28.12.2012 Views

Violation in Mixing

Violation in Mixing

Violation in Mixing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1.2 Neutral � Mesons 19<br />

given time (Ø� � Ø�): <strong>in</strong> this case (a particle-anti-particle state), È and � transformations correspond to the<br />

same one. As a matter of fact, through parity � �� � goes to � � �� � � and therefore the state<br />

� �� � � � �� � � � �� � � � �� � � results <strong>in</strong> a spatially anti-symmetric one. As a<br />

consequence, the spatial contribution com<strong>in</strong>g from the Ä � condition <strong>in</strong> the spherical functions � Ñ<br />

� must<br />

result symmetric: ×�Ò � has been <strong>in</strong>cluded. On the other hand, by apply<strong>in</strong>g �, � �� � goes <strong>in</strong>to � �� �<br />

so that the state <strong>in</strong> the Eq. 1.27 is asymmetric for particle-antiparticle exchange as requested by the negative<br />

� eigenvalue of the § �Ë .<br />

S<strong>in</strong>ce the coherent time evolution of the two particles can be treated like a s<strong>in</strong>gle particle evolution, <strong>in</strong><br />

equations 1.24 and 1.25 one can substitute<br />

� Ø��� � � Ô�Ý× Ø���<br />

� Ø��� � � Ô�Ý× Ø��� �<br />

After this substitution, Eq. 1.27 can be written extract<strong>in</strong>g the time dependence (and us<strong>in</strong>g addiction and<br />

subtraction trigonometric rules):<br />

Ë Ø� �Ø� � Ô �<br />

�Š� �<br />

� ¡Ñ� Ø� Ø�<br />

�×�Ò<br />

�� Ô<br />

Õ���� Ò � ¡Ñ� Ø� Ø�<br />

Ó×<br />

�� �<br />

���� ���� Õ<br />

Ô��� �Ó<br />

� ×�Ò �� � (1.28)<br />

S<strong>in</strong>ce the �’s have equal (though back-to-back) momenta <strong>in</strong> the center-of-mass frame, before the decay of<br />

the first of the two �’s, Ø� is equal to Ø� and Eq. 1.28 conta<strong>in</strong>s one � and one � . However decay stops the<br />

clock for the decayed particle so the terms that depend on ×�Ò�¡Ñ� Ø� Ø� � ℄ beg<strong>in</strong> to play a role. From<br />

Eq. 1.28 one can derive the amplitude for decays where one of the two �’s decays to any state � at time Ø<br />

and the other decays to � at time Ø :<br />

� Ø �Ø � Ô �<br />

�Å Ø Ø � Ø �Ø<br />

�×�Ò<br />

�<br />

¡Ñ� Ø Ø �� Ô<br />

� � Õ<br />

Ò �<br />

¡Ñ� Ø Ø<br />

Ó×<br />

�� � � � �<br />

Õ<br />

� � Ô<br />

�<br />

�Ó ×�Ò � � (1.29)<br />

where �� is the amplitude for a � to decay to the state ��, �� is the amplitude for a � to decay to the same<br />

state �� (see Eqs. 1.20). To keep signs consistent with Eq. 1.28, the symbol<br />

� Ø �Ø �<br />

�<br />

Ø � Ø� � Ø � Ø�,<br />

Ø � Ø�� Ø � Ø�<br />

is <strong>in</strong>troduced, but this overall sign factor will disappear <strong>in</strong> the rate. Any state that identifies the flavor of the<br />

parent � (tagg<strong>in</strong>g) has either �� or �� � . In Eq. 1.29, the sum � � rema<strong>in</strong>s only <strong>in</strong> the factorized<br />

exponential and is vanished from ×�Ò� or Ó×�Ò� arguments.<br />

�È VIOLATION IN THE �� SYSTEM

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!