1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: %% Am Schluss bibit -> bibitem um die expliziten referenzen wegzubekommen
4:
5: \usepackage{array}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage{amsmath} % roman hinzugefuegt
9: \usepackage{graphics,graphpap}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}
11: \usepackage{epstopdf}
12:
13: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}
14: \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}
15: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.6in}
16: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}
17: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
18:
19: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt}
20: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
21: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
22: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
23: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
24:
25: \newcommand{\qz}{(q z)}
26: \newcommand{\ub}{\bar u}
27: \newcommand{\quark}{\langle \bar q q\rangle}
28: \newcommand{\mixed}{\langle \bar q \sigma gG q\rangle}
29: \newcommand{\squark}{\langle \bar s s\rangle}
30: \newcommand{\smixed}{\langle \bar s \sigma gG s\rangle}
31: \newcommand{\gluon}{\left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,G^2\right\rangle}
32: %\newcommand{\eqref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
33:
34: %% Commands from Uraltsev & Bigi
35: \newcommand{\bibit}[1]{\bibitem{#1} \marginpar{\vspace*{.4cm}~~\tiny[#1]}}
36: %% \newcommand{\bibit}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}
37:
38: \def\simge{\mathrel{%
39: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
40:
41: \def\simle{\mathrel{
42: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
43:
44: \newcommand{\aver}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}
45:
46: \newcommand{\La}{\overline{\Lambda}}
47: \newcommand{\Si}{\overline{\Sigma}}
48: \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}
49: \newcommand{\mhad}{\mu_{\rm hadr}}
50:
51: \newcommand{\sigp}{\vec\sigma \vec\pi}
52:
53: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
54: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}
55: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
56: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}
57: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
58: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}
59: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
60: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,\mbox{MeV}}
61: \newcommand{\matel}[3]{\langle #1|#2|#3\rangle}
62: \newcommand{\state}[1]{|#1\rangle}
63: \newcommand{\astate}[1]{\langle #1|}
64: \newcommand{\ve}[1]{\vec{\bf #1}}
65: \newcommand{\dU}{{d_{\cal U}}}
66: \newcommand{\cU}{{\cal U}}
67:
68: \begin{document}
69:
70: %%%%%%%%%% Title page
71: \begin{titlepage}
72: \begin{flushright}\begin{tabular}{l}
73: IPPP/07/29\\
74: DCPT/07/58
75: \end{tabular}
76: \end{flushright}
77: \vskip1.5cm
78: \begin{center}
79: {\Large \bf \boldmath Unparticles at heavy flavour scales: \\ CP violating phenomena}
80: \vskip1.3cm {\sc
81: Roman Zwicky \footnote{Roman.Zwicky@durham.ac.uk}
82: \vskip0.5cm
83: {\em IPPP, Department of Physics,
84: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK}} \\
85: \vskip1.5cm
86:
87: {\em Version of \today}
88:
89: \vskip2cm
90:
91: {\large\bf Abstract:\\[8pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
92: Coupling the scale invariant unparticle sector to flavour physics and
93: assuming that it remains scale invariant we investigate its
94: consequences in heavy flavour physics.
95: A drastic feature of unparticle physics is an unusual phase leading
96: to novel CP violating phenomena.
97: We consider the CP asymmetry in the leptonic decay $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$
98: and the hadronic decay $B_d \to D^+D^-$, taking into account
99: constraints of branching ratios and time dependent CP asymmetries.
100: Generic plots are shown and it turns out that there exist parameters
101: for which the CP violation is maximal.
102: A prediction of a large CP asymmetry in $B_d \to D^+D^-$ is difficult to achieve in other models without contradicting the current data in other
103: channels.
104: % An enhanced $b \to d \bar c c $ gluonic penguin,
105: % which in principle could be an explanation,
106: % should already have shown up in $B \to (\pi\pi,KK)$.
107: The prediction of a CP asymmetry in leptonic decays, such as
108: $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$, is novel. We identify the CP compensating
109: mode due to the unparticles and show explicitly that it exactly
110: cancels the CP asymmetry of $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ as demanded
111: by CPT invariance.
112: Building up on earlier works we investigate the breaking of scale invaricance,
113: due to the coupling to the Higgs
114: and the size of the effects in the weak sector resorting to a dimensional analysis.
115: An enhancement is observed on the grounds
116: of the relevance of the
117: unparticle interaction operator as compared to the weak four-Fermi term.
118: }
119:
120: \vfill
121:
122: \end{center}
123: \end{titlepage}
124:
125: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
126: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
127:
128: \newpage
129:
130: \section{Introduction}
131:
132: The possibility of a non-trivial scale invariant sector,
133: weakly coupled to the Standard Model (SM),
134: was advocated by Georgi in \cite{Georgi1}.
135: A scale invariant theory does not contain degrees of freedom
136: with isolated masses\footnote{In the absence of a mass scale the only possible particle
137: candidates seem to be massless fields, but these have been shown to
138: be free fields \cite{mass0free}.}, unlike field theories used in
139: phenomenological particle physics.
140: % scale invariance "usually" implies conformal invariance
141: % Polyakov 1970
142: Georgi called the degrees of freedom of such a theory
143: "unparticles".
144:
145: A non-trivial scale invariant sector, i.e. non-vanishing coupling,
146: exhibits power-like scaling unlike the logarithmic scaling of QCD
147: at the perturbative or trivial ultraviolet fixed point.
148: The power-like scaling in Minkowski space seems to lead to curious phenomena.
149: For example, the phase space of an unparticle with scaling dimension $\dU$, which consists of the classical plus anomalous dimension, looks like a number of $\dU$ (possibly non-integer) massless
150: particles \cite{Georgi1}. This could lead to interesting
151: signals of missing energy. In a second paper \cite{Georgi2} Georgi
152: has pointed out that the unparticle propagator
153: has an unusual phase $e^{-i \dU \pi}/ \sin(\dU \pi)$ leading
154: to spectacular interference patterns.
155:
156: By parametrizing a variety of interactions, unparticle phenomena
157: were investigated at various energy scales and domains of
158: particle physics such as
159: electroweak physics \cite{e+e-}, \cite{FRS}, \cite{WW},
160: collider physics \cite{DY}, \cite{collider_lot}, \cite{unparticle_resonance} (the latter investigates the (pseudo)resonance structure due to unparticles), DIS \cite{DIS}, \cite{nuN} $B$, $D$-physics \cite{Upheno},
161: \cite{CPun} \cite{DDmix} \cite{BKnunu} \cite{CPun2}
162: , light flavour physics \cite{PP}, \cite{mudecay}
163: $g_\mu\!-\!2$ \cite{Upheno}, \cite{gm2}
164: lepton flavour violation \cite{LFV1},\cite{LFV2}, invisible decays
165: \cite{invisible}, cosmology \cite{cosmo} long-range interaction \cite{longrange} and gravity \cite{ungravity};
166: All studies are based on the assumption that the theory remains scale invariant until the respective energy domain.
167:
168: Papers addressing
169: questions of interpretation and the range of scale invariance
170: have appeared.
171: In an illuminating paper by Stephanov \cite{Stephanov}
172: the continuous spectrum of
173: the unparticle fields is discretized allowing for
174: interpretation in terms of the language of particle physics.
175: The authors of reference \cite{FRS} address the question of
176: the range of scale invariance.
177: In the case where the unparticle couples to the Higgs
178: vacuum expectation value (VEV) the latter will render
179: the theory non scale invariant.
180: This raises the question whether unparticle effects
181: are observable in low energy experiments.
182: A follow-up paper has appeared \cite{BFRS}, where it
183: is observed that higher dimensional operators can be
184: parametrically enhanced under certain conditions on the
185: scaling dimensions.
186: Moreover this paper contains
187: many physical applications and considers LEP-results to set bounds
188: on the effective suppression scale.
189:
190: At first sight it seems rather difficult to pursue an analysis
191: in low energy physics. The unparticle effects are parametrized in
192: terms of an effective field theory where no principle is (yet) known
193: to constrain the coefficients and a coupling to the Higgs VEV
194: would take the theory away from scale invariance.
195: On the other hand the novel phases could give rise
196: to such striking phenomena that an
197: investigation seems worthwhile.
198: Moreover we have adapted the analysis of Ref.~\cite{FRS}
199: to the weak sector and find that effects are possible if
200: the unparticle field couples weakly to the Higgs VEV.
201: The size of this coupling is not dictated by any principle
202: and we may therefore regard its smallness as a
203: working assumption.
204:
205:
206: In the specific model or parametrization used, the unparticle will play the role of the
207: $W$-boson or charged Higgs in flavour-changing decays.
208: It is well known that (time independent) CP violation manifests itself if
209: there are at least two amplitudes with different relative strong (CP-even) and weak (CP-odd) phases.
210: The phase of the unparticle propagator is CP-even and if we therefore allow for a different weak phase in the unparticle sector
211: the door is opened to novel CP violating phenomena.
212: Decays with one dominant weak amplitude seem particularly suitable,
213: since they do not exhibit sizable CP violation. Moreover
214: the unparticle should propagate at large heavy flavour energies
215: because of the breaking of scale invariance.
216:
217: We analyze leptonic decays of the type $B \to \tau \nu$, where the SM
218: and Beyond the Standard Models (BSM) do \emph{not}
219: predict a CP asymmetry and $B_d \to D^+ D^-$, which is further motivated by the unexpectedly large CP asymmetry measured by the Belle collaboration \cite{BelleDD}.
220: We shall also investigate how large the impact of unparticles can
221: be without conflicting with branching ratio and indirect CP asymmetry predictions.
222:
223: The paper is organized as follows.
224: In section \ref{sec:scenario} the scenario of the model is described
225: including our parametrization of the effective Lagrangian and
226: some general notation for CP violation is introduced.
227: In section \ref{sec:decay} the leptonic decay $B \to \tau \nu$
228: and $B_d \to D^+D^-$ are investigated followed by a
229: discussion of similar channels.
230: In section \ref{sec:cpt} we verify a constraint on
231: CP-violation from CPT-invariance; namely that the partial sum of particle
232: and antiparticle rates, with final states rescattering into each other,
233: are equal.
234: In section \ref{sec:dim}
235: we present the dimensional analysis of \cite{FRS} adpated
236: to a weak process. The paper ends with a summary and conclusions
237: in section \ref{sec:con}.
238:
239: In this paper we shall adopt $\Lambda_\cU = 1\,{\rm TeV}$
240: as the scale of the IR fixed point. It is not difficult to rescale
241: the results to a different scale, in the relevant places
242: $(\Lambda_\cU/1\,{\rm TeV})$ will be shown explicitly
243: in the formulae.
244:
245: \section{Scenario}
246: \label{sec:scenario}
247: According to \cite{Georgi1}, with slighly adapted notations from
248: \cite{FRS}, we shall imagine that at a very high energy scale $M_\cU \gg 1\,{\rm TeV}$ the particle world is described by the
249: standard model fields and a self interacting ultraviolet sector.
250: These two sectors interact with each other via heavy particles
251: of mass $M_\cU$.
252: The ultraviolet sector is supposed to
253: contain a non-trivial infrared (IR) fixed point.
254: An example mentioned in \cite{Georgi1} is the Banks-Zaks \cite{BZ},
255: perturbative type, fixed-point. Other examples are gauge theories
256: with fermions in higher dimensional representations which exhibit
257: near conformality, also known as walking. The phase diagram for
258: an arbitrary number of flavours and colours was given in \cite{HDR}
259: and preliminary lattice studies seem to confirm the theoretical
260: expectations \cite{HDRlattice}.
261: Below the scale $M_\cU$ the theory may be described by
262: non-renormalizable interactions
263: \begin{equation}
264: {\cal L}^{\rm eff} \sim
265: \frac{1}{M_\cU^{d_{UV}+(d_{\rm SM}-4) }} O_{\rm SM} O_{UV} \quad ,
266: \end{equation}
267: analogous to the four-Fermi interactions connecting the
268: lepton and quark families within the SM.
269: The ultraviolet theory flows into the IR fixed point
270: around some scale $\Lambda_\cU \sim 1\, {\rm TeV}$ which
271: will lead to new degrees of freedom called unparticles described
272: by operators $O_{\rm IR} \equiv O_\cU$.
273: Below the scale $\Lambda_\cU$ the theory may be described by an effective field theory in terms of the new degrees of freedom
274: \begin{equation}
275: \label{eq:effUn}
276: {\cal L}^{\rm eff} \sim \frac{\lambda}{\Lambda_\cU^{d_\cU+(d_{\rm SM}-4)}} O_{\rm SM} O_\cU
277: \end{equation}
278: with coupling $\lambda = c_\cU (\Lambda_\cU / M_\cU)^{d_{UV}+(d_{\rm SM}-4)}$ and matching coefficient $c_\cU$. Since we do not
279: have a concrete theory at hand $c_\cU$ will be a free parameter
280: to be constrained by experimental data.
281:
282: To make use of Lagrangians of the form \eqref{eq:effUn} it will
283: prove sufficient to know the coupling of an unparticle degree of
284: freedom with given momentum $P$ to its field operator for calculating
285: decays into unparticles. Moreover via the optical theorem or
286: dispersion relation it is possible to obtain the propagator and study interference effects, at the tree level, of unparticles and SM particles.
287: In this paper we are concentrating on the latter effect.
288:
289:
290: The propagator may be defined from its dispersion representation
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: \label{eq:dispersive}
293: \Delta_\cU (P^2) \equiv i \! \! \int_0^\infty d^4 x e^{i p\cdot x}
294: \matel{0}{T O_\cU(x) O^\dagger_\cU(0)}{0}
295: = \int_0^\infty \frac{ds}{\pi} \frac{{\rm Im}[\Delta_\cU(s)]}{s-P^2-i0} +
296: {\rm s.t.}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: where we have assumed that the unparticle state
299: $|P\rangle$ satisfies $P^2 \geq 0$ and $P_0 >0$.
300: The abbreviation s.t. stands for possible subtraction terms
301: associated to a possible non convergence in the
302: ultraviolet.
303: The imaginary part is given by
304: \begin{equation}
305: \label{eq:im}
306: {\rm Im}[\Delta_\cU(P^2)] = |\matel{0}{ O_\cU(0)}{P}|^2 = A_\dU (P^2)^{\dU-2} \,.
307: \end{equation}
308: The $P^2$ dependence is solely determined by the scaling property of
309: the operator $O_\cU$.
310: The factor $A_\dU$ is a priori an arbitrary normalization constant which has been chosen to be
311: \begin{equation}
312: \label{eq:adu}
313: A_\dU = 16 \pi^{5/2} \frac{\Gamma(\dU+1/2)}{\Gamma(\dU-1)\Gamma(2 \dU)}
314: \end{equation}
315: in reference \cite{Georgi1}.
316: It is the phase space volume of $\dU$ massless
317: particles. This choice was motivated by the fact that
318: \eqref{eq:im} exhibits the same functional behaviour
319: as $\dU$ massless particles. This together with the fact that unparticles would (presumably) escape particle detectors has led Georgi to point out \cite{Georgi1}:
320: "Unparticle stuff with scale dimension $\dU$ looks like a
321: non-integral number $\dU$ of invisible particles."
322: With \eqref{eq:im} the dispersive integral \eqref{eq:dispersive} is elementary:
323: \begin{equation}
324: \label{eq:prop}
325: \Delta_\cU(P^2) = \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)}\frac{1}{(-P^2-i0)^{2-\dU}}
326: \stackrel{P^2>0}{\to}
327: \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{e^{-i \dU \pi}}{(P^2)^{2-\dU}} \quad .
328: \end{equation}
329: We observe that the unusual phase, due to analtytic continuation to Minkowski space,
330: is due to the non-integral scaling dimension $\dU$.
331: It has been shown in \cite{Georgi2} that the discontinuity of the
332: propagator yields the imaginary part \eqref{eq:im}, which we have already implicitly assumed in the dispersion representation
333: \eqref{eq:dispersive}. The phase is accompanied by a term
334: $\sin(\dU \pi)$ in the denominator. In simple cases of direct CP asymmetries this term will cancel
335: and in more complicated cases it will partly cancel.
336: The cancelation of this term will play a crucial role when
337: we verify the the equality of partial rates of particles and antiparticles,
338: which is a consequence of CPT, in section \ref{sec:cpt}.
339: Plots of the function $A_\dU$ and $A_\dU/\sin(\dU \pi)$ can be found in the appendix \ref{app:adu}.
340:
341: A strong (CP-even) phase in a propagator appears
342: spectacular and is not an element of common models in particle physics. The phase factor
343: is due to dynamics in the unparticle or scale invariant sector.
344: The exactly solvable two-dimensional Thirring model, which
345: contains fermions with a current-current interaction term, is an example where the dynamical phase can be seen explicitly, c.f. appendix \ref{app:thirring}. The anomalous dimension is a function of the
346: coupling constant and assumes the free field value in the case where the
347: coupling is taken to zero. We would like to add that in the Thirring model, due to the fermion selection rule, the anomalous phase is
348: not so immediately observable.
349: It is also interesting to note that there is a connection between
350: the non-trivial phase and the causality structure.
351: The commutator of the unparticle field in the vacuum
352: is, c.f. appendix \ref{app:comm} Eq.~\eqref{eq:comm},
353: \begin{equation}
354: \matel{0}{[O_\cU(x),O_\cU(0)]}{0} = -i \,{\rm sign}(x_0) \theta(x^2) (x^2)^{-\dU} f(\dU) \,,
355: \end{equation}
356: where $f(\dU)$ is a function explicitly given in \eqref{eq:comm},
357: The commutator vanishes for space-like $x^2 < 0$ separation
358: and obeys causality.
359: For generic $\dU$ the support is inside the light cone which seems
360: in agreement with the spectrum $P^2 \geq 0$. For an integer value, $\dU = n$, the commutator behaves as $\sim \delta^{(n-1)}(x^2)$ and has support on the light cone only.
361: Note that in the latter case there is no CP-even phase in the unparticle
362: propagator.
363:
364: We shall now discuss the possible values of $\dU$.
365: In the upper range $\dU = 2$ is singled out,
366: since we observe that for $\dU \leq 2$ no subtraction terms are needed.
367: Moreover the singularity of $\dU$ approaching an integer value larger than $2$
368: has been interpreted in \cite{Georgi2} as the a $\dU$-particle cut which
369: should not be attempted to be described by a single unparticle field.
370: In the lower range the value $\dU = 1$ seems special since
371: it corresponds to the free massless field,
372: \begin{equation}
373: \label{eq:comm1}
374: \lim_{\dU \to 1} \Delta_\cU(P^2) = \frac{1}{P^2} \,.
375: \end{equation}
376: It is also observed that for $\dU \leq 1$ the dispersion
377: integral does not converge in the infrared. This might be interpreted by
378: the fact that the field decreases even slower than the free massless field in coordinate space. It has been shown that for $\dU < 1$ the conformal group does not admit unitary representations \cite{Mack}.
379: Moreover in reference
380: \cite{Georgi1} it was noted that the decay into an unparticle
381: has a non-integrable singularity in the decay rate for $\dU < 1$.
382: We shall therefore think of $\dU$ as being
383: \begin{equation}
384: \label{eq:d12}
385: 1 < \dU < 2
386: \end{equation}
387: or parametrising with repsect to the free field limit,
388: $\dU = 1 + \gamma$ with anamalous dimension
389: $0< \gamma < 1 $ at the non-trivial fixed point.
390:
391: \subsection{Parametrization of the effective Lagrangian}
392:
393: In this section we shall give our parametrisation of the
394: coupling of the unparticle sector to the SM.
395: We will investigate charged-flavour decays and therefore it is sufficient
396: to give the couplings to that sector.
397: We couple a vectorial unparticle operator $O_\cU$ to a
398: scalar and a pseudoscalar density.
399: The unparticle will therefore be a charged Lorentz-scalar and
400: play the role of a charged Higgs rather than a $W$-boson.
401: We parametrize the effective Lagrangian as
402: follows\footnote{The channel $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ is mediated by a
403: $(P\!\times\! S) + (P\!\times \!P)$ structure whereas
404: $B_d \to D^+ D^-$ decays via a $(S\! \times \!P)$ interaction. The vector and axial couplings are discussed in the text above and
405: we do not consider tensor couplings since they
406: do not couple to single scalar particles.}
407: \begin{eqnarray}
408: \label{eq:leff}
409: {\cal L}^{\rm eff} &=& \frac{\lambda_{S}^{ q' q}}{\Lambda_{\cal U}^{d_{\cal U}-1} } ( \bar q' q) \, O_{\cal U} \, +\,
410: \frac{\lambda_{S}^{\nu l}}{\Lambda_{\cal U}^{d_{\cal U}-1} } (\bar \nu l) \, O_{\cal U} \, \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
411: &+& \frac{\lambda_{P}^{ q' q}}{\Lambda_{\cal U}^{d_{\cal U}-1} } (\bar q'\gamma_5 q) \, O_{\cal U} \, +\,
412: \frac{\lambda_{P}^{\nu l}}{\Lambda_{\cal U}^{d_{\cal U}-1} } (\bar \nu
413: \gamma_5l) \, O_{\cal U} \, + \, {\rm h.c.} \,,
414: \end{eqnarray}
415: where $ q' = ( u, c, t)$, $q=(d,s,b)$,
416: $ \nu = (\nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau)$ and $l=(e,\mu,\tau)$ are summations over the families.
417: In the notation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:effUn}, $d_{\rm SM} = 3$.
418: The weak (CP-odd) phases are parametrized as deviation from the
419: phases of the CKM matrix $V_{\rm q'q}$ and analogously the
420: leptons as deviations from the PMNS matrix
421: $U_{ \nu l}$.
422: \begin{equation}
423: \lambda_{S}^{q'q} = e^{i \phi^S_{q'q}} | \lambda_{S}^{q'q} | \qquad
424: \phi^S_{q'q} = {\rm arg}[{V_{q'q}}] + \delta \phi^S_{q'q} \quad .
425: \end{equation}
426:
427:
428: The Lagrangian is a non vectorial copy of the charged current sector in the SM.
429: This allows us to apply up to some level the same tools in the unparticle sector
430: as in the SM. Note that the unparticle carries charge, unlike the Lagrangian
431: used in \cite{Georgi1}.
432:
433: We would like to stress that the Lagrangian in Eq.\eqref{eq:leff}, in the absence
434: of an explicit model realising the unparticle scenario, is not
435: dictated by any structure and is therefore only an example.
436: Other Dirac structures with the same flavour transitions are possible.
437: The axial and vector structures, for example, can be coupled to a
438: transversal unparticle $O^\mu_\cU$ ($\partial_\mu O_\cU^\mu=0)$ or to
439: a derivative coupling of a scalar unparticle $\partial^\mu O_\cU$
440: \begin{eqnarray}
441: \label{eq:leffpart}
442: \delta {\cal L}^{\rm eff} &=&
443: \frac{\lambda_{\partial(V,A)}^{q' q}}{\Lambda_\cU^\dU }
444: (\bar q' \gamma_\mu(\gamma_5) q) \, \partial^\mu O_{\cal U} +
445: \dots
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: The former leads to a propagator transversal propagator $\sim (-g_{\mu\nu} + p_\mu p_\nu/p^2)$ which vanishes by transversality when coupled to a pseudoscalar particle of momentum $p_\mu$, which is the case in the examples
448: considered in this paper.
449: The latter leads to an identical contribution as the scalar and pseudoscalar
450: contribution in the examples considered, $\lambda_{S,P} \leftrightarrow {\rm const} \cdot \lambda_{\partial (V,A)}$,
451: where $\lambda_{\partial (V,A)}$ is parametrically supressed by one
452: power of $\Lambda_\cU$ as compared to $\lambda_{S,P}$. We shall give
453: the results in terms of $\lambda_{S,P}$ in the paper but also indicate explicitly
454: how they change for a $\lambda_{\partial (V,A)}$-coupling.
455: Please note that although we have just stated that $\lambda_{S,P}$ and the
456: $\lambda_{\partial (V,A)}$ are equivalent in the examples considered,
457: their role in model building, in regard to $SU(2)_{ L}$ for example,
458: might be rather different since the former couples
459: fermions of opposite chirality whereas the latter couples fermions of the same
460: chirality.
461: %One might easily get into speculations about apparent
462: %charge violating events here. It might be that the coupling is not strong enough to
463: %have allowed for sufficient events, maybe those events were interpreted as not
464: %properly reconstructed or maybe the charged unparticle decays quickly into
465: %SM particles.
466:
467:
468: %The propagator of the transverse field $\partial_\mu O^\mu_\cU =0$
469: %is obtained from \eqref{eq:prop}
470: %\begin{equation}
471: %\Delta_\cU^{\mu\nu}(P) = (-g^{\mu\nu} + \frac{P^\mu P^\nu}{P^2} \Big)
472: %\Delta(P^2)
473: %\end{equation}
474: %up to the normalization which we will absorb into the
475: %Wilson coefficient.
476:
477: \subsection{General formulae for branching ratios and CP asymmetries}
478: \label{sec:genCP}
479:
480: In this section we shall give the formulae for the branching
481: ratio and CP asymmetries, used later on, in the case of
482: two amplitudes with different strong and weak phases.
483: This paragraph is completely general in principle, but we shall have
484: in mind that one amplitude is due the SM and the other is due
485: to the unparticles.
486: For a decay $\bar B \to C D$ we parametrize
487: \begin{equation}
488: \bar
489: {\cal A}(\bar B \to X) = A_1 e^{i\delta_1} e^{i\phi_1}
490: + A_2 e^{i\delta_2}e^{i\phi_2} \quad ,
491: \end{equation}
492: where the $\delta_i$ denote the CP-even phases and
493: $\phi_i$ the CP-odd phases. The branching ratio ${\cal B}$
494: and the CP averaged branching ratios are given by
495: \begin{equation}
496: {\cal B} = {\cal B}^{ 0} \, f_{\Delta}
497: \qquad {\cal \bar B} = {\cal B}^{0} \, \bar f_{\Delta} \,,
498: \end{equation}
499: where
500: \begin{eqnarray}
501: \label{eq:f}
502: {\cal B}^0 &=& \tau(\bar B) \frac{1}{16 \pi\, m_B^3}
503: \lambda^{1/2}(m_B^2,m_{C}^2, m_{D}^2)
504: |A_1|^2 \qquad \Delta = \frac{|A_2|^2}{|A_1|^2} \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
505: f_{\Delta} &=& (1+ 2 \Delta \cos(\phi_{12} + \delta_{12}) + \Delta^2) \nonumber \\
506: \bar f_{\Delta} &=& (1+ 2 \Delta \cos(\phi_{12} ) \cos(\delta_{12}) +\Delta^2)
507: \,,
508: \end{eqnarray}
509: and $\lambda(a,b,c) = a^2+b^2+c^2-2(ab+ac+bc)$, $\phi_{12} = \phi_1-\phi_2$ and
510: $\delta_{12} = \delta_1-\delta_2$.
511: In the case where the transitions
512: \begin{equation}
513: \label{eq:cond}
514: B \to C D \leftarrow \bar B
515: \end{equation}
516: are possible, the $B$-meson is neutral and the dynamical mixing of
517: $B_d$ and $\bar B_d$ leads to a time dependence in the CP asymmetry.
518: In the case where the coefficients $q$ and $p$, relating the flavour and
519: mass eigenstates of the neutral system, assume $|q/p| = 1$,
520: the lifetime difference $\Delta \Gamma / \Delta M \ll 1$ the
521: CP asymmetry assumes the following form
522: \begin{equation}
523: \label{eq:cpdef}
524: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}(B_d \to CD) \equiv
525: \frac{\Gamma[\bar B \to C D] -\Gamma[ B \to \bar C \bar D]}
526: {\Gamma[\bar B \to C D] + \Gamma[ B \to \bar C \bar D]} =
527: S_{CD} \sin(\Delta M t) - C_{CD} \cos(\Delta M t) \, .
528: \end{equation}
529: Both assumptions mentioned above are satisfied for the $B_d$ system. The sign convention is such that the $b \to c d$ decay
530: rate enters with a plus sign, please note $\bar B \equiv \bar B_0 \equiv \bar B_d \sim (b\bar d)$ \cite{PDG}.
531: Writing $q/p = e^{-i \phi_{d}}$, where $\phi_d = 2 \beta$ is the mixing phase of
532: the $B_d$ system, $\lambda = q/p ({\cal A}/ \bar {\cal A})$,
533: then the (time independent) CP asymmetry assumes the following form
534: \begin{equation}
535: \label{eq:C}
536: C = \frac{1-|\lambda|^2}{1+|\lambda|^2} = \frac{2 \Delta}{\bar f_\Delta} \sin(\delta_{12}) \sin(\phi_{12})
537: \quad .
538: \end{equation}
539: In the case where the system $C D$ is a CP eigenstate with eigenvalue $\xi_{CD}= \pm 1$ ,
540: which is a particular realization of \eqref{eq:cond},
541: the time dependent CP asymmetry assumes the following form
542: \begin{equation}
543: \label{eq:S}
544: S = \xi_{CD} \frac{2 {\rm Im}(\lambda)}{1+|\lambda|^2} = \xi_{CD} \frac{-1}{\bar f_\Delta} ( \sin(\phi_d + 2 \phi_1)
545: + 2 \Delta \cos(\delta_{12}) \sin( \phi_d + \phi_{12}) + \Delta^2 \sin(\phi_d + 2 \phi_2)) \,.
546: \end{equation}
547: For $B_d \to J/\Psi K_s$ $\xi_{J/\Psi K_s} = -1$, $\phi_1 \simeq 0$ and there is no sizable second amplitude in the SM
548: and therefore $\Delta \simeq 0$ and $\phi_{2} \to 0$ and
549: the gold plated formula $S_{J/\Psi K_s} = \sin(2 \beta)$ is recovered.
550:
551:
552: \section{A leptonic and a hadronic decay}
553: \label{sec:decay}
554:
555:
556: \subsection{$B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu $; scale invariant sector at $5\,{\rm GeV}$}
557:
558: In the standard model charged pseudoscalars decaying to a lepton and a neutrino
559: are of particular interest because of their simple dependence on the
560: pseudoscalar decay constant and the CKM matrix element, see below.
561:
562: The novel feature when adding unparticles is a CP asymmetry.
563: We will investigate how large this asymmetry can be, remaining consistent with the the branching ratio measurement
564:
565: Below we will give the decay amplitude for $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ for the SM and
566: the unparticle contribution with effective Lagrangian as given in \eqref{eq:leff}.
567:
568: The unparticle is propagating at the scale $m_B$ and we therefore assume
569: that the scale invariant sector extends down to the $m_B$ scale.
570: The SM and unparticle graphs are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:btau_feyn},
571: where we have indicated the phase.
572:
573: The additional unparticle amplitude leads to a slight complication.
574: As a matter of fact in experiment we do not observe the
575: neutrino flavour but an inclusive measurement on the neutrino
576: flavour is performed since the neutrinos are not detectable.
577: In the case where there is only one amplitude, as in the SM, unitarity of the PMNS matrix
578: hides this fact from the final formula. This is not the case for the unparticle amplitude
579: and we shall therefore derive formulae for
580: $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu \equiv \sum_l B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l$ via
581: $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l$. The amplitude is the sum of two incoherent terms of opposite parity in the final state\footnote{The amplitude \eqref{eq:ampBtaunu} displays the famous helicity supression
582: in the SM due to its chiral structure which manifests itself in the fact that the amplitude
583: is proportional to the lepton mass. For a pseudoscalar coupling, as in the charged Higgs
584: model, or the one used here, the helicity supression is relieved as can be inferred from Eq.~
585: \eqref{eq:deltatau}.
586: If we were to use a derivative coupling $\partial_\mu O$ to the axial vector
587: \eqref{eq:leffpart} instead of a pseudoscalar coupling as in \eqref{eq:leff}
588: then the following substitution, $m_B^2/(m_b m_\tau) \to m_B^2/\Lambda_\cU^2$, in Eq.~\eqref{eq:deltatau} would reproduce the result for the derivative coupling.}
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: \label{eq:ampBtaunu}
591: {\cal A}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l) &=& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{\rm ub}^*
592: U_{\tau \nu_l} \, f_B m_\tau \nonumber \cdot \\
593: & & \big( [\bar \nu \tau](1+ \Delta^S_{\tau\nu_l} e^{-i \dU \pi} e^{-i \phi^S_l})
594: + [\bar \nu \gamma_5 \tau](-1+ \Delta^P_{\tau\nu_l} e^{-i \dU \pi} e^{-i \phi^P_l}
595: ) \big) \,,
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: where $ \phi_l^D = \delta\phi^{P}_{\rm ub} - \delta\phi^{D}_{ \tau \nu_l}$ for $D = (S,P)$, $l = (e,\mu,\tau)$. The $B$-meson decay constant is defined as
598: $m_b\,\matel{0}{\bar b i\gamma_5 u}{B^+} = f_B m_B^2$ , where we neglect isospin breaking effects.
599: The ratio of unparticle to SM amplitude is
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: \label{eq:deltatau}
602: \Delta_{\tau\nu_l}^D &\equiv&
603: \frac{|\lambda_{D}^{\tau \nu_l }|}{|U_{\tau \nu_l}|} \tilde \Delta_{\tau \nu} \equiv
604: r_l^D \tilde \Delta_{\tau \nu} \nonumber \,, \\[0.1cm]
605: \tilde \Delta_{\tau \nu} &= &
606: \frac{|\lambda_{P}^{\rm ub}|}{|V_{\rm ub}|} \,
607: \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{m_B^2}{m_b m_\tau} \,
608: \frac{ (G_F/\sqrt{2})^{-1} }{m_B^2} \Big( \frac{m_B^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2} \Big)^{\dU-1} \,.
609: \end{eqnarray}
610: We will now make a simplifying assumption in order to
611: simplify the analyis.
612: We impose the left-handed chirality on the unparticle sector i.e.
613: $\lambda_S^{\tau\nu_l} = - \lambda_P^{\tau\nu_l}$ and
614: ($\Delta_{\tau \nu} \equiv \Delta_{\tau \nu}^{(S,P)}$,
615: $\delta\phi_{\tau \nu} \equiv \delta\phi_{\tau \nu}^{S}$, $r_l \equiv r_l^{(S,P)}$).
616: This means that
617: the amplitudes for opposite parity give the same result and this allows
618: us to combine the two amplitudes into one.
619: The branching fractions
620: to a specific neutrino flavour final state are
621: % and the CP asymmetry are are
622: \begin{eqnarray}
623: & & {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l) =
624: {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} \, |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2 f_{\Delta_{\tau\nu_l}} \qquad
625: \bar {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l) =
626: {\cal B}_{\tau \nu_l}^{\rm SM} \, |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2 \bar f_{\Delta_{\tau\nu_l}} \,,
627: \end{eqnarray}
628: with $f$ and $\bar f$ as in \eqref{eq:f}, $\phi_{12} = -\phi_l$, $\delta_{12} = -\dU \pi$.
629: % The quantities $S\!-\!P$ are defined as follows
630: %\begin{eqnarray}
631: %\lambda^{\tau \nu_l}_{S\!-\!P} \equiv |\lambda^{\tau \nu_l}_{S\!-\!P}|
632: %e^{- \delta \phi^{S\!-\!P}_{\tau \nu_l}} =
633: %\frac{1}{2}( |\lambda^{\tau \nu_l}_{S}|
634: %e^{- \delta \phi^{S}_{\tau \nu_l}} - |\lambda^{\tau \nu_l}_{P}|
635: %e^{- \delta \phi^{P}_{\tau \nu_l}} )
636: %\end{eqnarray}
637: %and $\Delta_{\tau\nu_l}^{S\!-\!P}$ and $\phi_l^{S\!-\!P}$ have already been
638: %defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:deltatau} and above in terms of
639: %$|\lambda^{\tau \nu_l}_{S\!-\!P}|$ and
640: %$ \delta \phi^{S\!-\!P}_{\tau \nu_l}$.
641: The familiar SM
642: branching fraction reads
643: \begin{equation}
644: \label{eq:SMBtaunu}
645: {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} = \tau(B^+) \, \frac{G_F^2}{8 \pi}\, |V_{\rm ub}|^2 f_B^2 \, m_B m_\tau^2 (1-\frac{m_\tau^2}{m_B^2})^2
646: \end{equation}
647: and does not depend on the neutrino flavour. Please note that in the SM ${\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} = \bar {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM}$.
648: The experimentally tractable or neutrino inclusive branching fraction is
649: \begin{eqnarray}
650: \label{eq:btau}
651: {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu) &=& \sum_l {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu_l)
652: \nonumber \\
653: & =& {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} \sum_l |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2
654: (1 + 2 r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi_l + \dU \pi) +
655: (r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu})^2) \nonumber \\
656: & = & {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} (1+ \sum_l |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2
657: ( 2 r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi_l + \dU \pi) +
658: (r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu})^2) \quad .
659: \end{eqnarray}
660: The formula could be further simplified if the $r_l$ were independent of $l$, which we shall assume shortly below.
661: The CP averaged branching fraction is
662: \begin{equation}
663: \label{eq:F}
664: \bar {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu) \equiv {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM} {\cal F} = {\cal B}_{\tau \nu}^{\rm SM}
665: (1+ \sum_l |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2
666: ( 2 r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi_l ) \cos(\dU \pi) +
667: (r_l \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu})^2)) \, .
668: \end{equation}
669: The CP asymmetry assumes the following form
670: \begin{equation}
671: \label{eq:acp}
672: {\cal A}_{\rm CP}(\tau \nu) \equiv
673: \frac{\Gamma(B^- \to \tau^- \bar \nu) -\Gamma(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu)}
674: {\Gamma(B^- \to \tau^- \bar \nu) +\Gamma(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu)} =
675: \frac{2 \tilde \Delta_{\tau\nu}}{\cal F} \sin(\dU \pi)
676: \sum_l \sin(\phi_l) r_l |U_{\tau \nu_l}|^2 \,,
677: \end{equation}
678: where ${\cal F}$ is implicitly defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:F}.
679: Let us note that the CP violation encountered here is
680: proportional to $\sim{\rm Im} [V_{\rm ub}^* \lambda_P^{\rm ub} U_{\tau \nu} \lambda_{S}^{\tau \nu \, *}]$,
681: which is hidden in the formula above,
682: and is the product of two quadratic reparametrization invariants.
683: The effect is entirely proportional to the sine of the phase difference
684: between the CKM (PMNS) and the unparticle flavour sector and can
685: therefore not occur in the SM.
686: \begin{figure}[h]
687: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{btau_fig.pdf}}
688: \caption{\small (left) SM diagram for $B \to \tau \nu$ (right) unparticle
689: diagram with CP odd phase $e^{i\dU\pi}$. The unparticle is denoted
690: by a double line.}
691: \label{fig:btau_feyn}
692: \end{figure}
693: In order to do a qualitative assessment we shall study the case where there is no flavour dependent
694: perturbation in the neutrino sector and therefore drop the label
695: $l$.
696: The formulae for the CP averaged branching ratio and the CP asymmetry then simplify to
697: \begin{eqnarray}
698: \label{eq:btau_analyze}
699: & & \bar {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu) \to {\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{\tau \nu}(1+
700: 2 \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi ) \cos(\dU \pi) +
701: \Delta_{\tau\nu}^2) \, \stackrel{\phi = \pm \pi/2} {\to} \, {\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{\tau \nu}(1+ \Delta_{\tau\nu}^2)
702: \nonumber \,,\\[0.1cm]
703: & & {\cal A}_{\rm CP}(\tau \nu) \to \frac{2 \Delta_{\tau\nu} \sin(\phi) \sin(\dU \pi) }{1+
704: 2 \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi ) \cos(\dU \pi) +
705: \Delta_{\tau\nu}^2} \,\stackrel{\phi = \pm \pi/2} {\to} \, \frac{\pm 2 |\Delta_{\tau\nu}| |\sin(\dU \pi)| }{1+
706: \Delta_{\tau\nu}^2} \quad ,
707: \end{eqnarray}
708: where in the last step we have simplified the formulae further by setting the weak
709: phase difference to $90(270)^\circ\,$\footnote{N.B. $\sin(\dU \pi) < 0$ for $1 <\dU < 2$ as assumed throughout this paper \eqref{eq:d12}.
710: This is the reason for the absolute values in the equation above.}.
711: N.B. in the notation used in Eq.~\eqref{eq:acp}
712: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}(\tau \nu) = -C_{\tau\nu}$.
713: This choice maximizes the CP violation for appropriate values for
714: $\Delta_{\nu l}$.
715: Before we are able to constrain the CP violation with the rate we have to
716: give the theoretical and experimental results of the latter.
717:
718: The following hadronic parameters,
719: $\tau^{B^+} = 1.643 \,{\rm ps}$, $f_B = (189 \pm 27) \,{\rm MeV}$ a lattice average from
720: \cite{UTfit} and $|V_{ub}| = 3.64(24) \cdot 10^{-3}$ from the fit to the angles of the
721: CKM triangle \cite{UTfit}, are used to estimate the SM branching fraction
722: \begin{equation}
723: \label{eq:btau_theory}
724: {\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu)^{\rm SM}_{\rm theory} = 83(40) \cdot 10^{-6} \, .
725: \end{equation}
726: We have doubled the uncertainty due to $|V_{\rm ub}|$.
727: This estimate has to be compared with the measurements at the $B$-factories
728:
729:
730: \begin{equation}
731: \label{eq:btau_exp}
732: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
733: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{9pt}
734: \begin{array}{l | r | r | r | r | }
735: {\rm units}\, 10^{-6} & \bar{\cal B}(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu ) \\
736: \hline
737: {\rm BaBar}\cite{BaBarBtaunu} (223{\rm M\, BB}) & 90(60)(10) \\
738: {\rm Belle} \cite{BelleBtaunu}(449{\rm M\, BB}) & 179(53)(48) \\
739: \hline
740: {\rm HFAG} \cite{HFAG} & 132(49) \quad .
741: \end{array}
742: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
743: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-9pt}
744: \end{equation}
745:
746:
747:
748:
749: \subsubsection*{Weak phase $\phi = 90(270)^\circ$, flavour independent perturbation neutrino sector}
750:
751:
752: \begin{figure}[h]
753: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3in]{btaubr.pdf},
754: \includegraphics[width=3in]{btauCP.pdf}
755: }
756: \caption{\small A weak phase difference $\phi = 90(270)^\circ$ is assumed here
757: for $\Delta_{\nu\mu}$ positive(negative).
758: (left) Branching fraction \eqref{eq:btau_analyze} as a function of $\Delta_{\tau\nu}$.
759: The black bands correspond to the SM estimate
760: \eqref{eq:btau_theory} at $\Delta_{\tau\nu}=0$. The blue band corresponds to the HFAG bounds
761: in Eq.~\eqref{eq:btau_exp}. (right) The CP asymmetry as a function of $\Delta_{\tau\nu}$ in units of $|\sin(\dU \pi)|$.
762: The scale $\Lambda_\cU = 1\,{\rm TeV}$ is chosen here.
763: N.B. in the notation used in Eq.~\eqref{eq:acp}
764: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}(\tau \nu) = -C_{\tau\nu}$}
765: \label{fig:btau}
766: \end{figure}
767:
768: In Fig.~\ref{fig:btau} (left) the branching fraction
769: \eqref{eq:btau_analyze} is plotted as
770: a function of $\Delta_{\tau\nu}$ with uncertainty taken from the SM estimate
771: \eqref{eq:btau_theory} at $\Delta_{\tau\nu}=0$.
772: The blue band corresponds to the HFAG bounds
773: in Eq.~\eqref{eq:btau_exp}.
774: The CP asymmetry is plotted to the right of that figure.
775: The branching ratio does not set limits on the amount of CP violation,
776: demanding the uncertainty bands to be tangent at worst $|\Delta_{\tau \nu}| < 1.8$.
777: Even in the case where the HFAG and theory uncertainty are halved, the
778: value $|\Delta_{\tau \nu}| = 1$, at which the CP asymmetry is maximal, is
779: still consistent.
780:
781:
782: \subsubsection*{Weak phase $\phi \neq 90(270)^\circ$, flavour independent perturbation neutrino sector}
783:
784: In this subsection we shall repeat the analysis for a general
785: weak phase difference and show two dimensional plots
786: in the variables $(\phi,\dU)$ for different ratios of effective couplings.
787: The quantity $\Delta_{\tau\nu}$ \eqref{eq:deltatau}, used in the previous paragraph, depends on the
788: ratio of effective coupling and scaling dimension as follows
789: \begin{eqnarray*}
790: \label{eq:deltauexp}
791: \Delta_{\tau\nu} &=& \rho_{\tau \nu}
792: \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{m_B^2}{m_b m_\tau} \,
793: \frac{ (G_F/\sqrt{2})^{-1} }{m_B^2} \Big( \frac{m_B^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2} \Big)^{\dU-1} \\
794: &\simeq& 2300 \Big( 2.8\cdot10^{-5} \frac{\Lambda_\cU}{1\,{\rm TeV}} \Big)^{\dU-1} \frac{A_\dU}{\sin(\dU \pi)} \rho_{\tau \nu} \,,
795: \end{eqnarray*}
796: where
797: \begin{equation}
798: \label{eq:rhotaunu}
799: \rho_{\tau \nu} \equiv \frac{|\lambda_{P}^{\rm ub}\lambda_{(S,P)}^{\tau \nu} |}{|V_{\rm ub} U_{\tau \nu}|} \,.
800: \end{equation}
801: A plot relating $\Delta_{\tau\nu}$ and $\dU$ can be found in appendix
802: \ref{app:adu}, Fig.~\ref{fig:deltas}.
803: In Fig.~\ref{fig:btauBC} (right) the
804: the CP asymmetry $C_{\rm \tau \nu}$ is plotted as a function of
805: $(\phi,\dU)$ for $\rho_{\tau\nu} = (10^0,10^{-2},10^{-4})$.
806: The pattern is clearly regular and the
807: condition for a large asymmetry is $|\Delta_{\tau\nu}| \sim 1$.
808: For smaller values of $\rho_{\tau\nu}$ the amount of possible CP violation is decreasing
809: because the condition mentioned above cannot be satisfied.
810: The constraint on the branching fraction, Fig.~\ref{fig:btauBC} (left), is defined by the following
811: acceptance function
812: \begin{eqnarray}
813: \label{eq:defi}
814: A(\dU,\phi,\rho) &=& (1-r(\dU,\phi,\rho))\Theta(1-r(\dU,\phi,\rho)) \nonumber \,, \\[0.1cm]
815: r(\dU,\phi,\rho) &=& \frac{1}{\Delta B}\, \big| {\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{\tau \nu}(1+
816: 2 \Delta_{\tau\nu} \cos(\phi ) \cos(\dU \pi) +
817: \Delta_{\tau\nu}^2)- {\cal B}^{HFAG} \big|
818: \end{eqnarray}
819: for ${\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{\tau \nu} = 83\cdot 10^{-6}$,
820: $ {\cal B}^{\rm HFAG} = 132\cdot 10^{-6}$and
821: for the quantity $\Delta B$ we add the uncertainty of
822: the SM prediction and the HFAG value linearly to
823: $\Delta B \simeq 80\cdot 10^{-6}$. This function assumes values
824: between $0$ and $1$, where $1$ signifies maximal agreement
825: and $0$ means that the point is excluded; or in other words we
826: consider predictions with a deviation larger than $\Delta B$ as excluded.
827:
828: For smaller values of $\rho_{\tau \nu}$ the linear term
829: for the branching ratio in Eq.~\eqref{eq:btau_analyze}
830: becomes dominant and a regular pattern in $\cos(\phi)$
831: emerges. Note that since the predicted branching fraction
832: is lower than the central value from experiment,
833: the weak angle $\phi = 180^\circ$ is currently disfavoured
834: since it would lower the theory prediction even more.
835:
836:
837: \begin{figure}[!p]
838: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{btaum0.pdf}
839: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPm0.pdf}}
840: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{btaum2.pdf}
841: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPm2.pdf}}
842: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{btaum4.pdf}
843: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPm4.pdf}}
844: \caption{\small A horizontal line of figures corresponds
845: to different fractions of effective couplings
846: $\rho = 10^{0,-2,-4}$ as defined in \eqref{eq:rhotaunu}.
847: (left) Constraints on the $(\phi,\dU)$ parameter-space from the branching fraction. The values in the dark regions are allowed whereas
848: white ones are excluded, c.f. Eq.~\ref{eq:defi} for a more details. (right) The CP asymmetry as a function of $(\phi,\dU)$.
849: The scale $\Lambda_\cU = 1\,{\rm TeV}$ is chosen here.}
850: \label{fig:btauBC}
851: \end{figure}
852:
853: \subsection{Discussion and remarks on $B \to \mu \nu$, $D \to \mu \nu$, $B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-$ etc}
854: \label{sec:rembtaunu}
855: We have seen that applying the unparticle scenario to the
856: leptonic decay $B \to \tau \nu$ leads to CP violation.
857: There is no experimental data available that gives
858: both the negative and positive charged semileptonic decay
859: rates, i.e. quotes (bounds) on CP asymmetry in
860: a semileptonic decay.
861:
862: The current data on $B \to \tau \nu$ do not allow us to set
863: bounds on the amount of possible CP violation.
864: The amount of events at BaBar and Belle are of the order
865: $\sim 20$.
866: An improvement in theory, in particular on the $B$-meson
867: decay constant, and the large statistics of a Super $B$-factory would
868: of course improve the situation. Unfortunately the decay $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$
869: will not be possible or competitve at LHCb because of the neutrino final state and
870: the intricacies in the $\tau$ detection, whether $D(D_s) \to (\tau,\mu) \nu$
871: decays are possible at LHCb is currently under investigation.
872:
873: We shall comment on other leptonic modes. They are all
874: described by the same formula \eqref{eq:SMBtaunu}
875: for $B \to \tau \nu$ with obvious substitutions for
876: $V_{\rm ub}$, $f_B$, $m_B$ and $m_\tau$.
877: We may also consider the $D$-decays assuming that the scale invariant sector extends to $\sim 2\,{\rm GeV}$.
878: The decay $D^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$ is measured by CLEO \cite{CLEO} the $\sim 50$ events
879: lead to a thirteen percent accuracy.
880: The decay constant $f_D^+ = 220(20)\, {\rm MeV}$ is taken as an average
881: value of theory determinations from the table in \cite{CLEO}
882: and $|V_{\rm cd}| = 0.227$ \cite{PDG}. The Cabibbo allowed decays
883: $D_s^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$ are measured as well \cite{PDG}, although with less precission. The decay constant $f_{D_s}^+ = 264(36)$ is obtained from an
884: average of $f_{D_s}^+/f_D^+ = 1.20(5)$ of the table in \cite{CLEO} and
885: $|V_{\rm cs}| = 0.957(17)(93)$ \cite{PDG}.
886: A summary of the experimental \cite{PDG} and theory
887: predictions is:
888: \begin{equation*}
889: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
890: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{9pt}
891: \begin{array}{l | r | r | r }
892: & B \to \tau \nu & B \to \mu \nu & B \to e \nu \\
893: \hline
894: {\rm Experiment} & 132(49) \cdot10^{-6} & < 17 \cdot10^{-7} & < 9.8\cdot 10^{-6} \\
895: {\rm Theory} & 83(50\%) \cdot 10^{-6} & 3.7(50\%) \cdot10^{-7} & 8.4(50\%) \cdot 10^{-12} \\
896: \hline
897: & D \to \tau \nu & D \to \mu \nu & D \to e \nu \\
898: \hline
899: {\rm Experiment} & < 2.1\cdot10^{-3} & 4.4(7)\cdot 10^{-4} & < 2.4\cdot 10^{-5} \\
900: {\rm Theory} & 1.1(20\%) \cdot 10^{-3} & 4.3(20\%) \cdot10^{-4} & 1.0(20\%) \cdot 10^{-10} \\
901: \hline
902: & D_s \to \tau \nu & D_s \to \mu \nu & D_s \to e \nu \\
903: \hline
904: {\rm Experiment} & 6.4(15)\cdot10^{-2} & 6.3(18)\cdot 10^{-3} & {\rm not\,\,available} \\
905: {\rm Theory} & 5.5(30\%) \cdot 10^{-2} & 5.7(30\%) \cdot10^{-3} & 1.3(30\%) \cdot 10^{-7}
906: \,,
907: \end{array}
908: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
909: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-9pt}
910: \end{equation*}
911: The $B$ decays are predicted to $50\%$ due to uncertainties in $f_B$ and $|V_{\rm ub}|$,
912: whereas the $D(D_s)$ decays have a lower uncertainty $20(30)\%$ due to $f_D(f_{D_s})$.
913: The helicity supression in the SM is apparent from the table.
914:
915: Repeating the analysis for $D^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:btau},
916: we obtain that $|\Delta_{D \to \mu \nu} | < 0.65$ which still allows
917: for a rather large CP asymmerty, $|C_ {D \to \mu \nu} | < 0.9$.
918:
919: The prediction of these modes in the SM is solid and a significant deviation
920: would be a clear hint for new physics. In particular one expects larger
921: rates in models where the helicity suppression is relieved.
922: An example is the charged Higgs or the effective Lagrangian used in
923: this paper.
924: %\footnote{It has to be said that the structure of the charged Higgs
925: %comes underlying theory whereas the effective
926: %Lagrangian used here is at present ad hoc.}
927: The charged Higgs does not predict a significant
928: CP asymmetry whereas in unparticle models it is possible and
929: therefore a CP asymmetry could be used to discriminate between the models.
930:
931: We would also like to mention the decay $K^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$,
932: the KLOE collaboration reports $\sim 860$ events and a branching
933: ratio ${\cal B}(K^+ \to \mu^+ \nu(\gamma)) =0.6366(9)(15)$ \cite{KLOE}.
934: On the one hand it seems unreasonable that the scale invariant sector
935: could extend to $\sim 500\,{\rm MeV}$ but on the other
936: this channel has the largest statistics. If we assume that theory predicts the
937: rate to $5\%(10\%)$ this would roughly bound $|\Delta_{K \to \mu\nu}|< 20(30)$
938: and the CP asymmetry to $|C_{K \to \mu\nu}| < 0.4(0.55)$.
939:
940: Finally a comment about $B_{(d,s)} \to \mu^+\mu^-$.
941: This channel is rare since it is a flavour-changing neutral decay further
942: suppressed by the coupling of the $Z$ and the helicity of final states, ${\cal B}(B_{(d,s)} \to \mu^+\mu^-)^{\rm SM} \sim 10^{-10}(10^{-8})$.
943: The branching ratio is not yet measured, the bounds are about one and half order of magnitude away
944: from the SM prediction. An analysis along the lines of $B \to \tau \nu$ does not make sense since there
945: are no direct constraints in that channel. A possibility would be to combine it with
946: constraints from $\Delta M_{(d,s)}$, which are measured, as advocated in reference \cite{CPun}.
947:
948:
949:
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951: %% DD
952: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
953:
954:
955: \subsection{$B_d \to D^+ D^-$; scale invariant sector at $2\,{\rm GeV}$}
956:
957: The decay $B_d \to D^+D^-$ corresponds to a $b \to \bar c c d$ transition at the quark level and
958: is colour allowed.
959: It has the same quark level transition as $B_d \to J/\Psi \pi_0$ but two complications arise
960: as compared to the latter.
961: First, since it is colour
962: allowed it receives
963: sizable contributions from a gluonic penguin\cite{BSS}
964: and second the final states
965: combine into a sum of isospin $I=0$ and $I=1$ waves which have in general different final state
966: interaction phases.
967: Ultimately we will neglect the penguins in our analysis, to be discussed below.
968: Our motivation to investigate the $B_d \to D^+D^-$ is
969: driven by the measurement of a large CP asymmerty by the
970: Belle collaboration \cite{BelleDD}\footnote{I am grateful to Christopher Smith for drawing my attention to this measurement.}.
971: The SM expectation is $C_{D^+D^-}^{\rm SM} \simeq -0.05$.
972:
973: \begin{equation}
974: \label{eq:DDCP}
975: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
976: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{9pt}
977: \begin{array}{l | r | r }
978: & C_{D^+D^-} & S_{D^+D^-} \\
979: \hline
980: {\rm BaBar}\cite{BaBarDD} (364{\rm M\, BB}) & 0.11(22)(07) & -0.54(34)(06)\\
981: {\rm Belle} \cite{BelleDD}(535{\rm M\, BB}) & -0.91(23)(06)& -1.13(37)(09) \\
982: \hline
983: {\rm HFAG} & -0.37(17) & -0.75(26)
984: \end{array}
985: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
986: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-9pt}
987: \end{equation}
988: It has to be said that the Belle result is
989: somewhat moderated by a significantly lower value from BaBar \cite{BaBarDD}
990: with opposite sign.
991: Note that the cental
992: values from Belle also violate the general bound $C^2 + S^2 \leq 1$.
993:
994: It shall be our goal to see how large a CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$
995: the unparticles scenario can generate and still be consistent
996: with the branching fraction and the time dependent CP asymmetry.
997:
998:
999: In our analysis the unparticle will replace the $W$ in the tree level amplitude
1000: in, c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:treeANDpenguin} (left). We therefore assume that the scale invariant sector
1001: extends to the $D$-meson scale $\sim 2 \,{\rm GeV}$.
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}[!h]
1004: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5in]{tree_peng_bccd.pdf}
1005: }
1006: \caption{\small $b \to d \bar c c$ (left) tree diagram, (right) penguin diagram }
1007: \label{fig:treeANDpenguin}.
1008: \end{figure}
1009:
1010:
1011:
1012: We shall first reconsider the situation in the SM before we move on to the unparticles.
1013: Writing the amplitude as the sum of the tree
1014: and penguin topology
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: {\cal A}(B_d \to D^+D^-) = {\cal A}_T + {\cal A}_P = {\cal A}_T(1- e^{i\delta_{\rm PT}}e^{i \gamma} r_{\rm PT}) \,,
1017: \end{equation}
1018: the ratio of penguin to tree amplitude $r_{\rm PT}$ can then be estimated by the
1019: Bander-Silverman-Soni mechanism \cite{BSS}, c.f. \cite{Xing} or \cite{Fleischer} for an updated analysis,
1020: \begin{equation}
1021: \label{eq:resi}
1022: \Delta_{\rm PT} \simeq 0.08 \qquad \delta_{\rm PT} \simeq 205^\circ \quad .
1023: \end{equation}
1024: This allows us to obtain the asymmetries from \eqref{eq:C} and \eqref{eq:S},
1025: \begin{equation}
1026: C_{D^+D^-}^{\rm SM} \simeq -0.05 \qquad S_{D^+D^-}^{\rm SM} \simeq -0.78 \quad .
1027: \end{equation}
1028: Comparing with the experimental results \eqref{eq:DDCP} we infer that the SM
1029: is in good agreement with the time dependent CP asymmetry $S_{D^+D^-}$.
1030: The direct CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-} \simeq 0.05$ is
1031: about two standard deviations lower than the HFAG value $0.37(17)$.
1032: In view of the non consistency of the two measurements it is certainly
1033: wise to wait for updates from the $B$-factories.
1034: We will in the following neglect the penguin contribution in regard to its
1035: moderate size \eqref{eq:resi} in the SM. We will also neglect the
1036: "unparticle penguin". The ratio of the unparticle penguin amplitude
1037: to the unparticle amplitude is expected to be of the same size as
1038: in the SM, unless the up-type transition is enhanced by the
1039: effective couplings. We are therefore implicitly assuming that
1040: $|\lambda_{(S,P)}^{\rm ub} \lambda_{(S,P)}^{\rm ud}| \simle |\lambda_{(S,P)}^{\rm cb} \lambda_{(S,P)}^{\rm cd}|$.
1041:
1042:
1043: We will describe the amplitude $B_d \to D^+D^-$ within the naive factorization approximation.
1044: Naive factorization describes colour allowed modes (topology as in
1045: Fig.~\ref{fig:treeANDpenguin} to the left) like $B \to \pi^+\pi^+$ and
1046: $B_d \to D^+ \pi^-$ with at least one fast or light meson with an accuracy of around
1047: $10-20\%$ level. For $B_d \to D^+D^-$, factorization in general and naive factorization
1048: are not expected to hold. The overlap of the emitted $D^+$-meson with the $B_d \to D^-$
1049: transition is expected to be relatively large.
1050: However it is empirically observed that naive factorization still works reasonably well.
1051: We shall account for final state interactions, not included in naive factorisation,
1052: by an isospin analysis which is presented in the appendix \ref{app:iso}.
1053: The effect is that the amplitude receives a contribution $\cos((\delta_1-\delta_0)/2) \simeq \pm 0.63(15)$, c.f.
1054: \eqref{eq:iso_final}.
1055: In fact the sign is not determined but since it enters in the square in the observables
1056: it is of no concern here.
1057: The amplitude for $B_d \to D^+D^-$ in the SM is
1058: \begin{eqnarray}
1059: \label{eq:BDDamp}
1060: {\cal A}(B_d \to D^+ D^-) &=& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{\rm cb}^*V_{\rm cd}
1061: a_1 f_D \big( (m_B^2-m_D^2) f_+^{BD}(m_D^2) +
1062: m_D^2 f^{BD}_-(m_D^2)\big) \nonumber \\
1063: & \times & \cos\big( (\delta_1-\delta_0)/2 \big) e^{i (\delta_1-\delta_0)/2} \equiv {\cal A}^{\rm SM}_{\rm DD}
1064: \, ,
1065: \end{eqnarray}
1066: where $a_1 = C_2 + C_1/3 \simeq 1$ is the colour allowed combination of tree level Wilson coefficients and the $D$-meson
1067: decay constant is defined as $m_c\,\matel{0}{\bar c i\gamma_5 d}{D^-} = f_D m_D^2$, where we neglect effects due to isospin breaking.
1068: The $B \to D$ form factor can be parametrized by use of Lorentz covariance as
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: \label{eq:FF}
1071: \matel{D}{\bar b \gamma_\mu c }{B} = f^{BD}_+(q^2)(p_B+p_D)_\mu
1072: + f^{BD}_-(q^2) q_\mu \,,
1073: \end{equation}
1074: with momentum transfer $q = p_B-p_D$. The form factors are related to the famous
1075: Isgur-Wise function $f^{BD}_+(q^2) = \sqrt{\frac{m_B+m_D}{4 m_B m_D}} \xi(w)$,
1076: $f^{BD}_-(q^2) = -\sqrt{\frac{m_B-m_D}{4 m_B m_D}} \xi(w)$ in the heavy quark limit.
1077: Here $w = v\cdot v'= (m_B^2+m_D^2 - q^2)/(2 m_B m_D)$. Whereas the normalization of the Isgur-Wise function $\xi(1)=1$
1078: follows from charge normalziation in the heavy quark limit the values around
1079: maximum recoil are much less known. We shall take the value $f^{BD}_+(0) =0.54$ from
1080: \cite{Roma} and scale it up to $q^2 = m_D^2$ by use of a single pole model \cite{NeubertStech},
1081: $\xi(w) \sim \sqrt{2/(w+1)} (w_{\rm max} - w(m_{B_c^*}^2)/(w-w(m_{B_c^*}^2)$.
1082: The $B^*_c$-meson has the correct quantum numbers $J^P=1^+$ and its mass is the same in the heavy quark limit as $ m_{B_c} = 6.29\,{\rm GeV}$ \cite{PDG} .
1083: We obtain $f_+(m_D^2) \simeq 0.7$. With $f_D = 220 \,{\rm MeV}$.
1084: we get
1085: \begin{equation}
1086: \label{eq:BDD_theory}
1087: \bar {\cal B}(B_d \to D^+ D^-)^{\rm SM}_{\rm theory} = 1.7(10) \cdot 10^{-4}
1088: \end{equation}
1089: as a theory estimate, where the bulk of the uncertainty quoted is due to the isospin final state
1090: interaction phases \eqref{eq:iso_final}.
1091: This estimate has to be compared to the experimental value \cite{PDG}
1092: \begin{equation}
1093: \label{eq:BDD_exp}
1094: \bar {\cal B}(B_d \to D^+ D^-)_{\rm PDG} = 1.9(6) \cdot 10^{-4} \quad .
1095: \end{equation}
1096: The agreement seems accidentally good in regard to
1097: the approximations made.
1098:
1099: As in the previous section we parametrize the amplitude
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: {\cal A}(B_d \to D^+ D^-) \equiv {\cal A}^{\rm SM}_{\rm DD} \big(1 + \Delta_{DD} e^{-i\phi_\cU} e^{-i \phi } \big)
1102: \end{equation}
1103: with ${\cal A}^{\rm SM}_{\rm DD}$ as given in \eqref{eq:BDDamp} and relative weak phase
1104: $\phi \equiv \delta \phi_{\rm cb} - \delta \phi_{\rm cd}$. The ratio of SM to unparticle amplitude is\footnote{A derivative coupling $\partial_\mu O_\cU$
1105: to the vector Dirac-structure \eqref{eq:leffpart}
1106: instead of a scalar coupling as in \eqref{eq:leff} would lead to
1107: a change of
1108: $m_D^2/(m_c (m_b-m_c)) \to m_D^2/\Lambda_\cU^2$ in
1109: Eq.~\eqref{eq:deltaDD}.}
1110: \begin{eqnarray}
1111: \label{eq:deltaDD}
1112: \Delta_{\rm DD} &=& \frac{|\lambda_{S}^{\rm cb}\lambda_{P}^{\rm cd} |}{|V_{\rm cb} U_{\rm cd}|} \frac{1}{a_1}
1113: \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \, \frac{m_D^2}{m_c(m_b-m_c)} \,
1114: \frac{(G_F/\sqrt{2})^{-1}}{m_D^2} \Big( \frac{m_D^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2} \Big)^{\dU-1} \,.
1115: \end{eqnarray}
1116: Note that, unlike for $B \to \tau \nu$, the negative parity of the $D$-meson selects only the $\lambda_P^{cd}$ coupling in the final vertex.
1117: The observables are obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:C} and \eqref{eq:S} with
1118: $\xi_{D^+D^-} = 1$, $\phi_d = 2\beta$, $\phi_1= 0$, $\phi_2 = -\phi$ and $\delta_{12} = d_U \pi$ :
1119: \begin{alignat}{2}
1120: \label{eq:BDD_analyze}
1121: & {\cal B}_{\rm DD} \,&=&\, {\cal B}_{\rm DD}^{\rm SM} \, f_{\Delta_{\rm DD}}
1122: \qquad {\cal \bar B}_{\rm DD} = {\cal B}_{\rm DD}^{\rm SM} \, \bar f_{\Delta_{\rm DD}}
1123: \nonumber \,, \\[0.1cm]
1124: & C_{\rm DD} \,&=&\,
1125: \frac{2 \Delta_{\rm DD}}{\bar f_{\Delta_{\rm DD}} } \sin[\phi] \sin[\dU \pi] \nonumber \,, \\[0.1cm]
1126: & S_{\rm DD} \,&=&\,
1127: \frac{-1}{\bar f_{\Delta_{\rm DD}} }
1128: (\sin[2 \beta] + 2\Delta_{\rm DD} \cos[\dU \pi] \sin[2 \beta - \phi]
1129: + \Delta_{\rm DD}^2 \sin[2 \beta - 2\phi])
1130: \end{alignat}
1131: and
1132: \begin{equation}
1133: {\cal B}_{\rm DD}^{\rm SM} = \tau(B_d) \,\frac{G_F^2}{32 \pi m_B } a_1 ^2 f_D^2
1134: \big( (m_B^2-m_D^2) f_+^{BD}(m_D^2) +
1135: m_D^2 f^{BD}_-(m_D^2)\big) ^2
1136: |V_{\rm cb}^*V_{\rm cd}|^2 \, .
1137: \end{equation}
1138:
1139: \subsubsection*{Weak phase $\phi = 90(270)^\circ$}
1140:
1141: \begin{figure}[h]
1142: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{BDDbr.pdf}
1143: \includegraphics[width=2.2in]{SBDDfin.pdf}
1144: \includegraphics[width=2.2in]{BDDCfin.pdf}
1145: }
1146: \caption{\small A weak phase difference $\phi = 90(270)^\circ$ is assumed here
1147: for $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ positive (negative).
1148: (left) Branching fraction \eqref{eq:BDD_analyze} as a function of $\Delta_{\rm DD}$.
1149: The black bands correspond to the SM estimate
1150: \eqref{eq:BDD_theory} at $\Delta_{\rm DD}=0$. The brown-red band corresponds to the HFAG bounds
1151: in Eq.~\eqref{eq:BDD_exp}.
1152: (middle) Time dependent CP asymmetry $S_{D^+D^-}$ as a function of $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ for
1153: $\dU = 1.1,1.5,1.9$ where the dashes get shorter for larger values of $\dU$. The interpolation between
1154: those values is fairly smooth.
1155: (right) The CP asymmetry as a function of $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ in units of $|\sin(\dU \pi)|$. }
1156: \label{fig:BDD}
1157: \end{figure}
1158: In order to look for maximal CP violation we may again set the weak phase
1159: difference to $90(270)^\circ$ in the formulae in Eq.~\eqref{eq:BDD_analyze}.
1160: In Fig.~\ref{fig:BDD} (left) the branching fraction is plotted as
1161: a function of $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ with uncertainty taken from the SM estimate
1162: \eqref{eq:BDD_theory} at $\Delta_{\rm DD}=0$.
1163: The brown-red band corresponds to the HFAG bounds
1164: in Eq.~\eqref{eq:BDD_exp}. The new feature as compared to the $B \to \tau \nu$ analysis
1165: is the constraint from $S_{D^+D^-}$ which corresponds to the figure in the middle.
1166: The CP asymmetry is plotted to the right of that figure.
1167: Once more the branching ratio does not set limits on the amounts of CP violation,
1168: in fact the uncertainties are very similar as in $B \to \tau \nu$.
1169: Demanding the uncertainty bands to be tangential at worst results in
1170: $|\Delta_{\rm DD}| < 1.5$.
1171: The constraints from $S_{D^+D^-}$ do depend
1172: on the scaling dimension. The parameter $\dU = 1.1$ for example seems
1173: slightly disfavoured as compared to the value $\dU =1.9$
1174:
1175: \subsubsection*{Weak phase $\phi \neq 90(270)^\circ$}
1176:
1177: \begin{figure}[!p]
1178: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{BDDm0.pdf},
1179: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{SDDm0.pdf},
1180: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPDDm0.pdf}}
1181: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{BDDm2.pdf},
1182: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{SDDm2.pdf},
1183: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPDDm2.pdf}}
1184: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{BDDm4.pdf},
1185: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{SDDm4.pdf},
1186: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{CPDDm4.pdf}}
1187: \caption{\small The observables with fractions of effective couplings
1188: $\rho = 10^{0,-2,-4}$, as defined in \eqref{eq:rhoBDD}, are plotted from the top of the figure to the bottom.
1189: Constraints on the $(\phi,\dU)$ parameter-space from (left) the branching fraction and (middle) the CP asymmetry $S_{D^+D^-}$ (middle).
1190: The values in the dark regions are allowed whereas white ones are disfavoured. c .f. text for more details.
1191: (right) The CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$ as a function of $(\phi,\dU)$.
1192: The scale $\Lambda_\cU = 1\,{\rm TeV}$ is chosen here.}
1193: \label{fig:BDDCP}
1194: \end{figure}
1195:
1196:
1197: We investigate the two dimensional parameter space $(\phi,\dU)$ for
1198: different ratios of effective couplings.
1199: These quantities relate to $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ \eqref{eq:deltaDD} as follows
1200: \begin{eqnarray*}
1201: \label{eq:delDDex}
1202: \Delta_{\rm DD} &=& \rho_{\rm DD}
1203: \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{m_D^2}{m_c (m_b-m_c)} \,
1204: \frac{ (G_F/\sqrt{2})^{-1} }{m_D^2} \Big( \frac{m_D^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2} \Big)^{\dU-1} \\
1205: &\simeq& 17\cdot10^{3} \Big( 3.5 \cdot10^{-6} \frac{\Lambda_\cU}{1\,{\rm TeV}} \Big)^{\dU-1} \frac{A_\dU}{\sin(\dU \pi)} \rho_{\rm DD} \,,
1206: \end{eqnarray*}
1207: where
1208: \begin{equation}
1209: \label{eq:rhoBDD}
1210: \rho_{\rm DD} \equiv \frac{|\lambda_{S}^{\rm cb}\lambda_{P}^{\rm cd} |}{|V_{\rm cb} U_{\rm cd}|} \,.
1211: \end{equation}
1212: A plot relating $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ and $\dU$ can be found in appendix
1213: \ref{app:adu}, Fig.~\ref{fig:deltas}.
1214: In Fig.~\ref{fig:BDDCP} (right) CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$
1215: is plotted as a function $(\phi,\dU)$ for $\rho_{\rm DD} = (10^{0,-2,-4})$.
1216: The pattern is very similar in its form to $B \to \tau \nu$.
1217: A large asymmetry is obtained for $|\Delta_{\tau\nu}| \sim 1$, which
1218: cannot be attained for smaller values $\rho_{\rm DD}$.
1219: The constraint on the branching fraction, Fig.~\ref{fig:btauBC} (left), and the CP asymmetry $S_{D^+D^-}$
1220: are evaluated with the same kind of acceptance function as for $B \to \tau \nu$ \eqref{eq:defi}.
1221: The corresponding values for the CP asymmetry are
1222: $S^{\rm SM}_{D^+D^-} = - \sin(2 \beta) = 0.69$, $S^{\rm HFAG} = -0.75$ and $\Delta S = 0.52$
1223: corresponds to two standard deviations. The values for the branching fraction are
1224: ${\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{D^+D^-} = 1.7 \cdot 10^{-4}$, ${\cal B}^{\rm HFAG}_{D^+D^-} = 1.9 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and
1225: $\Delta {\cal B} = 1.6$ corresponds to linear addition of the theoretical and experimental uncertainty.
1226:
1227: A qualitative result that can be inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:btauBC} is that the parameter
1228: space of a large positive CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$ is disfavoured by the bounds from the
1229: $S_{D^+D^-}$. This is easily seen from the formulae \eqref{eq:BDD_analyze}, \eqref{eq:deltaDD}
1230: and the plots in appendix \eqref{app:adu}. A negative $C_{D^+D^-}$ demands a weak phase $\phi < 180^\circ$
1231: and then the linear and quadratic terms in $S_{D^+D^-}$ add constructively and are in conflict with
1232: the consistent result between the SM and experiment in this observable.
1233: As for $B \to \tau \nu$ for small $\rho_{\rm DD}$ the linear terms dominate the
1234: quadratic ones and a regular pattern in $\cos(\phi)$ and $\sin(2\beta-\phi)$ emerges.
1235:
1236:
1237: \subsection{Discussion of $B_d \to D^+D^-$
1238: and remarks on U-spin \& colour related channels}
1239: \label{sec:disBDD}
1240:
1241:
1242: A large CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$ would be a rather puzzling fact,
1243: as for instance discussed in Ref.~\cite{Ikaros}.
1244: One is lead to suspect that the gluonic penguin
1245: $B_d \to D \bar q q$ with $q = c$ might be enhanced by new physics.
1246: This scenario would or should lead to enhanced penguin amplitudes
1247: for $q = (u,d,s)$ as well and enter
1248: $B_d \to (\pi\pi,K K)$ in disagreement with
1249: the $B$-factory data.
1250:
1251: We have seen that an unparticle scenario can lead, for
1252: appropriate parameters, to enhanced CP violation.
1253: One might wonder whether similar results
1254: shouldn't also show up in U-spin ($ s \leftrightarrow d$) and colour related channels. The plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:BDDCP} indicate
1255: that the CP asymmertry $S$ in general does not necessarily receive
1256: large contributions. This can be inferred from
1257: Eq.~\eqref{eq:BDD_analyze} or by noting that the unparticles
1258: just contribute to a large SM background from
1259: $\sin(2 \beta)$. We shall therefore focus on the
1260: CP asymmerty C. Let us note however that
1261: the situation for $B_s$ decays is
1262: different since the mixing phase $\phi_s \simeq 0$
1263: ($\phi_d \simeq 2\beta$) in the
1264: SM and the contributions of unparticles would be
1265: not be shielded by a large SM value.
1266:
1267: The colour related or colour suppressed channel of
1268: $B_d \to D^+D^-$ is $B \to J/\Psi \pi_0$. The CP asymmetry
1269: has been measured $C_{J/\Psi \pi_0} = -0.11(20)$ \cite{PDG},
1270: which is not conclusive in regard to its size.
1271: In the colour suppressed modes the non-factorizable
1272: contributions are enhanced due to different combinations
1273: of Wilson coefficients (typically
1274: $\sim 2\!-\!3$ larger than the factorizable amplitude) and have
1275: large strong phases.
1276: On the practical side it is harder to estimate them
1277: reliably in the SM and even more in the unparticle scenario, where
1278: the unparticle is dynamical as compared to the
1279: contracted $W$-boson propagator in the SM.
1280: The strong phases and the different hierarchy
1281: between factorizable and non-factorizable contributions
1282: in the SM and the unparticle scenario\footnote{A parametric estimate gives that the non-factorizable
1283: contributions in the unparticle scenario are suppressed
1284: by a factor $2m_D^2/(m_{J/\Psi}^2 + m_B^2) \sim 0.2$ as compared to the SM.} make it impossible to draw conclusions without explicit
1285: calculations.
1286:
1287: The U-spin related transitions $b \to \bar c c s$ are CKM enhanced
1288: and therefore statistics should make them more attractive.
1289: In principle there is no reason that generic new physics respects
1290: the CKM hierarchy and U-spin. In the unparticle scenario
1291: there is no principle that dictates a CKM-like hierarchy
1292: in the coefficients $\lambda_{q'q}$ in the effective Lagrangian
1293: \eqref{eq:leff}. Therefore they are not necessarily of
1294: major concern. Let us nevertheless discuss them.
1295: The gold plated decay $B \to J/\Psi K_s$ is also colour-suppressed.
1296: The measurement of the CP asymmetry $S_{J/\Psi K_s} = \sin(2\beta)$ has allowed determination of
1297: the angle $\beta$ in the SM,
1298: whereas the CP asymmetry $C_{J/\Psi K_s} = 0$ is consistent with experiment.
1299: This mode is highly consistent with the SM or more precisely with one dominant amplitude.
1300: The branching fraction of the colour allowed decay
1301: $B_d \to D^+ D_s^-$ has been measured
1302: but no CP asymmetry has been reported, presumably because it does not exhibit CP violation in mixing.
1303: If the Belle CP asymmetry in $C_{D^+D^-}$ gets confirmed a look at the CP asymmetry
1304: appears mandatory.
1305:
1306: In summary the most interesting parallel channel is
1307: probably $B_d \to J/\Psi\pi0$ and the improvement
1308: of the measurement in $C_{J/\Psi\pi_0}$ should be
1309: watched along with $C_{D^+D^-}$.
1310: In the scenario we described we would generically
1311: expect a large CP asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$ to
1312: be accompanied by a large asymmetry in $C_{J/\Psi \pi_0}$.
1313: It is a serious point of criticism,
1314: but on the other hand the experimental result is not conclusive
1315: and in theory there might be cancellations between the strong
1316: phase $e^{i\dU\pi}$ and the phase from the non-factorizable
1317: interactions.
1318: The time dependent
1319: CP asymmetries $S$ are shielded by large SM
1320: backgrounds for $B_d$-meson, whereas in $B_s$
1321: system the SM expectation is $S \sim 0$ in many
1322: cases (e.g. $B_s \to J/\Psi \phi$) and the unparticle
1323: scenario might reveal itself.
1324:
1325: We have seen that CP violation in $B_d \to D^+D^-$
1326: and $B \to \tau \nu$ can be maximal in the unparticle
1327: scenario. After this phenomenological section we shall
1328: elaborate on whether a CP asymmetry in leptonic decays
1329: is possible. Thereafter we shall
1330: turn to the question of whether
1331: the scale invariance at the ${\rm TeV}$-scale or near
1332: scale-invariance could still be effective at heavy flavour
1333: scales $\sim 5\,{\rm GeV}$.
1334:
1335: \section{Constraints from CPT on (new) CP-violation}
1336: \label{sec:cpt}
1337:
1338: The invariance under CPT symmetry imposes constraints on
1339: the amount of CP-violation; it enforces the
1340: equality of the partial sum of rates of particles and antiparticles\footnote{I am grateful to Ikaros Bigi for drawing my
1341: attention to this fact.},
1342: to be made more precise below.
1343: Neither the SM nor any well-known new physics model
1344: predict CP-violation in leptonic decays such as
1345: $B \to \tau \nu$ studied in this paper. The aim of this section
1346: is to verify explicitly whether the CP-violation is consistent with the
1347: constraints from CPT.
1348:
1349: Let us note that we expect that CPT-invariance
1350: holds for a theory with a local hermitian Lagrangian
1351: such as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:leff}. The explicit verification of CPT invariance
1352: demands that $\Theta {\cal L}(x) \Theta^{-1} = {\cal L}^\dagger(-x) = {\cal L}(-x)$, where $\Theta = CPT$ denotes the combined
1353: CPT-transformation.
1354: The Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff} fulfills this requirement provided that
1355: $ \Theta O_\cU (x) \Theta^{-1} = O_\cU ^\dagger(-x)$, which we
1356: cannot verify explicitly since we do not have equations of motions or a Lagrangian for the unparticle field at hand from where we would infer the transformation under $C$, $P$ and $T$.
1357: There also exists a general proof of the CPT-theorem in the
1358: framework of axiomatic field theory \cite{Jost} based on
1359: general principles and axioms such as
1360: Lorentz invariance, uniqueness of the vacuum and
1361: causality of field commutators.
1362: Concerning the latter we would like to mention that we
1363: have seen in a previous section that the unparticle
1364: field obeys causality, c.f. Eq.~\eqref{eq:comm1}.
1365: Summarising, although we are not able to prove CPT-invariance
1366: we at the same time do not find any indications why
1367: it should be violated.
1368:
1369: It is well known that
1370: CPT symmetry implies equality of the decay rates of particles
1371: and antiparticles. In practice there
1372: is even a stronger consequence
1373: , e.g. \cite{wolf}, \cite{bigisanda} or \cite{GerardHou} where it was applied to charmless $B$-decays.
1374: The final state particles can be divided into subclasses
1375: of particles which rescatter into each other.
1376: It is a fact that the sum of the
1377: partial rates of these subclasses for a particle and
1378: its antiparticle must be the same. This can be inferred
1379: from the following relationship \cite{wolf}
1380: between the weak decay amplitudes of a $B$-meson and
1381: its antiparticle $\bar B$ to a final state $f_x$
1382: \begin{equation}
1383: \label{eq:CPT}
1384: \matel{\bar f_x}{H_{\rm decay}}{\bar B}^* =
1385: \sum_{i} \matel{f_x}{S^\dagger}{f_i}\matel{f_i}{H_{\rm decay}}{B} \,,
1386: \end{equation}
1387: where $H_{\rm decay}$ corresponds to the weak transition operator
1388: and $S$ is the scattering matrix.
1389: This relation is derived from the completeness relation
1390: ${\bf 1} = \sum_{i}\state{f_i}\astate{f_i}$ and the fact that the CPT-operator is antiunitary. An equivalent but alternative relation on the level of decay rates can be found in Ref.~\cite{bigisanda}.
1391: From Eq.~\eqref{eq:CPT} it is then inferred that all states $f_j$ which
1392: rescatter into $f_x$ form a subclass whose partial rates of particles
1393: and antiparticles sum to zero
1394: \begin{eqnarray}
1395: \label{eq:genCPT}
1396: \sum_{i \in I} \Delta \Gamma(B \to f_i) = 0 \,, \qquad
1397: \matel{f_i}{S^\dagger}{f_j} \neq 0 \quad i,j \in I \,,
1398: \end{eqnarray}
1399: where
1400: \begin{eqnarray}
1401: \Delta \Gamma(B \to f) \equiv \Gamma(B \to f)-
1402: \Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) \quad .
1403: \end{eqnarray}
1404:
1405: The exact relation between the CP asymmetry and the difference
1406: of decay rates can be infered from Eq.~\eqref{eq:cpdef}.
1407: Whereas the new CP asymmetry generated by
1408: ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}(D^+D^-) \sim \Delta \Gamma( B_d \to D^+ D^-)$ may be compensated
1409: by $ \Delta \Gamma( B_d \to \bar D_0 D_0)$ for instance,
1410: it is at first sight not clear which mode would compensate for the
1411: new CP asymmetry in ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}(\tau \nu) \sim \Delta \Gamma( B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu)$.
1412: Among the SM final states there does not seem to be an
1413: appropriate candidate. We are led to look in the unparticle
1414: sector for a suitable candidate. A firm hint can be
1415: gained by counting the coupling constants.
1416: Denoting the weak coupling by $v$ and
1417: the unparticle coupling by $\lambda$ \eqref{eq:leff}, the
1418: CP asymmetry, which arises due to an interference of the
1419: two amplitudes depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:btau_feyn}, is of the order $O(\lambda^2 v^2)$.
1420: The processes $B^+ \to \cal U^+$ with an interference of
1421: the two amplitudes depicted
1422: in Fig.~\ref{fig:unparticle} has the same counting in the coupling constants. One amplitude corresponds to a tree decay and the
1423: other one incorporates a virtual correction due to a fermion loop
1424: of the $\tau$ and the $\nu$.
1425: The process $B^+ \to {\cal U}^+$ is kinematically
1426: allowed since the unparticle has a continuous mass spectrum.
1427: It does not proceed at resonance, but rather behaves like a
1428: multiparticle final state and is a realisation of Georgi's observation that
1429: the unparticle field in a final state
1430: behaves like a non-integral number $\dU$ of
1431: massless particles.
1432:
1433: \begin{figure}[h]
1434: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{bd.pdf}}
1435: \caption{\small Decay $B^+ \to \cU^+$, the double lines denote
1436: an unparticle (left) leading order (right)
1437: with virtual $\tau\nu$-loop correction .}
1438: \label{fig:unparticle}
1439: \end{figure}
1440:
1441: We shall now explicitly verify the CPT constraint
1442: \begin{equation}
1443: \label{eq:CPTconstraint}
1444: \Delta \Gamma(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu) +
1445: \Delta \Gamma(B^+ \to {\cal U^+})_{\rm \tau \nu-loop} = 0 \,.
1446: \end{equation}
1447: For the sake of simplicity we shall assume as
1448: previously that there is no flavour dependent perturbation in the
1449: neutrino sector and that $\lambda_P^{\tau \nu} = - \lambda_S^{\tau \nu}$ in \eqref{eq:leff}. The formula for the first difference can be read off from
1450: Eq.~\eqref{eq:btau_analyze}
1451: \begin{eqnarray}
1452: \label{eq:firstCPT}
1453: \Delta \Gamma(B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu) &=&
1454: - 4 {\cal B}^{\rm SM}_{\tau \nu} \sin(\phi) \sin(\dU \pi) \Delta_{\tau \nu}
1455: \\
1456: & = & - \sin(\phi) \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}\pi} \frac{m_B}{m_b} m_\tau
1457: f_B^2 \Big(1\!-\!\frac{m_\tau^2}{m_B^2}\Big)^2 |\lambda^S_{\tau \nu} \lambda^P_{ub} V_{\rm ub} U_{\tau \nu}| A_\dU
1458: \Big(\frac{m_B^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2}\Big)^{\dU-1} \nonumber
1459: \end{eqnarray}
1460: Note that the cancellation of the phase factor $\sin(\dU \pi)$ by the
1461: same factor in the denominator, as previously mentioned, is crucial
1462: for the cancellation here since the graphs in Fig.~\ref{fig:unparticle} do not involve this factor!
1463: The amplitude of the graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:unparticle} to the left is
1464: \begin{equation}
1465: {\cal{A}}(B^+ \to {\cal U}^+)_{\rm Fig.\ref{fig:unparticle} (left)}
1466: = \lambda_P^{\rm ub\,*}\, {\cal A}_1
1467: = \frac{\lambda_P^{\rm ub\,*}}{\Lambda^{\dU-1}} \frac{m_B^2}{m_b} f_B \matel{P}{O_\cU^\dagger}{0}
1468: \end{equation}
1469: and the amplitude of the graph to the right of Fig.~\ref{fig:unparticle}
1470: is
1471: \begin{eqnarray}
1472: {\cal{A}}(B^+ \to {\cal U}^+)_{\rm Fig.\ref{fig:unparticle} (right)}
1473: &=&\lambda_S^{\rm \tau \nu \,*} V_{\rm ub}^* U_{\rm \tau\nu} \, {\cal A}_2 \nonumber \\
1474: &=& \frac{\lambda_S^{\rm \tau \nu \,*}}{\Lambda^{\dU-1}}
1475: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{\rm ub}^* U_{\rm \tau\nu} m_\tau
1476: f_B \Pi_{S\!-\!P}(m_B^2) \matel{P}{O_\cU^\dagger}{0} \,
1477: \end{eqnarray}
1478: where we have factored the weak parameters in
1479: ${\cal A}_{(1,2)}$. The fermion-loop $\Pi_ {S\!-\!P} $ is given by the correlation function
1480: \begin{equation}
1481: \Pi_ {S\!-\!P}(p_B^2=m_B^2) = i \int d^4 x \, e^{-i p_B \cdot x} \,
1482: \matel{0}{T
1483: [\bar \nu (1\!-\!\gamma_5)\tau](x)\, [\bar \tau (1\!-\!\gamma_5)\nu](0) }{0}
1484: \,.
1485: \end{equation}
1486: The decay rate is calculated from
1487: \begin{equation}
1488: \Gamma = \frac{|{\cal A}|^2}{2 m_B} \int d\Phi \, \qquad {\rm with} \quad \int d\Phi = A_\dU (m_B^2)^{\dU-2}
1489: \end{equation}
1490: being the phase space volume.
1491: The difference of decay rates is given by
1492: \begin{equation}
1493: \Delta \Gamma(B^+ \to \cU^+)_{\rm \tau \nu-loop} =
1494: 4 \sin(\phi) {\rm Im}[{\cal A}_1^* {\cal A}_2] A_\dU (m_B^2)^{\dU-2}
1495: \end{equation}
1496: Since ${\cal A}_1$ is real only the imaginary part of ${\cal A}_2$
1497: will enter.
1498: The only strong phase is due to the $\tau$ and the $\nu$ going on-shell
1499: in the loop in Fig.~\ref{fig:unparticle} (right).
1500: Therefore we only need to know the imaginary part of the fermion loop
1501: which is given by
1502: \begin{equation}
1503: {\rm Im}[\Pi_ {S\!-\!P}(m_B^2+i0)] = \frac{1}{4\pi } m_B^2
1504: \Big(1\!-\!\frac{m_\tau^2}{m_B^2}\Big)^2 \quad .
1505: \end{equation}
1506: Assembling the formulae we get
1507: \begin{eqnarray}
1508: \Delta \Gamma(B^+ \to \cU^+)_{\tau \nu}
1509: = \sin(\phi) \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}\pi} \frac{m_B}{m_b} m_\tau
1510: f_B^2 \Big(1\!-\!\frac{m_\tau^2}{m_B^2}\Big)^2 |\lambda_S^{\tau \nu} \lambda_P^{ub} V_{\rm ub} U_{\tau \nu}| A_\dU
1511: \Big(\frac{m_B^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2}\Big)^{\dU-1} \,,
1512: \end{eqnarray}
1513: which fulfills the CPT constraint Eq.~\eqref{eq:CPTconstraint}
1514: together with \eqref{eq:firstCPT}.
1515:
1516: We have explicitly verfied the CPT constraint \eqref{eq:genCPT}
1517: for the decay $B \to \tau \nu$ with unparticle-SM interactions
1518: given by the Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}. We do not dare to speculate in any detail
1519: on how a decay $B^+ \to {\cal U}^+$ might be observed in a laboratory experiment.
1520: It can be said though that the unparticle has directed momentum, mass and charge which it directly inherits from the $B$-meson.
1521: Moreover in the case where there is a CP asymmetry in
1522: $B \to \tau \nu$
1523: due to unparticles, it is precisely the CPT constraint
1524: \eqref{eq:CPTconstraint} which tells us that there is
1525: an excess of charged unparticle degrees of freedom produced.
1526: Whether a part of this charge could
1527: annihilate into neutral particles or decay into charged particles
1528: remains unclear since
1529: the nature of this degree of freedom remains unknown at this
1530: stage.
1531: These questions could be addressed once a concrete model
1532: realising the unparticle scenario is known.
1533:
1534:
1535: \section{Breaking of scale invariance - dimensional analysis}
1536: \label{sec:dim}
1537:
1538: The SM at the electroweak scale is not scale invariant.
1539: The logarithmic running and in particular the vacuum expectation value
1540: of the Higgs, which give masses to the fundamental particles, are responsible
1541: for the breaking of scale invariance. It is therefore a legitimate
1542: question at what scale the symmetry breaking will be transmitted
1543: to the unparticle sector by the the effective Lagrangian
1544: \eqref{eq:leff}.
1545: This will depend on the strength of the coupling and
1546: the relevance of the operators in the latter.
1547:
1548: The authors of reference \cite{FRS}
1549: have addressed this question, which we shall adapt accordingly for the weak sector.
1550: Assuming the unparticle field couples to an operator
1551: acquiring a definite mass scale, the latter will break scale
1552: invariance at some energy.
1553: Let us assume for instance that
1554: the Higgs couples to the unparticle operator,
1555: following Ref.~\cite{FRS}, as follows
1556: %\footnote{N.B. that here the unparticle field is thought to carry zero electric charge unlike in the model Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}.
1557: %We take here the standpoint that the Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff} could be incomplete and that a electrically neutral unparticle field might
1558: %be present. We will discuss the case where there is only
1559: %a charged unparticle field towards the end of this section.}
1560: \begin{equation}
1561: \label{eq:higgseff}
1562: {\cal L}^{\rm eff} = \frac{ \lambda_H}{\Lambda_\cU^{d_{\cU_0}-2} } |H|^2 O_{\cU_0}
1563: \end{equation}
1564: with $\lambda_H = c^H_\cU (\Lambda_\cU / M_\cU)^{ d_{{UV}_0}-2}$ in our notation. We have used a new symbol $O_{\cU_0}$ for the unparticle
1565: operator. This operator is not the same as the one used in
1566: Eq.~\eqref{eq:leff} since it has to be electrically neutral. The important question
1567: for the analysis in this paragraph is what the value the anomalous dimension
1568: $\bar d_{\cU}$ assumes.
1569: In the case where we think of the unparticle as being charged under
1570: $SU(2)_{ L}$, $O_{\cU_0}$ would appear
1571: as $ \delta {\cal L}^{\rm eff} \sim \bar q (\gamma_5) q O_{\cU_0}$ in addition
1572: to the effective Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}
1573: and $d_{\cU_0} = \dU$ seems unavoidable.
1574: In the case where $O_\cU$ is the only unparticle field then
1575: $O_{\cU_0} = O_\cU O_\cU^\dagger$ would be a composite field
1576: with anomalous dimension in the range $0 \leq d_{\cU_0} \leq 2 d_\cU$,
1577: where the Thirring model at coupling $\lambda = 2\pi$ \cite{Wilson} would be an example saturating the lower bound and supersymmetric QCD at the
1578: conformal IR fixpoint
1579: \cite{seiberg_intriligator}
1580: an example saturating the upper bound. In the following we shall quote
1581: values for the bounds and the mean value explicitly.
1582: The Higgs VEV $\aver{ |H|^2 } = v^2$ is expected to break scale invariance
1583: at a scale $\tilde \Lambda$
1584: \begin{equation}
1585: \frac{\lambda_H}{\Lambda_\cU^{d_{\cU_0}-2}} v^2
1586: \tilde \Lambda^{d_{\cU_0}}
1587: = \tilde \Lambda^4 \qquad \Rightarrow \quad \tilde \Lambda = \Lambda_\cU (\lambda_H \frac{v^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2})^{\frac{1}{4-d_{\cU_0}}} \, .
1588: \end{equation}
1589: What would this scale be in the cases we have investigated?
1590: Besides $\Lambda_\cU$ there are two unknowns in the equation
1591: above, first $d_\cU$ which appears explicitly in our results
1592: and $\lambda_H = c^H_\cU (\Lambda_\cU / M_\cU)^{ d_{{UV}_0}-2}$.
1593: In the latter the matching coefficient will remain unknown but
1594: we can extract the ratio $(\Lambda_\cU/M_\cU)$
1595: from $\rho_{DD}(\rho_{\tau \nu})$ in
1596: terms of the UV dimensions.
1597: Taking $B \to DD$ as an example the breaking scale is
1598: \begin{equation}
1599: \tilde \Lambda = \Lambda_\cU \Big( c_\cU^H \frac{v^2}{\Lambda_\cU^2}
1600: \big( \frac{\rho_{\rm DD}}{ R_{\rm DD} }\big)^{\frac{d_{{UV}_0}-2}{2(d_{UV}-1)}} \Big)^{\frac{1}{4-d_{\cU_0}}} \quad ,
1601: \end{equation}
1602: where $R_{\rm DD} = |c_S^{\rm cb} c_S^{\rm cd}|/|V_{\rm cb}V_{\rm cd}| = 1$,
1603: deviating it from $1$ corresponds to a readjustment of $\rho_{\rm DD}$ in
1604: terms of the matching coefficients.
1605: Assuming for example $\Lambda_U = 1\,{\rm TeV}$, $\dU = 1.2$,
1606: $d_{\cU_0} = (0,1.2,2.4)$, $\rho_{\rm DD} = 10^{-3.5}$, the ratio
1607: of amplitudes and the breaking scale for fixed values of UV dimensions
1608: become
1609: \begin{alignat}{2}
1610: & \Delta_{\rm DD} \simeq -0.40 R_{\rm DD} & & \, \nonumber \\
1611: & (d_{UV},d_{{UV}_0}) = (3,6) \qquad & &
1612: \tilde \Lambda \simeq (67,20,1)~{\rm GeV} (R_{\rm DD} c_\cU^H)^{1/(4.0,2.8,1.6)}
1613: \nonumber \\
1614: & (d_{UV},d_{{UV}_0}) = (3,3) \qquad & &
1615: \tilde \Lambda \simeq (300,180,50)~{\rm GeV} (R_{\rm DD}^{-1/4} c_\cU^H)^{1/(4.0,2.8,1.6)} \quad .
1616: \end{alignat}
1617: %Note that the ratio of amplitudes is the correct measure for CP effects
1618: %originating from interference.
1619: The situation is not conclusive, which is not surprising bearing in mind
1620: that in the absence of a model there are simply to many unknowns.
1621: In the case where both UV dimensions are the same, which should
1622: be the case when $O_\cU$ and $O_{\cU_0}$ result from the same
1623: structure, a small matching coefficient $c_\cU^H$ is needed for
1624: a sizable effect at the heavy flavour scales. If the UV dimensions
1625: differ by a factor of two, which is the case when
1626: $O_{\cU_0} = O_\cU O_\cU^\dagger$, effects are possible for
1627: moderate matching coefficient $c_\cU^H$ .
1628: %The breaking scale can be at the electroweak scale but there
1629: %are also cases where it can be considerably lower around the heavy
1630: %flavour scale.
1631: %The breaking scale can be reduced or increased by changing the coupling
1632: %of the Higgs to the unparticle sector $c_\cU^H$ accordingly.
1633:
1634: The effect $\Delta_{\rm DD} = -0.40$ appears larger than the analysis or conclusions
1635: in Ref.~\cite{FRS} suggest. There are two reasons. First and simply,
1636: the CP violating phenomenon investigated in this paper is linear in the ratio of amplitudes,
1637: whereas \cite{FRS} describes a case where the effect is proportional to the square
1638: of the amplitude.
1639: Secondly it was assumed that the SM Lagrangian has dimension four.
1640: The crucial point is that the weak Lagrangian has
1641: dimension six, $d_{{\cal L}_{\rm weak}} = 6$ being suppressed by two powers of the
1642: weak scale, whereas the unparticle Lagrangian
1643: has dimension $d_{{\cal L}_{\rm unp}} = \dU + d_{\rm SM}$.
1644: In terms of the effective Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff} and the Eq.~\eqref{eq:d12},
1645: $4 < d_{{\cal L}_{\rm unp}} < 5$ the unparticle operator is more relevant
1646: than the weak operator.
1647: This gives rise to an enhancement factor in the amplitudes
1648: \begin{equation}
1649: \frac{(G_F/\sqrt{2})^{-1}}{\mu_{\rm HF}^2} = \frac{8 m_W^2}{g^2 \mu_{\rm HF}^2} \, ,
1650: \end{equation}
1651: which is explicit in the results of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:deltatau}, \eqref{eq:deltaDD}.
1652: In more physical terms one could state that the weak boson propagates at the high weak scale whereas
1653: the unparticle propagates at the low heavy flavour scale.
1654:
1655: Adapting the analysis of Ref.~\cite{FRS} we imagine an experiment
1656: at a scale $\mu_{\rm HF}$, the unparticle Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}
1657: scales as ${\cal L} _{\rm eff} = \lambda_S/\Lambda_\cU^{\dU + (d_{\rm SM} -4)} \mu_{\rm HF}^{d_{\rm SM} + \dU}$,
1658: the weak Lagrangian as
1659: ${\cal L}_{\rm weak} \simeq G_F \mu_{\rm HF}^6$ and the ratio is
1660: \begin{equation}
1661: \Delta
1662: \simeq \lambda^S_\cU \Big( \frac{\Lambda_\cU}{M_\cU} \Big)^{d_{UV}-\dU}
1663: \Big( \frac{\mu_{\rm HF} }{M_\cU} \Big)^{\dU + d_{\rm SM}-6}
1664: \Big( \frac{G_F^{-1} }{\mu_{\rm HF}^2} \Big) \,.
1665: \end{equation}
1666: Imposing that the energy scale
1667: of the experiment is higher than the breaking scale,
1668: i.e. $\mu_{\rm HF} > \tilde \Lambda$ ,
1669: the following bound is obtained\footnote{Setting $c_\cU \to 1$, the fourth and the fifth term to one and taking the square root of the equation,
1670: the bound in Ref.~\cite{FRS} is recovered with $\Delta^2 = \epsilon$.}
1671: \begin{equation}
1672: \Delta < \frac{c^S_\cU}{c^H_\cU} \, \Big( \frac{\mu_{\rm HF} }{M_\cU} \Big)^{d_{\rm SM}-2}
1673: \Big( \frac{\mu_{\rm HF}^2 }{v^2 } \Big) \Big( \frac{G_F^{-1}} {\mu_{\rm HF}^2 } \Big) \, \Big( \frac{\mu_{\rm HF}}{\Lambda_\cU} \Big)^{\dU - d_{\cU_0}} \quad .
1674: \end{equation}
1675: This equation is easily interpreted. The first factor measures the ratio of the two couplings.
1676: The second is a measure between the relevance or dimension of the SM operator that is coupled to the unparticle
1677: and the dimension of the Higgs operator. In the third
1678: term the scale of the experiment has to compete with the Higgs VEV.
1679: The fourth term is peculiar to the weak interactions, as described above, and is due
1680: to the fact that the weak process takes place at the weak scale $G_F^{-1}$ and
1681: the unparticle propagates at the low scale $\mu_F$.
1682: The fifth term is due to the difference of anomalous dimensions
1683: of the charged unparticle operator in the effective Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}
1684: and the neutral unparticle operator coupling to the Higgs VEV
1685: \eqref{eq:higgseff}, whether it acts as an enhancing or decreasing
1686: factor depends on the anomalous dimensions.
1687: In a later paper \cite{BFRS} further dimensional analysis is explored. It is observed that when the coupling
1688: $\lambda$ multiplied by the supression scale $1/\Lambda_\cU^{\dU + (d_{\rm SM} -4)}$
1689: is combined into a single scale $1/\Lambda_{(d_{\rm SM})}^{\dU + (d_{\rm SM} -4)}$
1690: then under the assumption $1 < d_\dU < 2 < d_{UV}$, it is inferred that
1691: $\Lambda_2 < M_\cU < \dots < \Lambda_4 < \Lambda_3$
1692: which seems counterintuitive at first sight since higher dimensional operators could receive an
1693: enhancement.
1694:
1695: Dimensional analysis is not very reliable.
1696: The construction of an explicit model would help to answer
1697: questions and presumably constrain the structure of
1698: the effective Lagrangian \eqref{eq:leff}.
1699:
1700: Possible
1701: candidates are extensions of the standard model featuring near conformal dynamics, such as the walking technicolor theories.
1702: Those theories are close to an infrared fixpoint and hence have slow varying coupling constants.
1703: A complete extension of the SM featuring walking dynamics
1704: and its link to the underlying gauge theory has been given in
1705: Ref.~\cite{FFRS}.
1706:
1707:
1708: %One might say that the unparticle fields in the weak
1709: %sector receive, an unexpected, dynamical enhancement.
1710: %It is conceivable that there is no coupling to the Higgs operator.
1711: %to worry about the top quark mass since we are assuming that
1712: %the unparticle couples to flavours in a generic fashion.
1713: %We shall not investiagte any further since it was mainly our goal to show that the
1714: % sizable effects in the heavy flavour sector are not impossible.
1715:
1716:
1717:
1718: \section{Critical discussion and conclusions}
1719: \label{sec:con}
1720:
1721: In this paper we have investigated the consequences
1722: of the unparticle scenario in heavy flavour physics.
1723: The new feature is a CP odd or strong
1724: phase that arises in the propagator as a consequence of
1725: the non integral scaling dimension. This gives rise to
1726: very characteristic and novel CP violating phenomena.
1727:
1728: The drawbacks of the scenario are that there is as yet no
1729: concrete model and that it is not clear to what energies the
1730: scale invariant sector extends.
1731: The lack of a model is overcome by parametrizing an effective
1732: Lagrangian, c.f. \eqref{eq:leff}, at the cost of many unknown
1733: coefficients which have to be constrained.
1734: We have investigated the extension of the scale invariant sector
1735: to lower energies
1736: resorting to dimensional analysis. We have found that effects
1737: at the heavy flavour scales are possible provided the coupling of
1738: the unparticle field to the Higgs VEV is moderate at the scale $\Lambda_\cU$.
1739: The effects are sizable for two reasons.
1740: Firstly the scaling dimension of the unparticle Lagrangian is more
1741: relevant than the one of the weak Lagrangian and secondly the effect of CP
1742: violation is linear and not shielded by a large SM background.
1743:
1744: Bearing in mind the breaking of scale invariance we have
1745: chosen decays where the unparticle propagates at a relatively
1746: large scale.
1747: The two examples we have investigated are the decays
1748: $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ and $B_d \to D^+D^-$.
1749: In doing so we have assumed the scale invariant sector extends
1750: to the scale $\sim 5\,{\rm GeV}$ for the former and to
1751: $\sim 2\,{\rm GeV}$ for the latter. We have not considered
1752: decays into final state particles as in for instance
1753: Ref.~\cite{Georgi1}
1754: They would also lead to signals but we have assumed
1755: the unparticles to be weakly coupled.
1756:
1757: We have chosen cases where the SM is described by a single
1758: weak amplitude and the unparticles add a second weak amplitude
1759: with strong phase allowing for the CP violation. In this sense our analysis does
1760: not differ from other model analyses with two amplitudes.
1761: The particularity of the unparticle scenario as compared
1762: to other models is that it is an example where the
1763: large strong phase might be generated by the strength of
1764: the coupling constant and that the contribution to other
1765: (flavour)-channels is qualitatively different from other models, for example from those generating the strong phases through penguins.
1766:
1767: The prediction of a CP asymmetry
1768: ${\cal A}_{CP} = - C$
1769: for leptonic decays seems a unique feature of
1770: the unparticle model, which has puzzling consequences to be
1771: discussed below.
1772: The reparametrization invariant is the
1773: product of two quadratic invariants, one from
1774: the quark sector and one from the lepton sector.
1775: As an example we have looked at $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$
1776: in conjunction with the constraints from the branching ratio.
1777: Generic plots for the parameter space of the anomalous
1778: dimension and the weak phase difference are shown
1779: in Fig.~\ref{fig:btauBC}.
1780: Maximal CP violation is possible for certain values of the
1781: parameter space. The current
1782: experimental data is not yet strong enough to
1783: set absolute bounds.
1784: Comments on flavour related
1785: decays are given in \ref{sec:rembtaunu}.
1786: In particular the channel $D \to \mu \nu$ might be
1787: of interest since more events have been
1788: collected \cite{CLEO} than in $B \to \tau \nu$ \cite{BaBarBtaunu},
1789: \cite{BelleBtaunu}. To the knowledge of the author there are no
1790: experimental data available with bounds on CP asymmetries
1791: in leptonic decays. Charge symmetry is usually implied in the analysis.
1792:
1793: The investigation of the non-leptonic decay
1794: $B_d \to D^+D^-$ was motivated by
1795: the large asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$ reported by
1796: Belle \cite{BelleDD}.
1797: We have neglected the penguin contribution
1798: and treated the decay in naive factorization.
1799: As compared to $B \to \tau \nu$ there is
1800: a third observable, the time dependent
1801: CP asymmetry $S_{D^+D^-}$. The latter agrees rather well with the
1802: SM predictions and sets constraints on $C_{D^+D^-}$.
1803: It is possible though to find values where the CP
1804: violation is maximal and satisfies the constraints
1805: of the branching ratio and the time dependent CP asymmetry.
1806: As for $B \to \tau \nu$, plots for generic parameters are shown
1807: in Fig.~\ref{fig:BDDCP}. It is encouraging that
1808: for small ratios of effective couplings the constraints
1809: from $S_{D^+D^-}$ allow for a large negative asymmetry $C_{D^+D^-}$
1810: as reported by Belle whereas the opposite sign seems to
1811: be disfavoured. This fact is general to any analysis
1812: with two amplitudes as outlined in section \ref{sec:genCP};
1813: the unparticles just provide a scenario with two amplitudes and
1814: possible large weak and strong phase differences. The true
1815: meaning is that in the case where the decay is described by two
1816: amplitudes, the sign of the Belle measurement is
1817: more consistent than the opposite sign.
1818: Discussions on U-spin and colour
1819: related decays are given in section \ref{sec:disBDD}.
1820: Let us emphasize two points from this section once more.
1821: Generically we would expect a large asymmetry in
1822: $C_{D^+D^-}$ to be accompanied by a large asymmetry in
1823: the color related $C_{J/\Psi \pi_0}$. Currently the
1824: experimental value
1825: $C_{J/\Psi \pi_0}^{\rm PDG} = -0.11(20)$ \cite{PDG}
1826: is not conclusive and moreover $B_d \to J/\Psi \pi_0$ and on the
1827: theoretical side, complications arise due to non-factorizable contributions.
1828: For $B_d$ decays the time dependent asymmetries are
1829: typically proportional to $\sin(2\beta)$ or $\sin(2\alpha)$,
1830: the large angles of the $B_d$ triangle, and new physics contributions
1831: are therefore hard to see. For $B_s$ decays, the mixing
1832: phase is $\phi_s \simeq 0$ and therefore the unparticle scenario
1833: could give rise to sizable corrections.
1834: This would be particularly interesting for $B_s \to J/\Psi \phi$ which aims
1835: at the extraction of the $B_s$ mixing phase $\phi_s$ at the LHCb.
1836:
1837: We have verified in section \ref{sec:cpt}
1838: that the novel CP-violation satisfies constraints from CPT-invarince,
1839: namely the equality of the sum of partial rates, of the subclasses of final states
1840: rescattering into each other, of particle and antiparticle.
1841: Since the SM and no well-known new physics model predicts
1842: a CP asymmetry for leptonic decays such as $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$
1843: we have inferred that the compensating mode must be
1844: due to unparticles.
1845: As we have quantitatively verified, the compensating mode is
1846: $B^+ \to \cU^+$. This might appear surprising at first sight but is
1847: possible since the unparticle does not have a definite mass
1848: but a continuous spectrum like a multiparticle state which
1849: was one of the basic observations in Georgi's first paper
1850: \cite{Georgi1}.
1851:
1852:
1853: Clearly the unparticle scenario would benefit largely from the
1854: construction of an explicit model.
1855: The question of the breaking of scale invariance and what a
1856: real\footnote{As opposed to a virtual particle, on which we
1857: focused throughout this paper.}
1858: unparticle in a laboratory experiment would mean
1859: could be addressed and it would presumably also provide structural
1860: constraints on the coefficients of the effective Lagrangian.
1861:
1862: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1863:
1864: I am grateful to Ikaros Bigi, Oliver Brein, Luigi Del Debbio, Sakis Dedes, Stefan F\"orste, Uli Haisch, J\"org Jeckel,
1865: Francesco Sannino, Christopher Smith, Raymond Stora for discussions,
1866: to Nikolai Uraltsev for correspondence on the $B \to D$ form factor, to Paul Jackson, Sheldon Stone,
1867: Erika de Lucia and Roberto Versaci for correspondence,
1868: to Tom Underwood for help with figures
1869: and to Lara Mary Turner for reading of the manuscript.
1870: Comments are welcome.
1871:
1872: This work was supported in part by the EU networks
1873: contract Nos.\ MRTN-CT-2006-035482, {\sc Flavianet}, and
1874: MRTN-CT-2006-035505, {\sc Heptools}.
1875:
1876:
1877:
1878: \appendix
1879: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1880: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
1881:
1882:
1883: \section{Some plots as a function of $\dU$}
1884: \label{app:adu}
1885:
1886:
1887: \begin{figure}[!h]
1888: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{adu.pdf}
1889: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{adusin.pdf}
1890: }
1891: \caption{\small The phase space function $A_\dU$ \eqref{eq:adu} (left) and as appearing in the propagator $A_\dU/\sin(\dU \pi)$
1892: \eqref{eq:prop} plotted against $\dU$ }
1893: \label{fig:adu}
1894: \end{figure}
1895:
1896: \begin{figure}[!h]
1897: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{delrhotau.pdf}
1898: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{delrhoDD.pdf}
1899: }
1900: \caption{\small The ratio of unparticle to SM model amplitude
1901: $\Delta_{\tau\nu(\rm DD)}$ in units
1902: of the ratio of effective couplings $[\rho_{\tau\nu(\rm DD)} \cdot10^2]$ \eqref{eq:deltauexp}\eqref{eq:delDDex}, versus
1903: the anomalous dimension $\dU$. (left) $\Delta_{\tau \nu}$
1904: \eqref{eq:deltauexp}, (right) $\Delta_{\rm DD}$ \eqref{eq:delDDex}}
1905: \label{fig:deltas}
1906: \end{figure}
1907:
1908:
1909:
1910:
1911: \section{Explcit results in coordinate space}
1912:
1913: \subsection{The commuator}
1914: \label{app:comm}
1915:
1916: The commutator of the unparticle field
1917: \begin{equation}
1918: C(x) = \matel{0}{[O_\cU(x),O_\cU(0)]}{0}
1919: \end{equation}
1920: may be obtained from the time ordered product
1921: \begin{equation}
1922: C_F(x) = \matel{0}{T O_\cU(x)O_\cU(0)}{0}
1923: \end{equation}
1924: via the general formula
1925: \begin{equation}
1926: C(x) =-2i{\rm sgn}(x_0){\rm Im}[C_F(x)] \quad.
1927: \end{equation}
1928: The correlation function $C_F(x)$ is obtained by Fourier transformation
1929: of \eqref{eq:prop}, c.f. Ref.~\cite{gelfand}
1930: \begin{equation}
1931: \label{eq:feyn}
1932: C_F(x) = \int \frac{d^4 P}{(2\pi)^4} e^{-iPx} (-i \Delta_\cU(P^2))
1933: = - \frac{2^{\dU-4}}{\pi^2} \frac{A_\dU}{2 \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{\Gamma(\dU)}{\Gamma(2-\dU)}(-x^2+i0)^{-\dU} \,.
1934: \end{equation}
1935: The imaginary part is
1936: \begin{equation}
1937: {\rm Im}[(-x^2+i0)^{-\dU}] = - \sin(\dU \pi)\Theta(x^2) (x^2)^{-\dU}
1938: \end{equation}
1939: and we obtain the commutator
1940: \begin{eqnarray}
1941: \label{eq:comm}
1942: C(x) &=& -i {\rm sgn}(x_0)\Theta(x^2) (x^2)^{-\dU} \sin(\dU \pi) \frac{2^{2 \dU-4}}{\pi^2} \frac{A_\dU}{ \sin(\dU \pi)} \frac{\Gamma(\dU)}{\Gamma(2-\dU)}
1943: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
1944: &=& -i {\rm sgn}(x_0) \Theta(x^2) (x^2)^{-\dU}(\dU-1) \frac{\Gamma(\dU+1/2)\pi^{1/2 - 2\dU}}{\Gamma(2\dU)\Gamma(2-\dU)}
1945: \end{eqnarray}
1946: The free field case $\dU \to 1$
1947: \begin{equation}
1948: \lim_{\dU \to 1+} C(x) = \frac{-i} {2 \pi} {\rm sgn}(x_0) \delta(x^2)
1949: \end{equation}
1950: may be recovered by use of the formula $\lim_{\epsilon \to 0+} \epsilon |z|^{1-\epsilon} = \delta(z)$. Or for any
1951: integer $n$
1952: \begin{equation*}
1953: \lim_{\dU \to n+} C(x) \sim -i {\rm sgn}(x_0) \delta^{(n-1)}(x^2) \,,
1954: \end{equation*}
1955: it is seen that the commutator has support on the light-cone only.
1956:
1957:
1958: \subsection{The Thirring model - an example with phase factor}
1959: \label{app:thirring}
1960: The Thirring model belongs to the class of exactly solvable
1961: two dimensional models. It is a fermionic model with a vector current-current interaction. The exact solution of
1962: the two point function was obtained by Johnson \cite{Johnson} as a
1963: function of free fields
1964: \begin{equation}
1965: \matel{0}{T \Psi(x) \bar \Psi(0)}{0} = -i e^{- i 4\pi \gamma D_0(x)} G_0(x) \,,
1966: \end{equation}
1967: where
1968:
1969: \begin{equation}
1970: D_0(x) = \frac{-i}{4\pi} \log(-x^2+i0) \qquad G_0(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{\gamma_\mu{x^\mu}}{x^2-i0}
1971: \end{equation}
1972: are the free bosonic and fermionic Greens functions.
1973: We have identified $\gamma = (\lambda^2/4 \pi^2)(1-\lambda^2/4\pi^2)^{-1}$, where $\lambda$ is
1974: the current-current coupling constant, as for instance
1975: in \cite{Wilson}. N.B. $\gamma > 0$ in accordance with \eqref{eq:d12} and $\dU = 1 + \gamma$.
1976: We recover
1977: \begin{equation}
1978: \matel{0}{T \Psi(x) \bar \Psi(0)}{0} = \frac{i}{2\pi} \frac{\gamma_\mu{x^\mu}}{(-x^2+i0)^{1+\gamma}}
1979: \end{equation}
1980: the formula \eqref{eq:feyn} in the fermionic case up to an overall normalization.
1981: The phase factor arises due to resummation of thresholds at $x^2 > 0$.
1982: Note that the overall normalization in a scale invariant theory is a matter of convention and
1983: is hidden in the arbitrary scale factor in the logarithm of the free bosonic function
1984: $\log[(-x^2+i0)\mu^2]$. In the notation of Eq.~\ref{eq:effUn}
1985: the scale $\mu$ is proportional to the fixed point scale
1986: $\Lambda_\cU$. This scales exhibits the phenomenon
1987: of dimensional transmutation.
1988:
1989:
1990: %\subsection{Traces of causality problems and its solutions in the literature}
1991: %\label{app:solu}
1992: %In this appendix we shall sketch the difficulties conformal theories
1993: %have had some time ago. Let us assume that the scale invariant
1994: %theory also exhibits the stronger conformal invariance, which depends
1995: %on the model investigated.
1996: %The special conformal transformation indeed seem to give raise
1997: %to a causality paradox. The special conformal transformations,
1998: %\begin{equation}
1999: %x_\mu \to (x_\mu - b_\mu x^2) (1-2 x\cdot b +x^2 b^2)^{-1}
2000: %\end{equation}
2001: %for arbitrary four vector $b_\mu$, can transform spacelike into timelike vectors and vice versa.
2002: %This seems to violate causality for generic $\dU$ because of the
2003: %support inside the lightcone of the commutator \eqref{eq:comm}.
2004: %In odd space-time dimension the problem already appears for free bose fields where $\dU = (d-2)/2$
2005: %is half integer \cite{old_dim}. This paradox was resolved for the
2006: %free field in Ref.~\cite{solve_odd} by noting that the special conformal
2007: %transformation is non-local due to the different phase factors of
2008: %the creation and annihilation part of the fields. In stating the paradox
2009: %in the first place we have silently assumed that the transformations are local.
2010: %{\bf maybe continue .... } Summarize situation for interacting fields ......
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015: \section{Final state interaction in $B_d \to D^+D^-$ \\ consistent with naive factorization}
2016: \label{app:iso}
2017:
2018: In this appendix we shall obtain the isospin final state interaction phases
2019: within the naive factorization approach.
2020: The isospin analysis from $K \to \pi\pi$ and $B \to \pi\pi$, c.f. \cite{bigisanda} is transferable
2021: to $\bar B_d \to D^+D^-$ \cite{Xing}. The $D$-mesons are $I = 1/2$ states.
2022: Angular momentum conservation implies that only $I=0$ and $I=1$ states
2023: are formed as final states in the decay.
2024: Denoting the amplitudes
2025: \begin{equation*}
2026: A^{+-} = {\cal A}(\bar B_d \to D^+D^-) \quad A^{+-} = {\cal A}(\bar B_d \to D^0D^0) \quad A^{+0} = {\cal A}(\bar B_u \to D^+D^0) \,,
2027: \end{equation*}
2028: isospin symmetry implies
2029: \begin{equation}
2030: A^{+0} = A_1 \quad A^{+-} = \frac{1}{2}(A_1+A_0) \quad A^{00} = \frac{1}{2}(A_1-A_0)
2031: \end{equation}
2032: from where the famous isospin triangle follows
2033: \begin{equation}
2034: A^{+0} = A^{+-} + A^{00} \quad .
2035: \end{equation}
2036: Let us introduce the following notation
2037: \begin{equation}
2038: A_0 = Z_0 e^{i\delta_0} \qquad A_1 = Z_1 e^{i \delta_0} \quad ,
2039: \end{equation}
2040: where we have factorized the final state interaction phase
2041: in the corresponding isospin channels.
2042:
2043: In the naive factorization approximation $Z_0 = Z_1 \equiv Z$ and
2044: therefore
2045: \begin{eqnarray}
2046: \label{eq:isi}
2047: A^{+0} &=& Z \cos\Big( \frac{\delta_1-\delta_0}{2} \Big) e^{i (\delta_1-\delta_0)/2} \nonumber \\
2048: A^{00} &=& i Z \sin\Big( \frac{\delta_1-\delta_0}{2} \Big) e^{i (\delta_1-\delta_0)/2} \nonumber \\
2049: A^{+0} &=& Z e^{i \delta_1} \,.
2050: \end{eqnarray}
2051: The isospin triangle becomes rectangular
2052: \begin{equation}
2053: |A^{+0}|^2 = |A^{+-}|^2 + |A^{00}|^2
2054: \end{equation}
2055: Two out of the three rates have been measured \cite{PDG}
2056: \begin{equation}
2057: \bar {\cal B}( B_d \to D^+ D^-) = 1.9(6) \cdot 10^{-4} \qquad \bar {\cal B}( B^+ \to \bar D^0 D^+) = 4.8(1) \cdot 10^{-4} \,.
2058: \end{equation}
2059: Neglecting irrelevant phase space effects we obtain from \eqref{eq:isi}
2060: \begin{equation}
2061: \label{eq:iso_final}
2062: \cos^2 \Big( \frac{\delta_1-\delta_0}{2} \Big) \simeq 0.4(2) \,.
2063: \end{equation}
2064:
2065:
2066:
2067:
2068:
2069:
2070: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2071:
2072: \bibitem{Georgi1}
2073: H.~Georgi,
2074: %``Unparticle Physics,''
2075: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 221601
2076: [arXiv:hep-ph/0703260].
2077: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,221601;%%
2078:
2079: \bibitem{mass0free}
2080: D.~Buchholz and K.~Fredenhagen,
2081: %``Dilations And Interaction,''
2082: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 18} (1977) 1107.
2083: %%CITATION = JMAPA,18,1107;%%
2084:
2085: \bibitem{Georgi2}
2086: H.~Georgi,
2087: %``Another Odd Thing About Unparticle Physics,''
2088: arXiv:0704.2457 [hep-ph].
2089: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.2457;%%
2090:
2091: \bibitem{e+e-}
2092: K.~Cheung, W.~Y.~Keung and T.~C.~Yuan,
2093: %``Novel signals in unparticle physics,''
2094: arXiv:0704.2588 [hep-ph].
2095: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.2588;%%
2096:
2097: \bibitem{FRS}
2098: P.~J.~Fox, A.~Rajaraman and Y.~Shirman,
2099: %``Bounds on Unparticles from the Higgs Sector,''
2100: arXiv:0705.3092 [hep-ph].
2101: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.3092;%%
2102:
2103: \bibitem{BFRS}
2104: M.~Bander, J.~L.~Feng, A.~Rajaraman and Y.~Shirman,
2105: %``Unparticles: Scales and High Energy Probes,''
2106: arXiv:0706.2677 [hep-ph].
2107: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.2677;%%
2108:
2109: \bibitem{WW}
2110: N.~Greiner,
2111: %``Constraints On Unparticle Physics In Electroweak Gauge Boson Scattering,''
2112: arXiv:0705.3518 [hep-ph].
2113: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.3518;%%
2114:
2115: \bibitem{DY}
2116: P.~Mathews and V.~Ravindran,
2117: %``Unparticle physics at hadron collider via dilepton production,''
2118: arXiv:0705.4599 [hep-ph].
2119: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.4599;%%
2120:
2121: \bibitem{collider_lot}
2122: K.~Cheung, W.~Y.~Keung and T.~C.~Yuan,
2123: %``Collider Phenomenology of Unparticle Physics,''
2124: arXiv:0706.3155 [hep-ph].
2125: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.3155;%%
2126:
2127: \bibitem{unparticle_resonance}
2128: T.~G.~Rizzo,
2129: %``Contact Interactions and Resonance-Like Physics at Present and Future
2130: %Colliders from Unparticles,''
2131: arXiv:0706.3025 [hep-ph].
2132: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.3025;%%
2133:
2134: \bibitem{DIS}
2135: G.~J.~Ding and M.~L.~Yan,
2136: %``Unparticle Physics in DIS,''
2137: arXiv:0705.0794 [hep-ph].
2138: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.0794;%%
2139:
2140: \bibitem{nuN}
2141: G.~J.~Ding and M.~L.~Yan,
2142: %``Unparticle Versus NuTeV Anomaly,''
2143: arXiv:0706.0325 [hep-ph].
2144: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.0325;%%
2145:
2146:
2147: \bibitem{Upheno}
2148: M.~Luo and G.~Zhu,
2149: %``Some Phenomenologies of Unparticle Physics,''
2150: arXiv:0704.3532 [hep-ph].
2151: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.3532;%%
2152:
2153:
2154:
2155: \bibitem{CPun}
2156: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,
2157: %``Unparticle physics on CP violation,''
2158: arXiv:0705.0689 [hep-ph].
2159: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.0689;%%
2160:
2161:
2162: \bibitem{DDmix}
2163: X.~Q.~Li and Z.~T.~Wei,
2164: %``Unparticle physics effects on D0 - anti-D0 mixing,''
2165: arXiv:0705.1821 [hep-ph].
2166: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1821;%%
2167:
2168: \bibitem{BKnunu}
2169: T.~M.~Aliev, A.~S.~Cornell and N.~Gaur,
2170: %``B \to K(K^*) missing energy in Unparticle physics,''
2171: arXiv:0705.4542 [hep-ph].
2172: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.4542;%%
2173:
2174: \bibitem{CPun2}
2175: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,
2176: %``Unparticle phase effects,''
2177: arXiv:0706.0850 [hep-ph].
2178: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.0850;%%
2179:
2180: \bibitem{PP}
2181: M.~Duraisamy,
2182: %``Unparticle physics in e^+ e^- annihilation,''
2183: arXiv:0705.2622 [hep-ph].
2184: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.2622;%%
2185:
2186: \bibitem{mudecay}
2187: D.~Choudhury, D.~K.~Ghosh and Mamta,
2188: %``Unparticles and Muon Decay,''
2189: arXiv:0705.3637 [hep-ph].
2190: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.3637;%%
2191:
2192: \bibitem{gm2}
2193: Y.~Liao,
2194: %``Bounds on unparticles couplings to electrons: From electron g-2 to
2195: %positronium decays,''
2196: arXiv:0705.0837 [hep-ph].
2197: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.0837;%%
2198:
2199: \bibitem{LFV1}
2200: T.~M.~Aliev, A.~S.~Cornell and N.~Gaur,
2201: %``Lepton Flavour Violation in Unparticle Physics,''
2202: arXiv:0705.1326 [hep-ph].
2203: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1326;%%
2204:
2205: \bibitem{LFV2}
2206: C.~D.~Lu, W.~Wang and Y.~M.~Wang,
2207: %``Lepton flavor violating processes in unparticle physics,''
2208: arXiv:0705.2909 [hep-ph].
2209: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.2909;%%
2210:
2211: \bibitem{invisible}
2212: S.~L.~Chen, X.~G.~He and H.~C.~Tsai,
2213: %``Constraints on Unparticle Interactions from Invisible Decays of Z,
2214: %Quarkonia and Neutrinos,''
2215: arXiv:0707.0187 [hep-ph].
2216: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.0187;%%
2217:
2218: \bibitem{cosmo}
2219: H.~Davoudiasl,
2220: %``Constraining Unparticle Physics with Cosmology and Astrophysics,''
2221: arXiv:0705.3636 [hep-ph].
2222: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.3636;%%
2223:
2224: \bibitem{longrange}
2225: Y.~Liao and J.~Y.~Liu,
2226: %``Long-ranged spin-spin interaction of electron from unparticle exchange,''
2227: arXiv:0706.1284 [hep-ph].
2228: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.1284;%%
2229:
2230: \bibitem{ungravity}
2231: H.~ Goldberg, P.~Nath,
2232: %"Ungravity and Its Possible Test."
2233: arXiv:0706.3898 [ps, pdf, other]
2234: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.3898;%%
2235:
2236: \bibitem{Stephanov}
2237: M.~A.~Stephanov,
2238: %``Deconstruction of Unparticles,''
2239: arXiv:0705.3049 [hep-ph].
2240: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.3049;%%
2241:
2242: \bibitem{BZ}
2243: T.~Banks and A.~Zaks,
2244: %``On The Phase Structure Of Vector-Like Gauge Theories With Massless
2245: %Fermions,''
2246: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 196} (1982) 189.
2247: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,189;%%
2248:
2249: \bibitem{HDR}
2250: F.~Sannino and K.~Tuominen,
2251: %``Techniorientifold,''
2252: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 051901
2253: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405209].
2254: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,051901;%%
2255:
2256: D.~D.~Dietrich and F.~Sannino,
2257: %``Walking in the SU(N),''
2258: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75} (2007) 085018
2259: [arXiv:hep-ph/0611341].
2260: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,085018;%%
2261:
2262:
2263: \bibitem{HDRlattice}
2264: S.~Catterall and F.~Sannino,
2265: %``Minimal walking on the lattice,''
2266: arXiv:0705.1664 [hep-lat].
2267: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1664;%%
2268:
2269: \bibitem{FFRS}
2270: R.~Foadi, M.~T.~Frandsen, T.~A.~Ryttov and F.~Sannino,
2271: %``Minimal Walking Technicolor: Set Up for Collider Physics,''
2272: arXiv:0706.1696 [hep-ph].
2273: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.1696;%%
2274:
2275: \bibitem{Mack}
2276: G.~Mack,
2277: %``All Unitary Ray Representations Of The Conformal Group SU(2,2) With
2278: %Positive Energy,''
2279: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55} (1977) 1.
2280: %%CITATION = CMPHA,55,1;%%
2281:
2282:
2283: \bibitem{bigisanda}
2284: I.~I.~Y.~Bigi and A.~I.~Sanda,
2285: %``CP violation,''
2286: Camb.\ Monogr.\ Part.\ Phys.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ Cosmol.\ {\bf 9} (2000) 1.
2287: %%CITATION = CMPCE,9,1;%%
2288:
2289: \bibitem{HFAG}
2290: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG)],
2291: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
2292: arXiv:hep-ex/0603003. \\
2293: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0603003;%%
2294: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/
2295:
2296:
2297: \bibitem{PDG}
2298: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
2299: %``Review of particle physics,''
2300: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
2301: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
2302:
2303: \bibitem{UTfit}
2304: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration],
2305: %``The unitarity triangle fit in the standard model and hadronic parameters
2306: %from lattice QCD: A reappraisal after the measurements of Delta(m(s)) and
2307: %BR(B --> tau nu/tau),''
2308: JHEP {\bf 0610} (2006) 081
2309: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606167].
2310: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0610,081;%%
2311:
2312: \bibitem{BaBarBtaunu}
2313: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
2314: %``A search for B+ --> tau+ nu,''
2315: arXiv:0705.1820 [hep-ex].
2316: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1820;%%
2317:
2318:
2319: \bibitem{BelleBtaunu}
2320: http://belle.kek.jp/belle/talks/ICHEP2006/Browder.pdf
2321:
2322: \bibitem{CLEO}
2323: M.~Artuso {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
2324: %``Improved measurement of B(D+ --> mu+ nu) and the pseudoscalar decay
2325: %constant f(D+),''
2326: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 251801
2327: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508057].
2328: %%CITATION = PRLTA,95,251801;%%
2329:
2330: \bibitem{KLOE}
2331: F.~Ambrosino {\it et al.} [KLOE Collaboration],
2332: %``Measurement of the absolute branching ratio for the K+ --> mu+ nu (gamma)
2333: %decay with the KLOE detector,''
2334: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 632} (2006) 76
2335: [arXiv:hep-ex/0509045].
2336: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B632,76;%%
2337:
2338:
2339: \bibitem{BSS}
2340: M.~Bander, D.~Silverman and A.~Soni,
2341: %``CP Noninvariance In The Decays Of Heavy Charged Quark Systems,''
2342: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 43} (1979) 242.
2343: %%CITATION = PRLTA,43,242;%%
2344:
2345: \bibitem{BaBarDD}
2346: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
2347: %``\boldmath Measurement of \CP-Violating Asymmetries in $\Bz\to
2348: %D^{(*)\pm}\Dmp$,''
2349: arXiv:0705.1190 [hep-ex].
2350: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1190;%%
2351:
2352: \bibitem{BelleDD}
2353: S.~Fratina {\it et al.},
2354: %``Evidence for CP violation in B0 --> D+ D- decays,''
2355: arXiv:hep-ex/0702031.
2356: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0702031;%%
2357:
2358: \bibitem{Xing}
2359: Z.~Z.~Xing,
2360: %``CP violation in B/d --> D+ D-, D*+ D-, D+ D*- and D*+ D*- decays,''
2361: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 014010
2362: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907455].
2363: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D61,014010;%%
2364:
2365: \bibitem{Fleischer}
2366: R.~Fleischer,
2367: %``Exploring CP Violation and Penguin Effects through $B^0_d \to D^+ D^-$
2368: %and $B^0_s \to D^+_s D^-_s$,''
2369: arXiv:0705.4421 [hep-ph].
2370: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.4421;%%
2371:
2372:
2373: \bibitem{NeubertStech}
2374: M.~Neubert and B.~Stech,
2375: %``Non-leptonic weak decays of B mesons,''
2376: Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High Energy Phys.\ {\bf 15} (1998) 294
2377: [arXiv:hep-ph/9705292].
2378: %%CITATION = 00319,15,294;%%
2379:
2380: \bibitem{Roma}
2381: M.~Ciuchini, R.~Contino, E.~Franco and G.~Martinelli,
2382: %``Heavy-heavy form factors and generalized factorization,''
2383: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 43
2384: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810271].
2385: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C9,43;%%
2386:
2387: \bibitem{Ikaros}
2388: I.~I.~Bigi,
2389: %``CP Violation in the SM, Quantum Subtleties and the Insights of Yogi
2390: %Berra,''
2391: arXiv:hep-ph/0703132.
2392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0703132;%%
2393:
2394: \bibitem{wolf}
2395: L.~Wolfenstein,
2396: %``Final state interactions and CP violation in weak decays,''
2397: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 151.
2398: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,151;%%
2399:
2400: \bibitem{GerardHou}
2401: J.~M.~Gerard and W.~S.~Hou,
2402: %``CP Nonconservation And Cpt: A Reassessment Of Loop Effects In Charmless B
2403: %Decays,''
2404: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 62} (1989) 855.
2405: %%CITATION = PRLTA,62,855;%%
2406:
2407:
2408: % \bibitem{cicerone}
2409: % S.~Bianco, F.~L.~Fabbri, D.~Benson and I.~Bigi,
2410: %``A cicerone for the physics of charm,''
2411: % Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 26N7} (2003) 1
2412: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0309021].
2413: %%CITATION = RNCIB,26N7,1;%%
2414:
2415: \bibitem{Jost}
2416: R. Jost, General Theory of Quantized Fields, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
2417: R.I.,1965.
2418:
2419:
2420:
2421: \bibitem{seiberg_intriligator}
2422: K.~A.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg,
2423: %``Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality,''
2424: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 45BC} (1996) 1
2425: [arXiv:hep-th/9509066].
2426: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,45BC,1;%%
2427:
2428: \bibitem{gelfand}
2429: I.M. Gelfand and G.E. Chilov, {\sl Les Distributions}, Vol 1.
2430: Dunod, Paris (1972).
2431:
2432: \bibitem{Johnson}
2433: K.~Johnson,
2434: %``Solution of the equations for the Green's functions of a two-dimensional
2435: %relativistic field theory,''
2436: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 20} (1961) 773.
2437: %%CITATION = NUCIA,20,773;%%
2438:
2439: \bibitem{Wilson}
2440: K.~G.~Wilson,
2441: %``Operator Product Expansions And Anomalous Dimensions In The Thirring
2442: %Model,''
2443: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 2} (1970) 1473.
2444: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D2,1473;%%
2445:
2446:
2447: \end{thebibliography}
2448:
2449: \end{document}
2450:
2451:
2452: \bibitem{CW_conformal_new}
2453: K.~A.~Meissner and H.~Nicolai,
2454: %``Conformal symmetry and the standard model,''
2455: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 648} (2007) 312
2456: [arXiv:hep-th/0612165].
2457: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B648,312;%%
2458:
2459: