1: \documentclass[epsfig,12pt]{article}
2: \textwidth=160mm \textheight=240mm \voffset=-20mm \hoffset=-15mm
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6:
7:
8: \title{The value of $B_K$ from the experimental data on CP-violation in
9: $K$-mesons and up-to-date values of CKM matrix parameters.}
10: \author{E.A.Andriyash \footnote{andriash@heron.itep.ru}, \\
11: {\small Moscow State University and ITEP, Russia} \\
12: G.G.Ovanesyan \footnote{ovanesyn@heron.itep.ru}, \\
13: {\small Moscow Institute of Physics and Technologies and ITEP, Russia} \\
14: M.I.Vysotsky \footnote{vysotsky@heron.itep.ru},\\
15: {\small ITEP, Russia.}
16: }
17: \date{}
18: \begin{document}
19:
20:
21:
22: \maketitle
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: The difference between induced by box diagram quantity $\tilde
26: \epsilon$ and experimentally measured value of $\epsilon$ is
27: determined and used to obtain the value of $\tilde \epsilon$ with
28: high precision. Present day knowledge of CKM matrix elements
29: (including B-factory data), allows us to obtain from the Standard
30: Model expression for $\tilde \epsilon$ the value of parameter
31: $B_K$: $B_K = 0.89 \pm0.16$. It turns out to be very close to the
32: result of vacuum insertion, $B_K = 1$.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \newpage
36:
37: %\tableofcontents
38:
39: \newpage
40:
41: \section{Introduction.}
42:
43: It is well known that CP - violation in $K^0 - \bar K^0$ mixing is
44: described by the parameter $\tilde \epsilon$. Within the SM, this
45: parameter is given by box diagrams. It depends in particular on
46: the CKM matrix elements, to which vertices of box diagrams are
47: proportional. On the other hand, the experimentally measured
48: parameters are $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$. $\epsilon$ and
49: $\epsilon'$ enter the measured ratios of decay amplitudes of kaons
50: into $\pi \pi$ states. These amplitudes are superpositions of
51: amplitudes $A(K^0 \to (\pi \pi)_{I}) = A_I e^{i \delta_I}$ of kaon
52: decays into states with definite isospin $I=0,2$, $A_I$ are weak
53: amplitudes, $\delta_I$ are strong rescattering phases of
54: $\pi$-mesons. The parameter $\epsilon$ can be expressed as
55: \cite{Wolf}:
56:
57: \begin{eqnarray}\label{1}
58: \epsilon = \tilde\epsilon + i \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}.
59: \end{eqnarray}
60:
61: Within the SM and in the standard parametrization of CKM matrix,
62: $Im A_0$ originates from the so-called strong penguin diagrams.
63: Amplitude $A_2$ also has an imaginary part which originates from
64: electro-weak penguin diagrams. That is why $Im A_0
65: >> Im A_2$.
66:
67: Taking into account that the phases of $\epsilon$ and $\tilde
68: \epsilon$ are approximately $\frac{\pi}{4}$ \cite{Wolf}, from
69: Eq.(\ref{1}) we obtain:
70:
71:
72: \begin{equation}\label{2}
73: |\tilde \epsilon| \approx |\epsilon| - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{Im
74: A_0}{Re A_0}.
75: \end{equation}
76:
77:
78: The estimation of $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$ was done
79: in \cite{paper}. This term appears to be a $5-9\%$ correction to
80: the value of $\tilde \epsilon$ in Eq.(\ref{2}). Provided that we
81: have estimated the right-hand side of Eq.(\ref{2}) with the help
82: of Eq.(\ref{tilde epsilon}) we can determine parameter $B_K$,
83: which parameterizes hadronic matrix element.
84: % in terms of result of vacuum saturation method.
85: Of course, for this purpose we need to know the
86: values of CKM matrix elements that enter Eq.(\ref{tilde epsilon}).
87:
88: The parameters $\bar \rho$ and $\bar \eta$ of CKM matrix appear to
89: be constrained without using the value of $\tilde \epsilon$ in the
90: fit. Thus we perform the fit of CKM matrix parameters without
91: using constraint from $\tilde \epsilon$ in it. Then we determine
92: $B_K$ from Eqs.(\ref{2}),(\ref{tilde epsilon}). Our result is $B_K
93: = 0.89 \pm0.16$.
94:
95: This result is close to the result of vacuum insertion: $B_K = 1$.
96: As discussed in \cite{Ioffe}, the insertions of $\pi$-mesons
97: states should be taken into account. These insertions form a
98: sign-alternating series, who's terms depend on the cutoff momentum
99: of $\pi$-mesons. This cutoff can be reasonably chosen to be $200 -
100: 500 \ MeV$ (at larger virtualities $\pi$-mesons do not exist).
101: Then the sign-alternating series converges quickly, and one
102: can take only first two terms. Thus taking into account the
103: insertions of $\pi$-mesons states lowers $B_K$, and the agreement
104: with our result improves further.
105:
106: The lattice result of $B_K$ calculation is $B_K = 0.87 \pm 0.06
107: \pm 0.14_{quench}$ \cite{Lel}. We see that our result is very close
108: to it.
109:
110: The paper is organized as follows: in Section~\ref{teps} we
111: discuss various estimations of
112: the value of $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$.
113: % from various sources.
114: In Section~\ref{fit} we perform the fit of CKM
115: matrix parameters without using constraint from $\tilde\epsilon$
116: in it. In Section~\ref{extraction} we determine $B_K$ and compare
117: it with other results of calculation of $B_K$. Finally, we make
118: our conclusion in Section~\ref{concl}.
119:
120:
121:
122: \section{Estimation of the numerical value of $\epsilon - \tilde \epsilon$.}\label{teps}
123:
124: In this section we review the estimation of $\epsilon - \tilde
125: \epsilon$ \cite{paper}. We discuss the following three methods.
126: First, one can use the experimental data on CP-violation in
127: semileptonic $K_L$-decays, namely parameter $\delta_L$. This
128: method possesses large uncertainty and also at the level of two
129: sigmas contradicts the experimental value of
130: $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$. Second, one can
131: obtain the lower bound on $\epsilon - \tilde \epsilon$ from the
132: experimental value of $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$.
133: This lower bound is important in understanding the relative
134: magnitude of the second term in Eq.(\ref{2}), it turns out to be
135: $\ge 5\%$. Third, we use the results of direct computation of $Im
136: A_0$ in the ratio $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$,
137: substituting the experimental value of $Re A_0$. This gives us a
138: reliable estimate of $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$ with
139: moderate error,which we use in the bulk of the paper.
140:
141: First, we estimate the value of $\tilde \epsilon$ from the
142: experimental results on CP-violation in semileptonic $K_L$ decays:
143:
144: \begin{eqnarray}
145: &&\delta_L = \frac{\Gamma (K_L \rightarrow l^{+} \nu \pi^{-}) -
146: \Gamma (K_L \rightarrow l^{-} \bar \nu \pi^{+})}{\Gamma (K_L
147: \rightarrow l^{+} \nu \pi^{-}) + \Gamma (K_L \rightarrow l^{-}
148: \bar \nu \pi^{+})} \approx 2 Re \tilde \epsilon. \nonumber\\
149: && |\tilde \epsilon| =\frac{\delta_L}{2 \cos \phi } ,
150: \end{eqnarray}
151:
152: where $\phi = arg (\tilde \epsilon)$.
153:
154: Now let us substitute the experimental data. For $\phi$ we use
155: $\phi = (43.50\pm 0.05)^\circ $ \cite{PDG}. World average value of
156: $\delta_L$, published in \cite{KTev}, contains new KTev result:
157: $\delta_L = (3.307 \pm 0.063)\times 10^{-3}$. Na48 collaboration
158: recently obtained: $\delta_L = (3.317 \pm 0.100)\times 10^{-3}$
159: \cite{Na48}. Averaging these two numbers we get: $\delta_L = (3.310
160: \pm 0.053) \times 10^{-3}$. This leads to the following value of
161: $\tilde\epsilon$:
162:
163: \begin{equation}
164: |\tilde \epsilon| = (2.282 \pm 0.037)\times 10^{-3}.
165: \end{equation}
166:
167: From Eq.(\ref{2}) with the help of Eq.(\ref{5}) we can find the
168: corresponding value of
169: $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$:
170:
171: \begin{equation}\label{105}
172: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} = (0.03 \pm 0.56)\times 10^{-4}.
173: \end{equation}
174:
175: We will show below, that this number almost contradicts the
176: present experimental value of
177: $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} = (1.67 \pm 0.26)\times
178: 10^{-3}}$ \cite{PDG}.
179:
180: Second method of estimation of $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re
181: A_0}}$, which gives the lower bound on it, uses the experimental
182: value of $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$. The
183: expression for $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$ is
184: usually presented as follows \cite{Wolf}:
185:
186: \begin{equation}\label{3}
187: \frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} = \frac{i}{\sqrt 2} e^{i(\delta_2
188: -\delta_0)} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \left[ \frac{Im A_2}{Re A_0} - w
189: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} \right]~,
190: \end{equation}
191:
192:
193: Let us neglect the term proportional to $Im A_2$ in Eq.(\ref{3}),
194: which comes from the EW penguins. Taking
195: into account that $(\delta_0 - \delta_2)_{exp} = 42 \pm 4^{o}$
196: \cite{Chell}, we obtain the following expression for
197: $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$ from Eq.(\ref{3}):
198:
199: \begin{equation}\label{4}
200: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} \approx - \frac{\sqrt 2 |\epsilon|}{w}
201: \frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}.
202: \end{equation}
203:
204: Substituting experimental values from \cite{PDG}, we get:
205: \begin{eqnarray}\label{5}
206: && \frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} = (1.67 \pm 0.26) \times 10^{-3},
207: \quad w = 0.045, \quad |\epsilon| = 2.284(14) \times 10^{-3}
208: \Longrightarrow \nonumber\\ && \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} = - (1.2 \pm
209: 0.2) \times 10^{-4}.
210: \end{eqnarray}
211:
212: In this way we get the following value of $|\tilde\epsilon|$:
213:
214: \begin{equation}\label{6}
215: |\tilde \epsilon| = 2.37(2) \times 10^{-3}.
216: \end{equation}
217:
218: Since, according to Eq.(\ref{3}), the contribution of EW penguins
219: partially cancels that of QCD penguin, the value
220: $|\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}| = (1.2 \pm 0.2) \times
221: 10^{-4}$ should be considered as a lower bound on
222: $|\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}|$ and Eq.(\ref{6}) is a
223: lower bound on $|\tilde \epsilon|$. Thus the central value of
224: $\displaystyle{\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}}$, obtained from semileptonic
225: $K_L$-decays, Eq.(\ref{105}), almost contradicts the experimental
226: value of $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$.
227:
228:
229: Finally, the reliable way to estimate $\displaystyle{\frac{Im
230: A_0}{Re A_0}}$, result of which we will use in the next sections is
231: to use the experimental value of $Re A_0$ and theoretical
232: value for $Im A_0$.
233:
234: Calculation of $Re A_0$ and $Im A_0$, as well as $Re A_2$ and $Im
235: A_2$, has a long history. The calculation of $Re A_0$ and $Re
236: A_2$ was performed in order to explain the $\Delta I =
237: \frac{1}{2}$ rule in kaon decays and the calculation of $Im A_0$ and
238: $Im A_2$ - in
239: order to explain the observed value of
240: $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$.
241:
242: In this paper we perform the calculation of $Im A_0$ to the
243: following accuracy: the Wilson coefficient is calculated to LO
244: and hadronic matrix element is calculated in naive factorization
245: approximation. The details are presented in Appendix, and here we
246: only quote the result:
247:
248: \begin{eqnarray}\label{65}
249: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} = -( 3.2^{+1.1}_{-0.8} )\times 10^{-4}.
250: \end{eqnarray}
251:
252: We note that the results of computation of $Im A_0$ (see
253: \cite{Gamiz} - \cite{Jamin} and refs. therein) performed by a
254: large number of people lie in the same ballpark.
255:
256: Finally, from Eq.(\ref{65}) we can determine the value of $\tilde
257: \epsilon$:
258:
259: \begin{equation}\label{10}
260: |\tilde \epsilon| = (2.51 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}.
261: \end{equation}
262:
263: This number is our final result, and we will use it in
264: Section~\ref{extraction}.
265:
266:
267:
268:
269: \section{Fit of the parameters of CKM matrix }\label{fit}
270:
271: We use in our fit of the CKM matrix experimentally measured values
272: of modulus of matrix elements
273: $V_{ud}$,$V_{us}$,$V_{ub}$,$V_{cd}$,$V_{cs}$, $V_{cb}$ and also
274: $sin 2\alpha$, $sin 2\beta$, $sin 2\gamma$ and $\Delta m_{B_d}$.
275: Note that we do not use $\tilde \epsilon$ in fit, since we plan to
276: determine the value of $B_K$ with the help of the fit results.
277:
278: We assume these experimentally measured data to be normally
279: distributed. Also the theoretical uncertainties are treated as
280: normally distributed. Let us note that other people treat
281: theoretical uncertainties in other way \cite{CKMfitter},
282: \cite{UTFit}.
283:
284: The table of input parameters looks like:
285:
286: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
287: \hline
288: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
289: Parameter & Value & Standard Deviation \\
290: \hline
291: $|V_{ud}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.9738 & 0.0005 \\
292: $|V_{us}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.2200 & 0.0026 \\
293: $|V_{ub}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.00367 & 0.00047 \\
294: $|V_{cd}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.224 & 0.012 \\
295: $|V_{cs}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.996 & 0.013 \\
296: $|V_{cb}| \cite{PDG}$ & 0.0413 & 0.0015 \\
297: $sin 2\alpha$ \cite{alpha} & -0.21 & 0.46 \\
298: $sin 2\beta$ \cite{PDG} & 0.736 & 0.049 \\
299: $sin 2\gamma$ \cite{gamma}& 0.69 & 0.58 \\
300: \hline
301: \end{tabular}
302:
303: The $\chi^2$ expression which we minimize looks like:
304: \begin{eqnarray}\label{chisq}
305: &&\chi^2(A,\lambda,\bar\rho,\bar\eta)=\left(\frac{V^{theo}_{ud}-V^{exp}_{ud}}{\sigma_{V_{ud}}}\right)^2+
306: \left(\frac{V^{theo}_{us}-V^{exp}_{us}}{\sigma_{V_{us}}}\right)^2+
307: \left(\frac{V^{theo}_{ub}-V^{exp}_{ub}}{\sigma_{V_{ub}}}\right)^2
308: +\left(\frac{V^{theo}_{cd}-V^{exp}_{cd}}{\sigma_{V_{cd}}}\right)^2+\nonumber\\
309: &&+\left(\frac{V^{theo}_{cs}-V^{exp}_{cs}}{\sigma_{V_{cs}}}\right)^2+
310: \left(\frac{V^{theo}_{cb}-V^{exp}_{cb}}{\sigma_{V_{cb}}}\right)^2
311: +\left(\frac{\Delta m^{theo}_{B_d}-\Delta
312: m^{exp}_{B_d}}{\sigma_{\Delta_m}}\right)^2+
313: \left(\frac{sin 2\alpha^{theo}-sin 2\alpha^{exp}}{\sigma_{sin
314: 2\alpha}}\right)^2+\nonumber\\
315: && +\left(\frac{sin 2\beta^{theo}-sin
316: 2\beta^{exp}}{\sigma_{sin2\beta}}\right)^2+
317: \left(\frac{sin 2\gamma^{theo}-sin 2\gamma^{exp}}{\sigma_{sin
318: 2\gamma}}\right)^2 ,
319: \end{eqnarray} where theoretical expressions
320: depend on four Wolfenstein parameters: $A$, $\lambda$, $\bar \rho$ and
321: $\bar \eta$. Expression (\ref{chisq}) was minimized varying them.
322:
323: Here are our results: $$ \lambda = 0.224 \pm 0.002 \qquad \qquad
324: \alpha^{[deg]}=100 \pm 5 $$
325: $$ A = 0.82 \pm 0.03 \qquad \qquad \beta^{[deg]} = 23 \pm 2$$
326: $$\bar\rho = 0.22 \pm 0.04 \qquad \qquad \gamma^{[deg]} =57 \pm 5
327: $$ $$ \bar\eta =
328: 0.34 \pm 0.02 \qquad \qquad \hspace{48pt}$$ $$ \chi^2/n.d.o.f. =
329: 8.1/5 \;\; .$$
330:
331: For comparison, we present the results of the fit, made by
332: CKMfitter Group \cite{CKMfitter} and UTfit Collaboration
333: \cite{UTFit}:
334:
335: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
336: \hline
337: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
338: & CKMfitter & UTfit \\
339: \hline
340: $\lambda $& $0.226 \pm 0.002$ & $0.226 \pm 0.002$ \\
341: $A$ &$ 0.80^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & \\
342: $\bar \rho$ & $0.19^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & $0.17\pm 0.05$ \\
343: $\bar \eta$ & $0.36^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $0.35 \pm 0.03$ \\
344: \hline
345: \end{tabular}
346:
347: \vspace{12pt}
348:
349: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
350: \hline
351: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
352: & CKMfitter & UTfit \\
353: \hline
354: $\alpha^{[deg]} $& $94^{+12}_{-10}$ & $94 \pm 8$ \\
355: $\beta^{[deg]} $ &$ 23.8^{+2.1}_{-2.0} $ & $23.2 \pm 1.4$ \\
356: $\gamma^{[deg]} $ & $ 62^{+10}_{-12}$ & $61.6 \pm 7 $ \\
357: \hline
358: \end{tabular}
359:
360:
361: \section{The value of $B_K$}\label{extraction}
362:
363: From the results of the fit, presented above, we can extract the
364: value of $B_K$. For this purpose we use the theoretical expression
365: for $|\tilde{\epsilon}|$, first obtained in \cite{Vysold}. It has
366: the following form:
367: \begin{eqnarray}\label{tilde epsilon}
368: &&|\tilde{\epsilon}^{theo}|=\frac{G^2_F m_K f^2_K}{12\sqrt{2}\pi^2\Delta m_K}
369: B_K (\eta_{cc} m_c^2 Im[
370: (V_{cs} V^*_{cd})^2]+\eta_{tt} m_t^2 I(\xi) Im[(V_{ts} V^*_{td})^2]\nonumber\\
371: &&+2\eta_{ct} m_c^2 \ln (\frac{m_W^2}{m_c^2}) Im[V_{cs} V^*_{cd} V_{ts} V^*_{td}] ).
372: \end{eqnarray}
373:
374: Here $\displaystyle{I(\xi) = \{\frac{\xi^2-11 \xi + 4}{4
375: (\xi-1)^2}- \frac{3 \xi^2 \ln \xi}{2 (1-\xi)^3}\}}$,
376: $\xi=m^2_t/m^2_W$. Quark masses are $m_c=1.2\pm 0.2$ GeV
377: \cite{PDG}, $m_t=178.0\pm 4.3$ GeV \cite{mt}, $m_W=80.42\pm 0.04$
378: GeV \cite{PDG}. The QCD corrections were calculated to leading
379: order in \cite{Vysold}: $\eta_{cc}=0.6$, $\eta_{tt}=0.6$,
380: $\eta_{ct}=0.4$. The next-to-leading order calculation changes
381: slightly $\eta_{tt}$ and $\eta_{ct}$ and changes considerably
382: $\eta_{cc}$: $\eta_{cc}=1.32\pm 0.32$ \cite{her}, $\eta_{tt}=0.574
383: \pm 0.01$ \cite{burasj}, $\eta_{ct}=0.47 \pm 0.04$ \cite{herr}.
384: The kaon decay constant extracted from the $K^+\rightarrow \mu^+
385: \nu$ decay width equals: $f_K=160.4\pm 1.9$ MeV \cite{PDG}. The
386: $K_L-K_S$ mass difference is $\Delta m_K=(3.483\pm 0.006)\times
387: 10^{-15}$ GeV \cite{PDG}. Fermi constant $G_F=1.16639(1)\times
388: 10^{-5} GeV^{-2}$\cite{PDG}.
389: %Here we leave $B_K$ as a free parameter.
390:
391:
392: Now we equate this expression to the value of $|\tilde{\epsilon}|
393: = (2.51 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-3}$ from Eq.(\ref{10}), substituting
394: all experimental numbers and the results of the fit. This leads to
395: the following value of $B_K$:
396:
397:
398: \begin{equation}
399: B_K = 0.89 \pm 0.16
400: \end{equation}
401:
402:
403: Note that it is close to the result of vacuum insertion: $B_K = 1$.
404:
405:
406:
407:
408: %As discussed in the Introduction, taking into account one-pion
409: %insertions even lowers $B_K$. The relative contribution of
410: %one-pion insertion to $B_K$ has the following form \cite{Ioffe}:
411: %
412: %begin{equation}
413: % \delta B_{K|1-pion} = - \frac{1}{4 \pi^2 f_K^2} \left( \frac{3}{2} \Lambda^2 -5 \Lambda m_K +
414: %10 m_K^2 \ln \frac{\Lambda + 2 m_K}{2 m_K} \right).
415: %\end{equation}
416: %
417: %Form this equation we can determine the central value of
418: %$\Lambda$, which gives $\delta B_K = -1+0.87 = -0.13$. It is
419: %$\Lambda = 490 MeV$.
420:
421: \section{Conclusions}\label{concl}
422:
423: We have extracted the value of $B_K$ using the fitted values of
424: CKM matrix elements and the estimated difference between $\tilde
425: \epsilon$ and $\epsilon$. Our result is $B_K = 0.89 \pm 0.16$. It
426: appears to be close to the result of vacuum insertion, $B_K = 1$,
427: while lattice result is simply the same: $B_K = 0.87 \pm 0.06 \pm
428: 0.14_{quench}$ \cite{Lel}.
429:
430:
431: \section*{Acknowledgements}
432:
433:
434: We are grateful to Augusto Ceccucci and Ed Blucher for providing
435: us with the latest experimental data on $\delta_L$. This work was
436: partially supported by the program
437: FS NTP FYaF 40.052.1.1.1112 and by
438: grant NSh- 2328.2003.2. G.O. is grateful to Dynasty Foundation for
439: partial support.
440:
441:
442: \appendix
443: \section{Estimation of the value of $Im A_0$ from
444: QCD penguin diagram.}\label{penguin}
445:
446:
447: Let's estimate $\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}$, using experimental value
448: of $Re A_0$ and evaluating the value of $Im A_0$. The latter will
449: be evaluated to the following accuracy: the LO Wilson coefficients
450: will be used, and hadronic matrix element will be calculated in
451: naive factorization approximation.
452:
453: As it is well known transitions with $\Delta S = 1$ are due to the
454: 4-quark effective Hamiltonian, for the first time derived in
455: \cite{Shifman}:
456:
457: \begin{eqnarray}
458: H_{\Delta S=1} = \sqrt{2} G_F \sin \theta_C \cos \theta_C
459: \sum_{i=1}^{6} c_i O_i
460: \end{eqnarray}
461:
462: The so-called penguin operator $O_5$ dominates in amplitudes $K^0
463: \rightarrow (\pi \pi)_{I=0}$ \cite{Shifman}:
464:
465: \begin{equation}
466: O_5 = \bar s_L \gamma_{\mu} \lambda^a d_L (\bar u_R \gamma_{\mu} \lambda^a u_R +
467: \bar d_R \gamma_{\mu} \lambda^a d_R)
468: \end{equation}
469:
470: Below we present the detailed derivation of the coefficient function $c_5$
471: in one loop approximation.
472:
473: \begin{figure}[!htb]
474: \centering \epsfig{file=diag.eps,width=17cm,height=5cm}
475: \caption{\em Diagrams, which contribute to the penguin operator.}
476: \label{penguins}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: It is convenient to perform calculation in the unitary gauge. Each
480: of the three diagrams (see Fig.~\ref{penguins}) is infinite,
481: however the sum appears to be finite. We will use the dimensional
482: regularization ($d=4-2\epsilon$), in order to regularize divergent
483: integrals:
484:
485: \begin{eqnarray}\label{diagrams}
486: &&M_0=\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{2} \frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{j=u,c,t} \int\frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{g_{\mu \nu}-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{M_W^2}}
487: {k^2-M_W^2} \bar{s}_L\gamma_{\mu}\frac{1}{\hat{q}_2-m_j}
488: \gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\frac{1}{\hat{q}_1-m_j}\gamma_\nu d_L \left(\bar{\psi}_r \gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r\right)V_{jd} V_{js}^*,\nonumber\\
489: &&M_1=\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{2} \frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{j=u,c,t} \int\frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{g_{\mu \nu}-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{M_W^2}}
490: {k^2-M_W^2} \bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}p_L\frac{1}{\hat{q}_2-m_j}
491: \gamma_\nu p_L \frac{1}{\hat{p}_2-m_j} \gamma_\rho
492: \frac{\lambda_a}{2}
493: d \left(\bar{\psi}_r \gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r\right) V_{jd} V_{js}^*,\nonumber\\
494: &&M_2=\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{2} \frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{j=u,c,t} \int\frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{g_{\mu \nu}-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{M_W^2}}
495: {k^2-M_W^2} \bar{s}\gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}
496: \frac{1}{\hat{p}_1-m_j}\gamma_{\mu}p_L \frac{1}{\hat{q}_1-m_j} \gamma_\nu p_L d \left(\bar{\psi}_r\gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2} \psi_r\right) V_{jd} V_{js}^*,\nonumber\\
497: && M=M_0+M_1+M_2.
498: \end{eqnarray}
499:
500: The effective Hamiltonian is equal to:
501:
502: \begin{equation}\label{O_def}
503: H_{penguin}=i M.
504: \end{equation}
505:
506:
507: The result of the calculation can be presented in the following
508: form:
509:
510: \begin{eqnarray}\label{O_result}
511: &&H_{penguin}=-\sum_{j=u,c,t}\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{48\pi^2} \frac{1}{q^2}\bar{s}_L G_\rho(q) \frac{\lambda_a}{2} d_L
512: \left(\bar{\psi}_r \gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r\right)V_{jd} V_{js}^*,\nonumber\\
513: &&G_\rho=G_1\gamma_\rho+\frac{1}{M_W^2}\left(G_2 \hat{p}_2\gamma_\rho\hat{p}_1+G_3\hat{p}_1 p_{1\rho}+G_4\hat{p}_2 p_{2\rho}
514: +G_5\hat{p}_1 p_{2\rho}+G_6\hat{p}_2 p_{1\rho}\right).
515: \end{eqnarray}
516:
517:
518: Dimensionless functions $G_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4,5,6$) depend on the
519: values $x_j=\frac{m_j^2}{M_W^2}$, $q^2$, $m_s^2$, $m_d^2$, where
520: $m_j$ is the up-quark mass in the loop. We suppose the external
521: $s$ and $d$ quarks to be on mass shell.
522:
523: Let us neglect d-quark mass. In this approximation the
524: non-zero contribution into operator $H_{penguin}$ is given by the
525: terms with formfactors $G_1, G_4$ and $G_6$. It is convenient to
526: introduce new variables $P=p_1+p_2$ and $q=p_1-p_2$:
527:
528: \begin{equation}\label{G_simp}
529: \bar{s}_L G_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L=G_1
530: \bar{s}_L\gamma_\rho\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L+\frac{m_s
531: \left((G_6+G_4)P_{\rho}+(G_6-G_4)q_{\rho}\right)}
532: {2M_W^2}\bar{s}_R \frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L.
533: \end{equation}
534:
535: Here the term proportional to $q_\rho$ will not contribute to
536: operator $H_{penguin}$, since $q_\rho\times \left(\bar{\psi}_r
537: \gamma_\rho \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r\right) = (m_{r}-m_{r})
538: \left(\bar{\psi}_2 \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_1\right)=0$. The
539: quantity $P_\rho\bar{s}_R\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L$ should be
540: expressed through the magnetic formfactor with the help of the
541: following equation:
542:
543: \begin{equation}\label{24}
544: \bar{s}\sigma_{\mu \nu} q_\nu \frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L=\frac{i}{2}q_\nu\bar{s}
545: (\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu-\gamma_\nu\gamma_\mu)
546: \frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L =i(m_s\bar{s}_L\gamma_\mu
547: \frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L-P_\mu \bar{s}_R\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L).
548: \end{equation}
549:
550: With the help of Eq.(\ref{24}) from Eq.(\ref{G_simp}) we obtain:
551:
552: \begin{equation}\label{4quark_operat}
553: H_{penguin}=-\sum_{j=u,c,t}\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{48 \pi^2} \frac{1}{q^2}\left(f_1 \bar{s}_L\gamma_\mu\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L+i \frac{f_2}{M_W^2}
554: m_s q_{\nu}\bar{s}_R \sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L\right)
555: \bar{\psi}_r \gamma_\mu \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r V_{jd} V_{js}^*,
556: \end{equation}
557: where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are equal to:
558: \begin{eqnarray}\label {f1f2}
559: &&f_1=G_1+\frac{m_s^2}{2M_W^2}(G_6+G_4),\nonumber\\
560: &&f_2=\frac{G_6+G_4}{2}.
561: \end{eqnarray}
562:
563: It is sufficient to calculate the formfactors $G_4$ and $G_6$ in
564: the zero order in $q^2$, $m_s^2$. However, the formfactor $G_1$,
565: as it follows from last equations, should be calculated, including
566: terms proportional to $m_s^2$, $q^2$. From equations
567: (\ref{diagrams}), calculating appropriate integrals, we get:
568:
569: \begin{eqnarray}
570: &&G_1=R_1\frac{q^2}{M_W^2}+R_2\frac{m_s^2}{M_W^2},\nonumber\\
571: &&R_1=\frac{7x^4+14x^3-63x^2+38x+4+6(16x-9x^2-4)\ln x}{24(1-x)^4},\nonumber\\
572: &&R_2=\frac{-5x^4+14x^3-39x^2+38x-8+18x^2 \ln x}{8(1-x)^4},\nonumber\\
573: &&G_4=\frac{2x^4-14x^3+45x^2-38x+5+6(1-4x)\ln x}{6(1-x)^4},\nonumber\\
574: &&G_6=\frac{11x^4-14x^3+27x^2-38x+14+6(8x-9x^2-2)\ln x}{12(1-x)^4}.
575: \end{eqnarray}
576:
577: Substituting these formulas into equations (\ref{f1f2}), we
578: obtain:
579: \begin{eqnarray}\label {f1f2_result}
580: &&f_1=\frac{7x^4+14x^3-63x^2+38x+4+6(16x-9x^2-4)\ln x}{24(1-x)^4}\frac{q^2}{M_W^2},\nonumber\\
581: &&f_2=\frac{5x^4-14x^3+39x^2-38x+8-18x^2 \ln x}{8(1-x)^4}.
582: \end{eqnarray}
583:
584: Finally, let us rewrite equation (\ref{4quark_operat}) in the
585: following way:
586: \begin{eqnarray}\label{final}
587: &&H_{penguin}=-\sum_{j=u,c,t}\frac{g^2 g_s^2}{48 \pi^2 M_W^2}\left(F_1 \bar{s}_L\gamma_\mu\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L+i
588: F_2 m_s \frac{q_{\nu}}{q^2}\bar{s}_R
589: \sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{\lambda_a}{2}d_L\right)
590: \bar{\psi}_r \gamma_\mu \frac{\lambda_a}{2}\psi_r V_{jd} V_{js}^*,\nonumber\\
591: &&F_1=\frac{7x^4+14x^3-63x^2+38x+4+6(16x-9x^2-4)\ln x}{24(1-x)^4},\nonumber\\
592: &&F_2=f_2=\frac{5x^4-14x^3+39x^2-38x+8-18x^2 \ln x}{8(1-x)^4}.
593: \end{eqnarray}
594:
595: As the admixture of gluons in $K$ and $\pi$ mesons is small, the
596: contribution of magnetic moment operator in (\ref{final}) is
597: negligible \cite{Shifman}.
598:
599:
600: Substituting $m_c=1.2$ GeV, $m_t=178.0$ GeV, $M_W=80.42$ GeV for
601: the formfactor $F_1$ we obtain:
602: \begin{eqnarray}\label{aprox}
603: &&F_1(x<<1)\approx -\ln x +\frac{1}{6} \nonumber,\\
604: &&F_1(x_c)\approx 8.58\nonumber,\\
605: &&F_1(x_t)\approx 0.550\nonumber,\\
606: &&F_1(\infty)=\frac{7}{24}\approx 0.292.
607: \end{eqnarray}
608:
609:
610: Formula (\ref{final}) can be rewritten with good accuracy as:
611: \begin{eqnarray}\label{13}
612: H_{penguin}\approx\sqrt{2}G_F\sin{\theta_C}\cos{\theta_C}\left(-\frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi}
613: \ln\frac{m_c^2}{\mu^2}+ i \frac{Im V_{cd} V_{cs}^*}{Re V_{cd}
614: V_{cs}^*} \frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi} \ln\frac{M_W^2}{m_c^2} \right)
615: O_5,
616: \end{eqnarray}
617:
618: \noindent where instead of $m_u$ the characteristic hadronic scale
619: $\mu$ (this time ``low'' normalization point) is substituted.
620:
621: Thus the real and imaginary parts of $c_5$ are equal to:
622:
623: \begin{eqnarray}\label{14}
624: && Re c_5 = -\frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi} \ln\frac{m_c^2}{\mu^2}\nonumber\\
625: &&Im c_5 = \frac{Im V_{cd}
626: V_{cs}^*}{Re V_{cd} V_{cs}^*}\frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi}
627: \ln\frac{M_W^2}{m_c^2}.
628: \end{eqnarray}
629:
630: In order to understand at which virtuality $\alpha_s$ should be
631: taken in these expressions leading
632: logarithms should be summed up. This was done for
633: the real part of coefficient function in the paper \cite{Shifman}:
634:
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: &&Re c_5 = \left( \chi_1^{0.48} \left(- 0.039\,\chi_2^{ 0.8}+
637: 0.033\,\chi_2^{ 0.42}+ 0.003 \,\chi_2^{-
638: 0.12}+ 0.003\,\chi_2^{- 0.3} \right)+ \right.\nonumber\\
639: &&\left.+\chi_1^{-0.24} \left(- 0.014\,\chi_2^{ 0.8}-
640: 0.001\,\chi_2^{ 0.42}- 0.014 \,\chi_2^{- 0.12}+ 0.029\,\chi_2^{-
641: 0.3} \right)\right),
642: \end{eqnarray}
643:
644: \noindent while for imaginary part in paper \cite{Guberina} the
645: following result was obtained:
646:
647: \begin{eqnarray}
648: &&Im c_5 = \frac{Im V_{cd} V_{cs}^*}{Re V_{cd} V_{cs}^*} \left(
649: 0.0494 \,\chi_1^{ 0.85}- 0.0280\,\chi_1^{ 0.42}+
650: 0.0116\,\chi_1^{- 0.13}- 0.0330\,\chi_1^{- 0.35} \right) \times
651: \nonumber\\
652: &&\times \left( 0.8509\,\chi_2^{ 0.8}+ 0.0091\,\chi_2^{ 0.42}+
653: 0.1222 \,\chi_2^{- 0.12}+ 0.0178\,\chi_2^{- 0.3} \right),
654: \end{eqnarray}
655:
656:
657: \noindent where $\chi_1 = \frac{\alpha_s(m_c)}{\alpha_s(m_W)}$,
658: $\chi_2 = \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(m_c)}$.
659:
660: \vphantom{12pt}
661:
662: Numerical analysis shows that with a good accuracy expression for
663: $Re c_5$ can be written as:
664:
665: \begin{eqnarray}\label{112}
666: &&Re c_5 = -\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{12 \pi} \log
667: (\frac{m_c^2}{\mu^2}).
668: \end{eqnarray}
669:
670: On the other hand $Im c_5$ at the scale $\mu$ at which
671: $\alpha_s(\mu) = 1$ has the value
672:
673: \begin{equation}
674: Im c_5 = \frac{Im V_{cd} V_{cs}^*}{Re V_{cd} V_{cs}^*} \times
675: 0.13.
676: \end{equation}
677:
678: The expression for $Im A_0$ can be written as:
679:
680: \begin{eqnarray}
681: Im A_0 = \sqrt{2} G_F \sin \theta_C \cos \theta_C Im(c_5) <(\pi
682: \pi)_{I=0}|O_5|K^0>
683: \end{eqnarray}
684:
685: In order to get the value of $Im A_0$ we must calculate hadronic
686: matrix element of penguin operator. It was evaluated in the framework
687: of naive quark model in \cite{Shifman}, see also \cite{Vainstein}:
688: \begin{eqnarray}
689: <(\pi \pi)_{I=0}|O_5|K^0> = \frac{4 \sqrt{6}}{9 } \frac{m_K^2
690: m_{\pi}^2 f_{\pi}}{m_s (m_u+m_d)} \left( \frac{f_K}{f_{\pi}}
691: (1+\frac{m_K^2}{m_{\sigma}^2}) - 1\right)
692: \end{eqnarray}
693:
694: Substituting experimental numbers $G_F = 1.166 \times 10^{-5} GeV,
695: \sin \theta_C =0.22, \cos \theta_C = 0.95, m_{\pi}=135 MeV,
696: m_K=497 MeV, f_{\pi}=130 MeV ,f_K=160 MeV ,m_{\sigma}=700 MeV$ and
697: quark masses $m_s=130 MeV, m_u=3 MeV, m_d=7 MeV$, we get:
698:
699: \begin{eqnarray}
700: Im A_0 = -1.1 \times 10^{-10} GeV.
701: \end{eqnarray}
702:
703: Finally, dividing it by experimentally measured $Re A_0 = 3.33
704: \times 10^{-7} GeV$, we obtain:
705:
706: \begin{eqnarray}\label{115}
707: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} = - 3.2 \times 10^{-4}.
708: \end{eqnarray}
709:
710: In order to estimate the theoretical error for $Im A_0$ we
711: propose the following method: to take two values of $\mu$,
712: corresponding to $\alpha_s(\mu) = \frac{2}{3}$ and $\alpha_s(\mu)
713: = \frac{3}{2}$, to calculate $\frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0}$ at each $\mu$ and
714: from these boundary values get $\pm$ error for $\frac{Im A_0}{Re
715: A_0}$.
716:
717: Via the proposed method we get our final result:
718:
719: \begin{eqnarray}\label{116}
720: \frac{Im A_0}{Re A_0} = -( 3.2^{+1.1}_{-0.8} )\times 10^{-4}.
721: \end{eqnarray}
722:
723: This number is
724: rather stable with respect to the variation
725: of $\mu$. Our result confirms statement maid in \cite{Vainstein}:
726: QCD penguin results in the value of $\displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}}$
727: in ballpark of the experimental data.
728:
729:
730: On the other hand the real part is very sensitive to $\mu$, as can
731: be seen from Eq.(\ref{112}). The expression for $Re A_0$ has the
732: following form:
733:
734: \begin{eqnarray}
735: Re A_0 = \sqrt{2} G_F \sin \theta_C \cos \theta_C Re(c_5) <(\pi
736: \pi)_{I=0}|O_5|K^0>.
737: \end{eqnarray}
738:
739: Substituting numbers and again taking $\mu$ at which
740: $\alpha_s(\mu) = \frac{2}{3}$ and $\alpha_s(\mu)
741: = \frac{3}{2}$ we get: $Re A_0 = (1.2^{+0.8}_{-0.6}) \times
742: 10^{-7} GeV$. The central number is approximately 3 times smaller than
743: the experimental , but theoretical uncertainty is large.
744:
745:
746:
747:
748: \begin{thebibliography}{15}
749: \bibitem{Wolf}
750: B.Winstein, L.Wolfenstein, Rev.Mod.Phys. {\bf 65}, 4 (1993).
751: \bibitem{paper}
752: E.A. Andriyash, G.G. Ovanesyan, M.I. Vysotsky, Phys.Lett. B 599,
753: 253 (2004).
754: \bibitem{Ioffe}
755: B.L.Ioffe, E.P.Shabalin, Yad.Fiz. 6, 828 (1967).
756: \bibitem{Lel}
757: L.Lellouch, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. {\bf 94}, 142 (2001).
758: \bibitem{PDG}
759: S.Eidelman et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Phys.Lett. {\bf B
760: 592}, (2004).
761: \bibitem{KTev}
762: KTeV Collaboration (A. Alavi-Harati et al.). Phys.Rev.Lett. 88,
763: 181601 (2002).
764: \bibitem{Na48}
765: I. Mikulec, in: Proceedings of 17th Les Rencontres De Physique De
766: La Vallee D'Aoste: Results And Perspectives In Particle Physics,
767: La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, 2003, p. 405.
768: \bibitem{Chell}
769: E.Chell,M.G.Olsson, Phys.Rev. {\bf D 48}, 4076 (1993).
770: \bibitem{Gamiz}
771: J.Bijnens, E.Gamiz, J.Prades, hep-ph/0309216.
772: \bibitem{Bijnens}
773: J.Bijnens, J.Prades, JHEP {\bf 06}, 035 (2000); Nucl.Phys. B
774: (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 96}, 354 (2001).
775: \bibitem{Bertolini1}
776: S.Bertolini,J.O.Eeg,M.Fabbrichesi, Phys.Rev. {\bf D 63}, 056009
777: (2001).
778: \bibitem{Hambye}
779: T.Hambye, S.Peris, E.de Rafael, JHEP 0305, 027 (2003).
780: \bibitem{Egg}
781: J.O.Eeg, hep-ph/0010042.
782: \bibitem{Jamin}
783: M.Jamin, hep-ph/9911390.
784: \bibitem{Uli}
785: B Physics at the Tevatron: RUN II and Beyond, e-Print Archive:
786: hep-ph/0201071, Ch.1.6.2, p.58
787: \bibitem{CKMfitter}
788: The CKMfitter Group (J. Charles et al.), hep-ph/0406184.
789: \bibitem{UTFit}
790: UTfit Collaboration (M.Bona et al.), hep-ph/0408079.
791: \bibitem{alpha}
792: A.J. Schwartz, hep-ex/0410025.
793: \bibitem{gamma}
794: Belle Collaboration, K.Abe et al., hep-ex/0411049.
795: \bibitem{Vysold}
796: M.I.Vysotsky, Yad.Fiz.{\bf 31}, 1535 (1980).
797: \bibitem{mt}
798: CDF Collaborattion and D0 Collaboration and Tevatron
799: Electroweak Working Group, hep-ex/0404010.
800: \bibitem{her}
801: S.Herrlich, U.Nierste, Nucl.Phys.{\bf B 419}, 292 (1994).
802: \bibitem{burasj}
803: A.J.Buras, M.Jamin, P.H.Weisz, Nucl.Phys.{\bf B 347}, 491 (1990).
804: \bibitem{herr}
805: S.Herrlich, U.Nierste, Phys.Rev. D{\bf 52}, 6505 (1995);
806: Nucl.Phys.{\bf B 476}, 27(1996).
807: \bibitem{Shifman}
808: M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, V. Zakharov, Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 72, 1275
809: (1977).
810: \bibitem{Guberina}
811: B. Guberina, R.D. Peccei, Nucl.Phys. B 163, 289 (1980).
812: \bibitem{Vainstein}
813: A.I.Vainstein, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A 14, 4705 (1999).
814:
815:
816:
817: \end{thebibliography}
818:
819:
820: \end{document}
821: