1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: % %
4: % `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics %
5: % Publishing journal using LaTeX' %
6: % %
7: % LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author %
8: % guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use %
9: % of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files %
10: % `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'. %
11: % %
12: % `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls' %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17: \usepackage{citesort}
18: % Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
19: %\usepackage{iopams}
20: \begin{document}
21: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber\\}
22: \def\tgb{\mbox{$\tan{\beta}~$}}
23: \def\bsg{$b\to s \gamma$~}
24: \def\eps{$\varepsilon$~}
25: \def\epspeps{$\varepsilon^{\prime}/\varepsilon$~}
26: \def\Lsoft{${\cal L}_{SB}$~}
27: \def\mch{$m_{\chi^{\pm}}$~}
28: \def\mneu{$m_{\chi^{0}}$~}
29: \def\mglu{$m_{\tilde{g}}$~}
30: \def\stop{$m_{\tilde{t}}$~}
31: \def\mgrav{$m_{3/2}$~}
32: \def\Ibanez{Iba\~{n}ez~}
33: \def\Munoz{Mu\~{n}oz~}
34: \newcommand{\BXcenu}{B\rightarrow X_c e \nu}
35: \newcommand{\mub}{\mu_b}
36: \newcommand{\mb}{m_b}
37: \newcommand{\alphas}{\alpha_s}
38: \newcommand{\alphae}{\alpha_e}
39: \newcommand{\BRg}{{\rm BR}(B\to X_s \gamma)}
40: \newcommand{\BR}{{\rm BR}}
41: \newcommand{\Bsg}{B\to X_s \gamma}
42:
43: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
44: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
45: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
46: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
47: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
48: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
49: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
50: \def\Frac#1#2{\frac{\displaystyle{#1}}{\displaystyle{#2}}}
51: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
52: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
53: \renewcommand{\O}{{\cal O}}
54: % --------------- abbreviated journal names -------------------------
55: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
56: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
57: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
58: \def\npbps#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }(Proc. Suppl.){\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
59: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
60: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
61: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
62: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
63: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
64: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
65: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Zeit. f\"ur Physik }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
66: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
67: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
68: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
69: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
70: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
71: \def\ibid#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
72:
73: \title[]{Supersymmetry predictions for $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$}
74:
75: \author{Shaaban Khalil}
76:
77: \address{Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton
78: BN1 9QJ,~~~U.~K.}
79:
80: \address{Ain Shams University, Faculty of Science, Cairo, 11566, Egypt.}
81:
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84: We study the predictions for the direct CP violation parameter \epspeps in a class
85: of string--inspired model with non--universal soft $A$--terms. We show that the
86: non--universality of the $A$--terms plays an important rule in enhancing the supersymmetric
87: contributions to the CP violation \epspeps. In particular, the supersymmetric contribution
88: to \epspeps can be of order the KTeV result, $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon \simeq 10^{-3}$.
89:
90:
91: \end{abstract}
92:
93: %\maketitle
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: The most recent results of \epspeps, which measures the size of the direct
98: CP violation in $K_L \to \pi \pi$, reported by KTeV
99: \cite{CP1} and NA48 \cite{CP2}
100: lead to a world average
101: of Re~\epspeps =$(21.4\pm 4.0)\times 10^{-4}$~\cite{CP3}.
102: This result is higher than the Standard Model (SM) predictions \cite{epsp1},
103: opening the way to the interpretation that it may be a signal of
104: new physics beyond the SM. The SM predictions for \epspeps suffer from large
105: theoretical uncertainties \cite{epsp2} such that one can not draw a definite conclusion
106: if this observed high value of \epspeps can be accommodated in the SM. In any case, one
107: may wonder if the supersymmetry (SUSY) can be responsible for enhancing \epspeps.
108:
109: In the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM) there is no way of generating
110: a siable SUSY contribution to \epspeps even if one assume that the SUSY CP violating
111: phases are large and the electric dipole moments (EDM) of the electron and neutron are
112: less than the experimental bounds due to the cancellation between the different
113: contributions. This is mainly due to the assumption of universal boundary conditions
114: of the soft-breaking terms \cite{GG,abel,khalil1,demir}. It has been shown that,
115: without new flavor structure beyond the usual Yukawa couplings, general SUSY models with
116: phases of the soft terms of order $\O(1)$ (but with a vanishing CKM phase
117: $\delta_{\mathrm{CKM}}=0$)
118: can not give a sizeable contribution to the CP violating processes
119: \cite{abel,khalil1,demir,barr}. This means that the presence of non--universal soft breaking
120: terms besides large SUSY phases is crucial to enhance these CP violation effects.
121: In agreement with this, it has been explicitly shown
122: that contributions to $\varepsilon_K$ are small within the
123: dilaton--dominated SUSY breaking of the weakly coupled heterotic string
124: model~\cite{barr}, where $A$--terms as well as gaugino masses are universal.
125: On the other hand, it is well--known that the strict universality in the soft
126: breaking sector is a strong assumption not realized in many supergravity and
127: string inspired models~\cite{ibanez1,ibanez2}.
128: All these arguments indicate not only that the presence of non--universal
129: soft terms can solve the problem of too large contributions to EDMs but also
130: that it allows for large SUSY contributions in CP violation experiments.
131: Hence, in this work we will follow this avenue and analyze the effects of
132: non--universal soft terms in CP violation in the $K$--system~\cite{khalil2,vives,emidio}.
133:
134: \section{CP violation in minimal supergravity model}
135:
136: It is well known that in SUSY models there are new possibilities for CP violation.
137: In particular, the soft SUSY breaking terms contain several parameters that may be
138: complex, as can also be the $\mu$-parameter.
139: In the minimal supergravity model there are
140: only two new CP-violating phases. This can be seen as
141: follows. The parameters $M, A$ and $B$ and $\mu$ can be complex.
142: But of these four phases only two are physical. First, by an
143: R-rotation with R-charge $Q_R=1$ for lepton and quark superfields
144: and $Q_R=0$ for the vector and the Higgs superfields, the gaugino
145: mass parameter $M$ can be made real. Second, $B \mu$ can be made
146: real by a change of phase of the Higgs superfield. This ensures
147: that the Higgs vacuum expectation values are real. The remaining
148: phases cannot be defined away and violate CP. One is in $A=A_0
149: e^{i \phi_A}$ and the other in $B=B_0 e^{i\phi_B}$. The $\mu$
150: parameter then has a fixed phase $\mu=\mu_0 e^{-i\phi_B}$.
151: In any phase convention
152: \be
153: \phi_A= \mathrm{arg}(AM^*), \hspace{3cm}
154: \phi_B= \mathrm{arg}(BM^*).
155: \ee
156: These phases can cause at one
157: loop level an electric dipole moment (EDM) for the quarks and
158: leptons, and therefore also for the neutron. It has been known for
159: a long time that in the SUSY models the contributions to the
160: neutron electric dipole moment are larger than the experimental
161: limit $6.3\times 10^{-26}$ e cm unless either the new `SUSY
162: phases' are tuned to be of order $10^{-3}$, or the SUSY masses are
163: of order a TeV. Such small phases can not generate sizable CP violation.
164: Also they constitute a fine tuning. This is known as `` SUSY CP problem".
165: However, in the last few it has been suggested that a natural
166: cancellation mechanism exists whereby the electric dipole moment
167: of the neutron may be made small without such fine-tuning. In this case
168: large SUSY phases are expected and still satisfy experimental bounds
169: on the values of EDM of the electron and neutron.
170:
171: In this section we will study the effect of these phases in CP violation
172: observables as \eps and \epspeps. We assume that $\delta_{CKM}=0$ to maximize
173: this effect. The value
174: of the indirect CP violation in the Kaon decays, $\varepsilon$, is
175: defined as $ \varepsilon = e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}
176: {\rm Im} M_{12}/\sqrt{2} \Delta m_K,$
177: where $\Delta m_K= 2 {\rm Re} \langle K^0 \vert H_{eff} \vert \bar{K}^0
178: \rangle = 3.52 \times 10^{-15}$ GeV.
179: The amplitude
180: $M_{12}=\langle K^0 \vert H_{eff} \vert \bar{K}^0 \rangle$.
181: The relevant supersymmetric contributions to $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ are
182: the gluino and the chargino contributions, (\ie, the transition
183: proceeds through box diagrams exchanging gluino-squarks and
184: chargino-squarks). It is usually expected that the gluino is the
185: dominant contribution. However, as we will show, it is impossible
186: in the case of degenerate $A$-terms that the gluino gives any significant
187: contribution to $\varepsilon$ when the CKM matrix is taken to be real even with
188: large phase of $A$.
189: The amplitude of the gluino contribution is given in terms of the mass insertion
190: $\delta_{AB}$ defined by $\delta_{AB} = \Delta_{AB}/\tilde{m}^2$ where
191: $\tilde{m}$ is an average sfermion mass and $\Delta$ is off-diagonal
192: terms in the sfermion mass matrices. The mass insertion to accomplish
193: the transition from $\tilde{d}_{iL}$ to $\tilde{d}_{jL}$ ($i,j$ are
194: flavor indices) is given by
195: \begin{eqnarray}
196: (\Delta^d_{LL})_{ij}&\simeq&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left[\frac{K^{\dag}
197: (M_u^{diag})^2 K}{v^2 \sin^2\beta} \ln(\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_W})
198: \right](3\tilde{m}^2+\vert X \vert^2),
199: \\
200: (\Delta^d_{LR})_{ij}&\simeq&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left[\frac{K^{\dag}
201: (M_u^{diag})^2 K\ M_d}{v^2 \sin^2\beta \cos\beta}
202: \right] \ln(\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_W}) X,
203: \\
204: (\Delta^d_{RL})_{ij}&\simeq&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left[\frac{M_d\ K^{\dag}
205: (M_u^{diag})^2 K }{v^2 \sin^2\beta \cos\beta}
206: \right] \ln(\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_W}) X,
207: \\
208: (\Delta^d_{RR})_{ij}&=&0,
209: \end{eqnarray}
210: where $X= A_d -\mu\ \tan\beta $. It is clear that $\Delta_{ij}$ in
211: general are complex due to the complexity of the CKM matrix, the
212: trilinear coupling $A$ and $\mu$ parameter. Here we assume the
213: vanishing of $\delta_{CKM}$ to analyze the effect of the SUSY
214: phases. We notice that $(\Delta^d_{LL})_{12}$ is proportional to
215: $\vert X \vert^2$ \ie, it is real and does not contribute to
216: $\varepsilon$ whatever the phase of $A$ is. Moreover, the values
217: of the $(\Delta^d_{LR})_{12}$ and $(\Delta^d_{RL})_{12}$ are
218: proportional to $m_s$ and $m_d$, hence they are quite small.
219: Indeed in this case we find the gluino contribution to
220: $\varepsilon$ is of order $10^{-6}$.
221:
222: For the chargino contribution the amplitude is given
223: by~\cite{branco}
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: \hspace{-1cm}\langle K^0 \vert H_{eff} \vert \bar{K}^0 \rangle &=& -\Frac{G_F^2
226: M_W^2}{(2\pi)^2} (V_{td}^* V_{ts})^2 f_K^2 M_k \biggl[ \frac{1}{3}
227: C_1(\mu) B_1(\mu)\no
228: &+& \bigl(\frac{M_k}{m_s(\mu) +m_d(\mu)}\bigr)^2
229: \bigl(-\frac{5}{24} C_2(\mu) B_2(\mu) + \frac{1}{24} C_3(\mu)
230: B_3(\mu)\bigr)\biggr].
231: \end{eqnarray}
232: The complete expression for these function can be found in
233: Ref.~\cite{branco}. For low and modurate values of $\tan \beta$ the value
234: of $C_3$ is much smaller than $C_1$ since it is suppressed by the
235: ratio of $m_s$ to $M_W$. However, by neglecting the flavor mixing
236: in the squark mass matrix $C_1$ turned out to be exactly real~\cite{demir}.
237: The imaginary part of $C_1$ is associated to the size of the
238: intergenerational sfermion mixings, thus it is maximal for large
239: $\tan \beta$. In low $\tan \beta$ case, that we consider, the imaginary part
240: of $C_1$ is very small, and the gluino contribution is still the dominant
241: contribution $\varepsilon$. In particular, we found that \eps is of order
242: $10^{-6}$, which is less than the experimental value $2.26\times 10^{-3}$.
243:
244: Now we consider the effect of these two phases ($\phi_A$ and $\phi_{\mu}$)
245: on the direct CP violation parameter \epspeps. Similar to the case of indirect CP
246: violation parameter \eps, in the gluino contribution the $L$--$L$ transitions are almost real
247: and the $L$--$R$ transitions are suppressed by two up Yukawa couplings and a down quark
248: mass. Moreover, the analysis of chargino contribution is also the same as in the indirect CP
249: violation. Even the experimental bounds on the branching ratio of $b \to s \gamma$ decay
250: impose sever constraint on the LR transition. Therefore we do not find any significant SUSY
251: CP violation effect in \epspeps too.
252:
253: \section{Non--universal soft terms and SUSY CP violation}
254:
255: In the previous section, we have shown that CP violation effects are always very small
256: in SUSY models with universal soft SUSY breaking terms. Recently, it has been shown that
257: the non--universality of $A$--terms is very
258: effective to generate large CP violation effects
259: \cite{abel,khalil1,khalil2,vives,masieromur,non-u}. In fact, the presence of
260: non--degenerate $A$--terms is essential for enhancing the gluino contributions
261: to $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ through large imaginary parts of the $L$--$R$
262: mass insertions, $\mathrm{Im}(\delta_{LR})_{12}$ and
263: $\mathrm{Im}(\delta_{RL})_{12}$.
264: These SUSY contributions can, indeed, account for a sizeable part of the
265: recently measured experimental value of $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
266: \cite{CP1,CP2}. In the following, we will present an explicit realization
267: of such mechanism in the framework of a type I superstring inspired SUSY
268: model. Within this model, it is possible to obtain non--universal soft
269: breaking terms, i.e. scalar masses, gaugino masses and trilinear
270: couplings.
271:
272: Type I string models contain nine--branes and three types of
273: five--branes ($5_a$, $a=1,2,3$).
274: If we assume that the gauge group $SU(3) \times U(1)$ is on one of the branes (9--brane)
275: and the gauge group $SU(2)$ is on another brane ($5_1$--brane).
276: Chiral matter fields correspond to open strings spanning between
277: branes. Thus, they have non--vanishing
278: quantum numbers only for the gauge groups corresponding to
279: the branes between which the open string spans. For example, the chiral field corresponding
280: to the open string between the $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$ branes can have
281: non--trivial representations under both $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$,
282: while the chiral field corresponding to the open string,
283: which starts and ends on the $SU(3)$--brane, should be
284: an $SU(2)$--singlet.
285: There is only one type of the open string which spans between the 9 and $5_1$--branes,
286: which we denote it as $C^{95_1}$.
287: However, there are three types of open strings which could start and end on the
288: 9--brane, that is, the $C^9_i$ sectors (i=1,2,3), which corresponding to the $i$-th
289: complex compact dimension among the three complex dimensions. If we
290: assign the three families to the different $C^9_i$ sectors we obtain non--universality
291: in the right--handed sector. In particular, we assign the $C^{9}_1$ sector
292: to the third family and $C^{9}_3$ and $C^{9}_2$ to the first and second families
293: respectively. Under these assumption the soft SUSY breaking terms are obtained,
294: following the formulae in Ref.~\cite{ibanez}.
295: The gaugino masses are obtained
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: \label{gaugino}
298: M_3 & = & M_1 = \sqrt 3 m_{3/2} \sin \theta\ e^{-i\alpha_S}, \\
299: M_2 & = & \sqrt 3 m_{3/2} \cos \theta\ \Theta_1 e^{-i\alpha_1}.
300: \end{eqnarray}
301: While the $A$-terms are obtained as
302: \begin{equation}
303: A_{C_1^9}= -\sqrt 3 m_{3/2} \sin \theta\ e^{-i\alpha_S}=-M_3,
304: \label{A-C1}
305: \end{equation}
306: for the coupling including $C_1^{9}$, i.e. the third family,
307: \begin{equation}
308: A_{C_2^9}= -\sqrt 3 m_{3/2}(\sin \theta\ e^{-i\alpha_S}+
309: \cos \theta\ (\Theta_1 e^{-i\alpha_1}- \Theta_2 e^{-i\alpha_2})),
310: \label{A-C2}
311: \end{equation}
312: for the coupling including $C_2^{9}$, i.e. the second
313: family and
314: \begin{equation}
315: \label{A-C3}
316: A_{C_3^9}= -\sqrt 3 m_{3/2}(\sin \theta\ e^{-i\alpha_S}+
317: \cos \theta\ (\Theta_1 e^{-i\alpha_1}- \Theta_3 e^{-i\alpha_3})),
318: \end{equation}
319: for the coupling including $C_3^{9}$, i.e. the first family.
320: Here $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass, $\alpha_S$ and $\alpha_i$ are
321: the CP phases of the F-terms of the dilaton field $S$ and
322: the three moduli fields $T_i$, and $\theta$ and $\Theta_i$ are
323: goldstino angles, and we have the constraint, $\sum \Theta_i^2=1$.
324: Thus, if quark fields correspond to different
325: $C_i^9$ sectors, we have non--universal A--terms.
326: Then we obtain the following A--matrix for both of the
327: up and down sectors,
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: A= \left(
330: \begin{array}{ccc}
331: A_{C^9_3} & A_{C^9_2} & A_{C^9_1} \\ A_{C^9_3} & A_{C^9_2} &
332: A_{C^9_1} \\ A_{C^9_3} & A_{C^9_2} & A_{C^9_1}
333: \end{array}
334: \right) \label{A-1}.
335: \end{eqnarray}
336: Note that the non--universality appears
337: only for the right--handed sector.
338: The trilinear SUSY breaking matrix, $(Y^A)_{ij}=(Y)_{ij}(A)_{ij}$,
339: itself is obtained
340: \begin{equation}
341: \label{trilinear}
342: Y^A = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
343: & & \\ & Y_{ij} & \\ & & \end{array}
344: \right) \cdot
345: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
346: A_{C^9_3} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & A_{C^9_2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & A_{C^9_1} \end{array}
347: \right),
348: \end{equation}
349: in matrix notation. In addition, soft scalar masses for quark doublets and
350: the Higgs fields are obtained,
351: \begin{equation}
352: \label{doublets}
353: m_{C^{95_1}}^2=m_{3/2}^2(1-\Frac{3}{2} \cos^2 \theta\ (1-
354: \Theta_1^2)).
355: \end{equation}
356: The soft scalar masses for quark singlets are obtained as
357: \begin{equation}
358: \label{singlets}
359: m_{C_i^9}^2=m_{3/2}^2(1-3\cos^2 \theta\ \Theta^2_i),
360: \end{equation}
361: if it corresponds to the $C_i^{9}$ sector.
362:
363: In models with non-degenerate $A$--terms we have to fix the Yukawa
364: matrices to completely specify the model. In fact, with universal
365: $A$--terms the textures of the Yukawa matrices at GUT scale affect
366: the physics at EW scale only through the quark masses and usual
367: CKM matrix, since the extra parameters contained in the Yukawa
368: matrices can be eliminated by unitary fields transformations. This
369: is no longer true with non-degenerate $A$--terms.
370: Here, we choose our Yukawa texture to be
371: \be
372: \hspace{-1.5cm}Y^u=\frac{1}{v\cos{\beta}} {\rm diag}\left(
373: m_u,m_c,m_t\right)~,~~
374: Y^d=\frac{1}{v\sin{\beta}} K^{\dagger} \cdot {\rm diag }
375: \left(m_d, m_s, m_b\right) \cdot K
376: \ee
377: where $K$ is the CKM matrix. In this case one find that the mass inserion $\delta^d_{LR}$
378: can be written as~\cite{vives}
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: \label{DLR}
381: \hspace{-1.5cm}(\delta_{LR}^{(d)})_{i j}&=& \frac{1}{m^2_{\tilde{q}}}\ m_i\ \Big(
382: \delta_{ij}\ (c_{A} A_{C^9_3}^*\ +\ c_{\tilde{g}}\ m_{\tilde{g}}^* -\
383: \mu e^{i\varphi_{\mu}} \tan\beta ) \nonumber \\
384: &+&K_{i 2}\ K^*_{j 2}\ c_{A}\ ( A_{C^9_2}^* - A_{C^9_3}^* ) +
385: K_{i 3}\ K^*_{j 3}\ c_{A}\ ( A_{C^9_1}^* - A_{C^9_3}^* ) \Big)
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: where $m^2_{\tilde{q}}$ is an average squark mass and $m_i$ the quark mass.
388: This expression shows the main effects of the non--universal $A$--terms.
389: In the first place, we can see that the diagonal elements are still very
390: similar to the universal $A$--terms situation. Apart of the usual scaling with the
391: quark mass, these flavor--diagonal mass insertions receive
392: dominant contributions from the corresponding $A_{C^9_i}$ terms
393: plus an approximately equal contribution from gluino to all three generations
394: and an identical $\mu$ term contribution. Hence, given that the gluino
395: RG effects are dominant, also the phases of
396: these terms tend to align with the gluino phase, as in the minimal supergravity.
397: Therefore, EDM bounds constrain mainly the relative phase between $\mu$ and gluino
398: (or chargino) and give a relatively weaker constraint to the relative
399: phase between $A_{C^9_3}$ (the first generation $A$--term) and the relevant
400: gaugino. Effects of different $A_{C^9_i}$ in these elements are suppressed by squared CKM
401: mixing angles. However, flavor--off--diagonal elements are completely new
402: in this model. They do not receive significant contributions from gluino
403: nor from $\mu$ and so their phases are still determined by the $A_{C^9_i}$
404: phases and, in principle, they do not directly contribute to EDMs .
405:
406: \begin{figure}
407: \begin{center}
408: \epsfxsize = 11cm
409: \epsffile{alphas23.eps}
410: %\framebox[55mm]{\rule[-21mm]{0mm}{43mm}}
411: \leavevmode
412: \end{center}
413: \caption{Allowed values for $\alpha_2$--$\alpha_S$ (open blue circles) and
414: $\alpha_3$--$\alpha_S$ (red stars)}
415: \label{scat}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: In figure \ref{scat} we show the allowed values for $\alpha_S$, $\alpha_2$
419: and $\alpha_3$ assuming $\alpha_1=\varphi_\mu=0$. We
420: have imposed the EDM, \eps and $b \to s \gamma$ bounds with the usual bounds on SUSY
421: masses. We can see that, similarly to the minimal supergravity, $\varphi_\mu$ is
422: constrained to be very close to the gluino and chargino phases
423: (in the plot $\alpha_S \simeq 0, \pi$), but $\alpha_2$ and
424: $\alpha_3$ are completely unconstrained.
425:
426:
427: Finally, in figure \ref{eps'} we show the values of
428: $Im (\delta^{(d)}_{LR})_{2 1}$ versus the gluino mass in the same regions of
429: parameter space and with the same constraints as in figure \ref{scat}.
430: As we can see due to the effect of the off-diagonal phases a large percentage of points
431: are above or close to $1 \times 10^{-5}$, hence, sizeable supersymmetric contribution to
432: $\varepsilon^\prime/\varepsilon$ can be expected in the presence of
433: non-universal $A$--terms.
434: \begin{figure}
435: \begin{center}
436: \epsfxsize = 11cm
437: \epsffile{dellrgrav.eps}
438: \leavevmode
439: \end{center}
440: \caption{$(\delta_{LR}^{(d)})_{2 1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for experimentally
441: allowed regions of the SUSY parameter space}
442: \label{eps'}
443: \end{figure}
444:
445: \section{Conclusions}
446:
447: Non--universal Supersymmetry soft breaking terms are a natural consequence
448: in many supergravity or string inspired SUSY models. Moreover, the
449: non--universality of the $A$--terms has a significant effect in the CP violation.
450: We have shown that in these models a sizeable supersymmetric contribution to CP
451: observables \epspeps and \eps can be easily obtained.
452:
453: \section*{ Acknowledgement}
454: I would like to thank S. Barr, T. Kobayashi, A. Masiero and O. Vives for their
455: collaboration in this project. I also would like to thank the organizers for such
456: a nice and stimulating atmosphere in which the workshop took place.\\
457:
458:
459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
460:
461: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
462:
463: \bibitem{CP1}
464: A. Alavi--Harati {\it et al.} (KTeV Coll.), \prl{83}{1999}{22}.
465: %-----------------------
466: \bibitem{CP2}
467: V. Fanti {\it et al.} (NA48 Coll.), \plb{465}{1999}{335}.
468: %----------------------
469: \bibitem{CP3}
470: G. D'Agostini, hep-ex/9910036.
471: %-----------------------
472: \bibitem{epsp1}
473: A. Buras, M. Jamin, and M.E: Lautenbacher, \npb{408}{1993}{209};
474: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Reina, \npb{415}{1994}{403};
475: S. Bosh, A.J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager, M. Jamin,
476: M.E. Lautenbacher, and L. Silvestrini, \npb{565}{2000}{3};
477: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Giusti, V. Lubicz, and
478: G. Martinelli, hep-ph/9910237; M. Jamin, hep-ph/9911390.
479: %-----------------------
480: \bibitem{epsp2}
481: S. Bertolini, M. Fabbrichesi, and J.O. Eeg, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.}{\bf 72} (2000) 65;
482: T. Hambye, G.O. Kohler, E.A. Paschos, and P.H. Soldan,\npb{564}{2000}{391};
483: J.Bijnens, and J.Prades, JHEP 01, (1999) 023;
484: E. Pallante and A. Pich, \prl{84}{2000}{2568}.
485: %-----------------------
486: \bibitem{GG}
487: E. Gabrielli and G.F. Giudice, \npb{433}{1995}{3};
488: Erratum-ibid. {\bf B~507} (1997) 549.
489: %-----------------------
490: \bibitem{abel}
491: S.~Abel and J.~Frere, \prd{55}{1997}{1623}.
492: %-----------------------
493: \bibitem{khalil1}
494: S.~Khalil, T.~Kobayashi, and A.~Masiero, \prd{60}{1999}{075003}.
495: %-----------------------
496: \bibitem{demir}
497: D.A.~Demir, A.~Masiero, and O.~Vives, \plb{479}{2000}{230};
498: D.~A.~Demir, A.~Masiero, and O.~Vives, \prd{61}{2000}{075009}.
499: %-----------------------
500: \bibitem{barr}
501: S.~Barr and S.~Khalil, \prd{61}{2000}{035005}.
502: %------------------------
503: \bibitem{ibanez1}
504: A. Brignole, L. E. \Ibanez, and C. \Munoz, \npb{422}{1994}{125},
505: Erratum-ibid. {\bf B 436}~(1995) 747.
506: %-----------------------
507: \bibitem{ibanez2}
508: L. E. \Ibanez, C. \Munoz, and S. Rigolin, \npb{553}{1999}{43}.
509: %-----------------------
510: \bibitem{khalil2}
511: S.~Khalil and T.~Kobayashi, \plb{460}{1999}{341}.
512: %-----------------------
513: \bibitem{vives}
514: S. Khalil, T. Kobayashi, and O. Vives, \npb{580}{2000}{275}.
515: %----------------------
516: \bibitem{emidio}
517: E. Gabrielli, S. Khalil, E. Torrente-Lujan, hep-ph/0005303.
518: %----------------------
519: \bibitem{branco}
520: G.C.~Branco, G.C.~Cho, Y.~Kizukuri and N.~Oshimo,
521: \npb{449}{95}{483}.
522: %-----------------------
523: \bibitem{masieromur}
524: A. Masiero and H. Murayama, \prl{83}{1999}{907}.
525: %-----------------------
526: \bibitem{non-u}
527: R.~Barbieri, R.~Contino and A.~Strumia, \npb{578}{2000}{153};\\
528: K.~Babu, B.~Dutta and R.N.~Mohapatra, \prd{61}{2000}{091701}.
529: %------------------------
530:
531: \end{thebibliography}
532:
533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
534:
535: \end{document}
536: