1: \documentstyle [12pt, epsf] {article}
2: \def\baselinestretch{1.25}
3: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt
4: \catcode`@=12
5: \topmargin 0.0in
6: \evensidemargin 0.0in
7: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
8: \textheight 8.5in
9: \textwidth 6.5in
10:
11: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
16: \def\ds{\displaystyle}
17: \def\s1{\hat s}
18: \def\ve{\varepsilon}
19: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
20: \def\ar{&+& \!\!\!}
21: \def\ek{&-& \!\!\!}
22: \def\es{&=& \!\!\!}
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: \begin{document}
25: \vspace{0.5in}
26: \oddsidemargin -.1 in
27: \newcount\sectionnumber
28: \sectionnumber=0
29: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
30: \thispagestyle{empty}
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32:
33:
34: \vskip.5truecm
35: \vspace*{0.5cm}
36:
37: \begin{center}
38: {\Large \bf \centerline{Study of FCNC mediated rare $B_s$ decays in}}
39: {\Large \bf \centerline{ a single universal extra dimension scenario}}
40: \vspace*{0.5cm} {R. Mohanta$^1$ and A.K Giri$^2$}
41: \vskip0.3cm {\it $^1$ School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
42: Hyderabad
43: 500 046, India\\
44: $^2$ Department of Physics, Punjabi University, Patiala 147 002, India}\\
45: \vskip0.5cm
46: \bigskip
47: \begin{abstract}
48: We study the rare semileptonic and radiative leptonic
49: $B_s$ decays in the universal extra
50: dimension model. In this scenario, with a single extra
51: dimension, there exists only one new parameter beyond those
52: of the standard model, which is the inverse of the
53: compactification radius $R$. We find that with the additional
54: contributions due to the KK modes the branching ratios of the rare
55: $B_s$ decays are enhanced from their
56: corresponding standard model values and the zero point of the
57: forward backward asymmetries are shifted towards the left.
58: \end{abstract}
59: \end{center}
60:
61:
62: \thispagestyle{empty}
63: \newpage
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: Although the standard model (SM) of electroweak
68: interaction is very successful
69: in explaining the observed data so far, but still it is believed that
70: there must exist some new physics beyond the SM, whose true nature is
71: not yet well-known. Therefore, intensive search for physics beyond the
72: SM is now being performed in various areas of particle physics. In this
73: context the $B$ system can also be used as a complementary
74: probe for new physics.
75: Unfortunately, we have not been able to see any clear indication of
76: physics beyond the SM in the currently running $B$-factories (SLAC
77: and KEK). Nevertheless, there appears to be some kind of deviation
78: in some $b\to s$ penguin induced transitions like the deviation
79: in the measurement of sin2$\beta$ in $B_d \to \phi K_S $ and also in
80: some related processes, polarization anomaly in $B\to \phi K^*$
81: and deviation of branching ratios from the SM expectation
82: in some rare $B$ decays, etc. \cite{ref1}.
83: But, the present situation is that it is too early to substantiate
84: or rule out the existence of new physics in the b-sector.
85:
86:
87: One of the important ways to look for new physics in the b-sector is
88: the analysis of rare $B$ decay modes, which are induced by the
89: flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions. The
90: FCNC transitions generally arise at the loop level in the SM,
91: and thus provide an excellent
92: testing ground for new physics. Therefore, it is very important to
93: study the FCNC processes, both theoretically and experimentally,
94: as these decays can provide a sensitive test for the investigation
95: of the gauge structure of the SM at the loop level. Concerning the
96: semileptonic $B$ decays, $B\to X_s~ l^+l^-$ ($X_s= K, K^*,~ l=e, \mu,
97: \tau$) are a class of decays having both theoretical and
98: experimental importance. At the quark level, these decays proceed
99: through the FCNC transition $ b\to s l^+ l^-$, which occur only through
100: loops in the SM, and therefore, these decays constitute a quite
101: suitable tool of looking for new physics.
102: Moreover, the dileptons present in these processes allow us to
103: formulate many observables which can serve as a testing ground to
104: decipher the presence of new physics. In this context,
105: the study of the rare semileptonic $B_s$ decay modes,
106: $B_s \to \phi l^+ l^-$, which are
107: induced by the same quark level transition, i.e., $b\to s l^+l^-$,
108: might be worth exploring. These decay modes may provide us additional
109: information towards the quest for
110: the existence of new physics beyond the SM and therefore deserve serious
111: attention, both theoretically and experimentally. Since at the
112: quark level they are induced by the same mechanism, so we can also
113: independently test our understanding of the quark-hadron dynamics
114: and also study some CP violation parameters with the help of
115: rare $B_s$ decays, apart from corroborating the finding of the
116: $B$-meson sector. These decay modes are studied in the standard model
117: \cite{ref2} and in the two Higgs doublet model \cite{ref3}. Recently,
118: the D0 collaboration \cite{ref4} has reported a more
119: stringent upper limit
120: on the branching ratio of $B_s^0 \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^-$
121: mode as Br$(B_s^0 \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^-)
122: < 4.1 \times 10^{-6}$.
123:
124: Another sensitive process to look for new physics
125: is the radiative dileptonic decay mode $B_s^0 \to l^+ l^- \gamma$.
126: In contrast to the pure leptonic decays $B_s^0 \to l^+ l^-$,
127: these modes are free
128: from helicity suppression due to the emission of a photon in addition
129: to the lepton pair. Thus, the branching ratios of these processes
130: are larger than those for the pure leptonic modes despite of
131: an additional $\alpha$ suppression. These modes are also studied
132: in the SM \cite{eilam} and some beyond the SM scenarios \cite{aliev}.
133:
134:
135: New physics effects manifest themselves in these rare $B_s$
136: decays in two different ways, either through new contribution to
137: the Wilson coefficients or through the new structure in the
138: effective Hamiltonian, which are absent in the SM.
139: There are many variants of possible extensions to the SM exist
140: in the literature but the models with extra dimensions have received
141: considerable attention in recent years. An elegant beyond the SM scenario
142: with extra dimensions is being considered to solve the classical problems
143: of particle physics, mainly the hierarchy problem, gauge coupling
144: unification, neutrino mass generation, fermion mass hierarchies etc.
145: In fact, there are several models that exist in the literature
146: which take into account the effect of
147: extra dimensions and they differ from one
148: another depending on the number of extra dimensions, the geometry of
149: space-time, the compactification manifold, which particles can go into the
150: extra-dimensions and which cannot etc. In the case of the scenario with
151: Universal Extra Dimensions (UED), proposed by
152: Appelquist-Cheng-Dobrescu (ACD) \cite{acd},
153: all the fields are allowed to propagate in all
154: available dimensions.
155: In its simplest version the single
156: extra dimension is taken to be the fifth dimension, that is, $x_5=y$.
157: This is in fact compactified on the orbifold $S^1/Z_2$, i.e., on a circle
158: of radius $R$ and runs from 0 to $2 \pi R$, with $y=0$ and $y=\pi R$
159: are the fixed points of the orbifold. Hence a field $F(x,y)$, where $x$ denotes
160: the usual $3+1$ dimension, would be a periodic function of $y$ and can
161: be represented as
162: \bea
163: F(x,y)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} F_n(x) e^{i n \cdot y}\;.
164: \eea
165: Under the parity transformation $P_5: y \to -y$, fields which
166: exist in the SM are even and their zero modes in the KK expansion
167: are interpreted as ordinary SM fields. On the other hand, fields
168: absent in the SM are odd under $P_5$, so they do
169: not have zero modes.
170: Compactification of the extra dimension leads to the appearance of
171: Kaluza-Klein (KK) partners of the SM fields as well as KK modes
172: without corresponding SM partners.
173: Thus, in the particle spectrum of ACD model, in addition to the
174: ordinary particles of the SM denoted
175: as zero mode ($n=0$), there are infinite towers of Kaluza-Klein
176: modes ($n \geq 1$). There is one such tower of each SM boson, two
177: for each SM fermion, and for the physical scalars $a_{(n)}^{0,\pm}$,
178: no zero mode exists. The masses of the bosonic $KK$ modes are given as
179: $m_{(n)}^2=m_0^2+n^2/R^2$, with $m_0$ being the mass of the zero mode.
180: The important features of the ACD model are: (i) there is only one
181: additional free parameter with respect to the SM, i.e., $1/R$,
182: the inverse of the compactification radius (ii) the KK parity is conserved,
183: which implies that the KK modes do not contribute at tree level
184: for the low energy interaction processes and (iii) the lightest KK particle
185: must be stable.
186:
187:
188: The implications of physics with UED are being examined with the data
189: from accelerator experiments,
190: for example, from Tevatron experiments the bound on the inverse
191: compactification radius is found to be about $1/R\ge 300$ GeV.
192: Analysis of the anomalous magnetic moment and $Z \rar \bar{b}
193: b$ vertex \cite{agashe} also lead to the bound $1/R\ge 300$ GeV.
194: Possible manifestation of ACD model in the $K_L- K_S$ mass difference,
195: $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixing, rare decays of $K$ and $B$ mesons
196: and the kaon CP violation parameter $\varepsilon^\prime/\varepsilon$ are
197: comprehensively investigated in \cite{buras1}. Exclusive
198: $B \rar K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$, $B \rar K^\ast \bar{\nu} \nu$ and $B \rar
199: K^\ast \gamma$ decays {\cite{fazio} and rare semileptonic
200: $\Lambda_b$ decays \cite{lam} are also studied in the framework
201: of the UED scenario.
202:
203: In this work, we would like to study the implications of the scenario
204: with universal
205: extra dimensions in the semileptonic
206: rare decay modes $B_s^0 \to \phi~l^+ l^- $, and the
207: radiative dileptonic decays $B_s^0 \to l^+ l^- \gamma $.
208: As discussed above, since these decays are very sensitive to new physics,
209: these studies may provide an indirect way to constrain the new physics
210: parameter $R$. The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we
211: present the effective Hamiltonian for these decays in the ACD model.
212: The decay rates and forward backward rate asymmetries for
213: the mode $B_s^0 \to \phi l^+ l^- $ and $B_s^0 \to l^+ l^- \gamma$
214: are considered in section III.
215: Section IV contains our
216: conclusion.
217:
218: \section {Effective Hamiltonian}
219: The effective Hamiltonian describing the
220: $b \to s l^+ l^- $ transition
221: in the SM can be written as \cite{buras2}
222: \bea
223: {\cal H}_{eff} &= &\frac{ G_F ~\alpha}{\sqrt 2 \pi} V_{tb} V_{ts}^*\Big[
224: C_9^{eff}(\bar s \gamma_\mu L b)(\bar l \gamma^\mu l) \nn\\
225: &+& C_{10}(\bar s \gamma_\mu L b)(\bar l \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 l) -2 C_7^{eff}
226: m_b(\bar s i \sigma_{\mu \nu} \frac{q^\nu}{q^2} R b)
227: (\bar l \gamma^\mu l) \Big]\;,\label{ham}
228: \eea
229: where $q$ is the momentum transferred to the lepton pair, given as
230: $q=p_-+p_+$, with $p_-$ and $p_+$ are the momenta of the leptons $l^-$
231: and $l^+$ respectively. $L,R=(1 \pm \gamma_5)/2$ and $C_i$'s are the Wilson
232: coefficients evaluated at the $b$ quark mass scale.
233: The coefficient $C_9^{eff}$ has a perturbative part and a
234: resonance part which comes
235: from the long distance effects due to the conversion of the real
236: $c \bar c$ into the lepton pair $l^+ l^-$. Hence, $C_9^{eff}$ can be
237: written as
238: \be
239: C_9^{eff}=C_9+Y(s)+C_9^{res}\;,
240: \ee
241: where $s=q^2$ and the function $Y(s)$ denotes the perturbative part coming
242: from one loop matrix elements of the four quark operators and
243: is given in Ref. \cite{buras3}.
244: The long distance resonance effect is given as \cite{res}
245: \bea
246: C_9^{res}= \frac{3 \pi}{\alpha^2}(3 C_1+C_2+3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6)\sum_{V_i=J/\psi,
247: \psi^\prime} \kappa\frac{m_{V_i} \Gamma(V_i \to l^+ l^-)}{m_{V_i}^2 -s
248: -i m_{V_i}\Gamma_{V_i}}\;,
249: \eea
250: where the phenomenological parameter $\kappa$ is taken to be 2.3, so as to
251: reproduce the correct branching ratio $ {\cal B}(B \to J/\psi K^*
252: \to K^* l^+ l^-)={\cal B}(B \to J/\psi K^*){\cal B}(J/\psi \to l^+ l^-)$.
253:
254: Now we will analyze the KK contributions to the above decay modes. Since
255: there is no tree level
256: contribution of KK modes in low energy processes, the new contributions,
257: therefore, only come from the loop diagrams with internal KK modes.
258: It should be noted here that there does not
259: appear any new operator in the ACD model, and therefore, new effects are
260: implemented by modifying the Wilson coefficients existing in the SM, if we
261: neglect the contributions of the scalar fields, which are indeed very small.
262: Thus, the modified Wilson coefficients are given as \cite{buras1}
263: \bea
264: C_1(M_W)&=&\frac{11}{2} \frac{\alpha_s(M_W)}{4 \pi}\;,~~~~~C_2(M_W)=
265: 1-\frac{11}{6} \frac{\alpha_s(M_W)}{4 \pi}\;\nn\\
266: C_3(M_W)&=&-3C_4(M_W)=C_5(M_W)=-3C_6(M_W)=- \frac{\alpha_s}{24 \pi} \tilde
267: E(x_t, 1/R)\;,\nn\\
268: C_7(M_W)&=&- \frac{1}{2} \tilde
269: D'(x_t, 1/R)\;,~~~C_8(M_W)=- \frac{1}{2}
270: E'(x_t, 1/R)\;.
271: \eea
272: The functions $\tilde E(x_t, 1/R)$, $E'(x_t, 1/R)$ and $
273: D(x_t, 1/R)$ are given by
274: \be
275: F(x_t, 1/R)=F_0(x_t)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty F_n(x_t, x_n)\;,~~~F=\tilde
276: E, E',D'\;,
277: \ee
278: where $x_t=m_t^2/M_W^2$, $x_n=m_n^2/M_W^2$ and $m_n=n/R$.
279: The loop functions $F_0(x_t)$ and $F_n(x_t, x_n)$ are given as \cite{buras1}
280: \bea
281: E_0(x_t) &=& -\frac{2}{3} \ln x_t + \frac{x_t^2(15-16 x_t+4 x_t^2)}{
282: 6(1-x_t)^4}\ln x_t+ \frac{x_t(18-11 x_t-x_t^2)}{12(1-x_t)^3}\;, \nn\\ \nn\\
283: D^\prime_0(x_t) &=& - \frac{(8 x_t^3+5 x_t^2-7 x_t)}{12 (1-x_t)^3}
284: + \frac{x_t^2(2-3 x_t)}{2(1-x_t)^4}\ln x_t~, \nn \\ \nn \\
285: E^\prime_0(x_t) &=& - \frac{x_t(x_t^2-5 x_t-2)}{4 (1-x_t)^3} +
286: \frac{3}{2}\frac{ x_t^2}{ (1-x_t)^4}\ln x_t~, \nn \\ \nn \\
287: E_n(x_t,x_n) &=& -\frac{x_t[35+ 8 x_t-19 x_t^2+6
288: x_n^2(10-9 x_t+3 x_t^2) +3 x_n (53-58 x_t+21 x_t^2)]}
289: {36 (x_t-1)^3 }\nn \\
290: \ek \frac{1}{2} (1+x_n)(-2+3 x_n+ x_n^2) \ln \frac{x_n}{1+ x_n} \nn \\
291: \ar \frac{(1+x_n) (-6+19 x_t-9 x_t^2 +x_n^2(3+x_t)
292: +x_n(9-4 x_t+3 x_t^2))}{6 (x_t-1)^4} \ln \frac{x_n+x_t}{1+x_n}~, \nn\\ \nn \\
293: D^\prime_n(x_t,x_n) &=& \frac{x_t[-37+44 x_t+17 x_t^2+6
294: x_n^2(10-9 x_t+3 x_t^2) -3 x_n (21-54 x_t+17 x_t^2)]}
295: {36 (x_t-1)^3 }\nn \\
296: \ar \frac{x_n(2-7 x_n+3 x_n^2)}{6} \ln \frac{x_n}{1+ x_n} \nn \\
297: \ek \frac{ (-2+x_n+3 x_t)[x_t+3 x_t^2+x_n^2(3+x_t) -
298: x_n(1+ (-10+x_t) x_t)] }
299: {6 (x_t-1)^4} \ln \frac{x_n+x_t}{1+x_n}~, \nn\\ \nn \\
300: E^\prime_n(x_t,x_n)\es \frac{x_t[-17-8 x_t+x_t^2-3 x_n(21-6 x_t+x_t^2)-6
301: x_n^2(10-9 x_t+3 x_t^2)]}{12 (x_t-1)^3} \nn \\
302: \ek \frac{1}{2} x_n(1+x_n)(-1+3 x_n)\ln \frac{x_n}{1+ x_n} \nn \\
303: \ar \frac{(1+x_n) [x_t+3 x_t^2+x_n^2(3+x_t)-x_n(1 +(-10+ x_t) x_t )] }
304: {2(x_t-1)^4} \ln \frac{x_n+x_t}{1+x_n}~.
305: \eea
306: The functions with and without $x_n$ correspond to the KK excitation
307: and SM contributions, respectively. The summations
308: are carried out using the prescription presented in
309: \cite{buras1}.
310:
311: After obtaining the Wilson coefficients at the scale $M_W$, we have to
312: run these coefficients $C_i(M_W)$ down to the scale $\mu\sim m_b$.
313: The Wilson coefficients
314: $C_{i=1, \cdots 6}(\mu \sim m_b)$ at low energy can be obtained from
315: the corresponding $C_{i=1, \cdots 6}(M_W)$ ones
316: by using the Renormalization Group (RG) equation, as discussed in
317: Ref. \cite{buras2}, as
318: \be
319: {\bf C}(\mu) ={\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W) {\bf C}(M_W)\;,
320: \ee
321: where ${\bf C}$ is the $6 \times 1$ column vector of the
322: Wilson coefficients and
323: ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ is the five-flavor $6 \times 6$ evolution matrix.
324: In the next-to-leading order (NLO), ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ is given by
325: \be
326: {\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)=\left (1+\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4 \pi} {\bf J} \right )
327: {\bf U}_5^{(0)}(\mu, M_W)\left (1-\frac{\alpha_s(M_W)}{4 \pi} {\bf J}
328: \right )\;,
329: \ee
330: where ${\bf U}_5^{(0)}(\mu, M_W)$ is the leading order (LO)
331: evolution matrix and ${\bf J}$ denotes the NLO corrections to the evolution.
332: The explicit forms of ${\bf U}_5(\mu, M_W)$ and
333: ${\bf J}$ are given in Ref. \cite{buras2}.
334: For the coefficient $C_7$ we use the RG running as
335: \bea
336: C_7^{eff}(\mu_b) &=& \eta^{\frac{16}{23}}
337: C_7^{}(\mu_W)+ \frac{8}{3} \left( \eta^{\frac{14}{23}}
338: -\eta^{\frac{16}{23}} \right) C_8^{}(\mu_W)+C_2^{}(\mu_W) \sum_{i=1}^8
339: h_i \eta^{a_i}~,
340: \eea
341: where
342: $\eta = \frac{\alpha_s(\mu_W)} {\alpha_s(\mu_b)}$, and
343: the coefficients $a_i$ and $h_i$ are as given in Ref. \cite{buras1}.
344:
345: The Wilson coefficient $C_9$
346: in the ACD model and in the NDR scheme is
347: \bea
348: C_9(\mu_b)=P_0^{NDR}+{Y(x_t,1/R) \over \sin^2 \theta_W} -4
349: Z(x_t,1/R)+P_E E(x_t,1/R)~,
350: \eea
351: where $P_0^{NDR}=2.60 \pm 0.25$
352: \cite{buras1} and the last term is numerically negligible.
353: The functions $Y(x_t,1/R)$ and $Z(x_t,1/R)$ are defined as:
354: \bea
355: Y(x_t,1/R) &=& Y_0(x_t)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_n(x_t,x_n)~, \nn \\
356: Z(x_t,1/R) &=& Z_0(x_t)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_n(x_t,x_n)~,
357: \eea
358: with
359: \bea
360: Y_0(x_t) &=& \frac{x_t}{8} \left[ \frac{x_t -4}{x_t -1}+
361: \frac{3 x_t}{(x_t-1)^2} \ln x_t \right]~,\nn \\ \nn \\
362: Z_0(x_t) \es \frac{18 x_t^4-163 x_t^3+259 x_t^2 -108
363: x_t}{144 (x_t-1)^3} \nn \\
364: \ar \left[\frac{32 x_t^4-38 x_t^3-15 x_t^2+18 x_t}{72
365: (x_t-1)^4} - \frac{1}{9}\right] \ln x_t\;, \\ \nn\\
366: C_n(x_t,x_n) &=& \frac{x_t}{8 (x_t-1)^2} \left[x_t^2-8 x_t+7+(3 +3
367: x_t+7 x_n-x_t x_n)\ln \frac{x_t+x_n}{1+x_n}\right]~.
368: \eea
369: Finally, the Wilson coefficient $C_{10}$, which is scale independent,
370: is given by
371: \bea
372: C_{10}= - \frac{Y(x_t,1/R)}{\sin^2 \theta_W}~.
373: \eea
374:
375: \section{Decay rates and forward backward asymmetries}
376: \subsection{$B_s \to \phi~ l^+ l^- $ process}
377:
378: The semileptonic rare $B$ decays are very well studied in the
379: literature, both in the SM and in various extensions of it.
380: Therefore, we shall simply present here the expressions for the
381: dilepton mass spectrum and the forward backward asymmetry
382: parameters.
383: For the $B_{s} \to \phi l^+ l^-$ process, the hadronic
384: matrix elements are given as
385: \bea
386: &&\langle \phi(k, \varepsilon)|(V-A)_\mu |B_s(P) \rangle =
387: \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \varepsilon^{* \nu} P^\alpha k^\beta
388: \frac{2 V(q^2)}{m_{B}+m_\phi}-i \varepsilon_\mu^*(m_{B}+m_\phi)
389: A_1(q^2)\nn\\
390: &&~~~~~~~~~~~~+
391: i(P+k)_\mu (\varepsilon^* q)\frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_{B}+m_\phi}
392: +i q_\mu(\varepsilon^* q) \frac{2 m_\phi}{q^2}\Big[A_3(q^2)-A_0(q^2)
393: \Big]\;,
394: \nn\\ \nn\\
395: &&\langle \phi (k, \varepsilon)|\bar s \sigma_{\mu \nu} {q^\nu}(1 +
396: \gamma_5) b |B(P) \rangle =
397: i \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \varepsilon^{* \nu} P^\alpha k^\beta
398: 2 T_1(q^2)+ \Big[\varepsilon_\mu^*(m_{B}^2-m_\phi^2)\nn\\
399: &&~~~~~~~~
400: -
401: (\varepsilon^* q)(P+k)_\mu\Big]T_2(q^2)
402: + (\varepsilon^* q)\Big[q_\mu -
403: \frac{q^2}{m_{B}^2-m_\phi^2}(P+k)_\mu \Big]T_3(q^2)\;,\label{vf}
404: \eea
405: where $V$ and $A$ denote the vector and axial vector currents,
406: $A_0,A_1,A_2,A_3,V,T_1,T_2$ and $T_3$ are the relevant form factors
407: and $m_B$ denotes the mass of $B_s$ meson.
408: Thus, with eqs. (\ref{ham}) and (\ref{vf})
409: the transition amplitude for $B_s \to \phi l^+ l^-$ is given as
410: \bea
411: {\cal M}(B_s \to \phi~ l^+ l^-) & = & \frac{G_F \alpha}
412: {2 \sqrt 2 \pi} V_{tb} V_{ts}^* \biggr\{ \bar l \gamma^\mu l \Big[
413: 2 A \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}\varepsilon^{* \nu} k^\alpha P^\beta
414: +iB \varepsilon_\mu^*\nn\\
415: &- & i C (P+k)_\mu (\varepsilon^* q)
416: - iD (\varepsilon^* q)
417: q_\mu \Big]
418: + \bar l \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 l \Big[ 2E \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
419: \varepsilon^{* \nu} k^\alpha P^\beta \nn\\
420: &+ &iF \varepsilon_\mu^*
421: - i G (\varepsilon^* q)(P+k)_\mu -iH (\varepsilon^* q)
422: q_\mu \Big]\biggr\},\label{phi}
423: \eea
424: where the parameters $A,B, \cdots H$ are given as \cite{ref3}
425: \bea
426: A &=& C_9^{eff} \frac{V(q^2)}{m_B + m_\phi}+
427: 4 \frac{m_b}{q^2} C_7^{eff} T_1(q^2)\;, \nn\\
428: B &=& (m_B + m_\phi) \left (
429: C_9^{eff} A_1(q^2) + 4 \frac{m_b}{q^2}(m_B -m_\phi) C_7^{eff} T_2(q^2)
430: \right )\;,\nn\\
431: C &=& C_9^{eff} \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_\phi} +4 \frac{m_b}{q^2} C_7^{eff}
432: \left (T_2(q^2) + \frac{q^2}{m_B^2-m_\phi^2} T_3(q^2) \right )\;,\nn\\
433: D &=& 2C_9^{eff} \frac{m_\phi}{q^2}\Big(A_3(q^2)-A_0(q^2)
434: \Big)-4 C_7^{eff} \frac{m_b}
435: {q^2}T_3(q^2) \;,\nn\\
436: E&=& C_{10} \frac{V(q^2)}{m_B+m_\phi}\;,~~~~~
437: F = C_{10}(m_B +m_\phi) A_1(q^2)\;,\nn\\
438: G&=& C_{10} \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_\phi}\;,~~~~
439: H= 2 C_{10} \frac{m_\phi}{q^2}\Big(A_3(q^2)-A_0(q^2)\Big)\;.
440: \eea
441: The differential decay rate is given as
442: \be
443: \frac{d \Gamma}{d s}=\frac{G_F^2 \alpha^2}{2^{12} \pi^5 m_B}
444: |V_{tb}V_{ts}^*|^2
445: \lambda^{1/2} (1, r_\phi, \hat s)~ v_l ~ \Delta\;,\label{lp1}
446: \ee
447: where $\hat s=q^2/m_B^2$, $r_\phi=m_\phi^2/m_B^2$, $v_l=
448: \sqrt{1-4m_l^2/s}$,
449: $\lambda \equiv \lambda(1,r_\phi,\hat s)$, is the triangle function and
450: \bea
451: \Delta &=& \frac{8}{3} \lambda m_B^6 \hat s\Big((3-v_l^2)|A|^2+2 v_l^2
452: |E|^2 \Big)
453: + \frac{1}{r_\phi}\lambda m_B^4 \biggr[ \frac{1}{3} \lambda m_B^2
454: (3-v_l^2)|C|^2\nn\\
455: &+& m_B^2 \hat{s}^2 (1-v_l^2)|H|^2+ \frac{2}{3} \Big[ (3-v_l^2)
456: (r_\phi+\hat s-1)
457: -3 \hat s (1-v_l^2)\Big]Re[F G^*]\nn\\
458: &-& 2 \hat s (1-v_l^2) Re [F H^*] + 2 m_B^2 \hat s (1-r_\phi)
459: (1-v_l^2) Re[G H^*]
460: \nn\\
461: &+&\frac{2}{3}(3-v_l^2)(r_\phi+\hat s-1) Re[B C^*] \biggr]
462: +\frac{1}{3r_\phi} m_B^2 \biggr[(\lambda +12 r_\phi \hat s)(3-v_l^2) |B|^2 +
463: \lambda m_B^4\Big[ \lambda (3-v_l^2)\nn\\
464: &-&3 \hat s (\hat s -2 r_\phi-2)(1-v_l^2)\Big]|G|^2+
465: \Big(\lambda(3-v_l^2)+24 r_\phi \hat s v_l^2 \Big)|F|^2 \biggr]\;.
466: \eea
467: Another observable is the lepton forward backward asymmetry ($A_{FB}$),
468: which is also a very powerful tool for looking new physics. The
469: position of the zero value of $A_{FB}$ is very sensitive to
470: the presence of new physics.
471: The normalized forward-backward asymmetry
472: is defined as
473: \bea
474: A_{FB}(s) &= &\frac{\ds{\int_0^1 \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d \s1 d \cos \theta}
475: d \cos \theta-\int_{-1}^0
476: \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d \s1 d \cos \theta}d \cos \theta}}
477: {\ds{\int_0^1 \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d \s1 d \cos \theta}d
478: \cos \theta +\int_{-1}^0
479: \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d \s1 d \cos \theta}d \cos \theta}}\nn\\ \nn\\
480: &=&\frac{G_F^2 \alpha^2}{2^{12} \pi^5 m_B} |V_{tb}V_{ts}^*|^2\
481: \frac{ 8 m_B^4~ \lambda~ v_l^2~ \hat s~
482: \Big(Re[B E^*]+Re[A F^*] \Big) }{d \Gamma/ds}\;, \label{fb}
483: \eea
484: where $\theta $ is the angle between the directions of
485: $l^+$ and $B_s$ in the rest frame of the lepton pair.
486:
487: For numerical evaluation we use
488: the form factors calculated in the LCSR \cite{ball}
489: approach, where the $q^2$ dependence of various form factors are given
490: by simple fits as
491: \bea
492: f(q^2) &=& \frac{r_2}{1-q^2/m_{fit}^2}\;,~~~
493: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~({\rm for}~~A_1,~T_2)\nn\\
494: f(q^2) &= & \frac{r_1}{1-q^2/m_{R}^2}+
495: \frac{r_2}{1-q^2/m_{fit}^2}\;,
496: ~~~~~~~~~~({\rm for}~~V,~ A_0,~ T_1)\nn\\
497: f(q^2) &= & \frac{r_1}{1-q^2/m_{fit}^2}+ \frac{r_2}{(1-q^2
498: /m_{fit}^2)^2}\;,
499: ~~~~~~({\rm for}~~A_2, ~\tilde T_3)\;.
500: \eea
501: The values of the parameters $r_1$, $r_2$, $m_R$ and $m_{fit}$
502: are taken from \cite{ball}. The uncertainties occur in these fitted
503: results are also given in \cite{ball}.
504: The form
505: factors $A_3$ and $T_3$ are given as
506: \bea
507: A_3(q^2) &=& \frac{m_B+m_V}{2 m_\phi}A_1(q^2) -
508: \frac{m_B-m_\phi}{2 m_\phi} A_2(q^2)\;,\nn\\
509: T_3(q^2) &=& \frac{m_B^2-m_\phi^2}{q^2}\Big(\tilde{ T}_3(q^2)-T_2(q^2)\Big).
510: \eea
511: The particle masses, lifetime of $B_{s}$ meson and the weak mixing angle
512: as $\sin^2 \theta_W$ are taken from \cite{pdg}. The quark masses
513: (in GeV) used are
514: $m_b$=4.6, $m_c$=1.5 and the CKM matrix elements as
515: $V_{tb} V_{ts}^*=0.04$ .
516:
517: In order to see the effect due to the uncertainties in the form factors,
518: we plot the differential branching ratio
519: (\ref{lp1}) and the forward backward asymmetry (\ref{fb}) for
520: $B_s \to \phi~ \mu^+ \mu^- $ in Figure-1. It can be seen
521: from the figure that due to the uncertainties in the form factors
522: these distributions deviate slightly from their corresponding
523: central values in the low $s$ region. However, in the large $s$
524: region these deviations are highly suppressed and the
525: zero position in the forward backward asymmetry is insensitive
526: to these uncertainties. Therefore, we will not consider the
527: effect of these uncertainties for the differential decay
528: distributions and the forward backward asymmetries but we will
529: incorporate their effects in the total decay rates.
530:
531: \begin{figure}[htb]
532: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{new.eps}}
533: \caption{
534: The variation of the differential branching ratio
535: $d {\rm Br}/d s$
536: (in units of
537: $ 10^{-7})$ and the forward backward asymmetry in the SM
538: with $s~({\rm in~GeV^2})$
539: for the process $B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^- $ . The solid line denotes the
540: result using the central values of the form factors and
541: the dashed lines represent the effects due to the uncertainties
542: in these parameters.}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545: Next, to see the effect of the UED, we plot the differential decay
546: rates (\ref{lp1}) and the forward backward asymmetries (\ref{fb}) for
547: $B_s \to \phi~ l^+ l^- $ against $s$, as depicted in Figures 2
548: and 3. It can be seen from these figures that
549: there is considerable enhancement in the decay rates due to the
550: KK contributions for $1/R=200$ GeV.
551: The zero position of the forward backward asymmetry
552: $A_{FB}$ shifts towards the left due to the NP effect. This
553: shifting is also more prominent for $1/R=200$ GeV. Therefore,
554: its experimental determination would constrain the parameter
555: $1/R$.
556:
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558:
559: \begin{figure}[htb]
560: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{mu.eps}}
561: \caption{
562: The variation of the differential branching ratio $d {\rm Br}/d s$
563: (in units of
564: $ 10^{-7})$ and the forward backward asymmetry with $s~({\rm in~GeV^2})$
565: for the process $B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^- $. The solid line denotes the
566: SM result, the dashed line represents the
567: contribution from UED model with $1/R$ = 200 GeV and the long-dashed line
568: for $1/R$=500 GeV.}
569: \end{figure}
570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
571:
572: \begin{figure}[htb]
573: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{tau0.eps}}
574: \caption{Same as Figure-2 for the process $B_s \to \phi \tau^+ \tau^- $ }
575: \end{figure}
576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
577:
578: \begin{figure}[htb]
579: \centerline{\epsfysize 3.0 truein \epsfbox{br.eps}}
580: \caption{The variation of the total branching ratio
581: in units of $10^{-7}$ with $1/R$.
582: The solid line represents the central value while the dashed
583: lines are due to the uncertainties in the form factors.
584: Figure-(a) represents the $B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^- $ and
585: figure (b) $B_s \to \phi \tau^+ \tau^- $ process.
586: The horizontal dot-dashed lines in both the figures represent the
587: central values in the SM and the dashed lines are the
588: corresponding uncertainties. }
589: \end{figure}
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591:
592:
593:
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595: \begin{table}
596: \begin{center}
597: \caption{The branching ratios
598: for various rare semileptonic (in units of $10^{-7}$)
599: and radiative leptonic (in units of $10^{-9}$)
600: $B_s$ decays, where
601: ${\rm {Br}^{SM}}$ represents the SM branching ratio and
602: ${\rm {Br}|_{1/R=200}}$ is
603: the branching ratio with KK contributions for $1/R=200$ GeV
604: and ${\rm {Br}|_{1/R=500}}$ for $1/R=500$ GeV. The errors are
605: due to the uncertainties in the form factors. }
606: \vspace*{0.3 true cm}
607: \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|c c|cc|cc|}
608: \hline
609: \hline
610: Decay process & & $ {\rm{{Br}^{SM}}} $ && ${\rm {Br}|_{1/R=200}} $
611: && ${\rm {Br}|_{1/R=500}}$ && Expt.\cite{ref4} \\
612: \hline
613: $B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^-$ && $15.29 \pm 0.95$
614: && 20.82 $\pm$ 1.06 && 16.01$\pm$ 0.99 && $< 41 $ \\
615: $B_s \to \phi \tau^+ \tau^-$ && 0.87$\pm$0.02 &&
616: 1.53 $\pm$ 0.03 && 0.98$\pm$0.025 && - \\
617: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$ && 3.05$\pm$0.50 &&
618: 4.45$\pm$ 0.69 && 3.27$\pm$0.53 && - \\
619: $B_s \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma $ && 13.93$\pm$0.09
620: && 24.93$\pm$0.14 && 15.77 $\pm$ 0.10&& - \\
621: \hline
622: \hline
623: \end{tabular}
624: \end{center}
625: \end{table}
626:
627: We now proceed to calculate the total decay rate for $B_s \to
628: \phi~ l^+ l^-$. It should be noted that the long distance
629: contributions arise from the real $\bar c c$ resonances with the
630: dominant contributions coming from the low
631: lying resonances $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$. In order to
632: minimize the hadronic uncertainties it is necessary to eliminate
633: the backgrounds coming from the resonance regions.
634: This can be done by using the
635: following cuts for
636: $B_s \to \phi \mu^+ \mu^- $ process as \cite{d0}
637: \begin{eqnarray*}
638: 2.9~{\rm GeV} <
639: m_{\mu^+ \mu^-}<3.3~{\rm GeV}\;,~~{\rm and}~~
640: 3.6~{\rm GeV} <
641: m_{\mu^+ \mu^-}<3.8~{\rm GeV}\;,
642: \end{eqnarray*}
643: and for $B_s \to \phi \tau^+ \tau^-$ process $
644: m_{\psi^\prime}-0.08<m_{\tau^+ \tau^-}<m_{\psi^\prime}+0.08\;.$
645:
646:
647: Using these veto windows we obtain the branching ratios for
648: the semileptonic rare $B_s$ decays which are given in Table-1.
649: It is seen from the table that the branching ratios obtained
650: in the ACD model are enhanced from the
651: corresponding SM values for lower $1/R$ value. The variation of the
652: total decay rates with $1/R$ are depicted in Figure-4. Thus,
653: observation of these decay modes can be used to
654: constrain the compactification radius $R$. As seen from the figure
655: for large $1/R$ the standard model results are recovered.
656:
657: \subsection{ $B_s^0 \to l^+ l^- \gamma$ process}
658:
659: Now let us consider the radiative dileptonic decay modes
660: $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma $, which are also very sensitive to the
661: existence of new physics beyond the SM. Due to the presence
662: of the photon in the final state, these decay modes are free from
663: helicity suppression, but they are further suppressed by a
664: factor of $\alpha $. However, in spite of this
665: $\alpha $ suppression, the radiative leptonic decays $B_s \to
666: l^+ l^- \gamma $, $l=(\mu, \tau)$ have comparable decay rates to that of
667: purely leptonic ones.
668:
669: The matrix element for the decay $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma$ can
670: be obtained from that of the $B_s \to l^+ l^-$ one by attaching the photon
671: line to any of the charged external fermion lines. In order to
672: calculate the amplitude, when the photon is
673: radiated from the initial fermions (structure dependent (SD) part), we
674: need to evaluate the matrix elements of the quark currents present
675: in (\ref{ham}) between the emitted photon and the initial $B_s$
676: meson. These matrix elements can be obtained by considering the
677: transition of a $B_s$ meson to a virtual photon with momentum $k$.
678: In this case the form factors depend on two variables, i.e., $k^2$ (the
679: photon virtuality) and the square of momentum transfer $q^2=(p_B-k)^2$.
680: By imposing gauge invariance, one can obtain several relations
681: among the form factors at $k^2=0$. These relations can be used
682: to reduce the number of independent form factors for the transition of
683: the $B_s$ meson to a real photon. Thus, the matrix elements for $B_s
684: \to \gamma$ transition, induced by vector, axial-vector, tensor and
685: pseudo-tensor currents can be parametrized as \cite{kruger}
686: \bea
687: \langle \gamma(k, \ve)|\bar s \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 b|B_s(p_B) \rangle
688: &=& ie \left [ \ve_\mu^* (p_B\cdot k) -(\ve^* \cdot p_B) k_\mu \right ]
689: \frac{F_A}{m_{B}}\;,\nn\\
690: \langle \gamma(k, \ve)|\bar s \gamma_\mu b|B_s(p_B) \rangle
691: &=& e\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \ve^{*\nu} p_B^\alpha~ k^\beta
692: \frac{F_V}{m_{B}}\;,\nn\\
693: \langle \gamma(k, \ve)|\bar s \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu
694: \gamma_5b|B_s(p_B) \rangle
695: &=& e \left [ \ve_\mu^* (p_B\cdot k) -(\ve^* \cdot p_B) k_\mu \right ]
696: F_{TA}\;,\nn\\
697: \langle \gamma(k, \ve)|\bar s \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu b|B_s(p_B) \rangle
698: &=& e\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \ve^{*\nu} p_B^\alpha~ k^\beta
699: F_{TV}\;,
700: \eea
701: where $\varepsilon$ and $k$ are the polarization vector and the
702: four-momentum of photon, $p_B$ is the momentum of initial $B_s$
703: meson and $F_i$'s are the various form factors.
704:
705: Thus, the matrix element describing the SD part takes the form
706: \bea
707: {\cal M}_{SD} &=& \frac{\alpha^{3/2}G_F}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}~
708: V_{tb}V_{ts}^*
709: \biggr\{ \epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}
710: \varepsilon^{* \nu} p_B^\alpha~ k^\beta\Big(A_1~ \bar l \gamma^\mu l
711: +A_2~ \bar l \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 l \Big)\nn\\
712: &+&
713: i\Big( \varepsilon_\mu^*(k \cdot p_B)-(\varepsilon^* \cdot p_B) k_\mu
714: \Big)\Big(B_1~ \bar l \gamma^\mu l
715: +B_2~ \bar l \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 l \Big)\biggr\}\;,
716: \label{sd}
717: \eea
718: where
719: \bea
720: A_1&=& 2 C_7 \frac{m_b}{q^2}F_{TV}+C_9 \frac{F_V}{m_{B}}\;,~~~
721: ~~~~~~~~~~A_2=C_{10}\frac{F_V}
722: {m_{B}}\;,\nn\\
723: B_1&=& -2C_7\frac{m_b}{q^2} F_{TA}-C_9 \frac{F_A}{m_{B}}\;,~~~
724: ~~~~~~~~~B_2=-C_{10} \frac{F_A}{m_B}\;.\label{ff}
725: \eea
726: The form factors $F_V$ and $F_A$ have been calculated
727: within the dispersion approach \cite{new1}.
728: The $q^2$ dependence of the
729: form factors are given as \cite{kruger}
730: \be
731: F(E_\gamma)= \beta \frac{f_{B_s} m_{B}}{\Delta+ E_\gamma}\;,
732: \label{ib}
733: \ee
734: where $E_\gamma$ is the photon energy, which is related to the
735: momentum transfer $q^2$ as
736: \be
737: E_\gamma= \frac{m_{B}}{2}\left (1- \frac{q^2}{m_{B}^2} \right )\;.
738: \ee
739: The values of the parameters $\beta $ and $\Delta$
740: are given in Table-2. The same ansatz
741: (\ref{ib}) has also been assumed for the form factors
742: $F_{TA}$ and $F_{TV}$. The decay constant of the $B_s$
743: meson is not yet well known because the pure leptonic
744: decays of $B_s$ meson (i.e., $B_s \to l^+ l^-$) from which
745: it could be extracted are highly suppressed in the SM as they
746: occur at one one-loop level. Using QCD Sum rule approach,
747: its value is found to be $f_{B_s}=236 \pm 30$ MeV \cite{new2}
748: and $f_{B_s}=244 \pm 21$ MeV \cite{new3}. The Lattice QCD result
749: gives $f_{B_s}=242 \pm 9 \pm 34$ MeV \cite{new4}. Therefore, in this analysis
750: we use the value $f_{B_s}=240$ MeV.
751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
752: \begin{table}
753: \begin{center}
754: \caption{The parameters for $B \to \gamma$ form factors.}
755: \vspace*{0.3 true cm}
756: \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|c c|cc|cc|}
757: \hline
758: \hline
759: Parameter & & $ F_V $ && $ F_{TV}$ && $F_A$ && $F_{TA}$ \\
760: \hline
761: $\beta ({\rm GeV}^{-1})$ && 0.28 && 0.30 && 0.26 && 0.33 \\
762: $\Delta ({\rm GeV})$ && 0.04 && 0.04 && 0.30 && 0.30 \\
763: \hline
764: \hline
765: \end{tabular}
766: \end{center}
767: \end{table}
768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
769:
770: When the photon is radiated from the outgoing lepton pairs, the
771: internal bremsstrahlung (IB) part, the matrix
772: element is given as
773: \be
774: {\cal M}_{IB} = \frac{\alpha^{3/2}G_F}{\sqrt{ 2 \pi}}~
775: V_{tb}V_{ts}^*~ f_{B_s}~ m_l~ C_{10}
776: \biggr[ \bar l \left ( \frac{\not\!{\varepsilon}^* {\not\!{p}}_{B}}{
777: p_+ \cdot k}-\frac{{\not\!{p}}_{B}\not\!{\varepsilon}^* }{
778: p_- \cdot k} \right )\gamma_5 ~l \biggr]\;.
779: \ee
780: Thus, the total matrix element for the $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma $ process
781: is given as
782: \be
783: {\cal M}={\cal M}_{SD}+{\cal M}_{IB}\;.
784: \ee
785: The differential decay width of the $B \to l^+
786: l^- \gamma $ process, in the rest frame of $B_s$ meson is given as
787: \be
788: \frac{d \Gamma}{d s}= \frac{G_F^2 \alpha^3}{2^{10} \pi^4}~ |V_{tb}
789: V_{ts}^*|^2~
790: m_{B}^3~ \Delta_1\;,\label{lp}
791: \ee
792: where
793: \bea
794: \Delta_1 &=& \frac{4}{3} m_{B}^2 (1- \hat s)^2 v_l \Big((\hat s+2r_l)(|A_1|^2
795: +|B_1|^2)+(\hat s-4 r_l)(|A_2|^2+|B_2|^2 \Big )\nn\\
796: &-& 64~ \frac{f_{B_s}^2}{m_{B_s}^2} \frac{r_l}{1- \hat s}~ C_{10}^2~\Big(
797: (4r_l-\hat s^2 -1) \ln
798: \frac{1+v_l}{1-v_l}+2 \hat s~ v_l\Big)\nn\\
799: &-& 32~r_l(1-\hat s)^2~ f_{B_s} {\rm Re}\Big( C_{10} A_1^* \Big),
800: \eea
801: with $s=q^2$, $\hat s= s/m_{B}^2$, $r_l=m_l^2/m_{B}^2$,
802: $v_l=\sqrt{1- 4 m_l^2/q^2}$. The physical region of $s$ is
803: $4 m_l^2 \leq s \leq m_{B}^2 $.
804:
805: The forward backward asymmetry is given as
806: \bea
807: A_{FB} &=& \frac{1}{\Delta_1} \biggr[2 m_{B}^2 \hat s(1-\hat s)^3 v_l^2~
808: {\rm Re}\Big(
809: A_1^* B_2+B_1^* A_2\Big)\nn\\
810: &+&32~ f_{B_s}~r_l (1-\hat s)^2 \ln\left (\frac{4r_l}{\hat s} \right )
811: {\rm Re}\Big(C_{10}B_2^*\Big)\biggr]\;.\label{fb1}
812: \eea
813: Again to visualize the effects due to the uncertainties in
814: the form factors (assuming it to at the level of $10\%$)
815: we first plot the differential decay
816: distribution (\ref{lp}),
817: and the forward backward asymmetry (\ref{fb1}) for $B_s \to
818: \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$ in Figure-5. From the figure it can be seen that
819: these uncertainties can affect only the differential decay rate but not
820: the forward backward asymmetry. Furthermore, it is found that these
821: effects are significant only for $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$ and
822: not for $B_s \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma$. Next, we would like to
823: see the effect of UED in these differential distributions. For
824: this purpose, we consider only the central values of the form factors,
825: $f_{B_s}$=0.24 GeV, $\alpha$=1/128 and plot
826: plot the dilepton mass spectrum (\ref{lp}),
827: and the forward backward asymmetries (\ref{fb1}) for $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma$
828: decays which are shown in Figures-6 and 7. From these figures,
829: we see that the branching ratio for $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma $ enhanced
830: significantly from their corresponding SM values. However, the forward
831: backward asymmetry is reduced slightly from the corresponding SM value
832: for the $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$ process and there is a backward
833: shifting of the zero position. For $B_s \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma$ process
834: there is no significant change in the asymmetry distribution.
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836: \begin{figure}[htb]
837: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{new1.eps}}
838: \caption{
839: The differential branching ratio (\ref{lp}) (in units of $10^{-9}$) and
840: the forward backward
841: asymmetry ($A_{FB}$) for the process
842: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma $ in the standard model where the
843: solid line represents the central value and the dashed lines
844: represent the uncertainties due to the form factors.
845: }
846: \end{figure}
847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849: \begin{figure}[htb]
850: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{gamma.eps}}
851: \caption{
852: The differential branching ratio (\ref{lp}) (in units of $10^{-9}$) and
853: the forward backward
854: asymmetry ($A_{FB}$) for the process
855: $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma $ in the standard model and in
856: the ACD model. The solid line denotes the
857: SM result, the dashed line represents the
858: contribution from UED model with $1/R$ = 200 GeV. }
859: \end{figure}
860: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
861: \begin{figure}[htb]
862: \centerline{\epsfysize 2.0 truein \epsfbox{tau.eps}}
863: \caption{Same as Figure-7 for the process
864: $B_s \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma $. The additional long-dashed line
865: is for $1/R$=500 GeV.}
866: \end{figure}
867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
868:
869:
870: To obtain the branching ratios it is necessary
871: to eliminate the background due to the resonances $J/\psi
872: (\psi^\prime)$
873: with $J/\psi(\psi^\prime) \to l^+ l^- $. We use the
874: following veto
875: windows to eliminate these backgrounds
876: \begin{eqnarray*}
877: B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma :&&m_{J/\psi}-0.02<
878: m_{\mu^+ \mu^-}<m_{J/\psi}+0.02;\nn\\
879: :&&
880: m_{\psi^\prime}-0.02<m_{\mu^+ \mu^-}<m_{\psi^\prime}+0.02 \nn\\
881: B_{s} \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma:&&
882: m_{\psi^\prime}-0.02<m_{\tau^+ \tau^-}<m_{\psi^\prime}+0.02 \;.
883: \end{eqnarray*}
884: Furthermore, it should be noted that the
885: $|{\cal M}_{IB}|^2$ has infrared singularity
886: due to the emission of soft photon. Therefore, to obtain the branching ratio,
887: we impose a cut on the photon energy, which will correspond to the
888: experimental cut imposed on the minimum energy for the detectable photon.
889: Requiring the photon energy to be larger than 25 MeV, i.e.,
890: $E_\gamma \geq \delta~ m_{B_s}/2$, which corresponds to
891: $s \leq m_{B_s}^2(1- \delta)$, and therefore, we set
892: the cut $\delta \geq 0.01 $.
893:
894: Thus, with the above defined veto windows and the infrared cutoff parameter,
895: we obtain the branching ratios as shown in Table-1
896: which are enhanced from their SM values.
897: It should be mentioned that the $B_s^0 \to \tau^+ \tau^- \gamma$
898: could be observable in the Run II of Tevatron.
899:
900: \section{Conclusion}
901:
902: It is now widely believed that the scenario with extra
903: dimensions is a strong contender to reveal physics beyond the SM
904: and has received considerable attention in the literature. In view of this
905: anticipation it is also worthwhile to study its implications in the b-sector.
906: In this paper, therefore, we have studied the rare semileptonic decay mode
907: $B_s \to \phi~ l^+ l^-$ and the radiative leptonic
908: $B_s \to l^+ l^- \gamma $ in the model with a single extra
909: dimension. The branching ratios for various decay modes are
910: found to be
911: larger than their corresponding SM values but they lie
912: within the present experimental upper limit.
913: Furthermore, the zero point of the forward backward
914: asymmetries for the decays under consideration are shifted to the left
915: and the change is found to be sensitive to the inverse compactification
916: radius. In future, with more intensive data, the UED scenario will
917: be subjected to more stringent tests and in turn will enrich us with a
918: better understanding of the flavor sector.
919:
920:
921: {\bf Acknowledgments}
922: The work of RM was
923: partly supported by the Department of Science and Technology,
924: Government of India, through Grant No. SR/S2/HEP-04/2005.
925: %**************************************************************************
926: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
927: %**************************************************************************
928: \bibitem{ref1} Heavy Flavor Averaging Group,
929: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.
930:
931: \bibitem{ref2} C. Q. Geng and C. C. Liu, J. Phys.G {\bf 29},
932: 1103 (2003).
933:
934: \bibitem{ref3} G. Erkol and G. Turan, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 25}, 575 (2002).
935:
936: \bibitem{ref4} V. M. Abazov, D0 Collaboration, Phys. Rev.
937: D {\bf 74}, 031107 (2006).
938:
939: \bibitem{eilam} T. M. Aliev, A. \"Ozpineci and M. Savci, Phys. Rev.
940: D {\bf 55}, 7059 (1997); G. Eilam, C. D. L\"u and D. X. Zhang,
941: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 391}, 461 (1997); T. M. Aliev, N. K. Pak and M.
942: Savci, Phys. Lett. B
943: {\bf 424}, 175 (1998); C. Q. Geng, C. C. Lih and W. M. Zhang, Phys.
944: Rev. D. {\bf 62}, 074017 (2000).
945:
946: \bibitem{aliev} T. M. Aliev, A. \"Ozpineci and M. Savci, Eur. Phys.
947: J C {\bf 27}, 405 (2003). U. O. Yilmaz, B. B. Sirvanh and G. Turan,
948: Eur. Phys. J C {\bf 30}, 197 (2003); G. Turan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A
949: {\bf 20}, 533 (2005); R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71},
950: 114013 (2005); S. R. Choudhury, A. S. Cornell, N. Gaur and G. C. Joshi,
951: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 21}, 2617 (2006).
952:
953: \bibitem{acd} T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng and B. A. Dobrescu,
954: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001).
955:
956: \bibitem{agashe}
957: K. Agashe, N. G. Deshpande and G. H. Wu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 511}, 85 (2001);
958: T. Appelquist and B. A. Dobrescu,
959: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 516}, 85 (2001); J. F. Oliver, J. Papavissiliou
960: and A. Santamaria,
961: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 056002 (2002).
962:
963: \bibitem{buras1} A. J. Buras, M. Spranger and A. Weiler,
964: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 660}, 225 (2003);
965: A. J. Buras, A. Poschenrieder, M. Spranger
966: and A. Weiler, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 678}, 455 (2004).
967:
968: \bibitem{fazio}
969: P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, R. Ferrandes, T. N. Pham,
970: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 73}, 115006, (2006); hep-ph/0610044.
971:
972: \bibitem{lam} T. M. Aliev and M. Savci, hep-ph/0606225;
973: T. M. Aliev, M. Savci and B. B. Sirvanli, hep-ph/0608143.
974:
975: \bibitem{buras2} G.\ Buchalla, A.J.\ Buras and M.\ Lautenbacher, Rev.\
976: Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996).
977:
978: \bibitem{buras3} A. J. Buras and M. M\"unz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 52}, 186
979: (1995); M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 393}, 23 (1993);
980: {\it ibid.} {\bf 439}, 461 (E) (1995).
981:
982: \bibitem{res} C. S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B.
983: {\bf 218}, 343 (1989); N. G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys.
984: Rev. D {\bf 39}, 1461 (1989);
985: P. J. O'Donnell and H. K.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 2067 (1991);
986: P. J. O'Donnell, M. Sutherland and H. K.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46},
987: 4091 (1992) F. Kr\"uger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 380}, 199
988: (1996).
989:
990: \bibitem{ball} P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 014029 (2005).
991:
992: \bibitem{pdg} W.-M. Yao et al., Particle Data Group,
993: J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1
994: (2006).
995:
996: \bibitem{d0} D. Acosta et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
997: 111101 (2002).
998:
999: \bibitem{kruger} F. Kr\"uger and D. Melikhov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 034002
1000: (2003).
1001: \bibitem{new1} M. Beyer, D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin and B. Stech,
1002: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 094006 (2001).
1003: \bibitem{new2} S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 520}, 115
1004: (2001).
1005: \bibitem{new3} M. Jamin and B. O. Lange, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
1006: 056005 (2002).
1007:
1008: \bibitem{new4} A. Ali Khan {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 054504
1009: (2001).
1010:
1011: \end{thebibliography}
1012:
1013: \end{document}
1014:
1015: