/

SELECTED TOPICS IN DISCRETE

SYMMBTRIES AND CP - VIOLATION

Lectu~e~ del¡vefted by

M, A. B. B2:g

THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK

CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION y DE

ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS DEL INSTITUTO

POLITECNICO NACIONAL, MEXICO

Notes Edited by

Altnul60 Zepeda

.
,.\
9

~
~ . ,:..
k. I ", ".
~ '. ,,,-) ,-J ¡el'
~-~-~>~--~,._, ~" "
 FOREWORD

Research scientists require a continued interchange of

ideas with others who share their cornmitment to a particular

intellectual discipline. While this need is met in part by

short international conferences and research journals, there

is no substitute for dircct personal contact with the rare

individuals who lead their field of research.

In the summer of 1969 , the Centro was host to a group of

distinguished scientists actively engaged in the field of

elementary particle physics. Advanced level courses taught by
these visitors brought students to the frontiers of active re-
search. Lively, informal discussions generated a great deal of
enthusiasm. It is our hope that the inspiration borne by cur
distinguished visitors will bear fruit in the future efforts of

the Centro's young physicists.

Dr. Arturo Rosenblueth

Director,

Centro de Investigación y de
Estudios Avanzados del 1 P N

\
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the

individuals whose efforts made the 1969 Summer School a
success. Misses Ma. Eugenia L6pez, Pilar Cassy and Veronica

Vargas painstakingly typed the lecture notes. Messrs. H.

Moreno, A. Zepeda, R. Garcfa, R. Sudrez and E. Hinojosa

labored long and hard in editing and compiling the lecture

notes. 1 am grateful to Dra. V. Caloi, Dr. C. Firmani and

Dr. R. Pe11icer for their unfailing hospita1ity to our guests.

Particular thanks go to Mrs. Gloria N. de Vitag1iano,

Secretaria Particular de la Dirección, who prepared the Surnmer

School announcement and was kind enough to make herself

available whencver we needed her help. Especial thanks are

due Dr. Arturo Rosenblueth, Director of the Centro, for his

constant encouragement and support.

Dr. Mumtaz Zaidi

Physics Department
r CONTENTS
Pap;e
INTRODUCTION 1

CHARGE CONJUGATION 3

SPACE INVERSION 6

TIflE INVERSION 10

THE CPT THEOREH 14

THE NEUTRAL K - SYSTEr.1 21

Introduction. 21

Time evolution of a neutral Kaon System. 22

The mass and decay matrices. 28

The phenomenon of regeneration

in material media. 33

The experimental discovery of C P

violation. 34

The canonical parametrization of neutral

K decays. 34

Permanent electric dipole moments of

elementary particles. 40

Present experimental values for the CP

violation parameters. 40

THEORIES OF CP - VIOLATION 41

REFERENCES so
 NOTATION and CONVENTIONS

Metric tensor in ~Iinkowski spate :

+ g00 = - g1 1 = - g22 = - g 33 =+ 1

y - matrices;

+ - +
Yo - Yo Y'
1.
= - y.1. (i = 1,2,3)

yo
2 -
- 2
Yi = - 1

y =
, 5 Yo Yl Y2 Y3

+
y2=-1
5
Y5 = - Y5

+ denotes Hermitian adjoint

* denotes complex conjugate

'V denotes transpose

+
\jJ - ljJ
Yo
r-

- 1 -

INTRODUCTION

1 shall assume that yau have some familiarity with the

concepts of Quantum Field Theory. When 1 talk of Field theory 1

have in mind mundane and pragmatic field theory as exposed, for

example, in the textbook of Bjorken and Drell. Arcane and axiomatie

fieId theory, assoeiated with the names oí Wightman and Jost, will

not coneern us, for we shall stay elose to physieal reality.

In diseussing the transformation properties of the fields, 1

shall discuss in detail only the transformation properties of spin

1/2 fields; the properties of other fields of interest may be

gleaned by looking at the properties of produets of spin 1/2 field

operators. In following this proeedure, 1 am not for a moment

suggesting that all spin o or spin partieles are neeessarily

built up out of spin 1/2 partieles. AII 1 shall suggest is that

the use of spin 1/2 fields as "building bloeks" for fields of other

spins is a very eonvenient deviee and indeed a good way to remember

the transformation properties of these fields (i. e. a mnemonic).

It is evident that if one speeifies only the behaviour of a

field under Lorentz transformations, the field can be built up out

of spin 1/2 fields in more than one way. Thus, under proper

homogeneous Lorentz transformations

x ---> x' = Ax
-.

-1 -1
~(x) ~ ~' (x) = U (A) W(x) U (A) = L(A) ~(A x) (1)
 - 2 -

(U eA) is the operator which implements the Lorentz transformation

in Hilbert space, LeA) is a finite dimensional matrix which imple-

ments it in the spinor space; for Dir~c sninors L is a 4 x 4
matrix) ~ ~ ~ y5 t/J,
w Yf1 ~
iJiy
5
yf1 ~ all transform as

scalars. However, as we shall see, the transformation properties

of these fieIds differ in a rather essential way. In such situations,

fields built up from the least possible number of spin 1/2 fields
will be referred to as "minimal" ar "normal" fields.
 - 3 -

CHARGE CONJUGATION

Charge eonjugation is the operation which takes you froID a

partiele state to an anti-particle sta te. Por an eleetrieally

charged particle the operation, as u~ually de6ined , reverses the

electrie eharge. Honco the name. It is important to bear in mind

that charge conjugation can be given a meaning for neutral as well

as charged systems.

The charge conjugation property of the free Dirae equation is

summarized by the statement that ta any negative energy spinor v (p)

{ (y . p + m) v(p) =o } eorresponds a positive energy sninor u (p)
{ (y . p - m) u(p) =o } such that

~
u(p) = C V (p)
~
v(p) = C Ü (p) (2)

Here e , the charge conjugationmatrix, is defined to be such

that
- 1 ~
C Y 11
C = - Y 11
(3)

ct C = 1 , e* e = - 1

If 15 the unitary operatar which implements charge conju-

Ve
gation in Hilbert space, the transformation of the Dirac field is
as
= -1 ~
\jJ(x) Ue \jJ(x) (4)
~
\jJc ex) He = T)e e 1-/J
(x)
 - <1 -

11C being a phase factor.

For asymntotie field operators (in or out) we can write

1jJ(x) = L . e - u (s) (p) a

-+ ¡ (27T)M 3 Po {-ip.x -+
p,s p,s

+ e lD.X
. }
V (s) (p) b t -+
p,s
(5)
-+
where a -+ annihilates one partiele oi momentum p and spín state
p,s
-+
s and ht -+ ereates one anti-partiele of rnomentum p and spin
p,s
state s. Hanifestly

-1
p
'-le a -+ U
e = 1l b-+
p,s e D,S

Ue b -+ U -1
e = 11* a -+ (6)
p,s e p,s
With the boundary eondition Ue lo > = lo > , equations (6)

merely state that Ue maps a partiele oi given momentum and spin

to the anti-partiele with the ~ame mornentum and spin.

The eharge eonjugation transformation is of physieal relevance

only if it leaves the seattering operator invariant Le. if

-1 =s
Ue S De (7)

In the real world, as it turns out, equation (7) is not exaet-

ly true. However deviations froID equation (7) appear to be
suffieiently sillall to warrant eonsideration of as a useful
De
symmetry operatar.
r
!,

- ...
::> -

EXEnCISES

1. What would be wrong if vere not unitary and 1 ?

!fe I~cl #

2. Show tilat

\); \IJ: : ijj \IJ :

\lJy \IJ:
5
: \lJv \IJ:
. 5
- 1
\lJYp\IJ: = -: \hp\IJ:
DC Ue
: 1))i y Y l/J:
iJ!iYsYp\IJ: , '5 ]J t'

1"0 \IJ : -: ~o 1/¡:

'Y J-lV , ]JV'Y

where the colons imply normal orderinf of the field operators.

3. Show that the photon-electron system admits of invariance under

charge conjugation if the electromagnetic field is odd under e 1.e.

-1
Ue Ap ex) Ue - - A
]J
ex)

4. Show that for the electron-positron system

- 9,+'> -
Uri..., 1 e e > = e - 1) - 1 e e >

where 9,
is the relative orbital angular rnomenturnand s the total
1 3
spin. Hence that positronium in the So ( So ) state can go
into 2y e 3y ) but not into 3y e 2y ) .
 - 6 -

SPACE INVERSION

Under space inversion (t,~) + (t,-~), particIe momenta are

-, + +
also inverted i.e. (b,p) + (E,-p) (this follows, e.g. by
consideration of the cIassical limit). The space inversion pro-

perties of Dirac spinors are summarized by the reIationships:

+ +
Yo u(p) = u(-p)
+ +
y 0--
v(p) = - v(-p) (8)

Por the quantized Dirac fieId,

+ -1
w(x) +
lP' (x) = Upw(x,t) Up

+
= Tlp Yo 1fJ(-x,t) (9)

Up is the unitary operator which implements space inversion (or

the pa~~ty operation) in Hilbert space, TlD

~
i5 a phase factor.
Equation (9) impIies that (see (S) )

- 1 =
Up a a
+ Up Tlp +
p,s -p,s

-1
Up b + Up = -Tl*
P b + (10)
p,s -p,s

i.e. subject to the invarian~e = lo> , space inversion

Up lo>
+
takes a Dirac particle of mo~entum p into the same particIe with
+
momentum -p and the same spin (Note: Tf one chooses to use the

heIicity representation, the heIicity will of course, fIip).

Furthermore, the relative parity of a Dirac particle and its anti-

 - 7 -

partiele is - 1 . This is merely an illustration of a rather

general result whieh states that for a partiele of spin J , the

relative partiela antipartiele parity is ( - 1 )2j . See e.g.

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 133, B1318 (1964)
-+ -+
Note now that the transformation X -+ -x may be viewed either

as 3 refleetions (in the x = o ) y = o and z = o planes

respeetively ) or as a rotation (through an angle fT about the z -

axis) and a refleetion (in the z = o plana). Two sueeessive

spaee inversions are, therefore, eithcr the identity transformation

or a rotation about 2fT For a vector these distinctions are

totally immaterial, for a spinor they are not, sinee a spinor ehanges

sign under a rotation of 2fT . (Por a rotation through an angla <P

-+ -+
about the z - axis, a veetor transforms as X -+ x' where

'-+
-+
a . -+
x' = R(<t» a . -+x p, ( <p ) -1
e
1 -
2

R (<1» =
[ O . e
O- i!2 ]

A spinor ~, by definition transforms as

~ -+ ~' = R t;,

-+ -+
For <1>
= 2fT x' = X , ~' = - ~)

Henee a double applieation of u P on a Dirae partiele state

gives
2 = :t1 or or :ti
T1p T1p = :t1

The choice = :ti has the advantage that under simultaneous

T1p

spaee-inversion and charge conjugation the order of and is

Up De
irrelevant.
 "
- u -

Por

Ue up I p , s > = Ud1p I-p , s > = T)cT)p 1-; , s >

and
-+ -+ -+

Up Ue Ir , s > = UpT)e Ip , s > = - T)~ T)c I-p , s > )

As in the case of charge conjugation, parity is, strictly

speaking, a concept with physical relevance only if

- 1
Up S Up = S (11)

That equation (11) (as well as equation (7) ) were only

approximately trua in the real world was realized only in 1957.

This realization caused a considerable co~motion; 1 shall have

more to say, on that, later.

EXERCISES

5ho\l1 that

-+ -+ - -+ -+
W (x,t) ljJ (x, t) ljJ (-x,t) ljJ (-x,t)
- -+ -+ - -+ -+
ljJ (x,t) y 5 ljJ (x,t) - ljJ ( -x t ) y ljJ (-x' t)
, 5
- -+ -+ . - 1
u (x,t) y (x,t) UP -
p ljJ ljJ
\jJ (-x,t)y~1jJ (-~,t)
-+ -+
iY.5 y - -+ ~-+
ljJ (x, t) ljJ (x,t) - ljJ (-x,t) iy 5 y ljJ (-x,t)
- -+ -+
-+ ~v -+
ljJ (x, t) a v ljJ (x,t) ljJ(-x,t) 0 ljJ(-X,t)

(Note raising of indices in the last 3 rows). Hence work out the
CP - properties of each of the bilinear covariants.

Show that a scalar meson cannot decay into two photons polarized
at right angles to each other, and a pseudoscalar meson cannot
 - 9 -

deeay into two photons polarized parallel to eaeh other.

3. Show that if a pseudosealar partiele deeays into 2 pseudosealar

partieles p is violated; if it deeays into 3 pseudosealar
partieles p i5 neees5arily conservad.

4. Let TT o
1\.1 be a neutral particla even undar e P. ShO\\1 that the
0+- o
deeay K1 -+ TI TI TI can proceed whother e p is conserved or
violated, but K10 -+ 3TIo can proceed only if e p is violated.
,

- 10 -

TIME INVERSION

Time reversal, as defined by Wigner, is tantamount quite

literally to reversal of motion i. e. for all particle moment?
p. -+- - P 1. (1' = 1 2 3) nO D (That
-+- -+-

.1 "
.
'e
-+-
,- O
.
X -+- X , t -+- - t implies
DX
-
-+- - P X etc. follows
~
froID correSDondence
.
with classical mechanics.

Note that angular momenta are also reversed). In order that this

transformation be a useful concept in quantum mechanics, it is

necessary that the transformation be effected by an anti-linear
opera tor. (Furthermore, to conserve probability, the transformation

must in fact be effected by an anti-unitary operator).

This last statement admits of an easy proof. If the transfoy-

mation were linear, the fundamental commutatíon relation

=
Cl a ' Pb ]
io ab
1Vould J'1an into

[qa ' PbJ = - io ab

Since the commutation relation is changed, the transformation

can not be incorporated into the formalism of quantum mechanícs.

lVe define an anti-linear transformation as a linear transfor-

mation followed by complex conjugation. Under such a transformatíon

the e - number 1 maps into - 1 . So l,<!i
th T anti-linear
- 1
T p-a T =
- pa
-1
T o T = + q
"a "a
- 1 = - 1
T i T (12)
r

- 11 -
and the cornmutationrelation is now indeed invariant.

The "time revers2.1property" of Dirac sninors is the identity

-+ -1-+
u* (-p)
.
= - i e y 5
u(r)
.
(13)
-+
with a similar identity far v(p).

Por the quantized Dirac fieId

eA)
- 1
-1 -+
TI (A) -+ (14)
'-T 1J!(x,t) UT = nTc i Ys1J!(x,-t)

Ir (A) heing the anti-unitary operator whieh implements Wipner time

T

reversal in Pilbert space. Inv~riancc of the anti-cammutation

relations imnIies that

InTI2 = 1
It wiIl oftcn he convenient to write puT (J\ ) = UT X l. e. the

nroduct oí a unitary transfarmation and the oneration of complex

conjugation. On a one particle state

-+
UT Ip , sz > = nT I
-n'-, -s z > (15)

-+-

p and s baing the momentum and suin of the partiele.

As for (; ~md p T is strictly speaking, a transformation
with physical relevance ií

U eA)
T H (t) UT (A) -1 = H (-t) (16)

or, in terros of the more physical s - oparator

U (A)
T
s U (A)
T
-1 = s+ (17)
 - 12 -

(Note the adjoint on the right hand side).

EXERCISES

1. Sho\V tha t

- -+ -+ - -+ -+
t/J(x,t) t/J(x,t) \)i(x,-t) \)i(x,-t)
- -+ -+ - -+ -+
¡fJ(x,t)y ~(x,t) -w(x,-t)y \)i(x,-t)
5 5
- -+ -+ - -+ ¡J-+
U (A) l/J(x,t)y¡J<p(x,t) U (A)-1 W(x,-t)y \[J (x,-t)
T
- -+. -+ T =
I/J(X,t)lY5Y¡J~(X,t)
~(~,-t)iy 5y¡J\)i(x,~t)
- -+ -+ - -+ 11V-+
-1!J(x,-t)a' \)i (x,-t)
\)i(x,t)a¡Jvw(x,t)

(Note, again, the raising of indices on the right hand side)

2. Show that under time revers<ll an "in" st<:~tegoes into an "out" state

and vice-versé1.

3. What is the relationship between th'e differential cross-sections

far a + b -+ c + d and C + d -+ a + b , under the assumption of
T invariance.

4. Let \)i(x) be a spin - half quark field. Find the transfornation

property under e , P and T of the bilinear covariants :;T.' A.1V:

.'1' l'

:ijj y 5 A.
1
~: , \)iy
¡J
A.\)i:
1
, etc. \vhere the matrices A.
1
are defined

in Gell - ~1ann, Phys. Rev. 125, 1067 (1962). The result can be
stated elegantly by making use of thc sy~bol E (i) de fined a.s

E(1) = E(3) = E(4) = E(6) = E (8) = + 1

E (2) = E(S) = E(7) = - 1.

 - 13 -

Verify that

s(i) s(j) s(k) f o

1.J
; 1-
"O, = - f-lJ o °k -

s (i) SCj) s (k) = rl

do1J01<: "'ijk

the symbols and bein? defined as in Gell - r1ann's

fijk dijk
paper (lec. ei t) .

1
 - 14 -

THE TCP THEOREH

The theorem states that, subject only to the following two

restrictions:

1. There exists a Lagrangian density, built up out of local

fields, which is hermitian and invariant under the proper Lorentz

group;
2. The theory i5 quantized with the usual connection between

spin and statistics (i. e. Bose-Einstein for integer spin and Fermi-

Dirac for half integer spin);

TCP, for any order of T, C and P is an invariance of nature.

Let (=) indicates the product of TCP. The theorem means that

T (A) - 1
l'(A)
<.1
e L (x) Le = L (-x) (18)

or
II(A) S U(A)_l = st (19)
'e . e
lYe give élpseudo-proof, for thc C2.se in which L 1S bui!t up

out of suin 1/2 fields and their derivatives.

Note first that
- 1 '"

u(A)
e 1J;(x) Ue
(A) = l1
O'Y01Y 5
"
1Ji (-x) (20)
and
-1 '"
(x) Ue * (21)
(A)
Je
T' 1Ji
= - 110 U) (-x) iys Yo
Hence

: 1JiA (x) 1JiB(x) :

peA) U(A)_l
.Je 0 =
l
¡
, .A . , 111, , t;v- ~ y;" ((' .
l ~: :A ::~~:B~ -~):J}t J
 - 15 -
:1PA(X)Yj1 YB(x): -{:'iJiA(-X)Yj11PB(-X):}t
-. t
:~A (x)iy y 1P B (x): -{:WA(-X)lY y 1PB (-X):}
, 5 j1 j-\ 5 j1 .
- t
:'iJiA(X)0j1V~)B ex): {:1PA(-X)0j1VWB(-X):}
", -)-
l. Ud - d U(A)_l
o =
+
d
i:-
d
o I
:'/JA(X)(-dX + .J:
dX
)l¡;B (x): -{:ij)p(-X)( + )
)J j1 , d(-X) d(-X)
j1 ]J t
1PB (-x):}
-
+"
()

:YA(X)(-dX - -()X )WB(X):

a -{:ij),,\ (-x)("3 - a )
. éJ(-x) a(-x)
11 ]J j1 J.l
t
YB (-x):}

(22)

More generally, we find that a tensar of even rank goes into

its hermitian adjoint and a tensor of odd rank into minus its

herrnitian adjoint. All e - numbers are replaeed by their eomplex

eonjugates.

Now Lorentz invarianee requires that a11 tensor indices be

eontraeted. Using this faet, and identities of the form

- t - t - - t
(,/lA YB) (1!-ICYD) : (1PC ~)D YA YB) :

- - t - -
= : (YA 1PB Ye WD)
= {
: 1-/1A ~)B Wc YD :
} t

we find indeed that

U(A)
0 L(x) U(A)_l
o = L (-x)

lt is imeortant to note that the Ter theorem is of greater

generality than is indieated by our simnle derivation. If you want

to pursue the matter further, 1 refer yau to the book of Streater

I
- 16 -

and Wightman.

CONSEQUENCES OF CPT INVARIANCE

( i) For stable particles, particles and antiparticles have the same

mass.

Proof:

m = <o , s IEI o , s>

- -
ID = <o , s IHI o , s> (23)
-1 -1
Now ID = <o
.;:)
e I 'Tue(A) U(A)
e H UU')
e U(A)
e I O , S >

= <o , -s I H I o , -s > *

~ <~ , -s I H I ~ , -s >
= m

(Note our 8ssumption that m is indepcndent of s) .

(ii) For unstable particles, varticles ~nd anti-particles are
endowed with the sarne mass and lifeti~e.

Proof: We first show that CPT maps "in" states into "out" states
and vice-versa. For

él + ( i- ) + Tf(P, ) él + (t) P G(/\) -1

P , s ~ '0 p , s

= + (24)
T1eb p , - s (-t)

Hence
In out
a + -> b +
- x (phase factor)
P , s TI
.' , S
 - 17 -

In terms of s

< in I S = < out I

(25)

~
-1
( )
t) s u e(A) - 1
< in I Ue(A) - 1 UeA) -- < out I TI
<>e
j.,

ar;

- 1 , -1
( t TI (P, )
< in I UeA).
S = < out I
'e
ar;
-1 s = < (2ó)
( In lu(A)-1
e
< out! UeJ\)

Naw the decay width is proportional to

r = ¿ ¿ I < TI, s, out I f Lr(x) d"x la, sa> l'

(27)
TI ~ S s
a

far particles, and

r
r = ¿ ¿ I < n, s, ou t ! ~ Lr(x) d4x la, sa > 12
(28)
TI, S s
él.

far anti-narticles. Since

=
< TI, $, out I J Lr(x) d4x la, 5é/

_1 ( -1
=< ll, s, out! uáA) uá!\) JLr(x) d4x U~A) U~A)!:l, 5(1 >

=< n -$ in l(L ( -x ) d4x la -s > * Jl Jl* (29)

, ')1 ':l a n
we have

r =¿
J)...S
¿S 1< n, -s, inlfLr (-x) (t4X la, -5a > 12 ~
J
2
 1

- 18 -

(
= I I (30)
n,s
! <ñ, s, outlj Lr(x) d4xl a, sa > 12
Sa

since both "in" and "out" states form complete sets.

Hence

r = "
1

Note that the completeness assumption nrevents TCP from

making any statcment about partial decay widths , i. c. without

introducing further assumptions, e.g.

r (K+ +
al1 open ehannels)
-
.-
r +
eK all open ehannels)

TCP but
+ + + - - - +
by r (K + TI TI TI-) !leed not equal r (K + TI TI TI ).

Note aIso, that in the absenee of final state interactions,

I"in" > == I "out" > . In this case some statement can be rnade

ahout partial widths (so long as spins are still summed ayer).

EXERCISES

1. Prove that in the absenee of TITI interaetions TCP guarantees

+ + -
that the TI and TI spectra in T) + TI TI TIo are identieal.

In the presenee of TITI interaetions, show that C P inVéÜiance is

+
required to ensure the identity of TI and TI speetrct.

2. Show that either of the following assumptions wi11 guarantee the

+ + + +
equality of r (K + TI TI TI ) and r (1(- + TI íf TI ):

(a) CP invariance.
 - 19 -

(b) ~'atrix eIernent linear in the energy of the odd rnon Crr- in
+
K+ decay, TI In K- decay) nlus no 1 = 3 (isotopic spin)
final state.

3. Show that if one ignores electromagnetie (and higher order weak)

effects,

+ +
r (K + TI TI o ) = r (K- + TI- TIo )

50me Historical ~emarks on e, P and ..."

1 .

In 1956, Lee and Yang made the bold proposal that the simul-
taneous existence of K + 3TI and K + 2TI decays (T - G puzzle)

was merely one rnanifestation of a rather general situation, viz.

that the weak intcractions were simply not invariant under P.

Experimental eonfirmation of the Lee - Yang hypothesis (the e60
o
experiment of "'aclame Wu and her collaborators, alrcady deseribed

to you by Prof. Sirlin) naturally led "conle to ask whether r and

T were also broken. It turned out that T eould be s aved bu t, in
aecord with the TCP theorem, e wa:::; troken. 1 n f 8e t by a

process of tríal and error, it was found that a11 known weak inter-

actions could be incorporated into the e66eetive Lagrangian density

r
LIex) =/2 [J]J ex) + ,Q,]Jex) ]t fT]Jex) + ,Q,]Jex)]
(32)

where éHld 9. (x) are eh arge raising hadronic and leptonic

J p (:x:) ]J
,-- -, ,- ,
rrents respect i ve ly (i. e. = J ]J (x) ,
IQ,
L ,J]J (X)J tQ, ,Q,]J
(x) J =
 - 20 -

such that

- iD in -
( 33)
Jfl(X) = L : 1/JA - (X)Yfl (aAB -iy sSAB)lJJB - (x) :
A,B

9" (x) = L : lJJn (x)y (1-iy)1jJ (x): (34)

fl x, fl s v Q.
9,,=e,fl

where A and B are hadron labels and a and B a.re J1.ea..tnumbers

'\, o (1). Clearly LI (x) lS a C P scalar,

-1 -+ -+
(CP) LI (x,t) C P = LI (-x,t) .

Until 1964, C P invariance was a most cherished notion; many

"arguments" were constructed to support the view that this was the
way nature nurht to be ! These ideas were dealt a devastating
blow when Fitch and his collaborators showed, in an experimental
studv of the neutral K complex, that CP was in fact al so violated.

In order to understand this result it is necessary to go ayer the

quantum mechanics of the neutral K system.
 - 21 -
THE NEUTRAL KAON COMPLEX

1. Introduction.

The neutral kaon system is profoundly interesting, irrespective

of the question of eP violation. This interest stems from the

following: The KO and VO ."

are anti-particles of each other and
therefore, by the TCP theorem, exactly degenerate in mass. In the

presence of only strong and electromagnetic interactions, both

particles are stable and distinguishable froIDeach other; for only

the KO is produced in the reaction TI + p -+ KO + A and only
the KO can initiate thecrossed reaction -o
K + P -+
+
TI + A . Now

weak interactions permit both KO and 1(° to decay into channels

which are often identical e. g.
+ - + -
KO -+ TI TI , KO -+ TI TI TIo

+ - -o + -
j(° ->- TI TI . K -+ TI TI TIo

{ Example where channels differ :

+
KO -+ TI
+ Q., + \!Q.,

goes, but there is little evidence for

+
KO -+ TI + Q.,
(6 Q = 6 S ru 1 e) ;
+ \!Q.,

TCP tell us, however, that in the absence of final state inter-
-o +
actions (electromagnetism) K -+ TI + Q., + \!Q.,
has to go as
..f) - - + ,
copiously as K -+ TI + ~ + \!Q.,j

By virtue of their decay into channels which can be identical,

 - 22 -

the KO and KO states can rnix through virtual sequences such as

+ +
KO + 2 IT + fO

This mixing occurs onIy in the second order of weak inter-

actions; however, because of the exact degeneracy of KO and -o

K ,

this mixing can give rise to effects out of all nroDortion to the
IDagnitude of thc weak interactions. A vO
n going along in free
space will sometimes decay, and someti~es transmute itself into its
anti-particle the -o
K , which can initiate reactions such as
KO + p + IT+ + A ~ which the KO could not do.

Ouantum Mechanics makes certain well defined predictions for

these decay and transmutation effects. By studing a neutral kaon
I
..I
beam, one can in fact test experimentally, and on a macroscopic

scale, the most fundamental principIes of quantum mechanics (as e.g.

the principIe or superpostion).

2. TIME EVOLUTION OF A NEUTRAL KAON SYSTEM.

Suppose at time t=o we have a neutral kaon with well clefined

probability amplitude ror it to be a VO

.\. or j(° , 1.e. there is a
state vector I<p> such that

< KO 11'> and < KO 141> are both known, and

< n I<p> = o for n ~ KO or KO

How does I<p> evolve with time? The evolution is determined

by the solution of the' Schr6dinger equation

1-2 I <!J(t) > = H!<!J (t) > (35)
8t
 - 23 -

satisfying the boundary condition

11); (O) > == I c!J >

For dE
== o , we have the formal solution
dt

110 (t) > == e- iHt I cp > (36)

Taking the Laplace transform of both sides one obtains

00

'V
1
I 1);(5) > ==
d t e-st I ¡jJ (t) > == 11» (37)
J S + iH
o

and, on inverting the Laplace transform,

+ i 00 + €

'V
11J; (t) > == -L d s e+st I ¡jJ (s) > (38)
2'/T
i J
- i 00 + €

where E: > O 15 so chosen that all the singularities of I~ (s) >

lie to the 1eft of Res == E: .

Hence
+i 00 + €

11/1 (t) > == .:..L d s est 11»

2'/Ti
} S + iB
-i 00 + €
+ 00 + i t:

= (+i)
d ~
.D e-i l t
"
1
.J
11» (39)
2 '/Ti
f -iE + tE
- 00 + i €

1
Since the singularitiesof lie only on the real axis in the
E - H
 - 24 -

E plane, we can write

+00

11/J (t) > = Lim

E-+ o
-1
2'!Ti
f
-00
d E e-iEt
E+it:-H
I<p> (40)

the symbol Lim

E-+ o is always understood and will not be displayed
explicitly .
We write fi
H = Ho + HI ' . 1 being the weak interaction, and
shall go only up to the second order in
El . This is sufficient

for our purpose. Also it will be convenient to denote by

I (X >(a = 1 or 2) the Ixo> and IKo> eigenstates of Ho and by

, S > any eigenstate different from these two; la>' s and

Is >' S together form a complete set l. e. .-f

L.

Ho In> = En In >

I !n > < n I = I la > < al + I 18 > < B , = r (41)

n a B

NoVJ

1
G = = 1 + . tI
E + i E - H E + i E - H E + i E - H 'r E + i E - Ho
o o
1 1
+
E + iE - H
E
r
. - H
H . + ... (42)
l E H
'0 E + o r E + 1E -'0

To second order in
!-Ir ' therefore,

< a' ¡G I ex > = < a" Go I ex > +

+ ¿ < a 'iGo In> <n /Hr / D> <m /Go / a >

n,m
 - 25 -

+ ¿ < a'IG o 1m> <mi H I I n> <n!Go 11> < 1 I Hr lk> <klG o la>
m,n 1,K ( 43)

or
2
1 1
< a' I G (E) la> = 6 , + < a' IHI la>
aa E - mKo [ E - mK ]

+ <a '1 BI In > < n IBr la>

L
n E + i E: - En [ E ~ ffiy r
1 <a' IHIls> <6 IHr , a>
= Ó } x
a'a + { < a' ¡HIla> + ¿ "
-F.
E - ffiT/-O E + l E:
l\. S -~ -~B

1
x
(E - ffiK ) 2

3
+ 1
' I I IHr la> (44 )
¿
t'\1 " < a HI a" > < a" p
[ -'-'
- m ]
u. ,K

In the space oí KO and i(° states, we can write G(E) as

a 2 x 2 ffiatrix:

- 1
C(E) = { E + iE: - ID
tí.. + R(E)
v } (45)

< a' IHI lB> <B I HI la>

- <a' I R(E) la > = <a' I HIla> + I
S E + iE: - ES
(46)

Within the framework oí second order perturbation theory, the

Wigner-Weisskopí approxirnation consists of replacing R (E) by

R(ffiK). Such an approxi~ation is reasonable ií G(E) is sharply

peaked in a small range of energies (S8Y 6 E) around E = JTlK ; i t

 - 26 -

can be used to calculate only if t i5 not very large

\!J
(t)

compared to -1 .
{For large t, e
-iEt
oscillatesvery
6E
rapidly as a function of E} .

Let us denote by IKL> and IICe> the eigenvectors of

,)

R(m) {the reason for the terminology will be c1ear in a moment}

wL L L and s - S + . S
1vith eigenva1ues
= wR + i w 1 w -w R lwI
respectively. Since R(m) is not hermitian, the eigenvalues need

not be real and the eigenvectors need not be orthogonal.

W
1 t
< KLI \!J(t» ==
(-1) e- i (m - w~ ) t e- L (47)

for 11/J(O) > = IKL >

1 t
< Ksl \!J(t» ==
(-1) e-i(m - w~ ) t e Ws ( 48)

for , ¡H O ) > = IKe: >

w

From the definition of it is clear that the W

1
W , are positive
defini te. (Proof 1eft as an exercise) .

Hence the result: the eigenvectors of the matrix R(m) are

R and
the states characterized by definite mas se s ,
m - wL
R
ID. - Ws '
and definite lifetimes

1
and
1
2 1 1
WT 2
L Ws
(Our convention here i5 that lS the longer 1ived state and
IKL>
K > the shorter lived).
I
"S
 - 27 -
Por a system initially in the state IKL > , the probability for it
I
to be in a state lB > at time +
\- is given by
00

1
1< 611Ji(t) > 12=
27Ti d E e - iEt< S I G (E + i 8) I KL > 12
(49)
-00

Since C(E) = e + G (50)

o o Hr G

= 1
L
<6 IG(E) IKI/ n <slRrl n > < n le IKL >
E + iE: - EB
= 1
L <BIHrl a > < a I~ IKL >
eL
E + i8 - ES
1
+ I
s' <61Er I S'> < R' IG IKL>
E + i8 - ES
= > 1
E + i€ - ~ <BIHTI K
L
"- S - E + i2 - ID + WL

+ terms intrinsicallyof order I-T2

"1
(51)

(Remember that < S' IGol KL>

= o . Note that if we wanted
to be extremely consistent, we should ~ut = o in the first
WL
terno The inconsistency involved in not putting = o but
WL
discarding other terms of order 1.1'1
2
is a fundamental inconsistency

of the Wigner - ~eisskopf theory) .

r-2
The probability to order dI is ['ivenby
r-
!
¡

- 28 -

2 2
= <BIHI IKL > e -iES t - e -i(m-wL)t
1< slw(t) > 12 (52)
ES - m + wL

3. THE ~~Ss AND DECAY ~~TRICES

We define the mass and decay matrices via

<a' IHIIB > <BIHlla>

H et'et - ffiK °a'et + <a' IH!' a> + P IS
mv
1~
- Es
(53)

.1. r = TI I ó (m.K - ES) < a' IHIIB > < B I HII a > (54)
2 a'a B

In terms of the ~ - matrix used earlier,

-"
M - -1
2
i r - InK . 1 = - R (SS)

Both >.f
U and r are hermitian matrices; the eigenvalues of )1

and r, denoted by illL and mS and YL

and Ys respectively are
and IKS >
the nasses and decay widths of IKL>

lf we define

<K o 11/J(t) >

x = (56) II

[ <Ko Iw(t) > ]

then it is clear from the solution for G in the KO KO snace,

that
d X =
1 (M - i r / 2) X (57)
d t
 .....

- 29 -

i. e. in the KO - ~ sub-space of the complete Hilbert space, \'lecan

view the system as evolving under the influence of a non-Hermitian

Hamiltonian H - --.2:.- r .

Consequences of TCP :

For KO xc states at rest, we define

UplKo> = - I KO> DC IKo> = I~>

K IKO>
UT(A) IKo > = (K : Complex conjugation operator)

(58)

Upl-re> = - IKo> Uc !Ko> = IKO>

UT (A) Ir> = K I~>

Hence < ICO

IBr I KO >
= < K° I e- 1 H
dI e IKO >

= < j(° I HI ¡-re > * :: < 1(° I HI I re > (59)

from hermiticity of HI
Also < D
.l. 1
, S;D
1 -z , s zn ;... p ,51n HI I KO >
out
= <p s -;-;O *
. l'
-
l'
.
p2 ,- s2 ; ... IH IIK > TI (0)
n (-1)

in
é
TI - S Pn' - s >
= - Tln(G)< KOIHI IPl ' -SI' . 2 ' 2 n
in
(60)

FroID these we immediately infer that,

M = ~1 r = r (61)
11 22 11 22
 - 30 -

Note that TCP says nothing about off-diagonal matrix elements:

< KO I Hr I KO > = < KO I e -1 HI e I KO > = < KO IHr Ij(° > *

= < KOIHr IKo >

Consequences of CP :

1
rf CP
-
= , \Ve have
Hl (CP) El

< K ° IH1 I K ° > = < K° IHl IKO > (62)

and

-+ -+ -+
< p
~ l'
s;
1 p 2 ,s 2
;... Pn ' Sn I El I K° >

out
-+ -+
-+ .
=<-p 1 ,5, 1 - p 2 ,s 2
;... - pn ,s n I tI
1 'K ° > (- TIn (CP) )

out (63)

Using these equations \Ve infer that

~.I! = M r = r (64 )
12 21 12 21

l. e. the mass and decay matrices are real-syrnmetric.

Now we know that the eigcnvectors of a matrix such as

are 1 and
[: :] [ 1 ] [- ]
(with eigenvalues a + b and a - b respectively). Consequently,
. I

I
in.the limit of CP-invariance, the physical states with well defined
masses and lifetimes are
 - 31 -
-
l
IK O> = JKO > IKo > -. I
I 1
1 12 I
(65 )
I IC °> = J ICo
> + lKO >
2
12

(the i has been put there to make I

v
,~ ° > and IK 2 o > transform
1

in the same way under TCP. This is just a convenient phase

convention).
Since IK 1 o > is even under CP, it decays copiously into
the CP - even state 121T > .
Hence the correspondence

I Kc.
u > -> IK 1 o > in 1imit of CP - invariance

I KL > -> IK2 o > in 1imit of CP - invariance

In general, the mass decay matrix has the form

[: :]

whose eigenvalues are A = a :t lEC and eigenvectors are

[. : ]
"Tith ---P-

q
=
~
Eence

plKo > - qlKO >

IKs > =
i l!pl2 + Iql2
(66)
plKo > + qlKO >
\KL > =
J'lpl2 + Iql2

where
 ,
- 32 -
- 1 .
-L = "2 1. r12
q - -21 1. r2 1 (67)

the limit of CP - invariance being

p = q = 1

Equations (66) can be inverted to give

IKO> = {W2 + ~ {IKL> + i IKs > }

2 D

(68)

IICO> = ~ { KL >
I - i !KS > }
2 q

Hence if we start initially with a KO beam~ we find

<KLI ¡]Jet) > = (-1)

~ {e -i(mL-iYL/2)t
2 n

t
S -iY~/2 )
+ i < K K,S > e -i(m .~ (69)
L I
}

<Kc:l,p(t) > = (-1) {[EJ 2 + lliE {<KsIKL>

e-i(mL-iYT/2)t
.J
"
2 P

-i(m - . 1
+ i e "S 1."2 y '-,
(:) t } (70)

< KL IKS > = (-i)

Ipl2 + 10.12

< KS IKL > = + 1 (71)

Ipl2 + Iql2
 ~,
\:

- 33 -

The probability of the system being in a IRo> state (and thus able

to initiate a reaction such as KO + p ~ n+ + A ) is, therefore

P (K°) = I <1(° I \)J (t) > I 2 =~ I <K I \)J (t) > +

4 I q 12 L

(72)
i < Ksl\)J(t) > 12

4. THE PHENOMENON OF REGENERATION IN MATERIAL HEDIA.

The preceding discussion shows that, in the limit of CP-inva-

riance, if we begin with apure KO beam at time t = o ,

- i(m2 - 1
2 Y2 ) t
< KO II/J(t)> = .::..:!.- e
2
12 (73)

-1 . -i(m - .~
1 1
< KO 1 I \)J (t) > = le 1 )y)t
/2

Slnce y ~ O (100 y ) , it follows that after a sufficiently long

1 2
time the KO beam will convert into a J110reor les s pure KO beam.
2

If we allow this beam to pass through matter, then, since KO

and KO have different scattering cross-sections with nuclei, the

delicate balance between KO and KO states in KO will be dis-
2
1(0
turbed and the beam will acquire a L
1
component.

This is the uhenomenon of ~egene~at¡on in material media. In

the limit of CP - invariance, no regeneration can take place in

free space; the 1(° beam will eventually decay into channels
2

allO\..~d by Cl' 5\\<:'\\ as 3 '\1: .

 - 34 -
s. THE EXPEPIMENTAL DrSCOVERY OF CP - VIOLATION.

One way to check CP - invariance, therefore, is to aIIow a

KO bearo to traverse a few hundred KO decay Iengths {decay
1

Iength = (veIocity) x (lifetime) } in either a very diIute medium

ar vacuum. The re~aining kaon bearowould be almost pure VO
-"-
.
,
if
2
the KO decay into 2 TI' S CP lS definitely vio1ated. Fitch
2
et al. first discovered this violation by shooting a KO bearo into

a long Heliu~ hag and looking for 2TI decays at the other end.

The density of the Helium gas was low enough to prevent any

exp1anation for the resu1t on the basis of regeneration; in any case

another experimental group confirmed the result of Fitch et al. by

doing the experiment in near perfect vaCUUffi.

Once CP - violation has been esta~lished, K 1 and K 2 can

not, in general, be regarded as the physica1 states; we must work
in terms of the
KS and KL introduced earlier.

6. THE CANONICAL PARAHETRIZATION OF NEUTRAL K DECAYS.

Before one embarks on a study of the theoretical significance

of CP - vio1ation, it is convenient to express the properties of
the KO and KO complex in terms of a set of well chosen experimen.!.

a1ly measurab1e parameters.

Since CP - violation is a rather small effectr (p ~ q) , it
is convenient to define

1
- 1:. r
€ = . -
D q = VM 12 2 12 - (.! 2 1 - 2" r2 1
D +
(74)
q
IN - 1:. r + !"! _.!. r
12 2 12 ¡.{ 2 1 2 - 2 1
 ,
- 35 -
so that
1
IKS> = {!KO 1 > - i ( IKO 2 > } (75)
11 + lE I 2

v > = 1 (76)
I hL {i EIKO 1 > + IKO 2 > }
11 + !E12
(an irrelevant phase factor has been omitted). Neglecting terms of

order (2 ~ we h~vc the expression

2 i 1m H + rm f
E: ~ 12 12 (77)

2 (mS - mL) - i(YS-YL)

The. de.c.ay K -+ 2TI

For a partial decay width we use the notation

;;:
(E S - "-K)
fr,
fa'a eS) = 2 TI 1: < a'lHrlS > < B IHrla > l) ~

Mom. & spins etc.

in S (78)

f 0,0, (S) - f (S) (79)

a
+ -
< TI TI
IHr IKL >
= out
Define n+- + -
< TI TI
IHr IKS >
out (80)

< TIo TIo

IEr !KL >
-- out
n°°
< TIo TIo
IHr IKc:
u >
(81)
out

+ -
fL (TI TI)
3.6 x 10-6 (82)
+ - = \11+ - '2 ~
f S (TI TI)
 - 36 -

fL (2nO) = 2
I Yl °° 1 (83)
fS (2no)

Note now that by TCP

< n
+
TI
- +
out
I El I KO > = - < TI
TI ln
! Er IiCo > *
+
= - < n TI
outlS-l HI IKo > * (84)

It is convenient te work in a repr8sentation in which the

s - matrix is diagonal. For this purpose we shall ipnore

electromagnetic effects; the error introduced is of order a

+
I TI TI
>
s yruD .
::
A 12 TI, 1=0 > + 12 TI, 1 = 2 > (85)
out

I TIo TIo >

= ~ 12 TI,
1=0 > - A3 12 TI, l = 2 > (86)
out

2 i al
Note that si 2 TI~ 1 > = e 12TI ~ l > (87)

aT1- being the s - W'lve TITI phase shift in isospin state 1.

Hence also, if we define

i a
= .~
e 1
< 2 n, 1 IHr IKo > 1-'.1
(88)

( T~.L.L
Er were invariant under time reversal, Ar Hould be real).

-o
K > -- - A1 * e i 1
eS Tcr
< 2 TI, r I Hr ' by (89)
 - 37 -

Hence 1l+-
= <7r+ 7r - I H1 KL> I
out

<7r+ TI - IEl !KS>

out

'V + -
+ <7r 7r IKo 2 >
i E< 7r+7r-/HrIKo
out 1
> IHr
out

<7r 'Ir
+ -
IBr IKo 1 >
out

+ -
<'Ir TI
= i E +
out
IBr IKo 2 >

+ -
<7r 7r
out IHr IKo 1 >

or
1 i 60
2 1 1In!, , 1 i6 "
" "

'V 13
e
o
+ -
16
e 2
21 T
_J1l ]-\2

1l+- = 1 E +
(90)
.!- ( 1 e + -1 2 Re A2 )
1 /3" ioo 2 Re Ao /6

Since Re A < < 1 we can

Re A (1!1 rule in Kc) dec2.Y)
2 o - "2
ncglect Re A In the denominator. \Vu and Yang have chosen the
2

phase of the KO state in such a way thRt A

o
is real (Since

strangeness is conserved by the strong interactions, we can always

. iS0
rcdeflne statcs by a factor e ).

With the Wu - Yang phase convention

- °0)
'V
= i ei(02 1m A 2
1l+- 1 E + i
A
o /2
= iCE + E') say (91)

Similarly 1l = i (E - 7. E') ('" <»

°o
 - 38 -

The Vec.alj-6

KL -+ TI+
+ t + Vt
and +
y. -+ TI + t
"L + VQ,

\Ve define

+ +
+ ..
-
o = r(KL-+ TI + JI, + vJI,) - r(KL-+ 7f + Vt)
- + +
+
-
Q, (93)
r(KL-+' 7f + JI, + vQ,) + r(KL-+ TI + vQ,)

Note first that if CP were valid o = O ; henee the nagnitude of o

is a measure of CP - violation.
If the 60 = 6S rule is exaetly valid, the deeays KO-+TI++Q,-+VQ,
- +
and KO -+7f + Q, + VQ,
are forbidden.

In this situation

< 7f- JI,+ VQ, I HI IKL >

1 +
= 1) < 7f (94)
.~ VQ, I nI IKo >
.~2
Vil) I - , I '.~ I

ete.

so o = ~ ( TCP has been used here )

Irl2 + Iql2

= ~
11+e:12 + !1-e:12
'V
ar o 7
~
1'),~
!',t:' e: (95 )

In jZener,Ü {Le. in the absence of the 6Q =

+ 65 rule)

we have
 - 39 -
, :~

o = ..lLEJ2 + ~12 + 2 Re p* qx) - (W 2 + w.:.l.E.12+2 Req*px*)

!p/2 (1 + IX!2 ) + Iq!2 (1 + Ix12) + 4 Re p* q x

= 2 Re E ~ + O (E2) (96)
11 + X 12

Here
- +

x = < TI Q. v 51, I HI I KO >

- +
< TI 51, KO > (97)
v 51, I HI I

and TCP has again been used.

The parameters E , E' and o contain a wealth of informa-

tion about the nature of the CP - violating interaction e.g. if
o el 2 Re E, 6Q ::; 6S known to be an cxcellent selection rule for
CP conservins decays, is broken for CP - violating interactions;
+
if -
E' = o , 1611 - "2
1
rule is good for both CP - conserving I

and CP - violatin~.-.'interactions. etc.

~
In this connection the following dynamical observation is
relevant: Whatever be the nature of the CP - violating interaction,
one has the annroximate equality

a r g E
"\;
= t an
-1 -
{ ( 1)
2(mc - ¡nr)
,) ~'} (98)
Ys - YL
"\; TI

4 .')'-

.. 1 ¡'r-;~

So if a
slnce, experlmentally, ffiL - ffiS ~? Ys and YL« YS
theory of CP - violation manages to produce a r g E: ~ 45°, there
is nothing very sensational about the theory.
.
 - 40 -

7. PERlL-'\NENTELECTRI e DIPOLE HOHENTS OF ELEMENT

ARY PARTI CLES.

It is important to note that the simultaneous breakdown of

P and T invariances, permits elementary particles to have perma-
nent electric dipole moments. . This resuIt, first stated by Landau,
fol1ows immediately froID the observation that the relevant inter-
~ ~ ~ ~

action energy "-' d s . E (E is the electric field, s is the

spin; d is proportional to the dipale moment and is real hy

hermiticity) is odd both under p 8.nd T

- -1 =
(P E P 1 = - E , P S P S
-+ -+
T E T- 1 = E , T S T-1 = - S )

Since P 15 known to be violated, it follows that CP - violation

( = T - violation by TCP) can, in principIe, lead to electric

divole moments far pro ton s , neutrons etc. Detection of the e. d. TIl.

1'lould, of course be much easier for neutrons th::m for protons.

8. PRESENT EXPERlt1SNTAL VALUES FOR TI-m CP - VIOLATION PARA}1ETERS.

The following values are those quote¿ in ~ note by Steinberger

(1969)
11+- = (1.9:t0.05) X 10-3 ei(40:t6)O

11 = (2.5:t0.7) X 10-3 eiC17:t31)O (99)

oo
6 = (2.7:t0.3) X 10-3

For the electric dipo1e moment oí the neutron, Ramsey et. al. (1969)

have established the upper limit

-23
dn < e 5 x 10 cms (100)
 - 41 -
THEORIES OF CP - VIOLATION
~.

Despite the fact that the phenamenon of CP - violation has

provided a very fertile field for theoretical speculation~ 1 shall

devote only one lecture to a survey of theories of CP - violation.

This reflects a value judgement on my part; 1 do not think that any

of the theories proposad so far are terribly appealing on aesthetic

g rounds .
Furthermore, the sparsity of data makes it very difficult, at

the mament, to decide between several possible theories on objective

experimental grounds. I see no point therefore in wasting your time

with a very detailed review of specific theories. Por those of you

who might be interested in constructing your own models of CP - vio-

latíon, and wish to avoid ground already trodden by others, 1 shall

be happy ta supply a detailed list of references !

For didactic reasons, I shall consider first some "theories"

which try to deny the existence of CP - violation.

(a) A~~emp~ ~o deny ~he ex~~~enee 06 CP - V~o-eaA:ion.

These can be described as follows:

(i) "CP is good but Quantum Hechanics is wrang" :

In the absence of any other reason to doubt the validity of

quantum mechanics, it is much more sensible to give up CP.

(ii) "CP is good; what Fitch et. al. really saw were cascade events
of the type KO + KO + (some light exotic particle with
2 1
CP = - 1)

+ 27T + (some light exotic particle with

CP = - 1) "
r

- 42 -

(iii) "CP lS good; there just happens to be a scalar mcson, with

mass close to the K - mass, which decays into 2 1T Ii

(iv) "CP is good; the two particles into which the KL decays
are simply not pions" .

Ihe death blow to these last three ideas comes froID regener-

ation - interference experiments.

Starting with either a KO or a -o

K , let us wait long

enough so the beam is pure KL and then put a regenerator in the

path of the beam. On the other side of the regenerator, the state
vector is of the form

~
IKL > + b I KS > .

Ihe regenerator can be adjusted so that the ratio ill can be

lb I
varied to some optimum value.

Ihe probability for this state to have dissociated into two

+
p10ns of given charge, say TI
, 1T , at time t is given by

p + - (t) = Is I < sl¡p(t) > 12 ;

TI TI

(O) >
= (101)
I ¡P
a IKL > + b IKS >

+
Here s :: 1T 1T , the summation being over the momenta of the two

pions.

<BIHr IKL> -iESt -i(ffiL- i iYL)t

a {e - e }
p 1T + TI - (t) = Is 1 .
I
E
S-mL+ "21YL
 - 43 -
2

+ b <SIHr IKS> -iEst -i(mS - ~ iYS)t

{e - e }
1 .
ES-ffiS+ 2" lYS

+00

1
21T J
-00
dE IS(2.)ü(E-ES) la - m' L + -21IKL>
<si!!!
E
.
IY L
{e-iEt -e-i(rnL- 7 YL)t¡
. 1.
-i E t -1 ( me - _2 1 Y s ) t
2
(102)
+ b <61Hr IKS> {e - e
,.1
}
1 .
E-mS + 2" lYS

oy

+00 -y t
)
-
P +
1T 1T
- (t) =
21T
j dE
[ lal'rL(s,E) (l+e L -2 Re /(E-rnL+~
(E - IDL ) 2 + 4"
1 YL 2
iYL)t

-00

-Yet i(E-m,.s + ~'-' i y~)t

(1 Te
' ,:¡
-2 Re e
U
)
+ lb I 2 r S ( f3, E)
(E - TIlSF + l YS

i(mr - I'1(..)t - 21 (Y L + Y S )t
+ 2 Re {1 + e '-' ~ e '
a j; b r L5 (S ~ E)
. 1. . 1.
iEt
-1 ( mS - 2" 1 YS + 2" lYL ) t
)t -iEt ( ffiL
1
- e ~
lo:: ' - e e } x

1. - 1
x r. 1.,
{ (E - mL - 2" 1 YL ) (e - ffiS + 2" 1 YS)
}
J

(103)
Now part of thc Wigner - Weisskopf approximation is to set
T'
(S E = ete.
J. L , )
rL ( (3, mK ) :: r L (S)

(lt makes little differenee whether we set 'KO

1' 1 = IDL oy
IDS
in the

r ). The E - integration can then be done by drawing suitable

 'l

- 44 -

contours; we find

p... . - (t)
TI TI

-y t
= lal2 fL(TI+TI-) (1 -,~
'- L )

YL

+ Ibl2 fS(TI+TI-) (1 - e -Yst )

YS

+ -

+ 2 Re a* b i fLS (TI TI )

(mL-mS) + f i (YL+YS)

1
- - (y +Y ) t
. { 1 - e i(mL - mS)t e 2 L S } (104)

Hence the transition probability per unit time, i.e. the decay rate,
lS
+
e -YLt
-
R + - (t) =~ p + - (t) = la 12 r L (TI TI )
1T TI dt TI TI

-Yst +
e
+ IbI2fS(TI+ TI-)
1
+ - i(m L -mc)t - "2 (YL + YS)t
+ 2 Re e ..:> e
a:Y; b fLS (TI TI)

(l05)

Since this decay rate is directly measurable, one can check expli-

citly whether the oscillating interference term is present OY noto

Careful measurements have definitely established that the inter-

ference term exists (indeed, these measurements provide us with a

rather accurate value for
mI.. - fflS) .
 1

- 45 -

Existence of this interference terrn shows that nene of the

three "theeries" mentioned above can be correcto (Rernember that two

particle beams can not interfere unless one is dealing with the same

kind of particles produced from sources coherent with each other).

(b) P~apo~at~ zha~ c , and zhe~e6a~e CP , ~~ v~ota~ed by ~~~ong

(P~entQ~ e In~e~aet~on~.
(Cab~bbol a~ Med~um-St~ong o Vet~man)

The major difficulty with such proposals is that they offer no

convincing argurnent to indicate why CP - violation is such a small

effect.

The suppression arguments given by the authors are predicated

on the notion of approximate invariance under internal symmetry

groups (such as SU(3) ). Since SU(3) is known to be badly broken,

it is not clear why one has not seen large scale violations of CP.

(e) P~apo~at~ ~hat C , and ~he~e6o~e CP , ~~ v~ota~ed by the Eteet~o-

magnet~e In~e~aet~on (Be~n~te~n, Fe~nbe~g and Lee, Ba~~hay).

This proposal was motivated by the numerical coincidence

a.
111+ _1 ~ TI together withthe realizations that :

(i) There is no satisfactory experimental evidence in support of

C invariance in the electromagneticinteraction of had~on~ ;

and
(ii) that in dealing with the well studied elastic vertices such as

p -+ p + y , the possible C non - invariant terms would be

automatically exorcised by the requirement that the electric
current be conserved.
 .~
- 46 -

~I
To see this last point, consider the matrix element

< p' IJ EM Ip >

1.1

Lorentz invariance tells liS that we may write

< p' 1..1

11
EM (O) Ir > = (Norm. factors) x

ü (p') {f 1
y 1.1 + f 2
(p'+p) 1.1
+ f3 (p'-p) P
} u(p) (106)

where the f.
1
are scalar functions of (p' - p) 2 . Nm..¡ the las t

term can on1y appear if J contains a piece even under e ; one

1.1

may, therefore, think at first sight that one can test for e
invariance by looking for this termo However this term ha~ to be
ze/to (Le. f 3
= O) by virtue of current conservation, its absence
does not tell us anything about the e - invariance of the electro-

magnetic interaction.

+ - o
Since the decay TI -+ TI TI TI lS induced by the electro-
+
magnetic interaction, one would expect in this theory that the TI

and TI spectra would not be identical. Small differences between

the spectra have been reported in the literature; since it is very

difficult to separate pians that emerge froIDthe decay of TI from

pions from other sources, it is not clear what this experimental

result means.

Another l)ossibleway to test the theory would be to compare the

.,4
differential cross-sections for y + d -+ n + p and 11 + p -+ y + d
Preliminary experimental results did indicate a difference; it was

found however that photons from n + p -+ TIo + d -+ 2y + d made it

difficult to iso1ate the reaction n + p -+ y + d .
 - 47 -

Finally we notice that in this theory one expects a neutron

electric dipole moment of the order of eGM ~ e x 10-19 crns. (This

i5 rnerely a crude dimensional argument). This nurnber is about 4

orders of magnitude larger than the upper limit established by

Ramsey et. al. Since it i5 not possible to make a reliable theoreti-

cal calculation of the neutron electric dipole moment, supporters

of the electromagnetic theory of C - violation do not feel rnuch

cause for alarmo

Pais and Treiman have made the interesting suggestion that the

theory can be tested most conveniently in colliding beam experiments

oí the type
+ + - O
e e ~ TI TI TI

(d) P~opo~al~ Ba~ed on Complex GA / GV: CP - V~olat~on~n the Weak

IntefLac.t~onLee and Yang (1957) Gta/5,how (1965) .

By suitable adjustment of the phase anglcs, one can accomodate

al1 known data on CP - violation. No spectacular predictions.

(e) HypefLweak theofL~e~ . Bég (1969)

Hyperweak is a term coined by the present lecturer to describe

theories in which the CP - violating interaction is distinct from

other interactions, and weaker than the weak interaction by a factor

of 10-2 10- 3 The models discussed in the above mentioned

a.rticle were inspired by some group - theoretic propcrties of the fa-

miliar 8U(3) - violating interactions. All known data on cp -

violation can be accomodated. No spectacular predictions.

 - 48 -

161 The Supe~weak Theo~y . (JJo iú en.6 t.eÚ1. ( 1 9641

In this theory CP - violation is due to a Il\SI

= 2 inter-
action about 10-8 times weaker than the weak interaction. The
interaction can be realized in current x current form as

HI = i gS}v . {Tf.!V (f~S=l\Q) t (Jl\S=-tJQ + hermitian

C> f.! v ) (l07)
conjugate

Note first that even though the interaction is so extremely weak, it

can give rise to CP - violating effects of the observed order of

magnitude in the Ko - K"° complex. The physical reason for this is
the fact that the mass difference is so extremely small,
KL - KS
being of the second order in the weak interaction.

K2 K 1
. mK 1+
gsw
4

T11e ratio O c( 'V gsw = illK

c( (m 2) 2 ffiK L\mK
Kl

I¡
gsw mK mK 1+ - 3
= - = 2 x 10
5 6
[gW] 10-5 / ,;2
2mK G2 mI( 2 mK ,-

-8
far gSiV 'V 1O G. (In this crude dimensional argument we have
assumed that the K - nass provides the appropriate scale). Also,

since the interaction is so weak1 its effects are effectively

restricted to the Ko - KO mass matrix. The main predictions of

the theory therefore are:

( i) No CP - violation can be visible outside the Ko - 1(0 system

( ii) E' = o , = Tl = E
11 + - oo
 - 49 -

(iii) o ~ 2 Re € ( in spite of the l\Q

:: - l\S current : )
(iv) e.d.m. of neutron = O .

Whi1e a11 these predictions are very much in agreement with

present1y available data, the same is also true for the predictions
of the hvperweak
,,. theories. (Effects outside the KO - j(° complex

are larger in the hyperweak theories than in the superweak, but not

large enough, however, to be clear1y visible to the experimentalist).

The on1y way 1 know of distinguishing experimentally between
' , ~ Ti
1lyperwea k ana superweaK lS V1í3.a preclslon mea.surement ot -..:.:. .

I I
Ti+-I Ti
:::; 1 exactly, in superweak oo
fj
oo
= 1 + O(a.) in hypen¡eak

Such precision may not be available for some time!

EXERCISE :

Construct ~ theory of CP - violation such that IKL> .

:::; 1>(0
In.
2
> ,

IKS>:::; IKO 1 > Is this theory ruled out by the available data?
 - 50 -

REFERENCES

A. GeneJtal

J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, RelativistieQuantum Fields.

(MeGraw Hi11 Book Co., New York, 1965)

R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman? TCP , Spin - Statisties

and A11 That. (W.A. Benjamin lne., New York, 1964)

M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Collison Theory. (J ohn

Wiley and Sons lne., New York, 1964)

 - 51 -

B. Theo~e~ieat Pape~~

The Neu.~~at K - S iJ~ ~ em

M. Gell - Mann and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. 97 , 1387 (1955)

T. D. Lee, R. Oehme and C. N. Yang,

Phys. Rev. 105 , 1671 (1957)

T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang,

Phys. Rev. Letters 13 , 380 (1964 )

L. Wolfenstein,

Nuovo Cimento 421\, 17 (1966)

T. D. Lee and L. Wolfenstein,

Phys. Rev. 138, B 1490 (1965)

N. Byers, S. W. HacDowell and C. N. Yang,

"High Energy Physics and E1ementary Partic1es",

IAEA, Vienna (1965) , pp. 953 et seq. (Our

treatment is c10sest to that of this reference.

Note, however, that the phase convention of

these authors is not the same as ours) .
 - 52 -

Theo/1-.{eJ.> 06 CP - V.{olat.{on

P. K. Kabir,
\
Phys. Rey. Letters ~ , 1018 (1969) and other references
cited therein. I

N. Cabibbo,
Phvs.
, Rey. Letters -14 , 965 (1965) .
J. Prentki and M. Ve1tman,

Phys. Letters II , 88 (1965) .

J. Bernstein, G. Feinberg and T.D. Lee,
Phys. Rey. 138 , B 1650 (1965) .
S. Barshay,
Phys. Letters II , 78 (1965) .
T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Brookhayen Nationa1 Laboratory Report,
BNL 443 (T - 91) (1957) .
I
S. L. G1ashow,
Phys. Rey. Letters li , 35 (1965) . I
M.A.B. Bég,
Anna1s of Physics 5) , 577 (1969) .
L. Wo1fenstein,
Phys. Rey. Letters 13 , 562 (1964).

A. Pais and S. B. Treiman,

Phys. Letters 29B , 308 (1969) .
 ~

- 53 -

c. L e. c.:tu.Jt e..ó a.nd MonogJta.ph-ó

R. P. Feynman,

"The Feynman Lectures" Vol. II!. pp 11 - 12 e t. s eq .

L. Wolfenstein,
"Models of CP - Vio1ation" Lectures given at Interna-

tional Schoo1 of Physics, Ettore Majorana (1968) .

P. K. Kabir,

"The CP - Puzzle" Academic Press (London and New York)

(1968) .
lCaution: Many arguments in Kabir's book are predicated on

an erroncous experiment] .

T. D. Lee and C. S. Wu,

Annua1 Review of Nuclear Science ~ , 511 (1966).

 - 54 -

v. Expe~~menzai Pape~é

The ~n~z~ai d~éeove~y

J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V.L. Fitch and R. Tur1ay,

Phys. Rev. Letters .!l , 138 (1964).

A. Abashian et. al. ,

Phys. Rev. Letters 13 , 243 (1964).

P~eéenz vaiueé 06 CP v~oiaz~on pa~ameze~é

J. Steinberger,

Comments on Nuclear and Particle Physics 3 , 73

(1969).

J. Baird, P. Hil1er, W. Dress and N. Ramsey,

Phys. Rev. ~ , 1285 (1969) .

Regene~az~on ~nze~áe~enee expe~~menzé

C. Alff - Steinberger et. al. Phys. Letters

21 , 595 (1966).

M. Bott - Bodenhausen et. al.

Phys. Letters Q , 277 (1966).