Volume 113B, number 5 PHYSICS LETTERS
S T R O N G B O U N D S ON W E A K C O U P L I N G S *
John F. DONOGHUE and Barry R. HOLSTEIN
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
Received 5 March 1982
Analysis of nonleptonic AS = 1 weak decays strongly restricts the possible size of right-handed weak couplings. Limits
thus obtained are competitive with those obtained via other means.
At present the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model
of the weak interactions accurately describes observed
weak phenomena [1]. However, there are several rea-
sons to suspect that the gauge structure of the electro-
weak interactions may well be richer than SU(2)L
X U(1), and that there may be new physics character-
ized by energy scales larger than M w. One attractive
possibility is that the weak interaction involves both
left-handed and right-handed components [2]. If it
exists, the right-handed vector boson W R must be
heavier than its left-handed counterpart W L .
Various previous workers have attempted to place
bounds on W R. One approach is to analyze the low-
energy neutral-current data using both sin20 w and
M(WR) ranging from 0.23 and 190 GeV to 0.28 and
150 GeV can satisfy the neutral-current data to within
1.5 o [31.
A second approach uses the analysis of precision
nuclear beta-decay and muon-decay experiments. Such
analyses have yielded [2,4]
M(WR) ~ 250 GeV.
Proposed new experiments in this area promise a sig-
nificant improvement in such limits, but these are
probably some time off.
Both of these approaches, however, assume the
existence of a right-handed neutrino which is massless
(or at least less massive than its left-handed counter-
part). However, in most grand unified theories [5],
Research supported in part by the National Science Founda-
tion.
382
1 July 1982
the right-handed neutrino is much heavier than PL,
which means that right-handed effects will not show
up in semileptonic or leptonic properties (except to
the extent that W L, W R are mixed). In this case then,
information relative to the mass of a right-handed
weak boson can arise only from the nonleptonic sector
Recent work by Forcrand has, for example, analyzed
the impact of right-handed interactions on the K L
- K s mass difference and has obtained a limit of [6]
MONR) ~ 200 GeV.
In this paper we wish to explore the bounds on the
mass and coupling of W R using weak AS = 1 nonlep-
tonic decays. Due to the difficulty of accurately de-
scribing nonleptonic transitions, we shall tend to be
somewhat conservative in our quoted results. Never-
theless some of the limits are surprisingly stringent.
We will treat a general SU(2)L X SU(2)R theory
with different W L and W R masses and mixings be-
tween the LH and RH bosons. In our formulae we dis-
play only the coupling of the light quarks, u, d, s, be-
cause that is all which we will need to use. The physi-
cal bosons (mass eigenstates) will be defined as
W 1 = W L cos ~"- W R sin ~',
W2 = W L sin ~"+ W R cos ~', (1)
where W L and W R are the weak interaction eigenstates
which couple to the LH and RH currents
J ~ = 2 -3/2 [cos 0L(fiO)L +sin 01LCOS0L(QS)L + ...l,
S~ = 2 -3/2 [cos 01R(fid)R + sin OR cos 0R(fiS)R + ...l, (2)
0 031-9163/82/0000-0000/$02.75 © 1982 North-Holland
Volume 113B, number 5 PHYSICS LET[ERS 1 July 1982

in the notation where that in O1L the strong interactions enhance both A I
= 1/2 and 3/2 equally.
(Sd)L =uTz(1 + 7 5 ) d , (~d)R -=uTu(1 - 7 5 ) d (3) Let us begin our analysis by examining the weak de-
and 0~, OR etc. are the various KM angles. Many such cays of K mesons. While it is very difficult to directly
left-right theories postulate an equality for the lefto calculate the nonleptonic transition amplitudes, one
handed and right-handed angles. However, we shall as- feature has a firm theoretical basis: PCAC should (and
sume arbitrary values, for generality. This leads to an does) accurately describe a connection between the
effective AS = 1 hamiltonian physical K -+ 3n and K -+ 2n decays [8]. The K -+ 3rr
amplitude and slope parameters are known to be accu-
Hw = GF 2 -1/2 [.(dU)L(fiS)L +~(dU)L(fis) R rately predicted in terms of measured K -+ 2n matrix
elements - both for A I = 1[2 and AI= 3/2 transitions
+ ,,,,(au)F:Os)t + 6(dU)R(fiS)R + ...1, (4) -- to an accuracy of roughly 10%. The critical ingredi-
where ent in this connection is the chiral structure of H w, in
particular
. = c o s oil cos o} (cos:h- + x sinh),
[F~S, Hwl = [Fv H w ] , i= 1,2,3 (9)
8 = cos st. cos (sin2 - + x c o s %
where F i, Fis are vector, axial charges. However, in the
presence of right-handed currents eq. (9) is no longer
= - c o s 0} sin 0, cos0 cos sin - x),
satisfied. For example,
7 = - c o s 01R sin 01L cos 0} cos ~"sin ~(1 - X), (5) IF 5 /-¢i(pc)1 = IF , H i(pv)l I a + a ~ + zxHi(pv)' (10)
3'"w J ~ 3 w J~,a-8]
with
where pc, pv indicates parity-conserving, -violating, re-
X = MOalL)2/M(WR )2.
spectively, and i = 1/2, 3/2 indicates the isotopic spin
In addition one needs to include the effects of component of H/w such that
short-distance strong-interaction corrections. For the
LL and RR operators these corrections are identical
nw = Hl/2w +Uaw/2" (11)
and are well known; however, an explicit form will We have then
not be needed. We will need the results of the LR and
H/w(Pv) = (GF/3N/~)
RL operators which have been given by Altarelli and
Maianl [7]. The result is × [(. _ i + (~ i (12)
8)OvA+A V -- 7 ) O A v _ V A ] ,
l ( K-O.12t31 +K+0.9602L) ' (6)
where
where
0112 = (2 du fis - flu ds + dd ds),
O1RL = _ } (du) R (us) L + } (dr A U)R (fit A S)L,
0 3/2 = (c~u fis + flu (Is - dd ~]s), (13)
O i L = 1 (dU)R (fiS)L. + G (d/A U)R (fi tA S)L, (7)
and the subscript VA -+ AV implies, e.g.
t A are the SU(3) color matrices normalized to
((]UfiS)VA+AV -----
dTuU fiyU75s + dTu75U tiTuS. (14)
tr(t A t B) = 28 AB '
Also, we note that
and
AHII2(p v) = --(GF/3V~ )
K = as(l GeV)/,s(Mw) ~ 4 -~ 7. (8)
X [403 + "J
~'a°3/2
~AV - VA + (/3 + 4T)O1/v2_VA]
A similar result holds with RL -~ LR. We may neglect
LR and RL "penguin-like" operators with virtual
zM_/3/2 (pv) = (GF/3.V~
heavy-quark loops because they will be purely AI
= 1/2 while we use only the & I = 3[2 pieces - note 1/2 .qA], (15)
X [(/3 - 2T)OI/v2_V A - 2(~ + 7)OAv

383
Volume 113B, number 5 PHYSICS LETTERS 1 July 1982

where we have neglected terms in N and 78.

The fact that AH / ~ 0 and 8/c( 4= 0 will lead to sig-
nificant violations of the PCAC relations between the
X [(4/3 + 67)(A + B) + 2/3(/1 - B)] K 0"96, (22)
K --> 2it and K ~ 3rr amplitudes. In order to see the ex-
tent of such violation, let us, e.g., examine the K0 where A, B are dynamical overlap integrals. (See ref.
-+ 31r0 decay amplitude in the limit of vanishing four- [9] for a complete definition of notation. For com-
momentum for one of the pions. Then pactness we quote A and B with all quark masses equal

(nq0xn0q2n~a[H/w(PC'IK0)q3-'; 2--F ((n~irrOq2 IH/w(PV)tK0)

to zero; however, in the numerics, we use m u = m d
= 0, m s = 330 MeV.)

A =~ N4 f d3r [f2(kr)-i~(kr)] 2,
X ( - ~ + 6 ~+ 2 ( , 0 rr0 Ikd-/!(PV)lK0)l (16)
\a-a] vl v2 " ~ 1"
In order that PCAC work to ~10% for bothttlw/2 , B= N4 f d3r [2Jo(kr)Jl(kr)] 2 (23)
H3w/2independently we require that 47rR3
Inserting numbers and using K = 4 (7), we find that
12~/,~1g0.1, (17)
eqs. (18), (22) implies
and
/7 + 1.67 g 4 X 10 -4 (2 X 10-4). (24)
2(~.ottl frot/2 IAH~r,v)IKO)/<~.oL/I ~.oq2 IH~PV)IKO ) g0.1.
Other K -+ 37r modes will bound different combina-
(18)
tions of t3 and % However, there is some uncertainty
(The possibility of a conspiracy between the two ef- in this result, since eq. (18) was evaluated using a
fects - 6 and AH/, -- can be removed by considering quark model calculation for the numerator but an ex-
other K --*37r modes.) perimental number in the denominator. To be more
The first constraint clearly leads to conservative, we feel that the bounds on 13,7 should be
increased by a factor of two, and we will use K = 4,
18/o<1~ 0.05. (19)
yielding
The second is more difficult to evaluate. In order to
13, 7 g 8 X 10 - 4 . (25)
proceed, we utilize PCAC a second time in order to re-
late the amplitude for Orq01lrq02IO[K~), which we wish This bound is quite stringent, due to the combined ef-
to know, to an amplitude (frO1 [OIK°>, which is calcula- fects of small PCAC breaking, a small physical AI
ble via the MIT bag model. From eq. (18), the strong- = 3/2 amplitude, and an enhanced AI = 3/2 contribu-
est bound is obtained by using H3w/2(pc)because the tion of the LR and RL operators. Assuming the left-
physical AI= 3/2 matrix element is smaller than that handed and right-handed mixings to be similar, so that
of H 1/2(pc) by a factor of twenty or so. We need then cos 01 sin 01 cos 03 ~ 0.2 (26)
rr rr0 [AH3/2(Pv) K0~
ql q2 w k" for both, we find that the mixing angle ~"is rather
strongly constrained
q=-+0> -ff-~i(lr01 I IF5' AH3w/2(pv)] IKT), (20)
~"~ 0.004/(1 - X) -~ 0.004, (27)
with where the neglect of 7t on the right-hand side of eq.
(27) is a result of the constraint implied by eq. (19).
[F s, AH3/2(pv)] = GF/6XQ Again assuming rough equality of 01L, OR we have
(Sin2~" + COS2~X)/(COS2~" + sinZ~x) ~ X g 0.05, (28)
1/2
x [(513+ 6 v ) O ~ _ A A , (2/3 + 6V)Ow_AAI. (21) which implies
We can now take the bag model matrix elements [9],
M(WR) k 4M(WL) ~ 300 GeV. (29)
with the result

384
Volume 113B, number 5 PHYSICS LETTERS 1 July 1982

It is rather striking then that from this simple anal-

ysis of nonleptonic kaon decay, we have been able to
(hTr°lHwPVt_---°>+ 2-1/2(A~r-fHPVlZ- >
obtain limits on 2,, ~"much more stringent than pres-
= -(GF/Frr)X/3(A - B) (t3-3') ~ (4K-0'12 _K0.96)
ently attainable by sensitive semileptonic experiments.
In addition, eqs. (27), (28) are true independent of the
= ( 0 . 4 + 0 . 9 ) X 10 -8 (expt.). 0 1 ton'd)
size of the right-handed neutrino mass.
Having been so successful in the kaon sector it is In the P-wave amplitudes we use the baryon pole mod-
natural to proceed to nonleptonic hyperon decays, in el (see ref. [10]) to estimate the size of AI= 3/2 ef-
order to see if anything new can be gleaned. The case fects. This involves the baryon to baryon matrix ele-
ofhyperon nonleptonic decay is different from that ment of the weak hamiltonian. We find
of kaons, in that there are not two physical decay
(Nn0 IHwPClA) + 2-1/2(pzr- IHwPelA)
channels which can be related by use of PCAC. In the
absence of very reliable calculational tools we there-
fore do not know any way to restrict the paranleter 6. = (g/AmB)(1 - f ) !~a27
However, once again, the size of &l = 3/2 contribu-
= (0.27-+ 2.29) × 10 -7 (expt.)
tions due to the LR and RL pieces of the hamiltonian
may be used to bound/3 and 3'. Unfortunately we will
(p~r0 IHp ClZ+) + 2-1/2(NTr- IHPC IZ - )
see that the bounds will be rather weak due to cancel-
lations in the coefficients resulting from the strong-in-
- 2-1/2 (Nrr+ inwPC[Z+ ) ___(_g/AmB) (20/,v/-d)fa27
teraction corrections.
We proceed by direct calculation of the matrix ele-
= (3.10 + 2.14) X 10 - 7 ,
ments, in the MIT bag model, which should be reliable
to within a factor of two in the case of baryon transi-
(Arr01HwPCl--_0) + 2-1/2(ATr-IHwPC{-Z- )
tions. For S-waves we use PCAC to relate the physical
amplitudes to baryon to baryon matrix elements.
-- -(g/~mB)(1 - f ) ~'h7
(B'lrilHwl B) = (-i/F~)(B'I [F/5, H w ] [B). (30)
= -(4.81 -+ 2.76) X 10 -7 ,
We evaluate the commutator and calculate the matrix
element using the results of ref. [9]. We f'md where
(Nzr0IHPVIA) + 2-1/2(pTr- IHwPVlA) a27 = ~vc3- GF(13+ 3")(A + ~O) ½(4K -0"12 -K0"96).

=-(GF/F~r)X/~(A - T1B"~3)I.- 7 )gl."

l "4K-0 12"- K 096") Again let us inflate these bounds (at 90% confidence
level) by a factor of two to include possible uncertain-
= (1.4 -+ 0.4) X 10 -8 (expt.), ties. We then fred for K = 4 (7)
/3-3' ~< 1.1 (0.14)
(Prr0 IHPwVIZ +) + 2-~l/2(Nrr-[/-/PwVIZ - )
from the S waves and
= (GF/X/2 F ) (.4 +87B) (fl- 3') 7' (4K -0"12 - K 0"96) 3 + 7 ~< 5.0 (0.6)

= ( 2 . 6 + 1.1) X 10 - 8 (expt.), from the P waves.

Unfortunately the strong-interaction factors renders
(Nrr+ I/-/wPVlX+) these results possibly useless, as there is a large cancel-
lation occurring, i.e.
= (GF/Fn)2(A + { B ) ~ - 3') ½(4K -0"12 - K 0"96) {(4K -0"12 - K 0"96) = -0.13 -+ -1.10,

= (1.6 + 0.4) × 10 -8 (expt.), for values of K from 4 ~ 7. Unless we know K precise-

ly (impossible at present), the bounds are very weak.
(31) We have discussed the constraints on the masses and

385
Volume 113B, number 5 PHYSICS LETTERS
couplings o f right-handed weak bosons. The most strin-
gent bounds come from the deviations from PCAC pre-
dictions in K decays, both for A I = 1/2 and A I = 3/2.
In the limit of no mixing between WE and W R (sin ~"
= 0) eq. (19) requires
mWR ~> 300 GeV.
Eq. (24) is primarily a constraint on the mixing of WL
and W R. If the right-handed quark mixing angles are
equal to their left-handed counterparts, and mWR is
large, then eq. (24) implies
sin ~" < 0.004.
Note added. Following the completion o f this work
we received a copy o f a preprint by Bigi and Fr~re [1 I]
which uses similar ideas. However, their bound comes
only from hyperon decay, is based on factorization,
and does not include any limit on M(WR). Our work
on kaon decay provides a more stringent restriction.
386
1 July 1982
References
[1] G.H. Trilling, in: High energy physics-1980, eds.
L. Durand and L. Pondrom (AIP, New York, 1981)
p. 1139.
[2] M.A.B. Beg, R.V. Budny, R. Mohapatra and A. Sirlin,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1252.
[3] T.G. Rizzo and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46
(1981) 1315; Brookhaven preprint BNL-29397 (1981).
[4] B.R. Holstein and S.B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977)
2369.
[5] M. GeU-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 50 (1978) 721.
[6] P. de Forcrand, LBL preprint LBL-13594.
[7] G. AltareUi and L. Maiani, Phys. Lett. 52B (1974) 351.
[8] B. Holstein, Phys. Rev. 183 (1969) 1228;
Y. Nambu and Y. Hara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1976) 875;
C. Bouchiat and Ph. Meyer, Phys. Lett. 25B (1967) 282.
[9] J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowieh, W. Ponce and B.R. Holstein,
Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 186.
[10] R.E. Marshak, Riazuddin and C.P. Ryan, Theory of
weak interactions in particle physics (Wiley Interscience,
New York, 1969).
[11] I.I. Bigi and J.-M. Fr6re, preprint (1982).