1: % B Physics (Theory)
2: % Talk at Fourth Tropical Workshop, Cairns, Australia, by J. Rosner
3: % Draft as of July 29, 2003
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %% Please remove the next line of code if you
7: %% are satisfied that your installation is
8: %% complete and working.
9: %% It is only there to help you in detecting
10: %% potential problems.
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: % \input{aipcheck}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \documentclass[final
15: %% ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
16: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
17: ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
18: %% , % add further options here if necessary
19: ]
20: {aipproc}
21: \layoutstyle{6x9}
22:
23: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
24: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
25: \def \b{{\cal B}}
26: \def \bb{\overline{{\cal B}}}
27: \def \cB{{\cal B}}
28: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
29: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
30: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
31: \def \gb{\overline{\Gamma}}
32: \def \gs{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
33: \def \ket#1{|#1 \rangle}
34: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
35: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
36: \def \ol{\overline}
37: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
38: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
39: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: \title{$B$ Physics (Theory)\footnote{\efi 03-32, hep-ph/0306284. Presented at
44: Fourth Tropical Workshop, Cairns, Australia, 9--13 June 2003. Proceedings
45: to be published by AIP.}}
46:
47: \author{Jonathan L. Rosner}{
48: address={Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics\\
49: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago IL 60637}
50: }
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: Some theoretical aspects of $B$ physics are reviewed. These include a brief
54: recapitulation of information on weak quark transitions as described by the
55: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, descriptions of CP asymmetries in
56: $B$ decays to CP eigenstates and to self-tagging modes, a discussion of
57: final-state phases in $B$ and charm decays, some topics on $B_s$ properties
58: and decays, prospects for unusual excited $B$ states opened by discovery
59: of some narrow $c \bar s$ resonances, and the search for heavier
60: $Q=1/3$ quarks predicted in some extended grand unified theories.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \maketitle
64:
65: % Section 1
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: The physics of $B$ mesons (those containing the $b$ [bottom or beauty] quark)
69: has greatly illuminated the study of the electroweak and strong interactions.
70: This brief review is devoted to some theoretical aspects of $B$ physics, with
71: emphasis on current questions for $e^+ e^-$ and hadron collider experiments.
72: Section 2 reviews weak quark transitions. We note in Section 3 progress and
73: puzzles in the study of $B^0$ decays to CP eigenstates, turning in Section 4
74: to direct CP asymmetries which require strong final-state phases for their
75: observation. Some aspects of these phases are described in in Section 5. We
76: devote Section 6 to the strange $B$ mesons, with Section 7 treating the
77: possibility of narrow $b \bar s$ states suggested by the recent observation of
78: narrow $c \bar s$ mesons. Section 8 discusses the prospects for seeing heavier
79: $Q=1/3$ quarks. We summarize in Section 9. This review updates and
80: supplements Refs.\ \cite{JRmor,JRLHC}.
81:
82: % Section 2
83: \section{Weak quark transitions}
84: The relative strengths of charge-changing weak quark transitions are shown
85: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans}. It is crucial to describe this pattern precisely in
86: order to distinguish among theories which might predict it, and to see whether
87: it can reproduce all weak phenomena including CP violation or whether some new
88: ingredient is needed.
89:
90: % This is Figure 1
91: \begin{figure}
92: \includegraphics[height=3in]{trans.ps}
93: \caption{Charge-changing weak transitions among quarks. Solid
94: lines: relative strength 1; dashed lines: relative strength 0.22;
95: dot-dashed lines: relative strength 0.04; dotted lines: relative strength
96: $\le 0.01$.
97: \label{fig:trans}}
98: \end{figure}
99:
100: \subsection{The CKM matrix}
101: The interactions in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans} may be parametrized by a unitary
102: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix which can be written approximately
103: \cite{WP,Battaglia} in terms of a small expansion parameter $\lambda$ as
104: \beq \label{eqn:WP}
105: V_{\rm CKM} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
106: 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda & A \lambda^3 (\rho - i \eta) \\
107: - \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
108: A \lambda^3 (1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta) & - A \lambda^2 & 1 \end{array}
109: \right]~~~,
110: \eeq
111: where $\bar \rho \equiv \rho (1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2})$ and
112: $\bar \eta \equiv \eta (1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2})$.
113: The columns refer to $d,s,b$ and the rows to $u,c,t$. The parameter $\lambda =
114: 0.224$ \cite{Battaglia} is $\sin \theta_c$, where $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo
115: angle. The value $|V_{cb}| \simeq 0.041$, obtained from $b \to c$ decays,
116: indicates $A \simeq 0.82$, while $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| \simeq 0.1$, obtained from
117: $b \to u$ decays, implies $(\rho^2 + \eta^2)^{1/2} \simeq 0.45$. We shall
118: generally use the CKM parameters quoted in Ref.\ \cite{CKMf}.
119:
120: \subsection{The unitarity triangle}
121:
122: The unitarity of the CKM matrix can be expressed in terms of a triangle in the
123: complex $\bar \rho + i \bar \eta$ plane, with vertices at (0,0) (angle $\phi_3
124: = \gamma$), (1,0) (angle $\phi_1 = \beta$), and $(\bar \rho, \bar \eta)$ (angle
125: $\phi_2 = \alpha$). The triangle has unit base and its other two sides are
126: $\bar \rho + i \bar \eta = -(V^*_{ub}V_{ud}/ V^*_{cb} V_{cd})$
127: $\phi_1 = \beta$) and $1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta = -(V^*_{tb}V_{td}/V^*_{cb}
128: V_{cd})$. The result is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ut}.
129:
130: % This is Figure 2
131: \begin{figure}
132: \includegraphics[height=1.5in]{ut.ps}
133: \caption{The unitarity triangle \cite{JRmor}. Ranges of angles allowed at
134: 95\% c.l.\ \cite{CKMf} are $78^\circ < \alpha < 122^\circ$, $20^\circ < \beta
135: < 27^\circ$, and $38^\circ < \gamma < 80^\circ$.
136: \label{fig:ut}}
137: \end{figure}
138:
139: Flavor-changing loop diagrams provide further constraints. CP-violating
140: $K^0$--$\ol K^0$ mixing is dominated by $\bar s d \to \bar d s$ with virtual
141: $t \bar t$ and $W^+ W^-$ intermediate states. It constrains Im$(V_{td}^2) \sim
142: \bar \eta (1 - \bar \rho)$, giving a hyperbolic band in the $(\bar \rho, \bar
143: \eta)$ plane. $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing is dominated by $t \bar t$ and $W^+ W^-$
144: in the loop diagram for $\bar b d \to \bar d b$, and thus constrains $|V_{td}|$
145: and hence $|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta|$. By comparing $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ and
146: $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing, one reduces dependence on matrix elements and
147: learns $|V_{ts}/V_{td}| > 4.4$ or $|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta| < 1$.
148: The resulting constraints are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:CKMf} \cite{CKMf}.
149:
150: % This is Figure 3
151: \begin{figure}
152: \includegraphics[height=5.9in]{CKMf.ps}
153: \caption{Constraints in the $(\bar \rho, \bar \eta)$ plane as of July
154: 2002 (from the web page of Ref.\ \cite{CKMf}).
155: \label{fig:CKMf}}
156: \end{figure}
157:
158: % Section 3
159: \section{$B$ decays to CP eigenstates}
160: The decays of neutral $B$ mesons to CP eigenstates $f$, where $CP \ket{f} =
161: \xi_f \ket{f}$, $\xi_f = \pm 1$, provide direct information on CKM phases
162: without the need to understand complications of strong interactions. As a
163: result of $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing, a state $B^0$ at proper time $t=0$ evolves into
164: a mixture of $B^0$ and $\ob$ denoted $B^0(t)$. Thus there will be one pathway
165: to the final state $f$ from $B^0$ through the amplitude $A$ and another from
166: $\ob$ through the amplitude $\bar A$, which acquires an additional phase $2
167: \phi_1 = 2 \beta$ through the mixing. The interference of these two amplitudes
168: can differ in the decays $B^0(t) \to f$ and $\ob (t) \to f$, leading to a
169: time-integrated rate asymmetry
170: \beq
171: A_{CP} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\ob \to f) - \Gamma(B^0 \to f)}
172: {\Gamma(\ob \to f) + \Gamma(B^0 \to f)}
173: \eeq
174: as well as to time-dependent rates
175: \beq
176: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \Gamma[B^0(t) \to f] \\ \Gamma[\ob (t) \to f]
177: \end{array} \right\} \sim e^{- \Gamma t} [ 1 \mp A_f \cos \Delta m t
178: \mp S_f \sin \Delta m t ]~~~,
179: \eeq
180: where
181: \beq
182: A_f \equiv \frac{|\lambda|^2 - 1}{|\lambda|^2 + 1}~~,~~~
183: S_f \equiv \frac{2 {\rm Im} \lambda}{|\lambda|^2 + 1}~~,~~~
184: \lambda \equiv e^{-2 i \beta} \frac{\bar A}{A}~~~,
185: \eeq
186: where $S_f^2 + A_f^2 \le 1$ \cite{BaBarPhys,TASI}.
187:
188: \subsection{$B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$ and $\phi_1 = \beta$}
189: For this decay one has $\bar A/A \simeq \xi_{J/\psi K_S} = -1$. The
190: time-integrated asymmetry $A_{CP}$ is proportional to $\sin(2
191: \phi_1) = \sin(2 \beta)$. Using this and related decays involving the same
192: quark subprocess, BaBar \cite{Babeta} finds $\sin(2 \beta) = 0.741 \pm 0.067
193: \pm 0.033$ while Belle \cite{Bebeta} finds $0.719 \pm 0.074 \pm 0.035$. The
194: world average \cite{avbeta} is $\sin(2 \beta) = 0.734 \pm 0.054$, consistent
195: with other determinations \cite{CKMf,Ciu,AL}.
196:
197: \subsection{$B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\phi_2 = \alpha$}
198: Two amplitudes contribute to the decay: a ``tree'' $T$ and a ``penguin'' $P$:
199: \beq
200: A = - (|T|e^{i \gamma} + |P| e^{i \delta})~~,~~~
201: \bar A = - (|T|e^{-i \gamma} + |P| e^{i \delta})~~~,
202: \eeq
203: where $\delta$ is the relative $P/T$ strong phase. The asymmetry
204: $A_{CP}$ would be proportional to $\sin(2 \alpha)$ if the penguin
205: amplitude could be neglected. One way to account for its contribution is via
206: an isospin analysis \cite{GL} of $B$ decays to $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $\pi^\pm \pi^0$,
207: and $\pi^0 \pi^0$, separating the amplitudes for decays involving $I=0$ and
208: $I=2$ final states. Information can then be obtained on both strong and weak
209: phases. Since the branching ratio of $B^0$ to $\pi^0 \pi^0$ may be very small,
210: of order $10^{-6}$, alternative methods \cite{GR02,GRconv} may be useful in
211: which flavor SU(3) symmetry is used to estimate the penguin contribution
212: \cite{SW,GHLR,Charles}.
213:
214: The tree amplitude for $B^0 (= \bar b d) \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ involves
215: $\bar b \to \pi^+ \bar u$, with the spectator $d$ quark combining
216: with $\bar u$ to form a $\pi^-$. Its magnitude is $|T|$; its weak phase
217: is Arg($V^*_{ub}) = \gamma$; by convention its strong phase is 0. The
218: penguin amplitude involves the flavor structure $\bar b \to \bar d$, with the
219: final $\bar d d$ pair fragmenting into $\pi^+ \pi^-$. Its magnitude is
220: $|P|$. The dominant $t$ contribution in the loop diagram for $\bar b \to \bar
221: d$ can be integrated out and the unitarity relation $V_{td} V^*_{tb} =
222: - V_{cd} V^*_{cb} - V_{ud} V^*_{ub}$ used. The $V_{ud} V^*_{ub}$ contribution
223: can be absorbed into a redefinition of the tree amplitude, after which
224: the weak phase of the penguin amplitude is 0 (mod $\pi$). By definition, its
225: strong phase is $\delta$.
226:
227: The time-dependent asymmetries $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $A_{\pi \pi}$
228: specify both $\gamma$ (or $\alpha = \pi - \beta - \gamma$) and $\delta$,
229: if one has an independent estimate of $|P/T|$. One may obtain $|P|$ from $B^+
230: \to K^0 \pi^+$ using flavor SU(3) \cite{SW,GHLR,GR95} and $|T|$ from $B \to
231: \pi l \nu$ using factorization \cite{LR}. (An alternative method discussed
232: in Refs.\ \cite{GRconv,Charles} uses the measured ratio of the $B^+ \to K^0
233: \pi^+$ and $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratios to constrain $|P/T|$.)
234:
235: In addition to $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $A_{\pi \pi}$, a useful quantity
236: is the ratio of the $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratio $\cB(\pi^+ \pi^-)$
237: (unless otherwise specified, branching ratios refer to CP averages) to that due
238: to the tree amplitude alone:
239: \beq
240: R_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac{\cB(\pi^+ \pi^-)}{\cB(\pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree}}
241: = 1 + 2 \left| \frac{P}{T} \right| \cos \delta \cos \gamma
242: + \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|^2~~~.
243: \eeq
244: One also has
245: \beq
246: R_{\pi \pi} S_{\pi \pi} = \sin 2 \alpha + 2 \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|
247: \cos \delta \sin(\beta - \alpha) - \left| \frac{P}{T} \right|^2 \sin 2 \beta
248: ~~~,
249: \eeq
250: \beq
251: R_{\pi \pi} A_{\pi \pi} = - 2 |P/T| \sin \delta \sin \gamma
252: ~~~.
253: \eeq
254: We take $\beta = 23.6^\circ$.
255: The value of $|P/T|$ (updating \cite{GR02,GRconv}) is $0.28 \pm 0.06$. Taking
256: the central value, we plot in Fig.\ \ref{fig:sa} trajectories in the
257: ($S_{\pi \pi},A_{\pi \pi}$) plane for $-\pi \le \delta \le \pi$.
258:
259: % This is Figure 4
260: \begin{figure}
261: \includegraphics[height=4.5in]{sa.ps}
262: \caption{Curves depicting dependence of $S_{\pi \pi}$ and
263: $A_{\pi \pi}$ on $\delta$ \cite{JRmor}.
264: From right to left the curves correspond to $\phi_2 = (120^\circ, 105^\circ,
265: 90^\circ, 75^\circ, 60^\circ)$. Plotted point: average of BaBar and Belle
266: values (see text). As $|\delta|$ increases from 0 to $\pi$, the values of
267: $S_{\pi \pi}$ become more positive, while the magnitudes $|A_{\pi
268: \pi}|$ increase from zero and then return to zero. Positive values of
269: $A_{\pi \pi}$ correspond to negative values of $\delta$.
270: \label{fig:sa}}
271: \end{figure}
272:
273: % This is Table 1
274: \begin{table}
275: \caption{Values of $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $A_{\pi \pi}$ quoted by
276: BaBar and Belle and their averages. Here we have applied scale factors
277: of $\sqrt{\chi^2} = (2.31,1.24)$ to the errors for
278: $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $A_{\pi \pi}$, respectively.
279: \label{tab:sa}}
280: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
281: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Bapipi} & Belle \cite{Bepipi} &
282: Average \\ \hline
283: $S_{\pi \pi}$ & $0.02\pm0.34\pm0.05$ & $-1.23\pm0.41^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ &
284: $-0.49 \pm 0.61$ \\
285: $A_{\pi \pi}$ & $0.30\pm0.25\pm0.04$ & $ 0.77 \pm 0.27 \pm 0.08$ &
286: $~~0.51 \pm 0.23$ \\ \hline
287: \end{tabular}
288: \end{table}
289:
290: As shown in Table \ref{tab:sa}, BaBar \cite{Bapipi} and Belle \cite{Bepipi}
291: obtain different asymmetries, especially $S_{\pi \pi}$. Even once this
292: conflict is resolved, there are discrete ambiguities, since curves for
293: different $\alpha$ intersect one another. These can be resolved with the
294: help of $R_{\pi \pi} = 0.62 \pm 0.28$, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:sr}. The
295: present value favors large $|\delta|$ and $\phi_2 = \alpha > 90^\circ$, but
296: with large uncertainty. It is not yet settled whether $A_{\pi \pi} \ne 0$,
297: corresponding to ``direct'' CP violation.
298:
299: % This is Figure 5
300: \begin{figure}
301: \includegraphics[height=3.1in]{sr.ps}
302: \caption{Curves depicting dependence of $R_{\pi \pi}$ on $S_{\pi \pi}$
303: for various values of $\delta$\cite{JRmor}. The plotted point is the average
304: of BaBar and Belle values for $ S_{\pi \pi}$ (see text).
305: \label{fig:sr}}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: Does the tree ($T$) amplitude alone account for the $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ rate
309: (corresponding to $R_{\pi \pi} = 1$) or is there destructive
310: interference with the penguin terms (corresponding to $R_{\pi \pi} < 1$)?
311: Recently Zumin Luo and I \cite{LR03} have combined the $B \to \pi l \nu$
312: spectrum reported by the CLEO Collaboration \cite{CLEOsl03} with information
313: on the $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ rate, estimates of the ratio of color-suppressed
314: to color-favored amplitude in this process, other determinations of $|V_{ub}|$,
315: and lattice gauge theory predictions of the $B \to \pi l \nu$ form factor at
316: high momentum transfer, to find that $R_{\pi \pi} = 0.87^{+0.11}_{-0.28}$.
317: The corresponding fit to the $B \to \pi l \nu$ spectrum is shown in Fig.\
318: \ref{fig:br}, while the fit to the lattice predictions is shown in Fig.\
319: \ref{fig:ff}. For massless leptons (a good approximation), the differential
320: decay rate is governed by a single form factor $F_+(q^2)$:
321: \beq \label{eqn:diff}
322: \frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}(B^0 \to \pi^-\ell^+ \nu_{\ell}) =
323: \frac{G_F^2|V_{ub}|^2}{24\pi^3}|\vec{p}_{\pi}|^3|F_+(q^2)|^2~~ ,
324: \eeq
325: where we take the simple form $F_+(q^2) = [F(0)](1 + a q^2/m_{B^*}^2)/(1 -
326: q^2/m_{B^*}^2)$. We find $a = 1.14^{+0.72}_{-0.42}$, $F_+(0) = 0.23 \pm 0.04$.
327: The evidence for destructive tree-penguin interference in $B^0 \to \pi^+
328: \pi^-$ is not overwhelming. A more definite conclusion will be possible when
329: improved $B \to \pi l \nu$ spectra become available.
330:
331: % This is Figure 6
332: \begin{figure}
333: \includegraphics[height=3.8in]{br.ps}
334: \caption{Fit to $\int dq^2 \frac{d \b}{d q^2}(B^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l)$ values
335: \cite{LR03} obtained for three $q^2$ bins in Ref.\ \cite{CLEOsl03}. Points
336: with errors correspond to data; the histogram represents the fit.
337: \label{fig:br}}
338: \end{figure}
339:
340: % This is Figure 7
341: \begin{figure}
342: \includegraphics[height=5.0in]{ff.ps} \\
343: \caption{Comparison of lattice data points with best-fit form factor $F_+(q^2)$
344: \cite{LR03}. Lattice data are from UKQCD (squares), APE
345: (stars), Fermilab (circles) and JLQCD (diamonds) (see \cite{LR03}).
346: \label{fig:ff}}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: \subsection{$B^0 \to \phi K_S$ vs. $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$}
350: In $B^0 \to \phi K_S$, governed by the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude,
351: the standard model predicts the same CP asymmetries as in those processes (like
352: $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$) governed by $\bar b \to \bar s c \bar c$. In both cases
353: the weak phase is expected to be 0 (mod $\pi$), so the indirect CP asymmetry
354: should be governed by $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing and thus should be proportional to
355: $\sin 2 \beta$. There should be no direct CP asymmetries (i.e., $A
356: \simeq 0$) in either case. This is true for $B \to J/\psi K$; $A$ is
357: consistent with zero in the neutral mode, while the direct CP asymmetry is
358: consistent with zero in the charged mode \cite{Babeta}. However, a different
359: result for $B^0 \to \phi K_S$ could point to new physics in the $\bar b \to
360: \bar s$ penguin amplitude \cite{GW}.
361:
362: The experimental asymmetries in $B^0 \to \phi K_S$ \cite{Baphks,Bephks} are
363: shown in Table \ref{tab:phks}. For $A_{\phi K_S}$ there is a substantial
364: discrepancy between BaBar and Belle. The value of $S_{\phi K_S}$, which
365: should equal $\sin 2 \beta = 0.734 \pm 0.054$ in the standard model, is about
366: $2.7 \sigma$ away from it. If the amplitudes for $B^0 \to \phi K^0$ and $B^+
367: \to \phi K^+$ are equal (true in many approaches), the time-integrated CP
368: asymmetry $A_{CP}$ in the charged mode should equal $A_{\phi K_S}$. The
369: BaBar Collaboration \cite{Aubert:2003tk} has recently reported
370: $A_{CP}(\phi K^+) = 0.039 \pm 0.086 \pm 0.011$.
371:
372: % This is Table 2
373: \begin{table}
374: \caption{Values of $S_{\phi K_S}$ and $A_{\phi K_S}$ quoted by
375: BaBar and Belle and their averages. We have applied a scale factor of
376: $\sqrt{\chi^2} = 2.29$ to the error on $A_{\phi K_S}$.
377: \label{tab:phks}}
378: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
379: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Baphks} & Belle \cite{Bephks} &
380: Average \\ \hline
381: $S_{\phi K_S}$ & $-0.18\pm0.51\pm0.07$ & $-0.73\pm0.64\pm0.22$ &
382: $-0.38 \pm 0.41$ \\
383: $A_{\phi K_S}$ & $0.80\pm0.38\pm0.12$ & $-0.56\pm0.41\pm0.16$ &
384: $0.19 \pm 0.68$ \\ \hline
385: \end{tabular}
386: \end{table}
387:
388: Many proposals for new physics can account for the departure of $S_
389: {\phi K_S}$ from its expected value of $\sin 2 \beta$ \cite{npphks}. A method
390: for extracting a new physics amplitude has been developed \cite{CR03}, using
391: the measured values of $S_{\phi K_S}$ and $A_{\phi K_S}$ and the ratio
392: \beq \label{eqn:rphks}
393: R_{\phi K_S} \equiv \frac{\cB(B^0 \to \phi K_S)}{\cB(B^0 \to \phi K_S)|_{\rm
394: std}} = 1 + 2 r \cos \phi \cos \delta + r^2~~~,
395: \eeq
396: where $r$ is the ratio of the magnitude of the new amplitude to the one in
397: the standard model, and $\phi$ and $\delta$ are their relative weak and
398: strong phases. For any values of $R_{\phi K_S}$, $\phi$, and $\delta$, Eq.\
399: (\ref{eqn:rphks}) can be solved for the amplitude ratio $r$ and one then
400: calculates the asymmetry parameters as functions of $\phi$ and $\delta$.
401: The $\phi K_S$ branching ratio in the standard model is calculated using the
402: penguin amplitude from $B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+$ and an estimate of electroweak
403: penguin corrections. Various regions of $(\phi, \delta)$ can reproduce the
404: observed values of $S_{\phi K_S}$ and $A_{\phi K_S}$. Typical
405: values of $r$ are of order 1; one generally needs to invoke new-physics
406: amplitudes comparable to those in the standard model.
407:
408: The above scenario envisions new physics entirely in $B^0 \to \phi K^0$ and
409: not in $B^+ \to K^{*0} \pi^+$. An alternative is that new physics
410: contributes to the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude and thus appears
411: in {\it both} decays. Again, $S_{\phi K_S}$ suggests
412: an amplitude associated with new physics \cite{CR03}, but one must wait until
413: the discrepancy with the standard model becomes more significant. At present
414: both the decays $B^0 \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP = +}$ and $B^0 \to \eta' K_S$
415: display CP asymmetries consistent with standard expectations.
416:
417: \subsection{$B^0 \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP=+}$}
418: The Belle Collaboration \cite{Bephks} finds that for $K^+ K^-$ not in the
419: $\phi$ peak, most of the decay $B^0 \to K_S K^+ K^-$ involves even CP for the
420: $K^+ K^-$ system ($\xi_{K^+ K^-} = +1$). It is found that
421: \bea
422: - \xi_{K^+ K^-} S_{K^+ K^-} & = & 0.49\pm0.43\pm 0.11^{+0.33}_{-0.00}
423: ~~~,\\
424: A_{K^+ K^-} & = & -0.40 \pm 0.33 \pm 0.10^{+0.00}_{-0.26}~~,
425: \eea
426: where the third set of errors arise from uncertainty in the fraction of the
427: CP-odd component. Independent estimates of this fraction have been performed
428: in Refs.\ \cite{GLNQ} and \cite{GRKKK}. The quantity $- \xi_{K^+ K^-}
429: S_{K^+ K^-}$ should equal $\sin 2 \beta$ in the standard model, but additional
430: non-penguin contributions can lead this quantity to range between 0.2 and
431: 1.0 \cite{GRKKK}.
432:
433: \subsection{$B \to \eta' K$ (charged and neutral modes)}
434: At present neither the rate nor the CP asymmetry in $B \to \eta' K$ present
435: a significant challenge to the standard model. The rate can be reproduced
436: with the help of a modest contribution from a ``flavor-singlet penguin''
437: amplitude \cite{DGR95,DGR97,CR01,FHH,CGR}. (An alternative treatment
438: \cite{BN} finds an enhanced standard-penguin contribution to $B \to \eta' K$.)
439: The CP asymmetry is not a problem; the ordinary and singlet penguin amplitudes
440: have the same weak phase Arg$(V^*_{ts}V_{tb}) \simeq \pi$ and hence one
441: expects $S_{\eta' K_S} \simeq \sin 2 \beta$, $A_{\eta' K_S}
442: \simeq 0$. The experimental situation is shown in Table \ref{tab:etapks}.
443: The value of $S_{\eta' K_S}$ is consistent with the standard model
444: expectation at the $1 \sigma$ level, while $A_{\eta' K_S}$ is consistent
445: with zero.
446:
447: % This is Table 3
448: \begin{table}
449: \caption{Values of $S_{\eta' K_S}$ and $A_{\eta' K_S}$ quoted by
450: BaBar and Belle and their averages. We have applied scale factors
451: $\sqrt{\chi^2} = (1.48,1.15)$ to the errors for
452: $S_{\eta' K_S}$ and $A_{\eta' K_S}$, respectively.
453: \label{tab:etapks}}
454: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
455: Quantity & BaBar \cite{Baphks} & Belle \cite{Bephks} &
456: Average \\ \hline
457: $S_{\eta' K_S}$ & $0.02\pm0.34\pm0.03$ & $0.76\pm0.36^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ &
458: $0.37 \pm 0.37$ \\
459: $A_{\eta' K_S}$ & $-0.10\pm0.22\pm0.03$ & $0.26\pm0.22\pm0.03$ &
460: $0.08 \pm 0.18$ \\ \hline
461: \end{tabular}
462: \end{table}
463:
464: The singlet penguin amplitude may contribute elsewhere in $B$ decays. It is
465: a possible source of a low-effective-mass $\bar p p$ enhancement \cite{Kpp} in
466: $B^+ \to \bar p p K^+$ \cite{JRbbbar}.
467:
468: % Section 4
469: \section{Direct CP asymmetries}
470: Decays such as $B \to K \pi$ (with the exception of $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$) are
471: {\it self-tagging}: Their final states indicate the flavor of the
472: decaying state. For example, the $K^+ \pi^-$ final state is expected to
473: originate purely from a $B^0$ and not from a $\ob$. Such self-tagging decays
474: involve both weak and strong
475: phases. Several methods permit one to separate these from one another.
476:
477: \subsection{$B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ vs.\ $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$}
478: The decay $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ is a pure penguin ($P$) process, while the
479: amplitude for $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ is proportional to $P + T$, where $T$ is a
480: (strangeness-changing) tree amplitude. The ratio $T/P$ has magnitude $r$, weak
481: phase $\gamma \pm \pi$, and strong phase $\delta$. The ratio
482: $R_0$ of these two rates (averaged over a process and its CP conjugate) is
483: \beq \label{eqn:Rval}
484: R_0 \equiv \frac{\gb(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)}{\gb(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)} =
485: 1 - 2 r \cos \gamma \cos \delta + r^2 \ge \sin^2 \gamma~~~,
486: \eeq
487: where the inequality holds for any $r$ and $\delta$. For $R_0 < 1$ this
488: inequality implies a constraint on $\gamma$ \cite{FM}. Using branching ratios
489: \cite{Babrs,Bebrs,CLbrs} averaged in Ref.\ \cite{GRKpi03} and the $B^+/B^0$
490: lifetime ratio from Ref.\ \cite{LEPBOSC}, one finds $R_0 = 0.948 \pm 0.074$,
491: which is consistent with 1 and does not permit application of the bound.
492: However, using additional information on $r$ and the CP asymmetry in $B^0 \to
493: K^+ \pi^-$, one can obtain a constraint on $\gamma$ \cite{GR02,GRKpi}.
494:
495: In Refs.\ \cite{GR02,GRKpi} we defined a ``pseudo-asymmetry'' normalized by the
496: rate for $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^+$, a process which should not have a CP asymmetry
497: since only the penguin amplitude contributes to it:
498: \beq \label{eqn:asy}
499: A_0 \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+) - \Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)}
500: {2 \gb(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)} = R_0 A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)
501: = - 2 r \sin \gamma \sin \delta~~~.
502: \eeq
503: One can eliminate $\delta$ between this equation and Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:Rval}) and
504: plot $R_0$ as a function of $\gamma$ for the allowed range of $|A_0|$. For
505: a recent analysis based on this method see \cite{JRmor}. Instead we shall
506: directly use $A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)$, as in Refs.\ \cite{JRLHC} and \cite{MGFPCP}.
507:
508: The value of $r$, based on present branching ratios and arguments given in
509: Refs.\ \cite{JRmor,GR02,GRKpi}) is $r = 0.17 \pm 0.04$. BaBar and Belle data
510: imply $A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-) = -0.09 \pm 0.04$, leading us to take its magnitude as
511: less than 0.13 at the $1 \sigma$ level. Curves for $A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)=0$ and
512: $|A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)| = 0.13$ are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Racp} \cite{GRKpi03}.
513: The lower limit $r = 0.13$ is used to generate these curves since the limit
514: on $\gamma$ will be the most conservative.
515:
516: Using the $1 \sigma$ constraints on $R_0$ and $|A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-)|$ one finds
517: $\gamma \gs 50^\circ$. No bound can be obtained at the 95\% confidence level,
518: however. Further data are needed in order for a useful constraint to be
519: obtained.
520:
521: % This is Figure 8
522: \begin{figure}
523: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{Racp.ps}
524: \caption{Behavior of $R_0$ for $r = 0.134$ and $A_0 = 0$ (dashed curves) or
525: $|A_0| = 0.13$ (solid curve) as a function of the weak phase $\gamma$
526: \cite{GRKpi03}.
527: Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental limits on $R_0$,
528: while dot-dashed lines denote $95\%$ c.l. ($\pm 1.96 \sigma$) limits.
529: \label{fig:Racp}}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532: \subsection{$B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ vs.\ $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$}
533: The comparison of rates for $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ also
534: gives information on $\gamma$. The amplitude for $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ is
535: proportional to $P + T + C$, where $C$ is a color-suppressed amplitude. It was
536: suggested in \cite{GRL} that this amplitude be compared with $P$ from $B^+ \to
537: K^0 \pi^+$ and $T+C$ taken from $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ using flavor SU(3) and
538: a triangle construction to determine $\gamma$. Electroweak penguin amplitudes
539: contributing in the $T+C$ term \cite{EWP} may be taken into account \cite{NR}
540: by noting that since $T+C$ corresponds to isospin $I(K \pi) = 3/2$ for the
541: final state, the strong-interaction phase of its EWP contribution is the same
542: as that of the rest of the $T+C$ amplitude.
543:
544: New data on branching ratios and CP asymmetries permit an update of previous
545: analyses \cite{GR02,NR}. One makes use of the quantities (see \cite{CGR} and
546: \cite{GRKpi03})
547: \beq
548: R_c \equiv \frac{2 \gb(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)}{\gb(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
549: = 1.24 \pm 0.13~~, \label{eqn:Rc}
550: \eeq
551: \beq \label{eqn:Accp}
552: {\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0)
553: = - \frac{2 r_c \sin \delta_c \sin \gamma}{R_c} = 0.035 \pm 0.071~~~,
554: \eeq
555: where $r_c \equiv |(T+C)/P| = 0.20 \pm 0.02$, and a strong phase $\delta_c$
556: is eliminated by combining (\ref{eqn:Rc}) and (\ref{eqn:Accp}).
557: One must also use an estimate \cite{NR} of the electroweak penguin parameter
558: $\delta_{\rm EW} = 0.65 \pm 0.15$. One obtains the most conservative (i.e.,
559: weakest) bound on $\gamma$ for the maximum values of $r_c$ and $\delta_{\rm
560: EW}$ \cite{GR02}. The resulting plot is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Rcacp}
561: \cite{JRmor,GRKpi03}.) One
562: obtains a bound at the $1 \sigma$ level very similar to that in the previous
563: case: $\gamma \gs 52^\circ$. The bound is actually set by the curve for
564: {\it zero} CP asymmetry, as emphasized in Ref.\ \cite{NR}.
565:
566: % This is Figure 9
567: \begin{figure}
568: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{Rcacp.ps}
569: \caption{Behavior of $R_c$ for $r_c = 0.22$ ($1 \sigma$ upper limit) and
570: ${\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0) = 0$ (dashed curves) or $|{\cal A}_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0)|
571: = 0.11$ (solid curve) as a function of the weak phase $\gamma$
572: \cite{GRKpi03}.
573: Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental limits on $R_c$,
574: while dotdashed lines denote 95\% c.l. ($ \pm 1.96 \sigma$) limits. We have
575: taken $\delta_{EW} = 0.80$ (its $1 \sigma$ upper limit), which
576: leads to the most conservative bound on $\gamma$.
577: \label{fig:Rcacp}}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: \subsection{Asymmetries in $B^+ \to (\pi^0,\eta,\eta')K^+$}
581: The amplitudes for the decays $B^+ \to M^0 K^+$~ [($M^0 = (\pi^0,\eta,\eta')$]
582: all are dominated by penguin amplitudes and can be expressed as
583: \beq
584: A(B^+ \to M^0 K^+) = a(e^{i \gamma} - \delta_{EW}) e^{i \delta_T} - b~~~,
585: \eeq
586: where $a$ and $b$ may be calculated using flavor SU(3) from other processes
587: \cite{CGR}, and $\delta_T$ is a strong phase. The allowed ranges of the
588: resulting CP asymmetries are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:acp} \cite{CGR}. The
589: asymmetries are sensitive to $\delta_T$ but vary less significantly with
590: $\gamma$ over the 95\% c.l. allowed range \cite{CKMf} $38^\circ < \gamma <
591: 80^\circ$. For illustration we have chosen $\gamma = 60^\circ$.
592:
593: % This is Figure 10
594: \begin{figure}
595: \includegraphics[height=4.2in]{acp.ps}
596: \caption{Predicted $CP$ rate asymmetries when $\gamma = 60^\circ$ for $B^+ \to
597: \pi^0 K^+$ (top), $B^+ \to \eta K^+$ (middle), and $B^+ \to \eta' K^+$
598: (bottom) \cite{CGR}. Horizontal dashed lines denote 95\% c.l. ($\pm 1.96
599: \sigma$) upper and lower experimental bounds, leading to corresponding bounds
600: on $\delta_T$ denoted by vertical dashed lines. Arrows point toward allowed
601: regions.
602: \label{fig:acp}}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605: The constraints on $\delta_T$ from $A_{CP}(\pi^0 K^+)$ are $-34^\circ
606: \le \delta_T \le 19^\circ$ and a region of comparable size around $\delta_T =
607: \pi$. The allowed range of $A_{CP}(\eta K^+)$ restricts these regions
608: further, leading to net allowed regions $-7^\circ \le \delta_T \le 19^\circ$ or
609: a comparable region around $\delta_T = \pi$. These regions do not change
610: much if we vary $\gamma$ over its allowed range. The scheme of Ref.\ \cite{BN}
611: predicts an opposite sign of $A_{CP}(\eta K^+)$ to ours for a given
612: sign of $\delta_T$ and hence the constraints will differ.
613:
614: \subsection{$B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$}
615: The possibility that several different amplitudes could contribute to
616: $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$, thereby leading to the possibility of a large direct
617: CP asymmetry, has been recognized for some time \cite{GR95,DGR95,DGR97,BRS,AK}.
618: Contributions can arise from a tree amplitude (color-favored plus
619: color-suppressed) $T+C$, whose magnitude is estimated from that
620: occurring in $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, a penguin amplitude $P$, obtained via
621: flavor SU(3) from $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, and a singlet penguin amplitude $S$,
622: obtained from $B \to \eta' K$.
623:
624: In Table \ref{tab:etapi} we summarize branching ratios and CP asymmetries
625: obtained for the decay $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$ by CLEO \cite{CLeta}, BaBar
626: \cite{Baeta}, and Belle \cite{Bebrs}. We assume that the $S$ and $P$
627: amplitudes have the same weak and strong phases. The equality of their weak
628: phases is quite likely, while tests exist for the latter assumption \cite{CGR}.
629:
630: % This is Table 4
631: \begin{table}
632: \caption{Branching ratios and CP asymmetries for $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$.
633: \label{tab:etapi}}
634: \begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline
635: & $\cB~(10^{-6})$ & $A_{CP}$ \\ \hline
636: CLEO \cite{CLeta} & $1.2^{+2.8}_{-1.2}~(< 5.7)$ & -- \\
637: BaBar \cite{Baeta} & $4.2^{+1.0}_{-0.9} \pm 0.3$ & $-0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$ \\
638: Belle \cite{Bebrs} & $5.2^{+2.0}_{-1.7} \pm 0.6$ & -- \\
639: Average & $4.1 \pm 0.9$ & $-0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$ \\
640: $|T+C|^2$ alone & 3.5 & 0 \\
641: $|P+S|^2$ alone & 1.9 & 0 \\
642: \hline
643: \end{tabular}
644: \end{table}
645:
646: If an amplitude $A$ for a process receives two contributions with differing
647: strong and weak phases, one can write
648: \beq
649: A = a_1 + a_2 e^{i \phi} e^{i \delta}~~,~~~
650: \bar A = a_1 + a_2 e^{-i \phi} e^{i \delta}~~~.
651: \eeq
652: The CP-averaged decay rate is proportional to $a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2
653: \cos \phi \cos \delta$, while the CP asymmetry is
654: \beq
655: A_{CP} = - \frac{2 a_1 a_2 \sin \phi \sin \delta}
656: {a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos \phi \cos \delta}~~~.
657: \eeq
658: In the case of $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$ the rates and CP asymmetry suggest that
659: $|\sin \phi \sin \delta| > |\cos \phi \cos \delta|$.
660:
661: By combining the branching ratio and $CP$ rate asymmetry information of the
662: $\pi^{\pm} \eta$ modes, one can extract the values of the relative
663: strong phase $\delta$ and the weak phase $\alpha$, assuming maximal
664: constructive interference between ordinary and singlet penguin amplitudes.
665: On the basis of the range of amplitudes extracted from other processes, we find
666: that the rates and CP asymmetries for $B^+ \to \pi^\pm \eta$ and $B^+ \to
667: \pi^\pm \eta'$ are correlated with one another \cite{CGR}:
668: %
669: \beq
670: \label{eq:eq1}
671: A_{CP}(\pi^+ \eta) = -(0.91 \sin\delta \sin\alpha)/
672: (1 - 0.91 \cos\delta \cos\alpha) ~,
673: \eeq
674: \beq
675: \label{eq:eq2}
676: A_{CP}(\pi^+ \eta') = -(\sin\delta \sin\alpha)/
677: (1 - \cos\delta \cos\alpha) ~,
678: \eeq
679: \beq
680: \label{eq:eq3}
681: \cB(\pi^+ \eta) = 5 \times 10^{-6}(1 - 0.91 \cos\delta \cos\alpha) ~,
682: \eeq
683: \beq
684: \label{eq:eq4}
685: \cB(\pi^+ \eta') = 3.4 \times 10^{-6}(1 - \cos\delta \cos\alpha) ~,
686: \eeq
687: %
688: where $\cB$ refers to a CP-averaged branching ratio. One finds that
689: $\cB(B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta') = (2.7 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-6}$ (below current upper
690: bounds) and that $A_{CP}(\pi^+ \eta') = -0.57 \pm 0.23$.
691:
692: % \begin{figure}[t]
693: % \vspace{-1cm}
694: % \includegraphics[height=3.8in]{value.ps}
695: % \caption{Predicted values of the averaged branching ratio and direct $CP$
696: % asymmetry for the decays $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm \eta'$ corresponding to the
697: % range of parameters allowed in Ref.\ \cite{CGR}.
698: % \label{fig:value}}
699: % \end{figure}
700:
701: The amplitudes for $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm \eta$ may be written in the form
702: %
703: \beq
704: A(\pi^\pm \eta) \sim e^{\pm i \gamma} \left[ 1 - r_\eta
705: e^{i (\pm \alpha + \delta)} \right]~~,\\
706: \eeq
707: %
708: where $r_\eta$ (estimated in Ref.\ \cite{CGR} to be $0.65 \pm 0.06$) is the
709: ratio of penguin to tree contributions to the $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm \eta$ decay
710: amplitudes. We define $R_\eta$ as the ratio of the observed $CP$-averaged
711: $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm \eta$ decay rate to that which would be expected in the
712: limit of no penguin contributions and find
713: %
714: \beq
715: \label{eqn:Reta}
716: R_\eta = 1 + r_\eta^2 - 2 r_\eta \cos \alpha \cos \delta = 1.18 \pm 0.30~~.
717: \eeq
718: %
719: One can then use the information on the observed $CP$ asymmetry in this mode to
720: eliminate $\delta$ and constrain $\alpha$. (For a related treatment with a
721: different convention for penguin amplitudes see Ref. \cite{MGFPCP}.) The
722: asymmetry is
723: %
724: \beq
725: \label{eqn:Aeta}
726: A_\eta = -2 r_\eta \sin \alpha \sin \delta/R_\eta = -0.51 \pm 0.19~~,
727: \eeq
728: %
729: so one can either use the result
730: %
731: \beq
732: \label{eqn:RAeta}
733: R_\eta = 1 + r_\eta^2 \pm \sqrt{4 r_\eta^2 \cos^2 \alpha
734: - (A_\eta R_\eta)^2 \cot^2 \alpha}
735: \eeq
736: %
737: with experimental ranges of $R_\eta$ and $A_\eta$ or solve (\ref{eqn:RAeta})
738: for $R_\eta$ in terms of $\alpha$ and $A_\eta$. The result of this latter
739: method is illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Reta} \cite{CGR}.
740:
741: % This is Figure 11
742: \begin{figure}
743: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{Reta.ps}
744: \caption{Predicted value of $R_\eta$ (ratio of observed $CP$-averaged $B^\pm
745: \to \pi^\pm \eta$ decay rate to that predicted for tree amplitude alone) as a
746: function of $\alpha$ for various values of $CP$ asymmetry $|A_\eta|$
747: \cite{CGR}. (The values 0.70 and 0.32 correspond to $\pm 1 \sigma$ errors on
748: this asymmetry.)
749: \label{fig:Reta}}
750: \end{figure}
751:
752: The range of $\alpha$ allowed at 95\% c.l.\ in standard-model fits to CKM
753: parameters is $78^\circ \le \alpha \le 122^\circ$ \cite{CKMf}. For
754: comparison, Fig.\ \ref{fig:Reta} permits values of $\alpha$ in the three
755: ranges
756: %
757: \beq
758: 14^\circ \le \alpha \le 53^\circ~~,~~~
759: 60^\circ \le \alpha \le 120^\circ~~,~~~
760: 127^\circ \le \alpha \le 166^\circ~~
761: \eeq
762: %
763: if $R_\eta$ and $|A_\eta|$ are constrained to lie within their $1 \sigma$
764: limits. The middle range overlaps the standard-model parameters, restricting
765: them slightly. Better constraints on $\alpha$ in this region would require
766: reduction of errors on $R_\eta$.
767:
768: % Section 5
769: \section{Final-state phases}
770: \subsection{$B$ decays}
771: We have seen that final-state phases are needed in order to observe direct
772: CP asymmetries. It is interesting to obtain information on such phases in
773: those $D$ decays in which weak phases are expected to play little role,
774: so that magnitures of amplitudes directly reflect relative strong phases.
775: As one example we illustrate such phases in the decays of $B \to D \pi$ and
776: related processes in Fig.\ \ref{fig:dpi} \cite{bdfsi}. The color-suppressed
777: amplitude $C$ is found to have a non-trivial strong phase with respect to
778: the color-favored tree amplitude $T$, with a small exchange amplitude $E$
779: (governing $B^0 \to D_s^- K^+$) at an even larger phase with respect to $T$.
780: Such large phases can signal strong rescattering effects.
781:
782: % This is Figure 12
783: \begin{figure}
784: \includegraphics[height=2.1in]{dpi.ps}
785: \caption{Amplitude triangle for $\overline{B} \to D \pi$ and related decays
786: \cite{bdfsi}.
787: The amplitude $E$ points from either $O$ or $O'$ to the center of the small
788: circle. The amplitudes $T$ and $C$ are shown only for the first of these two
789: solutions. Here $A(B^0 \to D^- \pi^+) = T+E$, $A(B^+ \to \od \pi^+) = T+C$,
790: $\s A(B^0 \to \od \pi^0) = C-E$, $\st A(B^0 \to \od \eta) = -(C+E)$, and
791: $A(B^0 \to D_s^- K^+) = E$.
792: \label{fig:dpi}}
793: \end{figure}
794:
795: \subsection{Charm decays}
796: In one method for measuring the weak phase $\gamma$ in $B^\pm \to K^\pm
797: (KK^*)_D$ decays, the relative strong phase $\delta_D$ in $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$
798: and $D^0 \to K^{*-} K^+$ decays (equivalently, in $D^0 \to K^{*+} K^-$ and $\od
799: \to K^{*+} K^-$) plays a role \cite{GLS}. A study of the Dalitz plot in $D^0
800: \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$ can yield information on this phase \cite{RS03}. By
801: comparing such Dalitz plots for constructive and destructive interference
802: between the two $K^*$ bands one finds that a clear-cut distinction is possible
803: between $\delta_D = 0$ and $\delta_D = \pm \pi$ with a couple of thousand
804: decays.
805:
806: % Section 6
807: \section{$B_s$ mixing and decays}
808: \subsection{$B_s$--$\overline B_s$ mixing}
809: The ratio of the $B_s$--$\overline B_s$ mixing amplitude $\Delta m_s$ to the
810: $B^0$--$\ol B^0$ mixing amplitude $\Delta m_d$ ($B_d \equiv B^0$) is given by
811: \beq
812: \frac{\Delta m_s}{\Delta m_d} =
813: \frac{f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2 B_{B_d}} \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}
814: \left| \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}} \right|^2 \simeq 48 \times 2^{\pm 1}~~~.
815: \eeq
816: Here $f_{B_{d,s}}$ are meson decay constants, while $B_{B_{d,s}}$ express the
817: degree to which the mixing amplitude is due to vacuum intermediate states.
818: A lattice
819: estimate of the ratio $\xi \equiv (f_{B_s}/f_{B_d})\sqrt{B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}}$
820: is $1.21 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.05$ \cite{Bec}. We have taken
821: $|V_{td}| = A \lambda^3|1 - \bar \rho - i \bar \eta|=(0.8 \pm 0.2) A \lambda^3$
822: with $|V_{ts}| = A \lambda^2$ and $\lambda = 0.22$. With \cite{LEPBOSC}
823: $\Delta m_d = 0.502 \pm 0.006$ ps$^{-1}$ one then predicts
824: $\Delta m_s = 24~{\rm ps}^{-1} \times 2^{\pm 1}$.
825: The lower portion of this range is already excluded by the bound \cite{LEPBOSC}
826: $\Delta m_s > 14.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}~(95\%~{\rm c.l.})$.
827: When $\Delta m_s$ is measured it will constrain $\bar \rho$ significantly.
828:
829: \subsection{Decays to CP eigenstates}
830: \subsubsection{$B_s \to J/\psi \phi,~J/\psi \eta, \ldots$.}
831: Since the weak phase in $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar s$ is expected to be zero
832: while that of $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ mixing is expected to be very small,
833: one expects CP asymmetries to be only a few percent in
834: the standard model for those $B_s$ decays dominated by this quark subprocess.
835: The $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ final state is not a CP eigenstate but the even and
836: odd CP components can be separated using angular analyses. The final
837: states of $B_s \to J/\psi \eta$ and $B_s \to J/\psi \eta'$ are CP-even so no
838: such analysis is needed.
839:
840: \subsubsection{$B_s \to K^+ K^-$ vs.\ $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.}
841: A comparison of time-dependent asymmetries in $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ and $B^0 \to
842: \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{RFKK} allows one to separate out strong and weak phases
843: and relative tree and penguin contributions. In $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ the $\bar b
844: \to \bar s$ penguin amplitude is dominant, while the strangeness-changing
845: tree amplitude $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar s$ is smaller. In $B^0 \to \pi^+
846: \pi^-$ it is the other way around: The $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar d$ tree
847: amplitude dominates, while the $\bar b \to \bar d$ penguin is
848: Cabibbo-suppressed. The U-spin subgroup of SU(3), which interchanges $s$ and
849: $d$ quarks, relates each amplitude in one process to that in the other apart
850: from the CKM factors.
851:
852: \subsubsection{$\overline B_s,~B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$.}
853: In comparing $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ with $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$,
854: the mass peaks will overlap with one another if analyzed in terms of the same
855: final state (e.g., $\pi^+ \pi^-$) \cite{Jesik}. Thus, in the absence of good
856: particle identification, a variant on this scheme employing the decays
857: $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$ (also related to one another by
858: U-spin) may be useful \cite{GRKpi00}. For these final states, kinematic
859: separation may be easier. One can also study the time-dependence
860: of $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ while normalizing the penguin amplitude using $B_s \to
861: K^0 \ol K^0$ \cite{GRKK}.
862:
863: \subsection{Other SU(3) relations}
864: The U-spin subgroup of SU(3) allows one to relate many other $B_s$ decays
865: besides those mentioned above to corresponding $B_d$ decays \cite{MGU}.
866: Particularly useful are relations between CP-violating rate {\it differences}.
867: One thus will have the opportunity to perform many tests of flavor SU(3) and
868: to learn a great deal more about final-state phase patterns when a variety of
869: $B_s$ decays can be studied.
870:
871: % Section 7
872: \section{Excited states}
873: \subsection{Flavor tagging for neutral $B$ mesons}
874: A promising method for tagging the flavor of a neutral $B$ meson is to
875: study the charge of the leading light hadron accompanying the fragmentation
876: of the heavy quark \cite{AB,GNR,GRtag}. For example, an initial $b$ will
877: fragment into a $\ol B^0$ by ``dressing'' itself with a $\bar d$. The
878: accompanying $d$, if incorporated into a charged
879: pion, will end up in a $\pi^-$. Thus a $\pi^-$ is more likely to be ``near'' a
880: $\ol B^0$ than to a $B^0$ in phase space. This correlation
881: between $\pi^-$ and $\ol B^0$ (and the corresponding correlation between
882: $\pi^+$ and $B^0$) is also what one would expect on the basis of non-exotic
883: resonance formation. Thus the study of the resonance spectrum of the excited
884: $B$ mesons which can decay to $B + \pi$ or $B^* + \pi$ is of special
885: interest \cite{EHQ}. The lowest such mesons are the P-wave levels of a $\bar
886: b$ antiquark and a light ($u$ or $d$) quark.
887:
888: \subsection{Excited $D_s$ states below $D^{(*)}K$ threshold}
889: In April of this year the BaBar Collaboration \cite{BaDs} reported a narrow
890: resonance at 2317 MeV decaying to $D_s \pi^0$. This state was quickly
891: confirmed by CLEO \cite{CLDs}, who also presented evidence for a narrow state
892: at 2463 MeV decaying to $D_s^* \pi^0$. Both states have been confirmed by
893: Belle \cite{BeDs}. We mention briefly why these states came as surprises.
894:
895: The previously known P-wave levels of a charmed quark $c$ and an antistrange
896: $\bar s$ were candidates for $J=1$ and $J=2$ states at 2535 and 2572 MeV
897: \cite{PDG}. These levels have narrow widths behave as expected if the spin of
898: the $\bar s$ and the orbital angular momentum were coupled up to $j = 3/2$.
899: (One expects $j$-$j$ rather than $L$-$S$ coupling in a light-heavy system
900: \cite{DGG,JRPW,HQ}.) If the $j=1/2$ states were fairly close to these in mass
901: one would then expect another $J=1$ state and a $J=0$ state somewhere above
902: 2500 MeV. Instead, the candidate for the $J=0$ $c \bar s$ state is the one at
903: 2317 MeV, with the state at 2463 MeV the candidate for the second $J=1$ level.
904: Belle's observation of the decay $D_{sJ}(2463) \to D_s \gamma$ reinforces this
905: interpretation \cite{BeDs}. Both states are narrow since they are too light to
906: decay respectively to $D K$ or $D^* K$. They decay instead via
907: isospin-violating transitions.
908: They are either candidates for $D^{(*)} K$ molecules \cite{BCL}, or indications
909: of a broken chiral symmetry which places them as positive-parity partners of
910: the $D_s$ and $D_s^*$ negative-parity $c \bar s$ ground states \cite{BEH}.
911: Indeed, the mass splittings between the parity partners appear to be exactly as
912: predicted ten years ago \cite{BH}. Potential-based quarkonium models have a
913: hard time accommodating such low masses \cite{CJ,SG,Col},
914:
915: There should exist {\it non-strange} $j=1/2$ $0^+$ and $1^+$ states, lower in
916: mass than the $j=3/2$ states at 2422 and 2459 MeV \cite{PDG} but quite broad
917: since their respective $\ol D \pi$ and $\ol D^* \pi$ channels will be open.
918: The study of such states will be of great interest since the properties of the
919: corresponding $B$-flavored states will be useful in tagging the flavor of
920: neutral $B$ mesons.
921:
922: \subsection{Narrow positive-parity states below $\ol B^{(*)} K$ threshold?}
923: If a strange antiquark can bind to a charmed quark in both negative- and
924: positive-parity states, the same must be true for a strange antiquark and
925: a $b$ quark. One should then expect to see narrow $J^P = 0^+$ and $1^+$
926: states with the quantum numbers of $\ol B K$ and $\ol B^* K$ but below those
927: respective thresholds. They should decay to $\ol B_s \pi^0$ and $\ol B_s^*
928: \pi^0$, respectively. To see such decays one will need a multi-purpose
929: detector with good charged particle and $\pi^0$ identification!
930:
931: % Section 8
932: \section{Exotic $Q=-1/3$ quarks}
933: Might there be heavier quarks visible at hadron colliders? At present we
934: have evidence for three families of quarks and leptons belonging to
935: 16-dimensional multiplets of the grand unified group SO(10) (counting
936: right-handed neutrinos as a reasonable explanation of the observed oscillations
937: between different flavors of neutrinos). Just as SO(10) was pieced
938: together from multiplets of SU(5) with dimensions 1, 5, and 10, the smallest
939: representation of a still larger grand unified group could contain the
940: 16-dimensional SO(10) spinor. Such a group is E$_{\rm
941: 6}$ \cite{GRS}. Its smallest representation, of dimension 27, contains a
942: 16-dimensional spinor, a 10-dimensional vector, and a singlet of SO(10). The
943: 10-dimensional vector contains vector-like isosinglet quarks ``$h$'' and
944: antiquarks $\bar h$ of charge
945: $Q = \pm 1/3$ and isodoublet leptons. The SO(10) singlets are candidates for
946: sterile neutrinos, one for each family.
947:
948: The new exotic $h$ quarks can mix with the $b$ quark and push its mass
949: down with respect to the top quark \cite{JRmix}. Troy Andre and I
950: are looking at signatures of $h \bar h$
951: production in hadron colliders, to either set lower mass
952: limits or see such quarks through their decays to $Z + b$, $W + t$, and
953: possibly ${\rm Higgs} + b$. The $Z$, for example, would be identified by its
954: decays to $\nu \bar \nu$, $\ell^+ \ell^-$, or jet $+$ jet, while the Higgs
955: boson would show up through its $b \bar b$ decay if it were far enough below
956: $W^+ W^-$ threshold.
957:
958: % Section 9
959: \section{Summary}
960: The process $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$ has provided spectacular confirmation of the
961: Kobayashi-Maskawa theory of CP violation, measuring $\beta$ to a few
962: degrees. Now one is entering the territory of more difficult measurements.
963:
964: The decay $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ can give useful information on $\alpha$. One
965: needs either a measurement of
966: $\cB(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$ \cite{GL}, probably at the $10^{-6}$ level
967: (present limits \cite{Babrs,Bebrs,CLbrs} are several times that), or a
968: better estimate of the tree amplitude from $B \to \pi l \nu$ \cite{LR}.
969: Indeed, such an estimate has been presented recently \cite{LR03}. The
970: BaBar and Belle experimental CP asymmetries \cite{Bapipi,Bepipi} will
971: eventually converge to one another, as did the initial measurements
972: of $\sin 2 \beta$ using $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$.
973:
974: The $B \to \phi K_S$ decay can display new physics via special $\bar b \to \bar
975: s s \bar s$ operators or effects on the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin. Some
976: features of any new amplitude can be extracted from the data in a
977: model-independent way if one uses both rate and asymmetry information
978: \cite{CR03}. While the effective value of $\sin 2 \beta$ in $B^0 \to \phi K_S$
979: seems to differ from its expected value by more than $2 \sigma$, CP asymmetries
980: in $B \to K_S (K^+ K^-)_{CP=+}$ do not seem anomalous.
981:
982: The rate for $B \to \eta' K_S$ is not a problem for the standard model if one
983: allows for a modest flavor-singlet penguin contribution in addition to the
984: standard penguin amplitude. The CP asymmetries for this process are in accord
985: with the expectations of the standard model at the $1 \sigma$ level or
986: better. Effects of the singlet penguin amplitude may also be visible
987: elsewhere, for example in $B^+ \to p \bar p K^+$.
988:
989: Various ratios of $B \to K \pi$ rates, when combined with information on
990: CP asymmetries, show promise for constraining phases in the CKM matrix.
991: These tests have steadily improved in accuracy in the past couple of years.
992: One expects further progress as $e^+ e^-$ luminosities increase, and as hadron
993: colliders begin to provide important contributions. The decays $B^+ \to
994: \pi^+ \eta$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta'$ show promise for displaying large CP
995: asymmetries \cite{CGR} since they involve contributions of different amplitudes
996: with comparable magnitudes. Strong final-state phases, important for the
997: observation of direct CP violation, are beginning to be mapped out in $B$
998: decays.
999:
1000: In the near term the prospects for learning about the $B_s$--$\ol B_s$ mixing
1001: amplitude are good. The potentialities of hadron colliders for the study
1002: study of CP violation and branching ratios in $B_s$ decays will be
1003: limited only by the versatility of detectors. Surprises in spectroscopy,
1004: as illustrated by the low-lying positive-parity $c \bar s$ candidiates, still
1005: can occur, and one is sure to find more of them.
1006: Finally, one can search for objects related to the properties of $b$ quarks,
1007: such as the exotic isosinglet quarks $h$, with improved sensitivity
1008: in Run II of the Tevatron and with greatly expanded reach at the LHC.
1009:
1010: \begin{theacknowledgments}
1011: I thank my collaborators on topics mentioned here:
1012: Troy Andre, Cheng-Wei Chiang, Michael Gronau, Zumin Luo, and Denis Suprun.
1013: Michael Gronau and Hassan Jawahery also made helpful comments on the manuscript.
1014: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
1015: under Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
1016: \end{theacknowledgments}
1017:
1018: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
1019: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1020: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1021: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1022: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1023: \def \art{and references therein}
1024: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1025: \def \cn{Collaboration}
1026: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
1027: Singapore, 1989)}
1028: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1029: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1030: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
1031: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
1032: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
1033: Batavia, IL, 1979}
1034: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
1035: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
1036: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
1037: Amsterdam, 1988)}
1038: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
1039: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1040: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
1041: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
1042: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
1043: IL, 1972)}
1044: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1045: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
1046: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1047: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1048: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
1049: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14, 1999,
1050: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
1051: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
1052: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
1053: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
1054: 1987)}
1055: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
1056: University of Chicago Press, 2001}
1057: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
1058: #2 (#3)}
1059: \def \ky{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
1060: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
1061: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
1062: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1063: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1064: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1065: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1066: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1067: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1068: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1069: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
1070: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
1071: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara \ite, \prd{66}{010001}{2002}}
1072: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
1073: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
1074: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1075: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1076: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1077: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1078: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1079: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1080: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1081: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1082: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1083: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
1084: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
1085: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
1086: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
1087: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
1088: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
1089: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
1090: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
1091: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
1092: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
1093: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
1094: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
1095: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
1096: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
1097: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
1098: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
1099: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
1100: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
1101: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
1102: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
1103: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
1104: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
1105: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
1106: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
1107: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1108: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1109:
1110: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1111:
1112: \bibitem{JRmor} J. L. Rosner, presented at 38th Rencontres de Moriond on
1113: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 15--22
1114: March 2003, \efi 03-16, hep-ph/0304200, to be published in the Proceedings.
1115:
1116: \bibitem{JRLHC} J. L. Rosner, Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ EFI-03-26,
1117: hep-ph/0305315, invited talk at 4th International Symposium on LHC Physics and
1118: Detectors (LHC 2003), Batavia, Illinois, 1--3 May 2003, to be published in
1119: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.
1120:
1121: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
1122:
1123: \bibitem{Battaglia}
1124: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, to appear as a CERN Yellow Report, based on the
1125: Workshop on CKM Unitarity Triangle (CERN 2002-2003), Geneva, Switzerland,
1126: preprint hep-ph/0304132.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{CKMf} A. H\"ocker \ite, \epjc{21}{225}{2001}. Updated results
1129: may be found on the web site {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/}.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{BaBarPhys} {\it The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an Asymmetric
1132: $B$ Factory}, edited by P. F. Harrison \ite, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC-R-0504,
1133: 1998.
1134:
1135: \bibitem{TASI} J. L. Rosner, in {\it Flavor Physics for the Millennium}
1136: (TASI 2000), edited by J. L. Rosner (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001),
1137: p.\ 431.
1138:
1139: \bibitem{Babeta} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{89}{201802}{2002}.
1140:
1141: \bibitem{Bebeta} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{66}{071102}{2002}.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{avbeta} Y. Nir, presented at XXXI International Conference
1144: on High Energy Physics, Amsterdam, July, 2002, \npbps{117}{111}{2003}.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Ciu} M. Ciuchini \ite, \jhep{0107}{013}{2001}.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{AL} A. Ali and D. London, \epjc{18}{665}{2001}.
1149:
1150: \bibitem{GL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990}.
1151:
1152: \bibitem{GR02} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{013004}{2002}; \ibj{65}
1153: {079901(E)}{2002}; \ibj{65}{093012}{2002}.
1154:
1155: \bibitem{GRconv} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{66}{053003}{2002};
1156: \ibj{66}{119901(E)}{2002}.
1157:
1158: \bibitem{SW} J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{1151}{1994}.
1159:
1160: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hernandez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
1161: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}; \ibj{52}{6356}{1995}; \ibj{52}{6374}{1995}.
1162:
1163: \bibitem{Charles} J. Charles, \prd{59}{054007}{1999}.
1164:
1165: \bibitem{GR95} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{53}{2516}{1996};
1166: \prl{76}{1200}{1996}.
1167:
1168: \bibitem{LR} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{054027}{2002}.
1169:
1170: \bibitem{Bapipi} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert et al., \prl{89}{281802}{2002}.
1171:
1172: \bibitem{Bepipi} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{68}{012001}{2003}.
1173:
1174: \bibitem{LR03} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-25, hep-ph/0305262,
1175: to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1176:
1177: \bibitem{CLEOsl03} CLEO Collaboration, S. B. Athar \ite, Cornell University
1178: Report No.\ CLNS 03/1819, hep-ex/0304019, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1179:
1180: \bibitem{GW} Y. Grossman and M. Worah, \plb{395}{241}{1997}.
1181:
1182: \bibitem{Baphks} G. Hamel de Monchenault, 38th Rencontres de
1183: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories \cite{JRmor},
1184: hep-ex/0305055.
1185:
1186: \bibitem{Bephks} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{67}{031102}{2003}.
1187:
1188: \bibitem{Aubert:2003tk}
1189: BaBar Collaboration, B.~Aubert \ite, SLAC-Report No.\ SLAC-PUB-9684,
1190: hep-ex/0303029, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak
1191: Interactions and Unified Theories \cite{JRmor}.
1192:
1193: \bibitem{npphks}
1194: G.~Hiller, \prd{66}{071502}{2002};
1195: M.~Ciuchini and L.~Silvestrini, \prl{89}{231802}{2002};
1196: A.~Datta, \prd{66}{071702}{2002}; M.~Raidal, \prl{89}{231803}{2002};
1197: B.~Dutta, C.~S.~Kim, and S.~Oh, \prl{90}{011801}{2003};
1198: S.~Khalil and E.~Kou, \prd{67}{055009}{2003} and hep-ph/0303214;
1199: G.~L.~Kane, P.~Ko, H.~Wang, C.~Kolda, J.~h.~Park and L.~T.~Wang,
1200: \prl{90}{141803}{2003}; S.~Baek, \prd{67}{096004}{2003};
1201: A. Kundu and T. Mitra, \prd{67}{116005}{2003};
1202: K. Agashe and C. D. Carone, hep-ph/0304229.
1203:
1204: \bibitem{CR03} C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, \prd{68}{014007}{2003}.
1205:
1206: \bibitem{GLNQ} Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and H. Quinn, \prd{68}
1207: {015004}{2003}.
1208:
1209: \bibitem{GRKKK} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{564}{90}{2003}.
1210:
1211: \bibitem{DGR95} A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{367}{357}{1996};
1212: \ibj{377}{325(E)}{1996}.
1213:
1214: \bibitem{DGR97} A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{79}{4333}{1997}.
1215:
1216: \bibitem{CR01} C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{074035}{2002}.
1217:
1218: \bibitem{FHH} H.-K. Fu, X.-G. He, and Y.-K. Hsiao, preprint hep-ph/0304242.
1219:
1220: \bibitem{CGR} C.-W. Chiang, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-24,
1221: hep-ph/0306021, to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1222:
1223: \bibitem{BN} M. Beneke and M. Neubert, \np{B651}{225}{2003}.
1224:
1225: \bibitem{Kpp} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prl{88}{181803}{2002}.
1226:
1227: \bibitem{JRbbbar} J. L. Rosner, \prd{68}{014004}{2003}.
1228:
1229: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998}.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{Babrs} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, quoted by S. Playfer at LHCb
1232: Workshop, CERN, February 2003; updated results on $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ presented
1233: by J. Ocariz at EPS 2003 (International Europhysics Conference on High
1234: Energy Physics, Aachen, 17--23 July 2003.
1235:
1236: \bibitem{Bebrs} Belle \cn, presented by T. Tomura at 38th Rencontres de Moriond
1237: on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories \cite{JRmor}, hep-ex/0305036.
1238:
1239: \bibitem{CLbrs} CLEO \cn, A. Bornheim \ite, Cornell Laboratory of Nuclear
1240: Science Report No.\ CLNS-03-1816, hep-ex/0302026, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1241:
1242: \bibitem{GRKpi03} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, hep-ph/0307095, submitted
1243: to Phys.\ Lett.\ B.
1244:
1245: \bibitem{LEPBOSC} LEP B Oscillations Working Group,
1246: {\tt http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/}.
1247:
1248: \bibitem{GRKpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
1249:
1250: \bibitem{MGFPCP} M. Gronau, presented at Flavor Physics and CP Violation
1251: Conference, Paris, France, June 2003.
1252:
1253: \bibitem{GRL} M. Gronau, J. L. Rosner, and D. London, \prl{73}{21}{1994}.
1254:
1255: \bibitem{EWP} R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399}{1994}; N. G. Deshpande and X.-G He,
1256: \prl{74}{26}{1995}; \ibj{74}{4099(E)}{1995}.
1257:
1258: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998};
1259: \prl{81}{5076}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
1260:
1261: \bibitem{BRS} S.~Barshay, D.~Rein and L.~M.~Sehgal, \plb{259}{475}{1991}.
1262:
1263: \bibitem{AK} M. R. Ahmady and E. Kou, \prd{59}{054014}{1999}.
1264:
1265: \bibitem{CLeta} CLEO Collaboration, S. J. Richichi \ite, \prl {85}{520}{2000}.
1266:
1267: \bibitem{Baeta} BaBar Collaboration, B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, SLAC Report No.\
1268: SLAC-PUB-9962, hep-ex/0303039, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD
1269: and High Energy Hadronic Interactions, 22--29 March, 2003, Les Arcs, France.
1270:
1271: \bibitem{bdfsi} C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, \prd{67}{074013}{2003}.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{GLS} Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, and A. Soffer, \prd{67}{071301}{2003}.
1274:
1275: \bibitem{RS03} J. L. Rosner and D. A. Suprun, \efi 03-07, hep-ph/0303117,
1276: to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1277:
1278: \bibitem{Bec} D. Becirevic, 38th Rencontres de Moriond on
1279: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories \cite{JRmor}.
1280:
1281: \bibitem{RFKK} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306}{1999}.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{Jesik} R. Jesik and M. Pettini, in {\it $B$ Physics at the Tevatron:
1284: Run II and Beyond}, Fermilab Report No.\ FERMILAB-Pub-01/197, hep-ph/0201071,
1285: p.\ 179. [See especially Fig.\ 6.12(b)].
1286:
1287: \bibitem{GRKpi00} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{482}{71}{2000}.
1288:
1289: \bibitem{GRKK} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{113008}{2002}.
1290:
1291: \bibitem{MGU} M. Gronau, \plb{492}{297}{2000}.
1292:
1293: \bibitem{AB} A. Ali and F. Barreiro, \zpc{30}{635}{1986}.
1294:
1295: \bibitem{GNR} M. Gronau, A. Nippe, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{47}{1988}{1993}.
1296:
1297: \bibitem{GRtag} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{72}{195}{1994};
1298: \prd{49}{254}{1994}; \ibj{63}{054006}{2001}; \ibj{64}{099902(E)}{2001}.
1299:
1300: \bibitem{EHQ} E. Eichten, C. Hill, and C. Quigg, \prl{71}{4116}{1993}.
1301:
1302: \bibitem{BaDs} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{90}{242001}{2003}.
1303:
1304: \bibitem{CLDs} CLEO \cn, D. Besson \ite, Cornell University Report No.\
1305: CLNS 03/1826, hep-ex/0305100, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
1306:
1307: \bibitem{BeDs} Belle \cn, presented by R. Chistov at Flavor Physics and CP
1308: Violation Conference, Paris, France, June 2003;
1309: Belle Collaboration, Belle Report BELLE-CONF-0334, hep-ex/0307041, July 2003.
1310:
1311: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
1312:
1313: \bibitem{DGG} A. De R\'ujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow,
1314: \prl{37}{785}{1976}.
1315:
1316: \bibitem{JRPW} J. L. Rosner, \cmts{16}{109}{1986}.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{HQ} M. Lu, M. Wise, and N. Isgur, \prd{45}{1553}{1992}.
1319:
1320: \bibitem{BCL} T. Barnes, F. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, preprint hep-ph/0305025.
1321:
1322: \bibitem{BEH} W. A. Bardeen, E. Eichten, and C. T. Hill, Fermilab Report No.
1323: FERMILAB-PUB-03-071-T, hep-ph/0305049.
1324:
1325: \bibitem{BH} W. A. Bardeen and C. T. Hill, \prd{49}{409}{1994}. Chiral
1326: partners of the ground states of heavy mesons were independently predicted by
1327: M. A. Nowak, M. Rho, and I. Zahed, \prd{48}{4370}{1993}. See also D. Ebert, T.
1328: Feldmann, R. Friedrich, and H. Reinhardt, \np{B434}{619}{1995}; D. Ebert,
1329: T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, \plb{388}{154}{1996}.
1330:
1331: \bibitem{CJ} R. N. Cahn and J. D. Jackson, Lawrence Berkeley National
1332: Laboratory Report No.\ LBNL-52572, hep-ph/0305012 (unpublished).
1333:
1334: \bibitem{SG} S. Godfrey, preprint hep-ph/0305122 (unpublished).
1335:
1336: \bibitem{Col} P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, INFN Bari Report No.\
1337: BARI-TH-03-462, hep-ph/0305140 (unpublished).
1338:
1339: \bibitem{GRS} F. G\"ursey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, \plb{60}{177}{1976}.
1340:
1341: \bibitem{JRmix} J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{097303}{2000}.
1342:
1343: \end{thebibliography}
1344: \end{document}
1345: \end{document}
1346: \endinput
1347: