CP violation in a two-Higgs doublet model for the top quark: B→ψKS

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 59, Issue 9, 1999, Pages 1-5

  Kiers, Ken ^a   Soni, Amarjit ^b   Wu, Guo Hong ^c  

^a TAYLOR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17644406092     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.096001     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).
2. See, e.g., A.G. Cohen et al., Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 27 (1993).
3. A. Das and C. Kao, Phys. Lett. B 372, 106 (1996).
4. See, e.g., W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 296, 179 (1992); M. Luke and M.J. Savage, ibid. 307, 387 (1993); D. Atwood et al., Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997); M. Sher, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP98), Vancouver, Canada, 1998, hep-ph/9809590.
5. See, e.g., W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 296, 179 (1992); M. Luke and M.J. Savage, ibid. 307, 387 (1993); D. Atwood et al., Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997); M. Sher, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP98), Vancouver, Canada, 1998, hep-ph/9809590.
6. See, e.g., W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 296, 179 (1992); M. Luke and M.J. Savage, ibid. 307, 387 (1993); D. Atwood et al., Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997); M. Sher, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP98), Vancouver, Canada, 1998, hep-ph/9809590.
7. See, e.g., W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 296, 179 (1992); M. Luke and M.J. Savage, ibid. 307, 387 (1993); D. Atwood et al., Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997); M. Sher, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP98), Vancouver, Canada, 1998, hep-ph/9809590.
8. Assuming CP violation arises from the Higgs potential and using approximate global family symmetries to suppress flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC), extra phases can also appear in the charged Higgs couplings in a 2HDM (model III). Consequences of this type of model have been studied by Y.L. Wu and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1762 (1994); Y.L. Wu, hep-ph/9404241. One crucial difference from the T2HDM in which we are interested is that tree-level contributions to KK̄ and BB̄ mixings are absent in the T2HDM but are generally present in the former.
9. See, e.g., the article by H. Quinn, in Particle Data Group, C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 3, 1 (1998).
10. S. Mele, Proceedings of the Workshop on CP Violation, Adelaide, Australia, 1998, hep-ph/9808411; see also P. Paganini et al., Phys. Scr. 58, 556 (1998).
11. S. Mele, Proceedings of the Workshop on CP Violation, Adelaide, Australia, 1998, hep-ph/9808411; see also P. Paganini et al., Phys. Scr. 58, 556 (1998).
12. See, e.g., M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2845 (1997); Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 313, 126 (1993); Y. Grossman and M. Worah, ibid. 395, 241 (1997).
13. See, e.g., M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2845 (1997); Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 313, 126 (1993); Y. Grossman and M. Worah, ibid. 395, 241 (1997).
14. See, e.g., M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2845 (1997); Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 313, 126 (1993); Y. Grossman and M. Worah, ibid. 395, 241 (1997).
15. R in a manifestly unitary form.
16. 1).
17. S which is much smaller than the intrinsic theoretical uncertainties in the absolute rate calculation.
18. See, e.g., M. Ciuchini, et al., Nucl. Phys. B527, 21 (1998).
19. CLEO Collaboration, M.S. Alam et al., presented at the ICHEP conference, Vancouver, 1998; ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Phys. Lett. B 429, 169 (1998).
20. CLEO Collaboration, M.S. Alam et al., presented at the ICHEP conference, Vancouver, 1998; ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Phys. Lett. B 429, 169 (1998).
21. K. Chetyrkin et al., Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); A.J. Buras et al., ibid. 414, 157 (1997); 434, 459(E) (1998).
22. K. Chetyrkin et al., Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); A.J. Buras et al., ibid. 414, 157 (1997); 434, 459(E) (1998).
23. K. Chetyrkin et al., Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); A.J. Buras et al., ibid. 414, 157 (1997); 434, 459(E) (1998).
24. K. Chetyrkin et al., Phys. Lett. B 400, 206 (1997); 425, 414(E) (1998); A.J. Buras et al., ibid. 414, 157 (1997); 434, 459(E) (1998).
25. A. Czarnecki and W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 277 (1998).
26. Since we restrict ourselves to computing the LO effect of the new Higgs interactions, for consistency, we also incorporate only the LO SM contribution to b→sγ.
27. T. Inami and C.S. Lim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 65, 297 (1981).
28. B. Grinstein et al., Nucl. Phys. B339, 269 (1990).
29. W) is generally very small in these models.
30. We take all error distributions (both for the theoretical and the experimental quantities) to be rectangular, with widths ±1σ.
31. G. Buchalla et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996).
32. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1945 (1983).
33. Note that the choice γ=0 is disfavored at the 1σ level by the combined constraints from B-B̄ mixing and b→uev [7]. However, to consider the full range of possibilities for this model - and given the theoretical uncertainties implicit in these constraints - we choose to adopt a rather conservative approach with respect to their interpretations.
34. -26 e cm.