angular momentum were coupled up to $j = 3/2$. (One expects
742: $j$-$j$ rather than $L$-$S$ coupling in
743: a light-heavy system \cite{DGG,JRPW,HQ}.) If the $j=1/2$
744: states were fairly close to these in mass one would then expect another $J=1$
745: state and a $J=0$ state somewhere above 2500 MeV. Instead, a candidate for a
746: $J=0$ $c \bar s$ state has been found around 2317 MeV, with the second $J=1$
747: level around 2463 MeV. Both are narrow, since they are too light to decay
748: respectively to $D K$ or $D^* K$. They decay instead via the isospin-violating
749: transitions $D_{s0}(2317) \to D_s \pi^0$ and $D_{s1}(2463) \to D_s^* \pi^0$.
750: They are either candidates for $D^{(*)} K$ molecules \cite{BCL}, or indications
751: of a broken chiral symmetry which places them as positive-parity partners of
752: the $D_s$ and $D_s^*$ negative-parity $c \bar s$ ground states \cite{BEH}.
753: Indeed, the mass splittings between the parity partners appear to be exactly as
754: predicted ten years ago \cite{BH}. Potential-based quarkonium models have a
755: hard time accommodating such low masses \cite{CJ,SG,Col},
756:
757: There should exist {\it non-strange} $j=1/2$ $0^+$ and $1^+$ states, lower in
758: mass than the $j=3/2$ states at 2422 and 2459 MeV \cite{PDG} but quite broad
759: since their respective $\ol B \pi$ and $\ol B^* \pi$ channels will be open.
760: The study of such states will be of great interest since the properties of the
761: corresponding $B$-flavored states will be useful in tagging the flavor of
762: neutral $B$ mesons, as noted in the previous subsection.
763:
764: \subsection{Narrow positive-parity states below $\ol B^{(*)} K$ threshold?}
765: If a strange antiquark can bind to a charmed quark in both negative- and
766: positive-parity states, the same must be true for a strange antiquark and
767: a $b$ quark. One should then expect to see narrow $J^P = 0^+$ and $1^+$
768: states with the quantum numbers of $\ol B K$ and $\ol B^* K$ but below those
769: respective thresholds. They should decay to $\ol B_s \pi^0$ and $\ol B_s^*
770: \pi^0$, respectively. To see such decays one will need a multi-purpose
771: detector with good charged particle and $\pi^0$ identification! Such
772: detectors are envisioned for both the Tevatron \cite{BTeV} and the LHC
773: \cite{LHCb}.
774:
775: % Section 8
776: \section{Exotic $Q=-1/3$ quarks \label{sec:exo}}
777: Might there be heavier quarks visible at hadron colliders? At present we
778: have evidence for three families of quarks and leptons belonging to
779: 16-dimensional multiplets of the grand unified group SO(10) (counting
780: right-handed neutrinos as a reasonable explanation of the observed oscillations
781: between different flavors of neutrinos). Now, just as SO(10) was pieced
782: together from multiplets of SU(5) with dimensions 1, 5, and 10, we can imagine
783: a still larger grand unified group whose smallest representation contains the
784: 16-dimensional SO(10) spinor. Such a group is the exceptional group E$_{\rm
785: 6}$ \cite{GRS}. Its smallest representation, of dimension 27, contains a
786: 16-dimensional spinor, a 10-dimensional vector, and a singlet of SO(10). The
787: 10-dimensional vector contains vector-like isosinglet quarks ``$h$'' and
788: antiquarks $\bar h$ of charge
789: $Q = \pm 1/3$ and isodoublet leptons. The SO(10) singlets are candidates for
790: sterile neutrinos, one for each family.
791:
792: The new exotic $h$ quarks can mix with the $b$ quark and push its mass
793: down with respect to the top quark \cite{JRmix}. Troy Andre and I are
794: currently looking at signatures of $h \bar h$
795: production in hadron colliders, with an eye to either setting lower mass
796: limits or seeing such quarks through their decays to $Z + b$, $W + t$, and
797: possibly ${\rm Higgs} + b$. The $Z$, for example, would be identified by its
798: decays to $\nu \bar \nu$, $\ell^+ \ell^-$, or jet $+$ jet, while the Higgs
799: boson would show up through its $b \bar b$ decay if it were far enough below
800: $W^+ W^-$ threshold.
801:
802: % Section 9
803: \section{Summary \label{sec:sum}}
804: The process $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$ has provided spectacular confirmation of the
805: Kobayashi-Maskawa theory of CP violation, measuring $\beta$ to a few
806: degrees. Now one is entering the territory of more difficult measurements.
807:
808: The decay $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ has great potential for giving useful
809: information on $\alpha$. One needs either a measurement of
810: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$ \cite{GL}, probably at the $10^{-6}$ level
811: (present limits \cite{Babrs,Bebrs,CLbrs} are several times that), or a
812: better estimate of the tree amplitude from $B \to \pi l \nu$ \cite{LR}.
813: Indeed, such an estimate has been presented recently \cite{LR03}. The
814: BaBar and Belle experimental CP asymmetries \cite{Bapipi,Bepipi} will
815: eventually converge to one another, as did the initial measurements
816: of $\sin 2 \beta$ using $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$.
817:
818: The $B \to \phi K_S$ decay can display new physics via special $\bar b \to \bar
819: s s \bar s$ operators or effects on the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin. Some
820: features of any new amplitude can be extracted from the data in a
821: model-independent way if one uses both rate and asymmetry information
822: \cite{CR03}. While the effective value of $\sin 2 \beta$ in $B^0 \to \phi K_S$
823: seems to differ from its expected value by more than $2 \sigma$, CP asymmetries
824: in $B \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP=+}$ do not seem anomalous.
825:
826: The rate for $B \to \eta' K_S$ is not a problem for the standard model if one
827: allows for a modest flavor-singlet penguin contribution in addition to the
828: standard penguin amplitude. The CP asymmetries for this process are in accord
829: with the expectations of the standard model at the $1 \sigma$ level or
830: better. Effects of the singlet penguin amplitude may also be visible
831: elsewhere, for example in $B^+ \to p \bar p K^+$.
832:
833: Various ratios of $B \to K \pi$ rates, when combined with information on
834: CP asymmetries, show promise for constraining phases in the CKM matrix.
835: These tests have shown a steady improvement in accuracy since the asymmetric
836: $B$ factories have been operating. One expects further progress as
837: instantaneous and accumulated $e^+ e^-$ luminosities increase, and as hadron
838: colliders begin to provide important contributions. The decays $B^+ \to
839: \pi^+ \eta$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta'$ show promise for displaying large CP
840: asymmetries \cite{CGR} since they involve contributions of different amplitudes
841: with comparable magnitudes.
842:
843: Rare decays of nonstrange and strange $B$'s involving photons or lepton pairs
844: are beginning to be studied in detail, and the LHC will be able to look for
845: the rare and interesting $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay which can greatly exceed
846: its standard model value in some theories. In the near term
847: the prospects for learning about the $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ mixing amplitude are
848: good. One hopes that this will be an early prize of Run II at the Tevatron.
849: The study of CP violation and branching ratios in $B_s$ decays will be an
850: almost exclusive province of hadron colliders, whose potentialities will be
851: limited only by the versatility of detectors. Surprises in spectroscopy,
852: as illustrated by the low-lying positive-parity $c \bar s$ candidiates, still
853: can occur, and one is sure to find more surprises at the Tevatron and the LHC.
854: Finally, one can search for objects related to the properties of $b$ quarks,
855: such as the exotic isosinglet quarks $h$, with improved sensitivity
856: in Run II of the Tevatron and with greatly expanded reach at the LHC.
857:
858: \section*{Acknowledgments}
859: I wish to thank my collaborators on some of the topics mentioned here:
860: Troy Andre, Cheng-Wei Chiang, Michael Gronau, Zumin Luo, and Denis Suprun.
861: Michael Gronau and Hassan Jawahery also made helpful comments on the manuscript.
862: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
863: under Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
864:
865: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
866: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
867: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
868: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
869: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
870: \def \art{and references therein}
871: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
872: \def \cn{Collaboration}
873: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
874: Singapore, 1989)}
875: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
876: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
877: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
878: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
879: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
880: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
881: Batavia, IL, 1979}
882: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
883: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
884: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
885: Amsterdam, 1988)}
886: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
887: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1} (#3) #2}
888: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
889: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
890: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
891: IL, 1972)}
892: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
893: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
894: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
895: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
896: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
897: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14, 1999,
898: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
899: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
900: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
901: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
902: 1987)}
903: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
904: University of Chicago Press, 2001}
905: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
906: #2 (#3)}
907: \def \ky{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
908: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
909: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
910: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
911: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
912: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
913: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
914: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
915: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
916: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
917: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
918: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
919: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara \ite, \prd{66}{010001}{2002}}
920: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
921: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
922: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
923: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
924: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
925: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
926: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
927: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
928: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
929: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
930: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
931: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
932: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
933: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
934: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
935: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
936: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
937: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
938: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
939: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
940: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
941: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
942: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
943: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
944: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
945: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
946: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
947: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
948: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
949: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
950: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
951: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
952: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
953: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
954: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
955: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
956: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
957:
958: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
959:
960: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
961:
962: \bibitem{Battaglia}
963: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, to appear as a CERN Yellow Report, based on the
964: Workshop on CKM Unitarity Triangle (CERN 2002-2003), Geneva, Switzerland,
965: preprint hep-ph/0304132.
966:
967: \bibitem{CKMf} A. H\"ocker \ite, \epjc{21}{225}{2001}. Updated results
968: may be found on the web site {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/}.
969:
970: \bibitem{Ciu} M. Ciuchini \ite, \jhep{0107}{013}{2001}.
971:
972: \bibitem{BaBarPhys} {\it The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an Asymmetric
973: $B$ Factory}, edited by P. F. Harrison \ite, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC-R-0504,
974: 1998.
975:
976: \bibitem{TASI} J. L. Rosner, in {\it Flavor Physics for the Millennium}
977: (TASI 2000), edited by J. L. Rosner (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001),
978: p.\ 431.
979:
980: \bibitem{Babeta} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{89}{201802}{2002}.
981:
982: \bibitem{Bebeta} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{66}{071102}{2002}.
983:
984: \bibitem{avbeta} Y. Nir, presented at XXXI International Conference
985: on High Energy Physics, Amsterdam, July, 2002, \npbps{117}{111}{2003}.
986:
987: \bibitem{AL} A. Ali and D. London, \epjc{18}{665}{2001}.
988:
989: \bibitem{GL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990}.
990:
991: \bibitem{GR02} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{013004}{2002}; \ibj{65}
992: {079901(E)}{2002}; \ibj{65}{093012}{2002}.
993:
994: \bibitem{GRconv} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{66}{053003}{2002};
995: \ibj{66}{119901(E)}{2002}.
996:
997: \bibitem{SW} J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{1151}{1994}.
998:
999: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hernandez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
1000: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}; \ibj{52}{6356}{1995}; \ibj{52}{6374}{1995}.
1001:
1002: \bibitem{Charles} J. Charles, \prd{59}{054007}{1999}.
1003:
1004: \bibitem{GR95} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{53}{2516}{1996};
1005: \prl{76}{1200}{1996}.
1006:
1007: \bibitem{LR} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{054027}{2002}.
1008:
1009: \bibitem{Bapipi} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert et al., \prl{89}{281802}{2002}.
1010:
1011: \bibitem{Bepipi} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, hep-ex/0301032, submitted to Phys.\
1012: Rev.\ D.
1013:
1014: \bibitem{GW} Y. Grossman and M. Worah, \plb{395}{241}{1997}.
1015:
1016: \bibitem{Baphks} G. Hamel de Monchenault, 38th Rencontres de
1017: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France,
1018: 15--22 March 2003, hep-ex/0305055.
1019:
1020: \bibitem{Bephks} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{67}{031102}{2003}.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{Aubert:2003tk}
1023: BaBar Collaboration, B.~Aubert \ite, SLAC-Report No.\ SLAC-PUB-9684,
1024: hep-ex/0303029, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak
1025: Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 15--22 March 2003.
1026:
1027: \bibitem{npphks}
1028: G.~Hiller, \prd{66}{071502}{2002};
1029: M.~Ciuchini and L.~Silvestrini, \prl{89}{231802}{2002};
1030: A.~Datta, \prd{66}{071702}{2002}; M.~Raidal, \prl{89}{231803}{2002};
1031: B.~Dutta, C.~S.~Kim, and S.~Oh, \prl{90}{011801}{2003};
1032: S.~Khalil and E.~Kou, \prd{67}{055009}{2003} and hep-ph/0303214;
1033: G.~L.~Kane, P.~Ko, H.~Wang, C.~Kolda, J.~h.~Park and L.~T.~Wang,
1034: \prl{90}{141803}{2003}; S.~Baek, \prd{67}{096004}{2003};
1035: A. Kundu and T. Mitra, \prd{67}{116005}{2003};
1036: K. Agashe and C. D. Carone, hep-ph/0304229.
1037:
1038: \bibitem{CR03} C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, hep-ph/0302094, to be published
1039: in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1040:
1041: \bibitem{GLNQ} Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and H. Quinn, SLAC Report
1042: No.\ SLAC-PUB-9670, hep-ph/0303171 (unpublished).
1043:
1044: \bibitem{GRKKK} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-14, hep-ph/0304178, to be
1045: published in Phys.\ Lett.\ B.
1046:
1047: \bibitem{DGR95} A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{367}{357}{1996};
1048: \ibj{377}{325(E)}{1996}.
1049:
1050: \bibitem{DGR97} A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{79}{4333}{1997}.
1051:
1052: \bibitem{CR01} C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{074035}{2002}.
1053:
1054: \bibitem{FHH} H.-K. Fu, X.-G. He, and Y.-K. Hsiao, preprint hep-ph/0304242.
1055:
1056: \bibitem{CGR} C.-W. Chiang, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-24, to be
1057: submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1058:
1059: \bibitem{BN} M. Beneke and M. Neubert, \np{B651}{225}{2003}.
1060:
1061: \bibitem{Kpp} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prl{88}{181803}{2002}.
1062:
1063: \bibitem{JRbbbar} J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-11, hep-ex/0303079, to be published in
1064: Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1065:
1066: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998}.
1067:
1068: \bibitem{Babrs} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, quoted by S. Playfer at LHCb
1069: Workshop, CERN, February 2003.
1070:
1071: \bibitem{Bebrs} Belle \cn, presented by T. Tomura at 38th Rencontres de Moriond
1072: on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 15--22
1073: March 2003, hep-ex/0305036.
1074:
1075: \bibitem{CLbrs} CLEO \cn, A. Bornheim \ite, Cornell Laboratory of Nuclear
1076: Science Report No.\ CLNS-03-1816, hep-ex/0302026, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1077:
1078: \bibitem{JRmor} J. L. Rosner, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on
1079: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 15--22
1080: March 2003, \efi 03-16, hep-ph/0304200.
1081:
1082: \bibitem{LEPBOSC} LEP B Oscillations Working Group,
1083: {\tt http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/}.
1084:
1085: \bibitem{GRKpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
1086:
1087: \bibitem{GRL} M. Gronau, J. L. Rosner, and D. London, \prl{73}{21}{1994}.
1088:
1089: \bibitem{EWP} R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399}{1994}; N. G. Deshpande and X.-G He,
1090: \prl{74}{26}{1995}; \ibj{74}{4099(E)}{1995}.
1091:
1092: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998};
1093: \prl{81}{5076}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{BRS} S.~Barshay, D.~Rein and L.~M.~Sehgal, \plb{259}{475}{1991}.
1096:
1097: \bibitem{AK} M. R. Ahmady and E. Kou, \prd{59}{054014}{1999}.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{CLeta} CLEO Collaboration, S. J. Richichi \ite, \prl {85}{520}{2000}.
1100:
1101: \bibitem{Baeta} BaBar Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, SLAC Report No.\
1102: SLAC-PUB-9962, hep-ex/0303039, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD
1103: and High Energy Hadronic Interactions, 22--29 March, 2003, Les Arcs, France.
1104:
1105: \bibitem{Bobeth} C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger, and J. Urban,
1106: \prd{64}{074104}{2001}.
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Hiller} G. Hiller, presented at 5th International Conference on
1109: Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons (BEACH 2002), Vancouver, Canada, 25--29
1110: June 2002, \npbps{115}{76}{2003}.
1111:
1112: \bibitem{CMSAT} See in particular the presentations on $b$ physics reach of
1113: CMS by V. Ciulli and of ATLAS by M. Smizanska, this conference.
1114:
1115: \bibitem{Bec} D. Becirevic, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on
1116: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 15--22
1117: March 2003.
1118:
1119: \bibitem{RFKK} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306}{1999}.
1120:
1121: \bibitem{Jesik} R. Jesik and M. Pettini, in {\it $B$ Physics at the Tevatron:
1122: Run II and Beyond}, Fermilab Report No.\ FERMILAB-Pub-01/197, hep-ph/0201071,
1123: p.\ 179. [See especially Fig.\ 6.12(b)].
1124:
1125: \bibitem{GRKpi00} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{482}{71}{2000}.
1126:
1127: \bibitem{GRKK} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{113008}{2002}.
1128:
1129: \bibitem{MGU} M. Gronau, \plb{492}{297}{2000}.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{AB} A. Ali and F. Barreiro, \zpc{30}{635}{1986}.
1132:
1133: \bibitem{GNR} M. Gronau, A. Nippe, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{47}{1988}{1993}.
1134:
1135: \bibitem{GRtag} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{72}{195}{1994};
1136: \prd{49}{254}{1994}; \ibj{63}{054006}{2001}; \ibj{64}{099902(E)}{2001}.
1137:
1138: \bibitem{EHQ} E. Eichten, C. Hill, and C. Quigg, \prl{71}{4116}{1993}.
1139:
1140: \bibitem{BaDs} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC-PUB-9711,
1141: hep-ex/0304021.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{CLDs} CLEO \cn, D. Besson \ite, Cornell University Report No.\
1144: CLNS 03/1826, hep-ex/0305100, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{DGG} A. De R\'ujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow,
1149: \prl{37}{785}{1976}.
1150:
1151: \bibitem{JRPW} J. L. Rosner, \cmts{16}{109}{1986}.
1152:
1153: \bibitem{HQ} M. Lu, M. Wise, and N. Isgur, \prd{45}{1553}{1992}.
1154:
1155: \bibitem{BCL} T. Barnes, F. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, preprint hep-ph/0305025.
1156:
1157: \bibitem{BEH} W. A. Bardeen, E. Eichten, and C. T. Hill, Fermilab Report No.
1158: FERMILAB-PUB-03-071-T, hep-ph/0305049.
1159:
1160: \bibitem{BH} W. A. Bardeen and C. T. Hill, \prd{49}{409}{1994}. Chiral
1161: partners of the ground states of heavy mesons were independently predicted by
1162: M. A. Nowak, M. Rho, and I. Zahed, \prd{48}{4370}{1993}. See also D. Ebert, T.
1163: Feldmann, R. Friedrich, and H. Reinhardt, \np{B434}{619}{1995}; D. Ebert,
1164: T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, \plb{388}{154}{1996}.
1165:
1166: \bibitem{CJ} R. N. Cahn and J. D. Jackson, Lawrence Berkeley National
1167: Laboratory Report No.\ LBNL-52572, hep-ph/0305012 (unpublished).
1168:
1169: \bibitem{SG} S. Godfrey, preprint hep-ph/0305122 (unpublished).
1170:
1171: \bibitem{Col} P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, INFN Bari Report No.\
1172: BARI-TH-03-462, hep-ph/0305140 (unpublished).
1173:
1174: \bibitem{BTeV} See, e.g., the talk by K. Honscheid on the physics reach of
1175: BTeV, this conference.
1176:
1177: \bibitem{LHCb} See, e.g., the talk by M. Musy on the physics reach of LHCb,
1178: this conference.
1179:
1180: \bibitem{GRS} F. G\"ursey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, \plb{60}{177}{1976}.
1181:
1182: \bibitem{JRmix} J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{097303}{2000}.
1183:
1184: \bibitem{LR03} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-25, hep-ph/0305262,
1185: submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1186: \end{thebibliography}
1187: \end{document}
1188: