1:
2:
3: \title{Electric Dipole Moments in the Generic Supersymmetric Standard Model}
4:
5: \author{Otto C. W. Kong}
6:
7: \address{Department of Physics, National Central University, Chung-li, TAIWAN 32054\footnote{Permanent address since Aug. 1, 2001.}\\
8: Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei, TAIWAN 11529
9: \\E-mail: otto@phy.ncu.edu.tw}
10: \maketitle
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: The generic supersymmetric standard model is a model built from a
14: supersymmetrized standard model field spectrum the gauge symmetries only.
15: The popular minimal supersymmetric standard model differs from the
16: generic version in having R-parity imposed by hand. We review an efficient
17: formulation of the model and some of the recently obtained interesting
18: phenomenological features, focusing on one-loop contributions to fermion
19: electric dipole moments.
20: \end{abstract}
21: %\pacs{}
22: %\vskip0pc]
23: %\vskip2pc]
24: %\narrowtext
25:
26: \section{Introduction}
27: Fermion electric dipole moments (EDMs) are known to be extremely useful
28: constraints on (the CP violating part of) models depicting interesting
29: scenarios of beyond Standard Model (SM) physics. In particular, the
30: experimental bounds on neutron EDM ($d_n$) and electron EDM ($d_e$) are very
31: stringent. The current numbers are given by
32: $d_n < 6.3 \cdot 10^{-26}\,e \cdot \mbox{cm}$
33: and $d_e < 4.3 \cdot 10^{-27}\,e \cdot \mbox{cm}$. The SM contributions are
34: known to be very small, given that the only source of CP violation has to
35: come from the KM phase in (charged current) quark flavor mixings :
36: $d_n \sim 10^{-32}\,e\cdot \mbox{cm}$ and
37: $d_e \sim 8 \cdot 10^{-41}\,e\cdot \mbox{cm}$.
38:
39: Extensions of the SM normally are expected to have potentially large EDM
40: contributions. For instance, for the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM),
41: there are a few source of such new contributions. For example, they can come in
42: through $LR$ sfermion mixings. The latter have two parts, an $A$-term contribution
43: as well as a $F$-term contribution. The $F$-term is a result of the complex phase
44: in the so-called $\mu$-term. The resulted constraints on MSSM have been studied
45: extensively. We are interested here in the modified version with R parity
46: not imposed. We will illustrate that there are extra contributions at the same
47: level and discuss the class of important constraints hence resulted.\cite{me}
48:
49: \section{The Generic Supersymmetric Standard Model}
50: A theory built with the minimal superfield spectrum incorporating the SM particles,
51: the admissible renormalizable interactions dictated by the SM (gauge) symmetries
52: together with the idea that supersymmetry (SUSY) is softly broken is what should
53: be called the the generic supersymmetric standard model (GSSM). The popular
54: MSSM differs from the generic version in having a discrete symmetry, called R
55: parity, imposed by hand to enforce baryon and lepton number conservation. With
56: the strong experimental hints at the existence of lepton number violating neutrino
57: masses, such a theory of SUSY without R-parity deserves ever more attention. The
58: GSSM contains all kinds of (so-called) R-parity violating (RPV) parameters.
59: The latter includes the more popular trilinear ($\lambda_{ijk}$, $\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime}$, and $\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime\prime}$) and bilinear
60: ($\mu_i$) couplings in the superpotential, as well as soft SUSY breaking
61: parameters of the trilinear, bilinear, and soft mass (mixing) types. In order not
62: to miss any plausible RPV phenomenological features, it is important that all of
63: the RPV parameters be taken into consideration without {\it a priori} bias.
64: We do, however, expect some sort of symmetry principle to guard against the very
65: dangerous proton decay problem. The emphasis is hence put on the lepton number
66: violating phenomenology.
67:
68: The renormalizable superpotential for the GSSM can be written as
69: \small\beqa
70: W \!\! &=& \!\varepsilon_{ab}\Big[ \mu_{\alpha} \hat{H}_u^a \hat{L}_{\alpha}^b
71: + h_{ik}^u \hat{Q}_i^a \hat{H}_{u}^b \hat{U}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
72: + \lambda_{\alpha jk}^{\!\prime} \hat{L}_{\alpha}^a \hat{Q}_j^b
73: \hat{D}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
74: %\nonumber \\
75: %&+&
76: +
77: \frac{1}{2}\, \lambda_{\alpha \beta k} \hat{L}_{\alpha}^a
78: \hat{L}_{\beta}^b \hat{E}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C} \Big] +
79: \frac{1}{2}\, \lambda_{ijk}^{\!\prime\prime}
80: \hat{U}_i^{\scriptscriptstyle C} \hat{D}_j^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
81: \hat{D}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C} ,
82: \eeqa\normalsize
83: where $(a,b)$ are $SU(2)$ indices, $(i,j,k)$ are the usual family (flavor)
84: indices, and $(\za, \zb)$ are extended flavor indices going from $0$ to $3$.
85: At the limit where $\lambda_{ijk}, \lambda^{\!\prime}_{ijk},
86: \lambda^{\!\prime\prime}_{ijk}$ and $\mu_{i}$ all vanish,
87: one recovers the expression for the R-parity preserving MSSM,
88: with $\hat{L}_{0}$ identified as $\hat{H}_d$. Without R-parity imposed,
89: the latter is not {\it a priori} distinguishable from the $\hat{L}_{i}$'s.
90: Note that $\lambda$ is antisymmetric in the first two indices, as
91: required by the $SU(2)$ product rules, as shown explicitly here with
92: $\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle 12} =-\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle 21}=1$.
93: Similarly, $\lambda^{\!\prime\prime}$ is antisymmetric in the last two
94: indices, from $SU(3)_{\scriptscriptstyle C}$.
95:
96: R-parity is exactly an {\it ad hoc} symmetry put in to make $\hat{L}_{0}$,
97: stand out from the other $\hat{L}_i$'s as the candidate for $\hat{H}_d$.
98: It is defined in terms of baryon number, lepton number, and spin as,
99: explicitly, ${\mathcal R} = (-1)^{3B+L+2S}$. The consequence is that
100: the accidental symmetries of baryon number and lepton number in the SM
101: are preserved, at the expense of making particles and superparticles having
102: a categorically different quantum number, R parity. The latter is actually
103: not the most effective discrete symmetry to control superparticle
104: mediated proton decay\cite{pd}, but is most restrictive in terms
105: of what is admitted in the Lagrangian, or the superpotential alone.
106: On the other hand, R parity also forbides neutrino masses in the
107: supersymmetric SM. The strong experimental hints for the existence of
108: (Majorana) neutrino masses\cite{exp} is an indication of lepton
109: number violation, hence suggestive of R-parity violation.
110:
111: The soft SUSY breaking part
112: of the Lagrangian is more interesting, if only for the fact that many
113: of its interesting details have been overlooked in the literature.
114: However, we will postpone the discussion till after we address the
115: parametrization issue.
116:
117: \section{Parametrization}
118: Doing phenomenological studies without specifying a choice
119: of flavor bases is ambiguous. It is like doing SM quark physics with 18
120: complex Yukawa couplings, instead of the 10 real physical parameters.
121: As far as the SM itself is concerned, the extra 26 real parameters
122: are simply redundant, and attempts to relate the full 36 parameters to
123: experimental data will be futile. In the GSSM, the choice of an optimal
124: parametrization mainly concerns the 4 $\hat{L}_\alpha$ flavors. We use
125: here the single-VEV parametrization\cite{ru,as8} (SVP), in which flavor
126: bases are chosen such that :
127: 1/ among the $\hat{L}_\alpha$'s, only $\hat{L}_0$, bears a VEV,
128: {\it i.e.} {\small $\langle \hat{L}_i \rangle \equiv 0$};
129: 2/ {\small $h^{e}_{jk} (\equiv \lambda_{0jk})
130: =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} \,{\rm diag}
131: \{m_{\scriptscriptstyle 1},
132: m_{\scriptscriptstyle 2},m_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}\}$};
133: 3/ {\small $h^{d}_{jk} (\equiv \lambda^{\!\prime}_{0jk} =-\lambda_{j0k})
134: = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\rm diag}\{m_d,m_s,m_b\}$};
135: 4/ {\small $h^{u}_{ik}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}
136: V_{\mbox{\tiny CKM}}^{\!\scriptscriptstyle T} \,{\rm diag}\{m_u,m_c,m_t\}$},
137: where ${v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} \equiv \sqrt{2}\,\langle \hat{L}_0 \rangle$
138: and ${v_{\scriptscriptstyle u} } \equiv \sqrt{2}\,
139: \langle \hat{H}_{u} \rangle$. The big advantage of the SVP is that it gives
140: the complete tree-level mass matrices of all the states (scalars and fermions)
141: the simplest structure\cite{as5,as8}.
142:
143: \section{Leptons in GSSM}
144: The SVP gives quark mass matrices exactly in the SM form. For the masses
145: of the color-singlet fermions, all the RPV effects are paramatrized by the
146: $\mu_i$'s only. For example, the five charged fermions ( gaugino
147: + Higgsino + 3 charged leptons ), we have
148: \small\beq \label{mc}
149: {\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}} =
150: \left(
151: {\begin{array}{ccccc}
152: {M_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} &
153: \frac{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt 2}
154: & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
155: \frac{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt 2} &
156: {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} & {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}} &
157: {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} & {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}} \\
158: 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}} & 0 & 0 \\
159: 0 & 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} & 0 \\
160: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}}
161: \end{array}}
162: \right) \; .
163: \eeq\normalsize
164: Moreover each $\mu_i$ parameter here characterizes directly the RPV effect
165: on the corresponding charged lepton ($\ell_i = e$, $\mu$, and $\tau$).
166: This, and the corresponding neutrino-neutralino masses and mixings,
167: has been exploited to implement a detailed study of the tree-level
168: RPV phenomenology from the gauge interactions, with interesting
169: results\cite{ru}.
170:
171: Neutrino masses and oscillations is no doubt one of the most important aspects
172: of the model. Here, it is particularly important that the various RPV
173: contributions to neutrino masses, up to 1-loop level, be studied in a
174: framework that takes no assumption on the other parameters. Our formulation
175: provides such a framework. Interested readers are referred to
176: Refs.\cite{ok,as1,as5,as9,AL}.
177:
178: \section{Soft SUSY Breaking Terms and the Scalar Masses}
179: Obtaining the squark and slepton masses is straightforward, once all the
180: admissible soft SUSY breaking terms are explicitly written down\cite{as5}.
181: The soft SUSY breaking part of the Lagrangian can be written as
182: \beqa
183: V_{\rm soft} &=& \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab}
184: B_{\za} \, H_{u}^a \tilde{L}_\za^b +
185: \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab} \left[ \,
186: A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle U}_{ij} \,
187: \tilde{Q}^a_i H_{u}^b \tilde{U}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
188: + A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle D}_{ij}
189: H_{d}^a \tilde{Q}^b_i \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
190: + A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}_{ij}
191: H_{d}^a \tilde{L}^b_i \tilde{E}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j \,
192: \right] + {\rm h.c.}\nonumber \\
193: &+&
194: \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab}
195: \left[ \, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda^\prime}_{ijk}
196: \tilde{L}_i^a \tilde{Q}^b_j \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k
197: + \frac{1}{2}\, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda}_{ijk}
198: \tilde{L}_i^a \tilde{L}^b_j \tilde{E}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k
199: \right]
200: + \frac{1}{2}\, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda^{\prime\prime}}_{ijk}
201: \tilde{U}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_i \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
202: \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k + {\rm h.c.}
203: \nonumber \\
204: &+&
205: \tilde{Q}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {Q}}^2 \,\tilde{Q}
206: +\tilde{U}^{\dagger}
207: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {U}}^2 \, \tilde{U}
208: +\tilde{D}^{\dagger} \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {D}}^2
209: \, \tilde{D}
210: + \tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2 \tilde{L}
211: +\tilde{E}^{\dagger} \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {E}}^2
212: \, \tilde{E}
213: + \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u}}^2 \,
214: |H_{u}|^2
215: \nonumber \\
216: && + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}}{2} \tilde{B}\tilde{B}
217: + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}}{2} \tilde{W}\tilde{W}
218: + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 3}}{2} \tilde{g}\tilde{g}
219: + {\rm h.c.}\; ,
220: \label{soft}
221: \eeqa
222: where we have separated the R-parity conserving $A$-terms from the
223: RPV ones (recall $\hat{H}_{d} \equiv \hat{L}_0$). Note that
224: $\tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{L}}^2 \tilde{L}$,
225: unlike the other soft mass terms, is given by a
226: $4\times 4$ matrix. Explicitly,
227: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}_{00}}^2$ corresponds to
228: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d}}^2$
229: of the MSSM case while
230: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}_{0k}}^2$'s give RPV mass mixings.
231:
232: The only RPV contribution to the squark masses is given by a
233: $- (\, \mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{ijk}\, ) \;
234: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt{2}}$ term in the $LR$ mixing part.
235: Note that the term contains flavor-changing ($j\ne k$) parts which,
236: unlike the $A$-terms ones, cannot be suppressed through a flavor-blind
237: SUSY breaking spectrum. Hence, it has very interesting implications
238: to quark electric dipole moments (EDMs) and related processses
239: such as $b\to s\, \gamma$\cite{as4,as6,kk,cch1}.
240:
241: The mass matrices are a bit more complicated in the scalar sectors\cite{as5,as7}.
242: The $1+4+3$ charged scalar masses are given in terms of the blocks
243: \small\beqa
244: && \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H\!u}^2 =
245: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u}}^2
246: + \mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}^{}
247: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
248: \left[ \,\frac{1}{2} - \sin\!^2\theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right]
249: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \sin\!^2 \beta \;
250: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}]
251: \; ,
252: \nonumber \\
253: &&\widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle LL}^2
254: = \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2 +
255: m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}^\dag m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}^{}
256: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
257: \left[ -\frac{1}{2} + \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right]
258: + \left( \begin{array}{cc}
259: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!^2 \beta \;
260: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}]
261: & \quad 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 1 \times 3} \quad \\
262: 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1} & 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 3}
263: \end{array} \right)
264: + (\mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \zb}^{})
265: \; ,
266: \nonumber \\
267: && \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RR}^2 =
268: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {E}}^2 +
269: m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}^{} m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}^\dag
270: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
271: \left[ - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right] \; ; \qquad
272: \eeqa
273: {\normalsize and}
274: \beqa
275: \label{ELH}
276: \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle LH}^2
277: &=& (B_{\za}^*)
278: + \left( \begin{array}{c}
279: {1 \over 2} \,
280: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \sin\!2 \beta \,
281: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}] \\
282: 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1}
283: \end{array} \right)\; ,
284: \qquad
285: \\
286: \label{ERH}
287: \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RH}^2
288: &=& -\,(\, \mu_i^*\lambda_{i{\scriptscriptstyle 0}k}\, ) \;
289: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt{2}} \; ,
290: \\
291: \label{ERL}
292: (\widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RL}^{2})^{\scriptscriptstyle T}
293: &=& \left(\begin{array}{c}
294: 0 \\ A^{\!{\scriptscriptstyle E}}
295: \end{array}\right)
296: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt{2}}
297: -\,(\, \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}^*
298: \lambda_{{\scriptscriptstyle \za\zb}k}\, ) \,
299: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt{2}} \; .
300: \eeqa \normalsize
301: %%
302: For the neutral scalars, we have explicitly
303: \beq \label{MSN}
304: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle S}^2 =
305: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
306: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SS}^2 &
307: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SP}^2 \\
308: ({\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SP}^{2})^{\!\scriptscriptstyle T} &
309: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle PP}^2
310: \end{array} \right) \; ,
311: \eeq
312: where the scalar, pseudo-scalar, and mixing parts are given by
313: \beqa
314: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SS}^2 &=&
315: \mbox{Re}({\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi}{\phi}\dag}^2)
316: + {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi\phi}}^2 \; ,
317: \nonumber \\
318: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle PP}^2 &=&
319: \mbox{Re}({\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi}{\phi}\dag}^2)
320: - {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi\phi}}^2 \; ,
321: \nonumber \\
322: %\noalign{and}
323: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SP}^2 &=& -
324: \mbox{Im}({\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi}{\phi}\dag}^2) \; ,
325: \label{lastsc}
326: \eeqa
327: respectively
328: \footnote{Note that the original expression given in Ref.\cite{as5} has a
329: typo in the ${\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle SP}^2$ expression.}, with
330: %%
331: \small\beqa \label{Mpp}
332: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi\phi}}^2
333: &=& {1\over 2} \, M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\,
334: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
335: \sin\!^2\! \beta & - \cos\!\beta \, \sin\! \beta
336: & \quad 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 1 \times 3} \\
337: - \cos\!\beta \, \sin\! \beta \!\! & \!\! \cos\!^2\! \beta
338: & \quad 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 1 \times 3} \\
339: 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1} & 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1}
340: & \quad 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 3}
341: \end{array} \right) ,
342: \eeqa \normalsize
343: {\normalsize and}
344: \beqa
345: {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi}{\phi}^\dag}^2
346: &=& {\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {\phi\phi}}^2 +
347: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
348: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u}}^2
349: + \mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}
350: -\frac{1}{2} \, M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
351: & - (B_\za) \\
352: - (B_\za^*) &
353: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2
354: + (\mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \zb})
355: + \frac{1}{2} \, M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
356: \end{array} \right) \; .
357: \label{Mp}
358: \eeqa \normalsize
359: Note that $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2$ here is a $4\times 4$
360: matrix of soft masses for the $L_\za$, and $B_\za$'s are the corresponding
361: bilinear soft terms of the $\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}$'s.
362: $A^{\!{\scriptscriptstyle E}}$ is just the $3\times 3$ R-parity conserving
363: leptonic $A$-term. There is no contribution from the admissible RPV $A$-terms
364: under the SVP. Also, we have used
365: $m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \equiv \mbox{diag} \{\,0, m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}\,\}
366: \equiv \mbox{diag} \{\,0, m_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}, m_{\scriptscriptstyle 2},
367: m_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}\,\}$.
368:
369: \section{Neutron Electric Dipole Moment}
370: Let us take a look first at the quark dipole operator through 1-loop diagrams
371: with $LR$ squark mixing. A simple direct example is given by the gluino diagram.
372: Comparing with the MSSM case, the extra (RPV) to the $d$ squark $LR$ mixing
373: in GSSM obvious modified the story. If
374: one naively imposes the constraint for this RPV contribution
375: itself not to exceed the experimental bound on neutron EDM, one gets roughly
376: $\mbox{Im}(\mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1})
377: \lsim 10^{-6}\,\mbox{GeV}$, a constraint that is interesting even
378: in comparison to the bounds on the corresponding parameters obtainable
379: from asking no neutrino masses to exceed the super-Kamiokande
380: atmospheric oscillation scale\cite{as4}.
381:
382: In fact, there are important contributions beyond the gluino diagram and without
383: $LR$ squark mixings involved. For the MSSM, it is well-known that there is such
384: a contribution from the chargino diagram, which is likely to be more important
385: than the gluino one when a unification type gaugino mass relationship is
386: imposed. The question then is if the GSSM has a similar RPV analog. A RPV
387: version of the chargino diagram is given in Fig.1. The diagram, however, looks
388: ambiguous. Looking at the diagram in terms of the electroweak states involved
389: under our formulation, it seems like a
390: ${l}_k^{\!\!\mbox{ -}}$--$\tilde{W}^{\scriptscriptstyle +}$
391: mass insertion is required, which is however vanishing. However, putting in
392: extra mass insertion, with a $\mu_i$ flipping the ${l}_k^{\!\!\mbox{ -}}$ into
393: a $\tilde{h}_u^{\scriptscriptstyle +}$ first seems to give a non-zero result.
394: The structure obviously indicates a GIM-like cancellation at worked, and we
395: have to check its violation due to the lack of mass degeneracy.
396:
397: \begin{figure}[h]
398: %\vspace*{2in}
399: \special{psfile=as6-n6a.eps angle=270 hscale=50
400: vscale=50 hoffset=80 voffset=0}
401: \vspace*{2in}
402: \caption{The new charginolike diagram.}
403: \end{figure}
404: \vspace*{.5in}
405:
406: We have performed an extensive analytical and numerical study, including the
407: complete charginolike contributions, as well as the neutralinolike contributions,
408: to the neutron EDM\cite{as6}. The charginolike part is given by the following
409: formula :
410: \beq \label{edmco}
411: \left({d_{\scriptscriptstyle f} \over e} \right)_{\!\!\chi^{\mbox{-}}} =
412: {\alpha_{\!\mbox{\tiny em}} \over 4 \pi \,\sin\!^2\theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}} \;
413: \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}
414: \sum_{n=1}^{5} \,\mbox{Im}({\cal C}_{\!fn\mp}) \;
415: {{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_n} \over
416: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \;
417: \left[ {\cal Q}_{\!\tilde{f}'} \;
418: B\!\left({{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_{n}}^2 \over
419: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \right)
420: + ( {\cal Q}_{\!{f}} - {\cal Q}_{\!\tilde{f}'} ) \;
421: A\!\left({{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_{n}}^2 \over
422: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \right)
423: \right] \; ,
424: \eeq
425: for $f$ being $u$ ($d$) quark and $f'$ being $d$ ($u$), where
426: \beqa
427: {\cal C}_{un-} &=&
428: % C^L C^R*
429: {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,\,
430: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}_{d11} \;
431: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!1n} \,{\cal D}^{*}_{d11}
432: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
433: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d21}
434: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
435: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d21} \right) \; ,
436: \nonumber \\
437: {\cal C}_{un+} &=&
438: % C^L C^R*
439: {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,\,
440: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}_{d12} \;
441: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!1n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{d12}
442: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
443: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d22}
444: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
445: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d22} \right) \; ,
446: \nonumber \\
447: {\cal C}_{dn-} &=&
448: % C^L C^R*
449: \left( {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
450: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}
451: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
452: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n} \right)\! {\cal D}_{u11} \;
453: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n} \,{\cal D}^{*}_{u11}
454: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,
455: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u21} \right) \; ,
456: \nonumber \\
457: {\cal C}_{dn+} &=&
458: % C^L C^R*
459: \left( {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
460: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}
461: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
462: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n} \right)\! {\cal D}_{u12} \;
463: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u12}
464: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,
465: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u22} \right) \; ,
466: \nonumber \\
467: && \mbox{\hspace*{2.5in}\small(only repeated index $i$ is to be summed)} \; ;
468: \label{Cnmp}
469: \eeqa
470: $\mbox{\boldmath $V$}^\dag {\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}} \,
471: \mbox{\boldmath $U$} = \mbox{diag}
472: \{ {M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_n} \} \equiv
473: \mbox{diag}
474: \{ {M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}, {M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}},
475: m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau \}$ while ${\cal D}_{u}$ and ${\cal D}_{d}$ diagonalize
476: the $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{d}$ squark mass-squared matrices respectively;
477: and
478: \beq
479: A(x) = {1 \over 2 \, (1-x)^2} \left(3 - x + {2\ln x \over 1-x} \right)\;,
480: \qquad \qquad
481: B(x) = {1 \over 2\,(x-1)^2} \left[1 + x + {2\,x \ln x \over (1-x) } \right].
482: \nonumber
483: \eeq
484:
485: To extract the contribution from the diagram of Fig.~1, we have to look at the
486: pieces in ${\cal C}_{dn\mp}$ with a $\mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n}$
487: and a $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}$. It is easy to see that the $n=1$ and
488: $2$ mass eigenstates, namely the chargino states, do give the dominating
489: contribution. With the small $\mu_i$ mixings strongly favored by the
490: sub-eV neutrino masses, we have
491: \beq
492: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)1} =
493: \frac{{\mu_k^*}}{{M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}}
494: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{21}}
495: \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
496: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)2} =
497: \frac{{\mu_k^*}}{{M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}}
498: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{22}}
499: \eeq
500: where the $R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R}$ denotes the right-handed rotation
501: that would diagonalize the first $2\times 2$ block of
502: ${\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}}$. The latter rotation matrix is expected
503: to have elements of order 1. Hence, we have the dominating result
504: proportional to
505: \[
506: \sum_{n=1,2}
507: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{12}}^{\,*} \,
508: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{2}n} \;
509: {\mu_k^* \,\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}} \;
510: F_{\!\scriptscriptstyle B\!A}\!\!
511: \left( M_{c_{\scriptscriptstyle n}}^2 \right)
512: \]
513: where $F_{\!\scriptscriptstyle B\!A}$ denotes the mass eigenvalue
514: dependent part. The result agrees with what we say above. It vanishes for
515: ${M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}={M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}$, showing
516: a GIM-like mechanism. However, with unequal chargino masses, our numerical
517: results indicate that the cancellation is generically badly violated.
518: More interestingly, it can be seen from the above analysis that a complex
519: phase in ${\mu_k^* \,\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}}$
520: is actually no necessary for this potentially dominating chargino
521: contribution to be there, so long as complex CP violating phases exist
522: in the $R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R}$ matrix, {\it i.e.} in the R-parity
523: conserving parameters such as ${\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}$.
524:
525: \begin{center}{\rule{5in}{.01mm}}\end{center}
526:
527: \begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
528: \twocolumn
529:
530: %#10
531: \begin{figure}[t]
532: \vspace*{4in}
533: \special{psfile=as6-10.ps angle=0 hscale=60 vscale=60 hoffset=-80 voffset=-105}
534: %\vspace*{1in}
535: %\caption{
536: %}
537: \end{figure}
538: \parbox{3.2in}{\small FIG.2
539: Logarithmic plot of (the magnitude of) the RPV neutron EDM
540: result for $\mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 0}$ value between $\pm2000\,\mbox{GeV}$,
541: with the other parameters set at the same values as Case~A in Table~I.
542: The lines marked by $G$, $C$, $N$, and ``Total" gives the complete
543: gluino, chargino-like, neutralino-like, and total ({\it i.e.} sum of the three) contributions, respectively. Note that the values of the $N$
544: contributions and those of the $C$ line for
545: $\mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 0}<-900\,\mbox{GeV}$ are negative.
546: }
547: \end{minipage}
548:
549: \begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
550: \vspace*{3.2in}
551: %#11
552: \begin{figure}[b]
553: \vspace*{4in}
554: \special{psfile=as6-11.ps angle=0 hscale=60 vscale=60 hoffset=-80 voffset=-105}
555: %\vspace*{1in}
556: %\caption{\small
557: \end{figure}
558: \vspace*{-.1in}
559: \parbox{3.2in}{\small FIG.3
560: Logarithmic plot of (the magnitude of) the neutron EDM result verses
561: $\tan\!\zb$. We show here the MSSM result, our general result with RPV phase
562: only, and the generic result with complex phases of
563: both kinds. In particular, the $A$ and $\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}$
564: phases are chosen as $7^o$ and $0.1^o$ respectively, for the MSSM line. They are
565: zero for the RPV-only line, with which we have a phase of ${\pi\over 4}$ for
566: $\lambda^{\!\prime}_{\scriptscriptstyle 31\!1}$. All the given nonzero values
567: are used for the three phases for the generic result (from our complete formulae)
568: marked by GSSM. Again, the other unspecified input parameters are the same as for
569: Case~A of Table~I.
570: \vspace*{.5in}}
571: \end{minipage}
572:
573: \onecolumn
574:
575: Some ilustarative sets of our numerical results are presented in Table~I.
576: In Fig.~2, we illustrate a comparison of the gluino, charginolike, and
577: neutralinolike contributions for a range of ${\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}$
578: values. Fig.~3 gives variation against the $\tan\!\zb$ value, while comparing
579: the overall GSSM result with the MSSM result.
580: On the whole, the magnitude of the parameter combination
581: $\mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}$ is shown to be
582: responsible for the RPV 1-loop contribution to neutron EDM and is hence
583: well constrained. This applies not only to the complex phase, or imaginary part
584: of, the combination.
585:
586: \section{EDMs of the Electron and Other Fermions}
587: The above quark EDM formula obviously applies with some trivial modifications
588: to the cases of the other quarks. For the leptons, while the exact formulae
589: would be different, there are major basic features that are more or less
590: the same. For instance, for the charged lepton, the $\lambda$-couplings
591: play the role of the $\lambda^{\!\prime}$-couplings. The
592: $\mu_i^*\lambda_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}$ combination contributes to
593: electron EDM while the $\mu_i^*\lambda_{i\scriptscriptstyle 22}$
594: combination contributes to that of the muon. As we have no explicit
595: numerical results to show at the moment, we refrain from showing any details
596: here.
597:
598: There is in fact a second class of 1-loop diagrams contributing to the
599: quark EDMs. These are diagrams with quarks and scalars in the loop, and
600: hence superpartners of the charginolike and neutralinolike diagrams discussed
601: above. The basic formulae are also given in Ref.\cite{as6}. The R-parity
602: conserving analog of the class of diagrams has no significance, due to
603: the unavoidable small Yukawa couplings involved. With the latter replaced
604: by flavor-changing $\lambda^{\!\prime}$-couplings. We can have a $t$ quark
605: loop contributing to neutron EDM, for example. For the case of the
606: charged leptons, the two classes of superpartner diagrams merges into one.
607: But then, all scalars has to be included. The assumption hidden, in our
608: quark EDM formula above, that only the (two) superpartner sfermions
609: have a significant role to play does not stand any more. We have
610: finished a $\mu \to \ e \gamma$ study, from which the charged lepton EDM
611: formula could be extracted without too much effort\cite{as7}. Interested
612: readers may check the reference to get an idea, or just tune in for our
613: future publications\cite{as11}.
614:
615:
616: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
617: \bibitem{me}
618: The following content of the presentation is mainly extracted from
619: Refs.\cite{as5,as4,as6}.
620: At the urge of the organizer, we are going over the formulation aspects again.
621: The presentation hence has a substantial overlap with our other recent talks
622: given at ICHEP2000\cite{as10}, SUSY30\cite{as12}, and PASCOS2001\cite{as14}.
623: In fact, despite our efforts, there is still quite some confusion about the
624: subject matter, which we have been planning to further clarify in an up-coming
625: review\cite{as8}. We apologize for the serious delay in the preparation of the
626: latter.
627: \bibitem{as5}
628: O.C.W. Kong, JHEP {\bf 0009}, {\it 037} (2000).
629: \bibitem{as4}
630: Y.-Y. Keum and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 393 (2001).
631: \bibitem{as6}
632: Y.-Y. Keum and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, {\it 113012} (2001).
633: \bibitem{as10}
634: O.C.W. Kong, Proceedings of the
635: 30th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP2000)
636: (ed. C.S. Lim \& T. Yamanaka), World Scientific (2001),
637: vol. II, p. 1048-1050.
638: \bibitem{as12}
639: O.C.W. Kong,
640: {\it Thirty Years of SUSY}, {\bf Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 101}, 421-430 (2001).
641: \bibitem{as14}
642: O.C.W. Kong,
643: {\it to be published in} Proceedings of the
644: %%
645: 8th International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS 2001),
646: %(ed. P.H. Frampton {\it et al.}), Rinton Publishing (2001), p. ??239-242
647: %;\hspace*{.1in}{\it IPAS-HEP-k014}
648: {\it hep-ph/0104276}.
649: \bibitem{as8}
650: O.C.W. Kong, {IPAS-HEP-k008},
651: {\it manuscript in preparation}.
652: \bibitem{pd}
653: L.E. Ib\'a\~nez and G.G. Ross,
654: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B368}, 3 (1992).
655: \bibitem{exp}
656: See, for example, talks given by
657: Maltoni and many others in this conference.
658: \bibitem{ru}
659: M. Bisset, O.C.W. Kong, C. Macesanu, and L.H. Orr,
660: Phys. Lett. {\bf B430}, 274 (1998);
661: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, {\it 035001} (2000).
662: \bibitem{ok}
663: O.C.W. Kong, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A14}, 903 (1999).
664: \bibitem{as1}
665: K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong,
666: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, {\it 113012} (2000).
667: \bibitem{as9}
668: S.K. Kang and O.C.W. Kong, {IPAS-HEP-k009},
669: {\it manuscript in preparation}.
670: \bibitem{AL}
671: See also
672: A. Abada and M. Losada, hep-ph/9908352;
673: S. Davidson and M. Losada, JHEP {\bf 0005}, {\it 021} (2000);
674: hep-ph/0010325.
675: \bibitem{kk}
676: O.C.W. Kong {\it et.al.}, {\it work in progress}.
677: \bibitem{cch1}
678: See also
679: K. Choi, E.J. Chun, and K. Hwang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, {\it 013002} (2001).
680: \bibitem{as7}
681: K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64} (2001)
682: {\it to be published}, hep-ph/0101347.
683: \bibitem{as11}
684: K. Cheung, Y.-Y. Keum, and O.C.W. Kong, {IPAS-HEP-k011},
685: {\it manuscript in preparation}.
686: \end{thebibliography}
687:
688: \newpage
689: \input{002t}
690:
691: \end{document}
692:
693:
694: