1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,aps,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,
2: nofootinbib]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \begin{flushright}
7: %\preprint{hep-ph/xxyyzz}
8: %\today\\
9: %UH-0528
10: \end{flushright}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\bers}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
19: \newcommand{\eers}{\end{eqnarray*}}
20: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
21: \newcommand\un{\cal{U}}
22: \def\Apa{A_\parallel}
23: \def\Ape{A_{\perp}}
24: \def\lp{\lambda^\prime}
25: \def\ll{\Lambda}
26: \def\mb{m_{\Lambda_b}}
27: \def\ml{m_\Lambda}
28: \def\s1{\hat s}
29: \def\ds{\displaystyle}
30: \def\s{\smallskip}
31: \def\l{\hspace*{0.05cm}}
32: \def\esp{\hspace*{1cm}}
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34:
35: \title{\large Unparticle effect on $B_s - \overline{B}_s$
36: mixing and its implications for $B_s \to J/\psi \phi,~ \phi \phi $
37: decays }
38: \author{R. Mohanta$^1$ and A. K. Giri$^2$ }
39: \affiliation{$^1$ School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
40: Hyderabad - 500 046, India\\
41: $^2$ Department of Physics, Punjabi University,
42: Patiala - 147 002, India}
43: %\vspace*{1.0 truein}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: We study the effect of unparticle stuff on $B_s - \overline{B}_s$
47: mixing and consider possible implications of it for the decay
48: modes $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ and $\phi \phi$. We find that due to the
49: new contributions from the unparticles the $B_s - \overline{B}_s$
50: mixing phase could be observable at the LHC along with the possible
51: sizable CP asymmetry parameters $S_{\psi \phi( \phi \phi)}$ in $
52: B_s \to J/\psi \phi(\phi \phi)$ decay modes.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \pacs{14.80.-j, 11.30.Er, 13.25.Hw}
56: \maketitle
57:
58:
59: The standard model (SM) has been found to be very successful in
60: explaining the data up to the electroweak scale but still we believe
61: that it is the low energy manifestation of some beyond the standard
62: model scenario, which exists at high energy, the form of which is
63: not yet known. In the literature, there exist various
64: beyond the standard model scenarios which will
65: be tested in the upcoming experiments. Whereas, an interesting
66: and very much appealing idea has been proposed recently by Georgi
67: \cite{georgi} regarding the existence of some non-trivial scale
68: invariant hidden sector. Since the conventional particles are not described
69: by the scale invariant theory Georgi termed the physics described by
70: the scale invariant sector as the ``unparticle physics''.
71:
72: In reality, the SM is not scale invariant and contains mostly
73: particles having nonzero mass but a scale invariant theory, if it
74: exists, can only have massless particles. It could be
75: possible that the SM fields at high energy might be scale invariant
76: but the scale invariance has to be broken at least at or above the
77: electroweak scale. Let us assume that the lack of scale invariance
78: of the SM is retained up to the high energy scale and further imagine that
79: there exist scale invariant fields at a higher scale above TeV with
80: a nontrivial infrared fixed point, termed as Banks-Zaks (${\cal{BZ}}$)
81: fields. Thus, the high energy theory contains both the SM fields and
82: the $B{\cal Z}$ fields. They interact via the exchange of particles
83: of large mass $M_{\un}$ which can generically be written as
84: \bers
85: \frac{1}{M_{\un}^k} O_{SM} O_{\cal{BZ}}\;,
86: \eers
87: where $O_{SM}$ is
88: the operator of mass dimension $d_{SM}$ and
89: $O_{\cal{BZ}}$ is the operator of mass dimension $d_{\cal{BZ}}$
90: made out of SM and ${\cal{BZ}}$ fields respectively. At some scale
91: $\Lambda_{\un}$ the renormalizable
92: couplings of the ${\cal BZ}$ fields cause dimensional
93: transmutation. Below this scale ${\cal{BZ}}$ operators match
94: onto unparticle operators leading to a new set of interactions
95: \bers
96: C_{\un}\frac{\Lambda_{\un}^{d_{\cal{BZ}}-d_{\un}}}{M_{\un}^k} O_{SM}
97: O_{\un}\;,
98: \eers
99: where $C_{\un}$ is a coefficient function in the low energy effective theory
100: and $O_{\un}$ is the unparticle operator with scaling dimension
101: $d_{\un}$. Furthermore, $M_{\un}$ should be large enough such that
102: its coupling to the SM fields must be sufficiently weak, consistent
103: with the current experimental data. The production of these
104: unparticles might be detectable by measuring
105: the missing energy and momentum distribution in various processes
106: \cite{georgi, kingman},
107: e.g., $t \to u+\un$, $e^-+e^+ \to \gamma +\un $, $Z \to q \bar q~ \un$,
108: etc.
109:
110: Unparticle stuff with scale dimension $d_{\un}$ looks like a
111: non-integral number $d_{\un}$ of invisible massless particles. Unparticle, if
112: exists, could couple to the standard model fields and consequently
113: affect the low energy dynamics. The effect of unparticle stuff on
114: low energy phenomenology has been explored in Refs.
115: \cite{kingman, ref2, lenz1}. One of the most interesting thing
116: about unparticles is
117: the existence of the peculiar CP conserving phases in their
118: propagators
119: in the time like region, which lead to interesting CP violation phenomena.
120: For example, if nonzero direct CP asymmetry is found in the
121: process $B^0 \to l^+ l^- $, it could be a direct signal
122: of unparticle effects \cite{geng}.
123:
124: In this paper, we would like to see the effect of unparticle stuff
125: on the mass difference between the neutral $B_s$ meson mass
126: eigenstates ($\Delta M_s$) that characterizes the $B_s
127: -\overline{B}_s$ mixing phenomena. It is well known that flavor
128: changing $b \to s$ transitions are particularly interesting for new
129: physics searches. Among these $B_s - \overline{ B}_s$ mixing
130: plays a special role. In the SM, $B_s - \overline{ B}_s$ mixing
131: occurs at the one-loop level by flavor-changing weak interaction
132: box diagrams and hence is very sensitive to new physics effects.
133: The effect of unparticle stuff in $B_s- \overline{B}_s$
134: mixing has also been recently investigated in Ref. \cite{lenz1}
135: where it is observed that large mixing phase could
136: be possible due to unparticle effects,
137: in accordance with our findings.
138:
139:
140: In general $B_s - \overline{B}_s$ mass difference is defined as
141: $\Delta M_{B_s} = 2 |M_{12}^s|= |\langle B_s^0| H_{eff}^{\Delta
142: B=2} | \overline{B}_s^0 \rangle|/M_{B_s}$, where $H_{eff}^{\Delta B=2}$ is the
143: effective Hamiltonian responsible for the $\Delta B=2 $ transitions.
144: In the SM the mass difference is given by \cite{mass}
145: \bea
146: \Delta M_{B_s} = \frac{G_F^2 M_W^2}{6 \pi^2} M_{B_s} \hat \eta_B
147: \hat B_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2 |V_{tb} V_{ts}^*|^2 S_0(x_t)\;,
148: \eea
149: where $\hat \eta_B$ is the QCD correction factor and $S_0(x_t)$ is
150: the Inami-Lim function \cite{lim} with $x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2$. In fact
151: the estimation of the SM value for $\Delta M_{B_s}$ contains large
152: hadronic uncertainties due to $ \hat B_{B_s} f_{B_s}^2$. Combining
153: the results of JL \cite{jl} and HPQCD \cite{hp} yields the $B_s$
154: mass difference as \cite {ball1}
155: \be (\Delta M_{B_s})^{\rm SM}|_{\rm (HP+JL)QCD}=(23.4 \pm 3.8)~ {\rm
156: ps}^{-1}\;. \ee
157: Recently, Lenz and Nierste \cite{lenz2} updated the theoretical estimation
158: of the $B_s$ mass difference with value $(\Delta M_{B_s})^{\rm SM}=
159: (19.30 \pm 6.68)~ {\rm ps}^{-1}$ (for Set-I parameters) and
160: $(\Delta M_{B_s})^{\rm SM}=
161: (20.31 \pm 3.25)~ {\rm ps}^{-1}$ (Set-II).
162:
163: Experimentally, the D\O~ \cite{d0} and CDF \cite{cdf} collaborations have
164: reported new results for the $B_s - \bar{B}_s $ mass difference \bea
165: && 17 ~{\rm ps^{-1}} < \Delta M_{B_s} < 21~ {\rm ps^{-1}}~~~~~~~~90
166: \%~ {\rm C.L.}~
167: ({\rm D \O })\nn\\
168: && \Delta M_{B_s}=(17.77 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.07)~ {\rm
169: ps^{-1}}~~~~~~~~~({\rm CDF})\;. \eea Although the experimental
170: results appear to be consistent with the standard model prediction,
171: but they do not completely exclude the possible new physics effects
172: in $\Delta B=2$ transitions. In the literature, there have already
173: been many discussions both in model independent \cite{ball1, lenz2, np} and
174: model dependent way \cite{susy} regarding the implications of these
175: new measurements. In this work we would like to see the effect of
176: unparticle stuff on the mass difference of $B_s$ system and its
177: possible implications for the mixing induced CP asymmetries in $B_s
178: \to J/\psi \phi$ and $\phi \phi$ decay modes. In our analysis we use
179: the central value of (JL+HP)QCD results as the SM contribution and
180: the central value of CDF result as the experimental value for
181: $\Delta M_{B_s}$.
182:
183:
184: New physics contribution to the mixing amplitude $M_{12}^s$ can be
185: parameterized in the most general way as \be
186: M_{12}^s=M_{12}^{\rm SM}+M_{12}^{\rm NP}=M_{12}^{\rm SM}(1-R e^{i
187: \phi})\;,\label{ms}
188: \ee
189: where $ M_{12}^{\rm SM}$ and $ M_{12}^{\rm NP}$ are the SM and new
190: physics (NP) contributions, $R=|M_{12}^{\rm NP}/ M_{12}^{\rm SM}|$
191: and $\phi$ is the relative phase between them. It should be noted
192: here that since the SM contribution to $\Delta M_{B_s}$ is above the
193: present experimental value, we have explicitly made the NP
194: contribution to be negative in the last term of Eq. (\ref{ms}) so
195: that it will interfere destructively with the corresponding SM value
196: for $\phi=0$. Alternatively, one can also parameterize these
197: contributions as \be
198: \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}^s}{M_{12}^{\rm SM}}} =r_s e^{i \theta_s}\;,
199: \ee which gives \be M_{12}^s=r_s^2 e^{2i \theta_s}~ M_{12}^{\rm
200: SM}\;. \ee Values of $r_s^2 \neq 1 $ and $2 \theta_s \neq 0$ would
201: signal new physics. These two sets of parametrization can be related
202: to each other by
203: \begin{eqnarray*}
204: r_s^2=\sqrt{1+R^2-2R \cos \phi}\;,~~~~{\rm and}~~~~ \tan 2 \theta_s
205: =\frac{-R \sin \phi}{1-R \cos \phi}\;.
206: \end{eqnarray*}
207: Now we proceed to see how unparticle stuff will affect the mixing
208: amplitude $M_{12}^s$. It should be noted that, depending on the
209: nature of the original ${\cal BZ}$ operator $O_{\cal BZ}$ and the
210: transmutation, the resulting unparticle may have different Lorentz
211: structure. In our analysis, we consider only two kinds of
212: unparticles i.e., scalar type and vector type.
213: Under the scenario that
214: the unparticle stuff transforms as a singlet under the SM gauge
215: group \cite{georgi},
216: the unparticles can couple to
217: different flavors of quarks and induce flavor changing neutral
218: current (FCNC) transitions even at the tree level.
219: Thus, the coupling of
220: these unparticles to quarks is given as \be
221: \frac{c_S^{q'q}}{\Lambda_{\un}^{d_{\un}}}\bar q'
222: \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5) q~
223: \partial^\mu O_{\un}+\frac{c_V^{q'q}}{\Lambda_{\un}^{d_{\un}-1}}\bar q'
224: \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5) q~ O_{\un}^\mu+h.c.\;, \label{cv}
225: \ee where
226: $O_{\un}$ and $O_{\un}^\mu$ denote the scalar and vector unparticle
227: fields and
228: $c_{S,V}^{q'q}$ are the dimensionless coefficients which in general depend on
229: different flavors. If both $q$ and $q'$ belong to up (down) quark
230: sector, FCNC transitions can be
231: induced by the above effective interactions. Thus, the
232: unparticles mediate the $b \to s$ transitions in
233: the $B_s -
234: \overline{B}_s$ mixing where they appear only as propagators with
235: momentum $P$ and scale dimension $d_{\un}$.
236:
237: The propagator for the scalar unparticle field is given as
238: \cite{georgi, kingman}
239: \be \int d^4 x e^{i P \cdot x}\langle 0 | TO_{\un}(x)
240: O_{\un}(0)|0 \rangle = i \frac{A_{d_{\un}}}{2 \sin d_{\un} \pi}
241: \frac{1} {(P^2+i \epsilon)^{2-d_{\un}}}e^{-i\phi_{\un}}\;, \ee where
242: \be A_{d_{\un}}= \frac{16 \pi^{5/2}}{(2 \pi)^{2 d_{\un}}}
243: \frac{\Gamma(d_{\un}+1/2)}{\Gamma(d_{\un}-1)\Gamma(2d_{\un})}\;,
244: ~~~~{\rm and} ~~~\phi_{\un}=(d_{\un}-2)\pi \;.\ee
245: Similarly the propagator for the vector unparticle is given by \be
246: \int d^4 x e^{i P \cdot x}\langle 0 | TO_{\un}^\mu(x) O_{\un}^\nu
247: (0)|0 \rangle = i \frac{A_{d_{\un}}}{2 \sin d_{\un} \pi}
248: \frac{-g^{\mu \nu} +P^\mu P^\nu/P^2} {(P^2+i
249: \epsilon)^{2-d_{\un}}}e^{-i \phi_{\un}}\;. \ee
250:
251: From Eq. (\ref{cv}), one can easily see that the new effective
252: operators contributing to $B_s - \overline{B}_s$ due to vector/scalar type
253: unparticle exchange are given by \bea Q_{V-A} &=& \bar s
254: \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)b ~\bar s \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)b\;,
255: \nn\\
256: Q_{S+P} &=& \bar s (1+\gamma_5)b~ \bar s (1+\gamma_5)b\;.
257: \eea
258: Using the
259: vacuum insertion method, the matrix elements of these operators are
260: given as \bea \langle \bar B_s | \bar s \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)b
261: ~\bar s \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)b| B_s \rangle &= & \frac{8}{3}
262: f_{B_s}^2\hat B_{B_s} m_{B_s}^2 \;,
263: \nn\\
264: \langle \bar B_s| \bar s (1+\gamma_5)b~ \bar s (1+\gamma_5)b |B_s
265: \rangle &=& -\frac{5}{3} f_{B_s}^2\tilde B_{B_s} m_{B_s}^2\;. \eea
266: Thus, we get the new contributions to $M_{12}^s$ due to the
267: scalar/vector like unparticles as \bea |M_{12}^{\un}|_{\rm
268: scalar}&=& \frac{5}{6}\frac{f_{B_s}^2 \tilde B_{B_s}}{ m_{B_s}}
269: \frac{A_{d_{\un}}}{2 |\sin d_{\un}\pi|}\left
270: (\frac{m_{B_s}}{\Lambda_{\un}} \right )^{2 d_{\un}} |c_S^{sb}|^2\;,
271: \nn\\
272: |M_{12}^{\un}|_{\rm vector}&=& \frac{1}{2}\frac{f_{B_s}^2 \hat
273: B_{B_s}}{ m_{B_s}} \frac{A_{d_{\un}}}{2| \sin d_{\un}\pi|}\left
274: (\frac{m_{B_s}}{\Lambda_{\un}} \right )^{2 d_{\un}-2}
275: |c_V^{sb}|^2\;.\label{lk}
276: \eea
277: From the above equations one can see that the unparticle
278: contributions depend on three unknown parameters, namely, the
279: dimension of the unparticle fields $d_{\un}$, the scale
280: $\Lambda_{\un}$ and the couplings $c_{S,V}^{sb}$. Therefore, it is
281: not possible to constrain the new physics contributions unless we
282: fix some of these parameters. Now to obtain the constraint on the
283: coupling constants, we fix the energy scale $\Lambda_{\un}$=1 TeV and
284: the scale dimension $d_{\un}$=3/2. We use the value of the decay constant
285: $f_{B_s} \sqrt{\hat B_{B_s}}=0.262$ GeV from Blanke {\it et al}
286: in Ref. \cite{np} alongwith the relationship
287: between the bag parameters \cite{lenz2} as $\tilde B_{B_s}=
288: \Big(m_{B_s}^2/(\overline{m}_b+\overline{m}_s)^2\Big)\hat B_{B_s}
289: \approx 1.55~ \hat B_{B_s}$.
290: Assuming that only scalar/vector type unparticles
291: contribute at a given time and the total contributions is given by
292: the unparticles one can obtain the upper bound on $c_{S,V}$ as \be
293: |c_S^{sb}| \leq 0.12 \;,~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~|c_V^{sb}| \leq 0.001\;.
294: \ee
295:
296: Now to obtain the lower bound on $c_{S,V}^{sb}$, we assume that the
297: minimum value of the unparticle contribution is such that it will
298: just be sufficient to lower the SM contribution to the present
299: experimental value. Thus, from Eqs. (\ref{ms}) and (\ref{lk}) we
300: obtain the lower bounds as \be |c_S^{sb}| \geq 6.75 \times 10^{-2}
301: \;,~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~|c_V^{sb}| \geq 5.8 \times 10^{-4}\;. \ee
302:
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304: \begin{figure}[htb]
305: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.5 truein \epsfbox{figs.eps}}
306: \caption{
307: Correlation plot between $\Delta M_{B_s}$ in ${\rm ps}^{-1}$ and
308: $2 \theta_s$ in degree for a representative set of
309: values of $|c_{S}^{sb}|$ as labelled in the plots.}
310: \end{figure}
311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313: \begin{figure}[htb]
314: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.5 truein \epsfbox{figv.eps}}
315: \caption{ Same as Figure-1, with vector like unparticle contributions
316: where the constants $|c_{V}^{sb}|$ are in units of $10^{-4}$.}
317: \end{figure}
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319:
320: Now in Figures-1 and 2, we plot $\Delta M_{B_s}$ versus
321: $ 2 \theta_s$ using Eq. (\ref{ms}) for some representative set of values
322: of $|c_{S,V}^{sb}|$ from the above range, where we have varied the weak phase
323: $\phi$ between 0 and $2 \pi$. From the figures it can be seen that
324: large value of mixing phase could be possible due to unparticle
325: effects. Measurement of this phase in the upcoming experiments such as
326: LHC could imply an indirect evidence for the existence of unparticles.
327:
328: Since large mixing phase is indeed
329: possible due to unparticle effect, now we would like to look into
330: its possible implications in the mixing induced CP violation
331: in $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$. The $B_s \to J/\psi \phi $ decay
332: channel is accessible at hadron colliders
333: where plenty of $B_s$ is expected to be produced.
334: It is therefore considered as
335: one of the benchmark channels to be studied at the LHCb
336: experiment. This decay mode proceeds through the quark level transition
337: $b \to c \bar c s $ which is analogous to $B_d \to J/\psi K_S$.
338: However, the final state in $B_s \to J/\psi \phi $ is not a CP
339: eigenstate but a superposition of CP odd and even states, which
340: can be disentangled through an angular analysis of their decay
341: products \cite{dighe}.
342: Therefore, the mixing induced CP asymmetry in this mode is expected
343: to give
344: \be
345: S_{J/\psi \phi}= -\sin 2 \beta_s\;,
346: \ee
347: where $ \beta_s \equiv {\rm
348: arg}(V_{tb} V_{ts}^*) \approx -1^\circ$.
349: Since this decay mode receives dominant contribution
350: from the color suppressed tree level transition $b \to c \bar c s$,
351: it is unlikely that new physics contribution
352: to the decay amplitude will significantly modify the SM
353: amplitude. Therefore, we will assume that the new physics contribution to
354: this decay amplitude is negligible and hence the
355: CP asymmetry
356: will be modified because of the new contributions to the mixing.
357: Thus, in the presence of NP the mixing-induced CP asymmetry can be
358: obtained as follows.
359: Assuming that there is no direct CP violation in this mode
360: one obtains
361: \bea
362: S_{J/\psi \phi} \sin \Delta M_s t & = & \frac{\Gamma (\overline{B}_s(t)
363: \to J/\psi \phi )
364: -\Gamma(B_s(t) \to J/\psi \phi)}{\Gamma (\overline{B}_s(t) \to J/\psi \phi )
365: +\Gamma(B_s(t) \to J/\psi \phi)} \nn\\
366: &=&\frac{D~ {\rm Im}\left (\displaystyle{\frac{q}{p}}
367: \rho_{\rm odd} \right )+{\rm Im} \left (
368: \displaystyle{\frac{q}{p}} \rho_{\rm even} \right )}
369: {D F_{\rm odd}(t)+F_{\rm even}(t)} \sin \Delta M_s t
370: \eea
371: where
372: \bea
373: F_{\rm odd, even}(t)= \cosh \left (\frac{\Delta \Gamma_s t}{2}
374: \right )+
375: {\rm Re} \left [\frac{q}{p}\rho_{\rm odd, even} \right ]
376: \sinh \left ( \frac{\Delta\Gamma_s t}{2 }\right )\;,
377: \eea
378: with
379: \be
380: \rho_{\rm odd,even}=\frac{A(\overline{ B}_s \to J/\psi
381: \phi)_{\rm odd, even}}
382: {A(B_s \to J/\psi \phi)_{\rm odd, even}}\;,~~~~~{\rm and}
383: ~~~~~~D= \frac{|A_\perp|^2}{|A_\parallel|^2+|A_0|^2}\;.
384: \ee
385: $\Delta \Gamma_s$ is the lifetime difference between heavy and light
386: $B_s$ eigen states.
387: Thus, we get
388: \be
389: S_{J/\psi \phi}= \frac{(1-D) \sin 2 |\beta_s|}{(1+D)\cosh(\Delta \Gamma_s
390: t/2)+(1-D)\cos 2 \beta_s \sinh(\Delta \Gamma_s t/2)}\;.
391: \ee
392: Taking the limit $\Delta \Gamma_s \to 0$ and
393: scaling out the CP odd fraction we obtain
394: \be
395: S_{J/\psi \phi}^\prime= \frac{S_{J/\psi \phi}}{1-2 f_\perp}
396: = \sin (2 |\beta_s|-2 \theta_s)\;,
397: \ee
398: where $f_\perp= |A_\perp|^2/(|A_0|^2+|A_{\parallel}|^2+|A_\perp|^2)$.
399: Now plotting $S_{J/\psi \phi}^\prime$ versus the new
400: mixing phase $ \theta_s$ in figure-3,
401: we see that large CP violation could be possible in this mode.
402:
403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
404: \begin{figure}[htb]
405: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
406: \caption{The variation of $S_{J/\psi \phi}^\prime$ versus
407: the mixing
408: $ \theta_s$ in degree.}
409: \end{figure}
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411:
412: Thereafter, we consider another decay channel $B_s \to \phi \phi$ which is a
413: pure penguin induced process and proceeds through the quark level
414: transition $b \to s \bar s s $. Assuming the top quark
415: dominance in the loop, the mixing induced
416: CP asymmetry in the SM turns out to be identically zero
417: because the weak phase in the mixing and in the ratio of decay amplitudes
418: exactly cancel each other. Since the dominant SM contribution arises
419: at the one-loop level it is expected that this decay channel may
420: receive new contribution from NP in its decay amplitude,
421: unlike the $B_s \to J/\psi
422: \phi$ process. Therefore, we are interested to see how $S_{\phi \phi}$ will
423: be modified due to the unpraticle contributions in its decay
424: amplitude.
425:
426: To see the effect of NP in the decay amplitude we first consider the
427: SM amplitude. In general the decay mode $B_s \to \phi \phi$ can be described
428: in the helicity basis, where the amplitude for the helicity
429: matrix element can be parametrized as~\cite{Kra92}
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: H_{\lambda}&=& \langle \phi (\lambda) \phi(\lambda)|{\cal H}_{eff} |B_s
432: \rangle\nonumber\\
433: &=& \varepsilon_{1 \mu}^* (\lambda) \l \varepsilon_{2
434: \nu}^* (\lambda) \left [ a g^{\mu \nu} + \frac{b}{m_\phi^2} p^{\mu}
435: p^{\nu} + \frac{i c}{m_\phi^2} \epsilon^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} p_{1
436: \alpha} p_{\beta} \right ]\;,
437: \label{hlam}
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: where $p$ is the $B_s$ meson momentum and $\lambda =0, \pm 1$ are
440: the helicity of the
441: $\phi$ mesons. In the above expression $p_i$ and $\varepsilon_i$
442: ($i=1,2$) stand for their
443: momenta and polarization vectors of the two $\phi$ mesons respectively.
444: Furthermore, the three invariant amplitudes $a$, $b$, and $c$ are related to
445: the helicity amplitudes by
446: \begin{equation}
447: H_{\pm 1} = a \pm c \l \sqrt{x^2 - 1}\;,
448: \esp
449: H_0 = - a x - b \l (x^2 - 1)\;,
450: \label{a}
451: \end{equation}
452: where $x =(p_1 \cdot p_2)/m_\phi^2 = (m_B^2 -2 m_\phi^2)/2 m_\phi^2$.
453:
454: The corresponding decay rate using the helicty basis amplitudes can be given as
455: \begin{equation}
456: \Gamma = \frac{p_{cm}}{8 \pi m_{B_s}^2} \biggr( |H_0|^2+|H_{+1}|^2 +|H_{-1}|^2
457: \biggr)\;,
458: \end{equation}
459: where $p_{cm}$ is the magnitude of c.o.m. momentum of the outgoing $\phi$
460: mesons.
461:
462: The amplitudes in transversity and helicity basis are related to each other
463: through the following relations
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: A_{\bot} \l = \l \frac{H_{+1} - H_{-1}}{\sqrt{2}}, \esp
466: A_{\|} \l = \l \frac{H_{+1} + H_{-1}}{\sqrt{2}}, \esp A_0 \l =
467: \l H_0 \label{cb}.
468: \end{eqnarray}
469:
470:
471: The SM amplitude for the process $\overline{B}_s \to \phi \phi $ can be
472: represented in the factorization approach as
473: \bea
474: A(\overline{ B}_s \to \phi \phi)=-\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^* 2~\left[
475: a_3+a_4+a_5-\frac{1}{2}(a_7+a_9+a_{10}) \right] X\;,
476: \label{A}
477: \eea
478: where
479: \be
480: X \equiv \langle \phi(\varepsilon_2, p_2)|\bar s \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5)
481: s | 0 \rangle\langle \phi(\varepsilon_1, p_1)|\bar s \gamma^\mu
482: (1-\gamma_5)
483: b | \overline{ B}_s(p) \rangle \label{fc}\ee
484: is the factorizable hadronic matrix element and
485: $a_i$ are the QCD coefficients.
486: In the factorization approximation, the factorized matrix element
487: $X$ (Eq. (\ref{fc})) can be written, in general, in terms of form factors
488: and decay constants which are defined as
489: \begin{eqnarray}
490: \langle \phi (\varepsilon_2,p_2) | V_\mu | 0 \rangle & =
491: & f_\phi \, m_\phi \,
492: \varepsilon^\ast_{2 \mu}, \nonumber \\
493: \langle \phi (\varepsilon_1, p_1) | V_\mu | B_s (p) \rangle & =
494: & \frac{2}{m_{\phi} +
495: m_{B_s}} \; \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \, \varepsilon_1^{\ast\,\nu} \,
496: p^\alpha {p_1}^\beta \, V(q^2), \nonumber \\
497: \langle \phi (\varepsilon_1, p_1) | A_\mu
498: | B_s (p) \rangle & = &
499: -i\,
500: \frac{2\, m_\phi (\varepsilon_1^\ast\cdot q)}{q^2}\;
501: q_\mu\; A_0(q^2)
502: -i\, (m_{\phi} + m_{B_s}) \left[\varepsilon_{1 \mu}^\ast
503: - \frac{(\varepsilon_1^\ast
504: \cdot q)}{q^2}\; q_\mu \right] A_1 (q^2) \nonumber \\
505: & +& i \left[(p + p_1)_\mu\, - \frac{(m_{B_s}^2-m_{\phi}^2)}{q^2}
506: q_\mu \right] \frac{(\varepsilon_1^\ast \cdot q)}{m_{\phi} + m_{B_s}}
507: A_2(q^2)\;,
508: \end{eqnarray}
509: where $V_\mu$ and $A_\mu$ are the corresponding vector and axial
510: vector quark currents and $q=p-p_1$ as the momentum transfer.
511: In this way the invariant amplitudes $a$, $b$, and $c$ read as
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: a & = & i ~C_{eff}\,f_\phi~ m_\phi \, ( m_{B_s} + m_{\phi} )\,
514: A_1^{B_s\to \phi}(m_\phi^2),
515: \nonumber \\
516: b & = & -i~ C_{eff}\,f_\phi~ m_\phi \, \left(\frac{2\, m_{\phi}^2}
517: {m_{B_s} + m_{\phi}} \right) A_2^{B_s\to \phi}(m_\phi^2), \nonumber \\
518: c & = & -i~ C_{eff}\, f_\phi ~m_\phi \, \left(\frac{2\, m_{\phi}^2}
519: {m_{B_s} + m_{\phi}} \right) \, V^{B_s\to \phi}(m_\phi^2),
520: \label{peng}
521: \end{eqnarray}
522: where
523: \begin{equation}
524: C_{eff} = -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \; V^\ast_{ts}\, V_{tb}2 \left[a_3 + a_4
525: + a_5 - \frac{1}{2} ( a_7 + a_9 + a_{10} )\right]\,.
526: \label{ceffp}
527: \end{equation}
528:
529: The values of the QCD improved effective
530: coefficients $a_i$ can be found in Ref. \cite{cheng}. Now
531: substituting the values of $a_i$ for $N_C$=3, from Ref. \cite{cheng},
532: the value of the form factor $V^{B_s \to \phi}(m_\phi^2)=$ 0.461,
533: $A_1^{B_s \to \phi}(m_\phi^2)=0.317$, $A_2^{B \to \phi}(m_\phi^2)=$ 0.245
534: are obtained using the LCSR approach \cite{ball},
535: and using
536: the $\phi$ meson decay constant $f_{\phi}=$ 0.231 GeV,
537: $|V_{tb}V_{ts}^*|=41.3 \times 10^{-3}$ and $\tau_{B_s}=
538: 1.466 \times 10^{-12}$ sec \cite{pdg}, we obtain
539: the branching ratio in the SM as
540: \be
541: BR^{SM}(\bar B_s \to \phi \phi)=10.4
542: \times 10^{-6}.
543: \ee
544: which appears to be consistent with the experimental
545: value $BR(B_s \to \phi \phi)=(14_{-7}^{+8}) \times 10^{-6}$ \cite{hfag}.
546: But still one cannot
547: rule out the possibility of NP in the decay amplitude as we need
548: the measurement of CP violating parameters to support it.
549:
550:
551: Now let us consider the effect of new physics in the decay amplitude.
552: Since it is possible to obtain the different helicity contributions by
553: performing an angular analysis \cite{dighe, matias}, from now onward
554: we will concentrate
555: on the longitudinal (i.e., $A_0$ component), which is the dominant one.
556: In the presence of NP the amplitude can be modified to
557: \be
558: A_0 =A_0^{SM}+A_0^{NP}=A_0^{SM}(1+r e^{i \phi_n})\;,
559: \ee
560: where $r=|A_0^{NP}/A_0^{SM}|$, and $\phi_n$ is the relative weak
561: phase between them. For simplicity we set the relative strong phase
562: between these two amplitudes to zero, which in general is expected to be
563: small. Thus, in the presence of new physics both in mixing and decay
564: amplitude the mixing induced CP asymmetry (due to longitudinal
565: component) is given as
566: \bea
567: S_{\phi \phi}&=& 2 ~ \frac{{\rm Im}(e^{-i2(\beta_s+\theta_s)
568: } A_0^* \bar A_0)}
569: {|A_0|^2+|\bar A_0|^2} \nn\\
570: &=&-\frac{\sin( 2 \theta_s)+2 r \sin (2 \theta_s+\phi_n)+r^2 \sin
571: (2 \theta_s+2\phi_n)}{1+r^2+2 r \cos \phi_n}\;.
572: \eea
573:
574: To find out the value of $r$ due to unparticle contribution, we now consider
575: the effective coupling of unparticles to the quarks as
576: represented in Eq. (7). Here we consider the effect of
577: vector like unparticle to the $B_s \to \phi \phi$
578: decay amplitude. Thus, the transition amplitude due to vector like unparticle
579: exchange is given as
580: \be
581: A(\overline{B}_s \to \phi \phi)=- e^{-i \phi_{\un}}
582: \frac{A_{d_{\un}}}{2 \sin d_{\un}\pi}\left
583: (\frac{m_{B_s}}{\Lambda_{\un}} \right )^{2 d_{\un}-2}
584: \left (\frac{1}{2}\right )^{d_{\un}-2}
585: \frac{c_V^{sb} c_V^{ss}}{m_{B_s}^2} 2 X\;,
586: \ee
587: where $X$ is the factorized amplitude given in Eq. (\ref{fc}). In the
588: above equation we have taken the momentum transferred to the unparticle as
589: $P^2= m_{B_s}^2/2$. Now for numerical evaluation, we use
590: a representative value for $c_V^{sb}$,
591: i.e., $c_V^{sb}=8 \times 10^{-4}$
592: from its allowed range, $c_V^{ss}$=0.01 and the same values for
593: other parameters as used in $\Delta M_{B_s}$ case. Thus, we obtain the
594: the ratio of the NP and SM amplitudes as
595: \begin{eqnarray*}
596: r=0.03\;.
597: \end{eqnarray*}
598: It is found that the unparticle contribution to the decay amplitude
599: is almost negligible.
600:
601: Now in figure-4, we plot $S_{\phi \phi}$ versus $\phi_n$, the weak phase
602: in decay amplitude keeping the new mixing phase $\theta_s=20^\circ$
603: and $\theta_s=0$ (i.e., with no NP contribution to mixing).
604: From the figure one can see that the unparticle contributions
605: to the decay amplitude does not have significant effect in $S_{\phi \phi} $.
606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
607: \begin{figure}[htb]
608: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{amp.eps}}
609: \caption{The variation of $S_{\phi \phi}$ versus
610: $ \phi_n$ in degree where the thick (dashed) curve is for $\theta_s=20^\circ
611: (0^\circ)$.}
612: \end{figure}
613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
614:
615: Motivated by the recent proposition of scale invariant unparticle physics
616: we looked into the effect of the same on the
617: $B_s - \overline{B}_s$ mixing. In doing so, we included the new physics
618: contribution, in the form of scalar/vector unparticles, to the SM
619: contribution and obtained the constraints on the
620: couplings of unparticle stuff to the SM particles ($c_{S,V}$)
621: from the data on $ \Delta M_{B_s}$. We found that
622: due to the effect of ``unparticles'' large
623: new mixing phase could indeed be possible. It has also been
624: observed in Ref. \cite{lenz1} that due to unparticle effects
625: it is possible to have large mixing phase in agreement with our
626: results.
627:
628: Furthermore, we looked into the possibility of obtaining the mixing induced
629: CP asymmetry parameters $S_{\psi \phi, ~\phi\phi}$
630: for the decay modes $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ and $\phi \phi$, which
631: can be induced by the new contribution of unparticle stuff. In the SM
632: the value of $S_{\psi \phi}$ is very small and $S_{\phi \phi}$ is
633: identically zero, therefore observation
634: of non-zero values for these parameters would signal new physics.
635: Incorporating the NP contribution from the unparticle sector and
636: using the constraint on $c_{S,V}$ we obtained the values
637: of $S_{\psi \phi, \phi \phi}$ for the above mentioned
638: decay modes, to be nonzero.
639: Search for ``unparticle effect'' will be vigorously taken up at the upcoming
640: experiments and in this context the observation of
641: possible large new mixing phase in $B_s - \overline{B}_s$ system and non-zero
642: values of $S_{\psi \phi,\phi \phi}$
643: will be very much useful.
644:
645:
646: \acknowledgments The work of RM was partly supported by Department
647: of Science and Technology, Government of India, through grant No.
648: SR/S2/HEP-04/2005. AG would like to thank Council of Scientific and
649: Industrial Research, Government of India, for financial support.
650:
651:
652: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
653:
654: \bibitem{georgi} H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98}, 221601 (2007);
655: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 650}, 275 (2007).
656:
657: \bibitem{kingman} K. Cheung, W. Y. Keung and T. C. Yuan,
658: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 99}, 051803 (2007); arXiv:0706.3155 [hep-ph].
659:
660: \bibitem{ref2} M. Luo and G. Zhu, arXiv:0704.3532 [hep-ph]; C.-H. Chen
661: and C.-Q. Geng, arXiv:0705.0689 [hep-ph]; arXiv:0706.0850 [hep-ph];
662: G. J. Ding and M. L. Yan, arXiv:0705.0794 [hep-ph];
663: arXiv:0706.0325 [hep-ph]; Y. Liao,
664: arXiv:0705.0837 [hep-ph]; C-D.Lu, W. Wang and Y. M. Wang,
665: arXiv:0705.2909 [hep-ph]; P. J. Fox, A. Rajaraman and Y. Shriman,
666: arXiv:0705.3092 [hep-ph]; N. Greiner, arXiv:0705.3518 [hep-ph];
667: D. Choudhury, D. K. Ghosh and Mamta, arXiv:0705.3637 [hep-ph];
668: S. L. Chen and X. G. He, arXiv:0705.3946 [hep-ph];
669: T. M. Aliev, A.S. Cornell and
670: N. Gaur, arXiv:0705.1326 [hep-ph]; arXiv:0705.4542 [hep-ph];
671: X.-Q. Li and Z.-T. Wei,
672: arXiv:0705.1821 [hep-ph]; P. Mathews and V. Ravindran,
673: arXiv:0705.4599 [hep-ph]; S. Zhou, arXiv:0706.0302 [hep-ph];
674: Y. Liao and J. H. Liu, arXiv:0706.1284 [hep-ph];
675: M. Bander, J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman and Y. Shriman,
676: arXiv:0706.2677 [hep-ph]; T. G. Rizzo, arXiv:0706.3025 [hep-ph];
677: S. L. Chen, X. G. He and H. C. Tsai, arXiv:0707.0187 [hep-ph];
678: R. Zwicky, arXiv:0707.0677 [hep-ph]; T. Kikuchi and N. Okada,
679: arXiv:0707.0893 [hep-ph]; C. S. Huang and X. H. Wu,
680: arXiv:0707.1268 [hep-ph];
681: D. Choudhury and D. K. Ghosh, arXiv:0707.2074 [hep-ph];
682: H. Zhang, C. S. Li and Z. Li, arXiv:0707.2132 [hep-ph];
683: X. Q. Li, Y. Liu and Z. T. Wei, arXiv:0707.2285 [hep-ph].
684:
685: \bibitem{lenz1} A. Lenz, arXiv:0707.1535 [hep-ph].
686: \bibitem{geng} C.-H. Chen
687: and C.-Q. Geng, arXiv:0705.0689 [hep-ph].
688:
689: \bibitem{mass} A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B
690: {\bf 347}, 491 (1990).
691: \bibitem{lim} T.Inami and C.S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 65}, 297
692: ( 1981); Erratum- {\it ibid.} {\bf 65}, 1772 (1981).
693: \bibitem{jl} S. Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration], Phys. Rev.
694: Lett. {\bf 91}, 212001 (2003).
695: \bibitem{hp} A. Gray {\it et al.} [HPQCD Collaboration], Phys. Rev.
696: Lett. {\bf 95}, 212001 (2005).
697:
698: \bibitem{ball1} P. Ball and R. Fleischer, Euro. Phys. J. C {\bf 48},
699: 413 (2006).
700:
701: \bibitem{lenz2} A. Lenz and U. Nierste, hep-ph/0612167.
702:
703: \bibitem{d0} V. Abazov {\it et al.} [D\O~ Collaboration],
704: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97},
705: 021802 (2006).
706:
707: \bibitem{cdf} A. Abulencia {\it et al.}
708: [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97},
709: 242003 (2006).
710: \bibitem{np} M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, D. Guadagnli and C. Tarantino,
711: J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 10} 003 (2006); Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci and
712: G. Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 101801 (2006).
713: \bibitem{susy} P. Ball, S. Khalil and E. Kou, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 115011
714: (2004); S. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 035005 (2006); B. Dutta
715: and Y. Nimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 241802 (2006); R.
716: Arnowitt, B. Dutta, B. Hu and S. Oh, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 641}, 305
717: (2006); X. G. He and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 013011
718: (2006); S. Chang, C. S. Kim and J. Song, J. High Energy Phys. {\bf
719: 0702}, 087 (2007); K. Cheung, C. K. Kang, C. S. Kim and J. Lee,
720: hep-ph/0702050.
721:
722: \bibitem{dighe} A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin and J. L.
723: Rosner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 369}, 144 (1996).
724:
725:
726: \bibitem{Kra92} G.\ Kramer, W.F.\ Palmer, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 193;
727: G.\ Kramer, W.F.\ Palmer, H.\ Simma, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B
728: {\bf 428}, 77 (1994).
729:
730: \bibitem{cheng} Y.H. Chen, H. Y. Cheng and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev.
731: D {\bf 59}, 074003 (1999).
732:
733:
734: \bibitem{ball} P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 71}, 014029 (2005).
735:
736: \bibitem{pdg} W. M. Yao {\it et al.}, Particle Data Group, J. Phys.
737: {\bf G 33}, 1 (2006).
738:
739:
740: \bibitem{hfag} Heavy Flavor Averaging Group,
741: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.
742:
743: \bibitem{matias} S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias and J. Virto,
744: arXiv:0705.0477 [hep-ph].
745: \end{thebibliography}
746: \end{document}
747:
748:
749:
750: