1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: \def\baselinestretch{1.2}
3: \input epsf
4:
5: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-60pt}
6: \addtolength{\textheight}{120pt}
7: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-50pt}
8: \addtolength{\textwidth}{100pt}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{titlepage}
12: \today \hfill
13: \begin{center}
14: \hfill OITS-704 \\
15:
16: \vskip .05in
17:
18: {\large \bf
19: Universal Extra Dimensions and $b \rightarrow s \gamma$
20: }
21: \footnote{This work is supported by DOE Grant DE-FG03-96ER40969.}
22: \vskip .15in
23: K. Agashe \footnote{email: agashe@neutrino.uoregon.edu},
24: N.G. Deshpande \footnote{email: desh@oregon.uoregon.edu},
25: G.-H. Wu \footnote{email: gwu@electron.uoregon.edu}
26:
27: \vskip .1in
28: {\em
29: Institute of Theoretical Science \\
30: University
31: of Oregon \\
32: Eugene OR 97403-5203}
33: \end{center}
34:
35: \vskip .05in
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38:
39: We analyze the effect of
40: flat universal extra dimensions (i.e., extra dimensions
41: accessible to all SM fields) on the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$.
42: With one Higgs doublet, the dominant
43: contribution at one-loop is from Kaluza-Klein (KK) states
44: of the charged would-be-Goldstone boson (WGB) and of the top
45: quark. The resulting constraint on the size of the extra
46: dimension is comparable to the constraint from
47: $T$ parameter. In two-Higgs-doublet model II, the contribution
48: of zero-mode and KK states of
49: physical charged Higgs can cancel the contribution from
50: WGB KK states. Therefore, in this model,
51: there is no constraint
52: on the size of the extra dimensions from
53: the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ and also
54: the constraint on the mass of
55: the charged Higgs from this process is weakened compared to
56: $4D$.
57: In two-Higgs-doublet model I, the contribution
58: of
59: the zero-mode and KK states
60: of physical charged Higgs and that of the KK states of WGB
61: are of the same sign. Thus, in this model and for small $\tan \beta$, the
62: constraint on the size of the extra dimensions is stronger than in
63: one-Higgs-doublet model and also
64: the constraint on
65: the mass of the charged Higgs is stronger than in $4D$.
66:
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \end{titlepage}
70:
71: \newpage
72: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}
73: \setcounter{page}{1}
74:
75: The
76: %There
77: %are
78: %many
79: motivations for studying theories with {\em flat}
80: extra dimensions of size (TeV)$^{-1}$ accessible
81: to (at least some of) the SM fields
82: are varied:
83: %for example,
84: SUSY breaking \cite{anto},
85: gauge coupling unification \cite{ddg},
86: generation of fermion
87: mass hierarchies \cite{as} and electroweak symmetry
88: breaking by a composite Higgs doublet \cite{ewsb}.
89: From the $4D$ point of view, these extra dimensions
90: take the form of Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of SM fields with masses
91: $\sim n / R$, where $R$ is a typical size of an extra dimension.
92: In a previous paper \cite{us}, we observed that the contribution
93: of these KK states
94: to the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ might give a
95: stringent constraint on $R^{-1}$.
96: In this paper, we will analyze
97: in detail the effects of these KK states on the process
98: $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ both in models with one and two Higgs
99: doublets.
100:
101: In models with {\em only} SM gauge fields in the bulk,
102: there are contributions to muon decay, atomic parity violation
103: (APV) etc.~from
104: tree-level exchange of KK states of gauge bosons
105: \cite{graesser, nath}. Then,
106: precision electroweak measurements result in a strong constraint
107: on the size of extra dimensions and, in turn, imply that the effect
108: on the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is small.
109:
110: To avoid these constraints,
111: we will focus on models with {\em universal} extra dimensions, i.e.,
112: extra dimensions accessible to {\em all} the SM fields.
113: In this case,
114: due to conservation of extra dimensional momentum, there are
115: {\em no}
116: vertices with only one KK state, i.e., coupling of
117: KK state of gauge boson to
118: quarks and leptons always involves (at least one)
119: {\em KK} mode of quark or lepton.
120: This, in turn, implies that there
121: is no tree-level contribution to weak decays of quarks and leptons, APV
122: $e ^+ e^- \rightarrow
123: \mu ^+ \mu ^-$ etc.~from exchange of KK states of gauge bosons
124: \cite{hall, appel}.
125: However, there is a
126: constraint on $R^{-1}$
127: from {\em one-loop}
128: contribution of KK states of (mainly) the top quark to the
129: $T$ parameter. For $m _t \ll R^{-1}$, this constraint is
130: roughly given by
131: $\sum _n m_t^2 \Big/ \left( m_t^2 + \left( n / R \right)^2 \right)
132: \stackrel{<}{\sim} 0.5 - 0.6$ (depending on the neutral Higgs mass)
133: \cite{appel}. For the case of one extra dimension, this
134: gives $R^{-1} \stackrel{>}{\sim} 300$ GeV. The KK excitations of quarks
135: appear as heavy stable quarks at hadron colliders and searches by the
136: CDF collaboration
137: also imply $R^{-1}\stackrel{>}{\sim} 300$ GeV for one extra dimension
138: \cite{appel}.
139:
140: We begin with an analysis of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$
141: for the case of minimal SM with one Higgs doublet
142: in extra dimensions.
143:
144: \section{One Higgs doublet}
145: The effective Hamiltonian for
146: $\Delta S = 1$ $B$ meson decays is
147: %
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: {\cal H}_{\hbox{eff}} & = &
150: \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \; V_{tb} V_{ts}^{\ast}
151: \sum _{j=1}^{8} C_j (\mu) {\cal O}_j,
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: %
154: where the operator relevant
155: for the transition $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is
156: %
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: {\cal O}_7 & = & \frac{e}{16 \pi^2} \; m_b \; \bar{s}_{L \alpha}
159: \sigma ^{\mu \nu} b_{R \alpha} F_{\mu \nu}.
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: %
162: The coefficient of this operator from $W-t$ exchange in the SM is
163: %
164: \begin{eqnarray}
165: C^{W}_7 (m_W) & = & - \frac{1}{2} A \left( \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2} \right),
166: \label{c7w}
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: %
169: where the loop function $A$ is given by
170: %
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: A (x) & = & x \left[ \frac{ \frac{2}{3} x^2 +
173: \frac{5}{12} x - \frac{7}{12} }{ \left( x - 1 \right) ^3 } -
174: \frac{ \left( \frac{3}{2} x^2 - x \right) \ln x }{ \left( x - 1 \right) ^4 }
175: \right].
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: %
178: Of course, this includes the contribution from
179: the charged would-be-Goldstone boson (WGB) (i.e., longitudinal $W$).
180:
181: With extra dimensions, there is a
182: one-loop contribution from KK states of $W$ (accompanied by KK states
183: of top quark, $t^{(n)}$),
184: but as we show below, this is smaller than
185: that from KK states of charged WGB.
186: In the limit $m_W \ll R^{-1}$,
187: the KK states of $W$ get a mass $\sim n / R$ by ``eating''
188: the field corresponding to extra
189: polarization of $W$ in higher dimensions
190: \footnote{This can be seen from KK decomposition of
191: fields in the $5D$ gauge kinetic term (see,
192: for example, appendix C of 2nd reference
193: in \cite{ddg}).}
194: -- this field
195: is a scalar from the $4D$ point of view.
196: Thus, the coupling of {\em all}
197: components of $W^{(n)}$ to fermions is $g$, unlike the case of
198: the zero-mode,
199: where the coupling of {\em longitudinal} $W$ to fermions is given by
200: the Yukawa coupling
201: of Higgs to fermions.
202: Therefore,
203: the contribution of $W^{(n)}$
204: to the coefficient of
205: the dimension-$5$ operator $\bar{s} \sigma _{\mu \nu} b F^{\mu \nu}$
206: is
207: $\sim e \; m_b \; g^2 / \left( 16 \pi^2 \right)
208: m_t^2 \sum _n 1 / \left( n / R \right) ^4$,
209: where
210: the factor $m_t^2$ reflects GIM cancelation. In terms of
211: the operator ${\cal O}_7$, the
212: contribution of each KK state of $W$ to
213: $C_7$ is $\sim m_t^2 m_W^2 / \left( n / R \right) ^4$.
214:
215: From the above discussion, it is clear that
216: the {\em KK} states of charged would-be-Goldstone boson
217: (denoted by WGB$^{(n)}$) are physical
218: (unlike the {\em zero}-mode). The loop
219: contribution
220: of WGB$^{(n)}$ with mass $n / R$ (and $t^{(n)}$ with mass
221: $\sqrt{ m_t^2 + \left( n / R \right)^2 }$)
222: is of the same form as that of physical charged Higgs in
223: 2 Higgs doublet models
224: \cite{bsgamma} with the appropriate modification of
225: masses and couplings of virtual particles in the loop integral
226: %
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: C^{\hbox{\scriptsize WGB}^{(n)}}_7
229: \left( R^{-1} \right)
230: & \approx & \frac{m_t^2}{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \left[
231: B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
232: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right)
233: - \frac{1}{6} A \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
234: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
235: \right) \right].
236: \label{c7WGB}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: %
239: Here,
240: the factor $m_t^2 / \left( m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 \right)$
241: accounts for
242: (a)
243: the coupling of WGB$^{(n)}$ to
244: $t^{(n)}$ which is
245: $\lambda _t \sim m_t / v$, i.e.,
246: the same as that of WGB$^{(0)}$
247: (longitudinal $W$), and (b) the fact that
248: this contribution decouples in the limit of large KK mass --
249: the functions $A$ and $B$ (see below) in
250: the above expression approach a constant as $n / R$ becomes
251: large.
252:
253: The loop function $B$ is given by
254: \cite{bsgamma}
255: %
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: B (y) & = & \frac{y}{2} \left[ \frac{ \frac{5}{6} y - \frac{1}{2} }
258: { \left( y - 1 \right) ^2 } - \frac{ \left( y - \frac{2}{3} \right)
259: \ln y }{ \left( y - 1 \right) ^3 } \right].
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: %
262: It is clear that the
263: ratio of the contribution of $W^{(n)}$ and that of WGB$^{(n)}$
264: is $\sim \left( m_W R / n \right)^2 \stackrel{<}{\sim} O(1/10)$ since
265: $R^{-1} \stackrel{>}{\sim} 300$ GeV
266: (due to constraints from the $T$ parameter
267: and searches for heavy quarks). In what follows, we will neglect the
268: $W^{(n)}$ contribution.
269:
270: At NLO, the coefficient of the operator at the scale
271: $\mu \sim m_b$ is given by \cite{buras}
272: %
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: C_7 \left(
275: m_b \right) & \approx 0.698 \; C_7 \left(
276: m_W \right) - 0.156 \; C_2 \left(
277: m_W \right) + 0.086 \; C_8 \left(
278: m_W \right).
279: \label{c7mb}
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: %
282: Here, $C_2$ is the coefficient of the operator
283: ${\cal O}_2 = \left( \bar{c}_{L \alpha} \gamma ^{\mu}
284: b_{L \alpha} \right) \left( \bar{s}_{L \beta} \gamma _{\mu}
285: c_{L \beta} \right)$
286: and is
287: approximately same as in the SM (i.e., $1$)
288: since the KK states of $W$ do not contribute to it at tree-level. $C_8$
289: is the
290: coefficient of the chromomagnetic operator
291: ${\cal O}_8 = g_s / \left( 16 \pi^2 \right) \; m_b \; \bar{s}_{L \alpha}
292: \sigma ^{\mu \nu} T^a_{\alpha \beta} b_{R \beta} G^a_{\mu \nu}$.
293: In the SM, $C_8 \left( m_W \right) \approx -0.097$ \cite{buras}
294: due to the contribution of $W-t$ loop
295: (using $m_t \approx 174$ GeV).
296: The coefficient of this operator
297: also gets a loop contribution from KK states which is
298: of the same order as the contribution to $C_7$.
299: Since the coefficient of
300: $C_8$ in Eq. (\ref{c7mb})
301: is small,
302: we neglect the contribution of KK states to $C_8$.
303: The coefficient of ${\cal O}_7$ at the scale $m_W$ is given by the sum of
304: the contributions of $W^{(0)}$ (Eq. (\ref{c7w}))
305: and that of WGB$^{(n)}$ (Eq. (\ref{c7WGB})) summed over $n$
306: \footnote{We neglect the RG scaling of ${\cal O}_7$ between
307: $R^{-1}$ and $m_W$.}.
308: Since $C_7^W \left( m_W \right) < 0$ and
309: $C_7^{ \hbox{\scriptsize WGB}^{(n)} }
310: \left( R^{-1} \right) > 0$,
311: we see that
312: contribution from
313: WGB$^{(n)}$ interferes
314: destructively with the $W$ contribution.
315:
316: The SM prediction for
317: $\Gamma \left( b \rightarrow s \gamma \right)
318: / \Gamma \left( b \rightarrow c l \nu \right)$
319: has an uncertainty of about $10 \%$ and the
320: experimental error is
321: about $15 \%$ (both are $1 \sigma$ errors)
322: \cite{kn}. The central values
323: of theory and experiment agree to within $ 1/2 \; \sigma$.
324: The semileptonic decay is not affected
325: by the KK states (at tree-level).
326: Combining theory and experiment $2 \sigma$ errors in quadrature,
327: this means that the $95 \%$ CL
328: constraint on
329: the contribution of KK states is that it should not
330: modify the SM prediction for $\Gamma \left( b \rightarrow s \gamma
331: \right)$
332: by more than $36 \%$.
333: Since $\Gamma \left( b \rightarrow s \gamma \right) \propto
334: \left[ C_7 \left(
335: m_b \right) \right] ^2$, the constraint is
336: $\bigg| \left[ C_7 ^{ \hbox{total} }
337: \left(
338: m_b \right)
339: \right] ^2 / \left[ C_7^{\hbox{\small SM}} \left(
340: m_b \right) \right]^2 - 1 \bigg|
341: \stackrel{<}{\sim} 36 \%$.
342: Using $m_t \approx 174$ GeV, we get
343: $A \approx 0.39$ in Eq. (\ref{c7w}) and $C_7^{\hbox{\small SM}}
344: \left( m_b \right)
345: \approx - 0.3$
346: \footnote{The NNLO corrections
347: for the SM prediction of the rate for
348: $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ are also known
349: and are about a few percent.}
350: from Eq. (\ref{c7mb}).
351: Assuming $m_t \ll R^{-1}$, we get $B \approx 0.19$
352: and $A \approx 0.21$ in Eq. (\ref{c7WGB}). Then, using
353: Eq. (\ref{c7mb}) and the above criterion, we get the
354: constraint
355: %
356: \begin{equation}
357: \sum _n m_t^2 \Big/ \left( m^2_t + \left( n / R \right)^2 \right)
358: \stackrel{<}{\sim} 0.5
359: \end{equation}
360: %
361: which is comparable to that from the $T$ parameter.
362: For one extra dimension, performing the sum over KK states
363: with the exact expressions for $A$ and $B$ in
364: Eq. (\ref{c7WGB}), the constraint is
365: $R^{-1} \stackrel{>}{\sim} 280$ GeV
366: \footnote{We assume that the extra dimension denoted by
367: $y$ is compactified on
368: a circle of radius $R$. The various fields are chosen to be either
369: even or odd
370: under the $Z_2$ symmetry, $y \rightarrow -y$ as in \cite{appel}.
371: Thus, the summation is over positive integers $n$.}.
372:
373: Next, we consider models with two Higgs doublets.
374:
375: \section{Two-Higgs-doublet model II}
376: In this case,
377: contribution from zero-mode physical charged Higgs interferes constructively
378: with the $W$ contribution
379: \cite{bsgamma}:
380: %
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: C^{H^{+ \; (0)}}_{7, II} \left( m_W \right) &
383: \approx & - B \left( \frac{m_t^2}{m_H^2} \right) - \frac{1}{6}
384: \cot ^2 \beta \; A
385: \left( \frac{m_t^2}{m_H^2} \right),
386: \label{c7II0}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388: %
389: where $\tan \beta$ is the ratio of vev's of the two Higgs doublets.
390: In $4D$,
391: this contribution gives a strong constraint on charged Higgs mass,
392: $m_H \stackrel{>}{\sim} 500$ GeV.
393:
394: The combined
395: effect from KK states of physical charged Higgs and WGB is:
396: %
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: C_{7, II}^{\left( \hbox{\scriptsize WGB}^{(n)} + H^{+ \; (n)}
399: \right)} \left( R^{-1} \right) & \approx & \frac{m_t^2}{ m^2_t +
400: \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \left[
401: B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
402: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right)
403: - \frac{1}{6} A \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
404: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
405: \right)
406: \right. -
407: \nonumber
408: \\
409: & & \left.
410: B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
411: { m_H^2 + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right) -
412: \frac{1}{6} \cot ^2 \beta \;
413: A \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
414: { m_H^2 + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right) \right],
415: \label{c7IIKK}
416: \end{eqnarray}
417: %
418: where the first line is from KK states of WGB (Eq. (\ref{c7WGB})) and
419: the second line is from KK states of physical charged Higgs (KK analog of
420: Eq. (\ref{c7II0})).
421:
422: Assuming $m_H \sim O(R^{-1})$ or larger,
423: the combined effect of KK states is typically
424: destructive with respect to the $W$ contribution. This is because
425: $B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
426: { m_H^2 + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right)
427: < B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
428: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right)$
429: and the $A$ contribution is small such that $C_{7, II}^{\left( WGB^{(n)} +
430: H^{+ \; (n)} \right) } > 0$
431: \footnote{In the limit $m_H \ll R^{-1}$,
432: the $B$'s cancel in Eq. (\ref{c7IIKK})
433: so that the combined effect of
434: KK states is constructive (and small) due to the $A$'s.}.
435: Thus, the contribution of zero-mode physical charged Higgs
436: can cancel that of KK states
437: so that there is no constraint on $R^{-1}$. Also, this implies that
438: the constraint
439: on $m_H$ is weakened in the presence of extra dimensions
440: of size $O \left( m_H^{-1} \right)$ or larger.
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.55\textwidth \epsfbox{bsgII.eps}}
444: \caption{
445: The deviation
446: of the rate of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ from the SM prediction
447: in model II as a function of size of one extra dimension
448: ($R^{-1}$) and charged Higgs
449: mass ($m_H$) for $\tan \beta = 10$ (figure (a)) and as a function
450: of $\tan \beta$ and $m_H$ for $R^{-1} = 300$ GeV
451: (figure (b)). In figure (b), the dashed lines are the result
452: in $4D$. The $1 \sigma$ deviation corresponds to $ 18 \%$.
453: }
454: \protect\label{bsgII}
455: \end{figure}
456:
457: This can be seen in Fig. \ref{bsgII}
458: which shows the deviation
459: in the rate for
460: $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ from the SM prediction for the case of one extra
461: dimension.
462: From Fig. \ref{bsgII}a,
463: we see that
464: even for $R^{-1}$ as small as $200$ GeV \footnote{Of course, such
465: a small $R^{-1}$ might be ruled out
466: due to constraints from $T$ parameter and heavy quark searches.}, the
467: $95 \%$ CL constraint from $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ is satisfied
468: for a particular range of $m_H$. Of course, for $m_H \stackrel{>}{\sim}
469: 1$ TeV, the effect of physical charged Higgs (both zero-mode and KK states)
470: becomes negligible so that we obtain the lower limit
471: on $R^{-1}$ of about $300$ GeV
472: as in the one Higgs doublet case.
473: As seen from Fig. \ref{bsgII}b,
474: the
475: $95 \%$ CL lower limit from $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ on $m_H$ is
476: about $500-550$ GeV (depending on $\tan \beta$) in $4D$.
477: We see that in
478: $5D$, the $95 \%$ CL lower limit on $m_H$ is reduced by about $40$ GeV
479: for $R^{-1} \sim 300$ GeV and the $1 \sigma$ limit on $m_H$ is reduced by
480: about $200$ GeV.
481:
482: \section{Two-Higgs-doublet model I}
483: In this case, the
484: contribution from zero-mode physical charged Higgs is destructive
485: with respect to the $W$ contribution
486: \cite{bsgamma}:
487: %
488: \begin{eqnarray}
489: C^{H^{+ \; (0)}}_{7, I} \left( m_W \right) &
490: \approx & \cot ^2 \beta \left[ B \left( \frac{m_t^2}{m_H^2} \right)
491: - \frac{1}{6}
492: A
493: \left( \frac{m_t^2}{m_H^2} \right) \right].
494: \label{c7I0}
495: \end{eqnarray}
496: %
497: This contribution is negligible for large $\tan \beta$ and hence there is
498: no constraint on $m_H$ from $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ in $4D$. Of course,
499: for small $\tan \beta$, this process does give a lower limit on
500: $m_H$: for $\tan \beta = 1$, the limit is about $350$ GeV.
501:
502: The contribution from KK states
503: is also destructive with respect to the $W$ contribution:
504: \begin{eqnarray}
505: C_{7, I}^{\left( \hbox{\scriptsize WGB}^{(n)} + H^{+ \; (n)} \right)}
506: \left( R^{-1} \right) & \approx &
507: \frac{m_t^2}{ m^2_t +
508: \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \left[
509: B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
510: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right)-
511: \frac{1}{6} A \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
512: { \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
513: \right) + \right.
514: \nonumber
515: \\
516: & & \left.
517: \cot ^2 \beta \left( B \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }
518: { m_H^2 + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right) -
519: \frac{1}{6} A \left( \frac{ m^2_t + \left( n / R \right) ^2 }{
520: m_H^2 + \left( n / R \right) ^2 } \right) \right) \right],
521: \end{eqnarray}
522: %
523: where the first line is from KK states of WGB (Eq. (\ref{c7WGB})) and
524: the second line is from KK states of physical charged Higgs (KK analog of
525: Eq. (\ref{c7I0})).
526:
527: Thus, for small $\tan \beta$,
528: the constraint on $R^{-1}$ is stronger than with one
529: Higgs doublet and also the lower limit
530: on $m_H$ is larger with extra dimensions.
531:
532: \begin{figure}
533: \vspace{0.3cm}
534: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.55\textwidth \epsfbox{bsgI.eps}}
535: \caption{
536: The deviation
537: of the rate of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ from the SM prediction
538: in model I as a function of size of one extra dimension
539: ($R^{-1}$) and charged Higgs
540: mass ($m_H$) for $\tan \beta = 2$ (figure (a)) and as a function
541: of $\tan \beta$ and $m_H$ for $R^{-1} = 300$ GeV
542: (figure (b)). In figure (b), the dashed lines are the result
543: in $4D$.
544: The $1 \sigma$ deviation corresponds to $ 18 \%$.
545: }
546: \protect\label{bsgI}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: In Fig. \ref{bsgI}, we show the deviation from the SM prediction for
550: the rate of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ for the case of one extra
551: dimension.
552: From Fig. \ref{bsgI}a, we see that
553: for $\tan \beta = 2$ and $m_H
554: =100$ GeV, the lower limit on $R^{-1}$ is about
555: $550$ GeV
556: (as compared to about $300$ GeV in the one Higgs doublet case).
557: Of course, for $m_H \stackrel{>}{\sim} 1$ TeV, the contribution of
558: physical charged Higgs (both zero-mode and KK states)
559: is negligible and then the lower limit on $R^{-1}$ is the same as in
560: the one Higgs doublet case.
561: From Fig. \ref{bsgI}b, we see that
562: for $\tan \beta
563: =1$ and $R^{-1} = 300$ GeV, the limit on $m_H$ increases from about
564: $350$ GeV
565: in $4D$ to a value much larger than
566: $1$ TeV.
567: As another example, for $\tan \beta = 4$, there is no constraint
568: on $m_H$ in $4D$, whereas for one extra dimension
569: of size $(300 \; \hbox{GeV})^{-1}$ there is a lower limit
570: on $m_H$ of about $400$ GeV.
571: However, as in $4D$,
572: the effect of physical charged Higgs (both zero-mode and KK states)
573: ``decouples''
574: as $\tan \beta$ becomes larger and then we recover the one Higgs
575: doublet result for $b \rightarrow s \gamma$.
576:
577: \section{Summary}
578: In this paper, we have studied the effect of
579: universal extra dimensions on
580: the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$. In the one Higgs doublet case, we showed
581: that the contribution of KK states of
582: charged would-be-Goldstone boson (WGB)
583: gives a constraint on the size of the
584: extra dimensions which is comparable to that from the $T$ parameter. In
585: two-Higgs-doublet model
586: II, the contribution of physical charged Higgs
587: (and its KK states) tends to cancel
588: the contribution of KK states of WGB so that there is no constraint on
589: the size of the extra dimensions and also the lower limit
590: on the charged Higgs mass is relaxed relative to
591: $4D$.
592: In two-Higgs-doublet model I, the
593: contribution of physical charged Higgs
594: (and its KK states) adds to the contribution of KK states
595: of WGB. Therefore,
596: for small $\tan \beta$,
597: the constraint on the size of extra dimensions becomes
598: stronger than in the one-Higgs-doublet model and also the lower limit on
599: charged Higgs mass is larger than in $4D$.
600:
601: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
602:
603: \bibitem{anto}The first studies of
604: possible effects of extra dimensions felt by
605: SM particles were done
606: in I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B 246 (1990) 377;
607: I. Antoniadis, C. Munoz and M. Quiros, hep-ph/9211309, Nucl. Phys.
608: B 397 (1993) 515; I. Antoniadis and
609: K. Benakli, hep-th/9310151, Phys. Lett. B 326 (1994) 69.
610: \bibitem{ddg}K.R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta,
611: hep-ph/9803466, Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 55
612: and hep-ph/9806292, Nucl. Phys.
613: B 537 (1999) 47.
614: \bibitem{as}N. Arkani-Hamed and M. Schmaltz, hep-ph/9903417,
615: Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 033005.
616: \bibitem{ewsb}N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, B.A. Dobrescu and
617: L.J. Hall, hep-ph/0006238, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 096006.
618: \bibitem{us}K. Agashe, N.G. Deshpande and G.-H. Wu, hep-ph/0103235,
619: to be published in Phys. Lett. B.
620: \bibitem{graesser}M. Graesser, hep-ph/9902310,
621: Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 074019.
622: \bibitem{nath}P. Nath and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph/9902323, Phys. Rev.
623: D 60 (1999) 116004.
624: \bibitem{hall}R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and Y. Nomura, hep-ph/0011311,
625: Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 105007.
626: \bibitem{appel}T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng and B.A. Dobrescu, hep-ph/0012100.
627: \bibitem{bsgamma}B. Grinstein and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988) 274;
628: W.-S. Hou and R.S. Willey, Phys. Lett. B 202 (1988) 591.
629: \bibitem{buras}G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher,
630: hep-ph/9512380, Rev.
631: Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1125.
632: \bibitem{kn}A.L. Kagan and M. Neubert, hep-ph/9805303, Eur. Phys. J. C 7
633: (1999) 5;
634: D.E. Groom et al.
635: (Particle Data Group), Eur. Phys. J. C 15 (2000) 1.
636: \end{thebibliography}
637:
638: \end{document}
639: