1: %%%%%%% a.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: % For the arxiv
3: \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,npb,epsfig]{article}
4: \pagestyle{empty}
5: %
6: % put your own definitions here:
7: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
8: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
9: % ...
10: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
11: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
12: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
13:
14: \def\Bv{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $B$}}}
15: \def\Lv{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $L$}}}
16:
17: \def \rpv{{R\hspace{-0.22cm}/}_P}
18:
19: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
20: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
21: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
23: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
24: \def\n{\noindent}
25:
26: \def \zbs{{Z\to b\bar{s}}}
27: \def \zsb{{Z\to b\bar{s}}}
28:
29: \def \st{\tilde{t}}
30: \def \sc{\tilde{c}}
31: \def \sb{\tilde{b}}
32: \def \ss{\tilde{s}}
33:
34: \def \su{\tilde{u}}
35: \def \sd{\tilde{d}}
36: \def \sq{\tilde{q}}
37: \def \slep{\tilde{\ell}}
38:
39: \def \se{\tilde{e}}
40: \def \snu{\tilde{\nu}}
41:
42: \def \Dt{\tilde{D}}
43: \def \Ut{\tilde{U}}
44:
45: \def\gsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel >\over\sim\:$}}
46: \def\lsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel <\over\sim\:$}}
47:
48: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
49: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed}
50:
51: % declarations for front matter
52: \title{Rare $Z$ Decays
53: \thanks{Talk presented at RADCOR and Loops and Legs in Quantum Field
54: Theory 2002.}
55: }
56:
57: \author{Gad Eilam\address{Department of Physics, Technion--Israel
58: Institute of Technology, \\
59: 32000, Haifa, Israel}
60: \thanks{Based on work done in collaboration with D. Atwood,
61: S. Bar-Shalom and A. Soni \cite{ourZbs}.}}
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: Motivated by the well known impact of rare decays of hadrons
67: and leptons on the evolution
68: of the Standard Model and on limits for new physics, as well
69: as by the proposal for Giga-$Z$ option at TESLA, we investigate
70: the rare decay $Z \to b {\bar s}$ in various extensions of the
71: Standard Model.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: % typeset front matter (including abstract)
75: \maketitle
76:
77: %1
78: \section{INTRODUCTION}
79:
80: The central role played by rare decays on our understanding of
81: elementary particle physics, is well known, where ``rare''
82: stands here for Flavor Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC), which are
83: either small or practically vanishing in the SM. Some highlights:
84: are:\\
85: 1. In $K$ physics: The first appearance of charm in loops from
86: which $m_c\approx 1.5$ GeV was predicted \cite{Gaill73}.\\
87: 2. In $B$ physics: The importance of $b \to s\gamma$
88: in the SM and for extracting limits
89: on Beyond the SM (BSM) scenarios \cite{Lunghi}.\\
90: 3. The top quark FCNC provide an excellent tool to
91: investigate various extensions of the SM \cite{toprare}.\\
92: 4. The experimental upper limit of the decay $\mu \to e\gamma$
93: \cite{mutoegam}, places
94: severe limits on extensions of the SM.
95:
96: In view of the above and prompted by the recent discussion of a
97: Giga-$Z$ option at TESLA \cite{GigaZ} in which the center-of-mass energy will
98: be lowered to $M_Z$, producing more than $10^9$ $Z$ bosons ({\it i.e.}
99: $\sim 100$ times the number produced at LEP), one should
100: investigate rare decays of $Z$s. Now since the important subject
101: of rare leptonic $Z\to \ell_I {\bar \ell}_J,~\ell_I\neq\ell_J$ decays,
102: for which the SM branching ratio is $\leq 10^{-54}$, was covered
103: by Illana \cite{Illana}, we concentrate here on purely hadronic FCNC
104: $Z \to d_I {\bar d}_J,~d_I\neq d_J$ decays. In fact we only discuss
105: $Z \to b{\bar s}$ which in most models, including the SM, has the
106: largest branching ratio among hadronic FCNC $Z$ decays. Note however
107: that experimentally, the latter is practically inseparable from
108: the $b{\bar d}$ mode. Let us also note that when referring
109: to the $b{\bar s}$ mode, we actually mean $Z \to b{\bar s}+{\bar b}s$.
110: We note here that in the SM \cite{SMzbs}
111: ${\rm BR}(\zbs)\approx 3\times 10^{-8}$.
112:
113: In the following sections we will discuss two variants
114: of 2 Higgs Doublet Models (2HDM) and two of Supersymmetry (SUSY).
115: Of the latter the first one will be: SUSY with squark mixing,
116: while in the second one FCNC will result from SUSY with R Parity Violation
117: (denoted by RPV, or $\rpv$).
118: As we will see, ${\rm BR}(\zbs)$
119: can be either smaller, the same or above the SM with
120: a maximal value of ${\rm BR}(\zbs)\approx 10^{-6}$.
121:
122: Experimentally, the attention devoted to FCNC in hadronic $Z$ decays
123: at LEP and SLD has been close to nil.
124: The best upper limit is \cite{DELPHI}
125: $\sum_{q=d,s}\rm{BR}(Z\to b {\bar q})\leq 1.8 \times 10^{-3}~@
126: ~90\%~CL$.
127: This is a preliminary DELPHI limit (which will probably remain as
128: such forever...)
129: based on about $3.5\times 10^6$ hadronic decays. Experimentalists
130: who are privy to LEP and SLD data should be
131: encouraged to look in their data and improve the above limit.
132:
133: Due to space limitations, the following discussion of various
134: BSM models and their predictions for ${\rm Br}(\zbs)$, will be
135: sketchy. Many more details and a more complete set of references
136: can be found in \cite{ourZbs}. In fact, almost each reference
137: should start with: ``See {\it e.g.}$\dots$'' and end with:
138: ``$\dots$ and references therein.''
139:
140: %2
141: \section{GENERIC CALCULATION}
142:
143: We start with a generic calculation of the diagrams which modify (at
144: one loop) the $V d_I {\bar d}_J$ vertex, due to charged or neutral scalar,
145: as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
146: In our case $V=Z$, $d_I=b$
147: and ${\bar d}_J={\bar s}$.
148: The indices $i,j$ and $\alpha,\beta$ indicate
149: which fermions and scalars we are considering,
150: respectively.
151: \begin{figure}
152: %\begin{center}
153: %\includegraphics[height=10cm,angle=0]{fig1.eps}\\
154: \hspace*{0.7cm}
155: \includegraphics[height=9cm,angle=0]{fig1.eps}\\
156: %\end{center}
157: \caption{\label{fig1} One-loop diagrams that contribute to the
158: flavor changing transition $V \to d_I \bar d_J$, due to scalar-fermion
159: exchanges.}
160: \end{figure}
161: %\begin{figure}
162: %\includegraphics{fig1.eps}
163: %\caption{\label{fig1} One-loop diagrams that contribute to the
164: %flavor changing transition $V \to d_I \bar d_J$, due to scalar-fermion
165: %exchanges.}
166: %\end{figure}
167: The Feynman rules are:\\
168: $V_\mu f_I f_J:~~i \gamma_\mu \left( a_{L(Vf)}^{ij} L +
169: a_{R(Vf)}^{ij} R \right)$\\
170: $V_\mu S_\alpha S_\beta:~~i g_V^{\alpha \beta}
171: \left( p_\alpha - p_\beta \right)_\mu$\\
172: $S_\alpha d_J f_i:~~i \left(
173: b_{L(\alpha)}^{ij} L + b_{R(\alpha)}^{ij} R \right)$,\\
174: where $L(R)=[1-(+)\gamma_5/]2$.\\
175: There are 4 one-loop amplitudes, each corresponding
176: to one of the 4 one-loop diagrams. Each amplitude is proportional
177: to $\epsilon_\mu (q)$ times\\
178: $\bar u(p_b)
179: \left[ \gamma^\mu \left( A_L L + A_R R \right) +
180: \left( B_L L + B_R R \right) p_\mu \right] v(p_s).$ $A_{L,R},~B_{L,R}$ are
181: momentum dependent form factors, calculable from the diagrams.
182: There are 4 per diagram, thus we have 16 form factors.
183: $A_L$ for diagram (1) is: \\
184: $A_L = -2 \sum_{\alpha,\beta,i}
185: g_Z^{\alpha \beta} b_{L(\alpha)}^{iI}
186: b_{L(\beta)}^{iJ} C_{24}$,\\
187: and similarly for the other 15 form factors.
188: $C_{24}$ is one of the usual one-loop scalar functions \cite{Pas:Velt} at
189: $m_{f_i}^2,m_{S_\alpha}^2,m_{S_\beta}^2,
190: m_{d_I}^2,q^2,m_{d_J}^2.$\\
191: Finally:
192: \begin{eqnarray*}
193: \Gamma(Z\to b \bar s) =
194: 2\frac{N_C}{3} \left( \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \right)^2
195: \frac{M_Z}{16 \pi} \times
196: \left[ 2 \left( \mid A_L^T \mid^2
197: \right.\right. \\
198: \left.\left.
199: + \mid A_R^T \mid^2 \right)
200: +\frac{M_Z^2}{4} \left( \mid B_L^T \mid^2 + \mid B_R^T \mid^2 \right)
201: \right] ,
202: \end{eqnarray*}
203: where $A_L^T$ is the Total sum of $A_L$s from the 4
204: diagrams, and similarly for $A_R^T$, $B_L^T$ and $B_R^T$.
205:
206: %3
207: \section{MODELS AND PREDICTIONS}
208:
209: The stage is now ready for identifying, for each
210: model, the relevant scalars $S_\alpha$, fermions $f_i$ and the
211: couplings $a,b~\rm{and}~g$ (with the appropriate indices),
212: as expressed in the Feynman rules above. Then, the route
213: for obtaining $\Gamma(\zbs)$ using the generic equation in
214: the previous section is clear.
215:
216: %3.1
217: \subsection{Two Higgs doublet models}
218:
219: In 2HDM with flavor diagonal couplings of the neutral Higgs
220: to down-quarks, the FCNC $\zbs$ go
221: through the one-loop
222: diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig1}. The scalars are the charged Higgs bosons,
223: $S_{\alpha=1}=H^+$ and the fermions are $f_i=u_i,~i=1,2,3$.
224: The couplings are:
225: $Z_\mu u_i \bar u_j$ is as in the SM (therefore only $i=j$ survives),
226: $Z_\mu H^+ H^-$ is derived from the kinetic energy part of the
227: Lagrangian ${\cal L}$ and $H^+ \bar u_i d_j$ is obtained from the
228: Yukawa part which, in common notation is \cite{our_rev}:
229: \begin{eqnarray*}
230: {\cal L}_Y &=& - \sum_{i,j} \bar Q_L^i
231: \left[ \left(U_{ij}^1 \tilde\Phi_1 +U_{ij}^2 \tilde\Phi_2 \right) u^j_R
232: \right. \\
233: && \left. +
234: \left(D_{ij}^1 \Phi_1 +D_{ij}^2 \Phi_2 \right) d^j_R \right].
235: \end{eqnarray*}
236: A choice of $U$ and $D$, which are
237: $3 \times 3$ matrices in flavor space, leads to
238: a specific 2HDM. We now study two variants of 2HDM.
239:
240: %3.1.1
241: \subsubsection{Two Higgs doublet model of type II}
242: %\n {\bf 3.1.1 Two Higgs doublet model of type II}\\
243: In this model, called 2HDMII, $U^1=D^1=0$, $\zbs$ was considered before
244: \cite{our4}. Using realistic values in the $\tan{\beta}-m_{H^+}$ plane,
245: we obtain: $\rm{BR}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-10}$, two orders of magnitude below
246: the SM.
247:
248: %3.1.2
249: \subsubsection{Two Higgs doublet model ``for top''}
250: %\n {\bf 3.1.2 Two Higgs doublet model ``for the top}\\
251: In this variant \cite{our17:19}, named T2HDM, the top is rewarded for
252: its ``fatness'' by having its mass proportional to the large $v_2$,
253: while all other masses are proportional to $v_1$. It therefore makes
254: sense to consider here only $\tan{\beta}>>1$. Using T2HDM parameters
255: consistent with data we find: $\rm{BR}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-8}$.
256:
257: %3.2
258: \subsection{Supersymmetry with squark mixing}
259:
260: FCNC in SUSY can emanate from squark mixing in:
261:
262: \begin{eqnarray*}
263: &{\cal L}_{\rm{soft}}^{\rm {squark}}&=
264: -\tilde Q_i^\dagger (M_Q^2)_{ij} \tilde Q_j
265: -\tilde U_i^\dagger (M_U^2)_{ij} \tilde U_j\\
266: &-&\hspace{-0.5em}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\tilde D_i^\dagger (M_D^2)_{ij} \tilde D_j
267: +A_u^{ij} \tilde Q_i H_u \tilde U_j+A_d^{ij} \tilde Q_i H_d \tilde D_j
268: ~,
269: \end{eqnarray*}
270:
271: \n with the usual notation for the squark fields \cite{ourZbs}
272: and where $i,j$ are generation indices. Furthermore,
273:
274: $M_{U, D}^2 =
275: \left(
276: \begin{array}{cc}
277: (m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{LL} & (m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{LR} \\
278: (m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{LR}^\dagger & (m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{RR}
279: \end{array}
280: \right),$\\
281: \noindent where
282: $(m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{LL}$ ...
283: are $3\times 3$ matrices.
284: Under certain assumptions \cite{our20} and taking only
285: $\sb-\ss$ or $\st-\sc$ mixing into account:
286:
287: \begin{eqnarray*}
288: (m_{\tilde U,\tilde D}^2)_{LL,RR}=
289: \pmatrix{
290: 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
291: 0 & 1 & \delta^{U,D(23)}_{LL,RR} \cr
292: 0 & \delta^{U,D(32)}_{LL,RR} & 1 } m_0^2 ~.
293: \end{eqnarray*}
294:
295: The above $\delta$s represent squark mixing from non-diagonal
296: bilinears in $\cal L$. $m_0$ is a common squarks mass scale, obeying:
297: $m_0>>M_Z$. Also,
298: $\delta_{LR}$s will stand for squark mixing from non-diagonal
299: trilinears in $\cal L$ \cite{ourZbs}.
300: For them we adopt the Ansatz of \cite{our21},
301: leading to $\delta_{LR}\propto vA/m_0^2$,
302: where $A$ is a common trilinear soft breaking parameter for both up
303: and down squarks.
304: $M^2_{D,U}$ become $4\times 4$ matrices in the weak bases
305: $\Phi^0_{D,U}=
306: (\ss_L,\ss_R,\sb_L,\sb_R),~(\sc_L,\sc_R,\st_L,\st_R).$
307: They are diagonalized to obtain the mass eigenstates
308: $\Phi_{D,U}=
309: (\ss_1,\ss_2,\sb_1,\sb_2),~(\sc_1,\sc_2,\st_1,\st_2),$
310: with the help of $R_{U,D}$ which rotates
311: $\Phi$ to $\Phi^0$.
312:
313: We can now describe two cases of squark mixing: $\sb-\ss$
314: and $\st-\sc$ mixing.
315:
316: %3.2.1
317: \subsubsection{${\tilde b}-{\tilde s}$ mixing}
318: %\n {\bf 3.2.1 $\sb-\ss$ mixing}\\
319: The scalars here are $S_\alpha=\Phi_{D,\alpha},~\alpha=1,2,3,4$,
320: since $\sb-\ss$ admixture states run in the loops.
321: The gluon is the only fermion in the loops, thus $f_i={\tilde g}$. The $a$
322: couplings are $0$, since $Z{\tilde g}{\tilde g}=0$. In other words,
323: one diagram (out of the four generic diagrams) vanishes.
324: The $b$ and $g$ couplings are functions of elements of the rotation
325: matrix $R_D$ mentioned above \cite{our22}. Since the two $\delta_{LR}
326: \lsim 10^{-2}$ \cite{our23}, we neglect them. For the other four
327: $\delta$s we assume a common value, {\it i.e.}
328: $\delta^{D(23)}_{LL}=\delta^{D(32)}_{LL}=\delta^{D(23)}_{RR}=
329: \delta^{D(32)}_{RR}=\delta^D$, and vary
330: $0 < \delta^D < 1$.
331:
332: The parameters needed for masses, mixing and
333: $\Gamma(Z\to b \bar s)$ are:
334: $m_0,~\mu,~A,~\tan\beta,~m_{\tilde g}$ and $\delta^D$.
335: We vary them subject to $m_{\rm squarks}> 150$ GeV and
336: have plots of practically everything as a function of everything \cite{ourZbs}.
337:
338: We find $\rm{BR}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-6}$, where the
339: highest value is attained for $m_{\tilde g}$ and one $m_{\tilde d_i}$
340: $\approx$ the EW scale,
341: while $m_{\tilde d_j}$, $j\ne i$ $\approx$ few TeV.
342: Such splitting
343: requires ``heavy'' SUSY mass scale with soft breaking parameters,
344: which is consistent with the non-observability of SUSY particles so far.
345:
346: %3.2.2
347: \subsubsection{${\tilde t}-{\tilde c}$ mixing}
348: %\n {\bf 3.2.2 $\st-\sc$ mixing}\\
349: In this scenario the
350: scalars are $S_\alpha=\Phi_{U,\alpha},~\alpha=1,2,3,4$, similarly
351: to the previous case, except for $D\to U$. Obviously,
352: $\st-\sc$ admixture states run in the loops. The loop fermions
353: are the two charginos $f_i=\chi_i,~i=1,2$, and all
354: four generic diagrams contribute to $\zbs$. The Feynman rules
355: \cite{our22} involve elements of the rotation matrix $R_U$
356: mentioned above and the chargino mixing matrices.
357:
358: At the end of the day, running with the parameters
359: over all values consistent with the data, and with $m_{\tilde q}
360: >150$ GeV and $m_\chi>100$ GeV we obtain:
361: $\rm{BR}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-8}$, which we could have anticipated since
362: BR(through $\st-\sc$ mixing): BR(through $\sb-\ss$ mixing)
363: $\approx \alpha:\alpha_s$.
364:
365: %3.3
366: \subsection{Supersymmetry with RPV}
367:
368: Since there is no sacred principle which guarantees R-parity
369: conservation, we assume
370: in this part of the talk that $R_P$ is violated. Then,
371: $\rpv$ terms in the SUSY superpotential $\cal W$
372: lead to FCNC. $\lambda$ terms (pure $\Lv$) in
373: $\cal W$ are irrelevant at the 1-loop level. In addition
374: we assume, for the pure $\Bv$ terms, that
375: $\lambda^{\prime \prime} << \lambda^\prime$, and also neglect the
376: bilinear term in the $\rpv$ part of $\cal W$.
377: Then:
378: ${\cal W}_{RPV} = \epsilon_{ab}
379: \lambda_{ijk}^\prime {\hat L}^a_i {\hat Q}^b_j {\hat D}_k^c.$
380: In addition, if
381: $\rpv$ is OK then the $R_P$ conserving soft SUSY breaking is
382: extended. We need only the bilinear:
383: $V_{RPV} = \epsilon_{ab} b_i {\tilde L}^a_i H_u^b$,
384: where
385: $\tilde L$, $H_u$ are the scalar components of the hatted $L$ and
386: $H_u$, respectively.
387: We therefore have two types of FCNC:\\
388: {\bf Type A:} Trilinear-trilinear:
389: $\Gamma(\zbs) \propto (\lambda^\prime \lambda^\prime)^2$.\\
390: {\bf Type B:} Trilinear-bilinear:
391: $\Gamma(\zbs) \propto (b \lambda^\prime)^2$.
392:
393: %3.3.1
394: \subsubsection{Type A: Trilinear-trilinear terms}
395: %\n {\bf 3.3.1 Type A: Trilinear-trilinear terms}\\
396: We further sub-divide type A contributions to 6 groups according to the
397: scalars and fermions running in the loops. For instance, in
398: type A1 the scalars are $S_\alpha={\tilde e}_
399: {L,\alpha},~\alpha=1,2,3$ and the fermions are $f_i=u_i,~i=1,2,3$.
400: The $a$ couplings are identical to their SM values, $b_L=0$ (for
401: all $i,j$ and $\alpha$), $b_{R(\alpha)}^{i,j}=-\lambda_{\alpha i j}^
402: {\prime *}$ and $g_Z^{\alpha \beta}=-e(c^2_W-s^2_W)\delta_{\alpha\beta}/
403: 2 s_W c_W$. Unfortunately, going over all type A groups, taking into
404: account the available limits on $\lambda{^\prime}$s and on
405: the other relevant parameters, we obtain
406: for the trilinear-trilinear case: $\rm{BR}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-10}$.
407: Our results are in agreement with the special cases in \cite{our6}.
408:
409: %3.3.2
410: \subsubsection{Type B: Trilinear-bilinear terms}
411: %\n {\bf 3.3.2 Type B: Trilinear-bilinear terms}\\
412: In this case, a Higgs exchanged in the loop mixes with a slepton, through
413: $\epsilon_{ab} b_3 {\tilde L}^a_3 H_u^b$,
414: assuming that only $b_3 \ne 0$.
415: We choose to work in the ``no VEV'' basis
416: $v_3=0$ in which:
417: $H_{u} \equiv \left(h_u^+,~ (\xi_{u}^0 + v_{u} +
418: i \phi_{u}^0)/\sqrt{2} \right),$
419: $H_{d} \equiv \left((\xi_{d}^0 + v_{d} + i \phi_{d}^0)/\sqrt{2},~
420: h_d^- \right),$
421: $\tilde L_3 \equiv \left((\tilde\nu_{+}^0 + i
422: \tilde\nu_{-}^0)/\sqrt{2}~, \tilde e_{3}^- \right),$
423: where $\tilde\nu_{+}^0$, $\tilde\nu_{-}^0$,
424: $\tilde e_{3}^-$ are
425: SU(2) CP-even, CP-odd $\tau$-sneutrinos,
426: ${\tilde \tau}_L$, respectively.
427: In the basis $\Phi_C^0 = (h_u^+,h_d^+,\tilde e_{3}^+)$
428: we wrote the mass matrix in the charged scalar sector,
429: in the basis $\Phi_E^0 = (\xi_d^0,\xi_u^0,{\tilde\nu}^0_+)$
430: we wrote the mass matrix in the CP-even neutral scalar sector, and
431: in the basis $\Phi_O^0 = (\phi^0_d,\phi^0_u,{\tilde\nu}^0_-)$
432: we wrote the mass matrix in the CP-odd neutral scalar sector.
433:
434: The new charged scalar and CP-even and CP-odd neutral scalar
435: mass-eigenstates are obtained
436: by diagonalizing the above-mentioned matrices. They are:
437: $\Phi_C = \left(H^+, G^+, \tilde\tau^+\right),
438: \Phi_E = \left(H, h, \tilde\nu_+^\tau\right)$, and
439: $\Phi_O = \left(A, G^0, \tilde\nu_-^\tau\right)$.
440: In the limit $b_3 \to 0$:
441: $H,h,A,H^+$ become the usual ones.
442: Rotating with the diagonalizing $R_{C,E,O}$ (for Charged, Even-CP,
443: Odd-CP) matrices, one goes from the $\Phi$s to the $\Phi^0$s.
444: All depends on the four parameters
445: $A^0,~m_{s\nu}^0$ (the masses in the limit $b_3 \to 0,$),
446: $b_3$ and $\tan\beta$.
447:
448: Let us sub-divide type B into two types according to the
449: scalar and fermion in the loop:\\
450: \underline{Type B1:} Here $S_\alpha=\Phi_{C,\alpha};~f_i=u_i$
451: with $\alpha=1,3;~i=1,2,3$.
452: The $a$ couplings are equal to their values in the SM.
453: The $b$ couplings include elements of the rotation
454: matrix (for the charged fields) $R_C$ and $\lambda^\prime$,
455: and $g_Z^{\alpha\beta}=-e\cot{2\theta_W}\delta_{\alpha\beta}.$\\
456: \underline{Type B2:} In this case
457: $S_\alpha=\Phi_{E,\alpha}$ and $\Phi_{O,\beta};~
458: f_i=d_i$ with $\alpha=1,2,3$, and $\beta=1,3;~ i=1,2,3$.
459: This is the only case for which our generic form is insufficient.
460: This fact results from the appearance of two new diagrams proportional
461: to a scalar-vector-vector coupling ($ZZ\Phi_E$ in our case). The
462: other eight diagrams are special cases of the generic ones in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
463:
464: Inserting parameters consistent with the data we found
465: that for type B: ${\rm Br}(\zbs)\lsim 10^{-6}$.
466:
467: %4
468: \section{EXPERIMENTAL FEASIBILITY}
469:
470: Let us briefly comment about the
471: feasibility of observing
472: (or limiting) a signal of $BR(Z \to b \bar s)\sim
473: 10^{-6}$, at a Linear Collider producing $10^9$ Z-bosons.
474: Such a signal leads to
475: one $b$-jet
476: and one $q$-jet, where $q$ stands for quarks lighter than $b$.
477: The main background is from $Z\to b{\bar b}$. Using what,
478: we think, are realistic efficiencies we find that
479: a new physics signal $Z \to b \bar s$, with
480: a branching ratio of order $10^{-6}$, can reach beyond
481: the 3-sigma level \cite{ourZbs}.
482: We can also get a clue about how low one can go in the value
483: (or limit) of $BR(Z\to b \bar s)$ with $10^9$ Z-bosons, from the fact that
484: the DELPHI preliminary result reached \cite{DELPHI}
485: $BR(Z\to b \bar s) < {\cal O}(10^{-3})$
486: with ${\cal O}(10^{6})$ $Z$-bosons.
487: Scaling this limit, especially with the expected advances in $b$-tagging
488: and identification of non-$b$ jets methods, an ${\cal O}(10^{-6})$ branching
489: ratios should be easily attained at a Giga-$Z$ factory.
490: One needs realistic simulations as feasibility studies for this important
491: rare $Z$ decay mode.
492:
493: %5
494: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
495:
496: Our results are best summarized in Table 1 which shows the best
497: values for ${\rm Br}(\zbs)$ in
498: extensions of the SM discussed in this talk. The
499: SM result is given for comparison. Note that we have not included
500: interference with the SM as each of the values ``stands alone''.
501: In some cases such interference may increase the branching ratio
502: to $\sim 10^{-7}$.
503: \begin{table}[hbt]
504: \caption{Maximal ${\rm Br}(\zbs)$ in extensions of the SM}
505: \begin{tabular}{lll}
506: \hline
507: % ~ & ~ & \\
508: {\bf model} & {\bf scalars in loop }& {\bf Br} \\
509: % ~ & ~ & \\
510: \hline
511: % ~ & ~ & \\
512: SM & $W^+$ (no scalars) & $3\times 10^{-8}$ \\
513: % ~ & ~ & \\
514: %\hline
515: 2HDMII & $H^+$ & $10^{-10}$ \\
516: % ~ & ~ & \\
517: %\hline
518: T2HDM & $H^+$ & $10^{-8}$ \\
519: % ~ & ~ & \\
520: %\hline
521: $\sb$-$\ss$ mix & $\sb$-$\ss$ admix & $10^{-6}$ \\
522: % ~ & ~ & \\
523: %\hline
524: $\st$-$\sc$ mix & $\st$-$\sc$ admix & $10^{-8}$ \\
525: % ~ & ~ & \\
526: %\hline
527: tri-tri $\rpv$ & $\sq,\snu,\slep$ & $10^{-10}$ \\
528: %~ & ~ & \\
529: %\hline
530: tri-bi $\rpv$ & $\snu$-$h,H,A$ admix &$10^{-6}$ \\
531: %~ & ~ & \\
532: \hline
533: \end{tabular}
534: \end{table}
535:
536: We conclude that Giga-$Z$ experiments will have the opportunity to
537: place significant limits, or hopefully discover the scenario beyond
538: the SM, by searching for hadronic (and leptonic \cite{Illana})
539: neutral current flavor changing transitions.\\
540:
541: \n {\it Acknowledgements}:\\
542: I would like to thank my collaborators, especially Shaouly Bar-Shalom,
543: for teaching me so much. I would also like to express my appreciation to
544: the organizers of the meeting for a job well done. Thanks also
545: to members of the theory group in DESY (Hamburg) who gave me the peace
546: of mind I needed to prepare my talk. This research was supported in
547: part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, by the Israel
548: Science Foundation and by the Fund for Promotion of Research at the
549: Technion.
550:
551: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
552: %1
553: \bibitem{ourZbs} D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A. Soni,
554: Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 093005.
555:
556: %2
557: %\cite{Gaillard:1974hs}
558: \bibitem{Gaill73}
559: M.K.~Gaillard and B.W.~Lee,
560: %``Rare Decay Modes Of The K - Mesons In Gauge Theories,''
561: Phys.\ Rev.\ D10 (1974) 897.
562: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,897;%%
563:
564: %3
565: \bibitem{Lunghi}
566: %\bibitem{Lunghi:2002pm}
567: E.~Lunghi,
568: %``Improved model-independent analysis of semileptonic and radiative rare B decays,''
569: hep-ph/0210379.
570: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210379;%%
571:
572: %4
573: \bibitem{toprare} B. Mele, hep-ph/0003064.
574:
575: %5
576: \bibitem{mutoegam}
577: %\cite{Kuno:1999jp}
578: %\bibitem{Kuno:1999jp}
579: Y.~Kuno and Y.~Okada,
580: %``Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,''
581: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 73} (2001) 151
582: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9909265].
583: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909265;%%
584:
585: %6
586: \bibitem{GigaZ} J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},
587: ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group, hep-ph/0106315.
588:
589: %7
590: \bibitem{Illana} J.I Illana, these proceedings.
591:
592: %8
593: \bibitem{SMzbs}
594: %\cite{Mann:dv}
595: %\bibitem{Mann:dv}
596: G.~Mann and T.~Riemann,
597: %``Effective Flavor Changing Weak Neutral Current In The Standard Theory And Z Boson Decay,''
598: Annalen Phys.\ {\bf 40} (1984) 334;
599: %%CITATION = ANPYA,40,334;%%
600: M. Clements {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 570;
601: V. Ganapathi {\it et al.}, {\it ibid.} {\bf D27} 1983) 579.
602:
603: %9
604: \bibitem{DELPHI}
605: J. Fuster, F. Martinez-Vidal and P. Tortosa,
606: preprint DELPHI 99-81 CONF 268, June 1999.
607: The preprint can be downloaded
608: from: http://documents.cern.ch/cgi-bin/setlink?base=preprint\&categ=cern\&id\\
609: =open-99-393. SLD plans to improve this limit; see: S. Walston's talk at
610: DPF2002.
611:
612: %10
613: \bibitem{Pas:Velt} G. Passarino and M. Veltman,
614: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B160} (1979) 151. See \cite{ourZbs}
615: for our notation.
616:
617: %11
618: \bibitem{our_rev}
619: D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A.Soni, Phys. Rep. {\bf 347} (2001) 1.
620:
621: %12
622: \bibitem{our4}
623: B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion and P. Krawczyk,
624: Phys. Lett. {\bf B268} (1991) 106.
625:
626: %13
627: \bibitem{our17:19}
628: K. Kiers, A. Soni and G.-H. Wu,
629: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59} (1999) 096001, {\it ibid.}
630: {\bf D62} (2000) 116004;
631: G.-H. Wu and A. Soni, {\it ibid.}
632: {\bf D62} 056005 (2000).
633:
634: %14
635: \bibitem{our20} M. Misiak, S. Pokorski and J. Rosiek,
636: Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High Energy Phys.\ {\bf 15} (1998) 796.
637: %hep-ph/9703442;
638:
639: %15
640: \bibitem{our21}
641: J.L. Diaz-Cruz, H.-J. He and C.-P. Yuan,
642: Phys. Lett. {\bf 530} (2002) 179.
643:
644: %16
645: \bibitem{our22}
646: J. Rosiek,
647: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D41} (1990) 3464, and hep-ph/9511250 (erratum).
648: See also \cite{ourZbs}.
649:
650: %17
651: \bibitem{our23}
652: T. Besmer, C. Greub and T. Hurth, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B609} (2001) 359.
653:
654: %18
655: \bibitem{our6} M. Chemtob and G. Moreau,
656: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 116012.
657:
658: \end{thebibliography}
659:
660: \end{document}
661: