28.12.2012 Views

Violation in Mixing

Violation in Mixing

Violation in Mixing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

7<br />

Analysis of the time-dependent<br />

�È -violat<strong>in</strong>g asymmetry <strong>in</strong><br />

� � � � decays<br />

This chapter describes the analysis of the time evolution <strong>in</strong> � � � � decays. In the Standard Model, the<br />

time-dependent �È -violat<strong>in</strong>g asymmetry <strong>in</strong> � � � � is related to the angle « of the Unitarity Triangle<br />

(Sec. 1.5.3.1). This decay mode has only recently been observed by CLEO [67] and confirmed by BaBar [6]<br />

and Belle [68]. Due to the small decay rate (�Ê � � ¢ � ), large cont<strong>in</strong>uum ÕÕ background, and significant<br />

cross-feed from � � à � decays, extraction of the �È asymmetry <strong>in</strong> � � is <strong>in</strong>timately related<br />

to the branch<strong>in</strong>g fraction measurement. In addition, this measurement relies heavily on the <strong>in</strong>frastructure<br />

(tagg<strong>in</strong>g [69] and vertex<strong>in</strong>g [71] <strong>in</strong> particular) developed for the ×�Ò ¬ analysis [72].<br />

7.1 �È analysis requirements<br />

The formalism has been already described <strong>in</strong> the Sec. 1.5. Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g ¡Ø � Ø�È ØØ��, where Ø�È and ØØ��<br />

are the proper decay times of the �È and tagged �’s, respectively, the decay rate distribution � � (<strong>in</strong><br />

Eq. 1.34) for ��È � � when �Ø�� is a � � can be rewritten as:<br />

�¡Ø��� �<br />

�¦ ¡Ø �<br />

��<br />

where � is the average � lifetime, ¡Ñ�� is the mix<strong>in</strong>g frequency, and<br />

� ¦ Ë� ×�Ò ¡Ñ�� ¡Ø § �� Ó× ¡Ñ�� ¡Ø ℄ � (7.1)<br />

Ë� � ÁÑ�<br />

��� �� �� � ���<br />

���<br />

� (7.2)<br />

Interference effects are <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the physical quantity �, def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Eq. 1.22 or <strong>in</strong> 1.41: it can be rewritten<br />

as<br />

� � Õ ��<br />

� �� �<br />

Ô ��<br />

�� �� � (7.3)<br />

��<br />

where � �� is the weak mix<strong>in</strong>g phase, �� �� is the amplitude for the decay � � � � � � , �� is the<br />

�È eigenvalue of the f<strong>in</strong>al state, and the assumption of no �È violation <strong>in</strong> mix<strong>in</strong>g (�Õ�Ô� � ) is implicit. In<br />

this ¬ analysis, observable �È violation effects can arise from <strong>in</strong>terference between different decay amplitudes<br />

¬<br />

¬ ( ¬� ��� � ¬ �� ) and <strong>in</strong>terference between the mix<strong>in</strong>g and decay weak phases (see Sec. 1.3.3).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!