1:
2: \documentstyle [12pt, epsf] {article}
3: \def\baselinestretch{1.25}
4: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt
5: \catcode`@=12
6: \topmargin 0.0in
7: \evensidemargin 0.0in
8: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
9: \textheight 8.5in
10: \textwidth 6.5in
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \def\spur{\not\! \,}
20: \def\B{B_d^0}
21: \def\Bb{\bar{B}_d^0}
22: \def\a{\alpha}
23: \def\as {\alpha_s}
24: \def\b{\beta}
25: \def\g{\gamma}
26: \def\d{\delta}
27: \def\e{\epsilon}
28: \def\ep{\epsilon^\prime}
29: \def\l{\lambda}
30: \def\lp{\lambda^\prime}
31: \def\lps{\lambda^{\prime *}}
32: \def\m{\mu}
33: \def\n{\nu}
34: \def\s{\sigma}
35: \def\p{\pi}
36: \def\as{\alpha_s}
37: \def \nlo {\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi }\frac{C_F}{N_c}}
38: \def \drho{\bar \rho}
39: \def \deta{\bar \eta}
40: \def\etal{ {\em et al.}}
41: \def\ss{\scriptstyle}
42: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: \begin{document}
46: \vspace{0.5in}
47: \oddsidemargin -.1 in
48: \newcount\sectionnumber
49: \sectionnumber=0
50:
51: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
52: \thispagestyle{empty}
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54:
55: \vskip.5truecm
56: \vspace*{0.5cm}
57:
58: \begin{center}
59: {\Large \bf
60: \centerline{Can there be any new physics in $b \to d$ penguins }}
61: \vspace*{0.5cm}
62: {Anjan K. Giri$^1$,
63: Rukmani Mohanta$^{1,2}$}
64: \vskip0.3cm
65: {\it $^1$Physics Department,
66: Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,
67: Haifa 32000, Israel}
68: \\
69: {\it $^2$School of Physics, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad - 500 046,
70: India}\\
71: \vskip0.5cm
72: \bigskip
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We analyze the possibility of observing new physics effects in the
75: $b \to d$ penguin amplitudes. For this purpose, we consider the
76: decay mode $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $, which has only $b \to d$ penguin
77: contributions. Using the QCD factorization approach, we find
78: very tiny CP violating effects in the standard model for this process.
79: Furthermore, we show that the minimal supersymmetric standard
80: model with $LR$ mass insertion and R-parity
81: violating supersymmetric model can provide
82: substantial CP violation effects. Observation of
83: sizable CP violation in this mode would be a clear
84: signal of new physics.
85:
86: \end{abstract}
87: \end{center}
88:
89:
90: \thispagestyle{empty}
91: \newpage
92:
93:
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: Recently there have been a lot of interests to look for new physics effect
98: beyond the standard model (SM). The recent measurement of the indirect
99: CP violating parameter $S_{\phi K_S}$ in the decay
100: mode $\B \to \phi K_S$, which is a pure $b \to s\bar s s $ penguin
101: induced process, may provide the first indication
102: of new physics beyond the SM \cite{tom1}.
103: Within the SM, the mixing induced CP asymmetry in the
104: $\B \to \phi K_S$ mode is expected to be equal to that of
105: $\B \to \psi K_S$ \cite{gross1} within a correction of
106: ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$. The most recent updated data on
107: $S_{\phi K^0}$ by BABAR \cite{babar04} agrees within one standard deviation
108: with the value of $S_{\psi K_S}$ whereas, the Belle data
109: \cite{belle04} has about $2 \sigma$ deviation. Therefore, the
110: presence of new physics (NP) in this mode has not yet been ruled out
111: from the available data.
112: In principle, the new physics can affect either
113: the $\B - \Bb $ mixing or the decay amplitudes.
114: Since the new physics effect in the mixing
115: can affect equally to both the cases the above deviation may be
116: attributed to the decay amplitude of $\B \to \phi K_S$ or more generally
117: to the $b \to s $ penguin amplitudes. The next obvious question is:
118: Do the $b \to d$ penguin amplitudes also have significant new physics
119: contribution. The present data does not provide any conclusive answer
120: to it. The obvious example is the $\B \to \pi \pi $ processes, which receive
121: contribution from $b \to u$ tree and from $b \to d$ penguin diagrams.
122: The charge averaged branching ratios of all the three processes
123: $\B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, $\B \to \pi^0 \pi^0 $ and $ B^\pm
124: \to \pi^\pm \pi^0 $ \cite{pdg04} and the CP violating parameters $C_{\pi \pi}$
125: and $S_{\pi \pi}$ in $\B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ process
126: \cite{pipi} have already been measured.
127: The present situation is: the measured branching ratio for the color allowed
128: process $\B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is about two times
129: smaller than the QCD factorization calculation and the measured
130: $\B \to \pi^0 \pi^0 $ color suppressed branching ratio is about
131: six times larger than the corresponding QCD factorization calculations
132: \cite{beneke1}.
133: Thus the discrepancy between the theoretical and the measured quantities
134: imply the following two consequences.
135:
136: $\bullet $ The QCD factorization may not be a very successful theory for
137: the charmless $B$ decays.
138:
139: $ \bullet $ There may also be significant new physics effect in the $b \to
140: d$ penguins as speculated in $b \to s$ penguins.
141:
142: Recently Buras \etal ~\cite{buras04} have shown that the observed
143: $B \to \pi \pi $ data
144: can be explained in the standard model if one includes the large
145: nonfactorizable contributions.
146: In this paper we would like to look into the second possibility i.e.,
147: the existence of any new physics in $b \to d $ penguin amplitudes
148: and indeed if it does,
149: could it be detectable. For this purpose, we consider the decay mode
150: $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$ which has only $b \to d $ penguin contribution.
151: The significance of this decay mode is that it
152: originates from $ b \to d \bar s s $ penguins with dominant contributions
153: coming from the QCD penguins. If one assumes that the penguin topology
154: is dominated by internal {\it top} quark, the CP asymmetry parameters
155: would vanish in the SM. However, as pointed out by Fleischer \cite{fl},
156: contribution from penguins with internal {\it up} and
157: {\it charm} quark
158: exchanges are expected to yield nonzero CP asymmetry in $\B \to K^0
159: \bar K^0$ mode. Thus, the study of CP asymmetries in this mode may
160: provide an interesting testing ground to
161: explore new physics effects. The CP averaged branching ratio
162: has recently been
163: measured by the BABAR collaboration \cite{babar4}
164: \be
165: {\cal B}(\B \to K^0 \bar K^0)=\left (1.19_{-0.35}^{+0.40}\pm 0.13 \right )
166: \times 10^{-6}\;,
167: \ee
168: which agrees with the SM predictions \cite{beneke1}.
169: Although, the measured branching ratio
170: does not provide any indication for a possible new physics effect,
171: the measurements of CP violation parameters in near future will certainly
172: establish/rule out the possibility of new physics in the $b \to d $
173: penguin amplitudes. This decay mode has recently been analyzed by
174: Fleischer and Recksiegel \cite{fle04} in the SM. They have shown that this
175: channel may be characterized through a surface in the observable space
176: from which one can extract the relevant information. In this paper we
177: consider the impact of new physics effect on the CP violation parameters.
178: We show that the minimal supersymmetric model with $LR$ mass insertion
179: and the supersymmetric model with R-parity violation can provide
180: significant CP violation effect, the observation of which would be a
181: clear signal of new physics.
182:
183: The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss the basic
184: formalism of CP violation. Using QCD factorization approach,
185: we estimate the CP averaged branching ratio and CP violating parameters
186: in the SM. The effects of new physics on the CP violating parameters are
187: discussed in section 3. The contributions arising from minimal supersymmetric
188: standard model with mass insertion approximation
189: and from R-parity violating supersymmetric
190: model are discussed in subsections 3.1 and 3.2 respectively.
191: Our conclusion is presented in section 4.
192:
193: \section{CP violating parameters in the Standard Model}
194:
195: We first present a very general treatment of the CP violating parameters.
196: The time dependent CP asymmetry for $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$
197: can be described by
198: \be
199: a_{K K}(t)=C_{K K}\cos \Delta M_{B_d} t+ S_{K K}
200: \sin \Delta M_{B_d} t\;,
201: \ee
202: where
203: \be
204: C_{K K}=\frac{1-|\lambda|^2}{1+|\lambda|^2},~~~~
205: S_{K K}=-\frac{2 {\rm Im(\lambda)}}{1+|\lambda|^2}.\label{cv}
206: \ee
207: In the above expression $\lambda$ corresponds to
208: \be
209: \lambda=\frac{q}{p}\frac{A(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0)}{A(\B \to
210: K^0 \bar K^0)}\;,
211: \ee
212: where, $q$ and $p$ are the mixing parameters defined as
213: \be
214: \frac{q}{p}= \sqrt {\frac{M_{12}^* -\frac{i}{2} \Gamma_{12}^*}
215: {M_{12} -\frac{i}{2} \Gamma_{12}}}\;.\label{mix}
216: \ee
217: The off diagonal element of the mass matrix is given by the matrix
218: element of the $\Delta B=2$ transition as
219: \be
220: \langle B_d^0 | {\cal H}_{\Delta B =2}|\Bb \rangle = M_{12}-\frac{i}{2}
221: \Gamma_{12}\;.
222: \ee
223: In the standard model, the box diagrams are dominated by the $W$-boson
224: and {\it top}
225: quark in the loop, as a result of which, one obtains (ignoring
226: terms of ${\cal O}(\Gamma_{12}/M_{12}))$
227: \be
228: \frac{q}{p}=\frac{V_{tb}^* V_{td}}{V_{tb} V_{td}^*}\simeq e^{-2i \beta}\;.
229: \ee
230: The amplitude for the decay mode $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $, which
231: receives dominant contribution in the SM from QCD penguins
232: with {\it top} quark in the loop can
233: be written as
234: \be
235: A( \Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0) = V_{tb}V_{td}^*~ P_t \;,
236: \ee
237: where $V_{ij}$ are the CKM matrix elements which provide the weak
238: phase information and
239: $P_t$ is the penguin amplitude arising from the matrix elements of
240: the four quark operators of the effective Hamiltonian. The amplitude for
241: the corresponding CP conjugate process is given as
242: \be
243: A( \B \to K^0 \bar K^0) = V_{tb}^*V_{td}~ P_t\;.
244: \ee
245: Thus one gets
246: \be
247: \lambda =\left (\frac{V_{tb}^* V_{td}}{V_{tb} V_{td}^*}\right )
248: \left (\frac{V_{tb} V_{td}^*}{V_{tb}^* V_{td}}\right )=1\;,
249: \ee
250: and hence
251: \be
252: C_{KK}=S_{KK}=0\;.
253: \ee
254: Thus if the measured CP violating asymmetries in $B^0 \to K^0 \bar K^0$
255: deviates significantly from zero it would be a clear signal of new physics.
256: However, the decay amplitude
257: also receives some contribution from the internal {\it up} and
258: {\it charm} quarks in the loop. Therefore, the CP violating
259: parameters
260: may not be zero identically. Now including the effects of $u, c,t$
261: quarks in the loop and using CKM unitarity one can write the decay
262: amplitude as
263: \bea
264: A(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0) = \lambda_u P_{ut} + \lambda_c P_{ct}
265: =\lambda_u P_{ut}\left [1-re^{i(\delta +\gamma)}\right ]\;,\label{amp}
266: \eea
267: where $\lambda_q= V_{qb}V_{qd}^*$, $P_{qt}=P_q-P_t$ are the penguin
268: amplitudes, $\delta= \delta_{ct}-\delta_{ut}$ is the relative strong
269: phase between them and $\gamma$ is the weak phase. The parameter $r$
270: is defined as
271: \be
272: r=\frac{1}{R_b} \left | \frac{P_{ct}}{P_{ut}} \right |\;,~~~~~
273: {\rm with}~~~~ R_b=\left (1-\frac{\l^2}{2}\right )
274: \frac{1}{\l}\left |\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}
275: \right |=\sqrt{\drho^2 +\deta^2}\;.
276: \ee
277: Thus one obtains the CP asymmetries as
278: \bea
279: S_{KK} &=&- \frac{\sin 2 \alpha + 2r \cos \delta \sin(2 \beta+\gamma)
280: -r^2 \sin 2\beta }{1+r^2-2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma}\;,\nn\\
281: C_{KK}&=& \frac{-2r \sin \delta \sin \gamma}{1+r^2-2r \cos \delta
282: \cos \gamma}\;,\label{cpa}
283: \eea
284: where $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the three angles of the
285: unitarity triangle. Thus, to know the precise value of the CP
286: violating asymmetries we must know the values of $r$ and $\delta$.
287: The CP averaged branching ratio for the process is given as
288: \be
289: {\cal B} (\B \to K^0 \bar K^0) =\frac{1}{2}\left [
290: {\rm Br}(\B \to K^0 \bar K^0)+{\rm Br}(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0)
291: \right ]\;,
292: \ee
293: where the individual branching ratios are given as
294: \be
295: {\rm Br}(\B \to K^0 \bar K^0)=\frac{\tau_{B^0} |p_{c.m}|}{8 \p m_B^2}~
296: \left |A(\B \to K^0 \bar K^0)\right |^2\;.
297: \ee
298: We now use the QCD factorization approach to calculate the
299: branching ratio and CP asymmetry parameters.
300: The effective Hamiltonian describing the process under consideration is
301: \be
302: {\cal H}_{eff}=
303: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
304: V_{qb}V_{qd}^* \biggr [\sum_{j=3}^{10}C_j O_j+C_g O_g
305: \biggr],
306: \ee
307: where $q=u,~c$. $O_3, \cdots, O_{6}$ and $O_7,
308: \cdots, O_{10}$ are the standard model QCD and electroweak penguin operators
309: respectively, and $O_{g}$ is the gluonic magnetic penguin operator.
310: The values of the Wilson coefficients at the scale $\mu \approx m_b$
311: in the NDR scheme are given
312: in Ref. \cite{buca96} as
313: \bea
314: &&C_3=0.014\;,~~~~~C_4=-0.035\:,~~~~~C_5=0.009\;,~~~~C_6=-0.041\;,
315: ~~~~C_7=-0.002\alpha\nn\\
316: &&C_8=0.054 \alpha\;,~~~~~
317: C_9=-1.292\alpha\;,~~~~C_{10}=0.263 \alpha\;,~~~~C_{g}=-0.143\;.
318: \eea
319: In the QCD factorization approach \cite{beneke1},
320: the hadronic matrix elements can be represented in the form
321: \be
322: \langle K^0 \bar K^0 |O_i |\B \rangle =
323: \langle K^0 \bar K^0 |O_i |\B \rangle_{\rm fact}\biggr[
324: 1+\sum r_n \alpha_s^n + {\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)
325: \biggr]\;,
326: \ee
327: where $\langle K^0 \bar K^0 |O_i |\B \rangle_{\rm fact}$ denotes the
328: naive factorization result and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim 225$ MeV is
329: the strong interaction scale. The second and third terms in the square
330: bracket represent higher order $\alpha_s$ and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$
331: corrections to the hadronic matrix elements.
332:
333: In the heavy quark limit the decay amplitude for the $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $
334: process, arising from the penguin diagrams is given as
335: \bea
336: A(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0) = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}\sum_{q=u,c}
337: V_{qb}V_{qd}^* \biggr[a_4^q-\frac{a_{10}^q}{2}+
338: a_{10a}^q+r_{\chi}\left (a_6^q-\frac{a_8^q}{2}
339: +a_{8a}^q \right )\biggr]X\;,\label{smamp}
340: \eea
341: where $X$ is the factorized matrix element. Using the form factors and decay
342: constants defined as \cite{bsw}
343: \bea
344: \langle K^0(p_K) |\bar s \gamma ^\mu b |\Bb (p_B) \rangle &=&
345: \biggr[(p_B+p_K)^\mu-\frac{m_B^2-m_K^2}{q^2} q^\mu \biggr] F_1(q^2)\nn\\
346: &+&
347: \frac{m_B^2-m_K^2}{q^2}q^\mu F_0(q^2)\;,\nn\\
348: \langle \bar K^0 (q ) |\bar d \gamma ^\mu \gamma_5 s | 0 \rangle &=&
349: -i f_K~ q^\mu\;,
350: \eea
351: we obtain
352: \bea
353: X &=& \langle K^0 (p_K)| \bar s
354: \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)b | \Bb (p_B) \rangle
355: \langle \bar K^0 (q )|\bar d
356: \gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)s|0 \rangle \nn\\
357: & = & -i f_K F_0(m_K^2)~(m_B^2-m_K^2)
358: \;.
359: \eea
360: The coefficients $a_i^q$'s which contain next to leading order
361: (NLO) and hard scattering corrections are given as \cite{yang1,du1}
362: \bea
363: a_4^q &= & C_4+\frac{C_3}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{C_F}{N}
364: \biggr[ C_3 \left [F_K + G_K(s_d) + G_K(s_b) \right ]
365: \nn\\
366: &+&C_1 G_K(s_q) +(C_4+C_6) \sum_{f=u}^b G_K(s_f)
367: +C_{g} G_{K, g}\biggr]\;,\nn\\
368: a_6^q &= & C_6+\frac{C_5}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{C_F}{N}
369: \biggr[ C_3 \left [ G_K^\prime(s_d) + G_K^\prime(s_b) \right ]
370: +C_1 G_K^\prime(s_q) \nn\\
371: &+&(C_4+C_6) \sum_{f=u}^b G_{K}^\prime(s_f)
372: +C_{g} G_{K, g}^\prime \biggr]\;,\nn\\
373: a_8^q &=& C_8+\frac{C_7}{3}\;,\nn\\
374: a_{8a}^q &=&\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{C_F}{N}
375: \biggr[ (C_8+C_{10})\frac{3}{2}\sum_{f=u}^b e_f G_K^\prime(s_f)
376: +C_9 \frac{3}{2} \left [ e_dG_K^\prime(s_d) +e_b G_{K}^\prime
377: (s_b) \right ]\biggr]\;,\nn\\
378: a_{10}^q &=& C_{10}+\frac{C_9}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi}
379: \frac{C_F}{N}C_9 F_K \;, \nn\\
380: a_{10a}^q &= & \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{C_F}{N}
381: \biggr[( C_8+C_{10}) \frac{3}{2}
382: \sum_{f=u}^{b}e_f G_K(s_f)
383: + C_9 \frac{3}{2}\left [e_d G_K(s_d) +e_b G_K(s_b) \right ]
384: \biggr]\;,\label{qcd}
385: \eea
386: where $q$ takes the values $u$ and $c$, $N=3$, is the number of
387: colors, $C_F=(N^2-1)/2N$. The internal quark mass in the
388: penguin diagrams enters as $s_f=m_f^2/m_b^2$.
389: The other parameters in (\ref{qcd}) are given as
390: \bea
391: F_K &=& -12 \ln \frac{\mu}{m_b}-18+f_K^I +f_K^{II}\;,\nn\\
392: f_K^I &= & \int_0^1 dx~ g(x) \phi_K(x)\;,~~~~
393: g(x) = 3 \frac{1-2x}{1-x}\ln x -3i \pi\;, \nn\\
394: f_K^{II} &= & \frac{4 \pi^2}{N} \frac{f_K f_B}{F_0^{B \to K}(0) m_B^2}
395: \int_0^1 \frac{dz}{z} \phi_B(z) \int_0^1 \frac{dx}{x} \phi_K(x)
396: \int_0^1 \frac{dy}{y} \phi_K(y)\;, \nn\\
397: G_{K,g} &=& - \int_0^1 d x \frac{2}{1-x} \phi_K(x)\;,\nn\\
398: G_K(s) &=& \frac{2}{3}-\frac{4}{3}{\rm ln}\frac{\mu}{m_b}
399: +4\int_0^1 dx~ \phi_K(x) \nn\\
400: &\times & \int_0^1 du~u (1-u) \ln\left [ s-u(1-u)(1-x)-i \epsilon \right ]\;,
401: \nn\\
402: G_{K,g}^\prime &=& -\int_0^1 dx \frac{3}{2} \phi_K^0(x)=-\frac{3}{2}\;,\nn\\
403: G_K^\prime(s) &=& \frac{1}{3}-{\rm ln}\frac{\mu}{m_b}
404: +3\int_0^1 dx~ \phi_K^0(x) \nn\\
405: &\times & \int_0^1 du~u (1-u) \ln\left [ s-u(1-u)(1-x)-i \epsilon \right ]\;.
406: \eea
407: The light cone distribution amplitudes (LCDA's) at twist two order
408: are given as
409: \bea
410: &&\phi_B(x) = N_B x^2(1-x)^2 {\rm exp}\biggr(-\frac{m_B^2 x^2}{2
411: \omega_B^2}\biggr) \;,\nn\\
412: &&\phi_{K}(x)= 6x(1-x)\;,~~~~\phi_K^0(x)=1\;,
413: \eea
414: where $N_B$ is the normalization factor satisfying
415: $ \int_0^1 dx \phi_B(x)=1$ and $\omega_B=0.4$ GeV. The quark masses appear in
416: $G(s)$ are pole masses and we have used the following values (in GeV)
417: in our analysis
418: \begin{eqnarray*}
419: m_u=m_d=m_s=0, ~~~~m_c=1.4~~~~m_b=4.8.
420: \end{eqnarray*}
421: $r_\chi=2 m_K^2/(m_b-m_s)(m_s+m_d)$ denotes the chiral enhancement factor.
422: It should be noted that the quark masses in the chiral enhancement factor
423: are running quark masses and we have used their values at the $b$
424: quark mass scale
425: as $m_b(m_b)$=4.4 GeV, $m_s(m_b)$=90 MeV and $m_d(m_b)=6.4$ MeV.
426:
427: For numerical evaluation we have used the following input parameters.
428: The value of the form factor
429: at zero recoil is taken as $F_0(0)=$ 0.38,
430: and its value at $q^2=m_K^2$ can be obtained
431: using simple pole dominance ansatz \cite{bsw} as
432: $F_0(m_K^2)=$ 0.383.
433: The values of the decay constants are as $f_{K}=$ 0.16 GeV
434: and $f_B=0.19 $ GeV,
435: the particle masses and the lifetime of
436: $\B$ meson
437: $\tau_{B^0}=1.536$ ps are taken from \cite{pdg04}.
438: Thus we obtain the amplitude (in units of $10^{-2}$)
439: \bea
440: A(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0)&=& -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}~\biggr[
441: V_{ub}V_{ud}^*\left (13.56 + i~4.59 \right )+V_{cb}V_{cd}^*
442: \left (14.98+i~
443: 2.06 \right )\biggr]\nn\\
444: &=& -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}~\biggr[
445: V_{ub}V_{ud}^* \left (14.32~ e^{i 18.7^\circ}
446: \right )+V_{cb}V_{cd}^*\left (15.12~ e^{i 7.83^\circ}\right )
447: \biggr]\;.\label{eq:ampsm}
448: \label{kl1}
449: \eea
450: We use the values of the CKM matrix elements at the $1 \sigma$ CL
451: in the Wolfenstein
452: parameterization from Ref. \cite{cha04} as
453: \begin{eqnarray}
454: \l=0.2265_{-0.0023}^{+0.0025}\;,~~~A=0.801_{-0.020}^{+0.029}\;,~~~~
455: \drho=0.189_{-0.070}^{+0.088}\;,~~~\deta=0.358_{-0.042}^{+0.046}\;,
456: \label{ckm1}
457: \end{eqnarray}
458: which correspond to the angles of the CKM unitarity triangle
459: \begin{eqnarray}
460: \sin 2 \alpha = -0.14_{-0.41}^{+0.37}\;,
461: ~~~\beta= \left (23.8_{-2.0}^{+2.1}
462: \right )^\circ\;,~~~~\gamma=\left(62_{-12}^{+10}
463: \right )^\circ\;.\label{ckm}
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: With these input parameters we obtain the CP averaged branching ratio as
466: \be
467: {\cal B}(\B \to K^0 \bar K^0) = (9.15 \pm
468: 0.30)\times 10^{-7}\;, \label{br}
469: \ee
470: which is slightly below the central experimental value (1).
471: Since, we
472: have used the LCDA's at twist two order our predicted result is slightly
473: lower than that of Ref. \cite{beneke1} where they have included the
474: twist three power corrections in the distribution amplitudes.
475: From Eqs. (\ref{amp}) and (\ref{eq:ampsm}) one can obtain
476: \be
477: r \approx 2.6 ~~~{\rm and}~~~\d \approx 11^\circ\;.\label{rp}
478: \ee
479: With these values we get the CP asymmetry parameters in the
480: SM as
481: \be
482: S_{KK}=0.061 ~~~~~~C_{KK}=-0.163\;.
483: \ee
484: By allowing the CKM matrix elements to vary within
485: their $1 \sigma$ range as given in Eqs. (\ref{ckm1}) and
486: (\ref{ckm}), we obtain the correlation between
487: $S_{KK}$ and $C_{KK}$ in the SM as shown in Figure-1, which gives
488: the constraints
489: \be
490: 0.02 \leq S_{KK} \leq 0.13\;,~~~~~~-0.17 \leq C_{KK} \leq -0.15\;.
491: \ee
492: Thus, if the measured values of CP asymmetry parameters
493: will be outside the above ranges, would be a
494: clear sign of new physics.
495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496: \begin{figure}[htb]
497:
498: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.0 truein \epsfbox{bkkfig1.eps}}
499: \caption{The correlation plot between $S_{KK}$ and $C_{KK}$
500: for the $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$ process in the SM, where we have used
501: $r=2.6$, $\delta=11^\circ$ and the CKM parameters are
502: varied within the range as given
503: in Eqs. (\ref{ckm1}) and (\ref{ckm}).}
504: \label{cor}
505: \end{figure}
506:
507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
508:
509: \section{New Physics effects on the CP violating parameters}
510:
511: Here, we consider the effect of new physics on the CP
512: violating parameters. Because of the new
513: physics contributions, the CP asymmetry parameters (\ref{cpa})
514: become modified. In principle, the new physics can affect
515: either the $B_d^0-\Bb$ mixing or the decay amplitudes. Let us first
516: investigate its effect in the mixing phenomena. In the presence of
517: new physics, there are additional contributions to the mixing parameters
518: arising from the new box diagrams. These contributions to the $\Delta B=2$
519: transitions are often parametrized as \cite{yg}
520: \be
521: \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}}{M_{12}^{SM}}}=r_m e^{i \theta_m}\;,
522: \ee
523: where $M_{12}=M_{12}^{SM}+M_{12}^{NP} $ is the off diagonal
524: element of the mass matrix, contains contribution both from
525: the SM and from new physics. Hence, the ratio of the mixing
526: parameters $q/p$ as given in Eq.(\ref{mix}) becomes
527:
528: \be
529: \frac{q}{p}\sim e^{-2i (\beta+\theta_m)}\;.
530: \ee
531: Thus, in the presence of new physics, the mixing induced CP asymmetry
532: in $B_d^0 \to \psi K_S$ can be given as
533: \be
534: S_{\psi K_S}=\sin(2\beta+2\theta_m)
535: \ee
536: However, since the present world average on
537: the measurement of $S_{\psi K_S}=0.726 \pm 0.037$ \cite{ligeti}
538: agrees quite well with the SM prediction
539: $S_{\psi K_S}=0.715_{-0.045}^{+0.055}$
540: \cite{smb}, we do not consider the effect of NP in
541: mixing in our analysis.
542:
543: Now we consider the effect of new physics on the CP violating parameters
544: arising from the new contribution
545: to the standard model decay amplitude (\ref{amp}).
546: In the presence of new physics the amplitude can be written as
547: \bea
548: A(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0)=A_{SM}+A_{NP}
549: = \lambda_u P_{ut}\left [1-re^{i(\delta+\gamma)}+
550: r_{NP} e^{i \theta_N} e^{i \delta_N} \right ]
551: \;,\label{npamp}
552: \eea
553: where $r_{NP}=|A_{NP}/\lambda_u P_{ut}|$, $\theta_N$ and $ {\delta_N}$
554: are the relative weak and strong phase between them.
555: The amplitude for the corresponding CP conjugate process can be
556: obtained by changing the sign of the weak phases.
557:
558: Thus the CP asymmetry parameters (\ref{cv}) become
559: \be
560: S_{KK}^{NP}= -\frac{X}{Y}\;,~~~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~~~
561: C_{KK}^{NP}=-\frac{Z}{Y}\;,
562: \ee
563: where
564: \bea
565: X &=& \sin 2 \alpha +2r \cos \delta \sin (2 \beta+\gamma)
566: - r^2 \sin 2 \beta +2 r_{NP} \cos \delta_N \sin (2 \alpha+\theta_N)\nn\\
567: &&-
568: 2 r r_{NP} \cos (\delta -\delta_N)\sin (\theta_N-(2 \beta+\gamma))
569: +r_{NP}^2 \sin (2 \alpha+2 \theta_N)\;,\nn\\
570: Y&=& 1+r^2+r_{NP}^2 -2r \cos \delta \cos \gamma+ 2 r_{NP} \cos \delta_N
571: \cos \theta_N \nn\\
572: &&-2 r r_{NP} \cos(\delta -\delta_N) \cos (\gamma -\theta_N)
573: \;,\nn\\
574: Z &= &2 \biggr[r \sin \delta \sin \gamma - r_{NP} \sin \delta_N \sin \theta_N
575: +r r_{NP} \sin(\delta - \delta_N) \sin(\gamma- \theta_N )\biggr]\;.
576: \eea
577:
578: The branching ratio in the presence of new physics is given as
579: \be
580: {\rm Br}(\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^0)={\rm Br^{SM}}\left (1+\left |\frac{A_{NP}}
581: {A_{SM}}\right |^2+2 r_{NP}\left |\frac{A_{NP}}
582: {A_{SM}}\right | \cos
583: \phi_{N} \right )\;,\label{br11}
584: \ee
585: where ${\rm Br^{SM}}$ denotes the SM branching ratio and
586: $\phi_N$ is the relative phase between the new physics and standard model
587: amplitudes.
588:
589: Now, we consider two beyond the standard model scenarios: the minimal
590: supersymmetric standard model with mass insertion approximation and
591: R-parity violating supersymmetric model and study their effects
592: on CP violation parameters in the
593: following subsections.
594:
595: \subsection{Contribution from minimal supersymmetric standard
596: model with mass insertion approximation}
597:
598: Here, we analyze the decay process $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $, in the minimal
599: supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with mass insertion approximation.
600: This decay mode receives supersymmetric (SUSY)
601: contributions mainly from penguin and box diagrams containing
602: gluino-squark, chargino-squark and
603: charged Higgs-top loops. Here, we consider only the
604: gluino contributions, because
605: the chargino and charged Higgs loops are expected to be suppressed
606: by the small electroweak gauge couplings.
607: However, the gluino mediated FCNC contributions are
608: of the order of strong interaction strength, which may exceed the
609: existing limits. Therefore, it is customary to rotate the
610: effects, so that the FCNC effects occur
611: in the squark propagators rather than in couplings and to parameterize them
612: in terms of dimensionless parameters. Here we work in the usual mass insertion
613: approximation \cite{hall86, gabb96} where the flavor mixing
614: $i \to j$ in the down-type squarks associated with $\tilde q_B$ and
615: $\tilde q_A$ are parametrized by $(\delta^d_{AB})_{ij}$, with
616: $A,~B=L,~R$ and $i,j$ as the generation indices. More explicitly
617: $(\delta^d_{LL})_{ij}
618: =({V_L^d}^\dagger M_{\tilde d}^2 V_L^d)_{ij}/ m_{\tilde q}^2$, where
619: $M_{\tilde d}^2$
620: is the squared down squark mass matrix and $m_{\tilde q}$ is
621: the average squark mass.
622: $V_d$ is the matrix which diagonalizes the down-type quark mass matrix.
623:
624: The new effective $\Delta B=1$ Hamiltonian relevant for the $B \to K^0 \bar
625: K^0$
626: process arising from new penguin/box diagrams with gluino-squark in the
627: loops is given as
628: \be
629: {\cal H}_{eff}^{SUSY} = -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2} V_{tb}V_{td}^*
630: \left [\sum_{i=3}^6 \left ( C_i^{NP}O_i+ \tilde C_i^{NP} \tilde O_i
631: \right )
632: +C_g^{NP} O_g + \tilde C_g^{NP} \tilde O_g \right ]\;,
633: \ee
634: where $O_i$ ($O_g$) are the QCD (magnetic) penguin operators
635: and $C_i^{NP}$, $C_g^{NP}$ are the
636: new Wilson coefficients. The operators $\tilde O_i$
637: are obtained from $O_i$ by exchanging $L \leftrightarrow
638: R$.
639:
640: To evaluate the
641: amplitude in the MSSM, we have to first determine the Wilson coefficients
642: at the $b$ quark mass scale.
643: At the leading order in mass insertion approximation the new Wilson
644: coefficients corresponding to each of the operator at the scale
645: $\mu \sim \tilde m \sim M_W$ are given as \cite{gabb96,ko04}
646: \bea
647: C_3^{NP} & \simeq & -\frac{\sqrt 2 \alpha_s^2}{4 G_F V_{tb}
648: V_{td}^* m_{\tilde q}^2}\left ( \delta_{LL}^d \right )_{13}
649: \left [ - \frac{1}{9}B_1(x) -\frac{5}{9} B_2(x)-\frac{1}{18}P_1(x)
650: -\frac{1}{2}P_2(x) \right ]\;,\nn\\
651: C_4^{NP} & \simeq & -\frac{\sqrt 2 \alpha_s^2}{4 G_F V_{tb}
652: V_{td}^* m_{\tilde q}^2}\left ( \delta_{LL}^d \right )_{13}
653: \left [ - \frac{7}{3}B_1(x) +\frac{1}{3} B_2(x)+\frac{1}{6}P_1(x)
654: +\frac{3}{2}P_2(x) \right ]\;,\nn\\
655: C_5^{NP} & \simeq & -\frac{\sqrt 2 \alpha_s^2}{4 G_F V_{tb}
656: V_{td}^* m_{\tilde q}^2}\left ( \delta_{LL}^d \right )_{13}
657: \left [ \frac{10}{9}B_1(x) +\frac{1}{18} B_2(x)-\frac{1}{18}P_1(x)
658: -\frac{1}{2}P_2(x) \right ]\;,\nn\\
659: C_6^{NP} & \simeq & -\frac{\sqrt 2 \alpha_s^2}{4 G_F V_{tb}
660: V_{td}^* m_{\tilde q}^2}\left ( \delta_{LL}^d \right )_{13}
661: \left [ - \frac{2}{3}B_1(x) +\frac{7}{6} B_2(x)+\frac{1}{6}P_1(x)
662: +\frac{3}{2}P_2(x) \right ]\nn\\
663: C_{g}^{NP} &\simeq &
664: -\frac{2\sqrt 2 \pi \alpha_s}{2 G_F V_{tb}
665: V_{td}^* m_{\tilde q}^2}\biggr[ \left ( \delta_{LL}^d \right )_{13}
666: \left ( \frac{3}{2}M_3(x) -\frac{1}{6} M_4(x)\right )\nn\\
667: &&\hspace*{1.0 true in}
668: + \left ( \delta_{LR}^d \right )_{13}
669: \left (\frac{m_{\tilde g}}{m_b}\right )
670: \frac{1}{6}\left (4B_1(x)-\frac{9}{x}B_2(x) \right )\biggr]\;,
671: \eea
672: where $x=m_{\tilde g}^2/m_{\tilde q}^2 $. The loop functions appear in these
673: expressions can be found in Ref. \cite{gabb96}.
674: The corresponding $ \tilde C_i$ are obtained from $C_i^{NP}$ by
675: interchanging $L \leftrightarrow R$.
676: It should be noted that the $(\delta_{LR}^d)_{13}$ contribution
677: is enhanced by $(m_{\tilde g}/m_b)$ compared to the contribution from
678: the SM and the $LL$ insertion due to the chirality flip from the
679: internal gluino propagator in the loop.
680:
681:
682: The Wilson coefficients at low energy
683: $C_i^{NP}(\mu \sim m_b)$, can be obtained from $C_i^{NP}(M_W)$
684: by using the Renormalization Group (RG) equation as discussed in
685: Ref. \cite{buca96}, as
686: \be
687: {\bf C}(\mu) ={\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W) {\bf C}(M_W)\;,
688: \ee
689: where ${\bf C}$ is the $6 \times 1$ column vector of the
690: Wilson coefficients and
691: ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ is the five-flavor $6 \times 6$ evolution matrix.
692: In the next-to-leading order (NLO), ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ is given by
693: \be
694: {\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)=\left (1+\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4 \pi} {\bf J} \right )
695: {\bf U}_5^{(0)}(\mu, M_W)\left (1-\frac{\alpha_s(M_W)}{4 \pi} {\bf J}
696: \right )\;,
697: \ee
698: where ${\bf U}_5^{(0)}(\mu, M_W)$ is the leading order (LO)
699: evolution matrix and ${\bf J}$ denotes the NLO corrections to the evolution.
700: The explicit forms of ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ and
701: ${\bf J}$ are given in Ref. \cite{buca96}.
702:
703: Since the $O_g$ contribution to the matrix element is $\alpha_s$ order
704: suppressed, we consider only leading order RG effects for
705: the coefficient $C_g^{NP}$, which is given as \cite{he01}
706: \be
707: C_g^{NP}(m_b)= \left ( \frac{\as(m_{\tilde q}}{\as(m_t)} \right )^{2/21}
708: \left ( \frac{\as(m_t)}{\as (m_b)} \right )^{2/23}\;.
709: \ee
710: For the numerical analysis, we fix the SUSY parameter as $m_{\tilde q}
711: =m_{\tilde g}=500 $ GeV, $\alpha_s(M_W)=0.119$,
712: $\alpha_s(m_b=4.4$ GeV)=0.221, $\alpha_s(m_t=175$ GeV)=0.107.
713: Now substituting the values of the RG evoluted
714: Wilson coefficients $C_i^{NP}(m_b)$'s in Eq. (\ref{qcd}) we obtain
715: the corresponding $a_i$'s and hence with Eq. (\ref{smamp})
716: the amplitude. Assuming that all the mass insertion parameters
717: $ (\delta^d_{AB})_{13}$ have a common weak phase, we obtain the
718: fraction of new physics amplitude as defined in Eq. (\ref{npamp})
719: \bea
720: r_{NP}\simeq
721: 0.33 \left (| (\delta^d_{LL} )_{13}| -
722: | (\delta^d_{RR} )_{13}|\right )+
723: 465.86 \left (| (\delta^d_{LR} )_{13}|
724: -| (\delta^d_{RL})_{13}|\right )\;.\label{LL}
725: \eea
726: It should be noted that because of the opposite
727: chiral structure of the currents $O_i$ and $\tilde O_i$,
728: the $LL$ and $RR$ and also the $LR$ and $RL$
729: contributions occur with opposite sign.
730: As seen from Eq. (\ref{LL}), the $LR (RL)$ insertions have
731: dominant effect because of the $m_{\tilde g}/m_b$ enhancement.
732: We use the limits on the $ (\delta^d_{LL} )_{13}$ and
733: $(\delta^d_{LR} )_{13}$ mixing parameters from \cite{ko02}
734: for $x=1$ as
735: \be
736: |(\delta^d_{LL} )_{13}| \leq 0.2~~~~~~~~~
737: |(\delta^d_{LR} )_{13}|\leq 0.01
738: \ee
739: and assume that only one of these gives a dominant SUSY contribution.
740: This gives $(r_{NP})_{LL} \leq 6.6 \times 10^{-2}$ and
741: $(r_{NP})_{LR} \leq 4.66$.
742: Since the new physics effect due to $LL$ insertion is almost
743: negligible it will not provide any significant effect on the CP
744: violating observables. The correlation plot between $C_{KK}^{NP}$ and
745: $S_{KK}^{NP}$ for $LL$ insertion is shown in Figure-2, where we use
746: $r=2.6$, $\delta=11^\circ$ as obtained from QCD factorization
747: analysis, the central values of the CKM weak phases from
748: (\ref{ckm}), the relative weak phase
749: $\theta_N=\pi$ and vary the relative
750: strong phase $\delta_{N}$ between 0 and $2\pi$. In this case, because of the
751: negligible new physics contribution one gets only
752: tiny CP violating effects. In Figure-3, we present the
753: correlation plot for $LR$ insertion, where we have used
754: $(r_{NP})_{LR} = 4.66$, $0 \leq \delta_{N} \leq 2 \pi$ and
755: a representative set of weak phases $\theta_{N}=\pi,~\pi/2,~
756: \pi/3,~\pi/4$. For $r$ and $\delta$, we have used the values as
757: obtained from QCD factorization (\ref{rp}).
758: As expected, in this case large CP violation can be generated.
759:
760: The branching ratio (\ref{br11}) versus $\phi_{N}$ is plotted in Figure-4
761: for $|A_{NP}/A_{SM}|=2.19$.
762: One can see from Figure-4 that the observed data can be easily
763: accommodated in minimal supersymmetric standard model with $LR$
764: mass insertion.
765:
766: Thus in future, if sizable CP violation effects will be observed in
767: $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $ mode, the minimal supersymmetric standard
768: model with $LR$ mass insertion may be a strong contender of
769: new physics to explain the data.
770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
771: \begin{figure}[htb]
772: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.5 truein \epsfbox{fignpl.eps}}
773: \caption{The correlation plot between $S_{KK}^{NP}$ and $C_{KK}^{NP}$
774: for the $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$ process in the MSSM with only $LL$ insertion,
775: where we have used $(r_{NP})_{LL}=6.6 \times 10^{-2}$, the weak phase
776: $\theta_{N}=\pi$, $r=2.6$, $\delta=11^\circ$
777: and varied the strong phase
778: $\delta_{N}$ between 0 and $2 \pi$. }
779: \end{figure}
780:
781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
782: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
783: \begin{figure}[htb]
784: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.5 truein \epsfbox{nplr.eps}}
785: \caption{The correlation plot between $S_{KK}^{NP}$ and $C_{KK}^{NP}$
786: for the $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$ process in the MSSM with
787: $LR$ mass insertion, where we have used $r=2.6$, $\delta=11^\circ$,
788: $(r_{NP})_{LR}=4.66$, a set of weak phases
789: $\theta_{N}= \pi,~\pi/2,~\pi/3,~\pi/4$,
790: and varied the strong phase
791: $\delta_{N}$ between 0 and $2 \pi$.}
792: \end{figure}
793:
794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
795:
796:
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798:
799: \begin{figure}[htb]
800: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.5 truein \epsfbox{br.eps}}
801: \caption{
802: The branching ratio of $\Bb \to K^0 \bar K^{0}$ process
803: (in units of $10^{-6}$) versus the phase
804: $\phi_{N}$ (in degree). The horizontal solid line represents the
805: experimental central value and the dotted lines represent the
806: $1 \sigma $ range.}
807: \end{figure}
808:
809: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
810:
811:
812:
813: \subsection{R-parity violating supersymmetric contribution}
814:
815: We now analyze the decay mode in the minimal supersymmetric model with
816: R-parity violation (RPV).
817: In the supersymmetric models there may be
818: interactions which violate the baryon number $B$ and the lepton number $L$
819: generically. The simultaneous presence of both $L$ and $B$ number
820: violating operators induce rapid proton decay, which may contradict
821: strict experimental bound. In order to keep the proton lifetime
822: within the experimental limit, one needs to impose additional symmetry
823: beyond the SM gauge symmetry to force the unwanted baryon and lepton
824: number violating interactions to vanish. In most cases this has
825: been done by imposing an {\it ad hoc} symmetry called R-parity defined
826: as, $R=(-1)^{(3B+L+2S)}$, where $S$ is the intrinsic spin of the
827: particles. Thus R-parity can be used to distinguish the particles ($R=+1$)
828: from their superpartners ($R=-1$). The conservation of R-parity implies
829: that the supersymmetric particles must be produced in pairs and the
830: lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) must be stable. However,
831: there is no compelling reason to require the conservation
832: of R-parity. Less restrictive symmetries- conservation of baryon/lepton
833: number alone can be imposed to prohibit the unwanted proton decay.
834: Extensive studies has been done to look for the direct as well as
835: indirect evidence of R-parity violation from different processes
836: and to put constraints on various R-parity violating couplings \cite{rpv1}.
837:
838: Here, we consider only the lepton number violating effects.
839: The most general $R$-parity and lepton number violating
840: super-potential is given as
841: \begin{equation}
842: W_{\not\!{L}} =\frac{1}{2} \lambda_{ijk} L_i L_j E_k^c
843: +\lambda_{ijk}^\prime L_i Q_j D_k^c \;,\label{eq:eqn10}
844: \end{equation}
845: where, $i, j, k$ are generation indices, $L_i$ and $Q_j$ are
846: $SU(2)$ doublet lepton and quark superfields and $E_k^c$, $D_k^c$
847: are lepton and down type quark singlet superfields.
848:
849: Thus the relevant four fermion
850: interaction induced by the R-parity and lepton number violating
851: model is
852: \begin{eqnarray}
853: {\cal H}_{\spur{R}}&=&
854: -\frac{1}{2m^2_{\tilde{\nu}_i}}\eta^{-8/\beta_0 }
855: \biggr[
856: \lambda'_{i31}\lambda'^{*}_{i22}(\bar{s}_{\alpha} \gamma_{\mu} L
857: b_{\beta}) (\bar{d}_{\beta} \gamma^{\mu} R s_{\alpha})
858: +\lambda'^{*}_{i13}\lambda'_{i22}(\bar{s}_{\alpha} \gamma_{\mu} R
859: b_{\beta}) (\bar{d}_{\beta} \gamma^{\mu} L s_{\alpha})
860: \nonumber\\
861: &&~~~~~~~~~
862: +\lambda'_{i32}\lambda'^{*}_{i12}(\bar{d}_{\alpha} \gamma_{\mu} L
863: b_{\beta}) (\bar{s}_{\beta} \gamma^{\mu} R s_{\alpha})
864: +\lambda'^{*}_{i23}\lambda'_{i21}(\bar{d}_{\alpha} \gamma_{\mu} R
865: b_{\beta})
866: (\bar{s}_{\beta} \gamma^{\mu} L s_{\alpha})\biggr],
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: where $\eta=\frac{\alpha_{s}(m_{\tilde{f}_i})}{\alpha_{s}(m_b )}$ and
869: $\beta_0 =11-\frac{2}{3}n_f $. The QCD correction factor
870: $\eta^{-8/\beta_0 }$ arises due to running from the sfermion mass
871: scale $m_{\tilde{f}_i}$ (100 GeV assumed) down to the
872: $m_b$ scale.
873:
874: The amplitude for $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $ process in the RPV model
875: is given as
876: \begin{eqnarray}
877: A_{\spur{R}}(B^0 \to K^0 \bar K^0)&=&
878: -\frac{1}{8 m^2_{\tilde{\nu}_i}} \eta^{-8/\beta_0 }X
879: \biggr[ \frac{1}{N}\left( \lambda'_{i22}
880: {\lambda'}^{*}_{i13}-\l'_{i31}{\l'}^*_{i22} \right )\nn\\
881: &-& \frac{2 m_K^2}{(m_b-m_s)(m_d+m_s)}
882: \left (\lambda'_{i21} {\lambda'}^*_{i23}
883: -\l'_{i32} {\l'}^*_{i12} \right )\biggr]\;,
884: \end{eqnarray}
885: where we have kept only the leading order factorization contributions.
886: We use the parameterization $\lambda'_{i22}
887: {\lambda'}^{*}_{i13}=-\l'_{i31}{\l'}^*_{i22} =k e^{i \theta }$
888: and $\lambda'_{i32} {\lambda'}^*_{i12}=-
889: \l'_{i21} {\l'}^*_{i23} =k_1 e^{i \theta}$, assuming the same
890: weak phase for all the RPV couplings.
891: The limits on the couplings $|\lambda'_{i32} {\lambda'}^*_{i12}|=
892: |\l'_{i21} {\l'}^*_{i23}|$ are obtained from
893: $\B \to \phi \pi $ decay in Ref. \cite{eilam}
894: \be
895: k_1=|\lambda'_{i32} {\lambda'}^*_{i12}|=
896: |\l'_{i21} {\l'}^*_{i23}|\leq 4.0 \times 10^{-4}\;.
897: \ee
898: In our analysis we use $k=k_1 \leq 4.0 \times 10^{-4}$
899: and obtain the new physics parameter
900: \be
901: r_{NP}\leq 3.92 \;.
902: \ee
903: The correlation plot between $C_{KK}^{NP}$ and $S_{KK}^{NP}$
904: for the above value of $r_{NP}$ is shown in Figure-5, for
905: some representative values of the weak phase and $0 \leq
906: \delta^{NP} \leq 2 \pi $. The values of $r$ and $\delta$ are used as
907: derived from QCD factorization. In this case also one can get
908: observable CP violation effects.
909: Plotting the branching ratio (\ref{br11}) vs. $\phi_{N}$
910: for $|A_{NP}/A_{SM}|=1.84$ we can
911: see from Figure-4 that
912: the observed branching ratio can be easily accommodated in the RPV model.
913:
914: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
915: \begin{figure}[htb]
916: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.5 truein \epsfbox{nprpv.eps}}
917: \caption{The correlation plot between $S_{KK}^{NP}$ and
918: $C_{KK}^{NP}$ in the RPV model for $r_{NP}=3.92$,
919: $r=2.6$, $\delta=11^\circ$, $\theta_{N}=\pi,~ \pi/2,
920: ~\pi/3,
921: ~\pi/4$ and
922: $0\leq \delta_{N} \leq 2 \pi $}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
926:
927:
928:
929: \section{Conclusion}
930: The recent measurement of the mixing induced CP asymmetry in $\B \to
931: \phi K_S$ which has significant deviation from $\sin(2 \beta)_{\psi K_S}$
932: may provide the first indication of new physics effects present
933: in the $ b \to s$ penguin amplitudes. In this paper, we have investigated
934: the possibility of observing new physics effects in the $b \to d $
935: penguin amplitudes. We have considered the decay mode $\B \to
936: K^0 \bar K^0 $ which proceeds through the quark level FCNC
937: transition $b \to d \bar s s$, receiving contributions only
938: from one-loop $ b \to d $ penguin diagrams. If one would assume
939: only the {\it top} quark exchange in the penguin loop as usually done,
940: the CP asymmetry
941: parameters would vanish in the SM. However, contributions from
942: penguins with internal {\it up} and {\it charm} quark
943: exchanges are expected to yield
944: small non-vanishing CP asymmetries. Thus, if significant CP asymmetries
945: will be found in this channel then it would be a clear indication of
946: new physics effects in $b \to d $ penguin amplitudes. However, as discussed
947: in Ref. \cite{ciu01}, the nonfactorizable long-distance $charm$
948: penguins may also give significant contributions which
949: in turn yield sizable
950: CP asymmetries. In that case it is practically
951: impossible to disentangle the
952: new physics effects from the nonfactorizable {\it charm}
953: and {\it GIM} penguins without
954: any additional assumptions. However, very recently, it has
955: been pointed out by Beneke {\it et al} \cite{mn04} that the nonfactorizable
956: $charm$ penguin contributions are of higher order in $1/m_b$ expansion.
957: Thus the observation of sizable CP asymmetry in this mode may be considered
958: as the signal of new physics.
959:
960:
961: Using QCD factorization approach, we found the CP averaged
962: branching ratios in the SM for $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0 $ process
963: as $\sim 0.9 \cdot 10^{-6}$, which is slightly below the present
964: experimental value. The CP asymmetry
965: parameters are found to be $S_{KK}=0.06$ and $C_{KK}=-0.16$. Allowing
966: the CKM parameters to vary within their $1 \sigma $ limits, we obtained
967: the allowed ranges as $0.02 \leq S_{KK} \leq 0.13$ and
968: $-0.17 \leq C_{KK} \leq -0.15$. If the observed values would deviate
969: significantly from the above ranges would be a clear signal of new physics.
970: We next analyzed the decay mode in the MSSM
971: with mass insertion approximation and found that the $LR$
972: insertion has significant effects than the $LL$ or $RR$ insertions.
973: In this case one can have significant CP violating asymmetries.
974: Considering the R-parity violating supersymmetric model we found that
975: one can also obtain significant CP violation
976: with the present available RPV couplings.
977: Therefore, the future experimental data on $\B \to K^0 \bar K^0$
978: CP violating parameters will
979: serve as a very good hunting ground for the existence of
980: new physics beyond the SM and also support/rule out some of the
981: existing new physics models.
982:
983: \begin{flushleft}
984: \begin{large}
985: {\bf Acknowledgments}
986: \end{large}
987: \end{flushleft}
988: R.M. would like to thank the HEP theory group at the Technion
989: for the kind hospitality and
990: AKG would like to thank Lady Davis Foundation for financial
991: support. The
992: work of RM was partly supported by Department of
993: Science and Technology, Government of India,
994: through Grant No. SR/FTP/PS-50/2001.
995:
996: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
997:
998: \bibitem{tom1} T. Browder, Talk presented at the Lepton-Photon, 2003,
999: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 965 (2004).
1000:
1001: \bibitem{gross1} Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah,
1002: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 241 (1997);
1003: D. London and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 407}, 61 (1997);
1004: Y. Grossman, G. Isidori and M. Worah, Phys. Rev. D
1005: {\bf 58}, 057504 (1997).
1006:
1007: \bibitem{babar04} B Aubert \etal, (BABAR Collaborations), hep-ex/0408072.
1008:
1009: \bibitem{belle04} Y. Sakai, (Belle Collaborations), Talk presented at
1010: International Conference on High Energy Physics, 2004.
1011:
1012: \bibitem{pdg04} S. Eidelman \etal, Review of Particle Physics,
1013: Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{pipi} K. Abe \etal, [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.
1016: {\bf 93}, 021601 (2004); Phys. Rev. D{\bf 68}, 012001 (2003);
1017: B. Aubert \etal, [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89},
1018: 281802 (2002); hep-ex/0408089.
1019:
1020: \bibitem{beneke1} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and
1021: C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 606}, 245 (2001); M. Beneke
1022: and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 675}, 333
1023: (2003).
1024:
1025: \bibitem{buras04} A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and
1026: F. Schwab,
1027: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 101804 (2004); hep-ph/0402112.
1028:
1029: \bibitem{fl} R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 341}, 205 (1994).
1030:
1031: \bibitem{babar4} B Aubert \etal, (BABAR Collaborations), hep-ex/0408080.
1032:
1033: \bibitem{fle04} R. Fleischer and S. Recksiegel, hep-ph/0408016.
1034:
1035: \bibitem{buca96} G.\ Buchalla, A.J.\ Buras, M.\ Lautenbacher, Rev.\
1036: Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996).
1037:
1038: \bibitem{bsw} M.\ Wirbel, M.\ Bauer, B.\ Stech, Z. Phys. C {\bf 29},
1039: 637 (1985); {\it ibid} {\bf 34}, 103 (1987).
1040:
1041: \bibitem{yang1} T. Muta, A. Sugamoto, M. Z. Yang and Y. D. Yang,
1042: Phys. Rev. D{\bf62}, 094020 (2000).
1043:
1044: \bibitem{du1} D. Du, H. Gong, J. Sun, D. Yang and G. Zhu,
1045: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 65}, 074001 (2002).
1046:
1047: \bibitem{cha04} J. Charles \etal, hep-ph/0406184.
1048:
1049: \bibitem{yg} Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and M. P. Worah, Phys. Lett.
1050: B {\bf 407}, 307 (1997).
1051:
1052: \bibitem{ligeti} Z. Ligeti, Talk presented at
1053: International Conference on High Energy Physics, 2004,
1054: hep-ph/0408267.
1055: \bibitem{smb} A. J. Buras, hep-ph/0210291; A. J. Buras, F. Parodi
1056: and A. Stocchi, JHEP {\bf 0301}, 029 (2003).
1057:
1058: \bibitem{hall86} L. J. Hall, V. L. Costelecky and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B
1059: {\bf 267}, 415 (1986).
1060:
1061: \bibitem{gabb96} F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silverstini,
1062: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 477}, 321 (1996).
1063:
1064: \bibitem{ko04} G. L. Kane \etal, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 035015
1065: (2004).
1066:
1067: \bibitem{he01} X. G. He, J. Y. Leou and J. Q. Shi, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 64},
1068: 094018 (2001).
1069:
1070: \bibitem{ko02} P. Ko, J.-H. Park and G. Kramer, Euro. Phys.
1071: Jour. C{\bf 25}, 615 (2002).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{rpv1}
1074: For reviews on $R$-parity violation see
1075: H.~Dreiner, {\it An Introduction to Explicit R-Parity
1076: Violation} in {\it Perspectives on Supersymmetry},
1077: p.462-479, Ed. G.L.~Kane (World Scientific);
1078: G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52 {\bf A}, 83
1079: (1997);
1080: R. Barbier, \etal, hep-ph/0406039.
1081:
1082: \bibitem{eilam} S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and Y. D. Yang, Phys. Rev.
1083: D{\bf 67}, 014007 (2003).
1084:
1085: \bibitem{ciu01} M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, M. Pierini and
1086: L. Silverstini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 515}, 33 (2001); C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol,
1087: I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 054015 (2004).
1088:
1089: \bibitem{mn04} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda,
1090: hep-ph/0411171.
1091:
1092: \end{thebibliography}
1093:
1094:
1095: \end{document}
1096:
1097:
1098:
1099: