1: % Version 16-10-02
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
4:
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
8: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
9: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
10: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
11: \parskip=1.0ex
12: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
13: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
14: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
15:
16: \newcommand{\modii}{\mathrm{I\!I}}
17: % \newcommand{\ZLLi}{Z_i^{LL}}
18: % \newcommand{\ZLRi}{Z_i^{LR}}
19: % \newcommand{\ZRLi}{Z_i^{RL}}
20: \newcommand{\ZLLi}{c^i_{LL}}
21: \newcommand{\ZLRi}{c^i_{LR}}
22: \newcommand{\ZRLi}{c^i_{RL}}
23:
24: \textwidth=15.5cm
25: \textheight=22cm
26: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
27: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
28: \topmargin=-1cm
29:
30:
31:
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \vspace*{-3cm}
36: \begin{flushright}
37: FISIST/17--2002/CFIF \\
38: hep-ph/0210360 \\
39: October 2002
40: \end{flushright}
41: \vspace{0.5cm}
42: \begin{center}
43: \begin{Large}
44: {\bf Rare top decays $t \to c \gamma$, $t \to cg$ and CKM unitarity}
45: \end{Large}
46:
47: \vspace{0.5cm}
48: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra and B. M. Nobre \\
49: {\it Departamento de F\'{\i}sica and Grupo de F\'{\i}sica de
50: Part\'{\i}culas (GFP), \\
51: Instituto Superior T\'ecnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal}
52: \end{center}
53:
54: \begin{abstract}
55: Top flavour-changing neutral decays are extremely suppressed within the Standard
56: Model (SM) by the GIM mechanism, but can reach observable rates in some of its
57: extensions. We compute the branching ratios for $t \to c \gamma$ and $t \to cg$
58: in minimal SM extensions where the addition of a vector-like up or down quark
59: singlet breaks the unitarity of the $3 \times 3$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
60: (CKM) matrix. The maximum rates obtained indicate to what extent present
61: experimental data allow $3 \times 3$ CKM unitarity to be broken in these models,
62: and are too small to be observed in the near future. As a by-product, we
63: reproduce the calculation of these branching ratios in the SM, and with an
64: improved set of parameters we obtain values one order of magnitude smaller than
65: the ones usually quoted in the literature. We study the CP asymmetries between
66: the decay rates of the top quark and antiquark, which can be much larger than in
67: the SM, also as a consequence of the partial breaking of $3 \times 3$ CKM
68: unitarity.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: The arrival of top factories, LHC and TESLA, will bring a tremendous improvement
75: in our knowledge of top quark properties \cite{papiro1,papiro2}. In particular,
76: the large top samples produced will allow to perform precision studies of top
77: rare decays. In this field, flavour-changing neutral (FCN) decays $t \to c Z$,
78: $t \to c \gamma$,
79: $t \to cg$, deserve special attention. Within the Standard Model (SM) they are
80: mediated at lowest order in perturbation theory by penguin diagrams with
81: quarks of charge $Q=-1/3$ inside the loop. Due to the smallness of
82: down-type quark masses compared to $M_W$, these decays
83: are very suppressed by
84: the GIM mechanism, in contrast with processes like
85: $b \to s \gamma$, with diagrams with a top
86: quark in the loop. This extra suppression results in decay rates $O(10^{-10})$
87: or smaller \cite{papiro3}.
88: On the other hand, in several SM extensions the branching
89: ratios for FCN top decays can be orders of magnitude larger. For instance, in
90: two Higgs doublet models $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c Z) \sim 10^{-6}$,
91: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 10^{-7}$,
92: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) \sim 10^{-5}$ can be achieved \cite{papiro4}.
93: In supersymmetric models with $R$ parity conservation these branching ratios
94: can reach $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c Z) \sim 10^{-6}$,
95: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 10^{-6}$,
96: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) \sim 10^{-5}$ \cite{papiro5,papiro6}.
97:
98: Here we are interested in the possible enhancement of these rates in models with
99: vector-like quark singlets. The addition of quark singlets to the SM
100: particle content represents the simplest way to break the GIM mechanism
101: consistently. In these models, the $3 \times 3$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
102: matrix
103: is not unitary, and thus FCN couplings to the $Z$
104: boson appear at tree-level. FCN couplings between light quarks are
105: experimentally constrained to be very small, but this is not the case for
106: the top quark. Actually, top FCN vertices can mediate
107: the decays $t \to u Z$ and $t \to c Z$, giving observable rates in models with
108: up-type singlets \cite{papiro7}.
109: The largest branching ratios allowed by present experimental data are
110: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to u Z) = 7.0 \times 10^{-4}$,
111: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c Z) = 6.0 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{papiro8},
112: much smaller than present direct limits $\mathrm{Br}(t \to uZ),\;
113: \mathrm{Br}(t \to cZ) \leq 0.08$ \cite{papiro21} but still
114: observable at LHC
115: \cite{papiro17a,papiro17b,papiro17c} and TESLA
116: \cite{papiro18a,papiro18b,papiro18c}.
117: In this Letter we investigate the enhancement of the branching ratios for the
118: two other FCN decays, $t \to c \gamma$ and $t \to c g$, in the presence of
119: either up or down singlets. We find the rates of these processes
120: allowed by present experimental constraints, and study how the GIM suppression
121: takes place in these models. For completeness
122: we also quote without discussion the results for $t \to u \gamma$ and
123: $t \to u g$, which in the
124: SM are suppressed by the ratio $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2$ with respect to the former,
125: but in these SM extensions can have the same magnitude.
126:
127:
128:
129:
130:
131:
132: \section{Overview of the Lagrangian}
133:
134: A full discussion of the Lagrangian in the weak eigenstate and mass eigenstate
135: bases can be found for instance in Refs.~\cite{papiro9a,papiro9b}. Here we only
136: collect the terms of the Lagrangian in the mass eigenstate basis
137: relevant for our study.
138: We consider the SM extended with $n_u$ up singlets and $n_d$ down singlets,
139: with $n_u$, $n_d$ arbitrary for the moment. The
140: charged current Lagrangian is
141: \begin{equation}
142: \mathcal{L}_W = -\frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \bar u_L \gamma^\mu V d_L W_\mu^+
143: + \mathrm{h.c.} \,,
144: \label{ec:1}
145: \end{equation}
146: with $V$ the generalised CKM matrix, of dimension $(3+n_u) \times (3+n_d)$.
147: The neutral-current Lagrangian describing the interactions with the $Z$ boson
148: is
149: \begin{equation}
150: \mathcal{L}_Z = -\frac{g}{2 c_W} \left(
151: \bar u_L \gamma^\mu X^u u_L - \bar d_L \gamma^\mu X^d d_L
152: - 2 s_W^2 J_\mathrm{EM}^\mu \right) Z_\mu \,,
153: \label{ec:2}
154: \end{equation}
155: where $X^u$, $X^d$ are hermitian matrices of dimension
156: $(3+n_u) \times (3+n_u)$ and $(3+n_d) \times (3+n_d)$, respectively. These
157: matrices can be related to the CKM matrix by $X^u = V \, V^\dagger$,
158: $X^d = V^\dagger \, V$. The interactions with the unphysical charged scalars
159: $\phi^\pm$ are given by
160: \begin{equation}
161: \mathcal{L}_\phi = -\frac{g}{\sqrt 2 M_W} \bar u \left( \mathcal{M}^u
162: V P_L - V \mathcal{M}^d P_R \right) d \, \phi^+ + \mathrm{h.c.} \,,
163: \label{ec:3}
164: \end{equation}
165: with $\mathcal{M}^u$ and $\mathcal{M}^d$ the diagonal mass matrices for the up
166: and down quarks. The terms corresponding to the unphysical neutral scalar $\chi$
167: are
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: \mathcal{L}_\chi & = & \frac{i\,g}{2 M_W} \left[
170: \bar u \left( \mathcal{M}^u X^u P_L - X^u \mathcal{M}^u P_R \right) u
171: \right. \nonumber \\
172: & & \left. - \bar d \left( \mathcal{M}^d X^d P_L - X^d \mathcal{M}^d P_R
173: \right) d \right] \chi \,.
174: \label{ec:4}
175: \end{eqnarray}
176: Finally, the terms describing the interactions with the Higgs boson are
177: \begin{eqnarray}
178: \mathcal{L}_H & = & \frac{g}{2 M_W} \left[
179: \bar u \left( \mathcal{M}^u X^u P_L + X^u \mathcal{M}^u P_R \right) u
180: \right. \nonumber \\
181: & & \left. + \bar d \left( \mathcal{M}^d X^d P_L + X^d \mathcal{M}^d P_R
182: \right) d \right] H \,.
183: \label{ec:5}
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: In our analysis of $t \to c \gamma$ and $t \to c g$ we discuss the two
186: simplest cases: $n_u=1$, $n_d=0$ (which will be called Model I) and $n_u=0$,
187: $n_d=1$ (Model $\modii$). These two cases correspond
188: to CKM matrices of dimension $4 \times 3$ and $3 \times 4$, respectively, and in
189: both models the CKM matrix is a submatrix of a unitary $4 \times 4$
190: matrix.
191:
192:
193:
194:
195:
196:
197: \section{Calculation of the decay rates}
198:
199: Using unbroken $\mathrm{SU}(3) \times \mathrm{U}(1)$ gauge invariance and the
200: facts that final state particles are on-shell and the photon has transverse
201: polarisation, the transition amplitude for $t \to c \gamma$ can be written
202: with all generality as
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: \mathcal{M}(t \to c \gamma) & = & \bar u(p_c) \left[ i \sigma^{\mu \nu} q_\nu
205: \left( A_\gamma + B_\gamma \gamma_5 \right) \right] u(p_t) \epsilon_\mu^*(q)
206: \,,
207: \label{ec:6}
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: with $p_t$ and $p_c$ the momenta of the top and charm quarks, respectively,
210: $q=p_t-p_c$ the photon momentum and $\epsilon$ its polarisation vector. This
211: expression also assumes that the top quark is on-shell, which is an
212: excellent approximation. A similar structure is valid for $t \to c g$, with form
213: factors $A_g$ and $B_g$. In order to compute the amplitude the form factors are
214: written in terms of Passarino-Veltman
215: integrals \cite{papiro10} using {\tt FORM} \cite{papiro11}. The integrals are
216: numerically evaluated using {\tt LoopTools} \cite{papiro12}. The Feynman
217: diagrams relevant for $t \to c \gamma$ in the SM and Model $\modii$ are
218: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}.
219: In the SM the down-type quarks $d_i$ in the loops
220: are $d_i = d,s,b$, while in Model $\modii$ there is an extra heavy quark $B$.
221: The contributions of these diagrams to $A_\gamma$
222: and $B_\gamma$ in the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge are collected in the Appendix.
223: The diagrams relevant for $A_g$ and $B_g$ are the analogous to (1a) and
224: (1b) in Fig.~\ref{fig:1} but replacing the outgoing photon by a gluon.
225:
226: \begin{figure}[htb]
227: \begin{center}
228: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
229: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d1W.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} & ~~~ &
230: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d1p.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} \\[-0.2cm]
231: (1a) & & (1b) \\[0.6cm]
232: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d2WW.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} & ~~~ &
233: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d2pp.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} \\[-0.2cm]
234: (2a) & & (2b) \\[0.6cm]
235: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d2Wp.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} & ~~~ &
236: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d2pW.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} \\[-0.2cm]
237: (2c) & & (2d) \\
238: \end{tabular}
239: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to the $t \to c \gamma$ decay amplitude
240: in the SM and Model $\modii$.
241: \label{fig:1}}
242: \end{center}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: In Model I there are extra diagrams with up-type quarks $u_i=u,c,t,T$ in the
246: loops (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2}).
247: These diagrams have one FCN vertex for $u_i=c,t$ and two for $u_i=u,T$,
248: in which case they are very suppressed. The flavour-diagonal vertices are
249: modified with respect to the SM value. For instance,
250: the diagonal couplings of a quark $q=u_i,d_i$ to the $Z$ boson are
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: c_L^q & = & \pm X_{qq} -2 Q_q s_W^2 \,, \nonumber \\
253: c_R^q & = & -2 Q_q s_W^2 \,,
254: \label{ec:7}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{ec:2}),
257: with the plus (minus) sign for up (down) quarks. The interactions with the
258: unphysical scalar $\chi$ and the Higgs boson can be read from
259: Eqs.~(\ref{ec:4},\ref{ec:5}). The contributions of these diagrams to
260: $A_\gamma$ and $B_\gamma$ can be found in the Appendix.
261:
262: \begin{figure}[htb]
263: \begin{center}
264: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
265: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d3Z.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} & ~~~ &
266: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d3cH.eps,width=4cm,clip=}} \\
267: (3a) & & (3b,3c)
268: \end{tabular}
269: \caption{Additional Feynman diagrams contributing to the $t \to c \gamma$ decay
270: amplitude in Model I. The diagrams for $t \to c g$ are similar,
271: replacing the photon by a gluon.
272: \label{fig:2}}
273: \end{center}
274: \end{figure}
275:
276: We perform the computation keeping all quark masses. For external quarks
277: we use the pole masses $m_t = 174.3$ GeV, $m_c = 1.5$ GeV. For internal
278: quarks it is more adequate to use $\overline \mathrm{MS}$ masses at a scale
279: $O(m_t)$, rather than pole masses. This is an important difference due to the
280: strong dependence on the $b$ quark mass as a consequence of the GIM suppression.
281: For a pole mass $m_b = 4.7 \pm 0.3$ GeV,
282: ${\overline m}_b(m_t) = 2.74 \pm 0.17$ GeV \cite{papiro13}.
283:
284: In the limit $m_c=0$ the vector and axial form factors are equal:
285: $A_\gamma = B_\gamma$, $A_g = B_g$. Since $m_c$ is small,
286: $A_\gamma \simeq B_\gamma$, $A_g \simeq B_g$ and the effective
287: couplings are predominantly right-handed.
288: One important feature is that the form
289: factors acquire imaginary parts from the contributions with $d$, $s$, $b$
290: quarks (and $u$, $c$ quarks in the extra diagrams present in Model I).
291: These imaginary parts are one of the ingredients needed in order to have CP
292: asymmetries $\Gamma (t \to c \gamma) \neq \Gamma (\bar t \to \bar c \gamma)$,
293: which will be analysed in detail later.
294:
295: From Eq.~(\ref{ec:6}), the partial widths of these processes are
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: \Gamma (t \to c \gamma) & = & \frac{1}{\pi}
298: \left[ \frac{m_t^2-m_c^2}{2 m_t} \right]^3
299: \left( |A_\gamma|^2+|B_\gamma|^2 \right) \,,
300: \nonumber \\
301: \Gamma (t \to c g) & = & \frac{C_F}{\pi}
302: \left[ \frac{m_t^2-m_c^2}{2 m_t} \right]^3 \left( |A_g|^2+|B_g|^2 \right) \,,
303: \label{ec:8}
304: \end{eqnarray}
305: with $C_F=4/3$ a colour factor. In the SM, as well as in our models, the total
306: width is dominated by the leading decay mode $t \to b W^+$,
307: $\Gamma(t \to b W^+) = 1.57 \, |V_{tb}|^2$ for $m_t=174.3$ GeV,
308: $M_W = 80.39$ GeV.
309: The branching ratios are then
310: \begin{equation}
311: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) =
312: \frac{\Gamma (t \to c \gamma)}{\Gamma (t \to b W^+)} ~,~~
313: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) =
314: \frac{\Gamma (t \to c g)}{\Gamma (t \to b W^+)} \,.
315: \label{ec:9}
316: \end{equation}
317: We do not use the next-to-leading order
318: partial width $\Gamma (t \to b W^+) = 1.42 \, |V_{tb}|^2$
319: for consistency, because our calculation for $t \to c\gamma$, $t \to cg$ is
320: at leading order.
321:
322: We have checked that using the set of input parameters of
323: Ref.~\cite{papiro3} our results agree with the results presented there.
324: For the calculation of the branching ratios within the SM
325: we take $|V_{us}| = 0.2224$, $|V_{ub}| = 0.00362$, $|V_{cb}| = 0.0402$. These
326: values are obtained performing a fit to the six measured CKM matrix elements,
327: using $3 \times 3$ unitarity. The phase $\delta$ in the standard
328: parameterisation \cite{papiro14} is $\delta = 1.014$, obtained with a fit
329: to $\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$, $a_{\psi K_S}$ and $|\delta m_B|$
330: (see Ref.~\cite{papiro8}). The SM predictions are
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) & = & (4.6 ~^{+1.2}_{-1.0} \pm 0.4 ~^{+1.6}_{-0.5}
333: ) \times 10^{-14} \,, \nonumber \\[0.2cm]
334: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) & = & (4.6 ~^{+1.1}_{-0.9} \pm 0.4 ~^{+2.1}_{-0.7}
335: ) \times 10^{-12} \,.
336: \label{ec:11}
337: \end{eqnarray}
338: The first uncertainty comes from the bottom mass, the second from CKM mixing
339: angles and the third is estimated varying the renormalisation scale between
340: $M_Z$ (plus sign) and $1.5 \, m_t$ (minus sign). These figures are ten times
341: smaller than the ones quoted in Ref.~\cite{papiro3}, where the pole mass is used
342: for the internal $b$ quark ($m_b = 5$ GeV is assumed). The
343: uncertainty in the top mass does not affect these values, because
344: the partial widths of $t \to c \gamma$, $t \to c g$ are proportional to $m_t^3$,
345: and the partial width of $t \to b W^+$ is approximately given by
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: \Gamma (t \to b W^+) & = & \frac{g^2}{64 \pi} |V_{tb}|^2 \frac{m_t^3}{M_W^2}
348: \left[ 1-3 \frac{M_W^4}{m_t^4} + 2 \frac{M_W^6}{m_t^6} \right] \,.
349: \label{ec:10}
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: Hence, the leading dependence on $m_t$ cancels in the ratios and the uncertainty
352: in $m_t$ hardly affects the numbers quoted in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:11}).
353: The SM predictions for $t \to u \gamma$ and
354: $t \to u g$ are
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u \gamma) & = & (3.7 ~^{+1.0}_{-0.8} \pm 2.1 ~^{+1.3}_{-0.4}
357: ) \times 10^{-16} \,, \nonumber \\[0.2cm]
358: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u g) & = & (3.7 ~^{+0.9}_{-0.8} \pm 2.1 ~^{+1.7}_{-0.5}
359: ) \times 10^{-14} \,,
360: \label{ec:11b}
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: suppressed by a factor $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2 \simeq 8 \times 10^{-3}$ with respect
363: to top decays to a charm quark. The uncertainties have the same origin as
364: in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:11}).
365:
366:
367:
368:
369:
370: \section{CKM unitarity and GIM suppression}
371:
372: Let us discuss how the GIM mechanism suppresses these processes within the
373: SM and how this suppression can be
374: partially removed with the addition of vector-like singlets.
375: We only study $t \to c \gamma$, the discussion of $t \to c g$ is formally
376: identical.
377: In the SM and Model $\modii$ the form factors for the $\gamma t c$ vertex
378: can be decomposed as
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: A_\gamma & = & \sum_i f_{\gamma A}(m_i) \lambda_{ct}^i \,, \nonumber \\
381: B_\gamma & = & \sum_i f_{\gamma B}(m_i) \lambda_{ct}^i \,,
382: \label{ec:12}
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: where $i=1,2,3$ in the SM and $i=1\cdots4$ in Model $\modii$,
385: $f_{\gamma A}(m_i)$, $f_{\gamma B}(m_i)$ are functions of the internal quark
386: mass and
387: $\lambda_{ct}^i = V_{ci} V_{ti}^*$ are CKM factors. We have dropped the bar over
388: $m_i$, which are understood as $\overline \mathrm{MS}$ masses.
389: Since $f_{\gamma A}(m_i) \simeq f_{\gamma B}(m_i)$, we only analyse
390: $A_\gamma$.
391: The mass dependence of the real and
392: imaginary parts of $f_{\gamma A}(m_i)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.
393:
394: \begin{figure}[htb]
395: \begin{center}
396: \begin{tabular}{cc}
397: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/A.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}} &
398: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/Ap.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}}
399: \end{tabular}
400: \caption{Loop functions $f_{\gamma A}(m_i)$ and $f'_{\gamma A}(m_i)$
401: for down-type internal quarks (notice the different scales).
402: \label{fig:3}}
403: \end{center}
404: \end{figure}
405:
406: In order to estimate the branching ratio for $t \to c \gamma$ we make the
407: approximation $f_{\gamma A}(m_d) = f_{\gamma A}(m_s) = f_{\gamma A}(0)$ for the
408: moment. Then, using
409: \begin{equation}
410: \lambda_{ct}^d + \lambda_{ct}^s + \lambda_{ct}^b + \lambda_{ct}^B = 0 \,,
411: \label{ec:13}
412: \end{equation}
413: as implied by the unbroken row unitarity of the $3 \times 4$ CKM matrix $V$, we
414: have
415: \begin{eqnarray}
416: A_\gamma & = & \left[ f_{\gamma A}(m_b)-f_{\gamma A}(0) \right] \lambda_{ct}^b
417: + \left[ f_{\gamma A}(m_B)-f_{\gamma A}(0) \right] \lambda_{ct}^B \nonumber \\
418: & \equiv & f'_{\gamma A}(m_b) \lambda_{ct}^b
419: + f'_{\gamma A}(m_B) \lambda_{ct}^B \,.
420: \label{ec:14}
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: Therefore, the decay amplitude is actually controlled by the shifted function
423: $f'_{\gamma A}(m_i)$, plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} as well. The parameter
424: $\lambda_{ct}^B$ measures the orthogonality of the $c$ and $t$ rows of the $3
425: \times 3$ CKM submatrix $V_{3 \times 3}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{ec:13})), {\em i. e.}
426: the breaking of the GIM mechanism in this process.
427: The SM limit is recovered setting, $\lambda_{ct}^B = 0$, so the only
428: contribution to the form
429: factor is given by the small function $f'_{\gamma A}(m_b) \simeq -9.1 \times
430: 10^{-9} -4.7 \times 10^{-9} \, i$ multiplied by $\lambda_{ct}^b \simeq 0.04$.
431: With an extra down quark, there is a new term with a larger function
432: $f'_{\gamma A}(m_B) \simeq 4.9 \times 10^{-7} + 6.0 \times 10^{-6} \, i$ (for
433: $m_B = 200$ GeV), which is however suppressed by $\lambda_{ct}^B$.
434:
435: The parameter $\lambda_{ct}^B$ can be related to the breaking of the
436: column unitarity of $V_{3 \times 3}$. This is easily understood, because
437: if the columns of this submatrix are orthogonal, so must be the rows. The
438: explicit relation can be written using the extension of the Wolfenstein
439: parameterisation \cite{papiro15a} in Ref.~\cite{papiro15}. Assuming that
440: $X_{ds},X_{db},X_{sb} \sim \lambda^4$, $1-X_{ss} \sim \lambda^3$
441: and $1-X_{bb} \sim \lambda^3$, we have
442: \begin{equation}
443: -\lambda_{ct}^B = \sum_{i=1}^3 V_{ci} V_{ti}^* = X_{sb}- \lambda X_{db}
444: + A \lambda^2 \left( X_{bb}-X_{ss} \right)
445: -\frac{\lambda^2}{2} X_{sb} + O(\lambda^7) \,.
446: \label{ec:15}
447: \end{equation}
448: This equation shows how the breaking of the orthogonality of the
449: first three columns of $V$ ``propagates'' to the second and
450: third rows. The effect of the new quark can be estimated
451: with $\lambda \simeq 0.22$, $A \simeq 1$ and the typical values
452: $X_{db} \sim 10^{-3}$, $X_{sb} \sim 10^{-3}$,
453: $X_{bb}-X_{ss} \sim 10^{-3}$ \cite{papiro8},
454: obtaining $\lambda_{ct}^B \simeq X_{sb} \sim 10^{-3}$.
455: With this value the $B$ contribution is 20 times larger than the $b$ term,
456: giving $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 10^{-11}$.
457:
458: In Model I, neglecting for the moment diagrams with two FCN vertices,
459: $A_\gamma$ can be decomposed as
460: \begin{equation}
461: A_\gamma = \sum_{i=1}^3 f_{\gamma A}(m_i) \lambda_{ct}^i + g_{\gamma A} X_{ct}
462: \,,
463: \label{ec:16}
464: \end{equation}
465: with $g_{\gamma A}$ the sum of the $c$ and $t$ diagram contributions, which is
466: roughly of the same size as the $f_{\gamma A}$ functions. In this model we have
467: the relation
468: \begin{equation}
469: \lambda_{ct}^d + \lambda_{ct}^s + \lambda_{ct}^b = X_{ct}
470: \label{ec:17}
471: \end{equation}
472: expressing the non-orthogonality of the second and third rows of the CKM matrix,
473: of dimension $4 \times 3$ in this case (compare with Eq.~(\ref{ec:13})).
474: Hence, the form factor is written as
475: \begin{eqnarray}
476: A_\gamma & = & \left[ f_{\gamma A}(m_b)-f_{\gamma A}(0) \right] \lambda_{ct}^b
477: + \left[ g_{\gamma A}+f_{\gamma A}(0) \right] X_{ct} \nonumber \\
478: & \equiv & f'_{\gamma A}(m_b) \lambda_{ct}^b
479: + g'_{\gamma A} X_{ct} \,,
480: \label{ec:18}
481: \end{eqnarray}
482: with $g'_{\gamma A} = -4.4 \times 10^{-6} - 4.8 \times 10^{-6} \, i$. In this
483: model the FCN coupling $X_{ct}$ can be $X_{ct} \sim 0.04$ for $V_{tb} \sim 0.6$
484: \cite{papiro8},
485: yielding a branching ratio $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 5 \times 10^{-8}$.
486:
487: We note that the larger branching ratio achieved in Model I is {\em not} a
488: consequence of the presence of a tree-level coupling $Ztc$, which appears in
489: the expressions of the form factors on the same footing as the parameter
490: $\lambda_{ct}^B$. Moreover, the loop integrals of the new
491: physics contributions of Model I,
492: $g'_{\gamma A} = -4.4 \times 10^{-6} - 4.8 \times 10^{-6} \, i$
493: and of Model $\modii$,
494: $f'_{\gamma A}(m_B) \simeq 4.9 \times 10^{-7} + 6.0 \times 10^{-6} \, i$, are
495: very
496: similar. The only reason for the larger branching ratio in Model I is that
497: $X_{ct} \gg \lambda_{ct}^B$, that is,
498: unitarity of $V_{3 \times 3}$ can be broken to a lesser extent in Model $\modii$
499: due to the strong requirements on FCN couplings between light quarks.
500: Additionally, $V_{tb}$ can be smaller in Model I, and the total top width is
501: reduced.
502:
503: We are also interested in the CP asymmetry
504: \begin{eqnarray}
505: a_\gamma & = & \frac{\Gamma (t \to c \gamma) - \Gamma (\bar t \to \bar c
506: \gamma)}{\Gamma (t \to c \gamma) + \Gamma (\bar t \to \bar c \gamma)} \,.
507: \label{ec:19}
508: \end{eqnarray}
509: This interest is mainly academic, because if the branching ratios are
510: unobservable, even less are the asymmetries. However, the latter show how
511: large CP asymmetries at high energy are possible in these SM extensions. Here we
512: analyse in detail $a_\gamma$ in Model $\modii$,
513: the results for Model I are similar but more involved.
514: The form factors for $\bar t \to \bar c \gamma$ are
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: \bar A_\gamma & = & f'_{\gamma A}(m_b) \lambda_{ct}^{b*}
517: + f'_{\gamma A}(m_B) \, \lambda_{ct}^{B*} \,,
518: \label{ec:20}
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: and an analogous expression for $\bar B_\gamma$. The asymmetry can be written as
521: $a_\gamma = N_\gamma/D_\gamma$, with
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: N_\gamma & = & -2 \, \mathrm{Im} \left[ f'_{\gamma A}(m_b)
524: {f'}^*_{\gamma A}(m_B) + f'_{\gamma B}(m_b) {f'}^*_{\gamma B}(m_B) \right]
525: \mathrm{Im} \left[ \lambda_{ct}^b \lambda_{ct}^{B*}\right] \nonumber \\
526: D_\gamma & = & \left[ |f'_{\gamma A}(m_b)|^2 + |f'_{\gamma B}(m_b)|^2 \right]
527: |\lambda_{ct}^b|^2
528: + \left[ |f'_{\gamma A}(m_B)|^2 + |f'_{\gamma B}(m_B)|^2 \right]
529: |\lambda_{ct}^B|^2 \nonumber \\
530: & & + 2 \, \mathrm{Re} \left[ f'_{\gamma A}(m_b) {f'}^*_{\gamma A}(m_B)
531: + f'_{\gamma B}(m_b) {f'}^*_{\gamma B}(m_B) \right]
532: \mathrm{Re} \left[ \lambda_{ct}^b \lambda_{ct}^{B*}\right] \,.
533: \label{ec:21}
534: \end{eqnarray}
535: A few comments are in order:
536: \begin{enumerate}
537: \item The CP asymmetry $a_\gamma$ is proportional to the imaginary part of the
538: rephasing-invariant quartet $\lambda_{ct}^b \lambda_{ct}^{B*}
539: = V_{cb} V_{cB}^* V_{tb}^* V_{tB} $. This is expected from general grounds.
540: In fact, it can be shown that in a model with an extra down singlet {\em all\/}
541: CP violating observables at high energy (that is, when $m_{u,d,s} \sim 0$
542: compared to the scale of energy involved) must be
543: proportional to $\mathrm{Im} \, V_{cb} V_{cB}^* V_{tb}^* V_{tB}$,
544: $\mathrm{Im} \, V_{cb} V_{cB}^* X_{bB} $,
545: $\mathrm{Im} \, V_{tb} V_{tB}^* X_{bB} $, or a combination of them
546: \cite{papiro16}.
547:
548: \item The SM limit is recovered setting $\lambda_{ct}^B = 0$, obtaining a
549: vanishing CP asymmetry. It is well known that CP asymmetries at high energy
550: are very small in the SM \cite{papiro22}, due to: ({\em i\/}) the smallness
551: of $m_u$, $m_d$ and $m_s$,
552: what leads to a more efficient GIM cancellation; ({\em ii\/})
553: the small mixing between the top and the first two generations.
554: When all the quark masses are kept in the computation a
555: non-vanishing but a negligible asymmetry $a_\gamma \sim -6 \times 10^{-6}$
556: is obtained. For the gluon case, the asymmetry $a_g \sim -5 \times 10^{-6}$
557: is also extremely small.
558:
559: \item Since CPT invariance requires that the total width of the top and the
560: antitop are equal, the different partial widths $\Gamma(t \to c \gamma) \neq
561: \Gamma(\bar t \to \bar c \gamma)$ must be compensated in other channel.
562: In this case, the compensating decay channels are the SM leading modes
563: $t \to bW$, $t \to sW$, $t \to dW$ and their conjugate processes
564: \cite{papiro22}.
565:
566: \item The large phases in the functions $f'_{\gamma A}$, $f'_{\gamma B}$ allow
567: to obtain relatively large CP asymmetries, provided
568: $\mathrm{Im} \, \lambda_{ct}^b \lambda_{ct}^{B*}$ is sizeable.
569: \end{enumerate}
570:
571:
572:
573:
574:
575:
576: \section{Results}
577:
578: We explore the parameter space of Models I and $\modii$ to find the maximum
579: values of $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma)$ and $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g)$
580: allowed by present experimental measurements. The constraints on these models
581: come from
582: precision electroweak data, $K$ and $B$ physics and atomic parity violation
583: (the details of the analysis can be found in Ref.~\cite{papiro8}). We
584: take all the quark masses into account, and require
585: that the mass of the new quark is larger than 200 GeV to satisfy the
586: limits from direct searches. In Model I,
587: assuming that the new quark has a mass $m_T = 200$ GeV, we find the maximum
588: rates
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) & = & 4.5 \times 10^{-8} \,, \nonumber \\
591: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) & = & 8.9 \times 10^{-7} \,,
592: \label{ec:22}
593: \end{eqnarray}
594: corresponding to $|X_{ct}| = 0.037$, $|V_{tb}| = 0.58$.
595: (The branching ratios scale with $|X_{ct}|^2$ approximately.)
596: For larger $m_T$, the allowed values of $|X_{ct}|$
597: are smaller \cite{papiro8}, and these branching ratios decrease.
598: The CP asymmetries corresponding to the figures in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:22}) are
599: negligible,
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: a_\gamma & = & -0.0006 \,, \nonumber \\
602: a_g & = & -0.002 \,,
603: \label{ec:23}
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: because the rates are dominated by the $X_{ct}$ term. The asymmetries can
606: have values in the range
607: $-0.5 \leq a_\gamma \leq 0.4$, $-0.9 \leq a_g \leq 0.6$, but only reach the
608: boundaries of these intervals for branching ratios much smaller than those in
609: Eqs.~(\ref{ec:22}). The results for decays to up quarks are a little larger,
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u \gamma) & = & 4.6 \times 10^{-8} \,, \nonumber \\
612: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u g) & = & 9.2 \times 10^{-7} \,.
613: \label{ec:22b}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: In Model $\modii$, assuming that the mass of the new quark is $m_B = 200$ GeV,
616: we have
617: \begin{eqnarray}
618: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) & = & 4.5 \times 10^{-12} \,, \nonumber \\
619: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) & = & 6.6 \times 10^{-11} \,.
620: \label{ec:24}
621: \end{eqnarray}
622: These numbers are almost insensitive to the mass of the new $Q=-1/3$ quark for
623: $m_B \geq 200$ GeV, as can be seen from
624: Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, and show a small increase with $m_B$. The corresponding
625: asymmetries are
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: a_\gamma & = & -0.05 \,, \nonumber \\
628: a_g & = & 0.56 \,.
629: \label{ec:25}
630: \end{eqnarray}
631: In general, the CP asymmetries take values in the intervals
632: $-1 \leq a_\gamma \leq 1$, $-1 \leq a_g \leq 1$. The
633: decay rates to up quarks are larger,
634: \begin{eqnarray}
635: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u \gamma) & = & 7.4 \times 10^{-12} \,, \nonumber \\
636: \mathrm{Br}(t \to u g) & = & 9.5 \times 10^{-11} \,.
637: \label{ec:24b}
638: \end{eqnarray}
639:
640: The branching ratios in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:22}--\ref{ec:24b}) are too small to be
641: measurable in the near future. The estimated $3\sigma$ sensitivities of LHC to
642: these decays are $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) = 1.2 \times 10^{-5}$
643: \cite{papiro19},
644: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to u \gamma) = 3.0 \times 10^{-6}$ \cite{papiro17c},
645: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) = 2.7 \times 10^{-5}$ and
646: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to u g) = 4.1 \times 10^{-6}$ \cite{papiro20},
647: with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$. The TESLA sensitivity to $t \to
648: c \gamma$ is better but not enough,
649: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) = 3.6 \times 10^{-6}$ \cite{papiro18b} with a
650: centre of mass energy of 800 GeV and a luminosity of 500 fb$^{-1}$.
651: Hence, we observe that in models with up-type singlets the rates for $t \to qZ$,
652: $q=u,c$
653: can be observable but not the rates for $t \to q \gamma$ and $t \to q g$, which
654: are four and three orders of magnitude smaller, respectively. This fact
655: contrasts with the results for two Higgs doublet models or supersymmetric
656: extensions of the SM, where the branching ratios for $t \to cZ$ and
657: $t \to c\gamma$ are similar, and the branching ratio for $t \to cg$ is one order
658: of magnitude larger. This difference would allow for a consistency check of the
659: models, should a positive signal of top FCN decays be discovered.
660:
661:
662:
663:
664: \vspace{1cm}
665: \noindent
666: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
667:
668: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
669: J.A.A.S. thanks F. del \'Aguila and M. P\'erez-Victoria for comments and
670: discussions.
671: B.M.N. thanks D.F. Carvalho for useful discussions. We thank F. del \'Aguila
672: and G.C. Branco for reading of the manuscript. This work has been
673: supported by the European Community's Human Potential Programme under contract
674: HTRN--CT--2000--00149 Physics at Colliders and by FCT through project
675: CERN/FIS/43793/2001. The work of B.M.N. has been supported by FCT under the
676: grant SFRH/BD/995/2000.
677:
678:
679:
680:
681:
682:
683: \appendix
684: \section{Form factors for $t \to c \gamma$ and $t \to c g$}
685: The contributions to $A_\gamma$ and $B_\gamma$ of diagrams (1a) and (1b) with
686: an internal quark $d_i$ are
687: \begin{eqnarray}
688: A_{\gamma,1\mathrm{a}} & = & - \frac{Q_i g^2 e}{2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
689: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
690: (m_t+m_c) \, C_0 + (2 m_t+m_c) \, C_1 + (m_t+2 m_c) \, C_2
691: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
692: & & \left.
693: + m_t C_{11} + (m_t+m_c) \, C_{12} + m_c C_{22}
694: \right\} \,, \label{ec:ap1} \\
695: %
696: B_{\gamma,1\mathrm{a}} & = & -\frac{Q_i g^2 e}{2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
697: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
698: (m_t-m_c) \, C_0 + (2 m_t-m_c) \, C_1 + (m_t-2 m_c) \, C_2
699: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
700: & & \left.
701: + m_t C_{11} + (m_t- m_c) \, C_{12} - m_c C_{22}
702: \right\} \,, \label{ec:ap2} \\
703: %
704: %
705: A_{\gamma,1\mathrm{b}} & = & -\frac{Q_i g^2 e}{4 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
706: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
707: m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_1
708: + m_t (m_c^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_2
709: \right. \nonumber \\
710: & & + (m_t {\overline m}_{d_i}^2 + m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
711: + [m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{d_i}^2)
712: + m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) ]\, C_{12}
713: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
714: & & \left.
715: + (m_t m_c^2 + m_c {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_{22}
716: \right\} \,, \label{ec:ap3} \\
717: %
718: B_{\gamma,1\mathrm{b}} & = & -\frac{Q_i g^2 e}{4 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
719: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
720: -m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_1
721: + m_t (m_c^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_2
722: \right. \nonumber \\
723: & & + (m_t {\overline m}_{d_i}^2 - m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
724: + [m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{d_i}^2)
725: - m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) ]\, C_{12}
726: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
727: & & \left.
728: + (m_t m_c^2 - m_c {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_{22}
729: \right\} \label{ec:ap4} \,.
730: \end{eqnarray}
731: The $C$'s are functions of the external and internal masses,
732: $C(m_t^2,0,m_c^2,M_W^2,{\overline m}_{d_i}^2,{\overline m}_{d_i}^2)$
733: in the notation of Ref.~\cite{papiro12}.
734: For $t \to c g$ the contributions to the form factors $A_g$ and $B_g$ can be
735: obtained replacing $e$ by $g_s$ and setting $Q_i=1$ in
736: Eqs.~(\ref{ec:ap1}--\ref{ec:ap4}). The terms from diagrams (2a)--(2d) are
737: \begin{eqnarray}
738: A_{\gamma,2\mathrm{a}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
739: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
740: (2 m_t + m_c) \, C_0 + (4 m_t + m_c) \, C_1 + (m_t - m_c) \, C_2
741: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
742: & & \left.
743: + 2 m_t C_{11} + 2 (m_t - m_c) \, C_{12}
744: \right\} \,, \\
745: %
746: B_{\gamma,2\mathrm{a}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
747: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
748: (2 m_t - m_c) \, C_0 + (4 m_t - m_c) \, C_1 + (m_t + m_c) \, C_2
749: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
750: & & \left.
751: + 2 m_t C_{11} + 2 (m_t + m_c) \, C_{12}
752: \right\} \,, \\
753: %
754: %
755: A_{\gamma,2\mathrm{b}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
756: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
757: m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_1
758: + (m_t {\overline m}_{d_i}^2 + m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
759: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
760: & & \left.
761: + [m_t ({\overline m}_{d_i}^2 - m_c^2)
762: + m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) ] \, C_{12}
763: \right\} \,, \\
764: %
765: B_{\gamma,2\mathrm{b}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
766: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
767: - m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) \, C_1
768: + (m_t {\overline m}_{d_i}^2 - m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
769: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
770: & & \left.
771: + [m_t ({\overline m}_{d_i}^2 - m_c^2)
772: - m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{d_i}^2) ] \, C_{12}
773: \right\} \,, \\
774: %
775: %
776: A_{\gamma,2\mathrm{c}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
777: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
778: m_c C_0 + m_c C_1 + m_c C_2
779: \right\} \,, \\
780: B_{\gamma,2\mathrm{c}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
781: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
782: - m_c C_0 - m_c C_1 - m_c C_2
783: \right\} \,, \\
784: %
785: %
786: A_{\gamma,2\mathrm{d}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
787: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
788: - m_t C_2
789: \right\} \,, \\
790: B_{\gamma,2\mathrm{d}} & = & \frac{g^2 e}{4} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
791: V_{2i} V_{3i}^* \left\{
792: - m_t C_2
793: \right\} \,.
794: \end{eqnarray}
795: Here the arguments of the functions are
796: $C(m_t^2,m_c^2,0,M_W^2,{\overline m}_{d_i}^2,M_W^2)$. In Model I the
797: contributions from diagrams (3a) and (3b) with internal quarks $u_i$ are
798: \begin{eqnarray}
799: A_{\gamma,3\mathrm{a}} & = & \frac{Q_i g^2 e}{4 c_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
800: \left\{ \ZLLi \left[
801: - (m_t + m_c) \, C_0 - (2 m_t + m_c) \, C_1 - (m_t + 2 m_c) \, C_2
802: \right. \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
803: & & \left. \left.
804: - m_t C_{11} - (m_t + m_c) \, C_{12} - m_c C_{22}
805: \right]
806: + (\ZLRi + \ZRLi) \, 2 {\overline m}_{u_i} \left[ C_0 + C_1 + C_2
807: \right] \right\} \,,
808: \nonumber \\
809: %
810: B_{\gamma,3\mathrm{a}} & = & \frac{Q_i g^2 e}{4 c_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
811: \left\{ \ZLLi \left[
812: - (m_t - m_c) \, C_0 - (2 m_t - m_c) \, C_1 - (m_t - 2 m_c) \, C_2
813: \right. \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
814: & & \left. \left.
815: - m_t C_{11} - (m_t - m_c) \, C_{12} + m_c C_{22} \right]
816: + (\ZLRi - \ZRLi) \, 2 {\overline m}_{u_i} \left[ C_0 + C_1 + C_2 \right]
817: \right\} \,,
818: \nonumber \\
819: %
820: %
821: A_{\gamma,3\mathrm{b}} & = & \frac{Q_i g^2 e}{8 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
822: X^u_{2i} X^u_{i3} \left\{
823: - m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_1
824: + m_t ({\overline m}_{u_i}^2 - m_c^2) \, C_2
825: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
826: & &
827: - (m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 + m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
828: - \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2)
829: + m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \right] \, C_{12}
830: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
831: & & \left.
832: - (m_t m_c^2 + m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_{22}
833: \right\} \,, \\
834: B_{\gamma,3\mathrm{b}} & = & \frac{Q_i g^2 e}{8 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
835: X^u_{2i} X^u_{i3} \left\{
836: + m_c (m_t^2 - {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_1
837: + m_t ({\overline m}_{u_i}^2 - m_c^2) \, C_2
838: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
839: & &
840: - (m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 - m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
841: - \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2)
842: - m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \right] \, C_{12}
843: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
844: & & \left.
845: - (m_t m_c^2 - m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_{22}
846: \right\} \,.
847: \end{eqnarray}
848: The constants $\ZLLi$, $\ZLRi$ and $\ZRLi$ are products of left-handed and
849: right-handed couplings between $(c,i)$ and $(i,t)$,
850: \begin{eqnarray}
851: \ZLLi & = & \left( X^u_{ci} - \delta_{ci} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right)
852: \left( X^u_{it} - \delta_{it} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right) \,, \nonumber \\
853: \ZLRi & = & \left( X^u_{ci} - \delta_{ci} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right)
854: \left( - \delta_{it} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right)\,, \nonumber \\
855: \ZRLi & = & \left( - \delta_{ci} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right)
856: \left( X^u_{it} - \delta_{it} \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \right) \,,
857: \end{eqnarray}
858: with $\delta_{ij} = 1$ if $i=j$ and zero otherwise.
859: For these diagrams the arguments of the functions are
860: $C(m_t^2,0,m_c^2,M_Z^2,{\overline m}_{u_i}^2,{\overline m}_{u_i}^2)$.
861: Finally, the Higgs
862: contribution in diagram (3c) reads
863: \begin{eqnarray}
864: A_{\gamma,3\mathrm{c}} & = & -\frac{Q_i g^2 e}{8 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
865: X^u_{2i} X^u_{i3} \left\{
866: \left[ 2 m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 + m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2)
867: \right] \, C_1
868: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
869: & &
870: + \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) + 2 m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2
871: \right] \, C_2 + (m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 + m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
872: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
873: & & \left.
874: + \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2)
875: + m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \right] \, C_{12}
876: + (m_t m_c^2 + m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_{22}
877: \right\} \,, \\
878: %
879: B_{\gamma,3\mathrm{c}} & = & -\frac{Q_i g^2 e}{8 M_W^2} \frac{1}{16 \pi^2}
880: X^u_{2i} X^u_{i3} \left\{
881: \left[ 2 m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 - m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2)
882: \right]\, C_1
883: \right. \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
884: & &
885: + \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) - 2 m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2
886: \right] \, C_2 + (m_t {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 - m_c m_t^2) \, C_{11}
887: \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
888: & & \left.
889: + \left[ m_t (m_c^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2 )
890: - m_c (m_t^2 + {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \right] \, C_{12}
891: + (m_t m_c^2 - m_c {\overline m}_{u_i}^2) \, C_{22}
892: \right\} \,,
893: \end{eqnarray}
894: where the functions are
895: $C(m_t^2,0,m_c^2,M_H^2,{\overline m}_{u_i}^2,{\overline m}_{u_i}^2)$. We take
896: $M_H = 115$ GeV. For $t \to c g$ the extra contributions in Model I can be
897: obtained replacing $e$ by $g_s$ and setting $Q_i=1$.
898:
899:
900:
901:
902:
903: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
904:
905: \bibitem{papiro1}
906: M. Beneke {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0003033
907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
908:
909: \bibitem{papiro2}
910: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\em et al.} [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group
911: Collaboration], hep-ph/0106315
912: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
913:
914: \bibitem{papiro3}
915: G. Eilam, J. L. Hewett and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44} (1991) 1473
916: [Erratum-ibid. {\bf D59} (1999) 039901];
917: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
918: J. L. Hewett, T. Takeuchi and S. Thomas, in ``Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and
919: Beyond the Standard Model'', ed. T. Barklow {\em et al.}, World Scientific 1996
920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603391;%%
921:
922: \bibitem{papiro4}
923: D. Atwood, L. Reina and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 3156
924: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609279;%%
925:
926: \bibitem{papiro5}
927: G. M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B504}
928: (1997) 45
929: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704244;%%
930:
931: \bibitem{papiro6}
932: J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and R. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997)
933: 3100
934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702350;%%
935:
936: \bibitem{papiro7}
937: F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}
938: (1999) 1628
939: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808400;%%
940:
941: \bibitem{papiro8}
942: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, hep-ph/0210112, Phys. Rev. {\bf D} (in press)
943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210112;%%
944:
945: \bibitem{papiro21}
946: G. Abbiendi {\em et al.} [OPAL Collaboration], Phys. Lett. {\bf B521}
947: (2001) 181
948: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110009;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{papiro17a}
951: T. Han, R. D. Peccei and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B454} (1995) 527
952: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506461;%%
953: \bibitem{papiro17b}
954: F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and Ll. Ametller, Phys. Lett. {\bf B462}
955: (1999) 310
956: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906462;%%
957: \bibitem{papiro17c}
958: F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B576} (2000) 56
959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909222;%%
960:
961: \bibitem{papiro18a}
962: T. Han and J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 074015
963: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811237;%%
964: \bibitem{papiro18b}
965: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Lett. {\bf B502} (2001) 115
966: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012305;%%
967: \bibitem{papiro18c}
968: J.-j. Cao, Z.-h. Xiong and J. M. Yang, hep-ph/0208035
969: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208035;%%
970:
971: \bibitem{papiro9a}
972: F. del Aguila and M. J. Bowick, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B224} (1983) 107
973: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B224,107;%%
974:
975: \bibitem{papiro9b}
976: G. C. Branco and L. Lavoura, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B278} (1986) 738
977: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B278,738;%%
978:
979: \bibitem{papiro10}
980: G. Passarino and M. J. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160} (1979) 151
981: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B160,151;%%
982:
983: \bibitem{papiro11}
984: J. A. Vermaseren, math-ph/0010025
985: %%CITATION = MATH-PH 0010025;%%
986:
987: \bibitem{papiro12}
988: T. Hahn and M. P\'erez-Victoria, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 118} (1999) 153
989: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
990:
991: \bibitem{papiro13}
992: H. Fusaoka and Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 3986
993: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712201;%%
994:
995: \bibitem{papiro14}
996: K. Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}
997: (2002) 010001
998: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
999:
1000: \bibitem{papiro15a}
1001: L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51} (1983) 1945
1002: %%CITATION = PRLTA,51,1945;%%
1003:
1004: \bibitem{papiro15}
1005: G. Barenboim, F. J. Botella and O. Vives, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B613} (2001) 285
1006: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105306;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{papiro16}
1009: F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B510}
1010: (1998) 39
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703410;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{papiro22}
1014: D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A. Soni, Phys. Rept. {\bf 347} (2001) 1
1015: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006032;%%
1016:
1017: \bibitem{papiro19}
1018: T. Han, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 7241
1019: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603247;%%
1020:
1021: \bibitem{papiro20}
1022: M. Hosch, K. Whisnant and B.-L. Young, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 5725
1023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806486;%%
1024:
1025: \end{thebibliography}
1026: \end{document}
1027: