A real CKM matrix?

Abstract

The hypothesis of a real Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix has been considered and found to be disfavoured by present measurements even when neglecting results from CP violation in neutral Kaon decay. This result contradicts statements reported in [1].

2000 CKM-triangle analysis a critical review with updated experimental inputs and theoretical parameters

“…As can be seen from Equation (19), there is neither a conceptual nor a formal distinction between the handling of x and h. Therefore, we can simply extend the notation to include in x the influence parameters responsible of the systematic uncertainty, and use Equation (17) in an extended way. This is what it has been actually done in the past to infer f (ρ,η) with the Monte Carlo integration method resulting from (18).…”

“…This also explains why methods based on χ 2 minimisation (for example refs. [16], [17] and [18]) can be considered as approximations of the one used in refs. [13], [14], [15] and [19].…”

Soft superweak CP violation and the strong CP puzzle

“…Checchia et. al [8] come to the opposite conclusion, but they assume that the new physics does not contribute significantly to the neutral B meson mass difference (see [5] we consider in this paper (figure 11), does not contribute to θ. The crucial difference is that in our models, the only potentially flavor-changing coupling of the right-handed quarks is the usual coupling to the charged Goldstone boson components of the Higgs doublet, or equivalently, to the longitudinal W s. As mentioned above, all diagrams with an external D R must have a factor of M D associated with the D R external line.…”

Review of LEP results

“…Recently it has been proposed to use the log-likelihood function Alog^°°(Am 5 ) referenced to its value obtained for Am 5 = 00 [13]. Similar considerations, developed in a different context, have been detailed in [14].…”

“…In [15] the % 2 has been modified ad hoc to solve the second problem: = 2-Erie ifirfc (13) Comparison of the two methods very different Likelihood functions. In particular the Modified % 2 method give a less tight constraint.…”