1: %\documentclass[preprint,prd,aps,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %%%%
11: % Greek Letters
12: %
13:
14: \let\a=\alpha \let\b=\beta \let\c=\chi \let\d=\delta
15: \let\e=\varepsilon \let\f=\varphi \let\g=\gamma \let\h=\eta
16: \let\k=\kappa \let\l=\lambda \let\m=\mu
17: \let\o=\omega \let\r=\varrho \let\s=\sigma
18: \let\t=\tau \let\th=\vartheta \let\y=\upsilon \let\x=\xi
19: \let\z=\zeta \let\io=\iota \let\vp=\varpi \let\ro=\rho
20: \let\ph=\phi \let\ep=\epsilon \let\te=\theta
21: \let\n=\nu
22: % \let\p=\pi
23: \let\D=\Delta \let\F=\Phi \let\G=\Gamma \let\L=\Lambda
24: \let\O=\Omega \let\P=\Pi \let\Ps=\Psi \let\Si=\Sigma
25: \let\Th=\Theta \let\X=\Xi \let\Y=\Upsilon
26:
27: %
28: %%%
29:
30: %%%
31: % Calligraphic letters
32: %
33:
34: \def\cA{{\cal A}} \def\cB{{\cal B}}
35: \def\cC{{\cal C}} \def\cD{{\cal D}}
36: \def\cE{{\cal E}} \def\cF{{\cal F}}
37: \def\cG{{\cal G}} \def\cH{{\cal H}}
38: \def\cI{{\cal I}} \def\cJ{{\cal J}}
39: \def\cK{{\cal K}} \def\cL{{\cal L}}
40: \def\cM{{\cal M}} \def\cN{{\cal N}}
41: \def\cO{{\cal O}} \def\cP{{\cal P}}
42: \def\cQ{{\cal Q}} \def\cR{{\cal R}}
43: \def\cS{{\cal S}} \def\cT{{\cal T}}
44: \def\cU{{\cal U}} \def\cV{{\cal V}}
45: \def\cW{{\cal W}} \def\cX{{\cal X}}
46: \def\cY{{\cal Y}} \def\cZ{{\cal Z}}
47: %
48: %%%%
49:
50: \newcommand{\Ns}{N\hspace{-4.7mm}\not\hspace{2.7mm}}
51: \newcommand{\qs}{q\hspace{-3.7mm}\not\hspace{3.4mm}}
52: \newcommand{\ps}{p\hspace{-3.3mm}\not\hspace{1.2mm}}
53: \newcommand{\ks}{k\hspace{-3.3mm}\not\hspace{1.2mm}}
54: \newcommand{\des}{\partial\hspace{-4.mm}\not\hspace{2.5mm}}
55: \newcommand{\desco}{D\hspace{-4mm}\not\hspace{2mm}}
56:
57:
58: %%%%
59:
60:
61:
62: %\draft command makes pacs numbers print
63: %\draft
64: % repeat the \author\address pair as needed
65:
66: \title{ Direct CP Violation in $B^+\to J/\psi K^+$ Decay
67: as Probe for New Physics
68: }
69: \author{Wei-Shu Hou$^{a}$}
70: %\email{wshou@phys.ntu.edu.tw}
71: \author{Makiko Nagashima$^a$}
72: %\email{makiko@phys.ntu.edu.tw}
73: \author{Andrea Soddu$^{b}$}
74: %\email{andrea.soddu@weizmann.ac.il}
75: \affiliation{ $^a$Department of Physics, National Taiwan
76: University, Taipei, Taiwan 10617, R.O.C. \\
77: $^b$Department of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute
78: of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
79: }
80: \date{\today}
81:
82: \begin{abstract}
83: Currently there are New Physics hints in mixing-induced $CP$
84: violation ${\cal S}_{\phi K^0}$, ${\cal S}_{\pi^0 K^0} < {\cal
85: S}_{J/\psi K^0}$, unequal direct $CP$ violation ${\cal
86: A}_{K^+\pi^-} \neq {\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0}$, and maybe even in
87: measured ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0}$ vs prediction from global fit to
88: other data. However, these hints either suffer from experimental
89: uncertainties, or uncertain hadronic corrections, and are not yet
90: unequivocal. Motivated by these hints, however, we point out that
91: a unique probe may be {\it direct} $CP$ violation in $B\to J/\psi
92: K$ mode. An asymmetry observed at 1\% or higher would indicate New
93: Physics.
94: \end{abstract}
95:
96: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
97: \pacs{11.30.Er, 11.30.Hv, 13.25.Hw, 12.60.-i, 12.60.Cn} \maketitle
98: %\narrowtext
99:
100:
101: %\section{Introduction}
102:
103: Unprecedented luminosities have been achieved at the asymmetric
104: energy $e^+e^-$ collider B factories, where altogether close to
105: $10^9$ $B\bar B$ meson pairs have been collected so far. Besides
106: establishing $CP$ violation (CPV) in the $B$ system, a few hints
107: for possible New Physics (NP) have emerged:
108: %
109: the difference between time dependent CPV (TCPV) in charmless
110: $b\to s\bar qq$ modes vs $b\to c\bar cs$ modes; the difference in
111: direct CPV (DCPV) asymmetries between $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$ vs $B^+\to
112: K^+\pi^0$; and maybe even in the slightly lower value for TCPV in
113: $B^0\to J/\psi K^0$ mode compared with the predicted value from
114: fits to other data.
115:
116: All three hints are not unequivocal, and suffer either in
117: experimental significance, or in theoretical interpretation.
118: %
119: In this Letter we point out that DCPV in the $B^+\to J/\psi K^+$
120: mode, ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$, could be at the 1\% level or
121: higher, {\it if} the above hints are true harbingers of NP.
122: Current measurements give~\cite{expt} ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+} =
123: 0.018 \pm 0.043 \pm 0.004$ (CLEO), $-0.026 \pm 0.022 \pm 0.017$
124: (Belle) and $0.03 \pm 0.015 \pm 0.006$ (BaBar), based on 9.7M,
125: 31.9M and 89M $B\bar B$ pairs, respectively. Note that this has
126: not been updated since 2003. The average is~\cite{PDG05}
127: %
128: \begin{eqnarray}
129: {\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+} = 0.016 \pm 0.016,
130: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\rm PDG}\ 2005)
131: \label{eq:expt}
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: %
134: where a scale factor has been applied to the error. The nominal
135: error should be of order 0.012 for 131M events, hence a
136: statistical error of 0.003 should be attainable with $\sim$ 2000M
137: events expected by 2008.
138:
139: To improve statistics, one could combine with $B^0\to J/\psi K^0$
140: mode. Since Standard Model (SM) expectation is at the sub-percent
141: level, in the next few years ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K}$ could be a
142: better probe of NP if seen above 1\% level. Such ``precision
143: measurement" studies would be good preparation for the future
144: Super B factory, where systematic issues would become a main
145: concern.
146:
147: %\section{Hints for New Physics}
148:
149: %
150: Since a few years, a contrast has emerged in mixing-induced TCPV
151: in $B$ decays, i.e. ${\cal S}_f$ measurement in a host of $CP$
152: eigenstates $f$.
153: %
154: The current world average of ${\cal S}_f$ in $b\to c\bar cs$
155: decays is $\sin2\phi_1/\beta = 0.685 \pm 0.032$~\cite{HFAG}, which
156: is dominated by the $B^0\to J/\psi K_S$ mode.
157: %
158: TCPV measurements in loop dominated $b\to s\bar qq$ processes such
159: as $B^0 \to \eta^\prime K^0$, $\phi K^0$ and $\pi^0 K^0$, on the
160: other hand, have persistently given values below
161: $\sin2\phi_1/\beta$. The current average in $b\to s\bar qq$ decays
162: is~\cite{HFAG} ${\cal S}_{s\bar qq} = 0.50 \pm 0.06$. The
163: difference $\Delta {\cal S} = {\cal S}_{s\bar qq} -
164: \sin2\phi_1/\beta$ is only at 2.7$\sigma$ level. However, $\Delta
165: {\cal S}$ has been diminishing experimentally in the past two
166: years, while theoretical interpretation suffers from hadronic
167: uncertainties~\cite{HNRS}.
168:
169: DCPV was recently observed \cite{AKpiAKpi0} in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$
170: decay, giving ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^-} = -0.108 \pm
171: 0.017$~\cite{HFAG}. However, no indication was seen in charged
172: $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$, giving ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0} = 0.04 \pm 0.04$.
173: The difference with ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^-}$ could be due to an
174: enhancement of color-suppressed amplitude $C$~\cite{LargeC}, or
175: due to electroweak penguin $P_{\rm EW}$ effects \cite{Kpi0HNS}.
176: For the latter, NP CPV phase would be needed. Although the
177: experimental significance for ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0} - {\cal
178: A}_{K^+\pi^-}$ is relatively robust, at present it is not yet
179: conclusive whether NP phase is absolutely called for.
180:
181: A third possible hint, though not yet widely perceived, is the
182: ${\cal S}_f$ value in $b\to c\bar cs$ decays itself. The Belle
183: experiment gives~\cite{SpsiKBelle} ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0} = 0.652
184: \pm 0.039 \pm 0.020$ using 386M $B\bar B$ pairs, which dominates
185: the HFAG average of ${\cal S}_{c\bar cs} = 0.685 \pm
186: 0.032$~\cite{HFAG} over charmonium modes. The latter is pulled up
187: slightly by the BaBar result of ${\cal S}_{c\bar cs} = 0.722 \pm
188: 0.040 \pm 0.023$ based on 227M $B\bar B$ pairs. Early Belle
189: results based on a smaller data sample also averaged over many
190: charmonium modes, and gave a higher value. It remains to be seen
191: what would be the future update value, especially from BaBar.
192:
193:
194: ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$ or ${\cal S}_{c\bar cs}$ are traditionally
195: identified with the CKM phase $\sin2\phi_1/\beta$ as CPV phase in
196: $B^0$--$\bar B^0$ mixing, since $b\to c\bar cs$ decay should be
197: dominantly tree level and has very little CPV phase. The issue is
198: then in comparing direct measurement with the so-called ``CKM"
199: ~\cite{CKM} or ``UT"~\cite{UT} fit results. These studies are able
200: to fit to all data other than TCPV measurement in $B$ decay, and
201: ``predict" the value for $\sin2\phi_1/\beta = {\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$
202: ($\cong {\cal S}_{c\bar cs}$) assuming 3 generation SM. Before the
203: Belle 2005 result~\cite{SpsiKBelle}, these predictions tended to
204: give $\sin2\phi_1/\beta > 0.75$, suggesting a possible ${\cal
205: S}_{J/\psi K} - \sin2\phi_1/\beta\vert_{\rm fitter}$ problem.
206:
207: Is there something happening in $b\to c\bar cs$ decay, similar to
208: what we may be seeing in $\Delta S$ and ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0} -
209: {\cal A}_{K^+\pi^-}$? Unfortunately this problem would be hard to
210: pin down without adopting an explicit NP model and implementing it
211: in the fitter. That is, the reference point of
212: $\sin2\phi_1/\beta\vert_{\rm fitter}$ would itself become the
213: point of contention and is somewhat ill-defined.
214:
215: Taking all three hints together, NP phases may well be present in
216: the $b\to c\bar cs$ amplitude. Surprisingly, the way out may be
217: DCPV in $B^+\to J/\psi K^+$ mode, thanks to both its precision
218: measurement nature, and the plausibility of an associated finite
219: strong phase.
220:
221:
222: %\section{\boldmath ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$ and ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K}$ in SM}
223:
224:
225: We aim to keep things as simple as possible. Let us put the $B\to
226: J/\psi K$ decay amplitude in the form
227: %
228: \begin{equation}
229: {\cal M}(\bar B\to J/\psi \bar K) = a \, e^{i\delta} + b \,
230: e^{-i\phi} = a \, (e^{i\delta} + \hat b \, e^{-i\phi}),
231: \label{eq:ampl}
232: \end{equation}
233: %
234: where the first term carrying the strong phase is defined with $a$
235: positive and dominating the rate. We will maintain $a \cong
236: \sqrt{{\cal B}(B\to J/\psi K)}$ throughout this note, treating the
237: second term carrying the weak phase as a small correction to the
238: rate, i.e. $\hat b \equiv b/a \ll 1$. From Eq. (\ref{eq:ampl}), to
239: good approximation for small $\hat b$, one has
240: %
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: {\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0} &\cong&
243: { \sin2\Phi_{B_d} + 2\hat b \sin(2\Phi_{B_d}+\phi)\cos\delta
244: \over 1 + 2 \hat b \cos\phi\cos\delta},
245: \label{eq:S} \\
246: {\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+} &\cong& -2\hat b\sin\phi\sin\delta.
247: \label{eq:A}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: %
250: The CPV phase in $B_d$ mixing is put in the more general form of
251: $\Phi_{B_d}$, which would be $\phi_1/\beta$ in SM.
252: %
253: Let us analyze the strength of $\delta$ in general, as well as the
254: strength $\hat b$ and phase $\phi$ within SM.
255:
256: The $B\to J/\psi K$ decay is a color-suppressed process, and there
257: is no factorization theorem. It is generated by the tree level
258: effective $a_2$ coefficient, hence dominates $a$ in
259: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ampl}). Since this effective $a_2$ is larger than
260: naive, it contains hadronic effects that would likely generate a
261: finite strong phase $\delta \cong \arg a_2$. For color-suppressed
262: modes that are similarly enhanced, such as $B^0\to D^0\pi^0$,
263: analysis~\cite{D0pi0} shows that the associated strong phase
264: $\delta \sim 30^\circ$. Further evidence for such strong phase
265: comes from experimental study of $B\to J/\psi K^*$ decay. By
266: angular analysis, strong phase differences between the various
267: helicity components vary from $\sim 26^\circ$~\cite{dBelle} to
268: $\sim 34^\circ$~\cite{dBaBar}. Although one is not directly
269: measuring the strong phase of the longitudinal amplitude (the
270: analogue of $B\to J/\psi K$), the generic strength is consistent
271: with the $D^0\pi^0$ result. Thus, we take {\it $\delta \simeq
272: 30^\circ$ as our nominal strong phase for $B\to J/\psi K$ decay}.
273:
274: Denoting $\Delta_{ct}$ and $\Delta_{ut}$ as the penguin loop
275: amplitudes associated with the CKM coefficients $\lambda_c \equiv
276: V_{cs}^*V_{cb}$ and $\lambda_u \equiv V_{us}^*V_{ub}$, in SM
277: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ampl}) becomes
278: %
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: {\cal M}_{\rm SM} &\simeq&
281: a \left[ e^{i\delta}
282: + \left\vert{\lambda_u\over \lambda_c}\right\vert
283: {\hat\Delta_{ut} \over 1 + \hat\Delta_{ct} }e^{-i\phi_3}
284: \right],
285: \label{eq:SM}
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: %
288: where $\phi = \phi_3 = \arg V_{ub}^*$, and $a$ now absorbs
289: $\Delta_{ct}$, but still saturates the decay rate. Note that to
290: good approximation $\hat \Delta_{ij}$ is normalized by $a$. We see
291: that
292: %
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: \hat b_{\rm SM} &\simeq&
295: \left\vert{\lambda_u\over \lambda_c}\right\vert
296: {\hat\Delta_{ut} \over 1 + \hat\Delta_{ct}},
297: \label{eq:bSM}
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: %
300: is rather small. Since $\lambda_c \Delta_{ct}$ should dominate
301: $B\to \phi K$ decay~\cite{AphiK}, ignoring kinematic differences,
302: we have the crude estimate $\vert\hat \Delta_{ct}\vert \sim
303: \sqrt{{\cal B}(B\to \phi K)/{\cal B}(B\to J/\psi K)} \sim 0.1$.
304: Taking $\vert{\lambda_u/\lambda_c}\vert \simeq 0.02$ and
305: saturating $\vert\hat \Delta_{ut}\vert \lesssim \vert\hat
306: \Delta_{ct}\vert$, we get $\hat b_{\rm SM} = {\cal O}(0.002)$,
307: which implies a negligible shift in ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0}$.
308: Together with $\phi \simeq \phi_3 \simeq 60^\circ$ and $\vert
309: \sin\delta \vert \sim 1/2$, we find the order of magnitude
310: estimate
311: %
312: \begin{equation}
313: {\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}^{\rm SM} = {\cal O}(0.003),
314: \label{eq:ASM}
315: \end{equation}
316: %
317: which can be improved by constraining $\vert\hat \Delta_{ut}/\hat
318: \Delta_{ct}\vert$.
319:
320:
321: %\section{\boldmath ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$ and ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K}$ with New Physics}
322:
323:
324: We now extend to consider New Physics scenarios. For its
325: simplicity, we keep the form of Eq. (\ref{eq:ampl}) with $a$
326: saturating the $B\to J/\psi K$ rate, and $b$ the term carrying NP
327: phase. In actual computations, the SM phase is kept in the
328: numerics.
329:
330: It should be clear from Eq.~(\ref{eq:S}) that, assuming
331: $\sin(2\Phi_{B_d}+\phi^{\rm new})$ and $\cos\delta \sim$ 1, to
332: have ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$ shifted by $\sim$ 0.05 or so, one needs
333: $\hat b$ to be a couple of percent. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:A}) we see
334: that ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K}$ could then be a few percent as well.
335: The question then is not whether a downward shift in ${\cal
336: S}_{J/\psi K}$ could generate observable ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K}$,
337: but whether this could be achieved in realistic models.
338:
339: We will illustrate with New Physics in the electroweak penguin
340: $P_{\rm EW}$. Since $P_{\rm EW}$ arises from short distance, it
341: should not have sizable strong phase, so assignment of strong
342: phase to the $a$ term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ampl}) is intuitive. We will
343: consider two realistic models where New Physics CPV phase could
344: appear in $P_{\rm EW}$: the existence of a fourth generation, or
345: an extra $Z'$.
346:
347: In a four sequential generation model, natural for affecting
348: $P_{\rm EW}$, we have found~\cite{Kpi0HNS}
349: %
350: 1) ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0} - {\cal A}_{K^+\pi^-} \neq 0$ can be
351: accounted for;
352: %
353: 2) $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ rate and $B_s$ mixing can be SM-like;
354: %
355: 3) after satisfying kaon constraints, no visible deviation of $\Delta m_{B_d}$
356: from SM, and $\Phi_{B_d} \sim \phi_1$~\cite{KLpinunu};
357: %
358: 4) $\Delta {\cal S}_{K^0\pi^0,\phi K^0} < 0$ can be generated,
359: and is robust against hadronic uncertainties~\cite{HNRS}.
360: %
361: %
362: We now illustrate the new point 5): while $\sin2\Phi_{B_d}$ mimics
363: $\sin2\phi_1/\beta$ (see Fig. 4 of Ref.~\cite{KLpinunu}),
364: $S_{J/\psi K}$ is in fact driven lower to around 0.7, just at the
365: right CPV phase value of $\phi_{sb} \simeq 70^\circ$ (defined by
366: $V_{t's}^*V_{t'b} \equiv r_{sb}e^{i\phi_{sb}}$) for points 1)--4)
367: above.
368: %
369: We emphasize that point 2) has not changed with the
370: measurement~\cite{dmsCDF} of $B_s$ mixing; a year ago we stated
371: that~\cite{Kpi0HNS} $\Delta m_{B_s}$ should be SM-like in 4
372: generation model.
373:
374:
375: % For four generation
376: \begin{figure}[t!]
377: \smallskip %\smallskip
378: \vspace{-3mm}\hspace{-1.5mm}
379: %%%%%\hspace{-1mm}\vspace{4.mm}
380: \includegraphics[width=1.6in,height=0.95in,angle=0]{VBdrev}
381: \hspace{1.5mm}%\vspace{-4.mm}
382: \includegraphics[width=1.65in,height=1.15in,angle=0]{SpsiKphisb}
383: \vspace{3mm} \hspace{-1.5mm}
384: \includegraphics[width=1.65in,height=1.15in,angle=0]{SpsiKdelta}
385: \vspace{3mm}\hspace{-1mm}
386: \includegraphics[width=1.65in,height=1.17in,angle=0]{APsiK}
387: \vspace{-1mm}
388: %\smallskip\smallskip%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
389: \vskip-0.1cm \caption{(a) Unitarity quadrangle for $b\to d$
390: transitions with $V_{t^\prime d} V_{t^\prime b}^\ast \equiv r_{db}
391: \, e^{-i\phi_{db}}$ exaggerated and horizontal scale shrunk by
392: half, for $\phi_{db} \sim 10^\circ$ and $100^\circ$ (dashed),
393: compared with 3 generation SM (solid); (b) $S_{J/\psi K^0}$ vs
394: $\phi_{sb}$, where $V_{t^\prime s}^\ast V_{t^\prime b} \equiv
395: r_{sb} \, e^{i\phi_{sb}}$; (c) $S_{J/\psi K^0}$ and (d) $A_{J/\psi
396: K^+}$ vs $\delta$, for $m_{t^\prime}=300$ GeV and $r_{sb}=$ 0.02,
397: 0.025 and 0.03. For (b), we set $\delta=0$. For (c) and (d), we
398: set $\phi_{sb}=70^\circ$. In (b), (c) and (d), $\phi_{db} =
399: 10^\circ$, and larger $r_{sb}$ gives stronger variation. }
400: \label{fig:fourgeneration}
401: %\vspace{-2mm}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404:
405: As discussed, we employ the SM-dominated parameter $a$ to saturate
406: the $B\to J/\psi K$ rate. The $P_{\rm EW}$ contribution $b$,
407: arising from 4th generation and carrying CPV phase
408: $e^{i\phi_{sb}}$, can be computed straightforwardly as for $B\to
409: K\pi^0$, $\phi K$ modes. One essentially has $b\to s$ transitions
410: induced by a virtual $Z$, which itself turns into $\pi^0$, $\phi$,
411: or here the $J/\psi$. We illustrate in
412: Fig.~1(a) the $b\to d$ quadrangle.
413: Defining $V_{t'd}^*V_{t'b} \equiv r_{db}e^{i\phi_{db}}$, the quadrangle
414: with $V_{t'd}V_{t'b}^*$ in 3rd quadrant would lead to a high value of
415: $\sin2\Phi_{B_d} \simeq 0.78$, and is disfavored~\cite{KLpinunu}.
416: The quadrangle corresponding to $\phi_{db} \sim 10^\circ$ can hardly be
417: distinguished from the triangle of the 3 generation case, hence
418: mimics SM in $b\to d$ transitions.
419: In Fig.~1(b) we plot $S_{J/\psi K}$ vs $\phi_{sb}$
420: for our standard parameter set of $m_{t'} \sim 300$ GeV,
421: $r_{sb} \sim$ 0.02, 0.025 and 0.03, with strong phase $\delta$ set to zero.
422: $S_{J/\psi K}$ can dip below 0.7 around
423: $\phi_{sb} \sim 70^\circ$, for all $r_{sb}$.
424: Fig.~1(c) illustrates that a small strong phase $\delta$ of order
425: $\pm 30^\circ$ or less does not affect this slight suppression of $S_{J/\psi K}$,
426: but at 180$^\circ$ would almost restore it back.
427: In Fig.~1(d) we plot ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ vs $\delta$.
428: We see that ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ can reach above 1\% for
429: $\delta$ up to $\pm 30^\circ$. This could become measurable
430: soon.
431:
432:
433: To illustrate further the correlations between a lower ${\cal
434: S}_{J/\psi K^0}$ and a finite ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$, let us
435: invoke a second model, that of extra $Z'$ boson with flavor
436: changing couplings. $Z'$ models can also~\cite{Barger} explain the
437: ${\cal A}_{K^+\pi^0} - {\cal A}_{K^+\pi^-}$ difference, as it can
438: not only enter $P_{\rm EW}$, but affect color-suppressed strong
439: penguin amplitudes as well. In fact, $Z'$ models are much less
440: constrained than the previous 4th generation model, since one has
441: freedom to assign the extra $U(1)$ couplings to various fermions.
442: For instance, one can ask the $Z'$ to be leptophobic, hence
443: decouple from $b\to s\ell^+\ell^-$ constraint, while the
444: consistency of measured $\Delta m_{B_s}$ with SM expectation
445: allows a range of $Z'$ mass scales~\cite{dmsZ'}. We therefore use
446: the framework of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ampl})--(\ref{eq:A}) again to
447: illustrate first the possible impact on ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K}$.
448:
449:
450: % For Zprime
451: %
452: \begin{figure}[t!]
453: \smallskip %\smallskip
454: \vspace{-3mm}\hspace{-1.5mm}
455: \includegraphics[width=1.64in,height=1.1in,angle=0]{ZpSpsiKphiL}
456: \vspace{3mm}\hspace{-1mm}
457: \includegraphics[width=1.64in,height=1.1in,angle=0]{ZpAPsiK}
458: \vspace{-1mm}
459: %\smallskip\smallskip%\smallskip\smallskip\smallskip
460: \vskip-0.1cm \caption{(a) $S_{J/\psi K^0}$ vs $\phi_{L}$ for
461: $\delta=0$, and (b) $A_{J/\psi K^+}$ vs $\delta$ for
462: $\phi_{L}=-80^\circ$, for $(\xi^{LL}_3,\xi^{LL}_9)= (-0.001,\;
463: -0.001)$ (dashed), $(-0.003,\; -0.003)$ (solid) and $(-0.005,\;
464: -0.005)$ (dot-dashed), respectively. }
465: \label{fig:Zprime}
466: %\vspace{-2mm}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469:
470:
471: %%%%
472:
473: We follow the formalism introduced in Ref.~\cite{Barger}, and
474: adopt the particular choice for the $Z^{\prime}$ contributions to
475: the Wilson coefficient at the weak scale. Assuming $LL$ coupling,
476: the weak phase is placed in the effective charge $\arg B_{sb} =
477: \phi_L$, and the effective coupling is $\xi_{bsqq} =
478: c\,B_{sb}B_{qq}$ for $b\to s\bar qq$ transition, where $c =
479: (g'M_Z/gM_{Z'})^2/|V_{ts}^*V_{tb}|$, and $B_{qq}$ is the effective
480: $qq$ charge. In $B\to K\pi$ case, for strong penguin one has
481: $B_{qq} = B_{uu} + 2B_{dd}$, while for EW penguin one has $B_{qq}
482: = 2(B_{uu} - B_{dd})$. By taking $B_{uu} =
483: -2B_{dd}$~\cite{Barger}, the contribution would be only in $P_{\rm
484: EW}$. For our present $B\to J/\psi K$ case, we take $B_{cc} =
485: B_{uu}$ and there is no $B_{dd}$ contribution, we therefore
486: parameterize
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: \Delta c_{3}^{\psi K},\ \Delta c_{9}^{\psi K} =
489: +\frac{2}{3} \xi^{LL}_3 e^{i \phi_L},\
490: +\frac{4}{3} \xi^{LL}_9 e^{i \phi_L},
491: \end{eqnarray}
492: where $\Delta c_9^{\psi K}$ contributes to $P_{\rm EW}$, while
493: $\Delta c_3^{\psi K}$ is a color-suppressed strong penguin, and we
494: take $\Delta c_5^{\psi K} = \Delta c_7^{\psi K} = 0$.
495:
496: We plot ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0}$ vs $\phi_L$ for $\delta = 0$ in
497: Fig.~2(a), for three different combinations of the parameters
498: $(\xi^{LL}_3,\xi^{LL}_9)=(-0.001,-0.001),(-0.003,-0.003)$ and
499: $(-0.005,-0.005)$.
500: %, which can be attained by varying the relation between $B_{uu}$ and $B_{dd}$.
501: %
502: We have checked that a small $\delta$ value does not affect ${\cal
503: S}_{J/\psi K^0}$, while the parameter choices do not violate
504: current measurements of $\Delta {\cal S}$. We see that around
505: $\phi_L \sim -90^\circ$ or so, ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0}$ can be
506: brought down below 0.7, and could even approach 0.65. Keeping
507: $\phi_L \sim -80^\circ$, we plot ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ vs
508: $\delta$ in Fig.~2(b). We see that for $|\delta| \sim 30^\circ$,
509: $|{\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}|$ can be rather sizable, and is
510: constrained in fact by Eq.~(\ref{eq:expt}). A value of a few \%
511: could be established with existing data, and by this summer with
512: over 500M $B\bar B$ events at Belle alone.
513:
514:
515: %\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
516:
517: We have not intended to go into detailed modelling, but just to
518: illustrate that the possible hint for New Physics in a lower value
519: of ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0}$, could imply a direct CPV asymmetry
520: ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ at 1\% level or higher. Our results imply
521: that, if one takes the difference of ${\cal S}_{J/\psi K^0} -
522: \sin2\phi_1/\beta\vert^{\rm fit}$ to be of order $-0.05$, then
523: ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ could be as large as a few percent, as
524: illustrated by the $Z'$ model. This is consistent with the
525: experimental bound of Eq.~(\ref{eq:expt}). Since the latter is
526: based on only a fraction of the data that is currently at hand,
527: there is much room for improvement.
528:
529: We caution, however, that the strong phase $\delta$, though of
530: order 20$^\circ$--30$^\circ$ on general grounds, could be small
531: {\it by accident}. So, ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ could still be very
532: small, even if large NP is present. In addition, for the more
533: constrained 4th generation model, besides linking all the hints
534: and giving more wide ranging predictions, the prediction for
535: ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$ is at the more conservative 1\% level. In
536: this respect, it is desirable to give a better prediction for
537: ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}^{\rm SM}$ than Eq.~(\ref{eq:ASM}), by
538: constraining the penguin amplitude ratio $\Delta_{ut}/\Delta_{ct}$
539: for $B\to J/\psi K$ decay in SM.
540:
541: Assuming 900M $B\bar B$ events between Belle and BaBar by this
542: summer, the combined statistical error for ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$
543: could reach below 0.005, and a 2\% asymmetry, if present, should
544: be clearly established. Assuming isospin symmetry,
545: %which should be good for $B\to J/\psi K$ decay,
546: one could combine with $B^0\to J/\psi K^0$, which requires
547: tagging. But the error is reduced only by $\sim 10\%$ or so,
548: unless time dependent analysis provides extra leverage. To probe
549: $|{\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}| \sim 1\%$, one needs to await the order
550: 2000M events expected by 2008. With statistical error down to
551: 0.003 or lower, systematic issues would become important. Studies
552: on systematic errors at the per mill level should be very worthy
553: towards the era of Super B factory, where many processes of
554: interest would not be as clean as $B\to J/\psi K$.
555:
556: We have focused on B factory prospects, but $B\to J/\psi K$ decay
557: is accessible also at hadronic colliders. With 110 pb$^{-1}$ data
558: from Tevatron Run I, CDF reconstructed~\cite{psiKCDF} 860 $B\to
559: J/\psi K^+$ events with $J/\psi \to \mu^+\mu^-$. Scaling to 8
560: fb$^{-1}$, one expects $6.2 \times 10^{4}$ events towards the end
561: of Tevatron Run II. If the acceptance and efficiency can be
562: improved by a factor of 2 or 3, the CDF and D0 experiments could
563: be competitive with the $\sim 2\times 10^5$ reconstructed $B\to
564: J/\psi K^\pm$ events per 1000M $B\bar B$ pairs at the B factories.
565: Systematics could be under better control at hadron colliders due
566: to more abundant calibration modes.
567: %
568: After 2008, with the advent of the LHC, the ATLAS, CMS and LHCb
569: experiments should give the best measurement of ${\cal A}_{J/\psi
570: K^+}$, perhaps even measuring the SM expectation at the few per
571: mill level.
572:
573:
574: In summary, in view of possible hints of New Physics in CP
575: violation in $b\to sq\bar q$ and $c\bar cs$ decays, we point out
576: that the direct CP violation asymmetry ${\cal A}_{J/\psi K^+}$
577: could be at the 1\% level or higher, and can be measured in the
578: next few years. If established, this could become one of the most
579: convincing evidence for New Physics.
580:
581:
582:
583: \vskip 0.3cm \noindent{\bf Acknowledgement}.\
584: This work is supported in part by NSC 94-2112-M-002-035 and
585: NSC 94-2811-M-002-053 of Taiwan, and HPRN-CT-2002-00292 of Israel.
586:
587:
588: %
589: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
590: %%GR
591: % The bibliography was re-sorted...
592: %%
593: % PRD: Phys. Rev. D {\bf nn}, ppppp (yyyy)
594: % PLB: Phys. Lett. B {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
595: % PRL: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
596: % ZPC: Z. Phys. C {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
597: % JHEP: J. High Energy Phys. 01, ppp (yyyy)
598: % EPJ: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf nn}, ppp (yyyy)
599: % NPB: Nucl. Phys. {\bf Bnnn}, ppp (yyyy)
600: % {\it et al.}
601: %
602: \bibitem{expt}
603: G.~Bonvicini {\it et al.} [CLEO Collab.],
604: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 5940 (2000);
605: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.],
606: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 032003 (2003);
607: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.],
608: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 241802 (2004).
609: %
610: %
611: \bibitem{PDG05}
612: Particle Data Group, http://pdg.lbl.gov/.
613: %
614: \bibitem{HFAG}
615: Heavy Flavor Averaging Group [HFAG], see webpage
616: {%\underline
617: {http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}}.
618: %
619: %\bibitem{btosqqNP}
620: %Y.~Grossman and M.P.~Worah,
621: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 241 (1997);
622: % %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612269];
623: % %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612446].
624: %
625: \bibitem{HNRS} W.S.~Hou, M.~Nagashima, G.~Raz, A.~Soddu,
626: hep-ph/0603097, and references therein.
627: %
628: \bibitem{AKpiAKpi0}
629: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
630: 93}, 131801 (2004); Y.~Chao {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.], {\it
631: ibid.}\ {\bf 93}, 191802 (2004); K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle
632: Collab.], hep-ex/0507045.
633: %
634: \bibitem{LargeC}
635: See e.g. H.n. Li, S. Mishima and A.I. Sanda, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
636: 72}, 114005 (2005), and references therein.
637: %
638: %\bibitem{BurasEWP}
639: % A.J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab,
640: % Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32}, 45 (2003);
641: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 101804 (2004);
642: % Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 697}, 133 (2004);
643: % Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36}, 2015 (2005).
644: %
645: %\bibitem{Baek}
646: % S.~Baek {\it et al.}, %P.~Hamel, D.~London, A.~Datta and D.~A.~Suprun,
647: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 057502 (2005).
648: %
649: \bibitem{Kpi0HNS}
650: W.S. Hou, M. Nagashima and A. Soddu, %hep-ph/0503072, to appear in
651: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 141601 (2005); and references
652: therein.
653: %
654: \bibitem{SpsiKBelle}
655: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.], hep-ex/0507037.
656: %
657: \bibitem{CKM}
658: J.~Charles {\it et al.} [CKMfitter Group],
659: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41}, 1 (2005);
660: see http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ for updates.
661: %
662: \bibitem{UT}
663: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collab.],
664: JHEP {\bf 0507}, 028 (2005);
665: see http://utfit.roma1.infn.it/ for updates.
666: %
667: \bibitem{D0pi0}
668: See e.g. C.K.~Chua, W.S.~Hou and K.C.~Yang,
669: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 096007 (2002).
670: %
671: \bibitem{dBelle}
672: R.~Itoh {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.],
673: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 091601 (2005).
674: %
675: \bibitem{dBaBar}
676: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.],
677: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 032005 (2005).
678: %
679: \bibitem{KLpinunu}
680: W.S.~Hou, M.~Nagashima and A.~Soddu,
681: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 115007 (2005).
682: %
683: \bibitem{AphiK}
684: From ${\cal A}_{\phi K^+} = 0.037 \pm 0.050$~\cite{HFAG}, with
685: $a\, e^{i\delta} = \lambda_c\Delta_{ct}$ and $b\, e^{-i\phi} =
686: \lambda_u\Delta_{ut}$, there seems to be little strong phase
687: difference between $\Delta_{ct}$ and $\Delta_{ut}$.
688: %
689: \bibitem{dmsCDF}
690: G.~Gomez-Ceballos [CDF Run II Collab.], talk at \emph{Flavor
691: Physics and CP Violation} Conference, April 2006, Vancouver,
692: Canada.
693: %
694: \bibitem{Barger}
695: V.~Barger, C.W.~Chiang, P.~Langacker, H.S.~Lee,
696: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 598}, 218 (2004).
697: %
698: \bibitem{dmsZ'}
699: K.~Cheung, C.W.~Chiang, N.G.~Deshpande, J.~Jiang,
700: hep-ph/0604223;
701: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer, hep-ph/0604249.
702: %
703: \bibitem{psiKCDF}
704: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collab.],
705: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 072001 (1998).
706:
707: \end{thebibliography}
708: \end{document}
709: