1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper,oneside,final,tilepage,onecolumn,thmsal]{article}

2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

6: \newcommand{\QED}{\hspace*{\fill}\rule{2.5mm}{2.5mm}}

7: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

8: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

9: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

10: \newenvironment{proof}{{\bf Proof\ }}{\QED\\}

11: \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}

12: %Page specifications:

13: \setlength{\textheight}{20 cm} \setlength{\textwidth}{15 cm}

14: \setlength{\textheight}{20 cm} \setlength{\textwidth}{15 cm}

15: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{1 cm} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{1 cm}

16: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.6in}

17: \usepackage{graphics}

18: \begin{document}

19: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

20: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

21: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

22: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

23: \def\ve{\vert}

24: \def\vel{\left|}

25: \def\ver{\right|}

26: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

27: \def\ga{\left(}

28: \def\dr{\right)}

29: \def\aga{\left\{}

30: \def\adr{\right\}}

31: \def\rar{\rightarrow}

32: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

33: \def\la{\langle}

34: \def\ra{\rangle}

35: \def\ba{\begin{array}}

36: \def\ea{\end{array}}

37: \def\tep{$B \rar K \ell^+ \ell^-$}

38: \def\tepm{$B \rar K \mu^+ \mu^-$}

39: \def\tept{$B \rar K \tau^+ \tau^-$}

40: \def\ds{\displaystyle}

41: \title{{\small {\bf Fourth generation effects on the rare

42: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay }}}

43: \author{\vspace{1cm}\\

44: {\small T. BARAKAT} \thanks {electronic address:

45: barakat@ciu.edu.tr}\\ {\small Engineering Faculty, Cyprus

46: International University},\\ {\small Lefko\c{s}a, Mersin 10 -

47: Turkey } }

48: \date{}

49: \begin{titlepage}

50: \maketitle

51: \thispagestyle{empty}

52: \begin{abstract}

53: \baselineskip .8 cm If the fourth generation fermions exist, the

54: new quarks could influence the branching ratio of the rare

55: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay. Two possible solutions of

56: the fourth generation CKM factor

57: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^(\pm)$ are obtained as a

58: function of the new $\acute{t}$-quark mass $(m_{\acute{t}})$ from

59: the experimental results of the $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$

60: together with the semileptonic decay $B\rightarrow

61: X_{c}\ell\bar{\nu}$. The branching ratio of the decay

62: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ in the two cases is estimated. In

63: one case, a significant enhancement to the branching ratio of the

64: decay $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ over the SM is recorded,

65: while results are almost same in another case. If a fourth

66: generation should exist in nature and nature chooses the former

67: case, this B meson decay could be a good probe to the existence of

68: the fourth generation, or perhaps a signal for a new physics.

69: \end{abstract}

70: \vspace{1cm}

71: %~~PACS number(s): 13.25.Gv, 13.20.--v, 13.10.+q

72: \end{titlepage}

73: \section{ Introduction}

74: \baselineskip .8cm \hspace{0.6cm} The SM model has been widely

75: discussed in the literature, and serves as an explicit model for

76: studying all low energy experimental data. But there is no doubt

77: that the SM is an incomplete theory. Among the unsolved problems

78: within the SM is the CP violation, and the number of generations.

79: In SM there are three generations, and yet, there is no

80: theoretical argument to explain why there are three and only three

81: generations in SM, and there is neither an experimental evidence

82: for a fourth generation nor does any experiment exclude such extra

83: generations. Therefore, if we believe that the fourth generation

84: fermions really exist in Nature, we should give their mass

85: spectrum, and take into account their physical effects in low

86: energy physic. One of the promising areas in the experimental

87: search for the fourth generation, via its indirect loop effects,

88: is the rare B meson decays.

89:  On this basis, serious attempts to study the effects of the fourth generation

90:  on the rare B meson were made by many authors. For examples, the effects of the fourth

91:  generation on the branching ratio of the $B \rightarrow X_{s}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$,

92: and the $B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ decays is analyzed in [1]. In

93: [2] the fourth generation effects on the rare exclusive $B

94: \rightarrow K^{*}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decay are studied. In [3] the

95: contributions of the fourth generation to the $B_{s}\rightarrow

96: \nu \bar{\nu}\gamma$ decay is analyzed. Moreover, the introduction

97: of the fourth generation fermions can also affect CP violating

98: parameters $\acute{\epsilon}/\epsilon$ in the Kaon system [4].

99: 

100: It is hoped that a definite answer on possible fourth generation

101: at the upcoming $KEK$ and SLAC B-factories will be found, where

102: this year the upgraded B-factories at SLAC, and KEK will provide

103: us with the first experimental data. Amongst the rare flavor

104: changing decays, the exclusive decay $B \rightarrow

105: K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ provokes special interest. In particular, the

106: SM has been exploited to establish a bound on the branching ratio

107: of the above-mentioned decay of the order $\sim 10^{-5}$, which

108: can be quite measurable for the upcoming $KEK$ and SLAC

109: B-factories, and they are sensitive to the various extensions to

110: the SM because these decays occur only through loops in the SM.

111: Therefore, in this work we will investigate the decay $B

112: \rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ in the existence of a new up-like

113: quark $\acute{t}$ in a sequential fourth generation model SM,

114: which we shall call (SM4) hereafter for the sake of simplicity.

115: This model is considered as natural extension of the SM, where the

116: fourth generation model is introduced in the same way the three

117: generations are introduced in the SM, so no new operators appear,

118: and clearly the full operator set is exactly the same as in SM.

119: Hence, the fourth generation will change only the values of the

120: Wilson coefficients via virtual exchange of the fourth generations

121: up-like quark $\acute{t}$.

122:  Subsequently, this paper is organized

123: as follows: in Section 2, the relevant effective Hamiltonian for

124: the decay $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ in the existence of a

125: new up-like quark $\acute{t}$ in a sequential fourth generation

126: model (SM4) is presented; and in section 3, the dependence of the

127: branching ratio on the fourth generation model parameters for the

128: decay of interest is studied using the results of the Light- Cone

129: QCD sum rules for estimating form factors; and finally a brief

130: discussion of the results is given.

131: \section{Effective Hamiltonian}

132: \hspace{0.6cm} The matrix element of the $B\rightarrow

133: K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay at quark level is described by

134: $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ transition for whom the effective

135: Hamiltonian at $O(\mu)$ scale can be written as:

136: \begin{eqnarray}

137: H_{eff}&=&\frac{4G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\sum_{i=1}^{10}C_{i}

138: (\mu)O_{i}(\mu),

139: \end{eqnarray}

140: where the full set of the operators $O_{i}(\mu)$, and the

141: corresponding expressions for the Wilson coefficients $C_{i}(\mu)$

142: in the SM are given in [5]. As has been mentioned in the

143: introduction, no new operators appear, and clearly the full

144: operator set is exactly same as in SM, thus the fourth generation

145: changes only the values of the Wilson coefficients $C_{7}(\mu)$,

146: $C_{9}(\mu)$, and $C_{10}(\mu)$ via virtual exchange of the fourth

147: generation up quark $\acute{t}$. Therefore, the above mentioned

148: Wilson coefficients can be written in the following form:

149: \begin{eqnarray}

150: C^{SM4}_{7}(\mu)=C^{SM}_{7}(\mu)+\frac{V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}

151: {V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}C^{new}_{7}(\mu),

152: \end{eqnarray}

153: \begin{eqnarray}

154: C^{SM4}_{9}(\mu)=C^{SM}_{9}(\mu)+\frac{V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}

155: {V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}C^{new}_{9}(\mu),

156: \end{eqnarray}

157: \begin{eqnarray}

158: C^{SM4}_{10}(\mu)=C^{SM}_{10}(\mu)+\frac{V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}

159: {V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}C^{new}_{10}(\mu),

160: \end{eqnarray}

161: where the last terms in these expressions describe the

162: contributions of the $\acute{t}$ quark to the Wilson coefficients.

163: $V_{\acute{t}s}$, and $V_{\acute{t}b}$ are the two elements of the

164: $4\times 4$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. In deriving

165: Eqs.(2-4) we factored out the term $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ in the

166: effective Hamiltonian given in Eq.(1). The explicit forms of the

167: $C^{new}_{i}$ can easily be obtained from the corresponding Wilson

168: coefficients in SM by simply substituting $m_{t}\rightarrow

169: m_{\acute{t}}$ [5,6]. Neglecting the s quark mass, the above

170: effective Hamiltonian leads to the following matrix element for

171: the $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay in the SM [7]:

172: \begin{eqnarray}

173: H_{eff}&=&\frac{G_{F}

174: \alpha}{2\pi\sqrt{2}sin^{2}\theta_{w}}C^{(SM)}_{11}

175: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\bar{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}

176: (1-\gamma_{5})\nu,

177: \end{eqnarray}

178: where $G_{F}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $\alpha$ is the fine

179: structure constant and $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ are products of

180: Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa matrix elements. The resulting

181: expression of Wilson coefficient $C^{(SM)}_{11}$, which was

182: derived in the context of the SM including $O(\alpha_{s})$

183: corrections is [8,9]

184: \begin{eqnarray}

185: C_{11}^{(SM)}=\left[X_{0}(x)+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{4\pi}X_{1}(x)\right],

186: \end{eqnarray}

187: with

188: \begin{eqnarray}

189: X_{0}(x)= \frac{x}{8}\left[\frac{x +2}{x-1}+\frac{3(x-2)}

190: {(x-1)^{2}}lnx\right],

191: \end{eqnarray}

192: where $x=\frac{m^{2}_{t}}{m^{2}_{W}}$, and

193: \begin{eqnarray}

194: X_{1}(x)&=&\frac{4x^{3}-5x^{2}-23x}{3(x-1)^{2}}-

195: \frac{x^{4}+x^{3}-11x^{2}+x}{(x-1)^{3}}lnx+

196: \frac{x^{4}-x^{3}-4x^{2}-8x}{2(x-1)^{3}}ln^{2}x \nonumber \\

197: &+&\frac{x^{3}-4x}{(x-1)^{2}}Li_{2}(1-x)+8x\frac{\partial X_{0}(x)}{\partial x}

198: lnx_{\mu}.

199: \end{eqnarray}

200: Here $Li_{2}(1-x)=\int_{1}^{x}\frac{lnt}{1-t}dt$ and

201: $x_{\mu}=\frac{\mu^{2}}{m_{w}^{2}}$ with $\mu=O(m_{t})$.

202: 

203: At $\mu=m_{t}$, the QCD correction for $X_{1}(x)$ term is very

204: small (around $\sim 3\%$). From the theoretical point of view, the

205: transition $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ is a very clean process,

206: since it is practically free from the scale dependence, and free

207: from any long distance effects. In addition, the presence of a

208: single operator governing the inclusive $b \rightarrow s

209: \nu\bar{\nu}$ transition is an appealing property. Therefore, the

210: theoretical uncertainty within the SM is only related to the value

211: of the Wilson coefficient $C^{(SM)}_{11}$ due to the uncertainty

212: in the top quark mass. In this work, we have considered possible

213: new physics in $b \rightarrow s \nu\bar{\nu}$ only through the

214: value of that of Wilson coefficient.

215: 

216:  In this spirit, the transition $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ in Eq.(5)

217:  can only include extra contribution due to the fourth generation

218:  fermion, hence, the fourth generation fermion contribution modify only

219: the value of the Wilson coefficient $C^{(SM)}_{11}$ (see

220: Eqs.(2-4)), and it does not induce any new operators:

221: \begin{eqnarray}

222: C_{11}^{SM4}(\mu)&=&C^{(SM)}_{11}(\mu)+\frac{V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}

223: {V^{*}_{tb}V_{ts}}C^{(new)}(\mu),

224: \end{eqnarray}

225: where $C^{(new)}(\mu)$ can be obtained from $C^{SM}_{11}(\mu)$ by

226: substituting $m_{t}\rightarrow m_{\acute{t}}$.

227: 

228: As a result, we obtain a modified effective Hamiltonian, which

229: represents $b \rightarrow s \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay in the presence of

230: the fourth generation fermion:

231: \begin{eqnarray}

232: H_{eff}=\frac{G\alpha}{2\pi\sqrt{2}sin^{2}\theta_{w}}V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}

233: [C_{11}^{(SM4)}]

234: \bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\bar{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}

235: (1-\gamma_{5})\nu.

236: \end{eqnarray}

237: However, in spite of such theoretical advantages, it would be a

238: very difficult task to detect the inclusive $b \rightarrow s

239: \nu\bar{\nu}$  decay experimentally, because the final state

240: contains two missing neutrinos and many hadrons. Therefore, only

241: the exclusive channels, namely $B \rightarrow K^{*}(\rho)

242: \nu\bar{\nu}$, are well suited to search for and constrain for

243: possible "new physics" effects.

244: 

245: In order to compute $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay, we

246: need the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian Eq.(10)

247: between the final and initial meson states. This problem is

248: related to the non-perturbative sector of QCD and can be solved

249: only by using non-perturbative methods. The matrix element $<K^{*}

250: \mid H_{eff}\mid B>$ has been investigated in a framework of

251: different approaches, such as chiral perturbation theory [10],

252: three point QCD sum rules [11], relativistic quark model by the

253: light front formalism [12], effective heavy quark theory [13], and

254: light cone QCD sum rules [14,15]. As a result, the hadronic matrix

255: element for the $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ can be

256: parameterized in terms of five form factors:

257: \begin{eqnarray}

258: <K^{*}(p_{2},\epsilon) \mid \bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\mid

259: B(p_{1})> = -\frac{2V(q^{2})}{m_{B}+m_{K^{*}}}

260: \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}p_{2}^{\rho}q^{\sigma}\epsilon^{*\nu}\nonumber

261: \\

262:  -i \left[\epsilon_{\mu}^{*}(m_{B}+m_{K^{*}})A_{1}(q^{2})

263: -(\epsilon^{*}q)(p_{1}+p_{2})_{\mu}\frac{A_{2}(q^{2})}{m_{B}+m_{K^{*}}}

264: \right. \nonumber \\

265:  - \left. q_{\mu}(\epsilon^{*}q)\frac{2m_{K^{*}}}{q^{2}}

266: (A_{3}(q^{2})-A_{0}(q^{2})) \right],

267: \end{eqnarray}

268: where  $\epsilon_{\mu}$, is the polarization 4-vector of $K^{*}$ meson. The

269: form factor $A_{3}(q^{2})$ can be written as a linear combination of the form

270: factors $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$:

271: \begin{eqnarray}

272: A_{3}(q^{2})=\frac{1}{2m_{K^{*}}}\left[(m_{B}+m_{K^{*}})A_{1}(q^{2})-

273: (m_{B}-m_{K^{*}})A_{2}(q^{2})\right],

274: \end{eqnarray}

275: where $q=p_{1}-p_{2}$, and $A_{3}(q^{2}=0)=A_{0}(q^{2}=0)$.

276: 

277: After performing summation over  $K^{*}$ meson polarization and

278: taking into account the number of light neutrinos $N_{\nu}=3$ for

279: the differential decay width, we get in [7]:

280: \begin{eqnarray}

281: \frac{d\Gamma(B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})}{ds}=

282: \frac{G_{F}^{2}\alpha^{2}\mid

283: V_{tb}V^{*}_{ts}\mid^{2}}{2^{10}\pi^{5}sin^{4}\theta_{w}}

284: \lambda^{1/2}(1,r,s)m_{B}^{5}\mid C^{SM4}_{11} \mid^{2}\otimes

285: \nonumber\\

286:  \left\{8\lambda s\frac{V^{2}}{(1+\sqrt{r})^{2}}+

287: \frac{1}{r}\biggl[\lambda^{2}\frac{A_{2}}{(1+\sqrt{r})^{2}}\right.

288: \nonumber\\ +\left.(1+\sqrt{r})^{2}(\lambda+12rs)

289: A_{1}^{2}-2\lambda(1-r-s)Re(A_{1}A_{2}) \biggr] \right\},

290: \end{eqnarray}

291: where  $\lambda (1,r,s)=1+r^{2}+s^{2}-2rs-2r-2s$ is the usual

292: triangle function with  $r=\frac{m^{2}_{K^{*}}}{m^{2}_{B}}$  and

293: $s=\frac{q^{2}}{m^{2}_{B}}$. From Eq.(13), we can see that the

294: decay width for $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ contains three

295: form factors: V, $A_{1}$, and $A_{2}$. These form factors were

296: calculated in the framework of QCD sum rules in [14,15,16].

297: However, in this work, in estimating the total decay width, we

298: have used the results of [16], where these form factors were

299: calculated by including one-loop radiative corrections to the

300: leading twist 2 contribution:

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: F(q^{2})=\frac{F(0)}{1-a_{F}(q^{2}/m^{2}_{B})+b_{F}(q^{2}/m^{2}_{B})^{2}},

303: \end{eqnarray}

304: and the relevant values of the form factors at $q^{2}=0$ are:

305: \begin{eqnarray}

306:  A_{1}^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.35\pm 0.05,{~~} with{~~} a_{F}=0.54,

307: {~~}and{~~} b_{F}=-0.02,

308: \end{eqnarray}

309: \begin{eqnarray}

310: A_{2}^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.30\pm 0.05,{~~} with{~~} a_{F}=1.02,

311: {~~} and{~~} b_{F}=0.08,

312: \end{eqnarray}

313: and

314: \begin{eqnarray}

315: V^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.47\pm 0.08,{~~} with{~~} a_{F}=1.50,{~~}

316: and{~~} b_{F}=0.51.

317: \end{eqnarray}

318:  Note that all errors, which come out, are due to the uncertainties of the

319: b-quark mass, the Borel parameter variation, wave functions, and

320: radiative corrections are quadrature added in. Finally, to obtain

321: quantitative results we need the value of the fourth generation

322: CKM matrix elements $ V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$. For this

323: aim following [17], we will use the experimental results of the

324: decay $BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)$ together with $BR(B

325: \rightarrow X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$ to determine the fourth

326: generation CKM factor $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$. However,

327: in order to reduce the uncertainties arising from b-quark mass, we

328: consider the following ratio:

329: \begin{eqnarray}

330: R_{quark}=\frac{BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)}{BR(B \rightarrow

331: X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})}.

332: \end{eqnarray}

333: In the leading logarithmic approximation this ratio can be

334: summarized in a compact form as follows [18]:

335: \begin{eqnarray}

336: R_{quark}=\frac{\mid V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb} \mid ^{2}}{\mid V_{cb} \mid

337: ^{2}}\frac{6\alpha}{\pi f(z)}  \mid C^{SM4}_{7}(m_{b}) \mid ^{2},

338: \end{eqnarray}

339: where

340: \begin{eqnarray}

341: f(z)=1-8z+8z^{3}-z^{4}-12z^{2}lnz {~~~~~~~} with {~~~}

342: z=\frac{m^{2}_{c,pole}}{m^{2}_{b,pole}}

343: \end{eqnarray}

344: is the phase space factor in $BR(B \rightarrow

345: X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$, and $\alpha= e^{2}/4\pi$. In the case of

346: four generation there is an additional contribution to $B

347: \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ from the virtual exchange of the fourth

348: generation up quark $\acute{t}$. The Wilson coefficients of the

349: dipole operators are given by:

350: \begin{eqnarray}

351: C^{SM4}_{7,8}(m_{b})=C^{SM}_{7,8}(m_{b})+\frac{

352: V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}

353: {V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}C^{new}_{7,8}(m_{b}),

354: \end{eqnarray}

355: where $C^{new}_{7,8}(m_{b})$ present the contributions of

356: $\acute{t}$ to the Wilson coefficients, and

357: $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are the fourth generation CKM

358: matrix factor which we need now. With these Wilson coefficients

359: and the experiment results of the decays $BR(B \rightarrow

360: X_{s}\gamma)=2.66 \times 10^{-4}$, together with the semileptonic

361: $BR(B \rightarrow X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$=$0.103\pm 0.01$ [19,20]

362: decay, we obtain the results of the fourth generation CKM factor $

363: V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$. There exist two cases, a

364: positive, and a negative one [17]:

365: \begin{eqnarray}

366: ( V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}) ^{\pm}=\biggl[\pm \sqrt{

367: \frac{R_{quark} \mid V_{cb}\mid ^{2}\pi f(z)}{6\alpha \mid

368: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid ^{2}}}-C^{(SM)}_{7}(m_{b}) \biggr] \frac{

369: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}{C^{(new)}_{7}(m_{b})}.

370: \end{eqnarray}

371: The values for $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are listed in

372: Table 1.

373: \begin{table}[h]

374: \vskip .5cm

375: \begin{center}

376: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline

377: $m_{\acute{t}} (GeV)$ &50 & 100 & 150&200 &250&300&350 \\ \hline

378: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}/10^{-2}$&-11.591 &-9.259

379: &-8.126 &-7.501&-7.116 &-6.861&-6.580 \\

380: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}/10^{-3}$ & 3.564 &2.850

381: &2.502 &2.309 &2.191 & 2.113&2.205 \\ \hline \hline $m_{\acute{t}}

382: (GeV)$ & 400&500&600&700&800&900&1000 \\ \hline

383: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}/10^{-2}$&-6.548

384: &-6.369&-6.255 &-6.178&-6.123 &-6.082&-6.051 \\

385: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}/10^{-3}$ &2.016

386: &1.961&1.926 &1.902&1.885&1.872 &1.863\\ \hline

387: \end{tabular}

388: \caption{The numerical values of

389: $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ for different values of

390: $\acute{t}$ for $BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)=2.66\times

391: 10^{-4}$. }

392: \end{center}

393: \end{table}

394: 

395: A few comments about the numerical values of

396: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ are in order. From

397: unitarity condition of the CKM matrix we have

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: V^{*}_{us}V_{ub}+V^{*}_{cs}V_{cb}+V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}+V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}=0.

400: \end{eqnarray}

401: If the average values of the CKM matrix elements in the SM are

402: used [20], the sum of the first three terms in Eq.(23) is about

403: $7.6\times 10^{-2}$. Substituting the value of

404: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{(+)}$ from Table 1, we

405: observe that the sum of the four terms on the left-hand side of

406: Eq.(22) is closer to zero compared to the SM case, since

407: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{(+)}$  is very close to the

408: sum of the first three terms, but with opposite sign. On the other

409: hand if we consider $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$,

410: whose value is about $ 10^{-3}$, which is one order of magnitude

411: smaller compared to the previous case. However, it should be noted

412: that the data for the CKM is not determined to very high accuracy,

413: and the error in sum of the first three terms in Eq.(20) is about

414: $\pm 0.6\times 10^{-2}$. It is easy to see then that, the value of

415: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ is within this error

416: range. In summary both $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$,

417: and $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ satisfy the unitarity

418: condition of CKM, moreover, $\mid

419: (V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})\mid ^{-} \leq

420:  10^{-1}\times \mid (V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})\mid ^{+}$.

421:  Therefore, from our numerical analysis one cannot escape the conclusion

422:  that, the $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ contribution to the

423: physical quantities should be practically indistinguishable from

424: SM results, and our numerical analysis confirms this expectation.

425: We now go on to put the above points in perspective.

426: \section{Numerical Analysis}

427: To calculate the branching ratio in SM4, and to study the

428: influence of the fourth generation on the branching ratio $BR(B

429: \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})$, the following values have been

430: used as input parameters:\\ $G_{F}=1.17{~}.10^{-5}~ GeV^{-2}$,

431: $\alpha =1/137$, $m_{b}= 5.0$ GeV, $m_{B}= 5.28$ GeV, $\mid

432: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid$=0.045, and the lifetime is taken as

433: $\tau(B_{d})=1.56\times 10^{-12}$ s [20]. For illustrative

434: purposes, the branching ratio (BR) for $B \rightarrow K^{*}

435: \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay as a function of $m_{\acute{t}}$ for its

436: different values of $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ is

437: shown in figure 1. It can be seen that when

438: $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ take positive values, i.e.

439: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$, the branching ratio (BR)

440: is almost overlap with that of SM. That is, the results in SM4 are

441: the same as that in SM, except a peak in the curve when

442: $m_{\acute{t}}$ takes values $m_{\acute{t}}\geq 210 GeV$. The

443: reason is not because there is new prediction deviation from SM,

444: but only because of the second term of Eq.(21). In this case, it

445: does not show the new effects of $m_{\acute{t}}$. Also, we can not

446: obtain the information of the existence of the fourth generation

447: from the branching ratio (BR) for $B \rightarrow K^{*}

448: \nu\bar{\nu}$, although we can not exclude them either. This is

449: because, from Table 1, the values

450: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ are positive. But they

451: are of order $10^{-3}$, and is very small. The values of

452: $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ are about ten times larger than them

453: $V^{*}_{ts}=0.038$, $V_{tb}=0.9995$ see ref. [20].

454: 

455: But in the second case, when the values of

456: $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are negative, i.e.

457: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$, the curve of branching

458: ratio (BR) for $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$, is quit

459: different from that of the SM. This can be clearly seen from

460: figure 1. The enhancement of the branching ratio increases rapidly

461: with the increasing of $m_{\acute{t}}$. In this case, the fourth

462: generation effects are shown clearly. The reason is that

463: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$ is 2-3 times larger than

464: $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ so that the last term in Eq.(21) becomes

465: important, and it depends on the $\acute{t}$ mass strongly. Thus

466: the effect of the fourth generation is significant. In figure 2.

467: we show the dependence of the differential branching ratio $dBR(B

468: \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})$/ds as functions of s; $ 0\leq s

469: \leq (1+\sqrt{r})^{2}$, for $m_{\acute{t}}$= 300 GeV. It can be

470: seen their that, when $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ takes

471: positive values, i.e. $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$,

472: the differential decay width is almost overlap with that of SM.

473: That is, the results in SM4 are the same as that in SM, except a

474: peak in the curve when $ 0.4\leq s \leq 0.6$. But in the second

475: case, when the values of $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are

476: negative, i.e $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$. The curve

477: of the differential decay width is quit different from that of the

478: SM. This can be clearly seen from figure 2. The enhancement of the

479: differential decay width increases rapidly, and the energy

480: spectrum of the $K^{*}$ meson is almost symmetrical. In figure 3,

481: the ratio $R=BR^{SM4}(B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})/BR^{SM} (B

482: \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})$ is depicted as a function of

483: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ for various values of

484: $m_{\acute{t}}$. Figure 3 shows that for all values of

485: $m_{\acute{t}}\geq 210$ GeV the value of R becomes greater than

486: one. In the calculations we observed that at $m_{\acute{t}}\geq

487: 210$, the values of R become larger than one for both solutions

488: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$, meaning that the value

489: of R=1 is shifted. In other words, by defining the position for

490: which R=1, information can be obtained about $m_{\acute{t}}$ the

491: mass of the fourth generation fermion. For completeness we also

492: consider the ratio $R1=BR^{SM4}(B \rightarrow K^{*}

493: \nu\bar{\nu})/BR^{SM} (B \rightarrow X_{s} \nu\bar{\nu})$. This

494: ratio is plotted as a function of

495:  $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ for various values of

496: $m_{\acute{t}}$ in figure 4. It is well known that the inclusive

497: decay width in the SM corresponds to $B \rightarrow X_{s}

498: \nu\bar{\nu}$ is given as (see [7]):

499: \begin{eqnarray}

500: BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}

501: \nu\bar{\nu})&=&\frac{3\alpha^{2}}{(2\pi)^{2}sin^{4}

502: \theta_{w}}\mid \frac {V_{tb}V^{*}_{ts}}{V_{cb}}\mid^{2}

503: \frac{[{C^{SM}}_{11}]^{2}}{\eta_{0}f(m_{c}/m_{b})}\bar{\eta}BR (B

504: \rightarrow X_{c} l\nu),

505: \end{eqnarray}

506: where the theoretical uncertainties related to the b-quark mass

507: dependence disappear. In Eq.(24) the factor 3 corresponds to the

508: number of the light neutrinos. Phase space factor $f(m_{c}/m_{b})

509: \simeq 0.44$, QCD correction factors $\eta_{0} \simeq 0.87 $,

510: $\bar{\eta}=1+\frac{2\alpha_{s}(m_{b})}{3\pi}

511: (\frac{25}{4}-\pi^{2})$$\simeq 0.83$ [9], and experimental

512: measurement $ BR(B \rightarrow X_{c} l\nu)=10.14\%$. Finally, note

513: that the results for $B\rightarrow \rho\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay can be

514: easily obtained from $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ if the

515: following replacement is done in all equations: $V_{tb}V^{*}_{ts}$

516: by $V_{tb}V^{*}_{td}$ and $m_{K^{*}}$ by $m_{\rho}$. In obtaining

517: these results, one must keep in mind that the values of the form

518: factors for $B\rightarrow \rho$ transition generally differ from

519: that of the $B\rightarrow K^{*}$ transition. However, these

520: differences must be in the range of $SU(3)$ violation, namely in

521: the order $(15-20)\%$.

522: 

523:  \pagebreak

524: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

525: \bibitem{R1}C.-S. Huang, W.-J. Huo, and Y.-L. Wu, Mod. Phys. A14

526: (1999) 2453, [hep-ph/9911203].

527: \bibitem{2} T. M. Aliev, A. $\ddot{O}$zpineci, M. Savci, Nucl. Phys. B (2000)

528:              275, [hep-ph/0002061].

529: \bibitem{3} Y. Din\c{c}er, Phys. Lett. B505, (2001) 89, [hep-ph/0012135].

530: \bibitem{4} K. C. Chou, Y. L. Wu, and Y. B. Xie, Chinese Phys.

531: Lett. 1 (1984) 2.

532: \bibitem{5} A. J. Buras, and M. $M\ddot{u}nz$, Phys. Rev. D52

533: (1995) 186, [hep-ph/9501281].

534: \bibitem{R6} B. Grinstein, M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys.

535: B319 (1989) 271.

536: \bibitem{7} T. Barakat, J. Phys. G: Nucl.Part. Phys.24 (1998) 1903.

537: \bibitem{R8} T. Inami and C. S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65 (1981) 287.

538: \bibitem{R9} G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B400 (1993) 225;

539:              G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,

540:              Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1125.

541: \bibitem{10} R. Casalbuoni et al., Phys. Reports 281 (1997) 145.

542: \bibitem{11} P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, P. Santorelli, E. Scrimieri, Phys.

543:              Rev. D53 (1996) 3672.

544: \bibitem{12} W. Jaus and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D41 (1991) 3405; D. Melikhov,

545:              N. Nikitin and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B410, (1997) 290, [hep-ph/9704268].

546: \bibitem{13} W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 863.

547: \bibitem{14} T. M. Aliev, A. $\ddot{O}$zpineci, M. Savci, Phys.Rev. D5 (1996)

548:              4260.

549: \bibitem{15} P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5561.

550: \bibitem{16} P. Ball, Fermilab-Conf-98/098-T, [hep-ph/9803501].

551: \bibitem{17} W.-J. Huo, [hep-ph/0006110].

552: \bibitem{18} A. J. Buras, TUM-hep-316/98, [hep-ph/9806471].

553: \bibitem{R19}M. S. Alam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885.

554: \bibitem{R20}C. Caso et al., Particle Data Group, Eur.Phys. J. C3 (1998) 1.

555: \end{thebibliography}

556: \pagebreak

557: 

558: 

559:  \begin{figure}

560: \centering

561:  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{x1.ps}

562:  \caption{}

563: \label{fig1}

564:  \end{figure}

565: \begin{figure}

566: \centering

567:  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{a1.ps}

568:  \caption{}

569:  \label{fig2}

570:  \end{figure}

571: \begin{figure}

572: \centering

573:  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{x2.ps}

574:  \caption{}

575: \label{fig3}

576:  \end{figure}

577:  \begin{figure}

578:  \centering

579:  \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{x3.ps}

580:  \caption{}

581:  \label{fig4}

582:  \end{figure}

583: \end{document}

584: