Skip to main content

Full text of "Measure of the size of CP violation in extended models"

See other formats


UG-FT-72/97 
|hep-ph/970346l| 
April 1997 



Measure of the size of CP violation in extended models 



J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra 
Departamento de Fisica Teorica y del Cosmos 
Universidad de Granada 
18071 Granada, Spain 

Abstract 

In this letter we introduce a possible measure of the size of CP violation in the Stan- 
dard Model and its extensions, based on quantities invariant under the change of weak 
quark basis. We also introduce a measure of the "average size" of CP violation in a 
model, which can be used to compare the size of CP violation in models involving extra 
sequential or vector-like quarks, or left-right symmetry. 

PACS: ll.30.Er, 12.15.Ff, 12.60.-i, 14.65.-q 

The definition of "Maximal CP Violation" and the related problem of finding an adequate 
measure of the size of CP violation in the Standard Model (SM) has been object of interest 
j|, ^, ||, |], H since experiment || revealed that the phase appearing in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi- 
Maskawa (CKM) matrix had to be large to explain the observed CP violation in the K°- 
K° system. As shown by Wolfenstein Q any definition of maximal CP violation based on 
maximizing the phase appearing in the CKM matrix does not make sense because it depends 
on the parametrization of the CKM matrix itself. A phase of 7r/2 in one parametrization does 
not correspond to a phase of tt/2 in another parametrization. Gronau and Schechter [0] used 
the construction of the CKM matrix as a product of three 2x2 unitary matrices (i. e. the 
Murnaghan construction) to find a certain combination of phases (the "invariant phase" ) that 
remained invariant under most rephasings of the quark fields. However, this invariant phase 
depends on the adoption of the Murnaghan construction as well as on the order in which the 
2x2 matrices are multiplied. The formulation in terms of rephasing invariants of the CKM 
matrix was carried out independently by Jarlskog ||] and Dunietz, Greenberg and Wu H 
leading to two different definitions of measures. In Refs. Q ||] the condition of maximality is 
that some of the quantities acp = 21m (a/3*)/(|a| 2 + |/3| 2 ), with either a = VijVki, (3 = VkjVu 
or a = VijVft, j3 = Vp-jV^ or a = VijVj^, = VuV^ are maximal, Vij being the ij element 
of the CKM matrix. Note that the numerators of all the quantities acp are equal up to an 
overall sign by the unitarity of the 3x3 CKM matrix but the normalization differs. In Ref. || 
CP violation is said to be maximal when the products Im VijV^VkiV^ acquire its maximum 
absolute value. This occurs when there is maximum mixing in the CKM matrix: the modulus 
of all the matrix elements is l/v3 and the phase of V u dV* d V cs V* s is 27r/3. Nevertheless as 



1 



pointed out by Botella and Chau Q this simple and elegant definition cannot be generalized 
to a higher number of quark generations because unitarity of a N x N CKM matrix does not 
imply that all the quantities Im VijV^VkiV^ are equal in modulus, and one has the case that 
when maximizing two of them a third one becomes zero. In this letter we follow the work of 
Refs. |3], ||, J5| although our definitions will be based on quantities invariant not only under 
rephasings of the CKM matrix but under arbitrary quark basis transformations. 

The formulation of CP violation in terms of quantities invariant under a change of weak 
quark basis is complementary to the usual formulation in terms of CKM phases, and seems 
more adequate to define a measure of CP violation. In Ref. [|]] Jarlskog realized that, if 
properly normalized, the quantity Im det [M u M\, M^mJ], invariant under weak quark basis 
transformations, can be looked as a measure of CP violation in the SM. (M u ^ are the up and 
down quark mass matrices respectively.) All CP violation observables depend in a perhaps 
complicated way on this quantity, which then gives us a measure of CP violation in the SM. 
However, the normalization is not uniquely determined and can lead to different measures. 

To extend this formulation to a more general model, let {M{\ be the set of quark mass 
matrices of the model, together with their transpose, conjugate and hermitian conjugate. 
These matrices are such that under a change of weak quark basis Mj — > uj Mill- with f/j, U- 
unitary matrices. For instance, in the SM it is enough for our purposes to choose {Mi} = 
{M u , Mdi M|, Aft}. We can construct a quantity invariant under a change of weak quark 
basis by taking the trace of a product of n matrices, tr Mi ■ ■ ■ M n , which can be repeated, 
chosen in such a way that Ui+i = U-, Vi (with U n +i = U\). The number n of matrices may 
not be arbitrary in specific models. Then CP conservation (for the detailed proof see Ref. 
|J) implies that the imaginary part of this trace, which we will call an "invariant" from now 
on, is real: 

I = Im tr Mi • • • M n = . (1) 

A set {/} of invariants can be constructed in this way. The vanishing of all these invariants is 
a necessary condition for CP conservation. Furthermore, in specific models sets of invariants 
can be found with the property that their vanishing is also a sufficient condition for CP 



conservation |4|, 1C, 11, 12]. For instance, in the SM the condition Im tr H^H^HuH^ = 
with H x = M x Mlis sufficient for CP conservation [10] (note that in the SM Imdet[H u , H<j\ = 
21m tr H^HdHuHj ). In the SM with an arbitrary number of generations of quarks all the 
invariants are constructed with products of the hermitian matrices H u ^- Any CP violation 
observable must depend, perhaps in a complicated way, on these invariants. Generalizing 
the results in Refs. [||, we argue that these invariants properly normalized ("reduced 
invariants") give measures of CP violation. 

As pointed above, the normalization is not unique. Nevertheless, by imposing some 
properties on the reduced invariants we can determine a plausible form. Let us consider the 



2 



invariants 



h 
h 



Im tr H 2 u H d H u H 2 d , 
lmtiH^H d H u Hj. 



(2) 



In the SM, all the invariants are proportional to I\, which is the lowest order nontrivial one. 
Explicit calculation shows that I2 = (m^ + m 2 + mf) Ii, with rrii the mass of the quark i. If 
we require that the reduced invariants I±, I2 are equal, the relative normalization must be 
( m u + m c + m t ) = tr H u . The same can of course be done with 73 = Im tr H 2 H d H u H^. 
This suggests that the adequate normalization for an invariant / with n u powers of H u and 
n d powers of H d should be I = //(tr H u ) nu (tr H d ) nd . This generalizes to other models as 
follows: for an invariant I = Im tr M\ ■ ■ ■ M n the reduced invariant / is 



This normalization has the remarkable property that — 1 < I < 1 for any reduced invariant I 
and arbitrary matrices M\, . . . ,M n , as holds for the CP asymmetries acp discussed in Refs. 
[Q, ||] . This property can be easily shown using the Schwarz inequality for the scalar product 
of matrices (A, B) = tr AB^ which in this case reads (tr AB 1 ") 2 < tr AA^ tr BBK 

A deeper reason to choose this normalization is that for a measure of CP violation we 
want to compare the CP violating invariant / = Im tr Mi • • • M n with the "size" (in some 
sense) of the mass matrices involved in its definition. The bare quantity I cannot give this 
measure because with a rescaling M, — > AMj it transforms as I — > X n I (because it has 
dimensions [I] = m n ) and in absence of anomalies, physics should not change with such a 
scale transformation. Thus we have to divide / by a quantity Af with dimensions [AT] = m n , 
invariant under a change of weak quark basis and which in some sense measures the "size" of 
the mass matrices M\ , . . . , M n . The only nonsingular invariant measure of the size of a matrix 
A is its norm \ \A\ \ = (tr j^t) 1 / 2 (the other invariants of A, for instance its determinant, can 
be zero without A being identically zero and can lead to singularities in the definition). The 
simplest choice is then Eq. (^). 

It is apparent that there is no set of parameters (masses, mixings, phases) that maximizes 
all the quantities /. So, any definition of maximal CP violation based on reduced invariants 
will have the arbitrariness in the choice of the reduced invariants that are maximized. The 
most obvious possibility is to choose the lowest order (lowest number of mass matrices in 
the numerator) reduced invariant, because in general higher order reduced invariants involve 
higher powers of the mixing angles and therefore have smaller maximum values than the 
lowest order ones. Having this in mind, we will find the maximum value of the lowest order 
(nontrivial) reduced invariants for some models. 



I = 



Im tr Mi ■ ■ ■ M, 



(3) 



(tr MiMj) 1 / 2 • • • (tr M n Mly/ 2 ' 



3 



As we have seen before, I\ in Eq. (Q) is the lowest order nontrivial invariant in the SM. 
Written as a function of physical parameters, 



h = -{m 2 c - m 2 u )(mf - m 2 u )(m 2 - m 2 c )(m 2 s - m 2 d ){m 2 b - m 2 d )(m 2 b - m 2 s ) 

x Im V ud V; d V cs V: s . (4) 

and the reduced invariant I\ decouples into a factor involving up quark masses only, another 
one with down quark masses and a third one involving CKM matrix elements: 

j _ (mg - m 2 u ){m 2 - m 2 u )(m 2 - m 2 ) ^ (m 2 - m\){m 2 - m 2 )(m 2 b - m 2 ) 
{rn\ + m% + m 2 ) 3 (m d + m 2 s + m 2 ) 3 

x Im V ud V c * d V cs V: s . (5) 

The maximum value of the third factor in Eq. (|5|) was found in Ref. || to be l/6\/3- It is 
straightforward to show that the maximum value of the up (down) factor occurs when one 
mass is zero and the ratio of the other two is (1 + \^3)/V2, and is (surprisingly) also l/6\/3- 
Then, the maximum value of I\ is (l/6\/3) 3 - 

This result can be compared with the hypothetical case that the top quark did not exist, 
i. e. the bottom quark was a vector-like SU(2)i singlet. In this model, the up quark mass 
matrix M u has dimensions 2x2 and the 3x3 down quark mass matrix A4 d divides in two 
submatrices 

M d is a 2 x 3 matrix connecting the two left-handed SU(2)^ doublets with the three right- 
handed SU(2)i singlets; m d is a 1 x 3 matrix connecting the left-handed SU(2)x singlet with 
the three right-handed SU(2) l singlets. (For a detailed description of the models with quark 
singlets see Ref. [13]). The lowest order nontrivial invariant of this model is [12] 

I[ = Im tr H u H d h d h\ 

= -(m 2 c -m 2 J(m 2 s -m 2 d )(ml-m 2 d )(ml-m 2 s )ImV ud V* d V cs V* s , (7) 



with H x = M X M^, h d = M d m} d . It has the same dependence in down quark masses and 
CKM matrix elements than I\ in Eq. (Q). The corresponding reduced invariant is = 
/{/(tr H u )(ti H d ) 2 (tv m d m d ), and its maximum value is 1/16, roughly 70 times larger than 
the maximum value of I\ in the SM. It is worthwhile to note that a naive analysis involving 
only the rephasing invariant CKM factor in Eqs. (|]J7|) yields in both models a maximum value 
of 1/6 \/3- This does not reflect the fact that in the latter model the effects of CP violation 
can be larger than in the SM. The formulation in terms of invariants is more adequate because 
although in both models the CKM matrix is a 3 x 3 unitary matrix (in the latter case only 



4 



the upper 2x3 submatrix is observable) with one CP violating phase, the invariants are 
different in each case and the observables depend on the masses and CKM matrix elements 
through the invariants. 

These models with small CP violation effects can be compared with models with left- 
right symmetry, where CP violation can be very important. In these models, even with one 
generation of quarks CP violation is possible. The lowest order nontrivial invariant is fl^| 

/(' = Im tr M U M\ . (8) 

In the one generation case, M u and Md are complex numbers m u and rrid respectively, and 
the reduced invariant is I" = Im (m u rn* d ) /\m u \ \md\, which has a maximum value of 1 when 
the relative phase between m u and is ir/2. In the three generation case /[' also reaches 
the value 1 when the up and down mass matrices are equal up to an overall factor. 

We can go a step further in our analysis and try to define quantities that characterize the 
average size of CP violation in a specific model, independently of the actual size (i. e. when 
one inserts the known values of masses, mixings, etc.) of CP violation. The significance of 
this will be clear later. For this purpose we define a vector space X whose elements g are 
the reduced invariants of a given model, which form a basis in this space, plus real linear 
combinations of them. We can regard the elements of I as functions of k real variables, with 
k twice the total number of (complex) entries in the quark mass matrices of the model. (For 
instance, in the SM k = 2 x (3x3 + 3x3) = 36.) We consider the vector subspace lo C I 
consisting of the elements of X which vanish identically for all values of its k variables (the 
reduced invariants / oc Im tr M with M hermitian are some of the elements of Iq). Then we 
construct the vector space Z' = T/Tq. In this space, but not in X, we can define a norm 

| | "| | =(?k/ s |9(I)l S 4 ' (9) 

where x denotes the k variables of g, S is a subset of R fe which we will specify later and V(S) 
is the volume of S. For the moment, we can assume S to be a ball centered at the origin and 
of arbitrary radius r. With this definition, we see: (i) ||<7|| > 0; (ii) If ||<?|| = 0, g(x) = in S, 
but our definition of S implies g(x) = Vx S R fc and g G Tq; (hi) \\ag\\ = \a\ \ \g\\ with a a 
real number; and (iv) +52II < 115111 + 115211 as a direct consequence of the same property 
for functions of k variables. Thus || • || defines a norm on Z' . Note that the property of the 
reduced invariants — 1 < I < 1 implies that the integrand is bounded, so the integral is well 
defined. At this point it is important to note that if we choose another normalization for the 
invariants, we can define the vector spaces X, Iq, X' in the same way and the operation || • || 
is still a norm although the modulus of the vectors differs. 

Before we give a significance to the norm we will specify the set S. This is best explained 
with an example. Let us consider the SM with quark mass matrices M u = (rriij), = (n^). 



5 



The elements of the set S discussed above are points x £ R fc with components Re m«, 
Im rriij, Re riij, Im mj, i,j = 1, 2, 3 such that Re 2 m,jj + Im 2 mjj + Re 2 ny + Im 2 ?^ < r 2 . 
This set is not invariant under weak basis transformations, so it is more convenient to define 
S = Re 2 mjj + lm 2 mij < r 2 , Re 2 njj + Im 2 njj < r 2 } i.e. the set S is the direct 

product of two 18-dimensional balls centered at the origin. The norm \\g\\ of a vector is 
independent of the value of r because g is dimensionless. In a general model, the set S can 
be taken to be the direct product of a ball of radius 1 centered at the origin containing the 
parameters for each mass matrix. Then, the significance of ||/|| is: (i) Choose a point in the 
parameter space of the theory; (ii) Calculate the measure of CP violation in this theory with 
these parameters, as given by /; (iii) Average over a symmetric set of points containing all 
possible values of the parameters. The result is an "average measure" of CP violation in the 
model, as given by /. The interest of these average measures constructed as norms of reduced 
invariants is that they tell us a priori and without knowledge of the values of the parameters 
in the theory whether CP violation effects are expected to be large or small. Of course, the 
size of CP violation effects is given by the actual parameters, but these average measures 
give us the global behavior of the theory. Comparing the norms of the reduced invariants of 
two theories we can state in which theory CP violation is more important. The numerical 
calculation of the norms of I±, I[, I'{ (the latter for three generations of quarks) yields 

||Ji|| = 1.63 -1(T 5 , 
= 2.51 -10 -4 , 

= 0.4003. (10) 

The evaluation of the multidimensional integral of Eq. (|9|) to obtain Eqs. (|io| ) is a difficult 
task because the integrand is very oscillatory (specially in the first case) and we integrate 
over a huge number of dimensions (36, 26 and 36 respectively), so we have used a Monte 
Carlo method and the errors are on the last decimal place. We see that ||/i|| < \\I'i\\ and 
ll^ill < W\\\ as expected from the hierarchy of their maximum values. However, while in 
the model with left-right symmetry we have | \I'{ \ ) m ax — 0.4, in the other two models 
we have ||ii||/(Ii) max ~ 1.8 • 10~ 2 , 1 \/(I[) max ~ 4.0 • 10~ 3 (so the two first integrals are 
strongly peaked and difficult to calculate). This means that the average size of CP violation 
in the SM and the model with vector-like bottom is much less than the maximum allowed 
by the model, i. e. by the quark content and symmetries of the Lagrangian. These results 
are expected to be general and not sensitive to the choice of normalization. Within the SM, 
using the experimental values of masses and mixings we find h < 9.1 • 10~ 13 . Thus, in the 
SM not only CP violation is much less than maximal, but is also much less than the average. 



6 



Acknowledgements 

I wish to thank G. C. Branco and the Instituto Superior Tecnico of Lisboa for their kind 
hospitality during the realization of this work. I am indebted to F. del Aguila for discussions. 
I also thank J. I. Illana and M. Baillargeon for help on Monte Carlo techniques. This work 
was partially supported by CICYT under contract AEN94-0936, by the Junta de Andalucia 
and by the European Union under contract CHRX-CT92-0004. 

References 

[1] L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. 144B, 425 (1984) 

[2] M. Gronau and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 385 (1985) 

[3] C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1039 (1985) 

[4] C. Jarlskog, Z. Phys. C29, 491 (1985); Phys. Rev. D35, 1685 (1987) 

[5] I. Dunietz, O. W. Greenberg and Dan-di Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2935 (1985) 

[6] F. Gilman and J. Hagelin, Phys. Lett. 133B, 443 (1983); L. L. Chau and W. Y. Keung, 
Phys. Rev. D 29, 592 (1984) 

[7] N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. 
Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973) 

[8] F. J: Botella and L.-L. Chau, Phys. Lett. 168B, 97 (1986) 

[9] J. Bernabeu, G. C. Branco and M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. 169B, 243 (1986) 

[10] M. Gronau, A. Kfir and R. Loewy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1538 (1986); see also J. D. 
Bjorken and I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. D36, 2109 (1987) 

[11] F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Lett. B386, 241 (1996) 

[12] F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, UG-FT-69/97, |hep-ph/9703"410 

[13] G. C. Branco and L. Lavoura, Nucl. Phys. B278, 738 (1986) 

[14] G. C. Branco and M. N. Rebelo, Phys. Lett. B173, 313 (1986) 



7