Rare decay beyond standard model

Aliev, T.; Özpineci, A.; Savcı, Mustafa

doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)00365-3

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second feature is that B → K + E provides better constraints than the B → K * + E decay. We have next tried to estimate the limits on the allowed values of the effective couplings, C S , C P , C V and C A , from the present experimental limits on the branching ratio of B → K(K * ) + E. Therefore, in figure (4) we have shown the dependence of the branching ratio of B → K + E on C S and C V . As we can see from the expressions of the differential decay rate for B → K + E, given in the previous section, if we consider the scalar (vector) operators, then the rate for this process is only dependent on C S (C V ).…”

Section: Numerical Results and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

B→K(K*) + missing energy in unparticle physics

Aliev

Cornell

Gaur

2007

J. High Energy Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present work we study the effects of an unparticle U as the possible source of missing energy in the decay B → K(K * ) + missing energy. We find that the dependence of the differential branching ratio on the K(K * )-meson's energy in the presence of the vector unparticle operators is very distinctive from that of the SM. Moreover, in using the existing upper bound on B → K(K * ) + missing energy decays, we have been able to put more stringent constraints on the parameters of unparticle stuff.

show abstract

Section: Numerical Results and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also the branching fractions of the B-meson decays are quite large, with theoretical estimates of Br(B → K * ν ν) ∼ 10 −5 and Br(B → Kν ν) ∼ 10 −6 [1]. These processes, based on b → sν ν, are very sensitive to non-standard Z models and have been extensively studied in the literature [2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

B→K(K*) + missing energy in unparticle physics

Aliev

Cornell

Gaur

2007

J. High Energy Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vector operators with left-handed massless neutrinos have been studied in [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Contributions from scalar and tensor operators were taken into account in [20,21], but no dependence on (sterile) neutrino mass and consequently neither any interference between scalar, vector and tensor operators. The inclusive mode B → X s νν was studied earlier in [17,[22][23][24] where only vector operators were taken into account.…”

Section: Jhep12(2021)118mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of invisibility: constraints on new physics in b → sνν

Felkl

Schmidt

2021

J. High Energ. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Belle II experiment will measure the rare decays B → Kνν and B → K∗νν with increased sensitivity which can hence be expected to serve as a very efficient probe of new physics. We calculate the relevant branching ratios in low-energy effective field theory (LEFT) including an arbitrary number of massive sterile neutrinos and discuss the expected sensitivity to the different operators. We also take into account the longitudinal polarisation fraction FL and the inclusive decay rate B → Xsνν. In our investigation we consider new physics dominantly contributing to one and two operators both for massless and massive (sterile) neutrinos. Our results show a powerful interplay of the exclusive decay rates B → Kνν and B → K∗νν, and a surprisingly large sensitivity of the inclusive decay mode to vector operators even under conservative assumptions about its uncertainty. Furthermore, the sensitivity of FL is competitive with the branching ratio of B → K∗νν in the search for new physics contributing to scalar operators and thus also complementary to B → Kνν and B → Xsνν.

show abstract

“…The explicit form of 1 ( ) is given in [18][19][20]. Note that 1 ( ) gives about 3% contribution to the 0 ( ) term [21]. The Wilson coefficients (in our case 0 ( ) and 1 ( )) can be calculated in any gauge and they are gauge independent and the results should be gauge invariant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%