arxiv:hep-ph/ v4 18 Nov 1999

Transcription

1 February 8, 018 arxiv:hep-ph/990998v4 18 Nov 1999 OITS-678 CLEO measurement of B π + π and determination of weak phase α 1 K. Agashe and N.G. Deshpande 3 Institute of Theoretical Science University of Oregon Eugene OR Abstract The CLEO collaboration ( has recently reported ) a (first) measurement of BR(B π + π ) = ± We study, using recent results on QCD improved factorization, the implications of this measurement for the determination of the CKM phase α and also for the rate for B π 0 π 0. If the B d π + form factor is large ( > 0.3), then we find that the CLEO measurement favors small V ub /V cb so that the expected error (due to neglecting the QCD penguin amplitude) in the measurement of α using only the time-dependent analysis of the decay B π + π is large 15. However, if V ub /V cb is known, then it is possible to determine the correct value of sinα. PACS numbers: 13.5.Hw, 1.15.Hh 1 This work is supported by DOE Grant DE-FG03-96ER agashe@oregon.uoregon.edu 3 desh@oregon.uoregon.edu

2 1 Introduction Recently, the CLEO collaboration has reported the first observation of the decay B π + π and a limit on the rate for B ± π ± π 0 [1]. In this letter, we determine the range of parameters, especially V ub /V cb (entering the calculations of B decay rates) which is preferred by this measurement/limit. Then, we study, in turn, the implications of these preferred values of parameters for the measurement of the CKM phase α using time-dependent studies of B π + π which will be done at the e + e machines in the next few years and also for the rate for B π 0 π 0. The effective Hamiltonian for B decays is 4 : H eff = G F [V ub V ud (C 1O u 1 +C O u ) +V cb Vcd (C 1O1 c +C O c ) V tbvtq 6 C i O i ], (1) i=3 where q = d,s. The C i s arethe Wilson coeficients (WC s) which are schemeand scale-dependent; these unphysical dependences are cancelled by the corresponding scheme- and scale-dependences of the matrix elements of the operators. In a recent paper, Beneke et al. found that the matrix elements for the decays B ππ, in the large m b limit, can be written as [] ππ O i B = π j 1 B π j 0 [ 1+ r n α n s (m b)+o(λ QCD /m b ) ], () where j 1 and j are bilinear quark currents. If the radiative corrections in α s and O(Λ QCD /m b ) corrections are neglected, then the matrix element on the left-hand side factorizes into a product of a form factor and a meson decay constant so that we recover the conventional factorization formula. These 4 We neglect the electroweak penguin operators which are expected to contribute to the B ππ decays only at the few % level. 1

3 authors computed the O(α s ) corrections (in perturbation theory) using the meson light-cone distribution amplitudes []. In this approach, the strong interaction (final-state rescattering) phases are included in the radiative corrections in α s and thus the O(α s ) strong interaction phases are determined in []. The scale- and scheme-dependence of the WC s are cancelled by these O(αs n) corrections. Formulae for B ππ The matrix elements for B ππ are []: Here im ( Bd π + π ) = G F [V ub V ud(a 1 +a u 4 +a u 6r χ ) X = f π ( m B m π +V cb V cd (ac 4 +ac 6 r χ) ] X. (3) ) ( ) F B π m π, (4) where f π = 131 MeV is the pion decay constant and F B π 0 is a (q dependent) form factor. 0 im ( B π π 0) = G F V ub V ud(a 1 +a ) Y, (5) where Y = f π ( m B m π ) ( ) F B π 0 m π. (6) 0 im ( Bd π 0 π 0) = G F [V ub V ud (a a u 4 au 6 r χ) V cb V cd(a c 4 +a c 6r χ ) ] Y. (7) In the above equations, the a i s are (combinations of) WC s with the O(α s ) corrections added so that the a i s are scheme- and (almost) scaleindependent. The values of the a i s are given in Table 1 []. The imaginary parts of a i s are due to final-state rescattering.

4 For the CP conjugate processes, the CKM elements have to be complexconjugated. The branching ratios are given by: BR ( B π π 0) 1 p = τ B M, (8) 8π m B where τ B is the lifetime of the B meson and p is the momentum of the pion in the rest frame of the B meson. There is a factor of 1/ for π 0 π 0 due to identical final state particles. We neglect the q dependence of the form factors between q = 0 and q = m π, i.e., set FB π 0 (0) = F0 B π (m π ). We will use two values of the form factors: F B π = 0.7 and 0.33 with F B π0 = 1/ F B π. Model calculations indicate that the SU(3) breaking in the form factors is given by F B K 1.13 F B π [3, 4]. The large measured BR(B Kη ) requires F B K > 0.36[5]which, inturn, impliesalargervalueoff B π ( 0.33). If F B K < 0.36, then we require a new mechanism to account for BR(B Kη ): high charm content of η [6], QCD anomaly [7] or new physics. Also, if F B π < 0.7, then the value of F B K is too small to explain the measured BR s for B Kπ [8]. We use V cb = , V ud = 0.974, V cd = 0.4, m B = 5.8 GeV and τ B = 1.6 ps [9]. 3 Constraints on parameters from B π + π, m s and B π ± π 0 We first comment briefly on the upper limit on γ using the recent limit on B 0 s B 0 s mass difference, m s > 14.3 ps 1 [10]. In the SM, we have m s = m B s B Bs fb s V m d m Bd B Bd fb d V tb V ts tb V td. (9) 3

5 a 1 a a u i i i a c i a u,c 6 r χ Table1: Thefactorizationcoefficients for therenormalizationscale µ = m b / []. With m d (the B 0 B 0 mass difference) = 0.481±0.017 ps 1 [10], m Bs = BBs f Bs 5.37 GeV [9] and BBd = 1.15±0.05 [11], we get f Bd V td V ts < (10) In the Wolfenstein parametrization, this constrains 1 ρ iη < 0.96 which implies γ < 90. In Fig. 1 we show the CP-averaged BR for B π + π as a functions of γ for F B π = 0.33 and 0.7 and for V ub /V cb = 0.1, 0.08 and The CLEO measurement is B π + π = ( ±0.6 ) 10 6 [1]. If F B π = 0.33 and for γ < 90, we see from the figures that smaller values of V ub /V cb 0.06 are preferred: V ub /V cb = 0.08 is still allowed at the σ level for γ 100. However, if the smaller value of the form factor (0.7) is used, then the CLEO measurement is consistent with V ub /V cb We obtain similar results using effective WC s (C eff ) s and N = 3 in the earlier factorization framework (neglecting final state rescattering) [6]. The CLEO collaboration also quotes a value for BR(B π ± π 0 ) of ( ±1.5 ) 10 6, but they say that the statistical significance of the excess over background is not sufficient for an observation and so they quote 5 The Particle Data Group quotes V ub /V cb = 0.08±0.0 [9]. 4

6 BR( B π + π - ) x F B π = 0.7 BR( B π + π - ) x F B π = 0.33 = = = = = = γ in degrees γ in degrees Figure1: CP-averaged BR(B π + π ) as a function of γ for F B π = 0.7 (left) and 0.33 (right) and for V ub /V cb = 0.1 (solid curves), 0.08 (dashed curves) and 0.06 (dotted curves). The BR measured by the CLEO collaboration lies (at the 1 σ level) between the two horizontal (thicker) solid lines. The errors on the CLEO measurement have been added in quadrature to compute the 1 σ limits. 5

7 BR (B π ± π 0 ) F B π = F B π = Figure: BR(B ± π ± π 0 )asafunctionof V ub /V cb forf B π = 0.7(solid curve) and 0.33 (dashed curve). The 90 % C. L. upper limit from the CLEO collaboration is a 90 % C.L. upper limit of [1]. The BR for B π ± π 0 is shown in Fig. as a function of V ub /V cb. The upper limit for B π ± π 0 allows V ub /V cb up to 0.1. But, assuming an observation at the BR quoted and if F B π 0.33, then there is a preference for small V ub /V cb from this decay mode consistent with that from B π + π. 6

8 4 Implications for measurements of α and B π 0 π 0 The unitarity triangle is a representation in the complex plane of the relation: V ub V ud + V cb V cd + V tb V td = 0. The angles of the triangle are: α Arg( V tb V td/v ub V ud),β Arg( V cb V cd/v tb V td)andγ Arg( V ub V ud/v cb V cd) with α + β + γ = 180. Choosing V cbv cd = V cbv cd, we get V ubv ud = V ub V ud e iγ and tanβ = V ub V ud sinγ V cb V cd V ub V ud cosγ. (11) Fixing V ud = and V cd = 0.4 [9], β (see above equation) and α can be obtained as a function of γ and r V ub /V cb : α = 180 γ tan 1 r V ud sinγ V cd r V ud cosγ. (1) The time-dependent decay rates for an initial pure B d or B d to decay into a CP eigenstate final state f are (assuming the total decay widths (denoted by Γ) of the two mass eigenstates are the same): Γ(B d (t) f) = M e Γt ( 1+ λ + 1 λ Γ ( Bd (t) f ) = M e Γt ( 1+ λ 1 λ cos( m d t) Imλ sin( m d t) cos( m d t)+imλ sin( m d t) ) ) (13) with where λ q M pm (14) M f H eff B d, M f H eff B d (15) 7

9 and the two mass eigenstates are In the SM, B L,H = p B d ±q B d. (16) q p = e iβ (17) since the B d B d mixing phase is β. In the case of f = π + π, if we neglect the (QCD) penguin operators, i.e., set a 4,6 = 0 in Eq. (3), we get and M M = e iγ (18) Imλ = sin( (β +γ)) = sinα. (19) Thus, the parameter Imλ can be obtained from the measurement of the timedependent asymmetry in B π + π decays (Eq. (13)) and if the penguin contribution can be neglected, sin α can be determined (Eq. (19)). In the presence of the penguin contribution, however, M/M e iγ so that Imλ sinα. We define ( ) Imλ = Im e iβ M M sinα meas. (0) as the measured value of sinα, i.e., sinα meas. = sinα if the penguin operators can be neglected. In Fig. 3 we plot the error in the measurement of α, α α meas. α, where α meas. is obtained from Eq. (0) (using the amplitudes of Eq. (3) and the value of β from Eq. (11)) and α is obtained from Eq. (1). α depends only on γ and V ub /V cb and is independent of F B π since the form factor cancels in the ratio M/M. We see that for the values of V ub /V cb 0.06 preferred by the B π + π measurement (if F B π 0.33), the error in the determination of α is large 15 (for γ 90 ). If F B π 0.7, then V ub /V cb 0.08 is consistent with the B π + π measurement which gives α 10 (for γ 90 ). 8

10 The computation of Beneke et al. [] includes final state rescattering phases, i.e., it is exact up to O(Λ QCD /m b ) and O(αs ) corrections. Thus, the value of sinα measured in B π + π decays (Eq. (0)) is a known function of γ and V ub /V cb only (in particular, there is no dependence on the phenomenological parameter ξ 1/N and strong phases are included unlike in the earlier factorization framework [6]). Since, the true value of α can also be expressed in terms of γ and V ub /V cb (Eq. (1)), we can estimate the true value of sinα from the measured value of sinα for a given value of V ub /V cb 6 (of course, up to O(Λ QCD /m b ) and O(α s) corrections); this is shown in Fig. 4 where we have restricted γ to be in the range (40,10 ) as indicated by constraints on the unitarity triangle from present data. If 0 γ 180 is allowed, then there will be a discrete ambiguity in the determination of sinα from sinα meas.. 7 Gronau, London [13] showed how to include penguin contributions in the determination of α, but their method requires, in addition to the timedependent decay rates for B π + π, the measurement of rates for the (tagged) decays B d, Bd π 0 π 0 and the rate for the decay B π ± π 0. We show BR(B π 0 π 0 ) as a function of γ in Fig. 5, again for F B π = 0.7 and 0.33 and for V ub /V cb = 0.1, 0.08 and We see that for V ub /V cb 0.06 (which is preferred by the B π + π measurement for F B π 0.33), this rate is very small: BR < Thus, the measurement of the rates for the (tagged) decays B d, Bd π 0 π 0 is very difficult in say few years of running of the current e + e machines due to the very small rate. Since time-dependent measurements of B d, Bd π + π will be achieved at these 6 In [1] also a plot of sinα meas. as a function of sinα is shown, but for a fixed sinβ. 7 Since this measurement of the true α using B π + π decays relies on other informationabout the CKM matrix, i.e., V ub /V cb, it is not an independent determination of α, but it can be used as a consistency check. 8 Numerically, thecoefficienta whichdeterminesthetree-levelamplitudeforb π 0 π 0 is suppressed (at lowest order)due to a cancellationbetween the WC s C 1 and C and thus (unlike a 1 ) is very sensitive to the O(α s ) corrections. Thus, we obtain slightly different results using effective WC s (C eff ) s and N = 3 [6]. 9

11 α meas. - α (in degrees) = 0.1 = 0.08 = γ in degrees Figure 3: The error in the measurement of CKM phase α using (only) timedependent B π + π decays as a function of γ for V ub /V cb = 0.1 (solid curve), 0.08 (dashed curve) and 0.06 (dotted curve). 10

12 sin α = 0.1 = 0.08 = sin α meas. Figure 4: The true value of sinα as a function of the value of sinα measured in B π + π decays for V ub /V cb = 0.1 (solid curve), 0.08 (dashed curve) and 0.06 (dotted curve). 11

13 machines, it is interesting to see how accurately we can measure α with only B π + π. 5 Summary To summarize, if F B π 0.33, then we have shown that the recent (and first) CLEO measurement of BR(B π + π ) ( ±0.6 ) 10 6 favors small V ub /V cb ( 0.06). This result is obtained using the recent computation of the matrix elements [] which includes the strong interaction phases. The small value of V ub /V cb enhances the penguin amplitude relative to the tree amplitude which implies that the error (due to neglecting the penguin contribution) in the determination of the CKM phase α using only (time-dependent) B π + π decays is large 15 for γ 90. However, if F B π 0.7, then V ub /V cb 0.08 is consistent with the value of BR(B π + π ) which implies that the error in the determination of α is 10 for (γ 90 ). Actually, if V ub /V cb is known, then the correct value of sinαcanbedetermined. Also, V ub /V cb 0.06impliesthatBR(B π 0 π 0 ) is expected to be very small < and BR(B π ± π 0 ) is expected to be References [1] Talk by R. Poling at the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies, Stanford University, August 9-14, 1999 ( [] M. Beneke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) [3] M. Bauer, B. Stech, M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34 (1987) 103. [4] P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998)

14 BR( B π 0 π 0 ) F B π = 0.7 BR( B π 0 π 0 ) F B π = /V cb = /V cb = 0.1 /V cb = 0.08 /V cb = /V cb = 0.08 /V cb = γ (in degrees) γ (in degrees) Figure5: CP-averagedBR(B π 0 π 0 ) as a function of γ for F B π = 0.7 (left) and 0.33 (right) and for V ub /V cb = 0.1 (solid curves), 0.08 (dashed curves) and 0.06 (dotted curves). 13

15 [5] See, for example, N.G. Deshpande, B. Dutta, S. Oh, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 573. [6] See, for example, A. Ali, C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 996. [7] P. Ball, J.M. Frere, M. Tytgat, Phys. Lett. B365 (1996) 367; A. Ali, J. Chay, C. Greub, P. Ko, Phys. Lett. B44 (1998) 161. [8] See, for example, B. Dutta, S. Oh, hep-ph/ [9] Review of Particle Physics by Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. C3 (1998) 1. [10] Talk by G. Blaylock at the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies, Stanford University, August 9-14, 1999 ( [11] A. J. Buras, invited talk given at the Symposium on Heavy Flavors, Santa Barbara, July 7-11, 1997, hep-ph/ [1] Talk by M. Beneke at the International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS99), 15-1 July 1999, Tampere, Finland, hepph/ [13] M. Gronau, D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990)