9 Comparison with present data

truecm

We can analyse the data at different levels, according to whether CPT symmetry and the rule are kept exact or released in the semileptonic transitions. Exact CPT and the rule are assumed by Barmin et al. [6], who adopt what we have called Scheme I, while Buchanan et al. [1] adopt Scheme II. We illustrate in detail, in this Section, the results in the Scheme I, and will comment, in the next Section, on the impact of DANE on the complex of Kaon parameters in Schemes II and III. truecm

Data [13]:

truecm

Analysis:

The smallness of implies that is very close to and :

With the most recent analysis of the data there is no indication of a possible CPT-violating difference between and . With the superweak phase, Eq. (8.8), we have:

Since is at right angle with respect to , see Fig. 2, the above result translates into:

In Scheme I, the K lepton asymmetry, Eq. (9.3), already allows a separate determination of and . From (9.3) we get:

whence:

Since, as we saw:

we find at once:

and:

Note that this result is still more precise than the direct measurement of CP-LEAR [24] quoted in (9.3).

Using Eq. (8.6), we find a limit to the CPT-violating mass difference, M-M:

A last possible CPT test is given by the phase of /. As seen from Eq. (4.12), the phase of / is made of two components:

A precise measurement of the real and imaginary parts of / allows, in principle, a determination of the CPT violating phase, . The smallness of , Eq. (9.4), implies , so that we can obtain anyway an interesting bound to the CPT violating part of /. In formulae, from Eqs. (4.9), (4.10) and (4.12), one finds:

so that:

Note that the error of the strong interaction phase drops out in first order, because .

It will be difficult to make this into a much more precise test. DANE can produce, anyway, a substantial improvement on the determination of Im(/) and of the strong interaction phase.