Consider a field theory given by the following Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{int}=y\overline{\psi_1}\psi_2\phi+y^*\overline{\psi}_2\psi_1\phi^\dagger$$ where $\phi$ is a complex scalar field, and $\psi_1,\psi_2$ are two different fermion fields. If the bosonic quanta of $\phi$ are represented by $B,\bar{B}$ and that of $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are respectively $f_1,\bar{f}_1$ and $f_2,\bar{f}_2$ (an overbar represents antiparticle). If the coupling is complex i.e., $y\neq y^*$, can the process $B\rightarrow f_1\bar{f}_2$ and its CP-conjugate $\bar{B}\rightarrow \bar{f}_1f_2$ have the same decay rate?

I have computed the tree-level decay rates for both the processes. But both the expressions contain $|y|^2$, and if we assume mass of the particle and antiparticle are the same, then the decay rates come out to be equal i.e., $\Gamma(B\rightarrow f_1\bar{f}_2)=\Gamma(\bar{B}\rightarrow \bar{f}_1f_2)$. This implies there is no CP-violation.

My questions are: (i) Can you say apriori whether this theory will be CP-violating or CP-conserving?

(ii) Is there a chance of CP-violation when higher order Feynman diagram contributions are taken into account?

(iii) Does the existence of a complex coupling $y$ guarantee that the theory will be CP-violating?

(iv) If this theory is CP-conserving, can someone provide an idea of minimally modifying this theory so as to incorporate CP-violation in decays(or scatterings) starting from a Lagrangian.


1 Answer 1


The phase of a single constant $y$ is unphysical and may be completely eliminated by the redefinition $$ y \to t\cdot \exp(i\alpha), \quad \phi\to \phi\cdot \exp(-i\alpha)$$ which doesn't change the Lagrangian and for a given $\alpha$, $y$ will be real positive. One could also get rid of the phase by transforming the fermions.

So there can't be a CP-violation in this simple theory; there's no CP-violation at any order. In fact, one needs at least three generations of quarks (or leptons) to produce the CP-violation in this way. Then the mass matrix (or Yukawa coupling matrix) may still be transformed by several phase transformations of this kind but they're no longer enough to map a generic $U(3)$ matrix to the real $O(3)$ form, and therefore a physical CP-violating phase remains in the CKM matrix.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Lubos, I think, there is a very minor typo in your first equation. You meant $y\to t e^{i\alpha}$ instead of $y\to y e^{i\alpha}$. I think. $\endgroup$
    – SRS
    Oct 29, 2018 at 14:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.