1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \oddsidemargin -0.6cm
3: \textwidth 16cm
4: \topmargin -3cm
5: \textheight 23cm
6: \pagestyle{plain}
7:
8: \def\bxll{B \rightarrow X \, \l^+ \, \l^-}
9: \def\bsg{B \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma}
10: \def\bxlv{B \rightarrow X \, \l \, \nu}
11: \def\bxmm{B \rightarrow X_s l^+ l^-}
12: \def\bsmm{B^0_q \rightarrow l^+ l^-}
13: \def\bsll{B_s \rightarrow \, l^+ \, l^-}
14: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
17: \def\aB0{\big| B^0 \big>}
18: \def\bB0{\big| \bar{B}^0 \big>}
19: \setcounter{page}{1}
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: %\begin{titlepage}
23: %\begin{flushright}
24: %\begin{tabular}{l}
25: %TUHEP-TH-00119\\
26: %hep-ph/
27: %\end{tabular}
28: %\end{flushright}
29: %\vskip0.5cm
30: \begin{center}
31: {\LARGE\bf
32: Search for new physics via CP violation in $B_{d,s} \to l^+
33: l^-$ }
34: \vspace*{0.5cm}
35:
36: {\bf Chao-Shang HUANG}\footnote{E-mail : csh@itp.ac.cn},
37: {\bf LIAO Wei }\footnote{E-mail: liaow@itp.ac.cn}
38: \vspace{0.5cm}
39:
40: Institute of Theoretical Physics,
41: Academia Sinica, 100080 Beijing, China \\
42: %\bigskip
43: %{\em Version of \today}\\
44: \vspace{0.5cm}
45: %\bigskip
46: %{\bf Abstract\\[10pt]}
47: \begin{abstract}
48: It is shown that in the approximation of $|\frac{q}{p}|$=1 the CP violation
49: in $B^0_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$ decays vanishes in SM. In a 2HDM with CP
50: violating phases and MSSM the CP asymmetries depend on the parameters of
51: models and can be as large as $40\%$ for $B^0_d$ and $3\%$ for $B^0_s$.
52: An observation of CP asymmetry in the decays would unambiguously signal
53: the existence of new physics.
54:
55: \end{abstract}
56: \end{center}
57: \noindent
58: \vfill
59: %\bigskip
60: \vskip 0.5cm
61: \centerline{{\sc Pacs} numbers: 11.30.E, 13.20.H, 12.60.F, 12.60.J}
62: %\end{titlepage}
63: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
64: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
65: \vskip 0.5cm
66:
67: \indent
68: The flavor changing neutral current process, $B_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$
69: (l=$\mu,\tau$),
70: has attracted a lot attention since it is very sensitive to the structure of
71: SM and potential new physics beyond SM and was shown to be powerful to shed
72: light on the existence of new physics before possible new particles are
73: produced at colliders\cite{hnv,hy,hlyz}. In a very large region of
74: parameter space supersymmetric(SUSY) contributions were shown to be easy
75: to overwhelm the SM contribution\cite{hy,hlyz,cs} and even reach, e.g., for l=$\mu$, the experimental
76: upper bound\cite{data}
77: \beq
78: B_r (B_d \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^-) < 6.8 \times 10^{-7} \ \ (CL=90\% ) \nnb \\
79: B_r (B_s \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^-) < 2.0 \times 10^{-6} \ \ (CL=90\% ).
80: \label{limit}
81: \eeq
82: In other words measuring the branching ratio of $B_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$ can give
83: stringent constraints on the parameter space of new models beyond SM, especially
84: for that of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) because of the
85: tan$^3\beta$ dependence of SUSY contributions in some large tan$\beta$ regions
86: of the parameter space\cite{hy,hlyz}.
87: Comparing with hadronic decays of B mesons, this process is very clean
88: and the only nonperturbative quantity involved is the decay constant
89: that can be calculated by using lattice, QCD sum rules etc.
90:
91: The results on CP violation in $B_d$ - $\bar B_d$
92: mixing have been reported by the BaBar and Belle Collaborations\cite{Osaka}
93: in the ICHEP2000 Conference, which are consistent with the world average\cite{cdf} . More experiments on B physics have been planned
94: in the present and future B factories \cite{bf}. In the letter we study CP violation
95: in $B_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$ (l=$\mu, \tau$), which might be measured in the near future.
96:
97: Obviously for the process $B_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$ there are no direct CP
98: violations since there are no strong phases in the decay amplitude\cite{hnv,hy,hlyz}.
99: But it is well known that CP violating effects can survive after taking into account the
100: mixing of the neutral mesons, $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$, in the absence of the
101: strong phases. We will give
102: a model-independent description for the CP violating effects of the process
103: induced by mixing of $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$ and
104: analyze them in SM and new models, a two Higgs doublet model(2HDM) with CP violating
105: phases and MSSM.
106:
107: We need to know what kind of CP violating observables can be defined
108: in the process. At first, direct CP violation, as noted above, is
109: absent in this process. T-odd projection of polarization is a kind of
110: useful tool to probe the CP violating effects, for example, in $\bxll$
111: \cite{ks,hl,hz}. However for the process we are discussing here, we have
112: actually only one independent momentum and one independent spin
113: which can be chosen as those of $l^-$, so no T-odd projections can
114: be defined. Unlike the case generally discussed for hadronic final states,
115: for example, that in Ref.~\cite{gron}, the detected final states of
116: $l^+$ and $l^-$ of this process in experiments are basically
117: two asymptotic energy-momentum eigenstates which are not CP eigenstates. Considering
118: for instance $B^0$ decays to $l^+ l^-$ in the rest frame of $B^0$,
119: due to the energy-momentum conservation we denote the four-momenta of
120: $l^-$ and $l^+$ as $p=(E,\vec{p})$ and $\bar{p}=(E,-\vec{p})$.
121: Then the angular momentum conservation tells us that $l^+_L l^-_R$
122: and $l^+_R l^-_L$ final states are forbidden. Hence we are left
123: with a pair of CP conjugated final states, $l^+_L l^-_L$ and
124: $l^+_R l^-_R$ and two couple of corresponding CP conjugated
125: processes. Therefore, we may define the time dependent CP asymmetries as
126: \beq
127: A^1_{CP}(t)&=&
128: \frac{\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_L l^-_L)
129: -\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_R l^-_R)}
130: {\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_L l^-_L)
131: +\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_R l^-_R)}
132: \label{cpt1} \\
133: A^2_{CP}(t)&=&
134: \frac{~\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_R l^-_R)
135: -\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_L l^-_L)}
136: {\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_R l^-_R)
137: +\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow l^+_L l^-_L)}
138: \label{cpt2}
139: \eeq
140: Two corresponding time integrated CP asymmetries are
141: \beq
142: A^i_{CP}&=&
143: \frac{\int^\infty_0 dt ~\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow f_i)
144: -\int^\infty_0 dt ~\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow \bar{f}_i)}
145: {\int^\infty_0 dt ~\Gamma(B^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow f_i)
146: +\int^\infty_0 dt ~\Gamma(\bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \rightarrow \bar{f}_i)}~~~~~~~i=1, 2
147: \label{cp1}
148: \eeq
149: Where $f_{1,2}=l^+_{L,R}l^-_{L,R}$, $\bar{f}$ is the CP conjugated state of $f$.
150:
151: % The light $B_L$ and heavy $B_H$ mass eigenstates are given by\footnote{We have neglected
152: %the lifetime difference of the two neutral B mesons throughout the paper because
153: %$\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma=O(10^{-2})$\cite{nir}.}
154: %\beq
155: %&& \big| B_L \big> = p \aB0 + q \bB0, \ \
156: %(m_L = m-\frac{\Delta m}{2}, \Gamma) \nnb \\ && \big| B_H \big> = p \aB0 - q \bB0, \ \
157: %(m_H = m+\frac{\Delta m}{2}, \Gamma) \label{mass}
158: %\eeq
159: %where $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$ are the flavor eigenstates of the neutral B meson.
160:
161: The time evolutions of the initial pure
162: $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$ states are given by\cite{75}
163: \beq
164: && \big| B^0_{phys}(t) \big> = g_+(t)\aB0 + \frac{q}{p} g_-(t) \bB0, \nnb \\
165: && \big| \bar{B}^0_{phys}(t) \big> = \frac{p}{q} g_-(t)\aB0 + g_+(t)\bB0. \label{b0t}
166: \eeq
167: with $g_{\pm}(t)$ given by
168: \beq
169: && g_+(t) = exp(-\frac{1}{2}\Gamma t-i m t) cos(\frac{\Delta m}{2} t), \nnb \\
170: && g_-(t) = exp(-\frac{1}{2}\Gamma t-i m t) i sin(\frac{\Delta m}{2} t) \label{gt}
171: \eeq
172:
173: The absence of strong phases implies
174: \beq
175: |A_f|=|\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}|, ~~~~|A_{\bar{f}}|=|\bar{A}_f|
176: \label{axi}
177: \eeq
178: where $A_f(\bar{A}_f)= < f| {\cal H}_{eff} | B^0 (\bar{B}^0)>$.
179: And the CPT invariance leads to
180: \beq
181: \frac{\bar{A}_f}{A_f} = \bigg( \frac{A_{\bar{f}}}{\bar{A}_{\bar{f}}} \bigg)^*
182: \label{rate11}
183: \eeq
184: For simplicity, define
185: \begin{equation}
186: \frac{\bar{A}_f}{A_f}=\rho e^{i\phi_f},~~~~\frac{q}{p}=x e^{i\phi_x}.\nnb
187: \end{equation}
188:
189: From Eqs.(\ref{cpt1}), (\ref{cpt2}), (\ref{b0t}), (\ref{axi}), and (\ref{rate11}),
190: it is straightforward to derive
191: \beq
192: r\equiv |\frac{A(\bar{B}^0(t)\rightarrow \bar{f})}{A(B^0(t)\rightarrow f)}|
193: = \frac{|1+x^{-1}\rho tan(\frac{\Delta m}{2} t)exp[i(-\phi_f-\phi_x+\frac{\pi}{2})]|}
194: {|1+x \rho tan(\frac{\Delta m}{2} t)exp[i(\phi_f+\phi_x+\frac{\pi}{2})]|}.
195: \eeq
196: Therefore, if
197: \beq
198: x\neq 1
199: \label{x1}
200: \eeq
201: or
202: \beq
203: \phi_f+\phi_x\neq 0~~~~mod~~ 2n\pi,
204: \label{phi1}
205: \eeq
206: ( or equivalently $Im (\frac{q}{p}\frac{\bar{A}_f}{A_f})\neq 0$, )
207: then $r\neq 1$, i.e., one has CP violation.
208:
209: The effective Hamiltonian governing the process $B_{d,s} \to l^+ l^-$
210: has been given in Refs. \cite{hy,hlyz}. Using the effective Hamiltonian,
211: we obtain by a straightforward calculation \footnote {We have neglected the contributions, which is smaller
212: than or equal to $10^{-3}$ of the leading term, from the penguin diagrams with c and u quarks in the loop.
213: It is true for both $B_d$ and $B_s$ decays\cite{bur}. Therefore, although there are weak phases from the c
214: or u quark in the loop, in particular,
215: for $B_d$, the effect on the decay phase induced by them is neglegiblly small.}
216: \beq
217: \frac{\bar{A}_{f_1}}{A_{f_1}} =
218: -\frac{\lambda_t}{\lambda_t^*} \frac{C_{Q1}\sqrt{1-4\hat{m}_l^2}
219: + (C_{Q2}+2 \hat{m}_l C_{10})}{C^*_{Q1}\sqrt{1-4\hat{m}_l^2}
220: - (C^*_{Q2}+2 \hat{m}_l C^*_{10})},\label{rate}
221: \eeq
222: where $\lambda_t=V_{tb} V_{td}^*$ or $V_{tb} V_{ts}^*$, $\hat{m}_l =
223: m_l/m_{B^0}$ and $C_i$'s
224: are understood as Wilson coefficients at $m_B$ scale\cite{wise,buras,mas,hy,hlyz}. Because $C_{Q_i}$'s are
225: proportional to $m_l$ and $C_{10}$ is independent of $m_l$ it follows from eq. (\ref{rate}) that CP asymmetry in $B_{d,s}
226: \to l^+ l^-$ is independent of the mass of the lepton. That is, it is the same for l = electron, muon and tau.
227:
228: In SM, one has\cite{nir}\footnote{Note that the phase convention between $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$
229: is fixed as ${\cal CP}|B^0> = - |\bar{B}^0>$ when deriving eqs. (\ref{rate}), (\ref{mix}).}
230: \beq
231: \frac{q}{p}= - \frac{M^*_{12}}{|M_{12}|}= - \frac{\lambda^*_t}{\lambda_t},
232: \label{mix}
233: \eeq
234: up to the correction smaller than or equal to order of $10^{-2}$, $C_{10}$
235: is real, $C_{Q_2}=0$, and $C_{Q_1}$ is negligibly small. So it follows from
236: Eqs.(\ref{rate}), (\ref{mix}) that $x=1$ and $\phi_f+\phi_x$=0. Therefore,
237: there is no CP violation in SM.
238: \footnote{One can check by combining Eqs. (\ref{mix}) and (\ref{rate})
239: that all freedoms of phase conventions are canceled out completely in
240: $\frac{q}{p}\frac{\bar{A}_{f_1}}{A_{f_1}}$, including the one between $B^0$ and
241: $\bar{B}^0$. }
242: If one includes the correction smaller than order of $10^{-2}$ to $x$=1\footnote{According to the box
243: diagram calculation in SM, the deviation of x from 1 is $\sim 10^{-3} (10^{-5})$ for $B_d (B_s)$\cite{nir}. So $10^{-2}$ is a
244: conservative estimate.} one will have
245: CP violation of order of $10^{-3}$ for $B^0_d$ and
246: $10^{-4}$ for $B^0_s$ which are unobservably small.
247:
248: In the models where Eq. (\ref{mix}) is valid,
249: defining $\xi=\frac{\bar{A}_{f_1}}{A_{f_1}}$, $\bar{\xi}=\frac{q}{p}\xi$
250: and using Eqs. (\ref{rate11}), (\ref{mix}),
251: the time dependent CP asymmetries Eqs. (\ref{cpt1}) and (\ref{cpt2})
252: and time integrated CP asymmetries Eq. (\ref{cp1})
253: can be greatly simplified
254: \beq
255: A^1_{CP}(t) &=& -\frac{sin(\Delta m t) Im(\bar{\xi})}{cos^2(\frac{1}{2}
256: \Delta m t)+ |\xi|^2 sin^2(\frac{1}{2}\Delta m t)} \label{CPT1} \\
257: A^2_{CP}(t) &=& -\frac{sin(\Delta m t) Im(\bar{\xi})}{|\xi|^2 cos^2
258: (\frac{1}{2}\Delta m t)+ sin^2(\frac{1}{2}\Delta m t)} \label{CPT2} \\
259: A^1_{CP} &=&
260: -\frac{2 Im(\bar{\xi}) X_q}{(2+X^2_q)+X^2_q|\xi|^2}
261: \label{CP1} \\
262: A^2_{CP} &=&
263: -\frac{2 Im(\bar{\xi}) X_q}{(2+X^2_q)|\xi|^2+X^2_q}
264: \label{CP2}
265: \eeq
266: where $X_q= \frac{\Delta m_q}{\Gamma}$($q=d,s$ for $B^0_d$ and $B^0_s$
267: respectively). As expected, they are nonzero in the presence of CP violating phases.
268:
269: We have discussed the CP asymmetries assuming that $B^0$ or $\bar{B}^0$
270: mesons are tagged before the decay $\bsmm$($q=d,s$) happen \footnote{An analysis of
271: tagging has been carried out in Refs.\cite{ros,gron}.} Likewise one may
272: also define CP asymmetries of the opposite tagging order\cite{gron} which turn
273: out to be just of the opposite sign of those defined above, (\ref{CP1}) and (\ref{CP2}).
274: (Eqs. (\ref{CPT1}) and (\ref{CPT2}) hold for either tagging order.) The CP asymmetries not
275: requiring measurement of the time order as one may
276: naively imagine to define, however, turn out to be zero because of the
277: the relation Eq. (\ref{rate11}) and the approximation Eq. (\ref{mix}) we
278: have used in our discussions.
279:
280: From Eq. (\ref{CP1}) and (\ref{CP2}) one can simply get the maximal
281: limit of the CP violating observables
282: \beq
283: |A^{1,2}_{CP}(B^0_q)|_{max}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2+X_q^2}}
284: \label{max1}
285: \eeq
286: which is about $63\%$ for q=d and $5\%$ for q=s. For $B^0_s$ we know that $X_s$
287: is experimentally larger than $15.7$($90 \% ~CL$)\cite{data}, so
288: we can neglect the number 2 in the
289: formula and get
290: \beq
291: A^2_{CP}(B^0_s) \doteq
292: -\frac{2 Im(\bar{\xi}) X_s}{X^2_s|\xi_s|^2+X^2_s}
293: \doteq A^1_{CP}(B^0_s). \nnb
294: \eeq
295: The situation is clearly quite different for $B^0_d$ because $X_d$ is
296: just about $0.73$. The two CP asymmetries for $B^0_d$ do not
297: exhibit strong correlation.
298:
299: In Fig. 1 the correlation between the CP asymmetries of $B_s^0$ and $B^0_d$ is
300: plotted scanning the parameter space of
301: $C_{Q_1}$ and $C_{Q_2}$ with $|C_{Q_i}| \ge 0.1$ ($i=1,2$).
302: %(we take $C_{Q1}$ and $C_{Q2}$ to be the same for $B^0_d$ and $B^0_s$, since we know
303: %that in generic 2HDMs the contributions from exchanging up-type quarks
304: %of the first two generations are suppressed due to the CKM mechanism,
305: %while in general SUSY models although there are no corresponding super-CKM
306: %mechanism, the contribution of exchanging stops is the most important one
307: %because the large mixing of stop masses and the consequently light %mass of the lighter stop).
308: The points in the figure are plotted satisfying the constraints Eq. (\ref{limit}). One sees
309: that they do not exhibit strong correlation in the parameter space which is actually
310: implied by the fact that in the most of the parameter space, $|\xi_s|^2$
311: (of order one) is not important at all because of the very large $X_s^2$,
312: while $|\xi_d|^2$ would compete with $X^2_d$ in
313: the formula Eq. (\ref{CP1}).
314:
315: We now discuss CP violation of the process in a general 2HDM and MSSM. It has been shown
316: \cite{ck} that the contributions to the mixing
317: of $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$ from 2HDM or MSSM can be significant when the charged
318: Higgs boson mass and tan$\beta$ are small($m_{H^\pm}\le 200$ GeV and
319: tan$\beta \sim 2$) or the gluino mass and the squark mass are small
320: (around 100 GeV and 200 GeV respectively) and tan$\beta$ is also small.
321: While all other contributions suppressed in the large tan$\beta$ limit,
322: the only contribution surviving in this limit is the contribution
323: coming from exchanging neutrilino and down-type squarks and
324: the contribution can become important only in a very narrow region of
325: down-type squark mass in the low mass spectrum case\cite{ck}. In the
326: following we limit ourself to discuss CP violation for $B^0$ and $\bar{B}^0$
327: decays far away from these regions, i.e., in the regions with large tan$\beta$
328: and relatively heavier down-type squark mass. Therefore, to a good
329: approximation we can take the mixing to be that in SM, i.e.,
330: Eq.(\ref{mix}). Thus we can use Eqs. (\ref{CPT1}), (\ref{CPT2}), (\ref{CP1}) and (\ref{CP2})
331: in the numerical analysis. The explicit expressions of the Wilson coefficients $C_{10}, C_{Q_1}
332: , C_{Q_2}$ in a CP softly broken 2HDM and MSSM can be found in Refs.\cite{hz,hy}.
333:
334: For a CP softly broken 2HDM\cite{hz}, the CP violation is depicted
335: by the phase of vacuum $\xi_H$ (i.e., $\xi$ in Ref. ~\cite{hz}).
336: In Fig. 2 we give the plots of $A^2_{CP}$ for $B^0_d$ as functions of $\xi_H$
337: varying between $[0,2 \pi]$. Other parameters describing the model are
338: chosen as $M_{H1}=120 ~GeV$, $M_{H2}=M_{H^\pm}=200 ~GeV$, tan$\beta=50$ for
339: which the experimental constraints of $K-\bar{K}$ and $B-\bar{B}$ mixing
340: , $\Gamma(b \to s \gamma)$, $\Gamma(b \to c \tau \bar{\nu}_\tau)$
341: and $R_b$ are well satisfied. The constraints
342: of electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the electron and neutron are also
343: satisfied except for $\xi_H=\frac{\pi}{4}$\cite{hz}.
344: One may find that the CP asymmetry can be as large as $20 \%$ in vast
345: of the range of $\xi_H$ and can even reach $50 \%$.
346: For $B^0_s$, the dependence of the CP asymmetry on $\xi_H$ is similar to that for $B^0_d$
347: and the CP asymmetry can reach $3 \%$.
348:
349: For generic SUSY models, the constraints from the EDMs of the electron and
350: neutron on the CP violating phases have been analyzed
351: by many authors\cite{in,hl}. The scenario with large tan$\beta$,
352: which we are interested in here, have been discussed in our previous
353: papers\cite{hl}. The constraint of $\bsg$ has also been presented
354: there. In the case of low mass spectrum (the lighter
355: stop of order $200$ GeV and chargino masses less than $200$ GeV), $C_{Q1}$
356: and $C_{Q2}$ are constrained by the $\bsg$ decay,
357: because $C_{Q_i}$ and $C_7$ (the branching ratio of $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ is determined
358: by $|C_7|^2$ ) both receive most important SUSY contributions from
359: exchanging top squark. An interesting case happens when the SM contribution
360: to $C_7$ is completely canceled by the real part of SUSY contributions and
361: a considerable imaginary part is left\cite{hl} ( so that the
362: constraint on $C_7$ is satisfied ) if tan$\beta$ is large enough (say, $\geq 30$).
363: $C_{Q1}$ and $C_{Q2}$, in this case, exhibit phases about $\pm \pi/4$ and consequently
364: the absolute value of CP asymmetries for $B^0_d$ can be significantly larger than $30 \%$.
365: CP asymmetries for $B^0_s$ can also be $\pm 3 \%$
366: in this case. As pointed out in Ref.\cite{hl}, the above areas of parameter space are allowed
367: by the EDM constraints due to the cancellation among the various contributions to EDMs.
368: For the case of high mass spectrum where the $\bsg$
369: constraint can be safely satisfied and the CP violating phases of
370: trilinear term, $A_t$, and $\mu$ can survive in almost all of their
371: parameter space after satisfying the constraints of electron and neutron EDMs,
372: the magnitudes of $C_{Q1}$ and
373: $C_{Q2}$ are also suppressed by the mass spectrum and CP asymmetries
374: can exhibit the correlation depicted in Fig. 1. But for this scenario
375: the branching ratio of the decay would not be enhanced large enough,
376: so it is less interesting.
377: In the supergravity(SUGRA) model there is another feature which
378: would have important phenomenological implications, i.e., because
379: electroweak (EW) symmetry is broken spontaneously by the radiative breaking mechanism
380: the masses of the two heavier neutral Higgs bosons are of the same order.
381: Hence in general there is a large cancellation happened in the numerator
382: of Eq. (\ref{rate}) in SUGRA models. The consequence of it is that for
383: $B^0_d$, $A^1_{CP}$ is greatly suppressed(see Eq. (\ref{CP1})) even in the case
384: of low mass spectrum and the two CP asymmetries for $B^0_s$ are both small
385: ($< 10^{-2}$).
386:
387: With the branching ratios $Br(B^0_q \to l^+_L l^-_L)$ and
388: $Br(B^0_q \to l^+_R l^-_R)$ given respectively by
389: \beq
390: C_{B^0_q}\times \bigg[ (1-4{\hat m_l^2})|C_{Q_1}|^2
391: + |C_{Q_2}+2 {\hat m_l} C_9|^2 -2 \sqrt{1-4 {\hat m_l^2}}
392: [C_{Q1}^* \times(C_{Q2}2 +{\hat m_l} C_9)+ h.c.]
393: \bigg] \nnb \\
394: \eeq
395: and
396: \beq
397: C_{B^0_q}\times \bigg[ (1-4{\hat m_l^2}) |C_{Q_1}|^2
398: + |C_{Q_2}+2 {\hat m_l} C_9|^2 +2 \sqrt{1-4 {\hat m_l^2}}
399: [C_{Q1}^* \times (C_{Q2}+2 {\hat m_l} C_9)+ h.c.]
400: \bigg] \nnb
401: \eeq
402: where
403: \beq
404: C_{B^0_q}=\frac{G_F^2 \alpha_{EM}^2}{64 \pi^3} m_{B^0_q}^3
405: \tau_{B^0_q} f^2_{B^0_q} |\lambda_t|^2 \sqrt{1 - 4 {\hat m_l^2}}, \nnb
406: \eeq
407: we calculate the events $N^i_q$ (i=1,2) needed for observing $A_{CP}^i$
408: at 1$\sigma$ in the areas of parameter space in which $A_{CP}^i$ and the branching ratios
409: both have large values and all experimental constraints are satisfied. For l=$\mu$, they are order
410: of $10^8$ and $10^9$ for $B_d^0$ and $B_s^0$ respectively
411: in 2HDM with CP violating phase and tan$\beta$=50 or in SUSY with tan$\beta$=30 as well as
412: sparticle masses in a reasonable range. Therefore,
413: $10^{10}$ ($10^{11}$) $B_d$ ($B_s$)
414: per year, which is in the designed range in the future B factors with $10^8$-
415: $10^{12}$ B hadrons per year~\cite{bs}, is needed in order to observe the CP asymmetry in $B\rightarrow
416: \mu^+\mu^-$ with good accuracy. For l=$\tau$, the events $N^i_q$ are order of $10^6$ and $10^7$ for $B_d^0$ and
417: $B_s^0$ respectively in 2HDM with CP violating phase and tan$\beta$=50 or in SUSY with tan$\beta$=30
418: as well as sparticle masses in a reasonable range.
419: Assuming a total of $5\times 10^8 (10^9)$ $B_d\bar{B_d}$ ($B_s\bar{B_s}$) decays, one can expect to observe
420: $\sim 100 $ identified $B_q\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$ events, permitting a test of the
421: predicted CP asymmetry with good accuracy.
422:
423: As discussed above, we need to seperate the final state $l^+_L l^-_L$ from $l^+_R l^-_R$ in order to measure
424: CP asymmetry. For l=$\tau$, the polarization analysis is straightforward. However, detecting tau's is difficult experimentally.
425: For l=$\mu$, in principle one can separate the final state $\mu^+_L \mu^-_L$ from $\mu^+_R \mu^-_R$ by measuring
426: the energy spectra of the electron from muon decay\cite{pes}. A $\mu_L$ will decay to an
427: energetic $e_L$, which must go forward to carry the muon spin, and a less energetic pair
428: of neutrino and antineutrino because the electron is always left-handed\footnote{In the present
429: case it is quite a good approximation to ignore the mass of electron.} and the energy-momentum
430: and angular momentum are conserved. Due to the same reason, for $\mu_R$, the relative energies of
431: electron and a pair of neutrino and antineutrino are roughly reversed. Therefore, the energy spectra of the
432: electron from muon decay is a powerful $\mu$ spin analyzer. However, in practice muons never decay in a 4$\pi$
433: detector because the lifetime of a muon is long ( c$\tau$=659 m). A possible way to measure a polarized muon decay is to build
434: special detectors which can make muons lose its energy but keep polarization so that the polarized muon decays can be measured.
435:
436: In summary, we have analyzed the CP violation in decays $B^0_q\rightarrow
437: l^+l^-$ (q=d,s). While there is no direct CP violation, there might be
438: mixed CP violation in the process
439: \begin{equation}
440: B^0\rightarrow\bar{B}^0\rightarrow f~~~~~~~vs.~~~~~~~~\bar{B}^0
441: \rightarrow B^0\rightarrow \bar{f}. \nnb\\
442: \end{equation}
443: It is shown that in the approximation of $|\frac{q}{p}|$=1 the CP violation vanishes in SM.
444: If including the correction of order of $10^{-2}$ to $|\frac{q}{p}|$=1, CP violation is smaller than
445: or equal to O($10^{-3}$) which is unobservably small.
446: In a 2HDM with CP violating phases and MSSM the CP asymmetries depend on the
447: parameters of models and can be as large as $40\%$ for $B^0_d$ and $3\%$ for $B^0_s$.
448: Therefore, an observation of CP asymmetry in the decays
449: $B^0_q \to l^+l^- (q=d,s)$ would unambiguously signal the existence of new physics.
450:
451: We are grateful to Abdus Salam ICTP where part of the work was done for the support
452: of ICTP Associateship Programme. We thank Qi-Shu Yan and Shou-Hua Zhu for discussions.
453: C.-S. Huang would like to thank CSSM at Adelaide University where the letter
454: was revised for warm hospitality.
455: W. Liao would like to thank P. Ball for helpful communication. This research was supported
456: in part by the National Nature Science Foundation of China.
457:
458: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
459: \bibitem{hnv}
460: X.G. He, T.D. Nguyen and R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. {\bf D38} (1988) 814;
461: W. Skiba and J. Kalinowski, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B404} (1993) 3;
462: D. Atwood, I. Reina and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 55}(1997) 3156;
463: H.E. Logan and U. Nierste, hep-ph/0004139;
464: K.S. Babu and C. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}(2000) 228.
465: \bibitem{hy}Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang and H.-W. Huang, Phys. Lett. {\bf B390} (1997) 257;
466: C-S Huang and Q-S Yan, Phys. Lett. {\bf B442} (1998) 209;
467: C-S Huang, W. Liao and Q-S Yan, Phys. Rev.{\bf D59} (1999) 011701.
468: \bibitem{hlyz} C-S Huang, LIAO Wei, Q-S Yan and S-H Zhu, hep-ph/0006250; C.-S. Huang, hep-ph/0009149.
469: \bibitem{cs}P.H. Chankowski, L. Slawianowska, hep-ph/0008046.
470: \bibitem{data} PDG, Review of Particle Data 2000.
471: \bibitem{Osaka}
472: Plenary talks presented by
473: D. Hitlin (BaBar Collaboration) and H. Aihara (Belle Collaboration)
474: at ICHEP2000, Osaka, Japan, 31 July 2000 (to appear in the
475: Proceedings).
476: \bibitem{cdf}Based the results given in the following references: OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff
477: et al., Eur. Phys. Jour. {\bf C5} (1998) 379; CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev.
478: {\bf D61} (2000) 072005.
479: \bibitem{bf}N. Ellis (LHC), at IV International
480: Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons,
481: Valencia, Spain, 29 June 2000 (to appear in the proceedings).
482: \bibitem{ks} F. Kr$\ddot{\textrm u}$ger and L.M. Sehgal,
483: Phys.Lett. B380 (1996) 199.
484: \bibitem{hl} C-S Huang and LIAO Wei, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 116002;
485: Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 016008.
486: \bibitem{gron} M. Gronau, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}(1989) 1451.
487: \bibitem{wise}{B. Grinstein, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B319}
488: (1989)271.}
489: \bibitem{buras}G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lauthenbache, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\
490: bf 68} (1996)1125.
491: \bibitem{75}A. Pais and S. Treiman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D12} (1975) 2744.
492: \bibitem{mas}S. Bertolini, F. borzumati, A. Masieso and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys.
493: {\bf B353} (1991) 591.
494: \bibitem{nir} Y. Nir, hep-ph/9911321.
495: \bibitem{bur}A.J. Buras, Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions,
496: Edited by F. David and R. Gupta, Elsevier Science(hep-ph/9806471).
497: \bibitem{ros}I. Dunietz and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D34} (1986) 1404.
498: \bibitem{ck} G. Couture, H. K$\ddot{\textrm o}$nig, Z. Phys. C{\bf 69}(1996)
499: 499; C{\bf 72}(1996) 327.
500: \bibitem{hz} C.-S. Huang, Z.-H. Zhu, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 015011; Erratum-ibid. D61 (2000) 119903.
501: \bibitem{in} T.Ibrahim and P.Nath, Phys. Lett. {\bf B418} 98 (1998), Phys.Rev. D
502: {\bf 57}, 478(1998), (E) ibid, {\bf D58}, 019901(1998), Phys. Rev. {\bf D58},111301(1998),
503: hep-ph/9910553; M.Brhlik,G.J.Good,and G.L.Kane, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59},11504(1999);
504: D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung, A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} (1999) 900.
505: \bibitem{pes}A similar analysis was presented for seperating $t_L$ from $t_R$. See, C.R. Schmidt and M.E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 410.
506: \bibitem{bs}Belle Progress Report, Belle Collaboration, KEK- PROGRESS-REPORT-97-1 (1997);
507: Status of the BaBar Detector, BaBar Collaboration, SLAC-PUB-7951, presented at 29th International
508: Conference on High Energy Physics, Vancouver, Canada, 1998.
509: \end{thebibliography}
510: Figure Captions\\
511:
512: Fig. 1 The correlation between CP asymmetries for $B^0_d$ and $B^0_s$.
513:
514: Fig. 2 $A^2_{CP}$ for $B^0_d$ versus the CP violating phase $\xi_H$ in
515: 2HDM.
516:
517: \begin{figure}
518: \begin{minipage}[t]{6.1 in}
519: % \mbox{ }\hfill\hspace{1cm}(fig 4)\hfill\mbox{ }
520: \vskip+5cm \epsfig{file=fig1.eps, width=8.1in}
521: \vskip+1cm \hspace{8cm} \caption{}
522: \end{minipage}
523: \end{figure}
524:
525: \begin{figure}
526: \begin{minipage}[t]{5.1 in}
527: % \mbox{ }\hfill\hspace{1cm}(fig 4)\hfill\mbox{ }
528: \vskip+5cm \epsfig{file=fig2.eps, width=8.1in}
529: \vskip+1cm \hspace{8cm} \caption{}
530: \end{minipage}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: \end{document}
534: