Past exam of the particle physics course of the University of Oxford / 2018 / 3 / c

Starting with an antikaon instead givesThusThis factored form assumes $A_f,{\bar{A}}_f\ne 0$; otherwise use the preceding probability amplitude. The three mechanisms are separated below. Comparisons for distinct final states must pair $f$ with its CP conjugate $\bar{f}$.

Direct CP violation means unequal magnitudes of CP-conjugate decay probability amplitudes:It changes decay probabilities even at $t=0$, before any mixing. For a common CP eigenstate final state, this reduces to $|A_f|\ne |{\bar{A}}_f|$. Usually it requires interfering decay contributions with different weak phases and different strong phases; it is not equivalent to a nonzero weak phase in one isolated probability amplitude.

CP violation in mixing occurs whenThe flavour-transition probabilities are proportional to $|q/p{|}^2|g_{-}{|}^2$ for $K^0\to {\bar{K}}^0$, and $|p/q{|}^2|g_{-}{|}^2$ for the reverse. Their inequality remains when decay probability amplitudes themselves conserve CP. The coefficients multiplying the mixed-decay terms in the rate equations encode this asymmetry.

Interference CP violation concerns the relative phase between direct decay and decay after mixing. For a common CP eigenstate final state, it can occur with both $|q/p|=1$ and $|{\bar{A}}_f/A_f|=1$, so neither of the first two mechanisms is needed. In that limit $|\lambda |=1$, butproduces different interference terms for $\lambda$ and ${\lambda }^{-1}={\lambda }^{\ast }$. With $\Delta m=m_h-m_{\ell }$,The term proportional to $\mathrm{Im}\lambda \sin (\Delta mt)$ consequently reverses sign. In the CP-conserving limit, $\lambda$ is the real CP parity of the final state in a consistent phase convention. For non-CP-eigenstate final states, compare the full coefficients in CP-conjugate rates rather than imposing this simplified criterion.