1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-1in}
5: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{25mm}
6: \setlength{\textwidth}{160mm}
7: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1in}
8: \setlength{\headheight}{30mm}
9: \setlength{\headsep}{0mm}
10: \setlength{\baselineskip}{0mm}
11: \setlength{\textheight}{230mm}
12:
13: \pagestyle{plain}
14:
15: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
17: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \def\nn{\nonumber}
20:
21:
22: \def\journal#1#2#3#4{{\it #1} {\bf #2} (#3) #4}
23: \def\epj{Euro. Phys. Jour.}
24: \def\prl{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
25: \def\pl{Phys. Lett.}
26: \def\np{Nucl. Phys.}
27: \def\ptp{Prog. Theor. Phys.}
28: \def\mpl{Mod. Phys. Lett.}
29: \def\zp{Z. Phys.}
30: \def\pr{Phys. Rev.}
31: \def\prp{Phys. Rep.}
32: \def\nc{Nuovo Cim.}
33: \def\jhep{JHEP}
34: \def\yf{Yad. Fiz.}
35: \def\tmf{Teo. Mat. Fiz.}
36: \def\jetp{JETP Lett.}
37: \def\ijmp{Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.}
38:
39: \def\l{\ell}
40: \def\w{{\cal W}}
41: \def\p{{\cal P}}
42: \def\la{{\cal L}}
43: \def\b{{\cal B}}
44: \def\f{{\cal C}}
45: \def\m{{\cal M}}
46: \def\he{{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}
47: \def\o{{\cal O}}
48: \def\c{{\cal C}}
49: \def\qt{{\tilde{q}}}
50: \def\dt{{\tilde{d}^c}}
51: \def\ut{{\tilde{u}^c}}
52: \def\et{{\tilde{e}^c}}
53: \def\lt{{\tilde{\l}}}
54: \def\wt{{\tilde{W}}}
55: \def\h0t{{\tilde{h}^0}}
56: \def\hct{{\tilde{h}^\pm}}
57: \def\bt{{\tilde{B}}}
58: \def\gt{{\tilde{G}}}
59: \def\gst{{\tilde{g}}}
60: \def\mqt{{m_\qt}}
61: \def\mut{{m_\ut}}
62: \def\mdt{{m_\dt}}
63: \def\met{{m_\et}}
64: \def\mlt{{m_\lt}}
65: \def\mwt{{m_\wt}}
66: \def\mgt{{m_\gt}}
67: \def\mbt{{m_\bt}}
68: \def\mh{{m_{h^\pm}}}
69: \def\da{\dagger}
70: \def\bqll{B_q \rightarrow \l^+ \, \l^-}
71: \def\bqmm{B_q \rightarrow \mu^+ \, \mu^-}
72: \def\bqtt{B_q \rightarrow \tau^+ \, \tau^-}
73: \def\bdll{B_d \rightarrow \l^+ \, \l^-}
74: \def\bsll{B_s \rightarrow \l^+ \, \l^-}
75: \def\bstt{B_s \rightarrow \tau^+ \, \tau^-}
76: \def\bdtt{B_d \rightarrow \tau^+ \, \tau^-}
77: \def\bsmm{B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \, \mu^-}
78: \def\bdmm{B_d \rightarrow \mu^+ \, \mu^-}
79: \def\bsg{B \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma}
80: \def\bqbq{B_q^0 - \overline{B}_q^0}
81: \def\bsbs{B_s^0 - \overline{B}_s^0}
82: \def\bdbd{B_d^0 - \overline{B}_d^0}
83: \def\b{{\cal B}}
84: \def\a{{\cal A}}
85: \def\alp{{\cal A}_{\rm LP}}
86: \def\o{{\cal O}}
87: \def\h{{\cal H}}
88: \def\c{{\cal C}}
89: \def\bh{\hat{B}}
90: \def\faa{\f_{\rm AA}}
91: \def\fpp{\f_{\rm PP}}
92: \def\fps{\f_{\rm PS}}
93: \def\fm{\f_2}
94: \def\r{{\cal R}}
95: \def\rdec{{\cal R}_{\rm dec}}
96: \def\rmix{{\cal R}_{\rm mix}}
97: \def\ml{m_\l}
98:
99: \title{ Longitudinal Polarization Asymmetry of Leptons \\
100: in pure Leptonic $B$ Decays}
101: \author{
102: {\bf L. T. Handoko}$^{1,2}$\thanks{
103: E-mail : handoko@lipi.fisika.net, handoko@fisika.ui.ac.id}, \hspace{2mm}
104: {\bf C. S. Kim}$^3$\thanks{
105: E-mail : cskim@mail.yonsei.ac.kr,~~http://phya.yonsei.ac.kr/\~{}cskim/}
106: \hspace{2mm} and \hspace{2mm}
107: {\bf T. Yoshikawa}$^4$\thanks{
108: E-mail : tadashi@physics.unc.edu} \\
109: \vspace*{1mm} \\
110: $^1$Pusat Penelitian Fisika, LIPI\thanks{http://lipi.fisika.net} \\
111: Kompleks PUSPIPTEK Serpong, Tangerang 15310, Indonesia\\
112: \vspace*{0.3mm} \\
113: $^2$Jurusan Fisika FMIPA, Universitas Indonesia \\
114: Depok 16424, Indonesia\\
115: \vspace*{0.3mm} \\
116: $^3$Department of Physics and IPAP, Yonsei University \\
117: Seoul 120-749, Korea \\
118: \vspace*{0.3mm} \\
119: $^4$Department of Physics and Astronomy,
120: University of North Carolina \\
121: Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255, USA
122: }
123: \date{\today}
124:
125: \begin{document}
126:
127: \maketitle
128: \begin{picture}(0,0)
129: \put(310,420){FISIKALIPI-01005}
130: \put(310,405){FIS-UI-TH-01-01}
131: \put(310,390){IFP-803-UNC}
132: % \put(310,315){YUMS-}
133: \end{picture}
134:
135: \thispagestyle{empty}
136:
137: \begin{abstract}
138:
139: \noindent
140: Longitudinal polarization asymmetry of leptons in $\bqll$
141: ($q = d, s$ and $\l = e, \mu, \tau$)
142: decays is investigated.
143: The analysis is done in a general manner by using the effective
144: operators approach. It is shown that the longitudinal polarization
145: asymmetry would provide a direct search for the scalar and pseudoscalar
146: type interactions, which are induced in all variants of Higgs-doublet models.
147:
148: \end{abstract}
149:
150: \clearpage
151:
152: It has been already pointed out by several authors
153: \cite{logan,logan2,huang2hd,kruger} that
154: the pure leptonic $B$ decays $\bqll$ ($q = d, s$ and $\l = e, \mu, \tau$)
155: are very good probes to test new physics beyond the standard
156: model (SM), mainly to reveal the Higgs sector.
157: Those previous works were focused on the contributions
158: induced by the scalar and pseudoscalar interactions realized in
159: Higgs-doublets models. Within the SM, the decays are
160: dominated by the $Z-$penguin and the box diagrams, which are
161: helicity suppressed. We note that Higgs-doublet models
162: can generally enhance the branching ratio significantly.
163: Also, as discussed in recent works, the decays are strongly
164: correlated with the semi-leptonic $B$ decays \cite{kruger} and
165: even with the muon anomalous magnetic moment \cite{nierste}.
166: Experimentally, it is expected that present and the forthcoming
167: experiments on the $B-$physics ($B-$factories) can probe the
168: flavor sector with high precision \cite{bfactory}.
169:
170: If we detect large discrepancy between the theoretical estimation of
171: the decay branching fractions and the actually observed experimental
172: results, then this could be either an evidence of new physics
173: or of our lack of knowledge of the decay constants of $B$ mesons, $f_{B_q}$.
174: Therefore, the main interest would be a direct observation of new physics contributions
175: belonging to the non-SM interactions, $i.e.$ the scalar and pseudoscalar
176: interactions, because within the SM the decay is only through the axial vector
177: interactions.
178: In this letter, we propose a new
179: observable, namely the longitudinal polarization asymmetry
180: of leptons ($\alp$) in $\bqll$
181: ($q = d, s$ and $\l = e, \mu, \tau$) decays.
182: Though the measurement may be very difficult and challenging,
183: we point out that this observable is very sensitive to those
184: non-SM new interactions, and provides a direct evidence of their existence.
185: We notice that the idea of measuring $\alp$ and CP--violation in
186: $K_L \rightarrow \mu^+ \, \mu^-$ decay to
187: look for new physics has been previously considered
188: in several papers \cite{kll}.
189: However, we would like to mention that those observables are quite different
190: in the $B$ decay system \cite{bll,huangCP}:
191: In the $K$ system the initial CP--eigenstate
192: can be determined %with negligibly small CP violation of $K$ system
193: due to large lifetime difference of $K_{L,S}$, while
194: such determination is not possible in the case of $B$ meson system.
195: Therefore, we cannot
196: discuss the $\bqll$ decays in the same manner as those previous references.
197:
198: Taking into account all possible 4-fermi operators which
199: could contribute to $\bqll$, these
200: processes are governed by the following effective Hamiltonian
201: \cite{fkmy},
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: \h_{\rm eff} & = & - \frac{G_F \alpha}{2 \sqrt{2} \pi}
204: \left( V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb} \right) \,
205: \left\{
206: \faa
207: (\bar{q} \, \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \, b)
208: (\bar{\l} \, \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \, \l)
209: \right. \nonumber \\
210: & & \left. \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
211: +
212: \fps
213: (\bar{q} \, \gamma_5 \, b)
214: (\bar{\l} \, \l)
215: +
216: \fpp
217: (\bar{q} \, \gamma_5 \, b)
218: (\bar{\l} \, \gamma_5 \, \l)
219: \right\} \; ,
220: \label{eqn:heff1}
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: by normalizing all terms with the overall factors of the SM.
223: In particular, within the SM one has
224: $\fps^{\rm SM} = \fpp^{\rm SM} \simeq 0$ and
225: $\faa^{\rm SM } = {Y(x_{t_W})}/{\sin^2 \theta_W}$,
226: where $Y(x_{t_W})$ is the Inami-Lim function \cite{inamilim}
227: with $x_{t_W} = ({m_t}/{M_W})^2$. The contributions
228: proportional to $m_{d,s}$ are neglected, and the neutral Higgs
229: contributions in $\fps^{\rm SM}$ and $\fpp^{\rm SM}$ are
230: proportional to ${(m_\l m_b)}/{m_W}^2$, and therefore also neglected.
231:
232: After using the PCAC ansatz to derive the relation between the operators,
233: the most general matrix element for the decay is
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: {\cal M} & = & i f_{B_q}\frac{G_F \alpha }{2 \sqrt{2} \pi }V_{tq}^*V_{tb}
236: \left[ \left( 2 m_\l \faa - \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fpp
237: \right) \bar{\l} \, \gamma_5 \, \l
238: - \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps \bar{\l} \, \l
239: \right].
240: \label{eqn:amp}
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: Using Eq. (\ref{eqn:amp}),
243: the branching ratio for $\bqll$ becomes
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \b(\bqll) & = & \frac{G_F^2 \, \alpha^2}{64 \pi^3} \,
246: \left| V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb} \right|^2 \, \tau_{B_q} f_{B_q}^2 \,
247: m_{B_q} \, \sqrt{1 - \frac{4 \ml^2}{m_{B_q}^2}}
248: \nonumber \\
249: & & \times \left[
250: \left| 2 m_\l ~\faa - \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fpp\right|^2
251: + \left( 1 - \frac{4 m_\l^2}{m_{B_q}^2}\right)
252: \left| \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps\right|^2
253: \right],
254: \label{eqn:br}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: where $\tau_{B_q}$ is the life-time of $B_q$ meson. The QCD
257: correction in this decay mode is remarkably negligible.
258: As can be easily seen,
259: the significant branching ratio within the SM could
260: be expected only for $\l = \tau, \mu$ due to the lepton mass dependence.
261:
262: We now define an observable using
263: the lepton polarization. Since in the dilepton rest frame
264: we can define only one direction,
265: the lepton polarization vectors in each lepton's rest frame
266: are defined as
267: \begin{equation}
268: \bar{s}^\mu_{\l^\pm} = \left( 0, \pm \frac{\mathbf{\rm p_-}}{|\mathbf{\rm p_-}|} \right) \; ,
269: \end{equation}
270: and in the dilepton rest frame they
271: are boosted to
272: \begin{equation}
273: s^\mu_{\l^\pm} = \left( \frac{|\mathbf{\rm p_-}|}{m_\l},
274: \pm \frac{E_\l \mathbf{\rm p_-}}{m_\l |\mathbf{\rm p_-}|} \right) \; ,
275: \end{equation}
276: where $E_\l$ is the lepton energy.
277: Finally the longitudinal polarization asymmetry of the final leptons in $\bqll$
278: is defined as follows;
279: \begin{equation}
280: \alp^\pm \equiv
281: \frac{
282: \left[ \Gamma(s_{\l^-},s_{\l^+}) + \Gamma(\mp s_{\l^-},\pm s_{\l^+}) \right] -
283: \left[ \Gamma(\pm s_{\l^-},\mp s_{\l^+}) + \Gamma(-s_{\l^-},-s_{\l^+}) \right]}{
284: \left[ \Gamma(s_{\l^-},s_{\l^+}) + \Gamma(\mp s_{\l^-},\pm s_{\l^+}) \right] +
285: \left[ \Gamma(\pm s_{\l^-},\mp s_{\l^+}) + \Gamma(-s_{\l^-},-s_{\l^+}) \right] } \; ,
286: \end{equation}
287: and it becomes
288: \bea
289: \alp(\bqll) &=& \frac{ 2
290: \sqrt{ 1- \frac{4 m_\l^2 }{m_{B_q}^2} }
291: Re \left[ \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps \left( 2 m_\l
292: \faa - \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q}~\fpp \right)
293: \right] }
294: {
295: \left| 2 m_\l \faa - \frac{m_B^2}{m_b + m_q} \fpp \right|^2
296: + (1-\frac{4m_\l^2}{m_{B_q}^2})
297: \left| \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps \right|^2 },
298: \label{eqn:alp}
299: \eea
300: with $\alp^+ = \alp^- \equiv \alp$.
301: It is clear that within the SM $\alp(\bqll) \simeq 0$, and
302: becomes non-zero if and only if $\fps \neq 0$.
303: Therefore, this observable would be the best probe to search for
304: new physics induced by the pseudoscalar type interactions. We also remark that
305: the dependence on the flavor of the valence quark in $\alp(\bqll)$
306: is tiny, therefore the lepton longitudinal polarization asymmetry is almost
307: the same for $q = d$ or $q = s$.
308:
309: \begin{figure}[t]
310: \centering
311: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
312: \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{cppcps.eps}
313: \end{minipage}
314: \hspace*{5mm}
315: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
316: \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{cppcps2.eps}
317: \end{minipage}
318: \caption{The upper bounds for $\fpp$ vs $|\fps|$
319: for $\faa = (-4, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +4) \times \faa^{\rm SM}$
320: using the experimental bound on $\b(\bsmm)$ (left); and the indirect
321: experimental bound on $\b(\bstt)$ (right).}
322: \label{fig:br}
323: \end{figure}
324:
325: Before considering physics beyond the SM,
326: let us briefly review the SM predictions for the processes.
327: For consistency, the top mass
328: is rescaled from its pole mass, $m_t = 175 \pm 5$ GeV,
329: to the $\overline{\rm MS}-$mass, $m_t(\overline{\rm MS}) = 167 \pm 5$ GeV.
330: For numerical calculations throughout the paper, we use
331: the world--averaged values for all other parameters \cite{pdg},
332: {\it i.e.} :
333: \begin{quote}
334: $m_{B_q^0} = 5279.2 \pm 1.8$ MeV,
335: $m_W = 80.41 \pm 0.10$ GeV, $\tau_{B_q^0} = 1.56 \pm 0.04$ (ps)$^{-1}$,
336: $m_e = 0.5$ MeV, $m_\mu = 105.7$ MeV, $m_\tau = 1777$ MeV,
337: $\sin^2 \theta_W (\overline{\rm MS}) = 0.231$, $\alpha = 1/{129}$,
338: $f_{B_d} = 210 \pm 30$ MeV and $f_{B_s} = 245 \pm 30$ MeV \cite{laqcd2}.
339: \end{quote}
340: Within the SM and by using the experimental bounds on
341: the Wolfenstein parametrization
342: $(A,\lambda) = (0.819\pm0.035,0.2196\pm0.0023)$
343: together with the unitarity of CKM matrix \cite{pdg,ratiobqbq}, we get
344: \begin{equation}
345: \begin{array}{rcl}
346: |V_{ts}| & \approx & A \, \lambda^2 = 0.0395 \pm 0.0019 \, , \\
347: |V_{td}| & \approx & A \, \lambda^3
348: \sqrt{(1-\rho)^2 + \eta^2} = 0.004 \sim 0.013 \, .
349: \end{array}
350: \end{equation}
351: Adopting the next-to-leading order result for $Y(x_{t_W})$ \cite{buras},
352: and using the central values for all input parameters,
353: lead to the following SM predictions,
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: \b(\bdll) & = & \left\{
356: \begin{array}{lcl}
357: 3.4 \times {10}^{-15} \left( \frac{f_{B_d}}{210~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = e \\
358: 1.5 \times {10}^{-10} \left( \frac{f_{B_d}}{210~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = \mu \\
359: 3.2 \times {10}^{-8} \left( \frac{f_{B_d}}{210~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = \tau
360: \end{array}
361: \right. \, ,
362: \label{eqn:tpsm}\\
363: \b(\bsll) & = & \left\{
364: \begin{array}{lcl}
365: 8.9 \times {10}^{-14} \left( \frac{f_{B_s}}{245~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = e \\
366: 4.0 \times {10}^{-9} \left( \frac{f_{B_s}}{245~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = \mu \\
367: 8.3 \times {10}^{-7} \left( \frac{f_{B_s}}{245~MeV}\right)^2 & , & \l = \tau
368: \end{array}
369: \right. \, .
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: These predictions should be confronted with the present experimentally
372: known bounds of $\b(\bqll)$ at $95\%$ CL \cite{cdf},
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: \b(\bdmm) & < & 8.6 \times {10}^{-7} \, , \\
375: \b(\bsmm) & < & 2.6 \times {10}^{-6} \, .
376: \label{eqn:bsmmexp}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378:
379: \begin{figure}[t]
380: \centering
381: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
382: \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{alpcps.eps}
383: \end{minipage}
384: \hspace*{5mm}
385: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
386: \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{alpbre.eps}
387: \end{minipage}
388: \caption{The correlation between $\alp(\bstt)$ and $\fps$
389: for various $\b(\bstt) = 10^{-5},10^{-6},10^{-7}$ (left);
390: and the correlation between $\alp(\bstt)$
391: and $\b(\bstt)$ for various $\fps = 1.6, 5.0, 10.2, 17.3, 26.2$ (right).}
392: \label{fig:alpbr}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: To analyze the decay processes and simulataneously find the possible new physics signal,
396: we first employ the experimental bound of the
397: branching ratio which constraints the coefficients ($\f$'s)
398: more strictly after comparing the theoretical predictions with the known
399: experimental bounds, $i.e.$
400: $\b(\bsmm)$ (see Eqs. (\ref{eqn:tpsm})$\sim$(\ref{eqn:bsmmexp})),
401: and obtain the allowed region on the $\fps-\fpp$ parameter
402: space for various values of $\faa$. This is shown in the left-hand-side figure
403: of Fig. \ref{fig:br}. In the right-hand-side figure the
404: bound is obtained by using the indirect experimental bound
405: $\b(\bstt) < 4.3 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{isidori}.
406: Furthermore, suppose that the branching ratio is measured first, then it
407: must be worth to show a general correlation between the branching ratio
408: and the longitudinal polarization asymmetry represented by the following
409: equation,
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \alp(\bqll) & = & \pm \frac{ 2 a_q \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{4 m_\l^2 }{m_{B_q}^2} }}{\b(\bqll)} \,
412: Re \left[ \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps
413: \right. \nonumber \\
414: & & \left. \times
415: \sqrt{\frac{\b(\bqll)}{a_q} - \left( 1 - \frac{4 m_\l^2 }{m_{B_q}^2} \right)
416: \left| \frac{m_{B_q}^2}{m_b + m_q} \fps \right|^2 }
417: \right] \, ,
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: by eliminating $\faa$ and $\fpp$ in Eqs. (\ref{eqn:br}) and (\ref{eqn:alp}),
420: where the constant $a_q$ is defined as
421: \begin{equation}
422: a_q \equiv \frac{G_F^2 \alpha^2}{64 \pi^3} \,
423: \left| V_{tq}^\ast V_{tb} \, \right|^2 \tau_{B_q} f_{B_q}^2 m_{B_q} \,
424: \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{4 m_\l^2 }{m_{B_q}^2} } \, .
425: \end{equation}
426: This is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:alpbr}. The left-hand-side figure
427: shows a correlation between $\alp(\bstt)$ and $\fps$ for
428: various $\b(\bstt)$, while
429: the right-hand-side one is between $\alp(\bstt)$ and $\b(\bstt)$
430: for various $\fps$.
431:
432: \begin{figure}[h]
433: \centering
434: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{alphdm.eps}
435: \caption{The longitudinal polarization asymmetry of $\tau$'s,
436: $\alp(\bqtt)$, as a function of $m_{H^\pm}$
437: for various $\tan \beta = 25, 50, 75, 100$. }
438: \label{fig:alpbrhdm}
439: \end{figure}
440:
441: As a specific example for the case in which $\fps$ is non-zero, we adopt
442: the type II 2-Higgs-doublet models (2HDM-II).
443: In this model
444: $$\faa^{\rm 2HDM-II} = \faa^{\rm SM} ,$$
445: while\footnote{We take the latest results calculated in \cite{logan2}
446: by neglecting the subleading terms
447: in $\tan \beta$. Note that the results are consistent with
448: \cite{kruger} if one drops the contributions from trilinear coupling. }
449: \begin{equation}
450: \fps^{\rm 2HDM-II} = \fpp^{\rm 2HDM-II} =
451: \frac{m_\l (m_b + m_q)}{4 M_W^2 \sin^2 \theta_W}
452: \, \tan^2 \beta \frac{\ln x_{H^\pm t}}{x_{H^\pm t} - 1} \; ,
453: \end{equation}
454: at large $\tan \beta$ limit \cite{logan2,huang2hd,kruger}, and
455: $x_{H^\pm t} = ({m_{H^\pm}}/{m_t})^2$.
456: Some particular cases in the right-hand-side figure of
457: Fig. \ref{fig:alpbr} can be realized by, for instance,
458: \begin{quote}
459: $(m_{H^\pm},\tan \beta) = (200 \, {\rm GeV},40)$ for $\fps = 1.6$,
460: $(200 \, {\rm GeV},70)$ for $\fps = 5.0$,
461: $(200 \, {\rm GeV},100)$ for $\fps = 10.2$,
462: $(200 \, {\rm GeV},130)$ for $\fps = 17.3$,
463: $(200 \, {\rm GeV},160)$ for $\fps = 26.2$.
464: \end{quote}
465:
466: Finally, in Fig. \ref{fig:alpbrhdm} we show the
467: dependences of $\alp(\bqtt)$ on $m_{H^\pm}$ and $\tan \beta$.
468: For the real experimental analyses,
469: we recommend $\bstt$ decays because the energy of final $\tau$'s
470: is high enough to decay further to energetic secondary particles, so
471: their longitudinal polarization may be well measured in hadronic $B-$factories.
472: Although the $\tau$'s are difficult to be reconstructed in
473: hadronic background, we need precisely
474: such reconstruction from their decay products that
475: allows measurements of the longitudinal polarization of $\tau$'s.
476:
477: In conclusion we have considered a general analysis exploring
478: the longitudinal polarization asymmetry of leptons in the $\bqll$ decays.
479: We have
480: shown that this observable would provide a direct measurement of the
481: physics of scalar and pseudoscalar type interactions.
482: We also note that more information
483: about these new interactions can be obtained by combining the present
484: analysis with the other observables from $B\rightarrow X_q \l^+ \l^-$ \cite{bsll}. \\
485:
486: \noindent
487: We thank G. Cvetic and D. London for careful reading of the manuscript and their
488: valuable comments.
489: The work of C.S.K. was supported
490: by Grant No. 2001-042-D00022 of the KRF.
491: The work of T.Y. was supported in part by the US Department of Energy
492: under Grant No.DE-FG02-97ER-41036.
493:
494: \newpage
495:
496: %\bigskip\bigskip
497:
498: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
499:
500: \bibitem{logan}
501: K. S. Babu and C. Kolda,
502: \journal{\prl}{84}{2000}{228}.
503:
504: \bibitem{logan2}
505: H. E. Logan and U. Nierste,
506: \journal{\np}{B586}{2000}{39}.
507:
508: \bibitem{huang2hd}
509: C.-S. Huang, W. Liao, Q.-S. Yan and S.-H. Zhu,
510: \journal{\pr}{D63}{2001}{114021},
511: [\journal{Err}{D64}{2001}{059902}].
512:
513: \bibitem{kruger}
514: C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kr$\ddot{\rm u}$ger and J. Urban,
515: \journal{\pr}{D64}{2001}{074014}.
516:
517: \bibitem{nierste}
518: A. Dedes, H. K. Dreiner and U. Nierste,
519: hep-ph/0108037 (2001).
520:
521: \bibitem{bfactory}
522: D. Boutigny \textit{et.al.} (BaBar Collaboration),
523: \journal{SLAC-R-0457}{}{1995}{}; \\
524: M. T. Cheng \textit{et.al.} (Belle Collaboration),
525: \journal{BELLE-TDR-3-95}{}{1995}{}; \\
526: P. Krizan \textit{et.al.} (HERA-B Collaboration),
527: \journal{Nucl. Inst. Meth.}{A351}{1994}{111}; \\
528: W.W. Armstrong \textit{et.al.} (ATLAS Collaboration),
529: \journal{CERN/LHCC/94-43}{}{1994}{}; \\
530: S. Amato \textit{et.al.} (LHCb Collaboration),
531: \journal{CERN/LHCC/98-4}{}{1998}{}.
532:
533: \bibitem{kll}
534: P. Herczeg,
535: \journal{\pr}{D27}{1989}{1512}; \\
536: F. J. Botella and C. S. Lim,
537: \journal{\prl}{56}{1986}{1651}; \\
538: C. Q. Geng and J. N. Ng,
539: \journal{\prl}{62}{1989}{2645}.
540:
541: \bibitem{bll}
542: X-G. He, J. P. Ma and B. McKellar,
543: \journal{\pr}{D49}{1994}{4548}.
544:
545: \bibitem{huangCP}
546: C.-S. Huang, W. Liao,
547: hep-ph/0011089.
548:
549: \bibitem{fkmy}
550: Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and E. Nardi,
551: \journal{\pr}{D55}{1997}{2768}; \\
552: D. Guetta and E. Nardi,
553: \journal{\pr}{D58}{1998}{012001}.
554:
555: \bibitem{inamilim}
556: T. Inami and C. S. Lim,
557: \journal{\ptp}{65}{1981}{297}
558: [\journal{Err.}{65}{1981}{1772}].
559:
560: \bibitem{pdg}
561: PDG Collaboration,
562: \journal{\epj}{C15}{2000}{1}.
563:
564: \bibitem{laqcd2}
565: S. Hashimoto,
566: \journal{\np Proc.Suppl.}{B83}{2000}{3}.
567:
568: \bibitem{ratiobqbq}
569: See for example:
570: A. Ali and D. London,
571: \journal{\epj}{C9}{1999}{687}.
572:
573: \bibitem{buras}
574: G Buchalla and A. J. Buras,
575: \journal{\np}{B400}{1993}{225}; \\
576: M. Misiak and J. Urban,
577: \journal{\pl}{B451}{1999}{161}.
578:
579: \bibitem{cdf}
580: F. Abe \textit{et.al.} (CDF Collaboration),
581: \journal{\pr}{D57}{1998}{R3811}.
582:
583: \bibitem{isidori}
584: G. Isidori and A. Retico,
585: \journal{JHEP}{2001}{0111:001}.
586:
587: \bibitem{bsll}
588: S. Fukae, C.S. Kim, T. Morozumi and T. Yoshikawa,
589: \journal{\pr}{D59}{1999}{074013}; \\
590: S. Fukae, C.S. Kim and T. Yoshikawa,
591: \journal{\pr}{D61}{1999}{074015}; \\
592: S. Fukae, C.S. Kim and T. Yoshikawa,
593: \journal{\ijmp}{A16}{2001}{1703}.
594:
595: \end{thebibliography}
596:
597: \end{document}
598:
599: