How Do Box Diagrams Affect B-Bbar Mixing in the Standard Model?

muppet
Messages
602
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

I'm being a bit thick in following some introductory lectures on the Standard Model: http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/hepsummerschool/Teubner-%20Standard%20Model%202008.pdf

The thing I'm struggling to understand is the treatment of how "box" diagrams contribute to B-Bbar mixing (see page 70 of that link). My attempt to understand it would be the following. The box diagram adds terms that couple B, Bbar to the effective Hamiltonian, so that the mass matrix becomes of the form
\left(\begin{array} \<br /> M_{B} &amp; \Delta M \\<br /> (\Delta M )^* &amp; M_{B} \end{array} \right)
where \Delta M \sim (V_{tb}V_{td}^{*})^2 is the complex contribution from the box diagram. The eigenvalues of this matrix sum to 2 M_B and their product is M_{B}^2-|\Delta M |^2=(M_B - |\Delta M|)(M_B + |\Delta M|). So define \Delta m =2 |\Delta M|, and the eigenvalues of this matrix must be M_B \pm \frac{1}{2} \Delta m.
where the minus sign corresponds to the heavy mass eigenstate and the plus sign to the lighter eigenstate (because (A-\lambda I)v=0).
The eigenvectors of this matrix should then lie in the kernel of
\left(\begin{array} \<br /> \mp |\Delta M| &amp; \Delta M \\<br /> (\Delta M )^* &amp; \mp |\Delta M| \end{array} \right)
If, for a moment, we take \Delta M to be real, I then think that the heavy normalised eigenstate is (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}) and the lighter one is (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}), which is the other way round to what the notes suggest. This is problem number one that I have. (Does [\itex] \Delta M [/itex] turn out to be negative or something?)

Problem number two is that if I write \Delta M= |\Delta M|e^{i \alpha}, so that \alpha is the phase of the box diagram, then I think my mass eigenstates are solutions of
|\Delta M| \left(\begin{array} \<br /> \mp 1 &amp; e^{i \alpha} \\<br /> e^{-i \alpha} &amp; \mp 1\end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array} \ p \\ q \end{array} \right)=0
so that normalised eigenvectors will look like \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,\pm e^{i \alpha})
-i.e. that the phase of the diagram is the ratio p/q. But according to the notes, p/q is the square root of the phase of the diagram. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
muppet said:
This is problem number one that I have. (Does [\itex] \Delta M [/itex] turn out to be negative or something?)
It can, but this is just a question of convention.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top