CP VIOLATION in b → s l + l - Transition. Direct CP-Violation . CP non-conservation shows up as a rate difference between two processes that are the CP conjugates of one-another. How can such a rate difference appear?.
CP non-conservation shows up as a rate difference between two processes that are the CP conjugates of one-another.
How can such a rate difference appear?
relatively real. And also if strong phase be zero.
4 parameters :
Euler angles: ½ n(n-1)=3
Complex Phase: ½ (n-1)(n-2)=1
Unitarity and Properties of CKM
1 . As a test of SM and beyond SM
2. As a tool to Det. CKM elements
such as Vtq(q=d,s,b), Vub
3. CP- Violation
Vub Vus* + Vtb Vts* + Vcb Vcs* = 0
Using unitary condition of CKM matrix and
neglecting |VubV*us| in comparison to
|VtbV*ts| and |VcbV*cs| Indicate that such decay involves only
CP –Violation in this channel is suppressedby SM.
b → s l+ l- where C9get a new weak phase.
Minimal Extension of the SM:
ΛnewCan be parameterized as :
∆ is expression in terms of masses , Wilson coefficients.
Since for any allowed region of s, << , So, we can ignore the term proportional to in the dominator of equation:
help us to get an idea about magnitude of new. We assume that:
sin ACP(s) equation:
the minimal extension of the standard model where C9effreceived extra weak phase new due
to the new physics effects. We imposed 10% of uncertainty to the SM branching ratio of the
b → s l+ l- transition and obtained the bound on a new parameter new . Our predictive model
showed that the CP-violation asymmetry could reach to the order of 4.5% which was not only
entirely measurable in experiments, but also indicated the new physics effects, since in the
SM, this CP asymmetry is near zero.