Lattice Gauge Theory ’86 pp 13-27 | Cite as

# Recent Results from the University of California Weak Matrix Element Calculation

## Abstract

For several years now we have been making a major effort to calculate hadronic matrix elements of weak operators by lattice Monte Carlo methods. Some of the basic techniques were described at the Argonne, Tallahassee, and Wuppertal Conferences;^{1–3} results of a “first generation” calculation were published last year.^{4} Since that time we have accumulated considerably more data: we have greatly increased the number of configurations on our original small lattice (6^{3} × 17 at β = 5.7) and have gone on to examine two larger lattice sizes: 10^{3} × 20 at β = 5.7 to look at finite size effects and 12^{3} × 33 at β = 6.1 to look at scaling. Here, we present the new results from the small lattice and the preliminary results from the larger lattices (where we are_continuing to accumulate statistics). We treat primarily the K^{O}-K^{O} mixing and K → π ΔI = 3/2 amplitudes, where the theoretical situation is more or less clear; however, our current approach to the problems of calculating the K → π ΔI = 1/2 amplitude is also briefly described, and is used to obtain some very preliminary numerical results.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.C. Bernard, “Lattice Calculation of Hadronic Weak Matrix Elements: The ΔI = 1/2 Rule,” in C. Zachos, et al., eds.,
*Gauge Theory on a Lattice: 1984*,National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1984.Google Scholar - 2.C. Bernard, T. Draper, H. D. Politzer, and A. Soni, “Lattice Calculation of Weak Matrix Elements: A Progress Report,” in D.W. Duke and J. F. Owens, eds.,
*Advances in Lattice Gauge Theory*,World Scientific, Singapore, 1985.Google Scholar - 3.C. Bernard, T. Draper, G. Hockney, and A. Soni, “Calculation of Weak Matrix Elements: Some Technical Aspects,” in B. Bunk, K. H. Mutter and K. Schilling, eds.,
*Lattice Gauge Theory: A Challenge in Large Scale Computing*,Plenum, New York, 1986.Google Scholar - 4.C. Bernard, T. Draper, G. Hockney, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2770 (1985) .ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.N. Cabibbo, G. Martinelli, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B244, 381 (1984)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5a.R. C. Brower, M. B. Gavela, R. Gupta, and G. Maturana, Phys. Rev. Lett.
*53*,1318 (1984).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.S. Gottlieb, P. MacKenzie, H. Thacker, and D. Weingarten, Nucl. Phys. B263, 704 (1986)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6a.S. Gottlieb, P. MacKenzie, H. Thacker, and D. Weingarten,Phys. Lett. 134B (1984).Google Scholar
- 7.C. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. D32, 2343 (1985).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.We thank G. Martinelli for correspondence which contributed to our understanding of this point.Google Scholar
- 9.S. Sharpe etal., University of Washington Preprint UW/400 48-11 P6, and talk presented at this conference.Google Scholar
- 10.L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, G. Rossi, and M. Testa, CERN Preprint TH. 4447 (1986)Google Scholar
- 10a.M. Bochicchio et al., Nucl. Phys. B262, 331 (1985).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.C. Bernard, T. Draper, and K. Olynyk, Phys. Rev. D27, 227 (1983) .ADSGoogle Scholar
- 12.N. Cabibbo and E. Marinari, Phys. Lett. 119B, 387 (1982)ADSGoogle Scholar
- 12a.A. Kennedy and B. Pendleton, Phys. Lett. 156B, 393 (1985).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 13.K. H. Mutter, talk presented at this conference.Google Scholar
- 14.J. Jennings, UCLA Preprint, in preparation.Google Scholar
- 15.D. Barkai, K. J. M. Moriarty, and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D30, 1293 (1984); S. Otto (private communication).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 16.L. Maiani and G. Martinelli, talk presented at the 23rd International Conference on High Energy Physics, Berkeley, 1986.Google Scholar
- 17.C. Bernard, T. Draper, and A. Soni, UCLA Preprint, in preparation.Google Scholar
- 18.G. Martinelli, Phys. Lett. 141B, 395 (1984).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 19.H. Tsuchida, UCLA Preprint, in preparation.Google Scholar