text:
# Changes in 𝑟-process abundances at late times

## I Introduction

The $`r`$ process, which synthesizes roughly half the elements with atomic number $`A>70`$, proceeds through neutron capture and beta decay . Through most of the process, we know, capture is much faster than beta decay, so that very neutron-rich and unstable nuclei are temporarily created before disappearing as the process peters out. The question of where the nucleosynthesis occurs, however, is still unanswered. An evacuated bubble expanding behind a supernova shock waves is a promising candidate for the site, but not yet the clear choice. The scenario is more convincing if the initial expansion is very rapid , but simple models of fast adiabatic expansion  imply that the neutron capture must finish in less than a second. In traditional simulations, where capture must often wait for a nucleus to beta decay, the process takes 2 or 3 times that long.

Simulations from, e.g., ref.  demonstrate that the entire process can take place quickly if neutron capture populates nuclei farther from stability (and thus shorter lived) than usually thought. Despite initially forming at lower $`Z`$ and $`A`$ than traditional work suggests, the simulated abundance peaks end up at the right atomic numbers. The apparent reason is that nuclei in the peak move up quickly in $`Z`$ through an alternating sequence of beta-decay and neutron capture near the end of the $`r`$ process, when the supply of free neutron begins to run out but before neutron capture completely stops. But how do peaks maintain themselves during this late time, as beta decay drives each nucleus at a different rate towards stability? This question is actually more general than the rapid-expansion scenario; a quick move towards stability while the neutron abundance drops, though most dramatic if the path is initially very far away, in fact characterizes all bubble $`r`$-process simulations that produce something like the correct abundance distribution. And the question is linked to a broader issue: the significance of neutron capture once the process has slowed down so that it must compete with beta decay. What happens if the capture rates then are faster or slower than we think? In which nuclei do capture rates have the largest effects on final abundances, and can the rates there be measured? These are the kinds of issues we address here.

The late stages of neutron capture and beta decay in the $`r`$ process are much different from what precedes them. When the neutron-to-nucleus ratio $`R`$ is much larger than 1, equilibrium between neutron capture and photodisintegration is a good approximation; the “path” consisting of the most abundant isotopes for each element $`Z`$ is far from stability and moves relatively slowly. The term “steady state” is sometimes used to refer to this period, which ends when the neutron-to-seed ratio $`R`$ falls below a few. To see what happens next, we note that the neutron separation energies along the path in $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium are related to the neutron number density $`n_n`$, which is proportional to $`R`$ for slowly changing matter densities, by

$$S_nkT\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{n_n}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m_nkT}\right)^{3/2}\right\},$$
(1)
where $`m_n`$ is the neutron mass. When $`R`$ drops below about 1, a nucleus on the path that beta-decays can no longer capture enough free neutrons to return to the path so that the path itself must move instead, inwards to higher neutron separation energy. The increased average neutron binding makes photodisintegration less effective, which in turn reduces the number of free neutrons still further, in accordance with eq. 1. The process feeds on itself, causing $`R`$ to drop exponentially and the $`r`$-process path to move quickly towards stability. Soon $`R`$ becomes so small that $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium begins to fail, and beta decay moves a good fraction of nuclei away from the path. Eventually, beta decay becomes faster than neutron capture and all remnants of $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium vanish. The inability of equilibrium to maintain itself on the time scale of beta decay is usually called “freezeout”.

To answer the questions about peak evolution and the significance of neutron capture at late times, we focus on two competing effects. The first, which dominates just as $`R`$ falls below a few, when $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium still holds well, is a funneling of material into moving peaks, most notably the small rare-earth peak , but also the larger peaks at $`A=130`$ and 195. As time passes, the funnel fights an increasing tendency for the peaks to spread because beta decay and beta-delayed neutron emission compete harder with neutron capture. The interplay of funneling and spreading will imply that uncertain neutron capture rates, which are irrelevant as long as $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium holds, become important fairly near stability, and should be determined there more precisely.

We support our contentions with simulations of the neutron-capture part of the $`r`$ process. In most, we explore late times without worrying about a fast $`r`$ process. We assume an exponential decay of temperature and density with a relatively slow time scale of 2.8 seconds, the same as in ref. . The distribution of seed nuclei with which we start is the post-alpha-process distribution of ref. , and we vary the initial temperature (and thus the initial density, since we keep the entropy equal to 300) and neutron-to-seed ratio. What we call our “standard simulation” is run under these conditions with the intial temperature fixed at $`T_9=1.5`$. In section III, we worry more about a fast $`r`$ process and therefore use different conditions. We do this in two ways: the first is to use use the same temperature and density dependence as described above, but a greater initial density (and thus a lower entropy). The faster neutron capture at high density pushes the path farther from stability and leads to the formation of the $`A=195`$ peak and the exhaustion of free neutrons in only tenths of a second. The second way is to use the conditions of Ref. , where the temperature and density drop with a time scale of 50 ms and then level off at low values ($`T_9<1`$, $`\rho <100\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$). The resulting drop in photodissociation rates again moves the path farther from stability, and the $`A=195`$ peak forms in under a second. All our simulations use nuclear masses from ref.  and beta-decay rates from ref. .

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section II, we discuss the action of funneling and spreading in the formation of the rare-earth element bump. Section III applies the same ideas to the large peaks, with emphasis on the change in the peak’s location and width as the path moves. The most important results appear in Section IV, which discusses neutron capture near the peaks and isolates particularly important rates that should be measured. Section V is a conclusion.

## II Funneling and spreading in the rare earth region

Ref.  presented the basic dynamics of the near-freezeout funnel. It concluded that for much of the time when $`R<1`$, the system is still nearly in $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium, even as the path moves inwards. A kink at $`N=104,106`$ soon develops (or grows stronger) when the path approaches a deformation maximum, which acts like a miniature closed shell. The nuclei near the bottom of the kink are further from stability than those at the top and thus have shorter beta-decay lifetimes (see fig. 3 from Ref. , which shows the path together with contours of constant beta-decay lifetime). The rate at which the path moves is governed by the average beta-decay lifetime along the path, which typically corresponds to a nucleus in the kink. The nuclei at the below the kink have shorter lifetimes than this overall average, and tend to beta-decay before the path moves, then capture neutrons in an attempt to stay in equilibrium along the path. The nuclei above the kink have longer lifetimes and so do not usually beta-decay before the path moves, instead photodissociating to keep up with a path that is moving away from them. The neutron abundance is so low at this time that neutrons are essentially transferred from nuclei that photodisintegrate to those that capture. The net result is that nuclei both near the bottom and top of the kink funnel into it as the path moves, leading to a peak in the final abundances, whether or not one exists before $`R=1`$.

Another process, this one not discussed in Ref. , acts to weaken the funnel. As $`R`$ drops below 1, so does the rate at which neutrons are captured, since it is proportional to the neutron abundance. As a result, a nucleus in or near the kink will not always have time to capture neutrons after it has beta-decayed; it may first undergo another beta decay and move away from the path of greatest abundances. Nuclei can emit neutrons following beta decay, moving them still further from the path. Thus, part of the growing peak begins to seep to lower neutron number $`N`$. Together with material from above the peak moving down in $`N`$, this process acts to wash out the peak in both $`N`$ and $`A`$.

Funneling and spreading counter one another, but as noted in the introduction, the two mechanisms reach their most effective points at the different times. Close to $`R=1`$, when the path begins its inward trek, there are still enough neutrons so that spreading is slow and the funnel dominates. At very late times, by contrast, $`R`$ is so small that $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium is seriously compromised and spreading is substantial. Eventually, neutron capture becomes slower than beta decay and the system freezes entirely out of equilibrium. After that capture essentialy stops and the only thing affecting the abundance distribution vs. $`A`$ is some final spreading from delayed neutron emission. Beta decay without emission continues to move nuclei away from the equilibrium path, altering the distribution in $`N`$, but has no effect on abundances plotted vs. $`A`$ (as they usually are).

Our simulations make all these statements concrete. Fig. 1 compares the results of our “standard” simulation described in the introduction with the measured abundances in the rare-earth region as a function of $`A`$, showing the existence of a REE peak, in reality and in the simulation. The simulated peak clearly relies on a kink that develops in the path because of the deformation maximum but, as argued in ref. , the mere existence of a kink is not sufficient to fully produce such a peak; it achieves its full size only because of funneling. To see in more detail how the peak builds, we plot in fig. 2 the number of nuclei in three regions of $`N`$ — that just below the peak ($`N`$=95 to 101), that including the peak ($`N`$=102 to 106), and that just above the peak ($`N`$=107 to 113) — as a function of time for the run just discussed. The two vertical lines mark the points at which $`R=1`$, and at which beta-decay and capture rates are equal in the rare-earth region, causing the complete freezeout of $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium there. The bump develops, and then actually starts to shrink as material moves to higher $`A`$ early in the process. But just before $`R=1`$, as the path begins its inward move, it grows again. As noted above, photodisintegration is the dominant reaction above the bump and beta decay the important reaction below, so that material on both sides of the bump shifts inwards. After a tenth or two of a second, spreading begins in earnest; nuclei in the bump move slowly to lower $`N`$ and material moves down from above to fill the trough above the peak, so that the abundance outside the peak starts to increase. To the right of the second vertical line, only beta decay (sometimes with the emission of neutrons) occurs, so that material is shifted downwards as the bump itself moves to lower $`N`$.

Although the brief region during which funneling dominates is evident in this figure, one may wonder whether the peak could form even if it was absent during the buildup phase along the path far from stability when $`R>1`$. In ref.  we argued that that was the case, and fig. 3 here provides more evidence. To make the figure we took the run discussed in figs. 1 and 2 and adjusted the abundances at $`R=1`$ so that the three regions of $`N`$ were equally populated. We then let the run proceed starting from $`R=1`$; the REE bump still formed. Fig. 3 clearly shows that funneling in the first tenth of a second or so is responsible. \[Some material is brought in from outside the range of the plot.\] Here as before, later times show effects of spreading and the post-freezeout shifting of material downwards in $`N`$.

## III Funneling and spreading in the formation of the $`A=195`$ peak

The fast $`r`$ process of Ref.  relies on the formation of large peaks farther from stability than usually thought. Simulations show that the fast process works but but do not explain how. Why should a peak that forms early at, e.g., $`N=126`$, remain there when the path moves as neutrons are exhausted? In more traditional simulations, when the path is assumed not to move before freezeout, the usual explanation for peak buildup is approximate “steady beta flow”, which results in the longest live nuclides building up the most. But this kind of buildup takes as least as long as the lifetime of the longest-lived nucleus, and the inward motion of the path we’re discussing here takes much less time. Something like steady flow therefore cannot be responsible for the existence of the peak at its final location in ref. . What is? The answer is a funneling phenomenon similar to that we’ve already discussed, though slightly more complicated because instead of a kink we now have a long ladder of $`N=126`$ isotopes populated at any given time.

As already noted, the speed at which the path moves inward after $`R<1`$ is given by the average rate of beta decay along the path. This average rate tends to occur along nuclei in the middle of the ladders at $`N`$ = 82 and 126. Thus the nuclei below them decay, and then capture into the peak as long as the funnel operates efficiently. A decay followed by a capture moves a nucleus up in $`Z`$, so material at the bottom of the ladder moves into the center of the ladder as the funnel proceeds. Further up the ladder, nuclei neither capture nor photodissociate, since the path continues to run through these nuclei even as it moves toward stability. Instead they simply beta-decay, but more slowly than nuclei at the bottom of the ladder. The result is that the entire ladder shortens as the bottom moves up faster than the top. Above the ladder, for $`N`$ just above 82 or 126, nuclei with slower beta-decay rates photodissociate into the peak, adding material just as in the REE region. These dynamics combine to move the peak up slowly in $`A`$ at the same time as they heighten and narrow it. Though the large peaks clearly form during the steady-state phase of the $`r`$ process, when $`R>>1`$, they are shaped and moved at later times as just described.

These dynamics, however, can sometimes be masked by spreading. Whether or not they are depends on the temperature and density of the environment and on nuclear properties. Fig. 4 shows the funneling and spreading of material around the $`A=195`$ peak in our standard simulation as well as the two faster simulations described in the introduction. As in fig. 2, we plot sums of abundances in three regions of $`N`$ — below the peak ($`N=110123`$), within the peak ($`N=124126`$), and above the peak ($`N>126`$) — as a function of time. In each case, the peak forms when $`R>1`$, but continues to grow for the few tenths of a second following $`R=1`$. Much of this material comes from the photodissociation of material above the peak (dashed line in each plot). At later times, spreading takes over as material in the peak beta-decays to lower $`N`$. The onset and rate of spreading depends on how fast the neutrons are depleted after $`R<1`$, which in turn depends on the temperature and density. For a simulation at high density, as in part (3) of fig. 4, neutrons disappear very rapidly when $`R<1`$, and so in a short time beta decay and beta-delayed neutron emission win out completely over neutron capture. When the density and temperature drop quickly, as in part (2) of the figure, neutrons disappear more slowly. As a result, neutron capture competes with beta decay over a longer period of time, delaying the full onset of spreading. Nonevironmental factors can also affect the balance between funneling and spreading. In anticipation of our discussion of neutron capture in Section 4, we run simulations with the same three sets of conditions but a newer set of calculated neutron-capture rates, from ref. . Fig. 5 shows the funneling and spreading of material in these simulations; the latter is less effective than in fig. 4. We expand on this point in the next section.

The way the peak moves and gets shaped can be seen in fig. 6, which shows its time development in the three types of simulations. While the peak initially narrows some as discussed above, it soon spreads, so that the effect is barely visible. Fig. 7 shows the same development but with the newer capture rates. Here the narrowing of the peaks is evident, and is not erased by spreading at later times. The shifting of the peak to higher $`A`$ is apparent in both sets of plots, and is most pronounced in the faster simulations where the peak forms much further from stability.

## IV Significance of capture rates

Funneling operates unhindered just a short time before $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium falters and spreading sets in. As we saw in the last section, once spreading is important, neutron-capture rates become so too. They determine how likely a nucleus that has beta-decayed is to return to the path before decaying again. Fast rates mean that $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium hangs on longer and spreading is delayed. Thus, the ultimate degree of widening a peak experiences depends on neutron-capture rates. To illustrate this point, we run simulations of the three types discussed above with four different sets of calculated rates . These sets were calculated with different models for nuclear masses, slightly different treatments of the dominant statistical capture, and different assumptions about the importance of direct capture. Not surprisingly, the rates can differ from one another significantly. Fig. 8 plots the ratio of the smallest to largest rates as a function of $`N`$ and $`Z`$. When we use these rates in simulations (though all with the same mass model ) we find variations in the final results for all values of $`A`$. We continue to focus on peaks, however, partly because the abundances are higher there than in neighboring regions, so differences are more significant, and partly because the differences in the left edge of the $`A=195`$ peak are particularly noticeable. As we already saw in the last section, and as figs. 9 and 10 show in more detail, the peak doesn’t spread very much when rates are fast near the $`N=126`$ closed shell. By contrast the slowest rates at these points cause the widest final peaks. These effects, incidentally, are particularly significant for the Ref.  conditions, where $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium falters earlier because of the rapid drop in temperature and density, so that capture rates become important sooner.

We can see the role of capture near the peak even more clearly by changing the rates only for $`N`$ between 123 and 125. Fig. 11 shows the results when those rates are multiplied by 10 or 100, or divided by 100. When the rates increase, funneling becomes stronger and spreading weaker as $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium is partially restored. As a result, the final abundance peak at $`A=195`$ narrows.

It so happens that the nuclei at and just below closed shells are notoriously difficult to calculate . Commonly used statistical methods may not be applicable for all those nuclei because of the low density of states at low energies . Rates of direct capture, which also plays a role, are uncertain because we don’t know how much isovector dipole strength lies low in nuclei far from stability. To determine the astrophysical parameters in the $`r`$-process environment, it’s therefore important to measure the rates in these nuclei where possible. Of course most of them are out of experimental reach for a long time to come. But the most important are actually relatively close to stability.

To show why this is, we make even more selective changes, now for just 1 or 2 values of $`Z`$, in the rates for $`N`$ between 123 and 125. Fig. 12 plots the root-mean-square difference between the abundance distribution (within our standard simulation) when these rates are increased by 100 and and when they are unaltered, as a function of time. The ultimate degree of change depends strongly on which rates we change. Altering those below $`Z=69`$ does little in the end because a) these nuclei are farther from stability, where the system is closer to $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ equilibrium and capture rates are nearly irrelevant, and b) Any changes that do occur have time to be diluted by spreading. Altering those above $`Z=72`$ doesn’t do much to the final abundance pattern because the system has nearly frozen out of equilibrium, making neutron capture irrelevant because there are so few free neutrons and the temperature has dropped. The nuclei for which changes do have large permanent effects lie between $`Z=69`$ and 72 (Tm,Yb,Lu,and Hf), and correspond to the rough location of the path just before full freezeout, when neutron capture and beta decay compete on equal footing. Then dramatic differences in flow result from increasing the neutron-capture rates, differences that are not erased by subsequent spreading. We see similar effects when the rates are decreased instead of increased. Fig. 13 shows final abundance curve for a standard run with the rates of ref.  and standard runs in which the capture rates of the nuclei with $`Z=6972`$ and $`N=123125`$ are increased by 10 and 100. The differences are significant. All these statements remain true both when we make wide variations in the initial temperature, initial density, and time scale in our simulations, and when we use the conditions of ref. . The reason is that in this range of $`Z`$, the calculated  beta-decay lifetimes of the $`N=126`$ nuclei increase from about .07 s to 4.2 s<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1When we replace these lifetimes with the more accurate and faster ones calculated in ref. , we find only slight differences in fig. 12.. The path there slows down around the peak, giving the neutrons time to disappear through capture on nuclei in other regions. This happens whether in the time prior the path moves over a large distance (quickly at first, because of the fast beta decay rates far from stability) or over a shorter distance. Although it’s theoretically possible for freezeout to occur for $`Z<69`$, the resulting peak would almost certainly be too low in $`A`$ to match the observed abundances.

The rates for these few nuclei are thus the ones on which the final $`r`$-process abundances depend most sensitively, and measuring the associated cross sections would be useful; we could then better constrain the temperature and density during the $`r`$ process. Unfortunately these nuclei are still far enough from stability that their cross sections may not be possible to measure, even partially through spectroscopic factors in transfer reactions with radioactive beams at RIA. A yield of about $`10^4`$/sec is probably necessary for such experiments, while estimates  of production at a RIA ISOL facility indicate that $`Z`$ must be about 77 before yields will become that large. But we can approach the nuclei we’re interested in, and see how measurements and calculations compare near the most critical region.

We’re more fortunate in the rare-earth region because neutron-capture rates are faster there than near the $`A=195`$ peak, and freezeout therefore occurs closer to stability. Fig. 14 shows what happens when we selectively change the capture rates of nuclei just below the kink, with $`N=102104`$, for particular values of $`Z`$. The nuclei with the strongest effect now have $`Z=62`$ and 63 (Sm and Eu). As before, the location of the most important nuclei is not very sensitive to initial $`r`$-process conditions. These nuclei are actually within RIA’s reach. For the nucleus $`Z=62,N=102`$ (<sup>164</sup>Sm), yields should be about $`10^5`$/sec, for $`Z=63,N=102`$ (<sup>165</sup>Eu) they should be about $`10^6`$/sec, and for $`Z=63,N=104`$ (<sup>167</sup>Eu) about $`10^4`$/sec . Experiments to study their capture cross sections are worth considering.

We have not discussed the $`A=130`$ peak in any detail. Our conclusions there are more limited because we do not reproduce the region below the peak very well. Abundances in that area are very sensitive to the outcome of the alpha process, which we do not simulate. Nonetheless we do get a peak at $`A=130`$ and generally find that varying the $`N=7981`$ neutron-capture rates has the largest effect for $`Z=4851`$ (<sup>127-129</sup>Cd, <sup>128-130</sup>In, <sup>129-131</sup>Sn, <sup>130-132</sup>Sb). RIA should be able to make enough of these isotopes to allow experiments.

## V Conclusion

For most of the $`r`$ process, neutron-capture rates are irrelevant because they are fast enough to maintain equilibrium with photodisintegration. But at late times, the situation is different. Our investigation of funneling and spreading led us to identify particular nuclei relatively close to stability whose neutron-capture rates have significant effects on the shapes of peaks. It would be nice to have experimental information about these nuclei, even if indirect, e.g. spectoscopic factors through $`(d,p)`$ neutron-transfer reactions. Measurements of the capture rates themselves in other nuclei closer to stability would also be useful; they would help tune models, which could then be better extrapolated to the important nuclei identified here. A full understanding of the $`r`$ process would then be a little closer.

We thank J.H. de Jesus, B.S. Meyer, M. Smith, and P. Tomasi for useful discussions. We were supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE–FG02–97ER41019.


format: text

text:
# Upper critical field in Ba1-xKxBiO3: magnetotransport versus magnetotunneling

\[

## Abstract

Elastic tunneling is used as a powerful direct tool to determine the upper critical field $`H_{c2}(T)`$ in the high-$`T_c`$ oxide Ba1-xKxBiO3. The temperature dependence of $`H_{c2}`$ inferred from the tunneling follows the Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg prediction for type-II superconductors. A comparison will be made with resistively determined critical field data.

\]

The upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$ of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors remains a contradictory issue. In classical type-II superconductors this quantity has been unequivocally determined from the magnetotransport measurement and its temperature dependence can, in most cases, be well described by the Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg (WHH) theory . However, for the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, $`H_{c2}`$ extracted from magnetotransport data reveals an unusual increase with decreasing temperatures without any saturation down to low temperatures. This upward curvature is observed in a pronounced way in the superconducting cuprates Sm2-xCexCuO4 , Tl2Ba2CuO6+δ , Bi2Sr2CuOy , and YBa2(Cu1-xZnx)O7-δ . However, the effect is also found in the fully three dimensional and non magnetic Ba1-xKxBiO3 . Among others, a bipolaron scenario , an unconventional normal state , a strong electron-phonon coupling , the presence of inhomogeneities and magnetic impurities  have been put forward for an explanation of the anomalous $`H_{c2}(T)`$ dependence. Because depinned vortices, either in the liquid or solid state, cause a finite dissipative resistance before reaching the full transition to the normal state, the complexity of the $`HT`$ phase diagram in high-$`T_c`$’s  undermines any direct determination of the upper critical field from magnetotransport data. There are indications that, also in the fully 3D system of Ba1-xKxBiO3, fluctuations can lead to a melting of the vortex-glass state . This could be a reason complicating a determination of $`H_{c2}`$ from a dissipative measurement as magnetoresistance.

Avoiding the dissipative mechanisms which could obscure a determination of $`H_{c2}`$ from transport measurements, we show that tunneling measurements can be used as an effective and direct method for the determination of the upper critical field. The from tunneling obtained temperature dependence of $`H_{c2}`$ in Ba1-xKxBiO3 follows the WHH model revealing a saturation at low temperatures. At the tunneling $`H_{c2}`$ values the resistance is very close to the full resistive transition into the normal state as measured on the same sample. This result was obtained repeatedly on several samples.

The single-crystalline Ba1-xKxBiO3 samples grown by electrochemical crystallisation were dark-blue crystals of a cubic shape with a size of about 0.6 mm. The superconducting transition of our crystals was single stepped and sharp with $`T_c23`$ K as determined by susceptibility measurements. The low temperature resistivity was about 100 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm with the metallic temperature dependence. The tunnel junctions were prepared by painting a silver spot of about 0.1 to 0.2 mm diameter on the surface of the crystal. The interface between the silver and Ba1-xKxBiO3 counter electrodes served as a natural barrier forming a planar normal-insulator-superconductor (N-I-S) tunnel junction. Low resistance electrical contacts were prepared for the four-probe measurements of the current-voltage ($`I`$-$`V`$) and differential conductance ($`dI/dV`$) characteristics of the tunnel junction. The tunneling measurements were performed in magnetic fields up to 30 T perpendicular to the planar junction enabling the formation of the vortex state in the junction area. On the same samples the magnetoresistance was measured using a four-probe measurement at low frequencies.

Figure 1 shows the magnetoresistance $`R(H)`$ of the Ba1-xKxBiO3 single crystal up to 26 T at temperatures from 1.5 K to $`T_c23`$ K. The resistive transitions are shifted and broadened towards lower temperatures as the magnetic field is increased, although the broadening is much smaller than in the case of the cuprates. A simple evaluation of the transition field defined as $`H^{}(T)`$ where $`R/R_n`$ equals, for instance, 0.1, 0.5, or 0.9 ($`R_n`$ is the normal-state resistance) leads to a positive curvature of $`H^{}(T)`$ down to the lowest temperatures. If $`H^{}(T)`$ is defined for $`R`$ even closer to $`R_n`$, the curvature of $`H^{}(T)`$ changes at the lowest temperatures which makes that the dependence $`H^{}(T)`$ depends on the chosen criterion.

In the following the normalized tunneling conductances of our junctions are presented, where the normal-state conduction for the normalization is taken above $`H_{c2}(T)`$ for the temperature $`T`$ under investigation. Figure 2 shows a quality certificate of our junction. The spectra

can be perfectly described by the Dynes formula  of the quasi-particle density of states $`\rho (ϵ)`$ smeared by the finite temperature at which the N-I-S junction has been measured. $`\rho (ϵ)=\mathrm{Re}[ϵ^{}/(ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1/2}]`$ contains an isotropic superconducting energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a complex energy $`ϵ^{}=ϵi\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which takes account for some additional smearing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ smearing of the spectrum is case dependent with a tendency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ in the best junctions. As mentioned already in the original paper of Dynes et al., such an ”intrinsic” width of the spectrum can be the consequence of anisotropy effects, noise, or concentration fluctuations. The presence of microphases due to fluctuations in the potassium and oxygen concentration seems to be a general problem in a substitution system like Ba1-xKxBiO3 . The Dynes formula fits our tunnel spectra at 1.5 K and zero magnetic field with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3.9\pm 0.1`$ meV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.4\pm 0.1`$ meV, yielding $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/kT_c=3.9\pm 0.1`$ and indicating that Ba1-xKxBiO3 is a BCS-like superconductor with a medium coupling strength . In the inset the temperature dependence of the superconducting gap is shown for the data from Fig.2 and also for data taken at $`B=2`$ T. The broadening parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is found to be independent of temperature.

At high magnetic fields the normalized tunneling conductances of the Ba1-xKxBiO3-Ag junction are displayed in Fig.3 for different constant temperatures. With increasing magnetic fields an increasing smearing of the superconducting features in the tunneling spectra is observed. At a certain field strength no structure from superconductivity can be found anymore and the transition from a S-I-N to a N-I-N junction is accomplished. Similar tunneling data have been obtained on a thin Ba1-xKxBiO3 film in a parallel field up to 7 Tesla at 0.45 K . Unlike a parallel-field configuration, our experiment on a cubic single crystal involves the

occurrence of a mixed state in a strong magnetic field.

In the mixed state the tunneling conductance will probe an average of the local densities of states. For an isolated vortex, the superconducting order parameter is zero at the center, increases linearly up to a coherence-length distance $`\xi `$ away from the center where it saturates to the zero-field value. The local quasi-particle density of states (DOS) equals the normal-state DOS at the vortex core, but is broadened near the vortex due to the pair-breaking effect of the local magnetic field (as described by the Abrikosov-Gor’kov theory developed further by Maki, de Gennes and others ). In the limit of moderate fields ($`H<<H_{c2}`$), Caroli, de Gennes and Matricon  have shown that the main contribution to the density of states at the Fermi energy comes from the low lying states localized in a vortex core. Each isolated vortex gives a contribution equivalent to a normal region of radius $`\xi `$ yielding for the density of states at the Fermi level $`\rho (0)\rho _n(0)\xi ^2`$, where $`\rho _n(0)`$ is the normal state DOS at the Fermi level. Thus, the total averaged density of states at the Fermi level is proportional to $`\rho _n(0)\xi ^2`$ per area $`(H_{c2}/H)\xi ^2`$ occupied by one vortex giving $`\rho (0)\rho _n(0)H/H_{c2}`$. However, of more relevance for critical field data, also close to $`H_{c2}`$ a linear field dependence of $`\rho (0)`$ has been found by solving the linearized Ginzburg-Landau equation in the mixed state . A very sensitive method to determine the upper critical field from tunneling experiments is to display the normalized zero-bias tunneling conductance as a function of the field strength . The observation of a sharp transition is then taken as a proof of a good homogeneity of the sample.

In Fig. 4 we present the zero-bias tunneling conduc-

tance as a function of the applied magnetic field for different temperatures. A linear dependence of $`dI/dV(0)`$ as a function of applied field can be found in a limited field range. At the highest fields a ”tailing” of the zero-bias conductance towards the normal-state value is observed, and a finite value of the zero-bias conductance is found already at zero magnetic field. The latter effect is obviously due to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ broadening. Also the tailing effect at the highest fields could be related to the same cause as the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ broadening, i.e. a certain inhomogeneity in the sample. The observed tailing effect resembles the behavior in the resistive transition close to the transition into the normal state (see Fig.1). A linear extrapolation of the zero-bias conductance to the field where the normalized conductance equals unity, as shown by the full lines in Fig.4, has been used to determine the upper critical field. Figure 5 shows the obtained temperature dependence of the upper critical field $`H_{c2}^t(T)`$. Also the points $`H^{}(T)`$ obtained from 90 % of the magnetoresistance transition ($`R/R_n=0.9`$) are indicated. The slope of $`H_{c2}^t(T)`$ near $`T_c`$ is different from that of the transition field $`H^{}(T)`$ determined from resistance data. We note that the tunneling critical fields $`H_{c2}^t(T)`$ are at fields where the bulk resistivity is very close to the onset of superconductivity (as indicated by the arrows for $`H_{c2}^t`$ in Fig.1).

As a very significant result, $`H_{c2}^t(T)`$ shows a clear saturation at the lowest temperatures as expected for the WHH theory. From all dissipative measurements on different samples of Ba1-xKxBiO3 so far done ,

only a linear increase of $`H^{}(T)`$ for decreasing temperatures has been obtained. Also recent susceptibility measurements reveal this effect in the temperature dependence of the irreversibility field  down to the lowest temperatures (0.4 K in ).

Besides the above mentioned tailing effect in the zero-bias tunneling-conductance and the bulk resistive transition near the superconducting transition, the same tailing can also be observed near $`T_c`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ (see Fig.2) and in $`H_{c2}^t(T)`$ (see below in Fig. 5). We suppose that, despite the quality of our sample, stochiometric inhomogeneity could play a role in this phenomenon. However, as we will discuss below, a more intrinsic cause related to superconducting fluctuations could also explain this broadening in the superconducting transition.

Klein et al.  suggested that in Ba1-xKxBiO3 a vortex-glass melting transition driven by fluctuations can obscure the magnetotransport determination of $`H_{c2}`$. Their measurements of the electric field versus current density $`EJ`$ show that a second order phase transition from a vortex glass to a vortex liquid state does exist in this system. The presence of the liquid phase can induce strong fluctuations below $`H_{c2}`$ related to the motion of the flux lines, but these fluctuations can be quite small above $`H_{c2}`$. This can be the reason why $`H_{c2}`$ (see arrows in Fig.1) is quite close to the onset of the resistive transitions . In this approach the foot of the resistive transition is determined by the melting of the vortex lattice giving a positive curvature in the temperature dependence of the line $`H_g(T)`$ for the liquid-solid transition. The foots of the curves in Fig.1 could be indeed well fitted as $`R[H/H_g(T)1]^\beta `$ corresponding to the vortex glass melting theory as introduced by Fisher et al. , where $`H_g(T)`$ is the magnetic field of the melting transition. The resulting fitting parameter $`\beta =4.1\pm 0.5`$

is in a perfect agreement with the value obtained on a different Ba1-xKxBiO3 crystal with $`T_c`$ 31 K . The melting line $`H_g(T)`$ reveals a positive curvature and can be described by the power-law temperature dependence $`H_g=H_g(0)(1T/T_c)^{3/2}`$ as shown in Fig. 5. This is also in a good agreement with the recent measurement of the irreversibility field on a similar sample  indicating that the melting and irreversibility lines coincide in Ba1-xKxBiO3.

In the $`HT`$ phase-diagram of Fig.5 the initial slope of the upper critical field $`(dH_{c2}/dT)_{T_c}`$ is about 1.7 $`÷`$ 1.8 T/K. To emphasize more the fact of the saturation of the upper critical field at the lowest temperatures, we note the closeness of the zero-bias conductance data for 1.5, 3 and 4.2 K in comparison with the data taken at other temperatures in Fig.4. In Fig.5 we also present the WHH upper critical field line with an uncertainty comparable to the experimental error bars. Taking into account that in a system with important fluctuations the $`H_{c2}`$ boundary should not be very sharp a satisfactory agreement is found.

We have presented here a direct non-dissipative determination of the upper critical field in Ba1-xKxBiO3 using the tunneling effect. $`H_{c2}(T)`$ can be satisfactorily described by the Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg theory. In the Cu-oxides, the existence of a resistive state within a large part of the $`HT`$ diagram complicates an unambiguous determination of the critical field from transport data. Therefore, it would be very interesting (and decisive for certain proposed superconducting mechanisms) to study the upper critical field in the cuprates with the non-dissipative tunneling method.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with S.I. Vedeneev and a support of the EU grant No.CIPA-CT93-0183 and the Slovak VEGA contract No. 2/1357/94.


text:
# Incipient superconductivity in TaB2

## I Introduction

The recent discovery of high-Tc superconductivity in MgB2  has raised considerable interest in a search for analogous behavior in similar systems. Although the most natural candidates for such investigations seem to be AlB2-type alkali, alkali earth or group III - element diborides, AB2 (e.g. A = Li, Be, Al), in none of them superconductivity has been found up to now . Moreover, in the solid solutions Mg1-xAxB2 a rapid decrease of superconducting transition temperature is always observed with the increase in the dopant content .

Diborides isostructural to MgB2 form also with transition metals from the IVa, Va and VIa groups of the Periodic Table (T = Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo), yet also these compounds have been reported  not to show superconductivity down to 0.42 K, with the only exception for NbB2 that becomes superconducting below Tc = 0.62 K.

Amidst the TB2 materials, TaB2 seems to be especially interesting due to a unique feature of its (0001) surface being terminated by a graphitic boron layer . The recent electronic structure calculations of the TaB2 (0001) surface have revealed the presence at the Fermi level of a pronounced DOS peak originated predominantly from the B 2p orbitals . Due to a strong charge transfer from Ta to B the Ta 5d orbitals are lowered in energy and filled with electrons. Interestingly, the resulting band structure is similar to the one derived for MgB2  and favorable of hole superconductivity concept . This striking observation motivated us to re-investigate our TaB2 sample on the context of possible appearance of superconductivity.

## II Experimental

Powder sample of TaB2 was obtained by the borothermic method . The product was checked by chemical analysis, which proved a sample stoichiometry close to the ideal. EDAX studies, performed using a Phillips 515 scanning electron microscope did not reveal any other elements but tantalum. Phase analysis showed a homogeneous material. X-ray diffraction pattern (see Fig. 1) was easily indexed within a hexagonal unit cell with lattice parameters: a = 308.2 pm and c = 324.3 pm. DC magnetic measurements were carried out using a Quantum Design SQUID magnetometer. The AC susceptibility was measured employing an Oxford Instruments EXA susceptometer. All physical measurements were done on powders freely placed in sample holders.

## III Results

In Fig. 2 is shown the temperature dependence of the magnetization in TaB2 measured in a field of 50 Oe upon cooling the sample in zero (ZFC) and applied (FC) magnetic field. Down to Tc = 9.5 K, the specimen investigated shows nearly temperature independent paramagnetism with the magnetic susceptibility of the order of 10-5 emu/g. However, most strikingly, at the temperature Tc there occurs a clear transition to a diamagnetic state, and the ZFC and FC curves split in a manner characteristic of type-II superconductors, with the weak irreversibility field. Furthermore, the field variation of the magnetization, taken at 1.7 K with increasing and decreasing magnetic field (see Fig. 3), shows highly irreversible properties of the material. The lower critical field estimated from Fig. 3 is about Hc1= 100 Oe.

The behavior typical of type-II superconductors has been corroborated for TaB2 via the AC magnetic susceptibility measurements (H = 10 Oe, f = 1 KHz). As seen in Fig. 4, in the normal state the real component of the susceptibility is positive and below about 10 K a sudden drop to negative values occurs. Just below Tc a sharp peak in the imaginary component of the susceptibility is observed, being characteristic of good quality superconducting material.

The onset of superconductivity in the AC susceptibility was used to define the upper critical field Hc2, and the so-derived temperature dependence of Hc2 is depicted in Fig. 5. The experimental data can be well described by the expression: Hc2(T) = Hc2(0)\[1-T/Tc\]β, with the least-squares fitting parameters: Hc2(0) = 23.6 kOe and $`\beta `$ = 2.2. It is worthwhile noting that the Hc2(T) variation has a positive curvature, yielding a rather large parameter $`\beta `$, which is usually considered as a measure of the material quality. The Hc2(T) dependence derived for TaB2 differs from that known for conventional low-Tc superconductors, but rather resembles the behavior typical of rare-earth nickel borocarbides .

¿From the obtained value of Hc2(0) (which is probably the upper estimate of the real value) it is possible to derive the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0`$ = 13.4 nm. Then, from Hc1 and $`\xi _0`$ we estimate the penetration depth $`\lambda _0`$ = 250 nm and the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ = 18. All these superconducting characteristics strongly indicate that TaB2 may be classified as a hard type-II superconductor.

## IV Discussion

The discovery of superconductivity in TaB2 below Tc = 9.5 K clearly contradicts previous results obtained for this compound by Leyarovska and Layarovski . It should be emphasized that we have also re-investigated some other transition metal diborides studied by the latter authors (TiB2, ZrB2, HfB2, VB2, NbB2) but only confirmed their conclusions that none of them is superconducting above 1.7 K. Thus, assuming that the previously investigated non-superconducting sample of TaB2 was of the highest quality, we thoroughly checked our specimen on possible impurities, which might result in spurious superconductivity effect.

As can be inferred from Fig. 1, two very weak impurity lines were indeed observed in the X-ray pattern. Both can be ascribed to the equiatomic compound TaB or alternatively, but less likely, to Ta3B4. In order to test a hypothesis that the superconductivity arises due to the presence of small amount of the other tantalum borides, we prepared both these phases and investigated their low-temperature magnetic and electrical properties. Although one of them is diamagnetic, none has proven to be superconducting.

Then, we considered a possibility that the amount of eventual superconducting impurity in our sample is below the detection limit of X-ray diffraction. This latter presumption seems supported by rather weak diamagnetic signal found in the superconducting state. The contamination by non-reacted metallic Ta must be ruled out because the afore-discussed critical temperature and upper critical field are very different than those characterizing pure Ta (Tc = 4.4 K and Hc2 = 0.8 kOe). Although the detailed EDAX measurements of our sample has not revealed the presence of any other elements except Ta, we cannot exclude that it does contain some oxygen or other light elements, which are not seen by EDAX. In such a case the observed superconductivity could be due to very little amount of unknown tantalum oxide or e.g. nitride. Yet, no other Ta-based compounds, reported so far in the literature, fit to the behavior found in the present work. In particular, albeit the superconducting temperature for the tantalum monocarbide TaC is quite similar to Tc found for our sample (9-11.4 K ), the reported Hc2 is only 4.6 kOe .

Alternatively, the apparent discrepancy in the properties of our specimen of TaB2 and that studied in Ref.  could be attributed to some difference in the stoichiometry of these two samples. The hexagonal phase TaB2 is known to form within a rather broad homogeneity range  giving sub- and superstoichiometric compositions. It seems conceivable that the effect of superconductivity is restricted to a particular nonstochiometric composition TaB2±x and is governed by existing defects in the AlB2-type unit cell, which can play similar role as oxygen in high-Tc superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are indebted to Dr. P. Peshev for providing the sample of TaB2 and Dr. Z. Bukowski for synthesizing the samples of TaB and Ta3B4.

### A Figure captions

Fig. 1. Powder X-ray diffraction pattern (CuK$`\alpha _1`$ radiation) for TaB2 at room temperature. Arrows mark the reflections from possible TaB impurity.

Fig. 2. Low-temperature dependence of the magnetization in TaB2, taken at H = 50 Oe in the ZFC and FC regimes.

Fig. 3. Field variation of the magnetization in TaB2, measured at T = 1.7 K with increasing and decreasing field.

Fig. 4. Temperature dependence of the in-phase and out-of-phase magnetic susceptibility components for TaB2, measured in the AC field H = 10 Oe with the frequency f = 1 kHz.

Fig. 5. Temperature variation of the upper critical field Hc2 in TaB2. The solid line is a fit of the experimental data to the function Hc2 = Hc2(0)\[1-T/Tc\]β with the parameters: Hc2(0) = 23.6 kOe and $`\beta `$ = 2.2.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The experimental data collected at the $`B`$ factories will allow stringent tests of the Kobayashi–Maskawa picture of CP violation . Among the various $`B`$ decays that can be used to achieve this goal , $`B\varphi K`$ decays play an important role. In these modes, which are governed by QCD penguin processes , also electroweak (EW) penguins are sizeable , and physics beyond the Standard Model may have an important impact . In the summer of 2000, the observation of the $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$ channel was announced by the Belle and CLEO collaborations. The present results for the CP-averaged branching ratio are given as follows:

$$\text{BR}(B^\pm \varphi K^\pm )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1.39_{0.330.24}^{+0.37+0.14}\right)\times 10^5\hfill & \text{(Belle }\text{[6]}\text{)}\hfill \\ \left(5.5_{1.8}^{+2.1}\pm 0.6\right)\times 10^6\hfill & \text{(CLEO }\text{[7]}\text{).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The Belle and CLEO results are only marginally compatible with each other. Evidence for the neutral mode $`B_d^0\varphi K^0`$ at the $`2.9\sigma `$ level, corresponding to a branching ratio of $`\left(5.4_{2.7}^{+3.7}\pm 0.7\right)\times 10^6`$, was also reported by CLEO, whereas a significant signal for this decay has not yet been observed by the Belle collaboration.

In our discussion of the $`B\varphi K`$ system, we follow closely our recent $`BJ/\psi K`$ analysis , and make use of the $`SU(2)`$ isospin symmetry of strong interactions to derive a model-independent parametrization of the $`B^+\varphi K^+`$, $`B_d^0\varphi K^0`$ decay amplitudes. After recapitulating the structure of the Standard-Model amplitudes, we include new-physics effects in a general manner, and estimate their generic size with the help of arguments borrowed from the picture of effective field theory. In order to deal with hadronic matrix elements, we impose certain dynamical hierarchies of decay amplitudes, where we distinguish between small and large rescattering effects. Although we do not consider the latter case, which is also not favoured by the “QCD factorization” approach  and the present experimental upper bounds on $`BKK`$ branching ratios , as a very likely scenario,111Arguments against this possibility, i.e. large rescattering effects, were also given in . it deserves careful attention to separate possible new-physics effects from those of the Standard Model. Moreover, following the strategies proposed below, we may not only obtain insights into new physics, but also into hadron dynamics. To this end, we introduce – in addition to the usual mixing-induced CP asymmetry in $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$ – a set of three observables, providing “smoking-gun” signals for new-physics contributions to different isospin channels. Two of these new-physics observables may be significantly enhanced by large rescattering processes. In general, the $`B\varphi K`$ system offers powerful tools to search for new physics. However, there is also an unfortunate case, where such effects cannot be disentangled from those of the Standard Model.

The outline of this paper is as follows: in Section 2, we employ a low-energy effective Hamiltonian and the isospin symmetry of strong interactions to parametrize the $`B^\pm \varphi K^\pm `$, $`B_d\varphi K_\mathrm{S}`$ decay amplitudes arising within the Standard Model. The impact of new physics on these amplitudes is explored in a model-independent way in Section 3, where we make use of dimensional estimates following from effective field theory, and introduce plausible dynamical hierarchies of amplitudes. The set of observables to search for “smoking-gun” signals of new-physics contributions to different isospin channels of the $`B\varphi K`$ decay amplitudes is introduced in Section 4, and is discussed in further detail in Section 5. In Section 6, our conclusions are summarized.

## 2 Phenomenology of $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ Decays

The $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system is described by the following low-energy effective Hamiltonian:

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
where the $`𝓠`$ are linear combinations of perturbative Wilson coefficient functions and four-quark operators, consisting of current–current (CC), QCD penguin and EW penguin operators. As discussed in , this Hamiltonian is a combination of isospin $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces:

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
where $`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ receives contributions from all of the operators appearing in (2), whereas $`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is due to only $`𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒖`$ and $`𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}`$. If we employ the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isospin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, we obtain

$`\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ (4)
$`\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{|}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{|}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$ (5)
yielding

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(6)
$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{+}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(7)
where the CP-conserving strong amplitudes222The labels of $`𝒜^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒜^{(1)}`$ refer to the isospin channels $`I=0`$ and $`I=1`$, respectively.

$$𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}$$
(8)
$$𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}$$
(9)
can be expressed in terms of hadronic matrix elements $`\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{|}𝓠\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}`$. Taking into account that

$$𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}𝑨𝑹_𝒃𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{,}$$
(10)
where $`𝜸`$ is the usual angle of the unitarity triangle of the CKM matrix , and

$$𝝀\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.81}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝝀𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.41}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{,}$$
(11)
we finally arrive at

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left\{}\frac{𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}{𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right\}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(12)
$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left\{}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left\{}\frac{𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}{𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right\}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(13)
At first sight, expressions (12) and (13) are completely analogous to the ones for the $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ amplitudes given in . However, the dynamics, which is encoded in the strong amplitudes $`𝓐`$, is very different. In particular, the current–current operators $`𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄`$ cannot contribute to $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays, i.e. to $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄`$, through tree-diagram-like topologies; they may only do so through penguin topologies with internal charm-quark exchanges, which include also

$$𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{+}\overline{𝑫^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝑫_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(14)
rescattering processes , and may actually play an important role . On the other hand, the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ amplitudes receive contributions from penguin processes with internal up- and down-quark exchanges, as well as from annihilation topologies.333Note that the isospin projection operators $`𝒬(\overline{u}u\pm \overline{d}d)(\overline{b}s)`$ involve also $`\overline{d}d`$ quark currents. Such penguins may also be important, in particular in the presence of large rescattering processes ; a similar comment applies to annihilation topologies. In the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system, the relevant rescattering processes are

$$𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(15)
containing – in addition to long-distance penguins – also annihilation processes (see Figs. 1 and 2). In contrast to (14), large rescattering effects of the kind described by (15) may affect the search for new physics with $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays, since these processes are associated with the weak phase factor $`𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}`$. Moreover, they involve “light” intermediate states, and are hence expected to be enhanced more easily, dynamically, through long-distance effects than (14), which involve “heavy” intermediate states.

As is well known, the $`\mathit{\varphi }`$-meson is an almost pure $`\overline{𝒔}𝒔`$ state; the mixing angle with its isoscalar partner $`𝝎\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is small, i.e. at the few per cent level. Whereas $`𝝎`$$`\mathit{\varphi }`$ mixing does not at all affect the isospin relations (4) and (5), which rely on the fact that the $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is an isospin singlet, it has an impact on the size of the amplitudes $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^{𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$, since an $`𝝎`$ component of the $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ state permits current–current operator contributions through tree-diagram-like topologies. However, the arguments given below are not modified by the small $`𝝎`$$`\mathit{\varphi }`$ mixing.

Let us now have a closer look at the structure of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decay amplitudes, focusing first on the case corresponding to small rescattering effects. Looking at (8) and (9), we expect

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
In the case of the amplitude $`𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$, the situation is different. Here we have to deal with an amplitude that is essentially due to EW penguins. Moreover, the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ matrix elements of $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators, having the general flavour structure

$$𝓠_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(17)
are expected to suffer from a dynamical suppression. In order to keep track of these features, we introduce, as in , a “generic” expansion parameter $`\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}`$ , which is of the same order as the Wolfenstein parameter $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}`$, and suggests

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐬}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\times }\underset{\mathrm{𝐃𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(18)
Consequently, we obtain

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(19)
with

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(20)
The terms entering (19) at the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ level contain also pieces that are proportional to the weak-phase factor $`𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}`$, thereby leading to direct CP violation in the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system.

Let us now consider large rescattering effects of the kind given in (15). In the worst case, (16) would be dynamically enhanced as

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝓐_𝒖^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(21)
and the dynamical suppression in (18) would no longer be effective, i.e.

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝓐_𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(22)
In such a scenario, (19) would receive corrections of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$, involving also $`𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}`$. This feature may complicate the search for new physics with the help of CP-violating effects in $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays. On the other hand, the rescattering processes described by (14) may only affect the amplitude $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ sizeably through its $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂}}^𝒄`$ piece, and are not related to a CP-violating weak-phase factor within the Standard Model.

Before turning to new physics, we would like to point out an interesting difference between the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system and the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ decays discussed in . In the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ case, the Standard-Model amplitudes corresponding to (19) receive corrections at the $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ level, which may be enhanced to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in the presence of large rescattering effects. Consequently, within the Standard Model, there may be direct CP-violating effects in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ transitions of at most $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, whereas such asymmetries may already arise at the $`\overline{𝝀}`$ level in the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system. On the other hand, as $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ modes are governed by penguin processes, their decay amplitudes are more sensitive to new physics. In the next section, we have a closer look at the generic size of such effects, using dimensional arguments inspired by effective field theory.

## 3 Effects of Physics Beyond the Standard Model

The most general way of introducing new physics is to employ the picture of effective field theory, where we write down all possible dim-6 operators and construct the generalization of the Standard-Model effective Hamiltonian (2) at the scale of the $`𝒃`$ quark. The relevant operators are again dim-6 operators, where the Wilson coefficients of those already present in the Standard Model now contain also a possible piece of new physics. The problem with this generic point of view is that the list of possible dim-6 operators contains close to one hundred entries , not yet taking into account the flavour structure, making this general approach almost useless. However, as we are dealing with non-leptonic decays in which, because of our ignorance of the hadronic matrix elements, there is no senistivity neither to the helicity structure of the operators nor to their colour structure, only the flavour structure of the operators is relevant for us.

A discussion of the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}`$ operators mediating $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing within this framework was given in . For a characteristic new-physics scale $`𝚲`$ in the TeV regime, new-physics contributions could in principle be as large as those of the Standard Model. This well-known feature was also found in several model-dependent studies of physics beyond the Standard Model . As far as CP violation is concerned, new-physics contributions involving also new CP-violating phases are of particular interest. In this case, not only the “strength” of $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing is affected, which would manifest itself as an inconsistency in the usual “standard analysis” of the unitarity triangle , but also “mixing-induced” CP-violating asymmetries , arising, for instance, in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ or $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$ decays.

Let us now turn to the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ amplitudes. As in (3), also in the presence of new physics, the corresponding low-energy effective Hamiltonian can be decomposed into $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces, where the new physics may affect the Wilson coefficients and may introduce new dim-6 operators, thereby modifying (19) as follows:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (23)
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋}{\mathbf{}}}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (24)
Here $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ correspond to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ pieces, respectively, $`𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ are CP-conserving strong phases, and $`𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}`$ the corresponding CP-violating weak phases. The amplitudes for the CP-conjugate processes can be obtained straightforwardly from (23) and (24) by reversing the signs of the weak phases. The labels $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒋`$ distinguish between different new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sectors.

As we have already noted, within the Standard Model, $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays are governed by QCD penguins. Neglecting, for simplicity, EW penguins and the proper renormalization-group evolution, we may write

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝓒\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(25)
where $`𝓒\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is a perturbative short-distance coefficient, which is multiplied by the characteristic loop factor $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝑷_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ denotes an appropriate linear combination of QCD penguin operators . Since (25) is a doubly Cabibbo-suppressed loop amplitude, new physics could well be of the same order of magnitude. If we assume that the physics beyond the Standard Model is associated with a scale $`𝚲`$ and impose that it yields contributions to the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ amplitudes of the same size as the Standard Model, we obtain

$$\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑮_𝐅}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝓒\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(26)
corresponding to $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ TeV.444In our numerical estimate, we have assumed $`A\times 𝒞1`$ and $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(m_b)0.2`$. Consequently, for a generic new-physics scale in the TeV regime, which was also considered in our $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ analysis , we may have

$$𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(27)
In the case where the new-physics effects are less pronounced, it may be difficult to disentangle them from the Standard-Model contributions. We shall come back to this issue in Section 5, where we shall discuss various scenarios.

Concerning possible new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector, we assume a “generic strength” of the corresponding operators similar to (26). However, since the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators have the general flavour structure given in (17), they are expected to suffer from a dynamical suppression in $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays. As in (18), we assume that this brings a factor of $`\overline{𝝀}`$ into the game, yielding

$$𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(28)
If we impose such a hierarchy of amplitudes, the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector would be enhanced by a factor of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$ with respect to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Standard-Model pieces. This may actually be the case if new physics shows up, for example, in EW penguin processes.

Consequently, we finally arrive at

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(29)
In deriving this expression, we have assumed that the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays are not affected by rescattering effects. On the other hand, in the presence of large rescattering processes of the kind described by (15), the dynamical suppression assumed in (28) would no longer be effective, thereby yielding $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Analogously, the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ matrix elements of $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators with flavour structure

$$𝓠_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{,}\overline{𝒅}𝒅}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒅}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}$$
(30)
would no longer be suppressed with respect to those of the dynamically favoured $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators

$$𝓠_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\overline{𝒔}𝒔}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(31)
and would also contribute to $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$ at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. A similar comment applies to the matrix elements of the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators with the following flavour content:

$$𝓠_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\overline{𝒄}𝒄}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(32)
whose dynamical suppression in $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays may be reduced through rescattering effects of the kind given in (14), which may also affect the $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ amplitude, as we have noted above. Consequently, in the presence of large rescattering effects, the decay amplitude (29) is modified as follows:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐬}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐫𝐞𝐬}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(33)
Let us emphasize once again that the rescattering contributions to the prefactor on the right-hand side of this equation are due to (14), whereas the hierarchy in square brackets is governed by large rescattering processes of the type described by (15).

In the following section, we introduce a set of observables, allowing us to separate the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ contributions from the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector. These observables play a key role to search for new physics and to obtain, moreover, valuable insights into the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ hadron dynamics.

## 4 Observables of $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ Decays

The decays $`𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and their charge conjugates are described by four decay amplitudes $`𝑨_𝒊`$. If the corresponding rates are measured, the $`\mathbf{|}𝑨_𝒊\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can be extracted. Since we are not interested in the overall normalization $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$ of these amplitudes, we may construct the following three independent observables with the help of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑨_𝒊\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$:

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(34)
$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(35)
$$𝓑\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}$$
(36)
where the “CP-averaged” amplitudes are defined in the usual way:

$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (37)
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (38)
It should be noted that $`𝓑`$ is a CP-conserving quantity. In the case of the neutral decay $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$, interference between $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing and decay processes yields an additional observable :

$$\frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(39)
where the “direct” CP-violating contribution $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}`$ was already introduced in (35), and the “mixing-induced” CP asymmetry is given by

$$𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\text{Im}𝝃}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝝃\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(40)
with

$$𝝃\mathbf{=}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊\mathit{\varphi }}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒌𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒋𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒌𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{+}𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}_𝒋𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{+}𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(41)
Here (24) was used to parametrize the decay amplitudes. The CP-violating phase $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ is given by $`\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$, where $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝐌`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑲`$ are the weak $`𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing phases, respectively.

As in our analysis of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ system , it is useful to introduce the following combinations of the observables (34) and (35):

$$𝓢\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{+}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}𝓓\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(42)
The interesting feature of these combinations is that $`𝓢`$ is governed by the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ pieces of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ amplitudes, whereas $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ are proportional to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ amplitudes.

As the general expressions are very complicated and not very instructive, let us focus on the simplified case where the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sectors involve either the same weak or strong phases:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (43)
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒆^{𝒊𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}}𝒆^{𝒊𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (44)
Then we obtain

$`𝓢`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂𝒄\mathbf{}𝒃𝒅𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (45)
$`𝓓`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒃𝒄\mathbf{}𝒂𝒅}{𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (46)
$`𝓑`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅}{𝒄}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$ (47)
with

$`𝒂`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (48)
$`𝒃`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ (49)
$`𝒄`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (50)
$`𝒅`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (51)
Let us finally give the expression for the mixing-induced CP asymmetry (40):

$$𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{𝒛}{𝒏}\mathbf{,}$$
(52)
where

$`𝒛`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left[}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }`$ (53)
$`\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{+}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}`$
and

$`𝒏`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (54)
$`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚫_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$
## 5 Discussion

Because of large uncertainties, the data on $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays that are available at present from the Belle and CLEO collaborations (see (1)) do not allow us to speculate on new physics. However, the experimental situation should significantly improve in the next couple of years. In this section, we discuss various patterns of the observables $`𝓢`$, $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ introduced above that may shed light both on new physics and on the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ hadron dynamics.

An interesting probe for new physics is of course also provided by the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$ channel, which can be compared with the one of the “gold-plated” mode $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$ . Using the expression for $`𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ given in , the parametrization for $`𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ given in (52), and the hierarchy arising in (29), we obtain

$$𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓐_{\text{CP}}^{\text{mix}}\mathbf{(}𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(55)
where the $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }`$ terms, which may deviate from the Standard-Model expectation , cancel. The contributions entering at the $`\overline{𝝀}`$ and $`\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ levels may also contain new-physics effects from $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$, whereas the $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ term would essentially be due to new physics in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$.

In order to disentangle the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ isospin sectors, the observables $`𝓢`$, $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ play a key role. As can be seen in (45)–(47), $`𝓢`$ provides a “smoking-gun” signal for new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ amplitude, whereas $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ probe new-physics effects in the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector. Using the hierarchy arising in (29), we obtain

$$𝓢\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{,}𝓓\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(56)
where the Standard-Model contributions are not under theoretical control. If the dynamical suppression of the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ contributions were larger than $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ would be further suppressed with respect to $`𝓢`$. On the other hand, if the rescattering effects described by (15) were very large – and not small, as assumed in (56) – all observables would be of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. In such a situation, we would not only have signals for physics beyond the Standard Model, but also for large rescattering processes.

The discussion given above corresponds to the most optimistic scenario concerning the generic strength of the new-physics effects in the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system. Let us now consider a more pessimistic case, where the new-physics contributions are smaller by a factor of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}`$:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}\underset{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}{\underset{\mathbf{}}{𝓞\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝀}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(57)
Now the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ sector can no longer be separated from the Standard-Model contributions. However, we would still get an interesting pattern for the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ observables, providing evidence for new physics: whereas (55) and $`𝓢`$ would both be sizeable, i.e. of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ and within reach of the $`𝑩`$-factories, $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$ would be strongly suppressed. However, if these two observables, in addition to (55) and $`𝓢`$, are found to be also at the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ level, new physics cannot be distinguished from Standard-Model contributions, which could also be enhanced to the $`\overline{𝝀}`$ level by large rescattering effects. This would be the most unfortunate case for the search of new-physics contributions to the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decay amplitudes. An analogous discussion of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$ system was given in .

## 6 Summary

The decays $`𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲^\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$ offer an interesting probe to search for physics beyond the Standard Model. Using estimates borrowed from effective field theory, we have explored the impact of new physics on the $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ system in a model-independent manner, and have derived parametrizations of the corresponding decay amplitudes, which rely only on the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ isospin symmetry of strong interactions. We have introduced – in addition to the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of the $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$ channel – a set of three observables, providing the full picture of possible new-physics effects in $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays. In particular, these observables allow us to separate the new-physics contributions to the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ isospin sectors, and offer, moreover, valuable insights into hadron dynamics. Imposing dynamical hierarchies of amplitudes, we have discussed various patterns of these observables, including also scenarios corresponding to small and large rescattering effects. We find that $`𝑩\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲`$ decays may provide, in general, powerful “smoking-gun” signals for new physics. However, there is also an unfortunate case, where such effects cannot be distinguished from those of the Standard Model. We strongly encourage our experimental colleagues to focus not only on the measurement of the mixing-induced CP asymmetries in $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝑲_𝐒`$ and $`𝑩_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝐒`$, but also on the observables $`𝓢`$, $`𝓓`$ and $`𝓑`$. Hopefully, these will yield evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model.

## Acknowledgements

The work of T.M. is supported by the DFG Graduiertenkolleg “Elementarteilchenphysik an Beschleunigern”, by the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte Carlo Simulationen”, and by the “Ministerium für Bildung und Forschung” (bmb+f).