1: % 15.04.2003

2: \documentclass[12pt,a4,a4wide]{article}

3: %  --- Steering ---

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: %\usepackage{axodraw}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \usepackage{mcite}

9: 

10: %\usepackage[centertags]{amsmath}

11: %\allowdisplaybreaks[4]

12: % 

13: % own definitions

14: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

15: \def\ee{\end{equation}} 

16: \def\ol{\overline} 

17: \def\ul{\underline} 

18: \def\o{\over} 

19: 

20: \def\h{\hbox} 

21: \def\l{\left} 

22: \def\r{\right} 

23: 

24: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

25: \newcommand{\obb}{0\mbox{$\nu\beta\beta~$}}

26: \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{\mbox{$#1\hspace{-.6em}/$}}

27: \newcommand{\dma}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\rm A}~$}}

28: \newcommand{\dms}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_\odot~$}}

29: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}  

30: \newcommand{\bad}{\begin{array}{ccc}}

31: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c}}

32: \newcommand{\eea}{ \end{array} \end{equation}}

33: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

34: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle} 

35: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}

36: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}

37: \newcommand{\Ord}{\ensuremath{{\cal O}}}

38: \newcommand{\mev}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}

39: \newcommand{\mevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV^2}}}

40: \newcommand{\gev}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV}}}

41: \newcommand{\gevsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{GeV^2}}}

42: \newcommand{\eL}{\ensuremath{{\bf e}}_{\mathrm L}}

43: \newcommand{\eLbar}{\ensuremath{{\bf \bar e}}_{\mathrm L}}

44: \newcommand{\eN}{\ensuremath{{\bf e}}_{\mathrm N}}

45: \newcommand{\eT}{\ensuremath{{\bf e}}_{\mathrm T}}

46: \newcommand{\ei}{\ensuremath{{\bf e}}_{\mathrm i}}

47: \newcommand{\eibar}{\ensuremath{{\bf \bar e}}_{\mathrm i}}

48: \newcommand{\pq}{\ensuremath{{\bf p}}_{q}}

49: \newcommand{\pl}{\ensuremath{{\bf p}}_{l^-}}

50: \newcommand{\vecn}{\ensuremath{{\bf n}}}

51: \newcommand{\PL}{\ensuremath{{P}_{\rm L}}}

52: \newcommand{\PN}{\ensuremath{{P}_{\rm N}}}

53: \newcommand{\PT}{\ensuremath{{P}_{\rm T}}}

54: \newcommand{\PI}{\ensuremath{{P}_{\rm i}}}

55: \newcommand{\ACP}{\ensuremath{{A}_{\rm CP}}}

56: \newcommand{\ACPL}{\ensuremath{\delta{A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm L}}}

57: \newcommand{\ACPN}{\ensuremath{\delta{A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm N}}}

58: \newcommand{\ACPT}{\ensuremath{\delta{A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm T}}}

59: \newcommand{\lu}{\ensuremath{{\lambda}_{u}}}

60: 

61: \newcommand{\shat}{\ensuremath{{\hat s}}}

62: \newcommand{\mchat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_c}}

63: \newcommand{\muhat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_u}}

64: \newcommand{\mdhat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_d}}

65: \newcommand{\mshat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_s}}

66: \newcommand{\mbhat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_b}}

67: \newcommand{\mqhat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_q}}

68: \newcommand{\mlhat}{\ensuremath{{\hat m}_l}}

69: 

70: \newcommand{\gc}{\ensuremath{g(\mchat,\shat)}}

71: \newcommand{\gu}{\ensuremath{g(\muhat,\shat)}}

72: \newcommand{\gd}{\ensuremath{g(\mdhat,\shat)}}

73: \newcommand{\gs}{\ensuremath{g(\mshat,\shat)}}

74: \newcommand{\gb}{\ensuremath{g(\mbhat,\shat)}}

75: \newcommand{\gq}{\ensuremath{g(\mqhat,\shat)}}

76: 

77: \newcommand{\yq}{\ensuremath{{y_{q}}}}

78: \def\msbar{\ensuremath{{\rm{\overline{MS}}}}} 

79: %

80: \newcommand{\Imag}{\ensuremath{{\operatorname{Im}}}}

81: \newcommand{\Real}{\ensuremath{{\operatorname{Re}}}}

82: %

83: \newcommand{\BABAR}{\ensuremath{\text{BaBar}\ }}

84: \newcommand{\BELLE}{\ensuremath{\text{Belle}\ }}

85: %

86: \newcommand{\Cixeff}{\ensuremath{C_9^{\rm eff}}}

87: \newcommand{\Cviieff}{\ensuremath{C_7^{\rm eff}}}

88: 

89: \def\non{\nonumber} 

90: \def\wt{\widetilde} 

91: \newcommand{\lsim}{{\;\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

92: \;}} 

93: \newcommand{\gsim}{{\;\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

94: \;}} 

95:  

96: \begin{document} 

97: \thispagestyle{empty}

98: %\rightline{hep-ph/0304077}

99: \rightline{hep-ph/0304077}

100: \rightline{DO-TH 02/21}

101: \rightline{OSU-HEP-03-03}

102: \rightline{DESY 03-046}

103: \rightline{April 2003}

104: \vspace*{0.5cm}

105: 

106: \begin{center}

107: {\large \bf Standard Model $CP$ violation in Polarised 

108: $b\rightarrow d l^+ l^-$}

109: 

110: \medskip

111: 

112: 

113: \end{center}

114: \medskip

115: \begin{center}

116: {K.S. Babu\footnote{babu@hep.phy.okstate.edu}}\\

117: {\it Deptartment of Physics, Oklahoma State University, 

118: Stillwater, OK 74078, U.S.A.}\\

119: {K.R.S. Balaji\footnote{balaji@zylon.physik.uni-dortmund.de},}\\

120: {\it  Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Dortmund,

121: 44221 Dortmund,\\ Germany}\\ and\\

122: \smallskip

123: {I. Schienbein\footnote{schien@mail.desy.de}}\\

124: %{\it DESY, Theory Group, Notkestrasse 85, 22603 Hamburg, Germany}\\

125: {\it DESY/Univ.\ Hamburg, Notkestrasse 85, 22603 Hamburg, Germany}\\

126: \end{center}

127: \noindent

128: \begin{abstract} 

129: In the standard model, we study $CP$ violating rate asymmetries 

130: in the decay $b \to d l^+ l^-$ when one of the  leptons is polarised. 

131: We find an asymmetry of 

132: $(5\div 15)\%$ in the polarised decay spectrum which is comparable to known

133: results for the unpolarised case. In the kinematic region separating the

134: $\rho-\omega$ and $c \bar c$ resonances, which is also theoretically cleanest,

135: the polarised contribution

136: to the asymmetry is larger than the unpolarised results. 

137: In order to observe a $3\sigma$ signal for direct CP violation in the

138: polarised spectrum, assuming $100\%$ efficiency, about $10^{10}$ $B\bar B$ 

139: pairs are required at a B factory. Our results

140: indicate an asymmetric contribution from the individual polarisation states

141: to the unpolarised $CP$ asymmetry. Taking advantage of this, one can 

142: attribute any new physics to be most sensitive to a specific polarisation

143: state. 

144: \end{abstract}

145: 

146: %\leftline{PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff, 12.20.Fv, 14.60.Pq, 14.60.St}  

147:  

148:  

149: \newpage 

150:  

151: \section{Introduction} 

152: 

153: Flavor changing neutral current decays are important probes for new physics 

154: beyond 

155: the standard model (SM) \cite{Buras:2001pn}. 

156: %

157: %Such currents are absent in the SM at 

158: %the tree level, but are allowed at the one-loop level by GIM mechanism 

159: %\cite{Glashow:1970gm} which makes their strengths small. 

160: Such currents are absent in the SM at 

161: the tree level and their strength is small at the one-loop level

162: due to the GIM mechanism \cite{Glashow:1970gm}.

163: %

164: Furthermore, such transitions 

165: can also be CKM suppressed in the SM. Hence, in such decays, any enhancement 

166: over the SM expectations is an unambiguous signature for new physics. In this 

167: direction, the first observations of the radiative B decays 

168: $( B \rightarrow X_s \gamma)$ by CLEO \cite{Alam:1995aw} and later by 

169: ALEPH \cite{Barate:1998vz} have yielded $|V_{ts}V_{tb}^*| \sim 0.035$ which 

170: is in conformity with the CKM estimates.

171: However, in radiative decay modes, deviations from SM predictions are 

172: sensitive to the photon spectrum which posses considerable experimental

173: difficulties, in particular, measuring the lower end of the 

174: spectrum \cite{Neubert:1998zx}.

175: In parallel, rare semi-leptonic decays $(b \rightarrow q l^+l^-)$ can provide 

176: alternative sources to discover new physics and these are relatively cleaner

177: than pure hadronic decays. 

178: %In these decays one can isolate the

179: %hadronic current and parametrise them in terms of some effective form

180: %factors along with the associated couplings. Given a

181: %three body decay, such effects due to non-perturbative strong interaction

182: %can be examined through a phase space analysis.  By studying a few kinematic

183: %configurations where the hadronic system is poorly distributed one can

184: %reduce the uncertainties due to low energy QCD. 

185: The semi-leptonic

186: decays are induced by strong interaction corrected effective Hamiltonians 

187: and the matrix elements receive the dominant contributions from 

188: loops with virtual top quarks and weak bosons

189: which are proportional to $V_{tb}V_{tq}^{*}$ with $q = d, s$. 

190:  In such decays, the standard  

191: observables such as lepton polarization asymmetries, forward-backward 

192: asymmetry and also $CP$ violation can be studied kinematically as a function

193: of the invariant di-lepton mass.  

194: Within the SM, the semi-leptonic process has earlier been studied by a number 

195: of authors \cite{Deshpande:1989bd,*Ali:1991fy,*Greub:1995pi,*Melikhov:1997zu,*Roberts:1996ie,*Geng:1996az,*Burdman:1998mk}. 

196: 

197: In the SM, for 

198: the decay $B \to X_{q} l^{+} l^{-}$, the dominant

199: contribution is from the parton level process $b \to q l^+ l^-$ 

200: and is defined in terms of a set of ten effective operators

201: $O_1 - O_{10}$ \cite{Witten:1977kx}. To be specific, we shall take $q=d$, and

202: the truncated operator basis is reduced to the following five operators

203: \cite{Grinstein:1989me} given to be

204: 

205: \begin{eqnarray}

206: O_1 ~=~ ( \bar d^ {\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} b^ {\alpha}_L) ( \bar c^

207:         {\beta}_L\gamma^{\mu} c^ {\beta}_L)~,

208: \nonumber\\ 

209: O_2 ~=~ ( \bar d^

210:         {\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} b^ {\beta}_L) ( \bar c^ {\alpha}_L

211:         \gamma^{\mu} c^ {\beta}_L)~,\nonumber\\ O_7 ~=~ ( \bar d^{\alpha}

212:         \sigma_{\mu\nu}[m_b P_R + m_d P_L] b^ {\alpha}) F^{\mu\nu}~,

213: \nonumber\\

214: O_9 ~=~ ( \bar d^{\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} b^{\alpha}_L)(\bar

215:         l\gamma^{\mu} l)~,

216: \nonumber\\ 

217: O_{10}~=~ ( \bar d^{\alpha}_L

218:         \gamma_{\mu} b^{\alpha}_L)(\bar l \gamma^{\mu} \gamma_{5}l)~,

219: \label{opdef1}

220: \end{eqnarray}

221: and the additional operators \cite{Kruger:1997dt}

222: \begin{eqnarray}

223: O_1^u ~=~ 

224: ( \bar d^{\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} u^ {\beta}_L) 

225: ( \bar u^{\beta}_L \gamma^{\mu} b^{\alpha}_L)~,

226: \nonumber\\

227: O_2^u ~=~ 

228: ( \bar d^{\alpha}_L \gamma_{\mu} u^{\alpha}_L) 

229: ( \bar u^{\beta}_L \gamma^{\mu} b^{\beta}_L)~.

230: \end{eqnarray}

231: In the presence of new physics, there can be new tree level operators due 

232: to possible right-handed current-current operators and also operators 

233: involving SUSY scalar particles \cite{dafne}. In this analysis, we do not

234: consider them and will limit to the interactions determined by the SM. 

235: 

236: Prior to the advent of the B factories such as \BABAR and \BELLE 

237: the best experimental limits 

238: for the inclusive branching ratios $BR(b \to s l^+ l^-)$ 

239: with $l = e,\mu$ as measured by CLEO \cite{Glenn:1998gh} 

240: have been an order higher than the SM estimates \cite{Ali:1997bm}. 

241: Recently, the first measurement of this decay has been reported 

242: by \BELLE \cite{Kaneko:2002mr} and is in agreement with the SM expectations

243: and hence further constrains any extensions to the SM. In this context, it is

244: pertinent to exploit the features of the SM which makes it most sensitive to

245: new physics. It has been argued that measuring the various lepton polarizations

246: provides for a comprehensive test of the SM and further can be indicative 

247: of new physics \cite{Bensalam:2002ni}.

248: 

249:  In this exercise, we examine the SM contribution to $CP$ violating 

250: effects for the case when 

251: one of the leptons is observed in a polarised state. As it turns out, the 

252: CP asymmetry is comparable to the unpolarised SM expectations when the lepton 

253: is in a specific polarised state. In other words, the net unpolarised 

254: $CP$ asymmetry (which is a linear sum of the polarised asymmetries) receives

255: unequal contributions from the individual polarised state. This feature can   

256: provide for measurements involving new physics search.

257: Note that this conclusion, which is dependent 

258: on a specific polarisation state of the lepton is apriori not obvious from 

259: the operator structure given in (\ref{opdef1}); albeit, is well motivated from 

260: the observation that the electroweak sector of the SM is 

261: polarised (left-handed).

262: %This feature is of importance 

263: %given the uncertainties in the unpolarised results due to the lack of 

264: %precession in the values of the input parameters such as the strength 

265: %of the $CKM$ elements and the quark masses. In contrast, such uncertainties 

266: %are of relatively low significance given the smaller SM branching fraction 

267: %for a polarised decay which is not in a preferred state. 

268: Therefore, measurements of decay spectra when one of the final 

269: state lepton is in the 

270: {\it wrong sign } polarised state will be a key observable to any new physics. 

271: By {\it wrong sign} polarised state, we mean a lepton with a given polarisation,

272: whose SM decay width is smaller when compared to the unpolarised spectrum.

273: 

274:  Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we revise the 

275: basic theoretical framework and describe various observables such as

276: decay spectra for polarised and unpolarised leptons and polarisation 

277: asymmetries. In order to be self contained, we have updated the

278: known results by recalculating all of the existing results taking care of 

279: the various theoretical issues involved. In section \ref{sec:CP}, we derive the

280: CP violating decay rate asymmetries for polarised final state leptons

281: and compare this with the CP violating asymmetry in the unpolarised case.

282: In section \ref{sec:results}, we present our numerical results 

283: and estimate the feasibility of measuring the $CP$ violation in a B factory. 

284: Finally, in section \ref{sec:summary}, we conclude with a summary of the main 

285: results. 

286: 

287: 

288: \section{Theoretical framework}\label{sec:framework}

289: % 1. QCD corrected effective Hamiltonian + Matrix element

290: In this section, we describe our procedure for 

291: obtaining the decay spectra. We first  perform a detailed analysis and

292: rederive the known parton level results. In doing so, we try to clarify 

293: some of the theoretical uncertainties which go as input parameters for 

294: our numerical estimates. Our purpose is to ensure that our conclusions have 

295: subsumed some of these theoretical difficulties and also to complement the

296: existing literature.\\

297: 

298: The QCD corrected effective Hamiltonian describing the decay

299: $b \to d l^+ l^-$  in the SM 

300: leads to the matrix element \cite{Kruger:1997dt,Buras:1995dj}

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: M &=&  \frac{G_{F} \alpha V_{tb}V_{td}^*}{\sqrt{2} \pi}

303: \Big[{\Cixeff}(\bar{d} \gamma_\mu P_{L} b) \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} l  

304:     +C_{10}(\bar{d} \gamma_\mu P_{L} b)  \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} \gamma^{5}l 

305: \nonumber\\*

306: & &\phantom{=  \frac{G_{F} \alpha V_{tb}V_{tq}^*}{\sqrt{2} \pi}\Big[}

307: - 2 {\Cviieff} \bar{d} i\sigma_{\mu\nu} \frac{q^{\nu}}{q^2} (m_{b}P_{R} + 

308:   m_{d}P_{L})b \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} l\Big]~,

309: \label{eq:heff}

310: \end{eqnarray}

311: where the notations employed are the standard ones and $q$ denotes the 

312: four momentum of the lepton pair.

313: % 2. Wilson couplings

314: In the SM, except for $\Cixeff$, the Wilson couplings are real and analytic 

315: expressions can be found in the literature 

316: \cite{Buras:1995dj,Buchalla:1996vs,misiak}. 

317: The numerical values of the Wilson coefficients depend on five parameters

318: ($\mu$, $m_t$, $m_W$, $\sin^2 \theta_W$, $\alpha_s(M_Z)$)

319: which are listed in the appendix of this paper.

320: For a consistent NLO analysis all the coefficients, except $C_9$, should be

321: calculated in the leading log approximation; see \cite{Buras:1995dj}

322: for a detailed explanation. We obtain these to be,

323: \be

324: \begin{gathered}

325: \Cviieff = - 0.310\ ,\quad C_{10} = -4.181\ ,\quad

326: C_1 = -0.251\ ,\quad  C_2 = 1.108

327: \\ 

328: C_3 = 1.120 \times 10^{-2}\ ,\quad

329: C_4 = -2.584 \times 10^{-2}\ ,\quad C_5 = 7.443 \times 10^{-3}\ ,

330: \\

331: C_6 = -3.167 \times 10^{-2}\ ,\quad C_9^{\rm NDR} = 4.128 \ .

332: \label{eq:coeff}

333: \end{gathered}

334: \ee

335: We place a few remarks here. The above numbers differ from 

336: the ones used in \cite{Kruger:1997dt} and we attribute the main source of 

337: this difference in the use of the $\msbar$ top quark mass 

338: $m_t = 165\ \gev$ \cite{Buras:1995dj} instead of a pole mass of 

339: $m_t = 176\ \gev$. It is noteworthy that 

340: the leading log results have been obtained

341: utilizing a two-loop ($\msbar$) $\alpha_s$ with $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.1183$.

342: Using a leading order $\alpha_s$ 

343: with $\alpha_s^{\rm LO}(M_Z^2) = 0.130$ as obtained by the

344: CTEQ collaboration from a global LO analysis of parton distribution 

345: functions \protect\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} results in marginal changes, e.g., 

346: $C_1 =-0.261$, $C_2 = 1.114$, $\Cviieff = -0.314$.

347: The value of $C_9 \equiv C_9^{\rm NDR}$ has been obtained at NLO 

348: accuracy in the NDR scheme. 

349: On the other hand, the effective coefficient $\Cixeff$ is scheme independent.

350: It can be parametrized in the following way \cite{Kruger:1997dt}:

351: \be

352: \Cixeff = \xi_1 + \lu \xi_2\ , \quad \lu = 

353: \frac{V_{ub}V_{ud}^*}{V_{tb}V_{td}^*}~,

354: \label{eq:c9eff}

355: \ee

356: with 

357: \ba

358: \xi_1 & = & C_9  + 0.138\ \omega(\shat) + \gc (3 C_1 + C_2 + 3 C_3 + C_4 + 3 C_5 + C_6)

359: \nonumber\\

360:   && - \frac{1}{2} \gd (C_3 + C_4) - \frac{1}{2} \gb (4 C_3 + 4 C_4 + 3C_5 + C_6)

361: \label{eq:xi1}\\

362:   && + \frac{2}{9} (3 C_3 + C_4 + 3C_5 + C_6)\ ,

363: \nonumber

364: \\

365: \xi_2 & = & [\gc - \gu](3 C_1 + C_2)\ .

366: \label{eq:xi2}

367: \ea

368: Here, $\shat = q^2/m_b^2$ and $\mqhat = m_q/m_b$ are dimensionless variables 

369: scaled with respect to the bottom quark mass. Note that

370: some of the Wilson coefficients in \protect\eqref{eq:coeff} entering 

371:  \protect\eqref{eq:xi1} and \protect\eqref{eq:xi2} 

372: are small and/or add up destructively in 

373: such a way that the functions $\xi_{1,2}$ in the NLO

374: approximation give the following simple expressions,

375: \be

376: \xi_1 \simeq 4.128 + 0.138\ \omega(\shat) 

377: + 0.36\ g(\mchat, \shat),~

378: \xi_2 \simeq 0.36\ [g(\mchat, \shat) - g(\muhat, \shat)]~.

379: \label{approx}

380: \ee

381: 

382: In \eqref{eq:xi1}, the function $\omega(\shat)$ represents one loop corrections

383: to the operator $O_9$ \cite{jezabek:1989ja} and the function $g(\mqhat, \shat)$

384: represents the corrections to the four-quark operators $O_1-O_6$ \cite{misiak} , i.e.,

385: \ba

386: \gq &=& -\frac{8}{9} \ln(\mqhat) + \frac{8}{27} + \frac{4}{9}\ \yq

387:           - \frac{2}{9} (2 + \yq) \sqrt{|1-\yq|}\

388: \bigg\{\Theta(1-\yq) 

389: \times

390: \nonumber\\

391: &&\left[ \ln\left(\tfrac{1+\sqrt{1-\yq}}{1-\sqrt{1-\yq}}\right) 

392: - i \pi \right]

393:  + \Theta(\yq - 1)\ 2 \arctan{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\yq-1}}}

394: \bigg\}~,

395: \label{eq:gcont_ana}

396: \ea

397: with $\yq \equiv 4 \mqhat^2/\shat$.

398: % Comment limit $\mqhat \to 0$

399: 

400: % 3. Long Distance Contributions

401: %In addition to the short

402: %distance contributions as dictated by the effective Hamiltonian $M$, 

403: %the decays $B \to X_{d} l^{+} l^{-}$, 

404: %also receive long distance

405: %contributions from the tree-level diagrams involving the $c \bar c$

406: %bound states, $B \to X_s  (J/ \psi, \psi^{\prime}, ...)

407: %\to  X_s l^+l^-$. 

408: 

409: In addition to the short distance contributions described above,

410: the decays $B \to X_{d} l^{+} l^{-}$

411: also receive long distance

412: contributions from the tree-level diagrams involving 

413: $u \bar u$, $d \bar d$, and $c \bar c$

414: bound states, 

415: $B \to X_d  (\rho, \omega, J/ \psi, \psi^{\prime}, ...) \to  X_d l^+l^-$. 

416: These effects can be taken into account by modifying

417: the functions $\gq$.

418: In the case of the $J/\Psi$ family

419: these pole contributions can be

420: incorporated by employing a Breit-Wigner form for the resonance states

421: \cite{Deshpande:1989bd,*Ali:1991fy,*Greub:1995pi,*Melikhov:1997zu,*Roberts:1996ie,*Geng:1996az,*Burdman:1998mk,Lim:1989yu} through the replacement

422: \begin{equation}

423: \gc \rightarrow \gc - 

424: \frac{3 \pi}{\alpha ^2} 

425: \sum_{V=J/\psi, \psi^{\prime}, ...}  

426: \frac{ M_V Br(V \rightarrow l^+l^-)

427: \Gamma^V_{all}}{s - M_V^2 ~+~ i \Gamma^V_{all}M_V}~.

428: \label{BWC}

429: \end{equation}

430: In (\ref{BWC}), the sum includes all $c \bar c$ bound states $V$ with mass 

431: $M_V$ and total width $\Gamma^V_{all}$.

432: %

433: The $c \bar c$ long distance contributions to the branching fraction

434: are obviously dominant near the $J/ \psi$ resonance peak. In addition

435: to this, there can be long distance contributions from real $u \bar

436: u$, $ d \bar d$ quark pairs giving rise to intermediate vector meson

437: states, i.e., $\rho$ and $\omega$. In many of the existing analysis

438: performed so far, these resonance contributions have been neglected.

439: A plausible reason being, in the decays $B \to X_s l^+ l^-$ they are CKM 

440: suppressed. However, in \cite{Kruger:1997dt} it has been demonstrated that 

441: the $\rho$ and $\omega$ resonances contribute quite sizeably to

442: the CP violating decay rate asymmetry and should be taken

443: into account in theoretical studies of this observable.

444: 

445: Following the approach in \cite{Kruger:1997dt,Kruger:1996cv}

446: we calculate the functions $\gu$, $\gd$ and $\gc$ using

447: a dispersive method. To be precise, $\gu$ and $\gd$ have been calculated 

448: exactly along the lines described in \cite{Kruger:1997dt,Kruger:1996cv} 

449: using quark masses $m_u = m_d = m_\pi$.

450: Concerning $\gc$, the continuous part has been computed 

451: with the dispersive method as well whereas, for simplicity, 

452: the $c \bar c$ resonances have been evaluated according to \eqref{BWC}.

453: Finally, the function $\gb$ has been evaluated

454: with help of \eqref{eq:gcont_ana}. Note that the contribution

455: of $\gb$ to $\Cixeff$ in \eqref{eq:c9eff} is negligible.

456: 

457: %The long distance parts usually involve large theoretical

458: %uncertainties. Therefore it is useful to separate long distance

459: %from short distance physics by applying appropriate cuts 

460: %to the invariant $l^+ l^-$ mass spectrum in the resonance regions.

461: %Typically, for the resonances 

462: %$V = J/\Psi, \Psi^\prime, \ldots ,$ 

463: %these regions are given by

464: %$M_V \pm \varepsilon_V$ where $\varepsilon_V$

465: %depends on the experimental details and is related to the width of the 

466: %resonance.

467: %We come back to this point in section \ref{sec:results}.

468: 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: \subsection{Unpolarized decay spectrum}

471: In the absence of low energy QCD

472: corrections ($\sim 1/m_b^2$) \cite{Falk:1994dh,Ali:1997bm} and 

473: setting the down quark

474: mass to zero, the unpolarized differential decay width as a function of the

475: invariant mass of the lepton pair is

476: \begin{equation}

477: \frac{d\Gamma}{d{\shat}} =  \frac{G_{F}^2 m_{b}^5 \alpha^2}{768

478: \pi^5}|V_{tb}V_{td}^{*}|^2 \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}(1, {\shat},0)\

479: a\

480: \Delta(\shat)~;\quad

481: a \equiv \sqrt{1 - \frac{4 {\mlhat}^2}{\shat}}~. 

482: \label{diffspec}

483: \end{equation}  

484: In (\ref{diffspec}), the triangle function $\lambda$ is given 

485: $\lambda(a,b,c)= a^2 + b^2+ c^2 -2(ab+bc+ca)$ and the kinematic factors are 

486: \begin{eqnarray}

487: \Delta(\shat) &=& \big[12\Real({\Cviieff} {\Cixeff}^*)F_1(\shat) +

488: \frac{4}{\shat}|{\Cviieff}|^2

489: F_2(\shat)\big] (1+\frac{2 \mlhat^2}{\shat})\nonumber\\

490: & &+(|{\Cixeff}|^2 +|C_{10}|^2)F_3(\shat) 

491: +6\mlhat^2(|{\Cixeff}|^2 -|C_{10}|^2)F_1(\shat)~,\nonumber\\ 

492: F_1(\shat) &=&  1 -\shat~,\nonumber\\

493: F_2(\shat) &=&  2 - \shat - \shat^2~,\nonumber\\ 

494: F_3(\shat) &=&  1

495: +\shat -2\shat^2  + \lambda(1, \shat,0)

496: \frac{2\mlhat^2}{\shat}~.

497: \label{eq:defFunpoll}

498: \end{eqnarray}

499: The various quantities in the above differential decay width are

500: scaled with respect to the $b$ quark mass $m_b$ and are indicated by a

501: hat. 

502: The physical range for $\shat$ is given by $4\mlhat^2 \le \shat \le 1$

503: as is dictated by the threshold factor, $a$, and the triangle function in

504: (\ref{diffspec}).

505: The above differential spectrum has been obtained earlier by

506: Kr\"uger et al., \cite{Kruger:1996cv,Kruger:1997dt} (for $m_l \neq 0$ and 

507: $m_q \neq 0$),

508: Ali et al., \cite{Ali:1991is,Ali:1995bf} (for $m_l=0$), Grinstein et al.,

509: \cite{Grinstein:1989me}, Buras et al., \cite{Buras:1995dj} (for $m_q=0$ and 

510: $m_l=0$) 

511: and by Hewett \cite{Hewett:1996dk} (for $m_q =0$, which agrees with

512: our expressions). 

513: 

514: As usual we remove uncertainties in \eqref{diffspec} due to the

515: $b$ quark mass (a factor of $m_b^5$) by introducing the charged current 

516: semi-leptonic decay rate

517: \be

518: \Gamma(B \to X_c e \bar \nu_e)= \frac{G_{F}^2 m_{b}^5}{192 \pi^3}

519: |V_{cb}|^2 f(\mchat) \kappa(\mchat)

520: \ee

521: where $f(\mchat)$ and $\kappa(\mchat)$ represent the phase space

522: and the one-loop QCD corrections to the semi-leptonic decay and

523: can be found in \cite{Kruger:1997dt}.

524: Therefore the differential branching ratio can be written as

525: \ba

526: \frac{d \Gamma}{d \shat} =  \frac{\alpha^2}{4 \pi^2}

527: \frac{|V_{tb}V_{td}^{*}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2} 

528: \frac{B(B \to X_c e \bar \nu_e)}{f(\mchat)\kappa(\mchat)}

529:  \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}(1, {\shat},0)\ a\ \Delta(\shat)\ .

530: \label{eq:BR}

531: \ea

532: 

533: %\subsection{Lepton polarization asymmetries}

534: \subsection{Polarized decay spectrum}

535: The lepton polarisation has been first analyzed by

536: Hewett \cite{Hewett:1996dk} and Kr\"uger and Sehgal \cite{Kruger:1996cv}

537: who

538: showed that additional information 

539: can be obtained on the quadratic functions of the effective Wilson couplings,

540: ${\Cviieff}$, $C_{10}$ and ${\Cixeff}$. 

541: In order to calculate the polarised decay spectrum, one defines a reference

542: frame with three orthogonal unit vectors $\eL$, $\eN$ and $\eT$, such that

543: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:unitvecdef}

544: \eL &=& \frac{\pl}{|\pl|}~,

545: \nonumber\\

546: \eN &=&\frac{\pq \times \pl}{|\pq \times \pl|}~,

547: \\

548: \eT &=& \eN \times \eL ~,

549: \nonumber

550: \end{eqnarray}

551: where $\pq$ and $\pl$ are the three momentum vectors of the

552: quark and the $l^-$ lepton, respectively, in the $l^+ l^-$ center-of-mass

553: system.

554: %(CMS)  

555: Given the lepton $l^-$

556: spin direction $\vecn$, which is a unit vector in the $l^-$ rest

557: frame, the differential decay spectrum can be written as

558: \cite{Kruger:1996cv}

559: \begin{equation}

560: \frac{d\Gamma(\shat, \vecn)}{d\shat} = \frac{1}{2}

561: \left(\frac{d\Gamma(\shat)}{d\shat}\right)_{\rm unpol} 

562: \Big[ 1 + (\PL \eL + \PT \eT + \PN \eN) \cdot \vecn \Big]~,

563: \label{eq:poldecay}

564: \end{equation}

565: where

566: the polarisation components $\PL$, $\PN$ and $\PT$ can be

567: constructed as follows;

568: \begin{equation}

569: \PI(\shat) =  \frac{d \Gamma (\vecn = \ei)/d \shat  -  d

570: \Gamma (\vecn = -\ei)/d\shat} {d \Gamma (\vecn = \ei)/d\shat  

571: +  d \Gamma (\vecn = -\ei)/d\shat}~, {\rm ~i = L, ~N, ~ T~}.

572: \label{leppolldef}

573: \end{equation}

574: 

575: The resulting polarisation asymmetries are

576: \begin{eqnarray}

577: \PL(\shat)&=& \frac{a}{\Delta(\shat)} 

578: \Big[12\Real({\Cviieff} C_{10}^*)(1-  \shat ) +  2\Real({\Cixeff}C_{10}^*)(1 ~ + 

579: \shat -2 \shat^2)\Big],

580: \nonumber \\ 

581: \PT(\shat)  &=& \frac{3 \pi \mlhat}{2 \Delta (\shat)

582: \sqrt{\shat}} \lambda^{1/2}(1, \shat,0) \Big[2\Real({\Cviieff} C_{10}^*) -4

583: \Real({\Cviieff} {\Cixeff}^*) - \frac{4}{\shat}|{\Cviieff}|^2 

584: \nonumber\\

585: &\phantom{=}&+ \Real({\Cixeff}C_{10}^*)- |{\Cixeff}|^2 \shat\Big],

586: \nonumber\\ 

587: \PN(\shat)  &=&  \frac{3 \pi \mlhat a}{2 \Delta (\shat)}

588: \ \lambda^{1/2}(1, \shat,0)\ \sqrt{\shat}\ \Imag({\Cixeff}^*C_{10})~,

589: \label{leppollasym}

590: \end{eqnarray}

591: where we differ by a factor of 2 in $\PT$ with respect to the

592: results obtained in \cite{Kruger:1996cv}. The above expressions for $\PI$ 

593: agree with \cite{dafne} for the SM case. 

594: 

595: As can be seen, the polarisation asymmetries

596: in (\ref{leppollasym}) have different quadratic

597: combinations of the Wilson couplings and any alteration in the values

598: of these couplings can lead to changes in the asymmetries. Thus, these

599: are sensitive to new physics and can also probe the relative signs of

600: the couplings ${\Cviieff}$, ${\Cixeff}$ and $C_{10}$. The normal polarisation

601: asymmetry $\PN$ is proportional to $\Imag({\Cixeff}C_{10}^*)$ and is thus

602: sensitive to the absorptive part of the loop contributed by the charm

603: quark. 

604: 

605: The transverse and normal asymmetries $\PT$ and $\PN$, respectively,  are 

606: proportional to

607: $\mlhat$ and thus the effects can be significant for the case of

608: tau leptons. However, the case for tau leptons is an experimental

609: challenge. One reason is that the tau decays in to final states with a 

610: neutrino and this involves uncertainties due to missing energy. Also,

611: the predominant decays of the tau lepton are hadronic and this is an

612: undesirable feature at hadronic colliders. Setting aside these problems, in 

613: our analysis, we illustrate the results when the final state lepton is an 

614: electron and tau; the results when a muon is produced are almost

615: identical to the electron case.

616: 

617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

618: 

619: \section{CP violation}\label{sec:CP}

620: In the SM, $CP$ violation in the decay $B \to X_{s} l^{+} l^{-}$ is 

621: strongly suppressed. This follows

622: from the unitarity of the $CKM$ matrix. However, in the semi-leptonic

623: $B$ decay, $B \to X_{d} l^{+} l^{-}$, the $CP$

624: violating effects are not so strongly suppressed. 

625: The $CP$ asymmetry for this decay can be observed by measuring the partial 

626: decay rates for the

627: process and its charge conjugated process \cite{Kruger:1997dt,Ali:1998sf}. 

628: Before turning to a derivation of CP violating asymmetries 

629: for the case of polarised final state leptons 

630: it is helpful to recall the unpolarised case.

631: \subsection{Unpolarized decay spectrum}

632: In the unpolarised case the CP-violating rate asymmetry can be defined by

633: \begin{equation}

634: \ACP = \frac{\Gamma_0 - \bar\Gamma_0}{\Gamma_0 + \bar\Gamma_0}~,

635: \end{equation}

636: where

637: \begin{equation}

638: \Gamma_0 \equiv \frac{d\Gamma}{d \shat} \equiv

639: \frac{d\Gamma(b\to d l^+ l^-)}{d \shat}\ , \

640: \bar \Gamma_0 \equiv \frac{d\bar\Gamma}{d \shat} \equiv

641: \frac{d\Gamma({\bar b} \to {\bar d} l^+ l^-)}{d \shat}~.

642: \label{eq:gamma0}

643: \end{equation}

644: The explicit expression for the unpolarized particle decay rate 

645: $\Gamma_0$ has been given in (\ref{diffspec}).

646: Obviously, it can be written as a product of a real-valued

647: function $r(\shat)$ times the 

648: function $\Delta(\shat)$, given in (\ref{eq:defFunpoll});

649: $\Gamma_0(\shat) = r(\shat) \ \Delta(\shat)$. Taking the approach as 

650: in \cite{Kruger:1997dt} we write the matrix elements for the decay and 

651: the anti-particle decay as

652: \begin{equation}

653: M = A + \lambda_u B\ , \ \bar M = A + \lambda_u^* B~,

654: \label{eq:CPMdef2}

655: \end{equation}

656: where the CP-violating parameter

657: $\lu$, entering the Wilson coupling ${\Cixeff}$, has been 

658: defined in \eqref{eq:c9eff}.

659: Consequently, the rate for the anti-particle decay is then given by

660: \be

661: \bar \Gamma_0 = {\Gamma_0}_{|\lu \to \lu^*}

662: = r(\shat) \bar \Delta(\shat)~;

663: ~\bar\Delta=\Delta_{|{\lambda_u \to \lambda_u^*}}~.

664: \label{apr}

665: \ee

666:  

667: Using (\ref{diffspec}) and (\ref{apr}), the CP violating asymmetry is evaluated

668: to be \cite{Kruger:1997dt} 

669: \begin{equation}

670: \ACP(\shat) =  \frac{\Delta - \bar \Delta}{\Delta + \bar \Delta}

671: = \frac{-2 \Imag( \lu) \Sigma}{\Delta + 2 \Imag( \lu) \Sigma}

672: \simeq -2 \Imag( \lu) \frac{\Sigma(\hat s)}{\Delta (\hat s)}~.

673: \label{eq:CPdef}

674: \end{equation}

675: In (\ref{eq:CPdef}), 

676: \begin{equation}

677: \Sigma(\shat) = \Imag(\xi_1^* \xi_2)[F_3(\shat) + 

678: 6 \mlhat^2 F_1(\shat)]

679: +6\Imag({\Cviieff} \xi_2)F_1({\shat})(1+ \frac{2 \mlhat^2}{\shat})~.

680: \label{eq:CPde1}

681: \end{equation}

682: In the presence of lepton $l^-$ polarisation, the above 

683: $CP$ asymmetry can get modified and receives a contribution from

684: $C_{10}$ through the interference piece with ${\Cixeff}$ 

685: in $|M|^2$; see~(\ref{eq:poldecay}) and (\ref{leppollasym}). 

686: In the following, we discuss this modification.

687: 

688: \subsection{Polarized decay spectrum}

689: In the polarised case, a CP violating asymmetry can be defined as

690: follows

691: \begin{equation}

692: \ACP(\vecn) = \frac{\Gamma(\vecn) - \bar\Gamma(\bar \vecn = - \vecn)}

693: {\Gamma_0 + \bar\Gamma_0}~,

694: \label{eq:acpn}

695: \end{equation}

696: where

697: \begin{eqnarray}

698: \Gamma(\vecn) &\equiv& \frac{d\Gamma(\shat,\vecn)}{d \shat}

699: \equiv \frac{d\Gamma(b \to d l^+ l^-(\vecn))}{d \shat}\ ,

700: %(\shat,\vecn)

701: \nonumber\\

702: \bar\Gamma(\bar \vecn) &\equiv& \frac{d\bar\Gamma(\shat,\bar\vecn)}{d \shat}

703: \equiv \frac{d\Gamma(\bar b \to \bar d l^+(\bar\vecn) l^-)}{d \shat}\ ,

704: %(\shat,\bar\vecn)

705: \end{eqnarray}

706: and $\Gamma_0$, $\bar\Gamma_0$ have been defined in the previous section.

707: Further, $\vecn$ is the spin direction of the lepton $l^-$ in the

708: $b$-decay and $\bar \vecn$ is the spin direction of the $l^+$ in the

709: $\bar b$-decay.

710: For instance, assuming CP conservation, the rate for the decay

711: of a $B$ to a left handed electron should be the same as the rate

712: for the decay of a $\bar B$ to a right handed positron.

713: More generally, in the CP conserving case, we would have

714: \begin{equation}

715: \Gamma(\vecn) \overset{CP\ cons.}{=} \bar \Gamma(\bar \vecn = -\vecn)\ 

716: \Rightarrow\ \ACP(\vecn) = 0 \ .

717: \end{equation}

718: The polarised decay spectrum for the $b$-decay has already been stated

719: in (\ref{eq:poldecay}).

720: Using the above definitions the spectrum reads,

721: \begin{equation}

722: \Gamma(\vecn) = \tfrac{1}{2} \Gamma_0\ (1 + \PI\ \ei \cdot \vecn)~,

723: \label{eq:gamma1}

724: \end{equation}

725: where a sum over $\rm i = L, T, N$ is implied. 

726: Analogously, for the corresponding $CP$ conjugated process we have the 

727: decay spectrum 

728: \begin{equation}

729: \bar\Gamma(\bar\vecn) = \tfrac{1}{2} \bar\Gamma_0\ 

730: (1 +\bar \PI\ \eibar \cdot \bar\vecn)\ .

731: \label{eq:gamma2}

732: \end{equation}

733: Note that (\ref{eq:gamma1}) and (\ref{eq:gamma2}) {\em define} the

734: polarisation asymmetries $\PI$ and $\bar \PI$, respectively.

735: With the choice $\eibar = \ei$, the $\bar \PI$ are 

736: constructed from the decay spectrum in

737: complete analogy to the $\PI$ in (\ref{leppolldef}).

738: Moreover, from the condition 

739: $\Gamma(\vecn) = \bar \Gamma(\bar \vecn = -\vecn)$, in the CP

740: conserving case, it follows that $\bar \PI = - \PI$.

741: In the general case we have

742: \begin{equation}

743: \bar \PI = - {\PI}_{|\lu \to \lu^*} \quad 

744: (\text{for} ~\eibar = \ei)\ .

745: \end{equation} 

746: 

747: Now everything is at hand to calculate the CP violating

748: asymmetries for a lepton $l^-$ with polarisation $\vecn = \ei$;

749: inserting (\ref{eq:gamma1}) and (\ref{eq:gamma2}) into

750: (\ref{eq:acpn}) one obtains the asymmetry,

751: \begin{eqnarray}

752: \ACP(\vecn =\pm \ei) &=& 

753: \frac{1}{2} 

754: \left[\frac{\Gamma_0 - \bar\Gamma_0}{\Gamma_0 + \bar \Gamma_0} 

755: \pm \frac{\Gamma_0 \PI - (\Gamma_0 \PI)_{|\lu \to \lu^*}}

756: {\Gamma_0 + \bar \Gamma_0} \right]

757: \nonumber\\

758: &=&\frac{1}{2} 

759: \left[\ACP(\hat s) \pm \frac{\Delta \PI - (\Delta \PI)_{|\lu \to \lu^*}}

760: {\Delta(\hat s) + \bar \Delta (\hat s)} \right]

761: \nonumber\\

762: &\equiv&

763: \frac{1}{2} \left[ \ACP(\hat s) \pm \delta\ACP^{\rm i} (\hat s)\right] \ , 

764: \quad {\rm i = L,T,N}~.

765: \label{eq:acpei}

766: \end{eqnarray}

767: On the r.h.s.\ of (\ref{eq:acpei}), $A_{CP}(\hat s)$ is the unpolarized

768: CP violating asymmetry given in (\ref{eq:CPdef}).

769: The polarised quantities $\delta\ACP^{\rm i}(\hat s)$ denote the modifications

770: to the unpolarised spectra and will be stated explicitly below.

771: It should be noted that for a given polarisation there are two 

772: independent observables, $\ACP(\vecn =\ei)$ and $\ACP(\vecn =- \ei)$

773: or, alternatively, $A_{CP}(\hat s) = \ACP(\vecn =\ei)+\ACP(\vecn =- \ei)$ 

774: (as it must be) and 

775: $\delta\ACP^{\rm i}(\hat s) =  \ACP(\vecn =\ei)-\ACP(\vecn =- \ei)$.

776: The polarised CP violating asymmetries can be evaluated

777: by inspecting the polarisation asymmetries in (\ref{leppollasym}).

778: After some algebra one finds the following final results:

779: \begin{equation}

780: \delta\ACP^{\rm i} (\hat s)

781: = \frac{-2 \Imag( \lu) \delta\Sigma^{\rm i}(\hat s)}

782: {\Delta (\hat s) + 2 \Imag( \lu) \Sigma(\hat s)}

783: \simeq -2 \Imag( \lu) \frac{\delta\Sigma^{\rm i}(\hat s)}{\Delta (\hat s)}~,

784: \label{eq:polCPdef}

785: \end{equation}

786: with

787: \begin{eqnarray}

788: \delta\Sigma^{\rm L}(\hat s) & = &

789: \Imag(C_{10}\xi_2)\ (1+\shat -2 \shat^2) \ a\ ,

790: \nonumber\\

791: \delta\Sigma^{\rm T} (\hat s)& = &

792: \frac{3 \pi \mlhat}{2 \sqrt{\shat}} \lambda^{1/2}(1,\shat, 0)

793: \left[-2 \Imag({\Cviieff} \xi_2) + \frac{1}{2} \Imag(C_{10}\xi_2)-

794: \shat \Imag(\xi_1^* \xi_2)\right]\ ,

795: \nonumber\\

796: \delta\Sigma^{\rm N} (\hat s)& = &

797: \frac{3 \pi \mlhat}{2 \sqrt{\shat}} \lambda^{1/2}(1,\shat, 0)

798: \left[\frac{\shat}{2} \Real(C_{10} \xi_2)\right] a\ ,

799: \label{eq:sigmai}

800: \end{eqnarray}

801: where $a$ is the threshold factor defined in (\ref{diffspec}). It is

802: interesting to note that the asymmetries, $\delta\Sigma^{\rm T}(\hat s)$ and 

803: $\delta\Sigma^{\rm N}(\hat s)$, have different combinations involving the 

804: imaginary and real parts of $\xi_2$; thereby, show dependence on the 

805: corrections to the four-quark operators, $O_1 - O_6$.   

806: 

807: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

808: % Table

809: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

810: \section{Numerical analysis and discussion}

811: \label{sec:results}

812: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

813: 

814: \begin{figure}[ht]

815: \begin{center}

816: \hspace*{-2.0cm}

817: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,angle=0,width=12cm}

818: \end{center}

819: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

820: \caption{Polarised and unpolarised branching

821: ratios for the decay $b \to d e^+ e^-$

822: according to \protect\eqref{eq:BR}

823: and \protect\eqref{eq:poldecay}.

824: The unit vector $\eL$ has been defined in 

825: \protect\eqref{eq:unitvecdef}.}

826: \label{fig:br_e} 

827: \end{figure} 

828: 

829: \begin{figure}[ht]

830: \begin{center}

831: \hspace*{-2.0cm}

832: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,angle=0,width=14cm}

833: \end{center}

834: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

835: \caption{Polarised and unpolarised CP violating rate

836: asymmetries 

837: for the decay $b \to d e^+ e^-$

838: as given in \protect\eqref{eq:acpei}, \protect\eqref{eq:polCPdef}

839: and \protect\eqref{eq:CPdef}, respectively.}

840: \label{fig:acp_e} 

841: \end{figure} 

842: 

843: \begin{figure}[ht]

844: \begin{center}

845: \hspace*{-2.0cm}

846: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,angle=0,width=12cm}

847: \end{center}

848: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

849: \caption{

850: As in Fig.\ \protect\ref{fig:br_e} for the

851: decay $b \to d \tau^+ \tau^-$.}

852: \label{fig:br_tau} 

853: \end{figure} 

854: 

855: \begin{figure}[ht]

856: \begin{center}

857: \hspace*{-2.0cm}

858: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,angle=0,width=16cm}

859: \end{center}

860: \vspace*{-1.0cm}

861: \caption{Polarised and unpolarised CP violating rate

862: asymmetries for the decay $b \to d \tau^+ \tau^-$

863: as given in \protect\eqref{eq:polCPdef}

864: and \protect\eqref{eq:CPdef}, respectively.}

865: \label{fig:acp_tau} 

866: \end{figure} 

867: 

868: %

869: Having given the analytic framework for the various observables, we now turn 

870: to a discussion of our numerical results. We reiterate that these results are

871: obtained following the discussions of section \ref{sec:framework}. In 

872: particular, we take in to account the $\rho-\omega$ resonance structure, 

873: which to our knowledge has so far been given little importance

874: except in \cite{Kruger:1997dt}.\\

875: 

876:  

877: The basic and essential information

878: is summarised in figures \ref{fig:br_e} to \ref{fig:acp_tau}. 

879: In all our numerical estimates, we 

880: have used the parameters stated in the appendix. 

881: %

882: Furthermore, we have set $m_d = 0$ in our kinematic analysis as its 

883: dependence in $\Delta(\shat)$ (and similar kinematic factors) is 

884: negligible. On the other hand, the non-zero value for $m_d$ given

885: in the appendix

886: has been used in evaluating the Wilson coupling ${\Cixeff}$. 

887: %

888: We have checked numerically that

889: the use of small current masses $m_u = 2.3\ \mev$ and 

890: $m_d = 4.6\ \mev$ in the calculation of ${\Cixeff}$

891: would result in appreciable changes 

892: of the asymmetries only in the 

893: region of the higher $c\bar{c}$ resonances ($\shat > 0.5$) which

894: is also affected by other theoretical uncertainties; see the discussion below.

895: The theoretically clean region between the $\rho-\omega$ and

896: the $J/\Psi$ resonance remains almost unaffected. 

897: \\

898: 

899: The currently allowed range for the Wolfenstein parameters

900: \cite{Wolfenstein:1983yz,*Wolfenstein:1964ks}

901: is given in \cite{Abbaneo:2001bv};

902: $0.190 < \rho < 0.268$, $0.284 < \eta < 0.366$.

903: For our analysis we take

904: $(\rho,\eta)=(0.25,0.34)$.

905: In terms of the Wolfenstein parameters, $\rho$ and $\eta$,

906: the parameter $\lu$ is given by the relation,

907: \be

908: \lu = \frac{\rho (1-\rho) - \eta^2}{(1-\rho)^2 + \eta^2}

909: - i \frac{\eta}{(1-\rho)^2 + \eta^2}+ \cdots \quad .

910: \ee

911: 

912: %The precise values for several of these parameters are

913: %of course immaterial for our analysis, e.g., using

914: %$M_W = 80.2\ \gev$ wouldn't lead to noticeable changes.

915: %We nevertheless use the exact values stated in the

916: %particle data review simply because there is no reason

917: %not to do so.

918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

919: 

920: % Fig. 1 discussion

921:  In Fig.\ \ref{fig:br_e}, we display the branching ratios for the

922: decay $b \to d e^+ e^-$ with unpolarized and longitudinally

923: polarized electrons.

924: The unpolarized branching ratio (solid line) has been 

925: obtained with help of  \eqref{eq:BR}.

926: The corresponding results for polarised final state

927: leptons have been calculated accordingly using

928: \eqref{eq:poldecay}.

929: The dash-dotted and dotted lines corresponds to $\vecn = - \eL$ 

930: and $\vecn = + \eL$, respectively, where

931: the unit vector $\eL$ has been defined in \eqref{eq:unitvecdef}.

932: As can be seen, in the SM, the decay is naturally left-handed and

933: hence the polarised spectrum for $\vecn = -\eL$ compares with the 

934: unpolarised spectrum.

935: Whereas, the polarised $\vecn = \eL$ spectrum is far below the 

936: unpolarised one; which according to our definition would correspond to a 

937: {\it wrong sign} decay. In the most relevant kinematical region, between the

938: $\rho-\omega$ and $c \bar c$ resonances, the branching ratio

939: is $\sim 3 \times 10^{-7}$. We would like to remind that this is theoretically

940: the cleanest kinematic bin.\\

941: 

942: % Fig. 2 discussion

943: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:acp_e}, we present results for the polarised

944: and unpolarised CP violating rate asymmetries calculated according

945: to \eqref{eq:acpei}, \eqref{eq:polCPdef}, and \eqref{eq:sigmai}

946: for the decay $b \to d e^+ e^-$.

947: We find that the asymmetries for $b \to d \mu^+ \mu^-$

948: are numerically similar to the results shown here, and hence are not

949: presented.

950: %

951: As mentioned earlier, only two of the shown four quantities are

952: linearly independent. 

953: %For the following discussion it is helpful

954: %to keep the relations between them in mind.

955: As can be observed, $\ACP(\vecn = - \eL)$ is much larger than the asymmetry

956: with opposite lepton polarization implying 

957: that $\ACP(\vecn = - \eL)$ is quite similar to

958: the unpolarized asymmetry $\ACP$; the system is naturally polarized.

959: % 

960: This can be also seen by the lower half of Fig.\ \ref{fig:acp_e} 

961: where the unpolarized $\ACP$ and $(-1) \ACPL$ have been plotted.

962: Here, $\ACP(\vecn = - \eL)$

963: would be the average of the two curves (lying in the middle between them). 

964: Note that the polarised CP violating asymmetry $\ACPL$

965: is comparable and in certain kinematic regions even larger than its 

966: unpolarized counterpart.

967: Particularly, in the theoretically clean region, between the 

968: $\rho$--$\omega$ and the $c\bar c$ resonances, we find $\ACPL$ is about 

969: $8 \%$ when compared to about $5 \%$ in the 

970: unpolarized case \cite{Kruger:1997dt,Ali:1998sf}. 

971: However, in the resonance regions, the polarised asymmetry can reach

972: values as large as up to $20 \%$ ($\rho$--$\omega$) and 

973: $11 \%$ ($c\bar c$), respectively.\\

974: 

975: A few other comments are in order.

976: (i) In our analysis we have utilized the Wolfenstein parameters

977: $(\rho,\eta) = (0.25,0.34)$ which is in the experimentally 

978: allowed range given above. However, the results for other values of

979: these parameters can be easily obtained.

980: Noticing that since $\Cixeff(\shat)$ only very weakly depends on 

981: $\rho$ and $\eta$, almost the entire dependence is due the 

982: prefactors containing the CKM matrix elements; particularly,

983: in the expressions for the branching ratio and the CP violating 

984: asymmetries.

985: In the case of the branching ratio this is the term

986: $|V_{tb} V_{td}^*/V_{cb}|^2 = \lambda^2 [(1-\rho)^2 + \eta^2]$;

987: in the case of the CP violating asymmetries it is the factor

988: $\Imag \lu = -\eta/((1-\rho)^2 + \eta^2)$.

989: The results for other Wolfenstein parameters can therefore

990: be obtained by simply rescaling the shown results.

991: For instance varying $(\rho,\eta)$ in the allowed range

992: leads to a variation of $|\Imag \lu|$ in the range

993: $(0.54\div 0.38)$. (For $(\rho,\eta) = (0.25,0.34)$ we find

994: $|\Imag \lu|=0.5$.)

995: As can be seen the absolute value of the CP violating asymmetries 

996: increases with

997: increasing $\rho$ and $\eta$. On the other hand, the branching

998: ratio mildly decreases with increasing $\rho$.

999: (ii) Our results for $\ACP$ in the region of the $\rho - \omega$ resonance are 

1000: smaller than the values found in \cite{Kruger:1997dt}. The discrepancy can 

1001: most probably be traced back on the $\rho-\omega$ inelastic channel

1002: (see the function $G(s)$ in \cite{Kinoshita:1985it}) in which the absorptive 

1003: part should be omitted below the inelastic threshold 

1004: $\sqrt{s} < m_\pi + m_\rho$. On inclusion of the imaginary part also below 

1005: this threshold, we find similarly large contributions at the 

1006: $\rho-\omega$ resonances. 

1007: (iii) In addition, the numerical results in the 

1008: resonance region of the $J/\Psi$ family are subject to theoretical 

1009: uncertainties; usually denoted by a phenomenological factor $\kappa_V$ which

1010: can vary between 2.35 to 1.00. 

1011: For our numerical results we have set $\kappa_V = 1$.

1012: The variation of $\kappa_V$ can affect the width and the

1013: $CP$ asymmetry as has been discussed in \cite{Kruger:1997dt}.\\

1014: 

1015: The polarised asymmetries, $\ACPN$ and $\ACPT$, are proportional to the 

1016: lepton mass and therefore only relevant in the case of final state tau 

1017: leptons.

1018: % Fig. 3 discussion

1019: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:br_tau}, branching ratios for the

1020: decay $b \to d \tau^+ \tau^-$ are shown for unpolarized (solid line),

1021: longitudinally (dotted), normally (dashed), and transversely 

1022: (dash-dotted) polarized taus. The corresponding branching ratio is 

1023: $\sim \Ord(1 \times 10^{-8})$, requiring a larger luminosity.

1024: With tau leptons as final states, for $\vecn = \pm \eN$; both rates are 

1025: very similar, whereas, for $\vecn = \pm \eT$, the $-\eT$ state is strongly 

1026: favored, as being closer to the unpolarised decay width. Therefore, we would

1027: classify the polarised $\vecn = \eT$ spectra as a {\it wrong sign} decay.\\ 

1028: % Fig. 4 discussion

1029: 

1030: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:acp_tau}, we show both the polarised

1031: and unpolarised CP violating rate asymmetries calculated according

1032: to \eqref{eq:acpei}, \eqref{eq:polCPdef}, and \eqref{eq:sigmai}

1033: for the decay $b \to d \tau^+ \tau^-$. 

1034: Since $\ACPL$ and $\ACPN$ are small we conclude that

1035: %the asymmetries  

1036: $\ACP(\vecn = +\eL) \simeq \ACP(\vecn = -\eL)$ and

1037: $\ACP(\vecn = +\eN) \simeq \ACP(\vecn = -\eN)$.

1038: On the other hand, $\ACPT$ is comparable to the unpolarised

1039: $\ACP$ as is indicated by the dash-dotted line in the $(2,1)$-panel.

1040: This in turn implies that $\ACP(\vecn = +\eT)$ is very small. As can be

1041: observed, all calculated asymmetries, reach at the maximum about $10 \%$. 

1042: 

1043: \section{Summary}

1044: \label{sec:summary}

1045: We have made a detailed study of the $CP$ asymmetry for the

1046: process, $b \to d l^+ l^-$, when one of the leptons is in a polarised state.

1047: Our results indicate that when a lepton is in a certain polarised state

1048: $(-\eL,-\eT)$, the decay rates are comparable to the unpolarised 

1049: spectrum. For the case of the normally polarised spectrum, both 

1050: $\pm \eN$ give similar widths but lower than in the case 

1051: of $-\eL$ and $-\eT$. 

1052: In the rest of the polarisation states, which we had defined to be 

1053: the {\it wrong sign} states, the decay rates and the 

1054: corresponding asymmetries

1055: are lower, in comparison to the unpolarised results. In the regions 

1056: which are away from resonance, we find the

1057: polarised $CP$ asymmetries are larger than the corresponding unpolarised 

1058: asymmetry. As expected, the resonance regions show a large

1059: asymmetry and in all of our analysis, we have included the $\rho-\omega$ 

1060: resonance states also. However, as discussed, the results at the resonance 

1061: region suffer from theoretical uncertainties. Barring a small kinematic

1062: window, measuring $\ACP$ requires $d$ quark tagging 

1063: (due to the dominant background $b \to s l^+ l^-$) \cite{Kruger:1997dt}; in 

1064: addition, for the polarised 

1065: asymmetries the polarization needs to be measured. However, 

1066: within the SM given the left-handed nature of the interactions, for the

1067: case of the electron, it is dominantly in the $-\eL$ state. We note that the

1068: results for the electron and muon in a given polarised state do not differ

1069: much and hence measuring a muon in a {\it wrong sign} polarised state $(+\eL)$

1070: can be very sensitive to new physics. Essentially, we need to probe polarised

1071: $(+\eL)$ muons; which we expect to be possible by (i) angular 

1072: distribution of the decay products and (ii) through the life 

1073: time of the $+\eL$ muons, which is enhanced as compared to 

1074: the $-\eL$ state due to 

1075: the dynamics of the SM interaction (left-handed); this is also evident by 

1076: their smaller decay width as observed in Fig.\ \ref{fig:br_e}. 

1077: The situation for the case of the

1078: tau leptons is different and we observe that the $\eT$ polarised state can be 

1079: most sensitive to new physics (see Fig. \ref{fig:br_tau}).

1080: We note that the polarisation observables involve different 

1081: quadratic combinations of the Wilson couplings and hence make for additional 

1082: consistency checks for the unpolarised SM decay spectra and also for a probe 

1083: to new physics which can show in loop effects. In this respect, given a real 

1084: valued $C_{10}$ (for the SM), we 

1085: note that the asymmetries, $\delta\Sigma^{\rm T}$ and $\delta\Sigma^{\rm N}$, 

1086: can be of relevance through the contributions arising from the 

1087: real and imaginary parts of the function $\xi_2$ to the operators, 

1088: $O_1 - O_6$. 

1089: 

1090: In order to observe a 

1091: 3$\sigma$ signal for $A_{CP}(\hat s)$ about $\sim 10^{10}$ $B$ mesons

1092: have been estimated to be required \cite{Kruger:1997dt}.

1093: As already mentioned such a measurement requires a good $d$-quark

1094: tagging to distinguish it from the much more copious decay

1095: $b \to s l^+ l^-$ and hence

1096: will be a challenging task at

1097: future hadronic colliders like LHCb, BTeV, ATLAS or CMS 

1098: \cite{Harnew:1999sq}. 

1099: More dedicated experiments like Super-BABAR and Super-BELLE

1100: should be able to achieve this goal.

1101: BELLE and BABAR have already measured the rare decay $b \to s l^+ l^-$

1102: which could be measured with great accuracy at these high luminosity

1103: upgrades.

1104: Given enough statistics,

1105: and excellent kaon/pion identification, they may be able to 

1106: measure $b \to d l^+ l^-$ or the exclusive process 

1107: $B \to \rho l^+ l^-$.\footnote{We thank A.\ Ali for pointing this

1108: out to us.}

1109: %

1110: In contrast, 

1111: for measuring $\ACP(\vecn = - \eL)$ we need a similar number

1112: of produced $B$-mesons, provided an efficient polarisation measurement

1113: is possible,

1114: since the branching rates are very much alike as discussed previously. 

1115: In this regard, given the almost massless nature of the electrons, the

1116: $CP$ asymmetry for the decay $b \to d e^+ e^-$ would correspond to a 

1117: polarised asymmetry as in (\ref{eq:acpei}). As a result, if our SM 

1118: expectations for the asymmetry as calculated here (see

1119: Fig. \ref{fig:acp_e}) are not met with, we might have a reasonable chance

1120: to look for new physics in polarised decays. In this paper, we 

1121: have classified

1122: all such polarised decays as {\it wrong sign} decays and

1123: these could be viable modes in search for new physics.

1124: \begin{center}

1125: {\bf Acknowledgments} 

1126: \end{center} 

1127: The work of Balaji has been supported by the

1128: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie,

1129: Bonn under contract no. 05HT1PEA9. 

1130: Part of the work of I.\ S.\ has been done at the University of Dortmund

1131: supported by the 'Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung', 

1132: Berlin/Bonn. 

1133: We thank Frank Kr\"uger and

1134: Lalit Sehgal for many useful discussions. 

1135: I.\ S.\ thanks Matthias Steinhauser for helpful comments on the

1136: input parameters. 

1137: We also thank E.\ Reya and A.\ Ali for comments and suggestions.

1138: 

1139: %Appendix 

1140: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}} 

1141: %\setcounter{equation}{0} 

1142: %\noindent {\bf{\Large{Appendix}}} 

1143: 

1144: \begin{appendix} 

1145: \section{Input Parameters}

1146: % 1. Parameters for the RG-evolution

1147: \begin{equation*}

1148: \begin{gathered}

1149: m_b = 4.8\ \gev, m_t = 165\ \gev, m_c = 1.3\ \gev,

1150: \\

1151: m_u = m_d = m_\pi = 140\ \mev, 

1152: \\

1153: m_e = 0.511\ \mev, m_\mu = 0.106\ \gev, m_\tau = 1.777\ \gev

1154: \\

1155: \mu = m_b, B(B \to X_c e \bar \nu_e)= 10.4 \%

1156: \\

1157: M_W = 80.423\ \gev, M_Z = 91.1876\ \gev, \sin^2(\theta_W) = 0.23,

1158: \\

1159: \alpha_{\rm em} = 1/129,

1160: \alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1183, \Lambda^{(5)}_\msbar = 230\ \mev

1161: \\

1162: \lambda = 0.2237, A = 0.8113, \rho = 0.25, \eta = 0.34

1163: \end{gathered}

1164: \end{equation*}

1165: \end{appendix}

1166: 

1167: \clearpage

1168: %\bibliographystyle{/home/schien/Bibliography/test}

1169: %\bibliography{/home/schien/Bibliography/bphysics}

1170: %\bibliography{/home/asok/balaji/Ingo/bphysics}

1171: %\bibliographystyle{/home/asok/balaji/Ingo/test}

1172: \bibliographystyle{/afs/desy.de/user/s/schien/Bibliography/test}

1173: \bibliography{/afs/desy.de/user/s/schien/Bibliography/bphysics}

1174: 

1175: \end{document} 

1176:  

1177: