25 q $^{2}$(GeV$^{2}$/c$^{2}$) A$_{FB}$ exp SM m ′ t = 400 GeV m ′ t = 600 GeV 0 . 6 − 1 . 0 0 . 47 +0 . 26 − 0 33 ( − 0 . 18 → − 0 . 19) ( − 0 . 13 → − 0 . 19) ( − 0 . 08 → − 0 . 19) 1 . 0 − 6 . 0 0 . 26 +0 . 28 − 0 31 ( − 0 . 2 → 0 . 2) ( − 0 . 2 → 0 . 2) ( − 0 . 2 → 0 . 2) 6 . 0 − 8 . 0 0 . 45 +0 . 21 − 0 26 (0 . 19 → 0 . 30) (0 . 17 → 0 . 28) (0 . 11 → 0 . 30) 16 . 5 − 18 . 0 0 . 66 +0 . 12 − 0 16 (0 . 28 → 0 . 49) (0 . 25 → 0 . 45) 0 . 15 → 0 . 47 18 . 0 − 19 . 5 For ( q 2 > 16) (0 . 003 → 0 . 30) (0 . 003 → 0 . 27) 0 . 003 → 0 . 28 TABLE V: Values of FB-asymmetry in different q 2 region. where Here ( d Γ /dz ) is the B → K ∗ ℓ $^{+}$ℓ − differential decay distributions and its detailed expression can be seen from Ref. [103]. The form factors A$_{i}$, V, T$_{i}$ are calculated in the light cone QCD approach and their values are given in [103]. The zero of FB-asymmetry is determined by the equation, where z$_{0}$ corresponds to the value of z for which FB-asymmetry is zero, within SM the value of ( q $^{2}$)$_{0}$ for m$_{b}$ = 4 . 8 GeV is given by [103] From the left panel of Fig. 6, it is clear that within the uncertainty, the zero of the FB asymmetry in the SM4 is consistent with the SM prediction. In Table V we have made a comparative study between SM, SM4 and experimental ranges for A$_{FB}$ ( q $^{2}$) in different q 2 region and one could see that the SM and SM4 predictions are within the present experimental bound. One interesting feature of data is that for low q 2 (first two bins), the central value (with appreciable errors) of A$_{FB}$ is positive whereas SM ( q $^{2}$)$_{0}$ = z$_{0}$M 2 B = 2 . 88 +0 . 44 − 0 28 GeV $^{2}$. (85) Re ( C eff 9 ( z$_{0}$ ) ) = − 2 ˆ m$_{b}$ z$_{0}$ C eff 7 1 − z$_{0}$ 1 + m 2 K ∗ − z$_{0}$ , (84) λ = 1 + ˆ m 4 K ∗ + z 2 − 2 z − 2 ˆ m 2 K ∗ (1 + z ) , (81) z = q 2 m 2 B , (82) ˆ m$_{K}$ ∗ = m$_{K}$ ∗ m$_{B}$ . (83)