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 Rare $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay with polarized $K^{*}$ in
42: the fourth generation model }}}
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 The rare $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$
54: decay when $K^{*}$ meson is longitudinally or transversely
55: polarized is analysed in the context of the fourth generation
56: model. A significant enhancement to the missing energy spectrum
57: over the SM is recorded.
58: \end{abstract}
59: \vspace{1cm}
60: %~~PACS number(s): 13.25.Gv, 13.20.--v, 13.10.+q
61: \end{titlepage}
62: \section{ Introduction}
63: \baselineskip .8cm \hspace{0.6cm} The theoretical and experimental
64: investigations of the rare decays has been a subject of continuous
65: interest in the existing literature. The experimental observation
66: of the inclusive $b\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ [1], and exclusive
67: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\gamma$ [2] decays, together with the recent
68: CLEO [3] upper limits on the exclusive decays $B \rightarrow
69: K^{*}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ which are less than one order of magnitude
70: above the SM predictions, stimulated the study of rare B meson
71: decays on a new footing. These decays take place via
72: flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC) which are absent in the
73: Standard Model (SM) at tree level and appear only at the loop
74: level. The inclusive $B \rightarrow X_{s}\nu \bar{\nu}$ decay rate
75: is very sensitive to extensions of the SM, and provides a unique
76: source of constrains on some 'new physics' scenarios which predict
77: a large enhancement of this decay mode. Therefore, the study of $b
78: \rightarrow s\nu \bar{\nu}$, together with the search for $b
79: \rightarrow s\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$, and $ b\rightarrow s$ gluon
80: processes, with a refinement of the measurement of $B \rightarrow
81: X_{s}\gamma$ will allow to exploit a complete program to test the
82: SM properties at the loop level and constrain various new physics
83: scenarios.
84: The first attempt to experimentally access the decay
85: $b \rightarrow s\nu \bar{\nu}$ will be
86: through the exclusive modes, which will be better investigated at
87: B-factories. Among such modes, the channel $B \rightarrow
88: K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ provokes special interest. The experimental
89: search for $B \rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decays can be
90: performed through the large missing energy associated with the two
91: neutrinos, together with an opposite side fully reconstructed B
92: meson. The SM has been exploited to establish a bound on the
93: branching ratio of the above-mentioned decay of the order $\sim
94: 10^{-5}$, which can be quite measurable for the upcoming $KEK$ and
95: SLAC B-factories. However, in SM there are three generations, and
96: yet, there is no theoretical argument to explain why there are
97: three and only three generations in SM, and there is neither an
98: experimental evidence for a fourth generation nor does any
99: experiment exclude such extra generations.
100: On this basis, serious attempts to study the effects of the fourth generation
101: on the rare B meson were made by many authors. For examples, the effects of
102: the fourth generation on the branching ratio of the $B \rightarrow
103: X_{s}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$, and the $B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ decays
104: is analysed in [4]. In [5] the fourth generation effects on the
105: rare exclusive $B \rightarrow K^{*}\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decay are
106: studied. In [6] the contributions of the fourth generation to the
107: $B_{s}\rightarrow \nu \bar{\nu}\gamma$ decay is investigated.
108: Recently, in [7] the effects of the fourth generation on the rare
109: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay is discussed.
110:
111: In this work, the missing energy spectrum, and the branching ratio
112: of $B \rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ will be investigated when
113: $K^{*}$ meson is longitudinally or transversely polarized in a
114: sequential fourth generation model SM, which we shall call (SM4)
115: hereafter for the sake of simplicity. This model is considered as
116: natural extension of the SM, where the fourth generation model is
117: introduced in the same way the three generations are introduced in
118: the SM, so no new operators appear, and clearly the full operator
119: set is exactly the same as in SM. Hence, the fourth generation
120: will change only the values of the Wilson coefficients via virtual
121: exchange of a up-like quark $\acute{t}$. Subsequently, the missing
122: energy spectrum, and branching ratio of $B \rightarrow
123: K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ are enhanced significantly, as we shall see, a
124: result which is in the right direction at least to help
125: experimental search for $B \rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ through
126: $m_{\acute{t}}$, and vice versa.
127:
128: Consequently, this paper is organized
129: as follows: in Section 2, the relevant effective Hamiltonian for
130: the decay $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ in a sequential fourth
131: generation model (SM4) is presented; and in section 3, the
132: dependence of the missing energy spectrum, and branching ratio of
133: $B \rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ on the fourth generation model
134: parameters for the decay of interest is studied, when $K^{*}$
135: meson is longitudinally or transversely polarized using the
136: results of the Light- Cone QCD sum rules for estimating form
137: factors; and finally a brief discussion of the results is given.
138: \section{Effective Hamiltonian}
139: \hspace{0.6cm} In the Standard Model (SM), the process
140: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ is described at quark level by
141: the $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ transition, and receives
142: contributions from Z-penguin and box diagrams, where dominant
143: contributions come from intermediate top quarks. The effective
144: Hamiltonian responsible for $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay is
145: described by only one Wilson coefficient, namely $C^{(SM)}_{11}$,
146: and its explicit form is [8]:
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: H_{eff}&=&\frac{G_{F}
149: \alpha}{2\pi\sqrt{2}sin^{2}\theta_{w}}C^{(SM)}_{11}
150: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\bar{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}
151: (1-\gamma_{5})\nu,
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: where $G_{F}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $\alpha$ is the fine
154: structure constant (at the Z mass scale), and $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$
155: are products of Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa matrix elements. In
156: Eq.(1), the Wilson coefficient $C^{(SM)}_{11}$ in the context of
157: the SM has the following form including $O(\alpha_{s})$
158: corrections [9]:
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: C^{(SM)}_{11}=\left[X_{0}(x_{t})+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{4\pi}X_{1}(x_{t})\right],
161: \end{eqnarray}
162: with
163: \begin{eqnarray}
164: X_{0}(x_{t})= \frac{x_{t}}{8}\left[\frac{x_{t}
165: +2}{x_{t}-1}+\frac{3(x_{t}-2)} {(x_{t}-1)^{2}}ln(x_{t})\right],
166: \end{eqnarray}
167: where $x_{t}=\frac{m^{2}_{t}}{m^{2}_{W}}$, and
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: X_{1}(x_{t})&=&\frac{4x_{t}^{3}-5x_{t}^{2}-23x_{t}}{3(x_{t}-1)^{2}}-
170: \frac{x_{t}^{4}+x_{t}^{3}-11x_{t}^{2}+x_{t}}{(x_{t}-1)^{3}}ln(x_{t})+
171: \frac{x_{t}^{4}-x_{t}^{3}-4x_{t}^{2}-8x_{t}}{2(x_{t}-1)^{3}}ln^{2}(x_{t})
172: \nonumber \\
173: &+&\frac{x_{t}^{3}-4x_{t}}{(x_{t}-1)^{2}}Li_{2}(1-x_{t})+8x_{t}\frac{\partial
174: X_{0}(x_{t})}{\partial x_{t}} ln(x_{\mu}).
175: \end{eqnarray}
176: Here $Li_{2}(1-x_{t})=\int_{1}^{x_{t}}\frac{lnt}{1-t}dt$ is a
177: specific function, and $x_{\mu}=\frac{\mu^{2}}{m_{w}^{2}}$ with
178: $\mu=O(m_{t})$.
179:
180: At $\mu=m_{t}$, the QCD correction for $X_{1}(x_{t})$ term is very
181: small (around $\sim 3\%$). From the theoretical point of view, the
182: transition $b\rightarrow s\nu\bar{\nu}$ is a very clean process,
183: since it is practically free from the scale dependence, and free
184: from any long distance effects. In addition, the presence of a
185: single operator governing the inclusive $b \rightarrow s
186: \nu\bar{\nu}$ transition is an appealing property. As has been
187: mentioned in the introduction, no new operators appear, and
188: clearly the full operator set is exactly same as in SM, thus the
189: fourth generation fermion changes only the values of the Wilson
190: coefficients $C^{(SM)}_{11}$ via virtual exchange of the fourth
191: generation up quark $\acute{t}$, i.e:
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: C_{11}^{SM4}(\mu)&=&C^{(SM)}_{11}(\mu)+\frac{V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}
194: {V^{*}_{tb}V_{ts}}C^{(new)}(\mu),
195: \end{eqnarray}
196: where $C^{(new)}(\mu)$ can be obtained from $C^{(SM)}_{11}(\mu)$
197: by substituting $m_{t}\rightarrow m_{\acute{t}}$, and the last
198: terms in these expressions describe the contributions of the
199: $\acute{t}$ quark to the Wilson coefficients. $V_{\acute{t}s}$,
200: and $V_{\acute{t}b}$ are the two corresponding elements of the
201: $4\times 4$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. In deriving
202: Eqs.(5) we factored out the term $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ in the
203: effective Hamiltonian given in Eq.(1).
204:
205: As a result, we obtain a modified effective Hamiltonian, which
206: represents $b \rightarrow s \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay in the presence of
207: the fourth generation fermion:
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: H_{eff}=\frac{G_{F}\alpha}{2\pi\sqrt{2}sin^{2}\theta_{w}}V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}
210: [C_{11}^{(SM4)}]
211: \bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\bar{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}
212: (1-\gamma_{5})\nu.
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: However, in spite of such theoretical advantages, it would be a
215: very difficult task to detect the inclusive $b \rightarrow s
216: \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay experimentally, because the final state
217: contains two missing neutrinos and many hadrons. Therefore, only
218: the exclusive channels, namely $B \rightarrow K^{*}(\rho)
219: \nu\bar{\nu}$, are well suited to search for, and constrain for
220: possible "new physics" effects. In order to compute $B \rightarrow
221: K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay, we need the matrix elements of the
222: effective Hamiltonian Eq.(6) between the final, and initial meson
223: states. This problem is related to the non-perturbative sector of
224: QCD, and can be solved only by using non-perturbative methods. The
225: matrix element $<K^{*} \mid H_{eff}\mid B>$ has been investigated
226: in a framework of different approaches, such as chiral
227: perturbation theory [10], three point QCD sum rules [11],
228: relativistic quark model by the light front formalism [12],
229: effective heavy quark theory [13], and light cone QCD sum rules
230: [14,15]. To begin with, let us denote by $P_{B}$, and $P_{K^{*}}$
231: the four-momentum of the initial and final mesons, and define
232: q=$P_{B}-P_{K^{*}}$ as the four-momentum of the $\nu\bar{\nu}$
233: pair, and $x\equiv E_{miss}/M_{B}$ the missing energy fraction,
234: which is related to the squared four-momentum transfer $q^{2}$ by:
235: $q^{2}=M^{2}_{B}[2x-1+r^{2}_{K^{*}}]$, where $r_{K^{*}}\equiv
236: M_{K^{*}}/M_{B}$ with $M_{B}$, and $M_{K^{*}}$ being the initial
237: and final meson masses. The hadronic matrix element for the $B
238: \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ can be parameterized in terms of
239: five form factors:
240: \begin{eqnarray}
241: <K^{*}_{h} \mid \bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})b\mid B> =
242: \frac{2V(q^{2})}{M_{B}+M_{K^{*}}}
243: \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon^{*\nu}(h)
244: P_{B}^{\alpha}P^{\beta}_{K^{*}}\nonumber
245: \\
246: -i \left[\epsilon_{\mu}^{*}(h)(M_{B}+M_{K^{*}})A_{1}(q^{2})
247: -[\epsilon^{*}(h).q](P_{B}+P_{K^{*}})_{\mu}\frac{A_{2}(q^{2})}{M_{B}+M_{K^{*}}}
248: \right. \nonumber \\
249: - \left. q_{\mu}[\epsilon^{*}(h).q]\frac{2M_{K^{*}}}{q^{2}}
250: [A_{3}(q^{2})-A_{0}(q^{2})] \right],
251: \end{eqnarray}
252: where $\epsilon(h)$ is the polarization 4-vector of $K^{*}$
253: meson. The form factor $A_{3}(q^{2})$ can be written as a linear
254: combination of the form factors $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$:
255: \begin{eqnarray}
256: A_{3}(q^{2})=\frac{1}{2M_{K^{*}}}\left[(M_{B}+M_{K^{*}})A_{1}(q^{2})-
257: (M_{B}-M_{K^{*}})A_{2}(q^{2})\right],
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: with a condition $A_{3}(q^{2}=0)=A_{0}(q^{2}=0)$.
260:
261: From these form factors it is easy to derive the missing energy
262: distribution corresponding to the helicity $h=0,\pm 1$of the
263: $K^{*}$ meson:
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: \frac{d\Gamma(B \rightarrow K^{*}_{h=0} \nu\bar{\nu})}{dx}=
266: \frac{G_{F}^{2}\alpha^{2}M^{5}_{B}\mid
267: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid^{2}}{64\pi^{5}sin^{4}\theta_{w}} \mid
268: C^{SM4}_{11}
269: \mid^{2}\frac{\sqrt{(1-x)^{2}-r^{2}_{K^{*}}}}{r^{2}_{K^{*}}(1+r^{2}_{K^{*}})^{2}}
270: \cdot \nonumber\\ \mid
271: (1+r^{2}_{K^{*}})^{2}(1-x-r^{2}_{K^{*}})A_{1}(q^{2})-
272: 2[(1-x)^{2}-r^{2}_{K^{*}}]A_{2}(q^{2}) \mid^{2},
273: \end{eqnarray}
274:
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: \frac{d\Gamma(B \rightarrow K^{*}_{h=\pm 1} \nu\bar{\nu})}{dx}=
277: \frac{G_{F}^{2}\alpha^{2}M^{5}_{B}\mid
278: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid^{2}}{64\pi^{5}sin^{4}\theta_{w}} \mid
279: C^{SM4}_{11} \mid^{2}\sqrt{(1-x)^{2}-r^{2}_{K^{*}}}
280: \cdot\nonumber\\
281: \frac{2x-1+r^{2}_{K^{*}}}{(1+r^{2}_{K^{*}})^{2}}
282: \mid 2 \sqrt{(1-x)^{2}-r^{2}_{K^{*}}}V(q^{2})\mp (1+ r^{2}_{K^{*}})^{2}A_{1}(q^{2})
283: \mid^{2}.
284: \end{eqnarray}
285:
286: From Eqs.(9,10), we can see that the missing energy spectrum for
287: $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ contains three form factors: V,
288: $A_{1}$, and $A_{2}$. In this work, in estimating the missing
289: energy spectrum, we have used the results of [16]:
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: F(q^{2})=\frac{F(0)}{1-a_{F}(q^{2}/M^{2}_{B})+b_{F}(q^{2}/M^{2}_{B})^{2}},
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: and the relevant values of the form factors at $q^{2}=0$ are:
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: A_{1}^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.34\pm 0.05,{~~} with{~~} a_{F}=0.6,
296: {~~}and{~~} b_{F}=-0.023,
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: \begin{eqnarray}
299: A_{2}^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.28\pm 0.04,{~~} with{~~}
300: a_{F}=1.18, {~~} and{~~} b_{F}=0.281,
301: \end{eqnarray}
302: and
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: V^{B \rightarrow K^{*}}(q^{2}=0)=0.46\pm 0.07,{~~} with{~~}
305: a_{F}=1.55,{~~} and{~~} b_{F}=0.575.
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: Note that all errors, which come out, are due to the uncertainties of the
308: b-quark mass, the Borel parameter variation, wave functions, and
309: radiative corrections are quadrature added in. Finally, to obtain
310: quantitative results we need the value of the fourth generation
311: CKM matrix elements $ V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$. For this
312: aim following [17], we will use the experimental results of the
313: decay $BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)$ together with $BR(B
314: \rightarrow X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$ to determine the fourth
315: generation CKM factor $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$. However,
316: in order to reduce the uncertainties arising from b-quark mass, we
317: consider the following ratio:
318: \begin{eqnarray}
319: R_{quark}=\frac{BR(B \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma)}{BR(B \rightarrow
320: X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})}.
321: \end{eqnarray}
322: In the leading logarithmic approximation this ratio can be
323: summarized in a compact form as follows [18]:
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: R_{quark}=\frac{\mid V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb} \mid ^{2}}{\mid V_{cb} \mid
326: ^{2}}\frac{6\alpha}{\pi f(z)} \mid C^{SM4}_{7}(m_{b}) \mid ^{2},
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: where
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: f(z)=1-8z+8z^{3}-z^{4}-12z^{2}ln(z) {~~~~~~~} with {~~~}
331: z=\frac{m^{2}_{c,pole}}{m^{2}_{b,pole}}
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: is the phase space factor in $BR(B \rightarrow
334: X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$, and $\alpha= e^{2}/4\pi$. In the case of
335: four generation there is an additional contribution to $B
336: \rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ from the virtual exchange of the fourth
337: generation up quark $\acute{t}$. The Wilson coefficients of the
338: dipole operators are given by:
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: C^{SM4}_{7,8}(m_{b})=C^{SM}_{7,8}(m_{b})+\frac{
341: V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}}
342: {V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}C^{new}_{7,8}(m_{b}),
343: \end{eqnarray}
344: where $C^{new}_{7,8}(m_{b})$ present the contributions of
345: $\acute{t}$ to the Wilson coefficients, and
346: $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are the fourth generation CKM
347: matrix factor which we need now. With these Wilson coefficients
348: and the experiment results of the decays $BR(B \rightarrow
349: X_{s}\gamma)=2.66 \times 10^{-4}$, together with the semileptonic
350: $BR(B \rightarrow X_{c}e\bar{\nu_{e}})$=$0.103\pm 0.01$ [19,20]
351: decay, one can obtain the results of the fourth generation CKM
352: factor $ V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$, wherein, there exist
353: two cases, a positive, and a negative one [17]:
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: ( V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}) ^{\pm}=\biggl[\pm \sqrt{
356: \frac{R_{quark} \mid V_{cb}\mid ^{2}\pi f(z)}{6\alpha \mid
357: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid ^{2}}}-C^{(SM)}_{7}(m_{b}) \biggr] \frac{
358: V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}}{C^{(new)}_{7}(m_{b})}.
359: \end{eqnarray}
360: The values for $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ are listed in
361: Table 1 [7].
362:
363: A few comments about the numerical values of
364: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ are in order. From
365: unitarity condition of the CKM matrix we have
366: \begin{eqnarray}
367: V^{*}_{us}V_{ub}+V^{*}_{cs}V_{cb}+V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}+V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}=0.
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: If the average values of the CKM matrix elements in the SM are
370: used [19], the sum of the first three terms in Eq.(20) is about
371: $7.6\times 10^{-2}$. Substituting the value of
372: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{(+)}$ from Table 1 [7], we
373: observe that the sum of the four terms on the left-hand side of
374: Eq.(20) is closer to zero compared to the SM case, since
375: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{(+)}$ is very close to the
376: sum of the first three terms, but with opposite sign. On the other
377: hand if we consider $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$,
378: whose value is about $ 10^{-3}$, which is one order of magnitude
379: smaller compared to the previous case, and the error in sum of the
380: first three terms in Eq.(20) is about $\pm 0.6\times 10^{-2}$.
381: Therefore, it is easy to see then that, the value of
382: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ is within this error
383: range. In summary both $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$,
384: and $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ satisfy the unitarity
385: condition of CKM, moreover, $\mid
386: (V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})\mid ^{-} \leq
387: 10^{-1}\times \mid (V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})\mid ^{+}$.
388: Therefore, from our numerical analysis one cannot escape the conclusion
389: that, the $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$ contribution to the
390: physical quantities should be practically indistinguishable from
391: SM results, and our numerical analysis confirms this expectation.
392: We now go on to put the above points in perspective.
393: \section{Numerical Analysis}
394: In order to investigate the sensitivity of the missing-energy
395: spectra, and branching ratios of rare $B \rightarrow K_{L}^{*}
396: \nu\bar{\nu}$, and $B \rightarrow K_{T}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$ decay
397: (where $K_{L}^{*}$, and $K_{T}^{*}$ stand for longitudinally and
398: transversely polarized $K^{*}$-meson, respectively)in SM4, the
399: following values have been used as input parameters:\\
400: $G_{F}=1.17{~}.10^{-5}~ GeV^{-2}$, $\alpha =1/137$, $m_{b}= 5.0$
401: GeV, $M_{B}= 5.28$ GeV, $\mid V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}\mid$=0.045,
402: $M_{K^{*}}=0.892$ GeV, and the lifetime is taken as
403: $\tau(B_{d})=1.56\times 10^{-12}$ s [20], also we have run
404: calculations of Eqs.(9,10) adopting the two sets of
405: $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{\pm}$ in Table 1 [7]. we
406: present our numerical results for the missing-energy spectra, and
407: branching ratios in series of graphs. In figures (1-4), we show
408: the missing energy distribution to the decay $dBR(B \rightarrow
409: K_{L}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})/dx$, and $dBR(B \rightarrow K_{T}^{*}
410: \nu\bar{\nu})/dx$ as functions of $x$; $
411: \frac{1-r^{2}_{K^{*}}}{2}\leq x \leq 1-r_{K^{*}}$, for
412: $m_{\acute{t}}$= 250 GeV, and $m_{\acute{t}}$= 350 GeV. It can be
413: seen their that, when $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$ takes
414: positive values, i.e. $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{-}$,
415: the missing energy spectrum is almost overlap with that of SM.
416: That is, the results in SM4 are the same as that in SM. But in the
417: second case, when the values of $V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b}$
418: are negative, i.e $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$ the
419: curve of the missing energy spectrum is quit different from that
420: of the SM. This can be clearly seen from figures (1-4). The
421: enhancement of the missing energy spectrum increases rapidly, and
422: the missing energy spectrum of the $K^{*}$ meson is almost
423: symmetrical. In figures (5,6), the branching ratio $BR(B
424: \rightarrow K_{L}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})$, and $BR(B \rightarrow
425: K_{T}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})$ are depicted as a function of
426: $m_{\acute{t}}$. Figures (5,6) show that for all values of
427: $m_{\acute{t}}\geq 210$ GeV the values of the branching ratios
428: become greater than SM. The enhancement of the branching ratio
429: increases rapidly with the increasing of $m_{\acute{t}}$. In this
430: case, the fourth generation effects are shown clearly. The reason
431: is that $(V^{*}_{\acute{t}s}V_{\acute{t}b})^{+}$ is 2-3 times
432: larger than $V^{*}_{ts}V_{tb}$ so that the last term in Eq.(5)
433: becomes important, and it depends on the $\acute{t}$ mass
434: strongly. Thus the effect of the fourth generation is significant.
435: Whereas, in our approach the predictions for the ratio $B
436: \rightarrow K_{L}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}/B \rightarrow K_{T}^{*}
437: \nu\bar{\nu}$, as well as the transverse asymmetry $A_{T}$,
438: \begin{eqnarray}
439: A_{T}\equiv \frac{Br(B \rightarrow K_{h=-1}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})-Br(B
440: \rightarrow K_{h=+1}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})}{Br(B \rightarrow
441: K_{h=-1}^{*} \nu\bar{\nu})+Br(B \rightarrow K_{h=+1}^{*}
442: \nu\bar{\nu})}
443: \end{eqnarray}
444: are model-independent.
445:
446: In conclusion, the missing-energy spectra, and branching ratio of
447: rare exclusive semileptonic $B \rightarrow K^{*} \nu\bar{\nu}$
448: decay has been investigated in the fourth generation model. The
449: effects of possible fourth generation fermion $\acute{t}$ quark
450: mass has been considered, and the sensitivity of the branching
451: ratio, and the missing-energy spectra to $\acute{t}$ quark mass is
452: observed.
453:
454: Finally, note that the results for $B\rightarrow
455: \rho\nu\bar{\nu}$ decay can be easily obtained from $B\rightarrow
456: K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ when the following replacements are done in all
457: equations: $V_{tb}V^{*}_{ts}\rightarrow V_{tb}V^{*}_{td}$ and
458: $m_{K^{*}}\rightarrow m_{\rho}$. In obtaining these results, one
459: must keep in mind that the values of the form factors for
460: $B\rightarrow \rho$ transition generally differ from that of the
461: $B\rightarrow K^{*}$ transition. However, these differences must
462: be in the range of $SU(3)$ violation, namely in the order
463: $(15-20)\%$.
464:
465: \pagebreak
466: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
467: \bibitem{R1}M. S. Alam et al., CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74
468: (1995) 2885.
469: \bibitem{R2}R. Ammar et al., CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71
470: (1993) 674.
471: \bibitem{R3}S. Anderson et al., CLEO Collaboration, hep-ex/0106060 (2001).
472: \bibitem{R4}C.-S. Huang, W.-J. Huo, and Y.-L. Wu, Mod. Phys. A14
473: (1999) 2453, [hep-ph/9911203].
474: \bibitem{R5} T. M. Aliev, A. $\ddot{O}$zpineci, and M. Savci, Nucl. Phys. B (2000)
475: 275, [hep-ph/0002061].
476: \bibitem{R6} Y. Din\c{c}er, Phys. Lett. B505, (2001) 89, [hep-ph/0012135].
477: \bibitem{R7} T. Barakat, hep-ph/0105116 (2001).
478: \bibitem{R8} T. Barakat, J. Phys. G: Nucl.Part. Phys.24 (1998) 1903.
479: \bibitem{R9} G. Buchalla, and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B400 (1993) 225;
480: G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher,
481: Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1125.
482: \bibitem{R10} R. Casalbuoni et al., Phys. Reports 281 (1997) 145.
483: \bibitem{R11} P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, P. Santorelli, and E. Scrimieri, Phys.
484: Rev. D53 (1996) 3672.
485: \bibitem{R12} W. Jaus, and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D41 (1991) 3405; D. Melikhov,
486: N. Nikitin, and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B410, (1997) 290, [hep-ph/9704268].
487: \bibitem{R13} W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 863.
488: \bibitem{R14} T. M. Aliev, A. $\ddot{O}$zpineci, and M. Savci, Phys.Rev. D5 (1996)
489: 4260.
490: \bibitem{R15} P. Ball, and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5561.
491: \bibitem{R16} P. Ball, Fermilab-Conf-98/098-T, [hep-ph/9803501];
492: P. Ball, and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094016.
493: \bibitem{R17} W.-J. Huo, [hep-ph/0006110].
494: \bibitem{R18} A. J. Buras, TUM-hep-316/98, [hep-ph/9806471].
495: \bibitem{R19}M. S. Alam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885.
496: \bibitem{R20}C. Caso et al., Particle Data Group, Eur.Phys. J. C3 (1998) 1.
497: \end{thebibliography}
498: \pagebreak
499:
500:
501: \begin{figure}
502: \centering
503: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{l1.ps}
504: \caption{}
505: \label{fig 1}
506: \end{figure}
507: \begin{figure}
508: \centering
509: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{l2.ps}
510: \caption{}
511: \label{fig 2}
512: \end{figure}
513: \begin{figure}
514: \centering
515: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{tr.ps}
516: \caption{}
517: \label{fig 3}
518: \end{figure}
519: \begin{figure}
520: \centering
521: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{tr1.ps}
522: \caption{}
523: \label{fig 4}
524: \end{figure}
525: \begin{figure}
526: \centering
527: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{l4.ps}
528: \caption{}
529: \label{fig 5}
530: \end{figure}
531: \begin{figure}
532: \centering
533: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{tr4.ps}
534: \caption{}
535: \label{fig 6}
536: \end{figure}
537: \end{document}
538: