%%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
%
% $Id: espcrc2.tex,v 1.2 2004/02/24 11:22:11 spepping Exp $
%
\documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
% \usepackage{espcrc2}
% Use the option 'headings' if you want running headings
\usepackage[headings]{espcrc2}
%=============
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{epstopdf}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
%==============
% identification
\readRCS
$Id: espcrc2.tex,v 1.2 2004/02/24 11:22:11 spepping Exp $
\ProvidesFile{espcrc2.tex}[\filedate \space v\fileversion
     \space Elsevier 2-column CRC Author Instructions]

% change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
% \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

% if you want to include PostScript figures
\usepackage{graphicx}
% if you have landscape tables
\usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

% put your own definitions here:
%   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
%   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
%   ...
\newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
\newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
  A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

% add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
\hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}

% set the starting page if not 1
% \setcounter{page}{17}

% declarations for front matter
\title{Theory and Phenomenology of CP Violation}

\author{Thomas Mannel\address{Theretische Physik I, University of Siegen, \\
                                                      57068 Siegen, Germany}} 
% If you use the option headings,
% the title is also used as the running title,
% and the authors are also used as the running authors.
% You can change that by using \runtitle and \runauthor.

\runtitle{Theory and Phenomenology of CP Violation}
\runauthor{Thomas Mannel}

\begin{document}

\begin{abstract}
\noindent
In this talk I summarize a few peculiar features of CP violation in the
Standard Model, focussing on the CP violation of quarks.

\vspace{1pc}
\end{abstract}

% typeset front matter (including abstract)
\maketitle

\vspace*{-1.5cm}

\section{Introduction}
%
%
%
CP Violation and more generally the flavour structure observed in elementary-partlcle
interactions still remains one of the unexplained mysteries in high-energy physics. 
In the framework of the standard model flavour mixing and CP violation is encoded 
in the CKM matrix for the quarks and in the PMNS matrix for the leptons. However, 
this is only a parametrization, in which CP violation appears through irreducble 
phases in these matrices and which is up to now completely consistent with the 
experimental facts, at least with what is found at accelerator experiments. 

On the other hand, the CP violation in the standard model is a small effect.  In 
particular it is too small to create the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry of
the universe, for which CP violation is an indispensable ingredient.  The standard 
model is  a local, Lorentz-covariant and causal quantum field theory, which means
that we shall assume strict CPT conservation. Keeping this in mind,  let us recall 
here the criteria established by Sakharov \cite{Sakharov}
for the appearance of a baryon-antibaryon 
asymmetry: 
\begin{itemize}
\item There have to be baryon Number violating interactions: 
         $$ {\cal L}(\Delta n_{\rm Bar} \neq 0) \neq 0 \, . $$ 
\item CP has to be violated in order to have different reaction rates for baryons and
antibaryons  
         $$ 
\Gamma(N \,\,  \stackrel{{\cal L}(\Delta n_{\rm Bar} \neq 0)}{\longrightarrow}  \,\, f ) \neq  
\Gamma(\bar{N}  \,\,  \stackrel{{\cal L}(\Delta n_{\rm Bar} \neq 0)}{\longrightarrow } \,\, \bar{f} ) \, .
        $$
\item The universe had to be out of thermal equilibrium, since in thermal 
equilibrium CPT invariance is equivalent to CP  invariance.
\end{itemize}

Although the standard model has all these ingredients, it turns out that the observed 
matter-antimatter asymmetry cannot be accommodated by the standard model, and 
one reason is that CP violation turns out to be too small. 

Furthermore, CP violation (and with it the complete flavour structure) of the
Standard Model is quite peculiar and fully compatible with the data from particle 
accelerators. In the following I will focus on the CP violation of quarks and
point out a few of these features which follow
from the parametrization with the CKM matrix and which have a specific 
phenomenology and which are not easily reproduced by generic new physics models. 
 
\section{CP Violation in the Standard Model}
%
%
%
In general, CP violation emerges in Lagrangian field theory through complex 
coupling constants, the phases of which are irreducible\footnote{This means that 
the phases cannot be removed by phase redefinitions of the fields.}.
Schematically this means 
\begin{equation}
      {\cal L} = \sum_i a_i {\cal O}_i + h.c. \qquad 
      (CP) \, {\cal O}_i (CP)^\dagger = {\cal O}_i^\dagger \, .
\end{equation}
In the Standard Model there is only a single irreducible phase which is induced 
by the Yukawa couplings. It has become a general convention to define the phases 
of the fields such that the irreducible imaginary part appears in the CKM Matrix
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm CKM} \neq V_{\rm CKM}^*
\end{equation}
In fact this is already one of the peculiarities of CP violation in the standard model, 
where the unique source of CP violation only appears in the charged current couplings. 

There are infinitely many possible parametrizations of the CKM matrix in terms of 
three angles and a phase. One possibility, the PDG parametrization, may be written 
as  a product of three rotations and a phase matrix in the form 

\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{-5mm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{UTstd.pdf} 
\vspace*{-1cm} 
\caption{The standard unitarity triangle.} \vspace*{-0.7cm}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}



{\tiny  \begin{eqnarray*}
&U_{12} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
                 c_{12} & s_{12} & 0 \\
                -s_{12} & c_{12} & 0 \\
                 0      & 0      & 1 \end{array} \right] \,\, ,
\,
U_{13} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
                 c_{13} & 0      & s_{13} \\
                 0      & 1      & 0      \\
                -s_{13} & 0      & c_{13} \end{array} \right] \,\, ,
\\ 
& U_{23} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
                 1      & 0      & 0      \\
                 0      & c_{23} & s_{23} \\
                 0      &-s_{23} & c_{23} \end{array} \right] \,\, ,  \,
U_\delta = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
                 1      & 0      & 0      \\
                 0      & 1      & 0      \\
                 0      & 0      & e^{-i\delta_{13}} \end{array} \right] \,\, .
\end{eqnarray*} }

\noindent
where $s_{ij} = \sin \theta_{ij}$ etc. are the sines and cosines of the rotation angles. 
The standard parametrization is obtained by 
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm CKM} =  U_{23} U_\delta^\dagger U_{13} U_\delta U_{12}
\end{equation}
In this parametrization large phases appear in $V_{td}$ and $V_{ub}$ which are
small matrix elements as far as their absolute value is concerned.  

The unitarity of $V_{\rm CKM}$ is usually depicted by the unitarity triangle. 
There are in total six unitarity relations (aside from the normalization relations 
for the rows and columns), which may be depicted as traingles in the complex 
plane. However, due to the hierarchy of the CKM matrix elements there are only 
two triangles with comparable sides which coincide to leading order in the 
Wolfenstein expansion.  This triangle is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}

An invariant measure for the size of CP violation is the area of this triangle. In fact, 
on can show that all traingles have to have the same area due to unitarity. The area 
of all these triangles is proportional to the quantity 
\begin{eqnarray} 
 {\rm Im} \Delta &=& {\rm Im}  V_{ud} V_{td}^* V_{tb} V_{ub}^*  \\ \nonumber 
                           &=& c_{12} s_{12} c_{13}^2 s_{13} s_{23} c_{23} \sin \delta_{13}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting to note that the maximal possible value for this quantity for some 
``optimized'' values of the angles and the phase is 
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\rm max} = \frac{1}{6 \sqrt{3}} \sim 0.1 
\end{equation} 
while the value realized in nature is several orders smaller, 
$\delta_{\rm exp}   \sim 0.0001$. This quantifies the statement that CP violation is a 
small effect. 

Finally we note that CP violation vanishes in the case of degeneracies of up or 
down quark masses, in which case one may rotate away the CP violating phase.
It has been noted by Jarlskog \cite{Jarlskog} that the following quantity 
is a clear indication for the presence of CP violation: 
 \begin{eqnarray} 
    J &=& {\rm Det}([M_u \, , \, M_d]) \\ \nonumber 
       &=& 2 i  {\rm Im} \Delta 
      (m_u-m_c)  (m_u-m_t)  (m_c-m_t)  \\  \nonumber 
      && \qquad \quad \times (m_d-m_s)  (m_d-m_b)  (m_s-m_b) 
      \end{eqnarray}

In second order in the weak interactions there is the possibility of flavour 
oszillations. The box-diagramms shown in fig.~\ref{fig2} can mediate transitions
between $B_d \leftrightarrow \overline{B}_d$,  $B_s \leftrightarrow \overline{B}_s$, 
$K^0 \leftrightarrow \overline{K}^0$ 
and also between $D^) \leftrightarrow \overline{B}^0$

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{BoxHorizColor.pdf} \,\, 
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{BoxVertColor.pdf} 
\vspace*{-1cm} 
\caption{The box diagramms mediating $\Delta F = 2$ transitions 
in the standard model.} \vspace*{-0.5cm}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

For later use we note that the mixing amplitude for $B_d - \overline{B}_d$ 
mixing is proportional to the phase factor $\exp (2i\beta)$, while the phase 
in   $B_s - \overline{B}_s$ mixing is negligibly small in the standard model. 
In the kaon system, the short distance contribution to mixing is also proportional 
to $\exp (2i\beta)$, while the mixing in the up quark sector ($D - \overline{D}$
mixing) is heavily GIM suppressed. 

The Flavour structure and the pattern of CP violation in the Standard Model 
is quite peculiar. Here I list a few of these peculiarities: 
%
\paragraph{Strong CP violation:} The QCD sector of the standard model can 
also contain a CP violating interaction of the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{\rm strong\,\, CP} = \theta \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} 
             {\rm Tr} \left\{\vec{E} \cdot \vec{B} \right\}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{B}$ are the chromo-electric and the chromo-magnetic 
field strenghts. The electric dipole moment of the neutron tells us  
that the coupling $\theta$ has to be extremely small. It has been suggested by 
Pecchei and Quinn \cite{PQ} to introduce an additional symmetry to explain $\theta = 0$, 
but in these scenarios a new light pseudoscalar particle, the so-called axion 
appears for which we do not have any experimental evidence. It is fair to say 
that the strong CP problem is still unsolved. 

\noindent
\paragraph{Flavour Diagonal CP violation:} One of the most peculiar features 
of CP violation in the standard model is the enormous suppression of flavour 
diagonal CP violation. Assuming that the CKM matrix is the only source of CP 
violation, it is easy to see that an electric dipole moment of a quark can be 
induced only at the two loop level at least, evaluating a diagram as the one 
shown in fig.~\ref{fig3}. 

\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-5mm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{edm.pdf} 
\end{center}
\vspace*{-1.5cm} 
\caption{Feynman Diagram leading to an electric dipole moment for the up quark.}
\vspace*{-0.7cm}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

It has been shown by Shabalin \cite{Shabalin}
that the sum of all the two loop diagrams 
lead to a vanishing electric dipole moment for the quarks, and a non-vanishing 
contribution requires at least one more loop, which can be an additional gluon. 
Hence naive counting  leads to the following estimate of the electric dipole moment 
of the neutron
\begin{equation}
         d_e \sim e \, \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \,  \frac{G_F^2}{(16 \pi^2)^2} \, 
         \frac{m_t^2}{M_W^2} \, 
         {\rm Im} \Delta \, \mu^3  
         \sim 10^{-32} {\rm e \, cm}  
\end{equation}
where the factor $m_t^2/M_W^2$ originates from the GIM suppression, 
$\Delta$ encodes the necesary CKM factors and $\mu$ is a typical hadronic 
scale which we set to $\mu = 300$ MeV. This has to be compared to 
the current experimental limit which is \cite{exp}
$$
d_{\rm exp} \le 3.0 \times 10^{-26} {\rm e \,  cm} 
$$
Similar statements hold for other flavour diagonal and CP violating observables, 
and from the experimental side this strong suppression of these effects is 
supported. 

\paragraph{Strong Suppression of CP violation in the up-quark sector:} 
The pattern of mixing and CP violation in the standard model is determined by 
the GIM mechanism. This means in particular, that the effects for the up, charm 
and the top quark are severely suppressed, since the mass differences 
between the down-type quarks are small compared to the weak boson masses. 
Furthermore, the mixing angles of the first and second generations into the third 
are small, which means that charm physics is basically a ``two family'' problem. 
Since CP violation with only two families is not possible through the CKM mechanism, 
this results in a strong suppression of  CP violation in the charm sector. Again this 
fact seems to be supported by experiment. 
 
\section{Phenomenology of CP Violation}
%
%
%
In the following we shall concentrate on CP violation in the decays of particles. 
In general, decays are mediated by an effective interaction consisting of a sum 
of local operators $O_i$
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm eff} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}  \sum_{i=1}^n C_i O_i 
\end{equation}
where in the standard model $C_i$ are coefficients containing the CKM factors
(including possible phases) and the contributions from the QCD running from the 
weak scale down to the typical scale of process. Furthermore, in the standard model 
we have $n=10$, where the operators $i=1,2$ are called tree operators, 
$i=3,..6$ are the QCD penguins and $i=7,...10$ are the electroweak penguins. 

CP violation occurs through complex phases of the $C_i$ in the following way. 
Consider an amplitude for a decay of a  $B$ meson into some final 
state $f$, with two contributions 
\begin{equation}
A (B \to f) =  \lambda_1 a_1 + \lambda_2 a_2  
\end{equation}
where the $\lambda_i$ are complex coupling constants and $a_i$ are 
hadronic matrix elements $\langle B | O_i | f \rangle $. 
The amplitude of the CP conjugate process is obtained by conjugating the 
couplings $\lambda_i$, while the phases of the the hadronic matrix elements 
remain the same due to CP invariance of strong interactions. The CP  
asymmetry  is given by
\begin{eqnarray}  
 {\cal A}_{CP} &\propto& \nonumber 
\Gamma (B \to f) - \Gamma (\overline B \to \overline{f}) \\
&=&  2 \,   {\rm Im} [\lambda_1 \lambda_2^* ] \,
            {\rm Im} [a_1 a_2^*] 
\end{eqnarray}
Thus a CP asymmetry requires imaginary parts of the coupling constants, but 
also a {\em strong} phase difference between the hadronic matrix elements.  
 
The neutral flavoured mesons can decay into a CP eigenstate. In this case we can 
have a strong phase difference from a different origin. Since the two mass 
eigenstates in the neutral flavoured meson systems ($B_d$, $B_s$, $K^0$ and $D^0$)
have different mass eigenvalues, the time evolution creates a phase such that  
\begin{equation} 
 {\rm Im} [a_1 a_2^*] \sim \sin (\Delta m \, t) 
\end{equation} 
 where $\Delta m$ is the mass difference between the two eigenstates.Thus there 
 will be a time dependent CP asymmetry which takes the form
 \begin{equation}
  {\cal A}_{CP}  (t) = \frac{
  C \,  \cos(\Delta m \, t) - S \,  \sin(\Delta m \, t)}
    {\cosh(\Delta\Gamma \,t/2)
         + D  \sinh (\Delta\Gamma \, t/2)}  
\end{equation}
where the coefficients satisfy $ C^2 + S^2 +D^2 =1$. 

The problem in obtaining quantitative predictions for the CP asymmetries lies in 
our inability to perform a first principles calculation of the hadronic matrix elements.
Thus we have to refer to approximate methods which fall into three classes which 
I shall briefly describe. 

\vspace*{-3mm}

\paragraph{Flavour Symmetries:} 
%
%
%
Isospin or more genrerally flavour $SU(3)$ may be used to relate matrix elements 
for different processes \cite{FlavSym}. 
While isospin is believed to be a good symmetry which is 
broken only by electromagnetism and the mass difference between the up and the 
down quark, the situation is worse for U- and V-spin which are the two other possible 
choices of the $SU(2)$ subgroup of $SU(3)$, since the mass of the strange quark
is significantly higher than the one of the up and the down quark.   

The breaking of flavour $SU(3)$ is not easily quantified. only for factorizable 
amplitudes $SU(3)$ breaking is included by a factor of $f_\pi / f_K$ which also 
give the approximate size of the effects which have to be expected. However, the 
intrinsic uncertainties emerging from using flavour symmetries are hard to estimate. 

Flavour symmetry arguments are often supplemented by arguments based on 
diagram topologies: A rearrangement of color indices will result in a color-suppression 
factor $1/N_C = 1/3$,  an annihilation topology (i.e. a diagram where two quarks in 
a meson have to annihilate) results in a suppression by a factor $f_M / m_M$, where 
$f_M$ and $m_M$ are the decay constant and the mass of the meson $M$. 
Furthermore, a contraction of quark lines involving a quark loop (penguin contraction)   
involves a loop factor, the perturbative value of which is $1/(16 \pi^2)$ but is generally expected to be between this value and unity. 

This approach, which is completely model independent, 
allows us to have some semi-quantitative insight into rates and 
CP asymmetries, however, in many applications the uncertainties of the order of tens 
of percent are hard to estimate.  

\paragraph{QCD Factorization and SCET:}
%
%
%
It has recently been pointed out that in the limit of infinite heavy quark mass 
one may factorize the amplitudes of exclusive non-leptonic two body modes 
as sketched in fig.~\ref{figFact}\cite{BBNS}.
Thus in the infinite mass limit the amplitude can be expressed in terms of 
a non-perturbative (soft) form factor, the non-pertutbative wave functions 
of the hadrons and a perturbatively calculable hard scattering kernel $T$. 
This limit may be formulated as an effective field theory, the soft collinear
effective field theory (SCET) . 


\begin{figure}
        \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{BBNStheo.pdf} 
        \vspace*{-1cm} 
\caption{Sketch of QCD factorization}
\label{figFact}
\vspace*{-1cm}
\end{figure}


The most interesting observation from QCD  factorization is that the strong phases
in non-leptonic heavy hardon decays are perturbatively calculable to leading order, 
and thus are predicted to be small: Strong phases are either of order $\alpha_s (m)$
or suppressed by powers of $1/m$. However, the quantitative agreement with data 
is still not good, indicating sizable corrections of subleading orders in $1/m$.  Although 
the number of subleading non-perturbative parameters is large, QCD factorization still 
provides a systematic approach to exclusive non-leptonic decays.   

\paragraph{QCD (Light Cone) Sum Rules:}
%
%
%
QCD sum rules are a well established method for the estimate of hadronic 
matrix elements. They rely on parton hadron duality and on the analyticity 
of the amplitudes. 
%\begin{figure}
 %       \includegraphics[scale=0.46]{QCDSR11.pdf} 
   %      \includegraphics[scale=0.46]{QCDSR12.pdf}
     %   \vspace*{-1cm} 
%\caption{QCD sum rules}
%\label{figQCDSR}
%\end{figure}
For the case of two-body non-leptonic $B$ decays involving light mesons 
in the final state the so-called light cone sum rules are applied \cite{Khod}, 
where one 
of the light mesons is represented by its light cone wave function, while the 
decaying meson and the other light meson is interpolated by appropriate 
currents. This type of sum rules has been formulated recently directly in SCET.

It is interesting to note that the results from light-cone QCD sum rules 
quantitatively agree with the ones from QCD factorization. In particular, 
the statement about weak phases is the same in QCD sum rules. 

In summary, the main obstacle to calculate CP violation in hadronic decays
and thus to relate the measurements to the fundamental parameters 
is the evaluation of the hadronic matrix elements, in particular of their weak 
phases. Only in a few cases precise predictions are possible.  

\section{CP Violation and ``New Physics''}  
%
%
%
Currently there is no convincing idea which explains flavour. Even in grand unified 
theories flavour is usually implemented by triplication of the spectrum, which will 
not give any explanation. 

Most scenarios of ``new physics'' involve additional degrees of freedom, in particular, 
many models involve an extended Higgs sector. This in general implies additional 
couplings which may carry irreducible phases, i.e. to additional sources of CP 
violation. This additional CP violation generically also appears in flavour diagonal 
processes, in contradiction with the observed suppression of the e.g. electric dipole 
moments of particles.  Furthermore, flavour changing neutral currents may appear, 
in some models even at tree level.  

The pattern of CP violation and flavour parametrized by the CKM Ansatz is very 
special and in complete agreement with the observations in particle physics. 
For this reason,  
scenarios of ``new physics'' are thus formulated often with ``minimal flavour 
violation'' (MFV) which means that any flavour structure can be reduced to the 
Yukawa couplings and the CKM matrix. This 
makes these models consistent with present observations    
but does not explain the phenomenon of flavour. 

\vspace*{-0.3cm}

\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{Sakharov} A.~D.~Sakharov,
  Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 5} (1967) 32.
  %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%
\bibitem{Jarlskog} C.~Jarlskog,
  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985).
  %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,1039;%%
\bibitem{Shabalin}
E.~P.~Shabalin,
  Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28}, 75 (1978).
  %%CITATION = SJNCA,28,75;%%
\bibitem{exp}
  C.~A.~Baker {\it et al.},
  arXiv:hep-ex/0602020.
  %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0602020;%%
\bibitem{PQ}
R.~D.~Peccei and H.~R.~Quinn,  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 38}, 1440 (1977).
  %%CITATION = PRLTA,38,1440;%%  
\bibitem{FlavSym} C.~W.~Chiang {\it et al.},  
  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034020 (2004).
  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404073;%%
\bibitem{BBNS}
  M.~Beneke {\it et al.}.  
  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001).
\bibitem{Khod} A.~Khodjamirian,
  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 605}, 558 (2001).
  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012271;%%
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
