1: %
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: %
4: \usepackage{bbm}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7: \usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: %
10: \textwidth160mm
11: \textheight230mm
12: \topmargin-15mm
13: \oddsidemargin0mm
14: \evensidemargin2.5mm
15: %
16: \begin{document}
17: %
18: \title{\normalsize \hfill UWThPh-2005-3 \\
19: \normalsize \hfill SISSA-11-2005-EP
20: \\*[5mm] \LARGE
21: Unitarity triangle test of the extra factor of two\\
22: in particle oscillation phases}
23: \author{
24: Samoil M. Bilenky$\,^{a\,b\,}$\thanks{E-mail: bilenky@sissa.it}\,,
25: \setcounter{footnote}{2}
26: Walter Grimus$\,^c\,$\thanks{E-mail: walter.grimus@univie.ac.at}\,,
27: \and
28: Thomas Schwetz$\,^a\,$\thanks{E-mail: schwetz@sissa.it} \\[4mm]
29: \small $^a$ Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati \\
30: \small Via Beirut 2-4, I--34014 Trieste, Italy
31: \\*[3mm]
32: \small $^b$ Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, R--141980 Dubna, Russia
33: \\*[3mm]
34: \small $^c$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Wien \\
35: \small Boltzmanngasse 5, A--1090 Wien, Austria}
36:
37: \date{February 18, 2005}
38:
39: \maketitle
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: There are claims in the literature that in neutrino oscillations and
43: oscillations of neutral kaons and $B$-mesons the oscillation phase
44: differs from the standard one by a factor of two. We reconsider the
45: arguments leading to this extra factor and investigate, in particular,
46: the non-relativistic regime. We actually find that the very same
47: arguments lead to an ambiguous phase and that the extra factor of two
48: is a special case. We demonstrate that the unitarity triangle (UT)
49: fit in the Standard Model with three families is a suitable means to
50: discriminate between the standard oscillation phase and the phase with
51: an extra factor of two. If $K_L - K_S$ and $B_{dH} - B_{dL}$ mass
52: differences are extracted from the $K^0 - \bar K^0$ and $B_d^0 - \bar
53: B_d^0$ data, respectively, with the extra factor of two in the
54: oscillation phases, then the UT fit becomes significantly worse in
55: comparison with the standard fit and the extra factor of two is
56: disfavoured by the existing data at the level of more than $3\,
57: \sigma$.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \newpage
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63:
64: Compelling evidence in favour of neutrino oscillations obtained in
65: recent years in the Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK-atm-1998,SK-solar}, SNO
66: \cite{SNO}, KamLAND \cite{KamLAND}, K2K \cite{K2K} and other neutrino
67: experiments (see e.g.~\cite{maltoni} and references therein) is a
68: major breakthrough in the search for physics beyond the Standard
69: Model.
70: %
71: All existing neutrino oscillation data with the exception of the LSND
72: data \cite{LSND}\footnote{The result of the LSND experiment is planned
73: to be checked by the MiniBooNE experiment \cite{miniboone} which is
74: currently taking data.} are well described if we assume
75: three-neutrino mixing. Defining $\Delta m^2_{jk}= m_j^2 - m_k^2$,
76: where the $m_j$ are the neutrino masses, the best fit values
77: %
78: \begin{equation}
79: \Delta m^{2}_{21} = 7.9 \times 10^{-5}\:\mathrm{eV}^{2}
80: \quad \mbox{and} \quad
81: \left| \Delta m^{2}_{32} \right| = 2.4 \times 10^{-3}\:\mathrm{eV}^{2},
82: \label{1}
83: \end{equation}
84: %
85: were found for the solar \cite{KamLAND} and atmospheric neutrino
86: neutrino mass-squared differences \cite{SK-atm}, respectively.
87:
88: These values of the neutrino mass-squared differences were obtained
89: from neutrino oscillation data under the assumption that the neutrino
90: transition and survival probabilities have the standard form (see
91: e.g.\ the reviews in Ref.~\cite{reviews}). Neutrino oscillations are
92: due to the interference of the amplitudes of the propagation of
93: neutrinos with different masses and the standard phase differences are
94: given by the expression
95: %
96: \begin{equation}
97: \Delta\varphi_{jk}=\frac{\Delta m^2_{jk} L}{2E}.
98: \label{2}
99: \end{equation}
100: %
101: Here $E$ is the neutrino energy and $L$ is the
102: distance between neutrino production and neutrino
103: interaction points. The theory of neutrino oscillations has a long
104: history starting with the paper of Gribov and Pontecorvo \cite{gribov}
105: (for other early papers see \cite{pontecorvo,fritzsch}, for
106: historical overviews see \cite{nuhistory}).
107: There is also a rich literature on more elaborate derivations of
108: neutrino transition and survival probabilities based on quantum
109: mechanics and quantum field theory (for a choice of these papers see
110: \cite{kayser,okun,nussinov,giunti93,rich,stockinger,stodolsky,%
111: cardall,kim,beuthe,lipkin04},
112: more citations are found in the
113: reviews~\cite{zralek,giunti01,beuthe-review,giunti04}),
114: which all result in the
115: standard oscillation phases of Eq.~(\ref{2}).
116:
117: There exist, however, claims \cite{field} that the phase differences in
118: neutrino transition probabilities
119: differ from the standard ones by a factor of two and are equal to
120: \begin{equation}
121: \overline{\Delta\varphi_{jk}}=\frac{\Delta m^2_{jk}L}{E}.
122: \label{3}
123: \end{equation}
124: %
125: Other authors \cite{deleo} claim that there is an ambiguity in the
126: oscillation phase. Theoretical discussions about the factor of two or
127: other factors in oscillation phases continue during many years---see
128: e.g.~\cite{kim,lipkin04,giunti04,tsukerman,lipkin} where these
129: additional factors have been refuted on theoretical grounds. Taking
130: into account the fundamental importance of the problem we believe that
131: it is worthwhile to think about possibilities to confront the
132: different oscillation phases to experimental data.
133:
134: The same non-quantum-theoretical arguments which lead to an additional
135: factor of two in neutrino oscillation phases can be applied to the
136: oscillation phases in $M^0 \leftrightarrows \bar M^0$ oscillations of
137: neutral bosons $M^0 = K^0$, $B^0_d$, etc., as was demonstrated in
138: Ref.~\cite{lipkin}. A more complicated additional factor has been
139: obtained in Ref.~\cite{srivastava}, but was subsequently refuted in
140: Ref.~\cite{ancochea}. Since in $M^0 \leftrightarrows \bar M^0$
141: oscillation experiments the mesons are often non-relativistic, the
142: relevant oscillation phase is
143: %
144: \begin{equation}\label{QMphase}
145: \Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT} = \frac{\Delta m^2 L}{2p},
146: \end{equation}
147: %
148: where $p$ is the momentum of the neutral meson. In the
149: ultra-relativistic limit, Eq.~(\ref{QMphase}) coincides with
150: Eq.~(\ref{2}). In the following we use the subscript QT for the
151: standard phase~(\ref{QMphase}), whereas phases different from the
152: standard phase are marked by a bar---see Eq.~(\ref{3}).
153:
154: In recent years a remarkable progress in the measurement of $|V_{cb}|$,
155: $|V_{ub}|$ and other elements of the CKM matrix was reached (see
156: e.g.~\cite{CKM-group}). Another great achievement was the measurement
157: of the CP parameter $\sin2\beta$ with an accuracy of about 5\% in the
158: BaBar \cite{babar} and Belle \cite{belle} experiments at asymmetric
159: B-factories.
160: This allowed to perform a new check of the Standard Model based on the
161: test of the unitarity of the CKM mixing matrix,
162: the so-called unitarity triangle test of the SM.
163: It was shown \cite{buras1,buras2,silva,UT2000,UT2005} that the SM with three
164: families of quarks is in an good agreement with existing data, which
165: include the data on the measurements of the effects of CP violation.
166: In the unitarity triangle (UT) test the experimental values of the
167: $K_L-K_S$ mass difference $\Delta m_K$ and the $B_{dH}-B_{dL}$
168: mass difference $\Delta m_{B_d}$ are used.
169: The values of $\Delta m_{K}$ and $\Delta m_{B_d}$ were obtained from
170: an analysis of the experimental data based on the standard transition
171: probabilities with the standard oscillation phase~(\ref{QMphase}).
172:
173: In this paper we will present the result of the UT
174: test under the assumption that oscillation phases in
175: $K^0 \leftrightarrows \bar K^0$ and $B^0_d \leftrightarrows \bar B^0_d$
176: oscillations differ from
177: the standard ones by the above factor of two.
178: We will show that such an assumption is disfavoured by the
179: existing data at the level of more than $3\,\sigma$.
180:
181: The plan of the paper is as follows.
182: In Section~\ref{notorious} we will discuss in some detail how this
183: notorious factor of two in the oscillation phase
184: appears. Considerations how to confront the factor of two with
185: experiment are found in Section~\ref{confronting}.
186: Section~\ref{fit} contains our UT fit with and without
187: the factor of two. Our conclusions are presented in
188: Section~\ref{concl}. The technical details of the UT fit are deferred
189: to an appendix.
190:
191:
192: \section{The notorious factor of two}
193: \label{notorious}
194:
195: \subsection{Notation}
196:
197: For simplicity we consider oscillations between only two states.
198: Thus we have two different masses $m_j$ ($j=1,2$). We adopt the
199: convention $m_1 < m_2$. For each mass eigenstate
200: the relevant phase is
201: \begin{equation}\label{phi}
202: \varphi_j = E_j t - p_j L,
203: \end{equation}
204: where $E_j = \sqrt{p_j^2 + m_j^2}$ and $p_j$ are energy and momentum,
205: respectively.
206: Though there are some arguments that in particle oscillations mass
207: eigenstates with the same energies are coherent
208: \cite{stockinger,stodolsky,lipkin04,lipkin},
209: we want to be general and assume neither equal energies nor equal momenta.
210:
211: It is useful to define quantities $\Delta p$ and $\Delta m$ via
212: \begin{equation}\label{averagequantities}
213: p_{1,2} = p \mp \frac{1}{2} \Delta p, \quad
214: m_{1,2} = m \mp \frac{1}{2} \Delta m,
215: \end{equation}
216: where $p$ and $m$ denote average momentum and mass, respectively.
217: Defining $\Delta m^2 = m_2^2 - m_1^2$ and $\Delta m = m_2 - m_1$, we
218: have the relation
219: \begin{equation}
220: \Delta m^2 = 2m \Delta m.
221: \end{equation}
222: In the following we will use the approximations
223: \begin{equation}\label{approximations}
224: p \gg |\Delta p| \quad \mbox{with} \quad \Delta p = a \Delta m.
225: \end{equation}
226: The dimensionless constant $a$ is zero for $p_1 = p_2$. In general it
227: will be of order one or even larger. In the non-relativistic case one
228: can have $a \sim m/p$.
229: The first relation of Eq.~(\ref{approximations})
230: excludes particles which are nearly at rest; such a situation is not
231: contained in our discussion. Consequently, we do not allow for
232: $p \ll m$ or $a \gg 1$.
233: However, we will take care that
234: all our considerations hold also in the moderately non-relativistic limit.
235: The second relation in Eq.~(\ref{approximations}) states our coherence
236: assumption: mass eigenstates with momenta which differ more
237: than the mass difference can be coherent.
238: Note that with Eq.~(\ref{approximations}) we have
239: \begin{equation}
240: p \gg \Delta m.
241: \end{equation}
242: In the following we will need
243: \begin{equation}\label{diffE}
244: \Delta E \equiv E_2 - E_1 =
245: \frac{1}{E} \left( m \Delta m + p \Delta p \right) =
246: \frac{\Delta m^2}{2E} + \frac{p \Delta p}{E}
247: \quad \mbox{with} \quad E = \frac{1}{2} \left( E_1 + E_2 \right).
248: \end{equation}
249:
250: \subsection{``Derivation'' of extra factors in oscillation phases}
251:
252: Particle oscillation phases different from that of Eq.~(\ref{QMphase})
253: have been found for instance in Refs.~\cite{field,srivastava}, and an
254: ambiguity of a factor of two in the oscillation phase has been
255: diagnosed in Ref.~\cite{deleo}. It was stressed first in
256: Ref.~\cite{lipkin} and then in Refs.~\cite{giunti04,tsukerman} that in
257: essence the discrepancy to the standard result~(\ref{QMphase}) is due
258: to the assumption that the two mass eigenstates are detected at the
259: same space point but at different times
260: %
261: \begin{equation}\label{wrong}
262: t_j = L/v_j = LE_j/p_j.
263: \end{equation}
264: %
265: For each mass eigenstate, the corresponding time $t_j$ is inserted
266: into the phase (\ref{phi}). The motivation
267: for this is that particles with different masses move with
268: different velocities $v_j$. This picture mixes
269: quantum-theoretical and classical considerations
270: in an ad hoc fashion and leads to the
271: conclusion that particle phases taken at \emph{different times},
272: though at the same space point, produce the interference, which is in
273: contradiction to the rules of quantum theory.
274:
275: Eq.~(\ref{wrong}) gives the phase
276: %
277: \begin{equation}
278: \overline{\varphi}_j = E_j t_j - p_j L =
279: \frac{E_j^2 L}{p_j} - p_j L = \frac{m_j^2 L}{p_j}
280: \end{equation}
281: %
282: and, therefore, the phase difference
283: %
284: \begin{equation}\label{wrongdiff}
285: \overline{\Delta \varphi} =
286: \frac{m_2^2 L}{p_2} - \frac{m_1^2 L}{p_1}.
287: \end{equation}
288: %
289: Then, using only $\Delta p \ll p$, we obtain
290: %
291: \begin{equation}\label{nonQM}
292: \overline{\Delta \varphi} \simeq
293: 2\, \Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT} -
294: \frac{\left( m_1^2 + m_2^2 \right) \Delta p\, L}{2\, p^2}.
295: \end{equation}
296: %
297: As seen from this equation, $\overline{\Delta \varphi}$ differs from
298: $\Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT}$ not only by a factor of two, but also by
299: an additional term which contains the \emph{arbitrary}
300: quantity\footnote{In principle, one should be able to determine an
301: upper limit on $\Delta p$ from the widths of the wave packets of the
302: particles participating in the neutrino, $K^0$, $B_d^0$, etc.\
303: production and detection processes \cite{giunti93,stockinger,beuthe}.}
304: $\Delta p$. In the ultra-relativistic case, which always applies to
305: neutrinos but also to $M^0 \leftrightarrows \bar M^0$ oscillations when
306: their energy is high enough, the additional term is negligible and we
307: have the ultra-relativistic phase
308: %
309: \begin{equation}
310: \left( \overline{\Delta \varphi} \right)_\mathrm{UR} \simeq
311: 2\, \Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT}.
312: \end{equation}
313: %
314: For oscillations of non-relativistic neutral flavoured mesons, the
315: additional term can not only be comparable with the first term but
316: could even dominate in Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}). Since $\Delta p$ is
317: arbitrary, we come to the conclusion that, for oscillations of
318: non-relativistic particles, Eq.~(\ref{wrong}) leads to an
319: arbitrary---and thus unphysical---oscillation phase.
320:
321: In order to illustrate the latter point, let us consider the two
322: extreme cases of equal momenta and equal energies.
323: In the first case with
324: $\Delta p = 0$, Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}) gives
325: \begin{equation}\label{factor2}
326: \overline{\Delta \varphi} =
327: \frac{\Delta m^2 L}{p} = \frac{2m \Delta m L}{p}.
328: \end{equation}
329: Clearly, we have again the notorious factor of two, in comparison with
330: the quantum-theoreti\-cal result.
331: On the other hand, equal energies correspond to
332: $\Delta p = -\Delta m^2/(2p)$ (see Eq.~(\ref{diffE}))
333: and with Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}) the result is
334: %
335: \begin{equation}\label{factor2'}
336: \overline{\Delta \varphi} =
337: \frac{\Delta m^2 L}{p} \left( 1 + \frac{m^2}{2p^2} \right).
338: \end{equation}
339: %
340: This oscillation phase, which is similar to the one advocated in
341: Ref.~\cite{srivastava}, agrees with Eq.~(\ref{factor2}) only in the
342: ultra-relativistic limit.
343:
344: \subsection{The quantum-theoretical oscillation phase}
345:
346: Although it has been stressed many times (see
347: e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{giunti01}) that the quantum-theoretical oscillation
348: phase does \emph{not} suffer from any ambiguity, it is instructive to
349: repeat the derivation of this fact here, in order to compare with the
350: derivation of Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}). Quantum theory requires the two
351: phases~(\ref{phi}) to be taken at the \emph{same space-time
352: point}. Therefore, we have
353: \begin{equation}
354: \Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT} = \Delta E\, T - \Delta p L,
355: \end{equation}
356: where $T$ characterizes the time when the interference takes
357: place.
358: Then, with $T = LE/p$ we obtain the quantum-theoretical result
359: \begin{equation}\label{phiQM}
360: \Delta \varphi_\mathrm{QT} =
361: \left( \frac{\Delta m^2}{2E} + \frac{p \Delta p}{E} \right)
362: \frac{EL}{p} - \Delta p L = \frac{\Delta m^2L}{2p} =
363: \frac{m\Delta mL}{p},
364: \end{equation}
365: where the arbitrary quantity $\Delta p$
366: has dropped out.\footnote{It is reasonable to assume
367: that $T$ is $L/v_1$ or $L/v_2$
368: or some average of these two expressions.
369: What one takes precisely as $T$ is
370: irrelevant, because all these
371: possibilities differ only in terms suppressed by $\Delta m$ and
372: $\Delta p$. Since $\Delta E$ is already small in that sense
373: (see Eq.~(\ref{diffE})) and the first order in
374: $\Delta m$ and $\Delta p$ is sufficient, we take the velocity $p/E$.}
375: For $M^0 \leftrightarrows \bar M^0$ oscillations,
376: the phase~(\ref{phiQM}) can also be written in the familiar form
377: $\Delta m\, \tau$, where $\tau$ is the eigentime of the particle for
378: covering a distance $L$.
379:
380: We want to emphasize that a more complete understanding of the
381: oscillation phase needs a full quantum-mechanical or quantum
382: field-theoretical approach. All such treatments (see for instance the
383: reviews~\cite{zralek,beuthe-review,giunti04} and
384: references therein) consistently give the result of
385: Eq.~(\ref{phiQM}). In approaches not guided by quantum mechanics or
386: quantum field theory the conversion of time into a distance is always
387: the subtle point \cite{lipkin,ancochea}. In all present experiments,
388: oscillations are treated as phenomena in space. If eigentimes are used
389: for the evaluation of data, then distances are converted into times
390: (see e.g.~\cite{babar,belle,hummel}).
391:
392: \section{Confronting non-quantum-theoretical phases with experiment}
393: \label{confronting}
394:
395: Since we have seen that the derivation of phase~(\ref{nonQM}) does not
396: conform to the rules of quantum theory whereas Eq.~(\ref{QMphase})
397: does, then one could ask the question why consider the
398: phase~(\ref{nonQM}) at all. From our point of view, the reason for
399: this is twofold:
400: %
401: \begin{itemize}
402: \item
403: On the one hand, there is the subtlety that the time difference
404: $\Delta t = \left| t_2 - t_1 \right|$ (see Eq.~(\ref{wrong})), which
405: is the culprit of the discrepancy with the quantum-theoretical result,
406: is immeasurably small.
407: \item
408: On the other hand, as we will show, the phases~(\ref{factor2}) and
409: (\ref{factor2'}) can actually be tested experimentally.
410: \end{itemize}
411:
412: The time difference can be expressed as
413: %
414: \begin{equation}\label{timediff}
415: \Delta t \simeq
416: \frac{L}{2pE}
417: \left| \Delta m^2 -
418: \left( m_1^2 + m_2^2 \right) \frac{\Delta p}{p} \right|.
419: \end{equation}
420: %
421: To get a feeling for the size of $\Delta t$, we take the $K^0 \bar
422: K^0$ system with $\Delta m_K \simeq 3.48 \times 10^{-12}$~MeV and use
423: for example $L = 1$~m, $p = 1$~GeV and $\Delta p = 0$. Then we find
424: $\Delta t \sim 5 \times10^{-24}$~sec, which is indeed far beyond
425: measurability.
426:
427: As for an experimental test of the phase~(\ref{factor2'}) we consider
428: two different measurements of the $K_L-K_S$ mass difference. Since
429: this phase has an additional dependence on the momentum, it is useful
430: to compare two measurements which have different average kaon
431: momenta. The CPLEAR experiment has measured \cite{CPLEAR}
432: $\Delta m_K = (5295 \pm 20 \pm 3) \times 10^6\;
433: \hbar \mathrm{s}^{-1}$. In that experiment kaons are produced in the
434: reaction $p \bar p \to K^+ \pi^- {\bar K}^0$ and the charged-conjugate
435: reaction, with $p \bar p$ annihilation at rest. Thus the kaons are
436: non-relativistic. In the KTeV experiment
437: the kaons are in the ultra-relativistic regime; this experiment has
438: obtained \cite{KTeV}
439: $\Delta m_K = (5261 \pm 15) \times 10^6\;
440: \hbar \mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
441: According to Eq.~(\ref{factor2'}) the mass differences extracted in these
442: experiments should be different and related by
443: %
444: \begin{equation}\label{ratio}
445: \frac{\left( \Delta m_K \right)_\mathrm{CPLEAR}}%
446: {\left( \Delta m_K \right)_\mathrm{KTeV}} =
447: 1 + \frac{m_{K^0}^2}{2\,p_{K^0}^2} \geq
448: 1 + \frac{m_{K^0}^2}{2\,p_{K^0\,\mathrm{max}}^2},
449: \end{equation}
450: %
451: where $p_{K^0}$ is the (average) neutral-kaon momentum in the CPLEAR
452: experiment.\footnote{If Eq.~(\ref{factor2'}) were correct, there
453: should also be a dependence of the extracted mass difference on
454: $p_{K^0}$.} One can show that the maximal energy of the neutral kaon
455: in the CPLEAR reaction is given by
456: %
457: \begin{equation}\label{Emax}
458: E_{K^0\,\mathrm{max}} =
459: \frac{4\, m_p^2 - m_\pi^2 - 2\, m_\pi m_K}{4\, m_p},
460: \end{equation}
461: %
462: where $m_p$, $m_\pi$ and $m_K$ are proton, pion and kaon mass,
463: respectively. For our purpose the distinction between the mass values
464: of the charged and neutral kaon masses is irrelevant. With the
465: numbers above for the mass differences obtained by the CPLEAR and KTeV
466: experiments, we use the law of propagation of errors to compute the
467: value $1.006 \pm 0.005$ for the ratio on the left-hand side of
468: Eq.~(\ref{ratio}). We insert the values of the particle masses into
469: Eq.~(\ref{Emax}) and calculate $p_{K^0\,\mathrm{max}}$; then we arrive
470: at 1.22 for the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{ratio}), which is about
471: 40 standard deviations larger than the ratio of $K_L - K_S$ mass
472: differences. Consequently, we conclude that the
473: phase~(\ref{factor2'}) is in contradiction to the results of the
474: CPLEAR and KTeV experiments.
475:
476: The phase~(\ref{factor2}) which contains the notorious factor of two
477: needs a different approach; in the next section we will use the fit to
478: the unitarity triangle constructed from the CKM matrix to show that
479: this factor of two is experimentally strongly disfavoured. For the
480: idea to compare the $\Delta m^2$ result of the solar neutrino
481: experiments with that of the KamLAND experiment see
482: Ref.~\cite{smirnov}.
483:
484: \section{The unitarity triangle fit}
485: \label{fit}
486:
487: \subsection{Description of the unitarity triangle analysis}
488: \label{sec:fit-description}
489:
490: Following the traditional way, the unitarity triangle (UT)
491: is given by the three points $A
492: = (\bar\rho,\bar\eta)$, $B = (1,0)$, $C = (0,0)$ in the plane of the
493: parameters $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$, which are defined by
494: %
495: \begin{equation}
496: \bar\rho = \rho \left( 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} \right) \,,\quad
497: \bar\eta = \eta \left( 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} \right) \,,
498: \end{equation}
499: %
500: where $\lambda,\rho,\eta$ are the Wolfenstein parameters of the CKM
501: matrix. Pedagogical introductions to the UT can be found e.g.\ in
502: Refs.~\cite{buras1,buras2,silva}.
503: Our numerical analysis is based on the input data
504: as given in Tab.~1 of Ref.~\cite{UT2005}, and we use the following
505: constraints to determine the point $A = (\bar\rho,\bar\eta)$:
506: %
507: \begin{itemize}
508: \item
509: The measured value of $\varepsilon_K = (2.280\pm0.013)\times
510: 10^{-3}$. The theoretical prediction for this quantity, which is a
511: measure for CP violation in $K^0 - \bar K^0$ mixing, is given
512: by\footnote{For the sake of brevity we drop the phase factor
513: $\exp (i\pi/4)$ in $\varepsilon_K$, since it plays no role in the following.}
514: %
515: \begin{equation}\label{eq:epsilon}
516: \varepsilon_K = \frac{\hat B_K \, C}{\Delta m_K} \,
517: \bar\eta \, \left[ (1-\bar\rho) \, D - E \right] \,,
518: \end{equation}
519: %
520: where $\Delta m_K$ is the $K_L-K_S$ mass difference and $\hat B_K, C,
521: D, E$ are numbers which have to be calculated and/or depend on
522: measured quantities such as $\lambda,\, m_t,\, m_c,\, |V_{cb}|$
523: (see e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{buras2} for precise definitions).
524: %
525: \item
526: The experimental determination of $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$. This ratio is
527: connected to $\bar\rho,\bar\eta$ by
528: %
529: \begin{equation}
530: \sqrt{\bar\eta^2 + \bar\rho^2} =
531: \left( \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{\lambda}{2} \right)
532: \left| \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}} \right| \,.
533: \end{equation}
534: %
535: \item
536: The measurement of the $B_{dH} - B_{dL}$ mass difference
537: %
538: \begin{equation}\label{eq:DmBd}
539: \Delta m_{B_d} = 0.502\pm0.006\,\hbar\mathrm{ps}^{-1} \,.
540: \end{equation}
541: %
542: The theoretical prediction for the square root of $\Delta m_{B_d}$
543: as a function of $\bar\rho,\bar\eta$ is given by
544: %
545: \begin{equation}\label{eq:DmBdconstraint}
546: \sqrt{\Delta m_{B_d}} = F \, |V_{cb}| \, \lambda
547: \sqrt{\bar\eta^2 + (1 - \bar\rho)^2} \,,
548: \end{equation}
549: %
550: where $F$ is a constant depending on $m_t$ and other quantities
551: subject to theoretical uncertainties (see e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{buras2}).
552: %
553: \item
554: In addition we use direct information on the angles of the unitarity
555: triangle $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$. The angle $\beta$ has been measured
556: at BaBar and Belle, and we use the value $\sin2\beta =
557: 0.726\pm0.037$. For $\gamma$ we use the value $(59.1\pm16.7)^\circ$
558: (see Ref.~\cite{UT2005} for details), whereas for $\alpha$ we use the
559: likelihood function extracted from Fig.~10 of Ref.~\cite{UT2005} to
560: take into account the two allowed regions for $\alpha$ around
561: $107^\circ$ and $176^\circ$.
562: \end{itemize}
563: %
564: We do not use the constraint from $\Delta m_{B_s}$ which usually is
565: included in UT fits. The reason is that at present only a lower bound
566: exists on $\Delta m_{B_s}$, and therefore no further constraint is
567: obtained for the oscillation phase with the extra factor of two.
568: However, we remark that once an upper bound on $\Delta m_{B_s}$ will
569: have been established in the future, this will provide additional
570: information on the oscillation phase.
571:
572: The fit is performed by constructing a $\chi^2$-function
573: $\chi^2(\bar\rho,\bar\eta)$ from these observables, including
574: experimental as well as theoretical errors. Technical details on our
575: analysis are given in Appendix~\ref{appendix}.
576:
577:
578:
579: \subsection{Results of the UT analysis}
580:
581: The result of the standard UT fit is shown in the upper panel of
582: Fig.~\ref{fig:UT}. It is in good agreement with the results of various groups
583: performing this analysis, compare e.g.\ Refs.~\cite{CKM-group,UT2005,RPP}. We
584: show the allowed regions in the plane of $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$ at 95\%~CL
585: for the individual constraints from $\varepsilon_K, |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|, \Delta
586: m_{B_d}, \sin 2\beta$, as well as the combined analysis including in addition
587: the information on $\alpha$ and $\gamma$. The 95\%~CL regions are obtained
588: within the Gaussian approximation for 2 degrees of freedom (dof), i.e.\ they
589: are given by contours of $\Delta\chi^2 = 5.99$. For the best fit point of the
590: combined analysis we obtain $\bar\rho = 0.237, \bar\eta = 0.325$ with the
591: 95\%~CL allowed region shown as the ellipse in Fig.~\ref{fig:UT}. Assuming
592: that the $\chi^2$-minimum has as a $\chi^2$-distribution with $(6-2)$ dof our
593: value of $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} = 1.4$ implies the excellent goodness of fit of
594: 84\%.
595:
596: \begin{figure}
597: \centering
598: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{UT.eps}
599: \caption{Unitarity triangle fit with $\Delta m_K$ and $\Delta m_{B_d}$
600: obtained from the standard oscillation phase (upper panel) and the
601: oscillation phase with the extra factor of two (lower panel). The shaded
602: regions correspond to the 95\% CL regions (2 dof) obtained from the
603: constraints given by $\varepsilon_K, |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|, \Delta m_{B_d}$ and
604: $\sin2\beta$. In addition, constraints from the measurement of the
605: angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are used in the fit (not shown in the
606: figure). The ellipses correspond to the 95\% CL regions from all data
607: combined, and the stars mark the best fit points.}
608: \label{fig:UT}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611:
612: Let us now discuss how an extra factor of two in the oscillation phase will
613: affect the UT fit. If such a factor is present the mass differences inferred
614: from particle--antiparticle oscillation experiments will be two times
615: smaller. Therefore, whenever in the UT analysis a mass difference
616: inferred from oscillations enters one has to use
617: %
618: \begin{equation}\label{eq:r}
619: \overline{\Delta m} = r\, \Delta m
620: \end{equation}
621: %
622: with $r=1/2$, where $\Delta m$ is the value obtained with the standard
623: oscillation phase, i.e.\ this is the value which is given by the
624: Particle Data Group~\cite{RPP}. In the lower panel of
625: Fig.~\ref{fig:UT} we show the result of the UT fit by using the extra
626: factor of two in the oscillation phase. This factor affects two
627: observables relevant for the UT fit.
628: %
629: \begin{enumerate}
630: \item
631: In the prediction for $\varepsilon_K$ shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:epsilon}) the
632: experimental value for $\Delta m_K$ is used. Since this value is
633: obtained from $K^0 \leftrightarrows \bar K^0$ oscillations,
634: $\Delta m_K$ has to be
635: replaced by $\overline{\Delta m}_K$ if there is an extra factor of two in
636: the oscillation phase. This moves the hyperbola in the
637: ($\bar\rho,\bar\eta$) plane from $\varepsilon_K$ to the right, as visible
638: in Fig.~\ref{fig:UT}.
639: %
640: \item
641: The experimental value for $\Delta m_{B_d}$ given in
642: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DmBd}) has to be replaced by $\overline{\Delta m}_{B_d}$,
643: which is a factor of two smaller. Therefore, from
644: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DmBdconstraint}) it is clear that the radius of the
645: circle in the ($\bar\rho,\bar\eta$) plane from $\Delta m_{B_d}$ is
646: reduced by a factor $\sqrt{2}$, as can be seen also in
647: Fig.~\ref{fig:UT}.
648: \end{enumerate}
649: %
650: The other constraints from $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|, \sin2\beta, \alpha$ and $\gamma$
651: are obtained from particle decays without involving any oscillation effect,
652: and therefore they do not depend on the oscillation phase. One observes from
653: Fig.~\ref{fig:UT} that the agreement of the individual constraints gets
654: significantly worse using the extra factor of two.
655: In particular, at 95\%~CL there
656: is only a very marginal overlap of the intersection of the allowed regions
657: from $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and $\sin2\beta$ with the one from $\varepsilon_K$. The
658: best fit point in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:UT} has
659: $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} = 13.8$, which implies a goodness of fit of only 0.8\%,
660: assuming a $\chi^2$-distribution for 4~dof.
661:
662: \begin{figure}
663: \centering
664: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{chisq_r.eps}
665: \caption{$\chi^2$ of the unitarity triangle fit as a function of the
666: parameter $r$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r}). For fixed $r$ the $\chi^2$
667: is minimized with respect to $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$.}
668: \label{fig:chisq}
669: \end{figure}
670:
671: In Fig.~\ref{fig:chisq} we show the $\chi^2$ minimized with respect to
672: $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$ as a function of the parameter $r$ given in
673: Eq.~(\ref{eq:r}). Hence, $r = 1$ corresponds to the standard
674: oscillation phase, and $r = 1/2$ corresponds to the extra factor
675: of two. From this figure one observes the remarkable feature that the best
676: fit point occurs exactly at $r=1$. In other words, even if
677: the extra factor in the
678: oscillation phase is treated as a free parameter to be determined by
679: the fit, the data prefer the standard oscillation phase. For the value
680: $r=1/2$ we obtain a $\Delta \chi^2 = 12.4$ with respect to the best
681: fit point, which corresponds to an exclusion at $3.5\sigma$ for
682: 1~dof. We conclude that the extra factor of two in the oscillation
683: phase is strongly disfavoured by the UT fit.
684:
685:
686: \subsection{Robustness of the UT analysis}
687: \label{sec:robustness}
688:
689: In this subsection we investigate the robustness of our conclusion with
690: respect to variations of the input data for the UT fit. To this aim we show in
691: Tab.~\ref{tab:variations} the results of our analysis by changing some of the
692: numbers entering the UT fit. The line ``standard analysis'' in the table
693: corresponds to the analysis described in the previous two subsections. In
694: particular, exactly the input data given in Tab.~1 of Ref.~\cite{UT2005}
695: are used.
696:
697: First we have investigated how our analysis depends on the value for
698: $|V_{ub}|$. We show the results of the fit by using only the value
699: from exclusive ($|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(excl)}$) or inclusive
700: ($|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(incl)}$) decays, where the numbers are taken from
701: Ref.~\cite{UT2005}. Note that in our standard analysis both values are
702: taken into account, as described in Appendix~\ref{appendix}. We
703: observe from the numbers given in Tab.~\ref{tab:variations} that for
704: the relatively small value for $|V_{ub}|$ from exclusive measurements
705: the fit gets notably worse for $r=1/2$. In contrast, for the
706: relatively large value from inclusive measurements the fit gets worse
707: for the standard oscillation phase ($\chi^2_\mathrm{min} = 3.9$),
708: whereas for $r=1/2$ the fit improves with respect to the standard
709: analysis ($\chi^2_\mathrm{min} = 7.8$). The reason is that for large
710: values of $|V_{ub}|$ the radius of the circle in the
711: ($\bar\rho,\bar\eta$) plane from $|V_{ub} / V_{cb}|$ becomes larger,
712: which worsens the fit for $r=1$, whereas for $r=1/2$ the agreement of
713: the individual allowed regions becomes better. Note however, that even
714: for $|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(incl)}$ the goodness of fit for $r=1/2$ is only
715: 1\%, and $r=1/2$ is disfavoured with respect to $r=1$ by 2$\sigma$.
716: %
717: We have also performed the analysis by using the (inclusive and
718: exclusive) averaged value $|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(PDG)}$ obtained by the
719: PDG~\cite{RPP}. The fit using the extra factor of two is slightly improved
720: with respect to our standard analysis, however $r=1/2$ can still be
721: excluded at $3.2\sigma$.
722:
723: \begin{table}
724: \centering
725: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
726: \hline\hline
727: & $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} ( r =1)$
728: & $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} ( r =1/2)$
729: & number of $\sigma$ \\
730: \hline
731: standard analysis & 1.4 & 13.8 & 3.5 \\
732: \hline
733: $|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(excl)} = (33.0 \pm 2.4 \pm 4.6)\times 10^{-4} $
734: & 2.9 & 17.6 & 3.8 \\
735: $|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(incl)} = (47.0 \pm 4.4) \times 10^{-4}$ & 3.9 & 7.8 & 2.0 \\
736: $|V_{ub}|_\mathrm{(PDG)} = (36.7 \pm 4.7) \times 10^{-4}$ & 1.6 & 11.9 & 3.2 \\
737: \hline
738: $m_c = (1.2 \pm 0.2)$ GeV & 1.4 & 11.9 & 3.2 \\
739: \hline
740: constraints on $\alpha,\gamma$ not used & 0.13 & 9.6 & 3.1\\
741: \hline\hline
742: \end{tabular}
743: \caption{The $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ for the standard oscillation phase ($r=1$)
744: and for the oscillation phase with the extra factor of two ($r=1/2$) for
745: variations of the input data (see text for details). The column ``number of
746: $\sigma$'' gives the number of standard deviations with which $r=1/2$ is
747: disfavoured with respect to $r=1$.}
748: \label{tab:variations}
749: \end{table}
750:
751: Furthermore we have investigated how our result depends on the input
752: value for the charm quark mass $m_c$. The value $m_c = (1.2 \pm
753: 0.2)$~GeV is adopted by the CKM-fitter group~\cite{CKM-group},
754: in contrast to the value $m_c = (1.3 \pm 0.1)$~GeV from the UTfit
755: Collaboration~\cite{UT2005} used in our standard analysis. The mild
756: improvement of the fit for $r=1/2$ comes mainly from the larger error
757: on $m_c$, which leads to a slightly larger allowed region from
758: $\varepsilon_K$.
759:
760: In the last line of Tab.~\ref{tab:variations} we have removed the
761: constraints for the angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ from the fit, i.e.\
762: we use only $\varepsilon_K, |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|, \Delta m_{B_d}, \sin
763: 2\beta$. We observe that the direct constraints of $\alpha$ and
764: $\gamma$ contribute $4.2$ units of $\chi^2$ to the
765: $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ for $r=1/2$. However, also without the
766: constraints for $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ the extra factor of two in the
767: oscillation phase is excluded by more than $3\sigma$.
768:
769: Finally let us comment on the the very small value of
770: $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} = 0.13$ (for 2~dof), which we obtain without the
771: constraints on $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ for the standard oscillation
772: phase. In fact, the $\chi^2$-minimum value of 1.4 in the standard
773: analysis comes mainly from $\alpha$. To include the information on
774: this angle we are using the likelihood function from Fig.~10 of
775: Ref.~\cite{UT2005} (see Appendix~\ref{appendix}), which has two maxima
776: around $107^\circ$ and $176^\circ$. The maximum at $176^\circ$ is
777: slightly preferred, whereas the UT fit requires the other maximum. The
778: very small $\chi^2$-minimum value obtained without using the
779: likelihood for $\alpha$ shows that the fit is dominated by rather
780: large theoretical errors. Therefore, $\chi^2$ is significantly lower
781: as expected just from statistics. The fact that even with these
782: assumptions on theoretical errors the $\chi^2$ is large for $r=1/2$
783: implies that the exclusion of the extra factor of two in the
784: oscillation phase is rather robust.
785:
786:
787: \section{Conclusions}
788: \label{concl}
789:
790: In this paper we have reconsidered claims that the standard oscillation
791: phase~(\ref{phiQM}) has to be corrected by extra factors. We have
792: focused on possible tests of these extra factors by using experimental
793: data. The usual starting point to derive these non-quantum-theoretical
794: expressions for the oscillation phase is Eq.~(\ref{wrong}), which
795: says that mass eigenstates with different masses need different
796: times to reach the spatial point where the interference of the
797: amplitudes for the different mass eigenstates takes place. In this way
798: we have derived the phase $\overline{\Delta \varphi}$ of
799: Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}). The aim of our theoretical discussion was to
800: consider both neutrino oscillations and
801: oscillations of neutral flavoured mesons. For $M^0 - \bar M^0$
802: oscillations, it was important to include the non-relativistic limit
803: in our phase considerations.
804:
805: We have obtained the following results:
806: \begin{enumerate}
807: \item
808: The non-quantum-theoretical phase
809: $\overline{\Delta \varphi}$ of Eq.~(\ref{nonQM}) becomes ambiguous in
810: the non-relativistic case, because it contains a small but arbitrary
811: momentum difference $\Delta p$. We have stressed that in the correct
812: quantum-theoretical treatment, where the amplitudes interfere at the
813: \emph{same} time, this arbitrary term does \emph{not} show up.
814: \item
815: If we adjust $\Delta p$ in Eq.~(\ref{nonQM})
816: such that the mass eigenstates have the same
817: energy, then a momentum-dependent extra factor appears in
818: $\overline{\Delta \varphi}$---see Eq.~(\ref{factor2'}). We have shown
819: that this extra momentum dependence is in disagreement with
820: measurements of the $K_L - K_S$ mass difference at different kaon
821: energies.
822: \item
823: If $\Delta p = 0$, the notorious factor of two appears in
824: $\overline{\Delta \varphi}$---see Eq.~(\ref{factor2}).
825: We have demonstrated that using $K_L - K_S$ and $B_{dH} - B_{dL}$
826: mass differences extracted from the data with the extra factor of two in the
827: $K^0 \leftrightarrows \bar K^0$ and
828: $B_d^0 \leftrightarrows \bar B_d^0$ oscillation phases,
829: respectively, the unitarity triangle fit in the Standard Model becomes
830: significantly worse compared to the fit with the standard mass
831: differences. The phase with the extra factor of two is excluded at
832: more than three standard deviations with respect to the standard phase.
833: \end{enumerate}
834: Concerning this last point, as an additional check, we have treated
835: the extra factor in the oscillation phase as a free parameter $r$ (see
836: Eq.~(\ref{eq:r})) and considered $\chi^2$ as a function of $r$. It is
837: remarkable that the minimum of $\chi^2$ occurs nearly precisely at
838: $r=1$, which corresponds to the standard oscillation phase. This
839: result can be regarded as a successful test of quantum theory. It is
840: likely that in the future, with accumulated data used in the unitarity
841: triangle fit, the exclusion of the extra factor of two will become
842: even more significant.
843:
844: \vspace{5mm}
845:
846: \noindent
847: \textbf{Acknowledgements:}
848: S.M.B.\ acknowledges the support by the
849: Italian Program ``Rientro dei Cervelli''.
850: W.G.\ would like to thank S.T.\ Petcov for an invitation to SISSA,
851: where part of this work was performed. He is also grateful to
852: A.Yu.\ Smirnov for a useful discussion.
853: T.S.\ is supported by a ``Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within
854: the 6th European Community Framework Programme.''
855:
856: \begin{appendix}
857:
858: \section{Details of our UT fit procedure}
859: \label{appendix}
860:
861: The fit of the UT is performed by adopting the following $\chi^2$-function:
862: %
863: \begin{eqnarray}
864: \chi^2(\bar\rho,\bar\eta, \hat B_K, |V_{ub}|) &=&
865: \sum_{i,j} (x_i^\mathrm{exp} - x_i^\mathrm{pred}) S^{-1}_{ij}
866: (x_j^\mathrm{exp} - x_j^\mathrm{pred}) +
867: \chi^2_\alpha \nonumber\\
868: &+&
869: \chi^2_\mathrm{syst}(\hat B_K) + \chi^2_\mathrm{syst}(|V_{ub}|)
870: \label{eq:chisq}
871: \end{eqnarray}
872: %
873: The final $\chi^2$ is obtained by minimizing Eq.~(\ref{eq:chisq}) with
874: respect to $ \hat B_K$ and $|V_{ub}|$:
875: %
876: \begin{equation}
877: \chi^2(\bar\rho,\bar\eta)
878: =
879: \mathrm{Min}
880: \left[\chi^2(\bar\rho,\bar\eta, \hat B_K, |V_{ub}|); \, \hat B_K, |V_{ub}|
881: \right] \,.
882: \end{equation}
883: %
884: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:chisq}) the indices $i,j$ run over $(\varepsilon_K,
885: |V_{ub}/V_{cb}|, \Delta m_{B_d}, \beta, \gamma)$ and $S_{ij}$ is the
886: covariance matrix of these observables containing the experimental as
887: well as theoretical uncertainties. It also takes into account correlations
888: between the various observables induced by the experimental errors of
889: parameters such as $m_t,\lambda$ and $|V_{cb}|$, which are common to
890: more than one observable.
891: %
892: The term $\chi^2_\alpha$ contains the information on the angle
893: $\alpha$, and is defined as $\chi^2_\alpha = -2 \ln
894: [\mathcal{L}(\alpha) / \mathrm{Max} \, \mathcal{L}(\alpha) ]$, where
895: $\mathcal{L}(\alpha)$ is the likelihood function for $\alpha$ read off
896: from Fig.~10 of Ref.~\cite{UT2005}.
897:
898: For the treatment of theoretical uncertainties we follow the common
899: practice in UT fits to split the error into a Gaussian
900: part and into a ``flat'' part, which cannot be assigned a
901: probabilistic interpretation~\cite{CKM-group,UT2000,UT2005}. For the
902: parameter $\hat B_K$ relevant for $\varepsilon_K$ one has $\hat B_K =
903: 0.86 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.14$, where the first error is Gaussian and the
904: second is ``flat''. To include both errors in our fit we construct a
905: likelihood function $\mathcal{L}(\hat B_k)$ by convoluting a Gaussian
906: distribution with width $0.06$ with a flat distribution which is
907: non-zero in the interval $[-0.14,+0.14]$ and zero outside. Then this
908: likelihood is converted into a $\chi^2$ by $\chi^2_\mathrm{syst}(\hat
909: B_K) = -2 \ln [ \mathcal{L}(\hat B_k) / \mathrm{Max} \mathcal{L}(\hat
910: B_k)]$ which is added to the total $\chi^2$ according to
911: Eq.~(\ref{eq:chisq}). The resulting $\chi^2$ is minimised for fixed
912: $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$ with respect to $\hat B_K$.
913:
914: The value of $|V_{ub}|$ can be obtained from exclusive and inclusive decays,
915: where the exclusive measurement suffers from theoretical uncertainties
916: characterized by a ``flat'' error (see e.g.\ Tab.~1 of Ref.~\cite{UT2005}). In
917: our standard analysis we include both values by constructing a likelihood
918: function $\mathcal{L}(|V_{ub}|) = \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{excl}(|V_{ub}|) \times
919: \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{incl}(|V_{ub}|)$, where
920: $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{excl}(|V_{ub}|)$ is obtained similar as in the case of
921: $\hat B_K$ by folding a Gaussian and a flat distribution, whereas
922: $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{incl}(|V_{ub}|)$ is just a Gaussian
923: distribution. Finally, the term $\chi^2_\mathrm{syst}(|V_{ub}|)$ in
924: Eq.~(\ref{eq:chisq}) is obtained by $\chi^2_\mathrm{syst}(|V_{ub}|) = -2 \ln [
925: \mathcal{L}(|V_{ub}|) / \mathrm{Max} \mathcal{L}(|V_{ub}|)]$. The dependence
926: of our results on the treatment of $|V_{ub}|$ is discussed in
927: Sec.~\ref{sec:robustness}.
928:
929: \end{appendix}
930:
931:
932: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
933:
934: \bibitem{SK-atm-1998}
935: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al.,
936: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562 [hep-ex/9807003].
937:
938: \bibitem{SK-solar}
939: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda et al.,
940: Phys. Lett. B 539 (2002) 179 [hep-ex/0205075].
941:
942: \bibitem{SNO}
943: SNO Collaboration, S.N. Ahmed et al.,
944: Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 181301 [nucl-ex/0309004].
945:
946: \bibitem{KamLAND}
947: KamLAND Collaboration, T. Araki et al.,
948: hep-ex/0406035.
949:
950: \bibitem{K2K}
951: K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn et al.,
952: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 041801 [hep-ex/0212007].
953:
954: \bibitem{maltoni}
955: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. T\'ortola, J.W.F. Valle,
956: New. J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122,
957: focus issue on neutrino physics edited by F. Halzen, M. Lindner,
958: A. Suzuki [hep-ph/0405172].
959:
960: \bibitem{LSND}
961: LSND Collaboration, A. Aguilar et al.,
962: \newblock Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 112007 [hep-ex/0104049].
963:
964: \bibitem{miniboone}
965: MiniBooNE Collaboration, T. Hart (for the collaboration),
966: AIP Conf. Proc. 698 (2004) 270.
967:
968: \bibitem{SK-atm} % 2.4
969: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Ashie et al.,
970: Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 101801 [hep-ex/0404034].
971:
972: \bibitem{reviews}
973: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, and W. Grimus,
974: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 1 [hep-ph/9812360]; \\
975: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir,
976: Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 345 [hep-ph/0202058]; \\
977: S. Pakvasa and J.W.F. Valle,
978: Proc. Indian National Acad. Sci. 70A (2003) 189 [hep-ph/0301061];
979: \\
980: W. Grimus,
981: in \textit{Lectures on Flavor Physics}, edited by
982: U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, W. Plessas (Springer-Verlag, New York 2004), p.\ 169
983: [hep-ph/0307149]; \\
984: V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant,
985: Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 12 (2003) 569 [hep-ph/0308123]; \\
986: A.Yu. Smirnov,
987: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 1180 [hep-ph/0311259].
988:
989: \bibitem{gribov}
990: V. Gribov, B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett. 28B (1969) 493.
991:
992: \bibitem{pontecorvo}
993: S.M. Bilenky, B. Pontecorvo, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 17 (1976) 569; \\
994: S.M. Bilenky, B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Rep. 41 (1978) 225.
995:
996: \bibitem{fritzsch}
997: H. Fritzsch, P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. 62B (1976) 72.
998:
999: \bibitem{nuhistory}
1000: S.M. Bilenky, hep-ph/9908335; \\
1001: S.M. Bilenky, report at the
1002: \textit{Nobel Symposium on Neutrino Physics},
1003: Haga Slott, Enkoping, Sweden, August 19--24, 2004,
1004: hep-ph/0410090.
1005:
1006: \bibitem{kayser}
1007: B. Kayser, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 110.
1008:
1009: \bibitem{okun}
1010: I.Yu. Kobzarev, B.V. Martemyanov, L.B. Okun, M.G. Schepkin,
1011: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1982) 708; \\
1012: A.D. Dolgov, L.B. Okun, M.V. Rotaev, M.G. Schepkin,
1013: hep-ph/0407189.
1014:
1015: \bibitem{nussinov}
1016: K. Kiers, S. Nussinov, N. Weiss,
1017: Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 537 [hep-ph/9506271].
1018:
1019: \bibitem{giunti93}
1020: C. Giunti, C.W. Kim, J.A. Lee,
1021: Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4310 [hep-ph/9305276].
1022:
1023: \bibitem{rich}
1024: J. Rich, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4318.
1025:
1026: \bibitem{stockinger}
1027: W. Grimus, P. Stockinger,
1028: Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3414 [hep-ph/9603430]; \\
1029: W. Grimus, P. Stockinger, S. Mohanty,
1030: Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 013011 [hep-ph/9807442].
1031:
1032: \bibitem{stodolsky}
1033: L. Stodolsky,
1034: Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 036006 [hep-ph/9802387].
1035:
1036: \bibitem{cardall}
1037: C.Y. Cardall, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 073006 [hep-ph/9909332].
1038:
1039: \bibitem{kim}
1040: C. Giunti, C.W. Kim,
1041: Found. Phys. Lett. 14 (2001) 213 [hep-ph/0011074].
1042:
1043: \bibitem{beuthe}
1044: M. Beuthe, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 013003 [hep-ph/0202068].
1045:
1046: \bibitem{lipkin04}
1047: H.J. Lipkin,
1048: Phys. Lett. B 579 (2004) 355 [hep-ph/0304187].
1049:
1050: \bibitem{zralek}
1051: M. Zra{\l}ek,
1052: Acta Phys. Pol. B 29 (1998) 3925 [hep-ph/9810543].
1053:
1054: \bibitem{giunti01}
1055: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti,
1056: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 3931 [hep-ph/0102320].
1057:
1058: \bibitem{beuthe-review}
1059: M. Beuthe, Phys. Repts. 375 (2003) 105 [hep-ph/0109119].
1060:
1061: \bibitem{giunti04}
1062: C. Giunti, hep-ph/0409230.
1063:
1064: \bibitem{field}
1065: J.H. Field,
1066: Eur. Phys. J. C 30 (2003) 305 [hep-ph/0211199].
1067:
1068: \bibitem{deleo}
1069: S. De Leo, G. Ducati, P. Rotelli,
1070: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 15 (2000) 2057 [hep-ph/9906460]; \\
1071: S. De Leo, C.C. Nishi, P. Rotelli,
1072: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 677 [hep-ph/0208086].
1073:
1074: \bibitem{tsukerman}
1075: L.B. Okun, M.G. Schepkin, I.S. Tsukerman,
1076: Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 443 (Err. ibid. B 656 (2003) 255)
1077: [hep-ph/0211241].
1078:
1079: \bibitem{lipkin}
1080: H.J. Lipkin,
1081: Phys. Lett. B 348 (1995) 604 [hep-ph/9501269].
1082:
1083: \bibitem{srivastava}
1084: Y.N. Srivastava, A. Widom, E. Sassaroli, Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 436.
1085:
1086: \bibitem{ancochea}
1087: B. Ancochea, A. Bramon, R. Mu\~noz-Tapia, M. Nowakowski,
1088: Phys. Lett. B 389 (1996) 149 [hep-ph/9605454].
1089:
1090: \bibitem{CKM-group}
1091: J. Charles et al., hep-ph/0406184.
1092:
1093: \bibitem{babar}
1094: BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al.,
1095: Phys. Lett. 89 (2002) 201802.
1096:
1097: \bibitem{belle}
1098: Belle Collaboration, K. Abe et al., hep-ex/0408111.
1099:
1100: \bibitem{buras1}
1101: A.J. Buras,
1102: in \textit{Proceedings of the International School of Subnuclear
1103: Physics},
1104: Erice, August 27 -- September 5, 2000,
1105: edited by A. Zichichi (World Scientific, Singapore 2001),
1106: p.\ 200 [hep-ph/0101336].
1107:
1108: \bibitem{buras2}
1109: A.J. Buras,
1110: in \textit{Lectures on Flavor Physics}, edited by
1111: U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, W. Plessas (Springer-Verlag, New York 2004), p.\ 169
1112: [hep-ph/0307203].
1113:
1114: \bibitem{silva}
1115: J.P. Silva, hep-ph/0410351.
1116:
1117: \bibitem{UT2000}
1118: M. Ciuchini et al.,
1119: JHEP 0107 (2001) 013 [hep-ph/0012308].
1120:
1121: \bibitem{UT2005}
1122: M. Bona et al., hep-ph/0501199.
1123:
1124: \bibitem{hummel}
1125: J.H. Christenson, J.H. Goldman, E. Hummel, S.D. Roth, T.W.L. Sanford,
1126: J. Sculli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1209.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{CPLEAR}
1129: A. Angelopoulos et al., CPLEAR Collaboration,
1130: Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 38.
1131:
1132: \bibitem{KTeV}
1133: A. Alavi-Harati et al., KTeV Collaboration,
1134: Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 012005 (Err. ibid. D 70 (2004) 079904)
1135: [hep-ex/0208007].
1136:
1137: \bibitem{smirnov}
1138: A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0306075.
1139:
1140: \bibitem{RPP}
1141: Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman et al.,
1142: Phys. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1.
1143:
1144: \end{thebibliography}
1145:
1146: \end{document}
1147:
1148: