1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,prl]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}
3:
4: \topmargin-1cm
5: \def\simgt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt \hbox {$>$}}
6: \def\simlt{\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt \hbox {$<$}}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \preprint{PITHA 05/19
11: %; hep-ph/05mmnnn
12: }
13:
14: \title{
15: \boldmath
16: Enhanced electroweak penguin amplitude in $B\to VV$ decays
17: \unboldmath}
18: \author{M.~Beneke${}^1$, J.~Rohrer${}^1$ and D.~Yang${}^2$}
19:
20: \affiliation{
21: $^1\!\!\!$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH Aachen,
22: D-52056 Aachen, Germany\\
23: $^2\!\!\!$ Department of Physics, Nagoya University,
24: Nagoya 464-8602, Japan
25: }
26:
27: \date{December 19, 2005}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: \noindent
31: We discuss a novel electromagnetic penguin contribution to the
32: transverse helicity amplitudes in $B$ decays to two vector mesons,
33: which is enhanced by two powers of $m_B/\Lambda$ relative
34: to the standard penguin amplitudes. This leads to unique polarization
35: signatures in penguin-dominated decay modes such as $B\to\rho K^*$
36: similar to polarization effects in the radiative
37: decay $B\to K^*\gamma$, and offers new opportunities to probe
38: the magnitude and chirality of flavour-changing neutral current
39: couplings to photons.
40: \end{abstract}
41: \pacs{13.20.He,12.60.-i}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: \noindent
48: Decays of $B$ mesons into two charmless mesons provide an abundant
49: source of information on flavour- and CP-violating phenomena in the weak
50: interactions of quarks. In particular, decays to two vector
51: mesons ($B\to VV$) can shed light on the helicity structure of these
52: interactions through polarization studies. While predicted to be
53: fundamentally V-A in the Standard Model (SM), a deviation from this
54: expectation cannot currently be excluded. The first observations
55: of $B\to VV$ decays show no anomalies in the helicity structure,
56: but point to a reduced amount of longitudinal polarization in
57: penguin-dominated decays~\cite{Aubert:2003mm}.
58: This has led to theoretical studies
59: that reconsider strong interactions effects in $B\to VV$
60: decays~\cite{Kagan:2004uw,Colangelo:2004rd,bry}, or invoke new fundamental
61: interactions~\cite{np}.
62:
63: Any particular $B\to VV$ decay is characterized by the three helicity
64: amplitudes $A_0$ (longitudinal), $A_-$, and $A_+$. A quark model or naive
65: factorization analysis~\cite{Korner:1979ci}
66: leads to the expectation that for $\bar B$,
67: i.e. $b$-quark, decay the helicity amplitudes are in proportions
68: \begin{equation}
69: A_0:A_-:A_+ = 1 : \frac{\Lambda}{m_b} :
70: \left(\frac{\Lambda}{m_b}\right)^{\!2}
71: \label{hierarchy}
72: \end{equation}
73: with $\Lambda\approx 0.5\,$GeV the strong interaction scale and
74: $m_b\approx 5\,$GeV the bottom quark mass. This expectation has been
75: parametrically (not necessarily numerically)
76: confirmed~\cite{Kagan:2004uw} in the framework of QCD factorization,
77: which provides a theoretical basis for the heavy-quark expansion
78: of $B$ decays to charmless mesons~\cite{BBNS1}. The hierarchy
79: (\ref{hierarchy}) of helicity amplitudes follows from the V-A
80: structure of the standard weak interactions.
81:
82: In this Letter we point out and discuss an effect which has been
83: neglected in all previous studies of $B\to VV$, but which substantially
84: alters the prediction for polarization observables.
85: The effect is connected with electromagnetic penguin transitions,
86: and appears only for neutral vector mesons. It leads to the unique
87: feature that the transverse electroweak penguin amplitude is dominated
88: by the electromagnetic dipole operator providing a signature similar to
89: polarization in radiative decays $B\to
90: K^\ast\gamma$~\cite{Mannel:1997pc},
91: but which is easier to access experimentally.
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: \begin{figure}[b]
95: \vspace{-2.4cm}
96: % \epsfysize=6cm
97: \hspace*{-5.3cm}
98: \epsfxsize=20cm
99: \epsffile{fig_rhopen.ps}
100: \vspace*{-23.4cm}
101: \caption{\label{fig1}
102: Leading contributions to $\Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{p\mp}(V_1 V_2)$
103: defined in the text.}
104: \end{figure}
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106: The effect in question is related to the two diagrams shown in
107: Figure~\ref{fig1}. When the vector meson $V_2$ is transversely
108: polarized, there exists a large contribution to the decay
109: amplitude due to the small virtuality $m_{V_2}^2$ of the
110: intermediate photon propagator. This is in contrast to the case
111: of longitudinal polarization, where the photon propagator is
112: canceled, and the amplitude is local on the scale
113: $m_b$~\cite{Beneke:2003zv}. The large transverse amplitude is
114: best described by a short-distance transition $b\to D\gamma$
115: ($D=d,s$), followed by the transition of the low-virtuality photon
116: ($q^2\ll m_b^2$) to the neutral vector meson. We shall perform a
117: factorization analysis of the amplitude below.
118:
119: The calculation of the diagrams in Figure~\ref{fig1} is
120: straightforward. The weak interactions are given in terms of
121: the standard effective Hamiltonian~\cite{Buchalla:1995vs}.
122: We use the conventions of~\cite{Beneke:2001ev}, but generalize
123: the electromagnetic dipole operators to include both
124: chiralities
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: {\cal H}_{\rm eff} &=& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
127: \sum_{p=u,c} \lambda_p^{(D)} \sum_{a=-,+} C_{7\gamma}^a Q_{7\gamma}^a
128: +\ldots,\\
129: Q_{7\gamma}^\mp &=&
130: -\frac{e\bar{m}_b}{8 \pi^2} \,\bar
131: D\sigma_{\mu\nu}(1\pm \gamma_5)F^{\mu\nu} b,
132: \label{o7}
133: \end{eqnarray}
134: where $\lambda_p^{(D)}=V_{pb}V_{pD}^\ast$.
135: The ellipses denote other operators (see~\cite{Beneke:2001ev}).
136: In the SM $C^+_{7\gamma}$
137: is suppressed by a factor $m_D/m_b$, hence $Q_{7\gamma}^+$ is
138: usually neglected. The remaining term is then simply denoted by
139: $C_{7\gamma} Q_{7\gamma}$. However, in generic
140: extensions of the SM, there is no reason to expect
141: a suppression of additional contributions to $C^+_{7\gamma}$
142: relative to $C^-_{7\gamma}$. The coupling of the photon to the
143: quark electric charge in $V_2$ implies that the diagrams of
144: Figure~\ref{fig1} contribute to the electroweak penguin amplitude
145: in the general flavour decomposition of hadronic two-body decay
146: amplitudes. Adopting the $\alpha_i$ notation of~\cite{Beneke:2003zv}
147: extended to allow for the three helicity amplitudes of $B\to VV$, the
148: new contribution to the transverse electroweak penguin amplitudes
149: is
150: \begin{equation}
151: \Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{p\mp}(V_1 V_2) = \mp
152: \frac{2\alpha_{\rm em}}{3\pi}\,C_{7\gamma,\rm eff}^\mp \,R_\mp\,
153: \frac{m_B\bar{m}_b}{m_{V_2}^2}
154: \label{dal3ew}
155: \end{equation}
156: with $C_{7\gamma,\rm eff}^\mp$ taking into account the effect of quark
157: loop diagrams (see Figure~\ref{fig1}). $R_\mp$ is a ratio of tensor
158: to (axial) vector $B\to V_1$ form factors such that $R_-$ equals 1 in
159: the heavy quark limit~\cite{Charles:1998dr}, while $R_+$ is of
160: order $m_b/\Lambda$. We note the large enhancement factor
161: $m_B\bar{m}_b/m_{V_2}^2
162: \sim (m_b/\Lambda)^2$, which implies that the first hierarchy
163: in (\ref{hierarchy}) is inverted, rendering the negative-helicity
164: amplitude $A_-$ leading over the longitudinal amplitude $A_0$ in the
165: heavy-quark limit. Of course, for real values of $m_b/m_{V_2}$ this
166: enhancement is compensated by the small electromagnetic coupling
167: $\alpha_{\rm em} =e^2/(4\pi)$. For instance, for neutral $\rho$
168: mesons, we obtain
169: $\Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{p-}(K^*\rho)\approx 0.02$.
170: This should be compared to the uncorrected negative-helicity electroweak
171: penguin amplitude
172: \begin{equation}
173: \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{p-}(K^*\rho) =
174: C_7+C_9+\frac{C_8+C_{10}}{N_c}+\ldots
175: \approx -0.01,
176: \end{equation}
177: and the leading QCD penguin amplitude
178: \begin{equation}
179: \hat\alpha_4^{c-}(\rho K^*) = C_4+\frac{C_3}{N_c} +\ldots
180: \approx -0.055.
181: \end{equation}
182: The $C_i$ are Wilson coefficients for the various penguin
183: operators in the effective Hamiltonian~\cite{Buchalla:1995vs}, and
184: the ellipses denote the 1-loop corrections in QCD factorization
185: \cite{bry}, which we have taken into account in the numerical
186: estimates. In the SM the corresponding positive-helicity
187: amplitudes are suppressed by about an order of magnitude
188: relative to the negative-helicity ones as explained above.
189:
190: There are strong-interaction corrections to the leading-order
191: expression (\ref{dal3ew}) from gluon exchange between the
192: quark lines in the second diagram of Figure~\ref{fig1}, and also
193: through hard interactions with the spectator quark (not shown
194: in the Figure) in the $B$ meson. Due to factorization as discussed below,
195: these corrections modify only the effective $b\to D\gamma$
196: transition at leading order in the expansion in $\Lambda/m_b$.
197: They have been computed in next-to-leading order in the context
198: of factorization of exclusive radiative $B$
199: decays~\cite{Beneke:2001at}, and can be incorporated
200: by substituting $C_{7\gamma}^-\to {\cal C}_7^\prime$
201: (first paper of~\cite{Beneke:2001at}, eq.~(62)).
202: Turning this argument around,
203: the absolute value of $\Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{c-}(K^* V_2)$
204: can be obtained from the branching fraction of $B\to K^\ast\gamma$
205: via
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: &&\left|\Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{c-}(K^\ast V_2)\right| =
208: \frac{2\alpha_{\rm em}}{3\pi}\,R_-\,\frac{m_B^2}{m_{V_2}^2}
209: \nonumber\\
210: &&\hspace*{1cm}\times\left(\frac{\Gamma(B\to K^\ast\gamma)}{\displaystyle
211: \frac{G_F^2|V^*_{ts} V_{tb}|^2}{8\pi^3} \,
212: \frac{\alpha_{\rm em}}{4\pi}\,m_B^5\,T_1^{K^\ast}\!(0)^2}\right)^{\!1/2}
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: with $T_1^{K^\ast}(0)\approx 0.28$ a tensor form factor. This
215: results in $|\Delta \alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{c-}(K^\ast \rho)|
216: =0.023$, close to the leading-order estimate from (\ref{dal3ew}).
217:
218: We therefore conclude that the new radiative contribution to the
219: negative-helicity electroweak penguin amplitude is at least twice
220: as large (and opposite in sign) as was previously assumed.
221: For penguin-dominated $b\to s$ transitions it is almost half the size
222: of the leading QCD penguin amplitude, and should therefore have
223: visible impact on polarization measurements. In case of new
224: interactions generating $C_{7\gamma}^+$, the corresponding
225: contribution to the positive-helicity amplitude (\ref{dal3ew})
226: should be observed against a very small Standard Model background.
227:
228: \section{Factorization analysis}
229:
230: \noindent
231: Since the existence of an amplitude violating the power
232: counting~(\ref{hierarchy}) may appear surprising, we sketch
233: how this amplitude emerges and factorizes in soft-collinear
234: effective theory (SCET)~\cite{Bauer:2000yr}. The notation and
235: method of the following discussion is similar to the one
236: in~\cite{Beneke:2003pa}. After integrating out the scale
237: $m_b$, SCET formalizes the interaction of the static $b$-quark
238: field $h_v$ with collinear fields for the light-like
239: direction $n_-$, in which meson $V_1$ moves, and collinear
240: fields for the light-like direction $n_+$ of meson $V_2$.
241: Let $\chi$ denote the collinear quark field corresponding
242: to $V_2$, and let $V_2$ be the meson that does not pick up the
243: spectator quark from the $B$ meson. The leading quark bilinears
244: that have non-vanishing overlap with $\langle V_2|$ are
245: \begin{equation}
246: \bar\chi \!\not\!n_- (1\mp \gamma_5)\chi,\quad
247: \bar\chi \!\not\!n_- \gamma_\perp^\mu (1\pm \gamma_5)\chi.
248: \end{equation}
249: The subscript $\perp$ denotes projection of a Lorentz vector on
250: the plane transverse to the two light-cone vectors $n_\mp$.
251: Both operators scale as $\lambda^4$ according to the SCET scaling
252: rules; the first overlaps only with the longitudinal polarization
253: state of $V_2$, the second only with a transverse vector meson.
254: However, the second operator is not generated by the V-A
255: interactions of the SM (at least at the tree and 1-loop level).
256: This implies the power suppression of $A_\mp$ relative to
257: $A_0$ in (\ref{hierarchy}), since the leading contribution to
258: transverse polarization now involves an operator with an
259: additional derivative $D_\perp\sim \lambda^2\sim \Lambda/m_b$.
260:
261: This reasoning ignores electromagnetic effects. Including QED
262: in SCET, there is a collinear photon field with unsuppressed
263: interactions with collinear quarks (of the same direction). Only
264: the transverse photon field is truly a degree of freedom of the
265: theory, since the other two components are either gauge-artefacts, or
266: can be eliminated by the field equations. Hence there is an
267: additional operator $e A^\mu_{\gamma_\perp}=W_\gamma^\dagger
268: iD_{\gamma\perp}^\mu W_\gamma$ (where $W_\gamma$ is an electromagnetic
269: Wilson line formally required to make the operator gauge-invariant),
270: which overlaps only with a transversely polarized vector meson.
271: To first order in the electromagnetic coupling the matrix
272: element can be computed exactly yielding
273: \begin{equation}
274: \langle V_2|[W_\gamma^\dagger iD_{\gamma\perp}^\mu W_\gamma](0)|0\rangle =
275: -\frac{2i}{3} \,a_{V_2} \frac{e^2 f_{V_2}}{m_{V_2}}\,
276: \epsilon_\perp^{\ast\mu}
277: \label{me2}
278: \end{equation}
279: with $\epsilon_\perp^\mu$ a transverse polarization vector, $f_{V_2}$
280: the decay constant, and $a_{V_2}$ a constant that depends on the
281: quark-flavour composition of $V_2$, $a_\rho=3/2$, $a_\omega=1/2$,
282: $a_\phi=-1/2$. (The convention for the covariant derivative
283: corresponding to (\ref{o7}) is $iD_{\gamma}^\mu =
284: i\partial^\mu+e_q A^\mu_\gamma$ with $e_q$ the quark electric
285: charge.) The crucial
286: point is that the operator $W_\gamma^\dagger
287: iD_{\gamma\perp}^\mu W_\gamma$ scales with
288: $\lambda^2$, hence this contribution to $A_\mp$ is a factor
289: $m_b/\Lambda$ larger than even the longitudinal amplitude $A_0$.
290: Thus, we find the tree-level matching equation (see also
291: \cite{Becher:2005fg})
292: \begin{equation}
293: Q_{7\gamma}^\mp \to -\frac{\bar m_b m_B}{4\pi^2} \,
294: \big[\bar\xi W \gamma_{\perp\mu} (1\mp \gamma_5)h_v\big](0)
295: \big[W_\gamma^\dagger
296: iD_{\gamma\perp}^\mu W_\gamma\big](0),
297: \label{scetop}
298: \end{equation}
299: valid as an equation for the $\langle V_1 V_2|\ldots|\bar B\rangle$
300: matrix element. In SCET only soft fields can couple to the two
301: brackets representing collinear field products in the two different
302: directions. But since the photon operator in the second bracket
303: is a colour-singlet, the soft fields decouple, and the matrix element
304: of the right-hand side of (\ref{scetop}) falls apart into
305: (\ref{me2}) and $\langle V_1|
306: \bar\xi \,W \gamma_\perp^\mu (1\mp \gamma_5)h_v|\bar B\rangle$,
307: which is proportional to the SCET form factor
308: $\xi_\perp$~\cite{Charles:1998dr} at maximal recoil.
309: Eq.~(\ref{scetop}) has to be amended by radiative corrections
310: as well as a second operator structure with an additional
311: transverse derivative in the first bracket. This is very similar
312: to heavy-to-light form factors~\cite{Beneke:2003pa}, in fact,
313: these corrections simply restore the QCD tensor form factor.
314: Combining (\ref{me2},\ref{scetop}), we therefore find
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: &&\langle V_1 V_2|C_{7\gamma}^\mp \,Q_{7\gamma}^\mp|\bar B\rangle
317: = i m_{V_2} m_B 2 T_1^{V_1}(0) f_{V_2} a_{V_2}
318: \nonumber\\
319: &&\hspace*{1cm}\times \left(\mp
320: \frac{2\alpha_{\rm em}}{3\pi}\right) C_{7\gamma}^\mp \,
321: \frac{m_B\bar{m}_b}{m_{V_2}^2},
322: \label{new2}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: which on accounting for the normalization of $\alpha_{3,\rm EW}^{p,h}$
325: \cite{bry,Beneke:2003zv} reproduces (\ref{dal3ew}). The previous
326: equation should be understood such that the matrix element of
327: $Q_{7\gamma}^-$ ($Q_{7\gamma}^+$) takes the value given only when
328: both $V_1$ and $V_2$ have negative (positive) helicity, but
329: is zero otherwise. In general, the four-quark operators from the
330: effective weak Hamiltonian also contribute to the matching coefficient
331: of the SCET operator on the right-hand side of (\ref{scetop}),
332: and including further spectator-scattering effects replaces
333: $C_{7\gamma}^-$ by ${\cal C}_7^\prime$ as discussed above.
334:
335:
336: \section{\boldmath The $B\to \rho K^\ast$ system}
337:
338: \noindent
339: We now focus on the eight $B\to \rho K^*$ decay modes, where the
340: electroweak penguin amplitude is largest relative to the leading
341: QCD penguin amplitude ($a_\rho=3/2$). Assuming isospin symmetry,
342: the $\rho K^*$ system is described by six complex strong interaction
343: parameters for each helicity $h=0,-,+$. Neglecting the
344: colour-suppressed electroweak penguin
345: amplitude and the doubly CKM suppressed QCD penguin amplitude is
346: a good approximation for elucidating the effect of the new
347: (colour-allowed) electroweak penguin contribution, hence we
348: write
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: A_h(\rho^- \bar K^{\ast 0}) &=& P_h
351: \nonumber\\
352: \sqrt{2}\,A_h(\rho^0 K^{\ast -}) &=& [P_h+P_h^{EW}]+e^{-i\gamma} \,[T_h+C_h]
353: \nonumber\\
354: A_h(\rho^+ K^{\ast -}) &=& P_h+e^{-i\gamma} \,T_h
355: \nonumber\\
356: -\sqrt{2}\,A_h(\rho^0 \bar K^{\ast 0}) &=&
357: [P_h-P_h^{EW}]+e^{-i\gamma}\,[-C_h],
358: \label{first}
359: \end{eqnarray}
360: and define $x_h=X_h/P_h$, where $P_h$ is the QCD penguin amplitude.
361: The tree amplitudes $T_h$, $C_h$ are suppressed by the
362: CKM factor $\epsilon_{\rm KM} = |V_{ub} V_{us}^*|/
363: |{V_{cb} V_{cs}^*}| \sim 0.025$. Assuming $\gamma=70^\circ$ is known, one
364: can obtain $P_h$ from an angular analysis of the $\rho^- \bar
365: K^{\ast0}$ final state, $t_h$ from $\rho^\pm K^{\ast\mp}$,
366: and $p_h^{EW}$ and $c_h$ from the remaining four decay modes.
367: In principle, this allows for a determination of $P_h^{EW}$,
368: which can be compared to the theoretical result. In practice,
369: a complete amplitude analysis will be experimentally difficult.
370: %, hence we perform an approximate analysis.
371:
372: The sensitivity to the electroweak penguin amplitude is made apparent
373: in CP-averaged helicity-decay rate ratios such as
374: \begin{equation}
375: S_h\equiv \frac{2 \bar \Gamma_h(\rho^0\bar K^{\ast 0})}
376: {\bar \Gamma_h(\rho^-\bar K^{\ast 0})} =
377: \left|1-p_h^{EW}\right|^2+\Delta_h,
378: \label{r1}
379: \end{equation}
380: where $\Delta_h$ depends on $c_h$ (and mildly on $p_h^{EW}$), and
381: vanishes for $c_h\to 0$. To estimate $S_-$, we assume that
382: the positive-helicity amplitudes are negligible as predicted in
383: the SM, and use the observed $\rho^- \bar K^{\ast 0}$ branching
384: fraction and longitudinal polarization fraction $f_L$ to determine
385: the magnitude of $P_0$ and $P_-$. We shall also assume that the
386: phase of $p^{EW}_h$ is not more than $30^\circ$ away from
387: $0$ or $\pi$. Writing $p^{EW}_h=[P^{EW}_h/T_h]\times t_h$, this
388: amounts to the assumption that no large CP asymmetries will be
389: found in $B\to \rho^\pm K^{*\mp}$.
390: For all other quantities we perform
391: a calculation in the QCD factorization framework. In this procedure
392: there is a considerable uncertainty in $P_-$ due to the discrepant
393: experimental results on $f_L(\rho^+ K^{*0})$ \cite{Aubert:2003mm},
394: which may result in an over-estimate of $P_-$ and hence an
395: under-estimate of $p_-^{EW}$. It is therefore not excluded that
396: the electromagnetic penguin effect is more pronounced than in
397: the following theoretical estimates. Keeping this in mind, we find
398: $\mbox{Re}\,(p^{EW}_-)={-0.23}\pm 0.08\,\,[{+0.14}^{+0.04}_{-0.05}]$
399: and $\Delta_-={-0.0}\pm 0.2$,
400: yielding
401: \begin{equation}
402: S_- ={1.5}\pm 0.2\,\,[{0.7}\pm 0.1].
403: \label{s1}
404: \end{equation}
405: Here (and below) the numbers in brackets refer to the calculation
406: without the new electromagnetic penguin contribution. Despite
407: the current large theoretical uncertainties, which could be removed
408: with more experimental data, eq.~(\ref{s1}) clearly
409: shows the impact of this contribution on polarization observables. The
410: effect is even more significant for the
411: ratio of the two final states with neutral $\rho$ mesons, as
412: $S_-/S_-^\prime$ [(\ref{r2}) below] changes by a factor of about 4
413: whether or not the electromagnetic penguin contribution is included,
414: but for this ratio the tree contamination is also larger.
415: Data is currently not available to test (\ref{s1}), but
416: we may instead consider
417: \begin{equation}
418: S_h^\prime\equiv \frac{2 \bar\Gamma_h(\rho^0\bar K^{\ast -})}
419: {\bar \Gamma_h(\rho^-\bar K^{\ast 0})} =
420: \left|1+p_h^{EW}\right|^2+\Delta_h^\prime.
421: \label{r2}
422: \end{equation}
423: Following the same strategy as above, we obtain
424: $\Delta_-^\prime={-0.1}\pm 0.0$, and
425: $S_-^\prime ={0.5}\pm 0.1\,\,[{1.2}\pm 0.1]$.
426: In the absence of direct CP asymmetries $S_h^\prime$ is
427: directly related to the corresponding ratio of
428: polarization fractions $f_h^\prime \equiv f_h(\rho^0\bar K^{\ast -})/
429: f_h(\rho^-\bar K^{\ast 0})$. Including a theoretical
430: estimate of the CP asymmetries, we obtain
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: &&f_0^\prime = {1.3}\pm 0.1\,\,[{1.1}\pm 0.1], \\
433: &&f_-^\prime = \frac{1-f_L(\rho^0\bar K^{\ast -})}
434: {1-f_L(\rho^-\bar K^{\ast 0})} =
435: 0.4 \pm 0.1\,\,[{0.8}\pm 0.1]. \quad
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: This can be compared to the experimental values
438: $f_0^\prime|_{\rm exp} = {1.45}^{+0.64}_{-0.58}$,
439: $f_-^\prime|_{\rm exp} = {0.12}^{+0.44}_{-0.11}$~\cite{Aubert:2003mm}.
440: %The value for $f_-^\prime$ is in better agreement with our result
441: %including the electromagnetic penguin effect.
442:
443: Finally we comment on the possibility of detecting the presence
444: of new flavour-changing neutral currents in the form of an
445: electromagnetic penguin operator with opposite chirality,
446: $Q^+_{7\gamma}$. For this analysis, one must isolate experimentally
447: the positive-helicity amplitudes. Theoretically,
448: all positive-helicity amplitudes are suppressed,
449: except for the electromagnetic penguin contribution
450: $\Delta P_+^{EW}$ to the electroweak penguin amplitude. In the naive
451: factorization approximation $X_+ = r X_-$, where $r$ is a
452: $\Lambda/m_b$-suppressed form factor ratio, while
453: $\Delta P_+^{EW} \approx C^+_{7\gamma}/C^-_{7\gamma}\,
454: \Delta P_-^{EW}$ is suppressed only by the ratio of Wilson
455: coefficients (see (\ref{new2})). A conservative analysis of the
456: $b\to s\gamma$ branching fraction constrains
457: $C_{7\gamma}^+/C_{7\gamma}^-<0.5$, hence it is possible that
458: the suppression is weak. This would lead to
459: $P_+^{EW}\gg P_+$, in which case the positive-helicity
460: decay rates of the $\rho^0 K^\ast$ final states are
461: much larger than the
462: $\rho^\pm K^*$ ones. A complete angular analysis of the $\rho K^\ast$
463: system should allow a determination of $p_+^{EW}$ even when
464: it is not dominant, possibly allowing a limit on
465: $C^+_{7\gamma}/C^-_{7\gamma}$ of order $r\approx 0.1$.
466:
467: In conclusion, we discussed an electromagnetic penguin contribution
468: to non-leptonic $B$ decays that has previously been overlooked.
469: It is the largest contribution to the negative-helicity
470: electroweak penguin amplitude, and substantially modifies the
471: theoretical expectations for polarization observables in
472: $b\to s$ penguin-dominated decays, in particular to the
473: $\rho^0 K^\ast$ final states. These observables may therefore
474: be of considerable interest to the search for electromagnetic
475: flavour-changing neutral currents with chirality equal or opposite to
476: the SM.
477:
478:
479: %\subsubsection*{Acknowledgement}
480:
481: %\noindent
482: \begin{acknowledgments}
483: \noindent
484: We thank G.~Buchalla and M.~Neubert for comments.
485: The work of M.B. is supported by the DFG SFB/TR~9
486: ``Computergest\"utzte Theo\-re\-ti\-sche Teilchenphysik'';
487: the work of J.R. by GIF under Grant No. I - 781-55.14/2003.
488: D.Y. acknowledges support from the Japan Society for the
489: Promotion of Science.
490: \end{acknowledgments}
491:
492:
493:
494: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
495:
496: %\cite{Aubert:2003mm}
497: \bibitem{Aubert:2003mm}
498: B.~Aubert {\it et al.}, %[BABAR Collaboration],
499: %``Rates, polarizations, and asymmetries in charmless vector-vector B meson
500: %decays,''
501: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 171802 (2003);
502: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0307026;%%
503: %\cite{Aubert:2004xc}
504: %\bibitem{Aubert:2004xc}
505: % B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
506: %``Measurement of the B0 $\to$ Phi K0 decay amplitudes,''
507: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 231804 (2004);
508: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408017;%%
509: %\cite{Aubert:2004qb}
510: %\bibitem{Aubert:2004qb}
511: % B.~Aubert [BABAR Collaboration],
512: %``Measurements of branching fraction, polarization, and direct-CP-violating
513: %charge asymmetry in B+ $\to$ K*0 rho+ decays,''
514: [hep-ex/0408093];
515: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408093;%%
516: %\cite{Chen:2003jf}
517: %\bibitem{Chen:2003jf}
518: K.~F.~Chen {\it et al.}, %[Belle Collaboration],
519: %``Measurement of branching fractions and polarization in B $\to$ Phi K(*)
520: %decays,''
521: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 201801 (2003);
522: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0307014;%%
523: %\cite{Chen:2005zv}
524: %\bibitem{Chen:2005zv}
525: % K.~F.~Chen {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
526: %``Measurement of polarization and triple-product correlations in B $\to$ Phi
527: %K* decays,''
528: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 221804 (2005);
529: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503013;%%
530: %\cite{Zhang:2005iz}
531: %\bibitem{Zhang:2005iz}
532: J.~Zhang {\it et al.}, %[BELLE Collaboration],
533: %``Measurements of branching fraction and polarization in B+ $\to$ rho+ K*0
534: %decay,''
535: [hep-ex/0505039].
536: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505039;%%
537:
538: %\cite{Kagan:2004uw}
539: \bibitem{Kagan:2004uw}
540: A.~L.~Kagan,
541: %``Polarization in B $\to$ V V decays,''
542: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 601}, 151 (2004).
543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405134;%%
544:
545: %\cite{Colangelo:2004rd}
546: \bibitem{Colangelo:2004rd}
547: P.~Colangelo, F.~De Fazio and T.~N.~Pham,
548: %``The riddle of polarization in B $\to$ V V transitions,''
549: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 597}, 291 (2004);
550: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406162;%%
551: %\cite{Li:2004ti}
552: %\bibitem{Li:2004ti}
553: H.~n.~Li and S.~Mishima,
554: %``Polarizations in B $\to$ V V decays,''
555: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 054025 (2005);
556: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411146;%%
557: %\cite{Li:2004mp}
558: %\bibitem{Li:2004mp}
559: H.~n.~Li,
560: %``Resolution to the B $\to$ Phi K* polarization puzzle,''
561: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 622}, 63 (2005).
562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411305;%%
563:
564: \bibitem{bry}
565: J. Rohrer, RWTH Aachen Diploma Thesis (2004); M. Beneke,
566: J.~Rohrer and D.~Yang, in preparation.
567:
568: %\cite{Hou:2004vj}
569: \bibitem{np}
570: W.~S.~Hou and M.~Nagashima,
571: %``Resolving the B $\to$ Phi K* polarization anomaly,''
572: [hep-ph/0408007];
573: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408007;%%
574: %\cite{Yang:2004pm}
575: %\bibitem{Yang:2004pm}
576: Y.~D.~Yang, R.~M.~Wang and G.~R.~Lu,
577: %``Polarizations in decays B(u,d) $\to$ V V and possible implications for
578: %R-parity violating SUSY,''
579: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 015009 (2005);
580: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411211;%%
581: %\cite{Das:2004hq}
582: %\bibitem{Das:2004hq}
583: P.~K.~Das and K.~C.~Yang,
584: %``Data for polarization in charmless B $\to$ Phi K*: A signal for new
585: %physics?,''
586: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 094002 (2005);
587: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412313;%%
588: %\cite{Kim:2004wq}
589: %\bibitem{Kim:2004wq}
590: C.~S.~Kim and Y.~D.~Yang,
591: %``Polarization anomaly in B $\to$ Phi K* and probe of tensor interactions,''
592: [hep-ph/0412364];
593: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412364;%%
594: %\cite{Baek:2005jk}
595: %\bibitem{Baek:2005jk}
596: S.~Baek {\em et al.},
597: % S.~Baek, A.~Datta, P.~Hamel, O.~F.~Hernandez and D.~London,
598: %``Polarization states in B $\to$ rho K* and new physics,''
599: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094008 (2005);
600: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508149;%%
601: %\cite{Huang:2005qb}
602: %\bibitem{Huang:2005qb}
603: C.~S.~Huang, P.~Ko, X.~H.~Wu and Y.~D.~Yang,
604: %``MSSM anatomy of the polarization puzzle in B $\to$ Phi K* decays,''
605: [hep-ph/0511129].
606: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511129;%%
607:
608: %\cite{Korner:1979ci}
609: \bibitem{Korner:1979ci}
610: J.~G.~K\"orner and G.~R.~Goldstein,
611: %``Quark And Particle Helicities In Hadronic Charmed Particle Decays,''
612: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 89}, 105 (1979).
613: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B89,105;%%
614:
615: \bibitem{BBNS1}
616: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
617: %``{QCD} factorization for B $\to$ pi pi decays: Strong phases and CP violation in the heavy quark limit,''
618: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999);
619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%
620: %\bibitem{BBNS2}
621: %M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
622: %``QCD factorization for exclusive, non-leptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy-light final states,''
623: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 591}, 313 (2000).
624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006124;%%
625:
626: %\cite{Mannel:1997pc}
627: \bibitem{Mannel:1997pc}
628: T.~Mannel and S.~Recksiegel,
629: %``Probing the helicity structure of b $\to$ s gamma in Lambda/b $\to$ Lambda
630: %gamma,''
631: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 28}, 2489 (1997);
632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710287;%%
633: %\cite{Sehgal:2004xy}
634: %\bibitem{Sehgal:2004xy}
635: L.~M.~Sehgal and J.~van Leusen,
636: %``Stokes vector of photon in the decays B0 $\to$ rho0 gamma and B0 $\to$ K*
637: %gamma,''
638: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 591}, 235 (2004);
639: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403215;%%
640: %\cite{Grinstein:2004uu}
641: %\bibitem{Grinstein:2004uu}
642: B.~Grinstein, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti and D.~Pirjol,
643: %``The photon polarization in B $\to$ X gamma in the standard model,''
644: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 011504 (2005).
645: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412019;%%
646:
647: %\cite{Beneke:2003zv}
648: \bibitem{Beneke:2003zv}
649: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert,
650: %``QCD factorization for B $\to$ P P and B $\to$ P V decays,''
651: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 333 (2003).
652: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308039;%%
653:
654: %\cite{Buchalla:1995vs}
655: \bibitem{Buchalla:1995vs}
656: G.~Buchalla, A.~J.~Buras and M.~E.~Lautenbacher,
657: %``Weak Decays Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
658: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996)
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512380;%%
660:
661: %\cite{Beneke:2001ev}
662: \bibitem{Beneke:2001ev}
663: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
664: %``QCD factorization in B $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of
665: %Wolfenstein parameters,''
666: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001).
667: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104110;%%
668:
669: %\cite{Charles:1998dr}
670: \bibitem{Charles:1998dr}
671: J.~Charles {\em et al.},
672: %J.~Charles, A.~Le Yaouanc, L.~Oliver, O.~Pene and J.~C.~Raynal,
673: %``Heavy-to-light form factors in the heavy mass to large energy limit of
674: %{QCD},''
675: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 014001 (1999);
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812358;%%
677: %\cite{Beneke:2000wa}
678: %\bibitem{Beneke:2000wa}
679: M.~Beneke and Th.~Feldmann,
680: %``Symmetry-breaking corrections to heavy-to-light B meson form factors at
681: %large recoil,''
682: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 592}, 3 (2001).
683: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008255;%%
684:
685: %\cite{Beneke:2001at}
686: \bibitem{Beneke:2001at}
687: M.~Beneke, Th.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel,
688: %``Systematic approach to exclusive B $\to$ V l+ l-, V gamma decays,''
689: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 612}, 25 (2001);
690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106067;%%
691: %\cite{Bosch:2001gv}
692: %\bibitem{Bosch:2001gv}
693: S.~W.~Bosch and G.~Buchalla,
694: %``The radiative decays B $\to$ V gamma at next-to-leading order in QCD,''
695: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621}, 459 (2002)
696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106081;%%
697:
698: %\cite{Bauer:2000yr}
699: \bibitem{Bauer:2000yr}
700: C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
701: %``An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light
702: %decays,''
703: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 114020 (2001);
704: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%
705: %\cite{Bauer:2001yt}
706: %\bibitem{Bauer:2001yt}
707: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
708: %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''
709: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002);
710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%
711: %\cite{Beneke:2002ph}
712: %\bibitem{Beneke:2002ph}
713: M.~Beneke, A.~P.~Chapovsky, M.~Diehl and Th.~Feldmann,
714: %``Soft-collinear effective theory and heavy-to-light currents beyond leading
715: %power,''
716: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 431 (2002);
717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206152;%%
718: %\cite{Beneke:2002ni}
719: %\bibitem{Beneke:2002ni}
720: M.~Beneke and Th.~Feldmann,
721: %``Multipole-expanded soft-collinear effective theory with non-abelian gauge
722: %symmetry,''
723: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 553}, 267 (2003).
724: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211358;%%
725:
726: %\cite{Beneke:2003pa}
727: \bibitem{Beneke:2003pa}
728: M.~Beneke and Th.~Feldmann,
729: %``Factorization of heavy-to-light form factors in soft-collinear effective
730: %theory,''
731: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685}, 249 (2004).
732: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311335;%%
733:
734: %\cite{Becher:2005fg}
735: \bibitem{Becher:2005fg}
736: T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,
737: %``Factorization in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''
738: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094017 (2005).
739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503263;%%
740:
741: \end{thebibliography}
742:
743: \end{document}
744: