Unitarity Triangle CP Violation Angle β & θ

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ranku
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of CP violation in the context of the Unitarity Triangle, specifically comparing the CP violating angle β in weak interactions with a proposed angle θ for strong interactions. Participants explore the implications of CP violation in both contexts, the theoretical frameworks involved, and the challenges associated with the strong CP problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Unitarity Triangle containing angle β describes CP violation in weak interactions, while questioning whether a similar triangle with angle θ could describe CP violation in strong interactions.
  • Others argue that the CP violation in weak interactions is due to the quark-mixing matrix, while the strong interaction involves terms related to chiral symmetry, specifically the Θ-term and mass terms of quarks.
  • A participant mentions that the strong CP problem remains unresolved, with the idea of an axion being a potential solution, though it is not universally accepted.
  • Some contributions highlight that the methodologies of CP violation in weak and strong interactions are fundamentally different, with β and θ having distinct meanings.
  • A later reply questions the fate of the theta terms in electroweak interactions, indicating a lack of clarity on this topic.
  • One participant suggests that if the theta term were non-zero, it could lead to a loss of confinement in strong interactions, thus implying that it must be zero to avoid contradictions with observed phenomena.
  • Another participant offers a heuristic explanation linking the massless nature of gluons to the absence of CP violation, suggesting that the strong force should not have a time-sensitive parameter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of CP violation in weak versus strong interactions, and the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the implications of the strong CP problem or the existence of axions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific theoretical frameworks and unresolved aspects of the strong CP problem, particularly regarding the implications of the Θ-term and the potential existence of axions.

Ranku
Messages
434
Reaction score
18
Unitarity Triangle containing angle β describes CP violation in the weak interaction. If there is CP violation in the strong interaction, is it also described by a Unitarity Triangle containing the CP violating angle θ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the weak interaction the CP violation is due to the quark-mixing matrix. In case of the strong interaction you have two terms, the socalled ##\Theta##-term and in the mass term of the quarks, related to chiral symmetry. To explain, why there is no CP violation observed in the strong interaction is still a challenge of contemporary particle theory. The most promising solution is the idea of another non-standard-model particle, called "the axion". The Wikipedia article is a good start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ranku and Vanadium 50
vanhees71 said:
In case of the strong interaction you have two terms, the socalled Θ-term and in the mass term of the quarks, related to chiral symmetry.
I guess that this depends a bit on how one counts, but you can put either of those contributions to zero by a chiral transformation - but generally not both simultaneously (or rather, the strong CP problem is that it does seem possible to do so). In some sense similar to how you can get rid of the Majorana phases in the CKM but not the Dirac phase - you do end up with a physical phase and thus CP violation. Exactly where the phase enters will depend on how one chooses to parameteise the theory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb, Vanadium 50 and vanhees71
That's true. You can as well only write down the ##\Theta##. The point is to explain, why also this term must vanish. It's explained in the above quoted Wikipedia article.
 
So the methodology of CP violation in weak interaction and strong interaction is quite different, in that CP violation angle β and θ have quite different meanings.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Indeed. They are both phases that break CP but the origin is quite different.

Now here’s a little brain teaser for you: What happened to the theta terms of the electroweak interactions? 🙂
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Ranku
Orodruin said:
Now here’s a little brain teaser for you: What happened to the theta terms of the electroweak interactions? 🙂
My familiarity is only with the graphical unitary triangle, and they contain the β, α, and γ angles. 🤷‍♂️
 
Ranku said:
My familiarity is only with the graphical unitary triangle, and they contain the β, α, and γ angles. 🤷‍♂️
Save it for later. It is an interesting puzzle that tends to confuse people.
 
Ranku said:
Unitarity Triangle containing angle β describes CP violation in the weak interaction. If there is CP violation in the strong interaction, is it also described by a Unitarity Triangle containing the CP violating angle θ?
Standard Model QCD assumes as an axiom that the CP violating angle θ of the strong force is zero, and there is no experimental evidence that disagrees in a statistically significant way with this conclusion.

Background:

1654029055520.png


Possible Resolutions

There are a couple of ways that people concerned about the "strong CP problem" (I'm not one of them) imagine could resolve it. One is that the issue would disappear if the up quark had a mass of zero, although experimental data fairly conclusively establish that up quarks have a non-zero mass. Another is to add a beyond the Standard Model particle called "the axion" which is very, very low in mass (a tiny fraction of an electron-volt).

A January 2022 preprint uses lattice QCD methods to suggest another reason that there is no CP violation in the strong force, without a need to resort to axions, and that such axions should not exist.

It suggests that if theta were non-zero and there was CP violation in the strong force, that confinement wouldn't happen. Therefore, the theta term in the strong force equations must be zero, and the hypothetical axion cannot exist.

Three hard problems!
In this talk I investigate the long-distance properties of quantum chromodynamics in the presence of a topological theta term. This is done on the lattice, using the gradient flow to isolate the long-distance modes in the functional integral measure and tracing it over successive length scales.
It turns out that the color fields produced by quarks and gluons are screened, and confinement is lost, for vacuum angles theta > 0, thus providing a natural solution of the strong CP problem. This solution is compatible with recent lattice calculations of the electric dipole moment of the neutron, while it excludes the axion extension of the Standard Model.
Gerrit Schierholz, "Strong CP problem, electric dipole moment, and fate of the axion" arXiv:2201.12875 (January 30, 2022) (invited talk at XXXIII International Workshop on High Energy Physics "Hard Problems of Hadron Physics: Non-Perturbative QCD and Related Quests", November 2021).

My "go to" heuristic explanation, in contrast, has been that since gluons are massless (i.e. have zero rest mass) that they don't experience the passage of time. Thus, the strong force shouldn't have a parameter that is sensitive to the direction of time that its carrier boson does not experience, because CP violation is equivalent to saying that a process behaves differently going forward and backward in time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Delta2, vanhees71 and Ranku

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K