CP Violation from Non Standard Models

  • Gino Segrè


The title of my talk allows for a great deal of freedom. I could say that SUSY models are standard etc. and turn to wild speculations, but instead I will be conservative.


Higgs Boson Yukawa Coupling Higgs Doublet Discrete Symmetry Higgs Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D15, 1958 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Paschos, ibid. D15, 1966 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. L. T. Trueman, F. Paige and E. Paschos, ibid D15, 3416 (1977).ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. K. Rang and J. E. Kim, Phys. Lett. 64B, 93 (1976).ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 2.
    See L. L. Chau, Physics Reports 35, 1 (1983) for discussion and references.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 3.
    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4.
    G. t’Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. C. G. Callan, R. F. Dashen and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. 63B, 334 (1976)Google Scholar
  9. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 172 (1976).Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426 (1969)Google Scholar
  11. J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cimento 60A, 47 (1969).Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    N. F. Ramsey, Ann. Rev. of Nuclear and Particle Science, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 7.
    V. Baluni, Phys. Rev. D19, 2227 (1979)Google Scholar
  14. R. Crewther, P. di Vecchia, G. Veneziano and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 89B, 123 (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 8.
    R. Peccei and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977), Phya. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977).Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)Google Scholar
  17. F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978).Google Scholar
  18. 10.
    For a recent review see A. Zehnder, SIN report No. PR-83-03 (1983).Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    D. Dicus, E. W. Kolb and R. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D18, 1829 (1978)Google Scholar
  20. D. Dicus, E. W. Kolb and R. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. ibid. D22, 839 (1980)Google Scholar
  21. K Sato and H. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 1564 (1975)Google Scholar
  22. M. Fugugita, S. Watamura and M. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1522 (1982).Google Scholar
  23. 12.
    J. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)Google Scholar
  24. M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 433 (1980)Google Scholar
  25. M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. 104B, 199 (1981)Google Scholar
  26. H. P. Nilles and S. Raby, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Report No. SLAC-PhB-2743, 1981 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  27. 13.
    M. B. Wise, H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 402 (1981).Google Scholar
  28. 14.
    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1556 (1982)Google Scholar
  29. L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. 120B, 133 (1983)Google Scholar
  30. J. Preskill, M. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 120B, 27 (1983)Google Scholar
  31. M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. 120B, 137 (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 15.
    For some recent attempts to surmount these problems, see e.g., G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. 115B, 21 (1982)Google Scholar
  33. S. Barr, D. Reiss and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. 116B, 227 (1982)Google Scholar
  34. S. Barr, X. C. Cao and D. Reiss, Phys. Rev. D26, 2176 (1982).Google Scholar
  35. 16.
    G. t’Hooft, in Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Cargese, 1979 ( Plenum, New York, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  36. 17.
    P. Langacker and H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. D19, 2070 (1979), and references therein.Google Scholar
  37. 18.
    See for example, H. Georgi, Hadronic Journal 1, 155 (1978)Google Scholar
  38. M. A. B. Beg and H.-S. Tsao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 378 (1978)Google Scholar
  39. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. 79B, 283 (1978)Google Scholar
  40. S. M. Barr and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1654 (1979)Google Scholar
  41. G. Segre and H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1191 (1979)Google Scholar
  42. V. Goffin, G. Segre and H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D21, 1410 (1980)Google Scholar
  43. S. Barr, Phys. Rev. D23, 2343 (1981).Google Scholar
  44. 19.
    For an overall view of left right symmetric models see R. N. Mohapatra Lectures at Nato Summer School on Particle Physics, Munich, Germany 1983, to be published by Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  45. 20.
    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D8, 1226 (1973)Google Scholar
  46. T. D. Lee, Physics Reports C9, 148 (1979)Google Scholar
  47. P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. 65B, 141 (1976)Google Scholar
  48. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 657 (1976)Google Scholar
  49. A. B. Lahanas and C. E. Vayonakis, Phys. Rev. D19, 2158 (1979).Google Scholar
  50. 21.
    See R. Gatto, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Phys. Lett. 80B, 265(1979)Google Scholar
  51. See R. Gatto, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Phys. Lett. ibid. 83B, 348 (1979)Google Scholar
  52. R. Gatto, G. Morchio, G. Sartori and F. Stocchi, Nucl. Phys. B163, 221 (1980)Google Scholar
  53. G. Segre and H. A. Weldon, Ann. of Phys. (NY) 124, 37 (1980)Google Scholar
  54. G. Segre and H. A. Weldon,Phys. Lett. 86B, 291 (1979)Google Scholar
  55. A. C. Rothman and K. Kang, Phys. Rev. D23, 2657 (1981)Google Scholar
  56. A. C. Rothman and K. Kang, Phys. Rev. ibid. D24, 167 (1981)Google Scholar
  57. 22.
    For details see, e.g., S. Weinberg, reference 20Google Scholar
  58. G. C. Branco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 504 (1980)Google Scholar
  59. G. C. Branco,Phys. Rev. D22, 2905 (1980)Google Scholar
  60. 23.
    This problem has a rather complicated history. The model was ruled out by the analysis of N. Deshpande, Phys. Rev. D23, 2654 (1981)Google Scholar
  61. A. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D23, 2647 (1981).Google Scholar
  62. Their assumptions of penguin dominance and short distance box explanation of the K-Kg mass difference were criticized byJ. F. Donogue, E. Golowich, W. Ponce and B. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D21, 186 (1980:Google Scholar
  63. C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. 94B, 234(1980)Google Scholar
  64. C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. 97B, 275 (1980)Google Scholar
  65. L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B160, 501 (1979).Google Scholar
  66. These were answered by e.g. J. F. Donogue, J. S. Hagelin and B. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D25, 195 (1982), who again ruled out the model.Google Scholar
  67. For a recent discussion see N. Deshpande, “CP Violation through Higgs Exchange” Univ. of Oregon preprint OITS 217 (1983), who shows e’e may be as small as.016. It is also predicted to be negative. Much of the uncertainty hinges on the dispersion contributions to K°-K° mixing.Google Scholar
  68. For a recent reference of this question see J. F. Donogue and B. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D29, 2088 (1984).Google Scholar
  69. 24.
    G. Beall and N. Deshpande, Phys. Lett. 132B, 427 (1983).Google Scholar
  70. 25.
    For some recent limits on the scale of the breaking of SU(2)R imposed by the KS-KL mass difference and the neutron electric dipole moment see G. Beall, M. Bander and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 848 (1982)Google Scholar
  71. P. L. de Forcrand, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley (1982) and LBL report 1469 (1982)Google Scholar
  72. R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic and M. Tran, Phys. Rev. D28, 546 (1983)Google Scholar
  73. G. Ecker, W. Grimus and H. Neufeld, Phys. Lett. 127B, 365 (1983)Google Scholar
  74. G. Ecker, W. Grimus and H. Neufeld, Phys. Lett. ibid, 132B, 467 (1983)Google Scholar
  75. Nucl. Phys. B229, 421 (1983)Google Scholar
  76. G. Beall and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 552 (1981)Google Scholar
  77. F. J. Gilman and M. H. Reno, Phys. Lett. 127B, 426 (1983)Google Scholar
  78. SLAC-Pub 3238, Oct. 1983, M. Hwang and R. J. Oakes, Phys. Rev. D28, 546 (1983)Google Scholar
  79. J. Trampetic, Phys. Rev. D27, 1565 (1983)Google Scholar
  80. A. Datta and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D28, 1170 (1983).Google Scholar
  81. 26.
    R. N. Mohapatra, F. E. Paige and D. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. D17, 2642 (1978).Google Scholar
  82. 27.
    G. C. Branco, J. M. Frere and J. M. Gerard, Nucl. Phys. B221, 317 (1983).Google Scholar
  83. 28.
    D. Chang, Nucl. Phys. B214, 435 (1983).Google Scholar
  84. 29.
    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13. 1980 (1964)Google Scholar
  85. for a discussion of these relations in LR theories, see ref. 19, and R.N. Mohapatra and J.C Pati, Phys. Rev.D11,566 (1975)Google Scholar
  86. L. Wolfenstein in Neutrino 1979, Bergen Comference (A. Hastuflt and C. Jarkslog, eds.)Google Scholar
  87. 30.
    A. Masiero, R. N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei, Nucl. Phys. B192, 66 (1981).Google Scholar
  88. 31.
    For recent references on CP violation caused by horizontal inter actions see R. Decker, J. M. Gerard and G. Zonpanos, CERN preprint Th. 3755 (1983). See also K. C. WaliTs contribution to this conference.Google Scholar
  89. 32.
    A. Nelson, Phys. Lett. 136B, 387 (1984), ibid 134B, 422 (1984).Google Scholar
  90. 33.
    S. Barr, Univ. of Washington preprint 40049-9 (1984) has very recently shown what the criteria are for having 6 = 0 at tree level in a Nelson type model, thus showing how it may be generalized.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gino Segrè
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations