1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{axodraw}
3: \textwidth 160mm \textheight 239mm
4: \oddsidemargin 0mm \evensidemargin 0mm
5: \headheight 15mm \headsep 0mm
6: \topmargin -25.4mm \footskip 15mm
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \def\baselinestretch{1.3}
9: %%%
10: %%% Last updated by
11: %% \def\vday{9/1/02 DC}}
12: %% \def\checkd{$\Rightarrow$\marginpar{$\Leftarrow$\tiny{\vday} } }
13: %%
14: \begin{document}
15: \pagestyle{empty}
16: \begin{flushright}
17: hep-ph/0205084\\[-0.1cm]
18: September, 2002
19: \end{flushright}
20: %%
21: \begin{center}
22: {\Large {\bf
23: New constraint from Electric Dipole Moments \\
24: on chargino baryogenesis in MSSM
25: }}\\[1.cm]
26: {\large
27: Darwin Chang$^{a,b}$,
28: We-Fu Chang$^{a,c}$,
29: and Wai-Yee Keung$^{a,d}$}\\
30: {\em $^a$NCTS and Physics Department, National Tsing-Hua University,\\
31: Hsinchu 30043, Taiwan, R.O.C.}\\
32: {\em $^b$Theory Group, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA94720, USA}\\
33:
34: {\em $^c$TRIUMF Theory Group, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada}\\
35: {\em $^d$Physics Department,University of Illinois at Chicago, IL
36: 60607-7059, USA}\\
37: \end{center}
38: \bigskip\bigskip
39: \centerline{\small \it ABSTRACT}
40: \vskip 1cm
41: %%
42: A commonly accepted mechanism of generating baryon asymmetry in the
43: minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) depends on the CP
44: violating relative phase between the gaugino mass and the Higgsino
45: $\mu$ term.
46: %%
47: The direct constraint on this phase comes from the limit of electric
48: dipole moments (EDM) of various light fermions.
49: %%
50: To avoid such a constraint, a scheme which assumes the first two
51: generation sfermions are very heavy is usually evoked to suppress
52: the one-loop EDM contributions. We point out that under such a
53: scheme the most severe constraint may come from a new contribution
54: to the electric dipole moments of the electron, the neutron or
55: atoms via the chargino sector at the two-loop level. As a result,
56: the allowed parameter space for baryogenesis in MSSM is severely
57: constrained, independent of masses of the first two generation
58: sfermions. \\[0.3cm] PACS numbers: 11.30.Er,11.30.Fs, 12.60.Jv,
59: 98.80.Cq
60:
61: \newpage
62: \pagestyle{plain}
63:
64: While the Standard Model of particle physics continues to accurately
65: describe a wide array of experimental tests many physicists suspect
66: that the next generation of a unified field theory will be
67: supersymmetric. This supersymmetric theory in its simplest form,
68: MSSM\cite{mssm}, may help to solve many of the outstanding problems in
69: the Standard Model. Two examples of this sort are the
70: coupling-constant-unification problem and the observed baryon
71: asymmetry of the universe(BAU). It is the latter of these two that
72: will be discussed in this paper.
73:
74: %Besides providing a mechanism to stabilize the gauge hierarchy,
75: %MSSM may help to solve some of other existing problems in the
76: %Standard Model(SM).
77: %%
78: %One distinguished example is the coupling constant unification.
79: %Another celebrated one is the possibility of generating enough baryon
80: %asymmetry of the universe (BAU) through electroweak baryogenesis.
81:
82: It has been demonstrated that SM is insufficient in generating large
83: enough BAU\cite{Farrar:hn}. Particles lighter in mass but stronger in
84: coupling are needed to make the electroweak transition more first
85: order. Additionally, a new CP violating phase is required to generate
86: enough BAU. It is very appealing that MSSM naturally provides a
87: solution to both requirements\cite{bau}.
88: %%
89:
90:
91: The top-quark partner, stop, which is naturally lighter than the
92: other squarks can make the transition more first order, while
93: there are plenty of new CP violating phases at our disposal in the
94: soft SUSY breaking sector. In particular, it was shown
95: that the most likely scenario is to make use of the relative phase
96: between the soft SUSY breaking gaugino mass and the $\mu$ term of
97: the Higgsino sector\cite{bau}. In such a case, the BAU is generated
98: through the scattering of the charginos with the bubble wall. The CP
99: violation is provided by the chargino mixing. It turns out that
100: in most parameter space of MSSM, a nearly maximal CP violating
101: phase is needed to generate enough BAU. One immediate question is
102: whether or not such a new source of CP violation is already severely
103: experimentally constrained. It is not surprising that the
104: most severe constraints are provided by the current experimental limits of the
105: electric dipole moment(EDM) of the electron ($d_e$) and the neutron
106: ($d_n$).
107:
108:
109: Fortunately the lowest order (one-loop) contributions to various EDM's
110: through the chargino mixing can be easily suppressed by demanding that
111: the first two generations of sfermions to be heavier than the third
112: one\cite{KO,oneloop}. For example, if one requires these sfermions to
113: be heavier than $10$ TeV, the one-loop induced EDM's will be safely
114: small\cite{ref:Abel}.
115: %%
116: %%\footnote[1]{
117: %%
118: In fact, such a scenario can even be
119: generated naturally in a more basic scheme referred to as the more
120: minimal SUSY model\cite{more}.
121: %%
122: %%}
123: %%
124: However, despite the enlarged parameter space of MSSM, thanks to all
125: the intricate limits provided by accumulated data from various
126: collider experiments, there is only a small region of parameters left
127: within MSSM for such baryogenesis to work\cite{bau}.
128:
129: In this letter we wish to point out that even if sfermions of the
130: first two generations are assumed to be very heavy, there are
131: important contributions to the EDM of the electron at the two-loop
132: level via the chargino sector that strongly constraint the
133: chargino sector as the source for BAU in MSSM. Similar
134: contributions to quark EDM also exist but the resulting constraint
135: turns out to be relatively weaker.
136: %%
137: While this is not the first time that two-loop contributions are
138: found to be more important than the one-loop
139: ones,\cite{ckp,BZ,cky-eEDM,cky-cEDM,oshimo}, this chargino
140: contribution and its relevance to BAU was never treated fully.
141:
142: In the case of chargino contributions, the two-loop contribution
143: is dominant because the one-loop contribution is suppressed when
144: the sfermions are heavy. This aspect is similar to those in
145: Ref.\cite{ckp,oshimo}. In addition, the present case of the large
146: CP violating phase in the chargino mixing and the light Higgs
147: scalar, which is necessary to obtain a large baryon asymmetry, is
148: also the same cause of a large EDM. Therefore, the resulting
149: severe EDM constraint is very difficult to avoid in the mechanism of
150: the chargino baryogensis by tuning parameters.
151:
152: \section*{The Model and Couplings}
153: %%%
154: Before we outline the physics of the chargino mixing in
155: supersymmetric models we will set forth our conventions. We assume
156: the minimal set of two Higgs doublets. Let the superfield $\Phi_d$
157: $(Y=-1)$ couple to the $d$-type field, $\Phi_u$ $(Y=1)$ to the
158: $u$-type (see Ref.\cite{cky-cEDM} for our convention).
159: %
160: %\footnote[2]{In SUSY formalism, all fermion fields start
161: %from the left-handed chirality. The right-handed fields come from
162: %the complex conjugation, $f_R=-\epsilon f_L^*$ in the 2-component
163: %Weyl form.
164: %%
165: %The standard coupling of the
166: %gaugino($\lambda$)-fermion($f$)-sfermion($\tilde f$) vertex
167: %usually contains an $i$ coefficient in most textbooks, $ {\cal L}
168: %\supset -i\sqrt{2} g (\bar \lambda \bar f \tilde f - \tilde f^*
169: %f\lambda ) $. This $i$ is absorbed into our definition of the wino
170: %field $\omega =i\tilde W$.}.
171: %
172: The chargino fields are combinations of those of the wino
173: ($\omega^+_{L,R}$) and the higgsino ($h^+_{uL, dR}$).
174: %%%%%%
175: Denote $\psi_L=( \omega^+_L \ ,\ h^+_{uL})^T$, and
176: %%%%%%
177: $\overline{\psi_R} = (\overline{\omega^+_R} \ ,\ \overline{h^+_{dR}})$.
178: %%%
179: The chargino mass terms,
180: $ -{\cal L}_M^C = \overline{\psi_R}M_C\psi_L $
181: in our convention, becomes
182: %%%%%%
183: \begin{equation} M_C=
184: \left(\begin{array}{cc} M_2 & \sqrt{2}M_W\sin\beta \\
185: \sqrt{2}M_W\cos\beta & \mu e^{i\phi} \end{array}\right)\ .
186: \end{equation}
187: %%%
188: Where $M_2$ is the $SU_L(2)$ gaugino mass. Note that we choose a CP violating complex
189: Higgsino mass $\mu e^{i\phi}$.
190: The scalar components $H_u, H_d$ of $\Phi_u, \Phi_d$ have real vev's
191: $v_u/\sqrt{2}, v_d/\sqrt{2}$ respectively, and $\tan\beta=v_u/v_d$.
192:
193: We use the bi-unitary transformation to obtain the diagonal mass
194: matrix $M^D= U' M_C U^\dagger$ with eigenvalues $m_{\chi_1},m_{\chi_2}$
195: for the eigenfields $\chi_1, \chi_2$.
196: %%%%
197: SUSY the The CP violating chargino mixing can contribute to the fermion EDM
198: through the chargino-sfermion loop. Detailed analysis of such
199: contributions can be found in the literature\cite{oneloop}. As noted
200: in the introduction, such contributions can be tuned to be small by
201: making sfermions heavy\cite{ref:Abel} (typically of $10$ TeV or
202: larger). Here we are interested in contributions to the EDM of a
203: fermion that are still important even with very heavy sfermions. For
204: this we find that the leading contribution is from diagrams of the
205: type in Fig.~1.
206:
207: To evaluate the diagram, we exam gauge couplings of the Higgs
208: bosons,
209: $H^0_q= (v_q+\varphi_q)/\sqrt{2}$,
210: %%%
211: \begin{equation}
212: {\cal L}_Y =
213: \hbox{$g\over\sqrt{2}$}\sum_{ij}
214: \overline{\chi_{iR}} [
215: U'_{i\omega} U^\dagger_{hj} \varphi_u^{0*}+
216: U'_{ih} U^\dagger_{\omega j} \varphi_d^{0*} ] \chi_{jL}
217: + {\rm H.c.}
218: \end{equation}
219: %%%%%%%
220: Only the diagonal couplings in the chargino basis are relevant to the
221: simple diagrams in Fig.\ 1 mediated by an internal photon.
222: Therefore we define
223: %%%%%%%
224: \begin{equation}
225: g^{\varphi_u}_i \equiv
226: g_{iu}^S+ig_{iu}^P =\hbox{$g\over\sqrt{2}$}U'_{i\omega}U_{ih}^*
227: \ , \quad g^{\varphi_d}_i \equiv
228: g_{id}^S+ig_{id}^P =\hbox{$g\over\sqrt{2}$}U'_{ih}U_{i\omega}^* \ .
229: \end{equation}
230: %
231: \begin{center}
232: \begin{picture}(200,160)(0,0)
233: \Oval(100,80)(30,50)(0) \Photon(100,110)(100,160){5}{5}
234: \Text(110,150)[lc]{$\uparrow\ \gamma(k,\mu)$}
235: \DashArrowLine(20,20)(60,60){5}
236: \Photon(180,20)(140,60){5}{5}
237: \Text(30,40)[rc]{$\varphi$}
238: \Text(50,40)[lc]{$(p)$}
239: \Line(97,47)(103,53) \Line(97,53)(103,47)
240: %%%%% \Text(80,45)[cc]{$b_R^c$} %\Text(120,45)[cc]{$b_L$}
241: \Text(105,60)[cc]{$l$}
242: %%%%% \Text(130,115)[lc]{$b_L$}
243: \Text(140,90)[rc]{$l+q$} \LongArrow(135,102)(140,98)
244: %%%%% \Text(70,115)[rc]{$b_L$}
245: \Text(60,90)[lc]{$l+p$}
246: \LongArrow(60,98)(65,102 ) %b_L NW
247: \LongArrow(85,51 )(80,53) %b_R SW
248: \LongArrow(121,53 )(117,51) %b_L SE
249: \LongArrow(160,55)(170,45) %b_L NE
250: \Text(175,50)[lc]{$\gamma(q,\nu)$}
251: \ArrowLine(20,20)(0,20) \Text(10,10)[cc]{$f_L$}
252: \ArrowLine(180,20)(20,20) \Text(100,10)[cc]{$f_R(q)$}
253: \ArrowLine(200,20)(180,20) \Text(190,10)[cc]{$f_R$}
254: \end{picture}
255: \\
256: Fig.~1. A two-loop diagram of the EDM of the electron, or quarks.
257: The chargino runs in the inner loop.
258: \end{center}
259: %%
260: The complex mixing amplitudes are written in terms of
261: the real couplings $g^S$ and $g^P$.
262: %%
263: In the same spirit, the complex neutral Higgs fields are decomposed
264: into the real and imaginary components $\varphi_q^0=h_q^0+ia_q^0 \
265: (q=u,d)$.
266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
267: Note that $h_d^0$ and $h_u^0$ mix in a CP conserving fashion
268: at the tree-level, so are $a_u^0$ and $a_d^0$.
269: \begin{equation}
270: \left(\begin{array}{c} h^0 \\ H^0 \end{array}\right)=
271: {\cal R} \left(\begin{array}{c} h_u^0 \\ h_d^0 \end{array}\right)
272: \ ,\quad
273: \left(\begin{array}{c} G^0 \\ A^0 \end{array}\right)=
274: {\cal S} \left(\begin{array}{c} a_u^0 \\ a_d^0 \end{array}\right) \ .
275: \label{eqn:basis}
276: \end{equation}
277: %%%
278: \begin{equation}
279: {\cal R}= \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\alpha & -\sin\alpha \\
280: \sin\alpha & \cos\alpha \end{array}\right)
281: \ ,\quad
282: {\cal S}= \left(\begin{array}{cc} \sin\beta & -\cos\beta \\
283: \cos\beta & \sin\beta \end{array}\right)
284: \ . \label{eqn:angles}\end{equation}
285: The EDM calculation involves the Higgs boson propagators which are defined
286: as
287: %% following Weinberg's notation\cite{Weinberg:me},
288: %
289: \begin{equation}
290: \langle\varphi_q\varphi_{q'}^\dagger\rangle_{p^2}
291: = i\sum_\sigma Z_{+,\sigma}^{q,q'}/(p^2-M_\sigma^2) \ ,
292: \langle\varphi_q\varphi_{q'} \rangle_{p^2}
293: = i\sum_\sigma Z_{-,\sigma}^{q,q'}/(p^2-M_\sigma^2) \ .
294: \end{equation}
295: %%%
296: %%% Only $Z_{\pm,\sigma}^{q,d}$ are relevant to the EDM of the
297: %%% electron and the down-quark.
298: %%% $Z_{\pm,\sigma}^{q,u}$ are relevant for that of the up-quark.
299: %
300: The $Z$ factors can be shown to be
301: real at the leading order with the explicit form,
302: $$
303: \begin{array}{ll}
304: Z_{\pm,H}^{d,d}= Z_{\pm,h}^{u,u}= \cos^2\alpha\ ,\
305: & Z_{\pm,G}^{d,d}= Z_{\pm,A}^{u,u}=\pm\cos^2\beta\ ,
306: \\
307: Z_{\pm,h}^{d,d}= Z_{\pm,H}^{u,u}= \sin^2\alpha\ ,\
308: & Z_{\pm,A}^{d,d}=Z_{\pm,G}^{u,u}=\pm\sin^2\beta\ ,
309: \\
310: Z_{\pm,H}^{u,d}=\hbox{$1\over2$}\sin2\alpha=- Z_{\pm,h}^{u,d}
311: \ ,
312: & Z_{\pm,A}^{u,d}=\pm\hbox{$1\over2$}\sin2\beta
313: =- Z_{\pm,G}^{u,d}
314: \end{array}$$
315: $$ Z_{\pm,\sigma}^{d,u} =Z_{\pm,\sigma}^{u,d} \ \hbox{ for }
316: \sigma=h,H,A,G \ . $$
317: %%
318: For completeness, our list includes
319: the unphysical Goldstone boson $G^0$, which does not contribute to EDM.
320: %
321: Other sum rules are
322: \begin{equation}
323: \sum_{\sigma=hHAG}Z_{s,\sigma}^{q,q'}=2 \delta^{q,q'} \delta_{s,+}
324: \ . \end{equation}
325: %%
326: The electron EDM via the Fig.~1 is given by
327: \begin{equation}
328: \left({d_e \over e}\right) = { \alpha \over 16 \pi^3}
329: { g m_e \over M_W \cos\beta}
330: \sum_{i,q} {g^P_{i,q} \over m_{\chi_i}}
331: \left[ g\left({m_{\chi_i}^2\over M_h^2} \right) Z_{+,h}^{q,d}
332: + g\left({m_{\chi_i}^2\over M_H^2} \right) Z_{+,H}^{q,d}
333: + f\left({m_{\chi_i}^2\over M_A^2} \right) Z_{+,A}^{q,d}
334: \right] \ . \label{eqn:bz} \end{equation}
335: %%
336: Here the Barr-Zee\cite{BZ} functions are defined as
337: \begin{equation}
338: K_n (z)={z\over2} \int_0^1 { y^n\ln{y(1-y)\over z}\over y(1-y)-z}dy \ ,
339: %%
340: f(z)= K_0(z)-2K_1(z)+2K_2(z) \ ,\ g(z)=K_0(z) \ .
341: \end{equation}
342: %%
343:
344: For the EDM of the down quark, we simply use the charge ratio
345: $1\over3$ to give
346: $(d_d/e) = {1\over3}(d_e /e)(m_d/ m_e)$.
347: %%%%%%%%
348: While for the EDM of the up quark, we need to replace $Z^{q,d} \to Z^{q,u}$
349: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bz}) as well as the obvious charge ratio $-{2\over3}$
350: and replacement of $m_e\to m_u$.
351: %%
352: In the Appendix, we offer a more compact analytic form of these
353: results together with additional details which include the radiative
354: correction to the Higgs mass in the simplified form suggested in
355: Ref.\cite{Haber:1996fp}.
356:
357: Since the charginos do not couple to the gluon,
358: there is no chromo-EDM generated\cite{cky-cEDM}.
359: %%%%
360: Note that if one wishes to include the contribution with the
361: internal photon replaced by the $Z$ boson, it is necessary to
362: include the off-diagonal chargino couplings of the $Z$ and the
363: Higgs bosons. We ignore such contributions here because they
364: are expected to be much smaller than that of the photon which was confirmed in
365: previous similar two loop calculations\cite{cky-eEDM}.
366: In particular, the electron EDM via $Z$ is highly suppressed
367: by the small value of the Z vectorial coupling to the electron
368: due to the approximate relation $\sin^2\theta_W\approx {1\over4}$.
369: There are other two loop diagrams with CP violation originated from
370: the same phase such as the ones with chargino-neutralino loop mediated
371: $\gamma H^{+} W^{-}$ effective vertex or $\gamma W^{+}W^{-}$ ($W$
372: EDM) effective vertex. We do not include them here because these
373: contributions are expected to be small (by roughly an order of
374: magnitude) as suggested by previous two loop
375: calculations\cite{cky-cEDM,oshimo}. In any case, these additional
376: diagrams form a separate gauge independent set.
377:
378: Because the imaginary parts of the off-diagonal entries in $M_C$ are zero in our
379: convention, we obtained the following sum rules:
380: %%%%%%%%%%%
381: \begin{equation}
382: \sum_{i} g^P_{i,u} m_{\chi_i}
383: =-\hbox{$g \over \sqrt{2}$} \mbox{Im} ({U'}^\dagger M_DU)_{\omega h} =0
384: \ ,\quad
385: \sum_{i} g^P_{i,d} m_{\chi_i} = 0 \ .
386: \label{eqn:degen}
387: \end{equation}
388: %%%%%%%%%%%
389: Therefore,
390: %%%%
391: $ g^P_{2,q}=-g^P_{1,q}(m_{\chi_1}/m_{\chi_2})$.
392: %%%%
393: It is easy to see that in case of degenerate masses $m_{\chi_1} =
394: m_{\chi_2}$, perfect cancellation occurs yielding zero EDM.
395:
396: Based upon another fact that the diagonal scalar coupling of
397: $\bar\chi_i G^0\chi_i$ is zero, we can show that
398: $ \sin\beta g^P_{i,u} = \cos\beta g^P_{i,d}$.
399: %%
400: Therefore, each of the four CP violating coefficients $g^P_{i,q}$
401: can be simply related to one of them, say $g^P_{1,u}$,
402: which again depends on the fundamental MSSM parameters,
403: $\tan \beta, \mu e^{i \phi}, M_A^2, M_2$.
404: %%
405: The usual SUSY breaking terms include the last two parameters as well as
406: the trilinear-sfermion-coupling, the $A$ term, which is not relevant in the
407: our analysis because it does not participate directly in this
408: particular mechanism of baryogenesis\cite{bau}.
409: %
410: If we replace charginos by stops in the inner-loop,
411: the effect of the relative phase of $A$ and $\mu$
412: can contribute to the two-loop EDM as studied in Ref.\cite{ckp}.
413: %%%
414: The stop-loop effect can be small if $A_t$ is small, if $A_t$ is in
415: phase with $\mu$, or if the left-handed stop is very heavy but the
416: right-handed stop is rather light. This last scenario is preferred by
417: BAU. Such a large mass gap will suppress stop-mixing and kill the EDM
418: contribution via the stop-loop. In addition, it has been concluded by
419: many groups\cite{bau} that using CP violating mixing of the stop to
420: generate BAU is much more difficult than using that of the chargino.
421:
422:
423: \section*{Numerical analysis and baryogenesis}
424: To our current knowledge, the experimental constraint on the electron
425: EDM has become very restrictive:
426: \begin{equation}
427: |d_e| < 1.6\times 10^{-27}
428: \hbox{$e$ cm \qquad (90\% C.L. Ref.\cite{eEDM2002})}
429: \ . \end{equation}
430: %%
431: Since the tree-level Higgs mass relation\cite{mssm} predicts a
432: light Higgs $m_{h^0} < m_Z$ that has already been ruled out by experimental
433: searches at LEP 2, our analysis has included the leading mass
434: correction\cite{Haber:1996fp} at the one-loop level.
435: For completeness, the resulting Higgs mass dependence on $\tan\beta$ in this
436: scheme is illustrated in Fig.~2.
437: %%
438: Fig.~3 shows the $\tan\beta$ dependence of the predicted value of
439: the electron EDM from different contributions due to the Higgs bosons,
440: $A^0$, $H^0$ and $h^0$.
441: %%
442: We show the case of maximal CP violation when $\phi=\pi/2$, as required by
443: baryogenesis\cite{cline}, with masses at the electroweak scale, $M_A=150$
444: GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.
445: Note that, in this case, the $h$ contribution dominates until
446: about $\tan\beta \approx 3$. The $H$ contribution becomes dominant for
447: $\tan\beta > 5.4$.
448: %%
449: When $\tan\beta$ becomes large, the increase of the
450: Yukawa coupling of the electron overwhelms the reduction of CP
451: violation in the chargino sector. This gives the rise of the electron
452: EDM as $\tan\beta$ increases. The same effect happens to the EDM of
453: the $d$-quark, but not the $u$-quark.
454: %%
455: Fig.~4 shows the electron EDM contour plot versus $M_2$ and $\mu$
456: for the case $\tan\beta=3$, $M_A=100$ GeV, and $\phi=\pi/2$.
457: %
458: %One observes that in the range typically quoted for MSSM chargino
459: %baryogenesis, the predicted electron EDM is typically larger than
460: %experimental bounds by an order of magnitude.
461: %
462: In the many calculations of BAU in MSSM\cite{bau} the largest
463: uncertainty seems to come from the calculation of the source term
464: for the diffusion equations which couples to the left-handed
465: quarks\cite{cline,murayama}. Using the latest summary of the
466: situation in Ref.\cite{cline2} as a reference point, large BAU ($2
467: \leq \eta_{10} \equiv (n_B - n_{\bar{B}})/ n_\gamma \times 10^{10}
468: \leq 3$) requires $\tan\beta \leq 3$ with the wall velocity and
469: the wall width close to their optimal values $v_w \simeq 0.02, l_w
470: \simeq 6/T$, $\mu \simeq M_2$ and CP phase $\sin \phi$ close to
471: one. Note that a smaller $\tan\beta$ gives a larger BAU, however,
472: it tends to give a small lightest Higgs mass which violates the
473: LEP II limit unless the left stop is much heavier than 1 TeV.
474: Using the SUSY parameters in the above range, the numerical
475: analysis in our figures indicates that the predicted value of the
476: electron EDM is more than a factor of 5 to 10 bigger than the
477: experimental limit on the electron EDM in most of the BAU preferred
478: parameter range. In fact, if $\sin \phi =1$ and $\tan\beta =3$,
479: then the parameter space allowed by the electron EDM limit is limited
480: to a narrow strip with $\mu \simeq M_2$ and $\mu$ has to be as
481: large as $600$ GeV in order to satisfy this EDM constraint. The range of
482: values for $\mu$ and $M_2$ (both smaller than $250$ GeV) presented
483: in Ref.\cite{cline2} are all ruled out. Unless the numerical
484: constraint on BAU in Ref.\cite{cline2} is relaxed by an order of
485: magnitude, it seems to be very difficult for the chargino
486: mechanism for BAU to be compatible with the electron EDM
487: constraint.
488:
489: %%
490: On the the other hand, for the neutron EDM, our analysis indicates the
491: current experimental limit in Eq.(12) gives only marginal constraint
492: on MSSM parameters required for chargino BAU.
493:
494: With the quark EDM, one uses the quark model to predict the neutron
495: EDM.
496: %%
497: A new limit\cite{nEDMn}, $|d_n| < 6.3 \times 10^{-26} e$ cm
498: (95\% C.L.), for the neutron EDM has been reported based on the
499: combination of the recent data of low statistical accuracy and the
500: earlier measurement\cite{nEDMo}. This combination of the old and
501: the new results has been criticized in Ref.\cite{nEDMi}. As shown
502: in the contour plot of Fig.~5, using the parameters suggested by
503: the chargino baryogenesis mechanism, our predicted EDM value is around
504: the size of the more conservative experimental limit:
505: $|d_n| \stackrel{<}{\sim} 12\times 10^{-26} e$ cm,
506: %
507: recommended in Ref.\cite{nEDMi}. Due to large theoretical
508: uncertainties in the relation between the quark EDM and the
509: neutron EDM, the constraint from neutron EDM on the parameter
510: space cannot be as important as that from the electron EDM even if
511: the more stringent limit is used.
512:
513: Note, however, that the uncertainties in the calculation of non-equilibrium
514: electroweak baryogenesis process is far from settle.
515: For example, in the latest
516: review by the group in Ref\cite{wagner} a small CP violating phase of
517: $10^{-2}$ may be sufficient to generate BAU.
518: In that case even the larger value
519: of $\tan\beta$ is allowed.
520: For this purpose, in Fig.~6, we also plot the electron
521: EDM for $\tan\beta$ up to $50$.
522:
523: \section*{Conclusion}
524: The baryogenesis in MSSM requires the lightest Higgs boson to be light in
525: order to get a strong first order phase transition. It also requires the CP
526: violating phase in chargino mixing to be large in order to get large enough
527: BAU.
528: %%
529: As we have discussed, both requirements imply the predicted values of
530: the EDM's of the electron and the neutron to be large.
531: %
532: For $\sin\phi =1$ and $\tan\beta =3$, the current electron EDM
533: constraint requires $\mu \simeq M_2 \simeq 600$ GeV. Taking the
534: uncertainty in the calculations of BAU in the literature into account,
535: it is probably still premature to claim that this particular mechanism
536: of baryogenesis is absolutely ruled out, but it is clear that the
537: precision measurements of the EDM of fermions, especially the electron
538: EDM, give a tight constraint on the mechanism.
539:
540: Note added: While the paper is in referee process we receive a manuscript
541: (hep-ph/0207277) with calculations that overlap with ours. Our numerical
542: results agree with this later calculation.
543:
544: WYK is partially supported by a grant from U.S. Department of
545: Energy (Grant No. DE-FG02-84ER40173). DC is supported by a grant
546: from National Science Council(NSC) of Republic of China (Taiwan).
547: We wish to thank H. Haber, H. Murayama, O. Kong, and K. Cheung
548: for discussions. DC wish to thank theory groups at SLAC and LBL
549: for hospitality during his visit. WFC and WYK wish to thank NCTS
550: of NSC for support.
551:
552: %%
553: \section*{Appendix: Higgs Potential with radiative corrections in the MSSM
554: and Electric Dipole Moments}
555:
556: The Higgs potential has the form
557: %%
558: \begin{equation}
559: \begin{array}{rcl}
560: {\cal V}
561: &=& m_{H_d}^2 |H_d|^2 + m_{H_u}^2 |H_u|^2
562: +(-m_{12}^2 H_d H_u + \hbox{ H.c. } ) \\
563: & & +\hbox{$1\over8$}(g_1^2+g_2^2) (|H_d|^2-|H_u|^2)^2
564: +{\tau} |H_u|^4 + \cdots \end{array} \ .
565: \end{equation}
566: %%
567: At the tree level, SUSY requires the dim=4 coefficient
568: $\tau=0$. However, it arises from the
569: large top-stop-loop correction.
570: Denote
571: %%
572: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll}
573: \langle H_d \rangle=V_d \ ,& \langle H_u \rangle=V_u\ ,&
574: V^2\equiv V_d^2+V_u^2 \\
575: %%%%
576: \tan\beta \equiv V_u/V_d \ ,& m_W^2={1\over2} g_2^2 V^2 \ , &
577: m_Z^2={1\over2} (g_1^2+g_2^2) V^2 \ .
578: \end{array}\end{equation}
579: %%
580: We try to derive the mass matrix of the CP-even Higgs bosons, which
581: correspond to the real part of the complex fields. We
582: use superscripts $R,I$ to abbreviate
583: the real and imaginary parts.
584: The first derivatives of the potential are
585: \begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
586: (\partial{\cal V}/\partial H_d^R) &=& 2 m_{H_d}^2 H_d^R - 2m_{12}^2 H_u^R
587: +\hbox{$1\over2$} (g_1^2+g_2^2) (|H_d|^2-|H_u|^2) H_d^R \ , \\
588: %%%%%%
589: (\partial{\cal V}/\partial H_u^R) &=& 2 m_{H_u}^2 H_u^R - 2m_{12}^2 H_d^R
590: -\hbox{$1\over2$} (g_1^2+g_2^2) (|H_d|^2-|H_u|^2) H_u^R
591: +4\tau |H_u|^3
592: \end{array}\ .\end{equation}
593: %%%%%%
594: The minimization condition can then be written as
595: %%%%%%%%
596: \begin{equation}
597: \begin{array}{r}
598: m_{H_d}^2 -m_{12}^2\tan\beta+\hbox{$1\over2$}m_Z^2\cos2\beta=0 \ ,\\
599: m_{H_u}^2 -m_{12}^2\cot\beta-\hbox{$1\over2$}m_Z^2\cos2\beta
600: +2\tau V^2 \sin\beta=0 \ .
601: \end{array} \end{equation}
602: %%%
603: Continue to obtain the second derivatives,
604: \begin{equation}
605: \begin{array}{rl}
606: (\partial^2{\cal V}/ \partial H_d^{R2})
607: &= 2 m_{12}^2 \tan\beta +2 M_Z^2c_\beta^2 \\
608: %%%%%
609: \partial^2{\cal V}/(\partial H_u^R \partial H_d^R)
610: &=-2 m_{12}^2 -m_Z^2 \sin2\beta \\
611: %%%%%
612: (\partial^2{\cal V}/ \partial H_u^{R2}) &
613: =2m_{12}^2 \cot\beta +2 s_\beta^2(M_Z^2 +4\tau V^2)
614: \end{array} \ , \end{equation}
615: %%%%%%%
616: \begin{equation}
617: \begin{array}{rl}
618: (\partial^2{\cal V}/ \partial H_d^{I2}) & = 2 m_{12}^2 \tan\beta \\
619: %%%%%
620: \partial^2{\cal V}/(\partial H_u^I \partial H_d^I) &
621: = 2 m_{12}^2 \\
622: %%%%%
623: (\partial^2{\cal V}/ \partial H_u^{I2}) & =2m_{12}^2 \cot\beta \end{array} \ .
624: \end{equation}
625: %%
626: The basis defined in Eqs.(\ref{eqn:basis},\ref{eqn:angles})
627: agrees with that in Martin's review\cite{mssm}.
628: %%
629: One can easily show that $G$ is massless as it is the unphysical
630: Goldstone boson.
631: %%
632: The mass of the pseudoscalar $A^0$ is
633: %%%%%%%
634: \begin{equation}
635: m_{A^0}^2 = 2 m_{12}^2/\sin 2\beta \ ,\quad
636: m^2_{H^\pm}= m^2_{A^0} + m_W^2 \ . \end{equation}
637: %%%
638: The coefficient $m^2_{12}$ corresponds to the non-hermitean quadratic
639: term in the Higgs potential.
640: If $m_{12}^2=0$, the Lagrangian possess a Peccei-Quinn symmetry
641: and it quarantees that $M_{A^0}=0$.
642: It is practical to express all other masses in terms of $m_{A^0}$.
643: %%
644: From the second derivatives above,
645: the tree-level mass matrix of the scalar Higgs bosons
646: in the basis of $h^0_u,h^0_d$ becomes
647: %%
648: \begin{equation} \label{mssmtree}
649: {\cal M}_0^2=
650: \pmatrix{
651: m_{A^0}^2\cos^2\beta+m_Z^2\sin^2\beta &
652: -( m_{A^0}^2+m_Z^2)\sin\beta\cos\beta \cr
653: -( m_{A^0}^2+m_Z^2)\sin\beta\cos\beta &
654: m_{A^0}^2\sin^2\beta+m_Z^2\cos^2\beta\cr} \,,
655: \end{equation}
656: where the subscript 0 indicates tree-level quantities.
657: One can then prove that $(m_{h^0})_0\leq m_Z|\cos2\beta|$.
658:
659: The leading correction from top-stop loops is
660: \begin{equation}
661: {\cal M}_{\rm 1LT}^2 \approx {\cal M}_0^2 +
662: T^2 \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0\end{array} \right)
663: \ ,\quad
664: %%
665: T^2 = 4\tau V^2 s_\beta^2 ={3g^2 m_t^4\over 8\pi^2 m_W^2 \sin^2\beta}
666: \ln\left(m_{\tilde t_L} m_{\tilde t_R}/m_t^2\right) \ .
667: \label{topapprox}
668: \end{equation}
669: This formula can be found in
670: Ref.\cite{Haber:1996fp},
671: where different schemes of approximation were studied.
672: As we have uncertaintly from the SUSY breaking scale, it may be
673: overboard to
674: use the full-fledge 1-loop calculation. We use this leading approximation in
675: the remaining study.
676: %%
677: The CP-even Higgs mass-squared eigenvalues are then given by
678: \begin{equation}
679: m^2_{H^0,h^0}=\frac{1}{2}\,\left[{\cal M}^2_{11}+{\cal M}^2_{22}\pm
680: \sqrt{[{\cal M}^2_{11}-{\cal M}^2_{22}]^2+4({\cal M}^2_{12})^2}\,\right]
681: \ .\label{massev}
682: \end{equation}
683: %%
684: The mass of $h^0$ has been substantially raised above the tree level
685: prediction which is lower than the experimental constraint.
686: %%
687: The corresponding mixing angle $\alpha$ is given by
688: %%
689: \begin{eqnarray} \label{defalpha}
690: \sin 2\alpha & = & {2{\cal M}^2_{12}\over
691: \sqrt{[{\cal M}^2_{11}-{\cal M}^2_{22}]^2+4({\cal M}^2_{12})^2}}\,,\nonumber \\
692: \cos 2\alpha & = & {{\cal M}^2_{22}-{\cal M}^2_{11}\over
693: \sqrt{[{\cal M}^2_{11}-{\cal M}^2_{22}]^2+4({\cal M}^2_{12})^2}}\,.
694: \end{eqnarray}
695: %%
696: The eigen-masses ($m^2_{H^0} > m^2_{h^0}$) are given by
697: %%
698: \begin{equation}
699: \begin{array}{rl}
700: m^2_{H^0}+ m^2_{h^0} &= m^2_{A^0} + m_Z^2 +T^2 \ ,\\
701: %%
702: (m^2_{H^0}- m^2_{h^0})^2 &=
703: [(m_{A^0}^2-m_Z^2)\cos 2\beta+T^2]^2 +(m_A^2+m_Z^2)^2\sin^2 2\beta
704: \ . \end{array}
705: \end{equation}
706: %%%%%%%%%%
707: In terms of these masses, the mixing angle $\alpha$
708: is determined at tree-level by
709: %%
710: \begin{equation} {\sin 2\alpha\over \sin 2\beta} =
711: -{m_{A^0}^2 + m_{Z}^2 \over m_{H^0}^2 - m^2_{h^0}} \ ,\qquad\>\>
712: \cos 2\alpha=
713: {(m_{Z^0}^2 - m_{A}^2)\cos2\beta-T^2 \over m_{H^0}^2 - m^2_{h^0}}.\>\>\>
714: \end{equation}
715: %%%
716: From the vanishing of diagonal scalar coupling of $\bar \chi G^0\chi $,
717: we have
718: $ s_\beta g^P_{i,u} = c_\beta g^P_{i,d} $
719: for each mass eigenstate $i$. Therefore
720: %%
721: \begin{equation}\begin{array}{rl}
722: \sum_{q} g^P_{i,q} Z_{+,h}^{q,d}
723: &=g^P_{i,u} (Z_{+,h}^{u,d} + \tan \beta Z_{+,h}^{d,d})
724: =g^P_{i,u} (- \hbox{$1\over 2$} \sin 2\alpha + \tan \beta\sin^2\alpha) \\
725: &=\mbox{$1\over 2$} g^P_{i,u} \tan\beta
726: [1 - (m_A^2-4 c_\beta^2 m_A^2 - m_Z^2-T^2)/(m_H^2-m_h^2)]
727: \end{array}\end{equation}
728: %%%
729: \begin{equation}\begin{array}{rl}
730: \sum_{q} g^P_{i,q} Z_{+,H}^{q,d}
731: &=g^P_{i,u} (Z_{+,H}^{u,d} + \tan \beta Z_{+,H}^{d,d})
732: =g^P_{i,u} (\hbox{$1\over 2$} \sin 2\alpha + \tan \beta \cos^2\alpha) \\
733: %%%%
734: &=\mbox{$1\over 2$} g^P_{i,u} \tan\beta
735: [1+ (m_A^2-4 c_\beta^2 m_A^2 - m_Z^2-T^2)/(m_H^2-m_h^2)]
736: \end{array}\end{equation}
737: %%
738: and
739: %%
740: \begin{equation}
741: \sum_{q} g^P_{i,q} Z_{+,A}^{q,d}
742: = g^P_{i,u} (Z_{+,A}^{u,d} + \tan \beta Z_{+,A}^{d,d})
743: = g^P_{i,u} ({1\over 2} \sin 2\beta + \tan \beta \sin^2\beta)
744: = g^P_{i,u} \tan\beta \ . \end{equation}
745: %%%
746: The 2-loop EDM of the electron with the leading 1-loop mass correction becomes
747: %%
748: $$ \left({d_e \over e}\right)
749: ={ \alpha \over 16 \pi^3} { g m_e \over 2 M_W \cos\beta}
750: g^P_{1,u} m_{\chi_1} \tan \beta
751: \left[
752: \left(1 + { T^2 + M^2_Z + M_A^2(1+2 c_{2\beta}) \over m_H^2-m_h^2}\right)
753: { g(m_{\chi_1}^2/M_h^2) \over m^2_{\chi_1} }
754: \right.$$
755: %%%%%
756: \begin{equation}
757: \left.
758: +\left(1 - { T^2 + M^2_Z + M_A^2(1+2 c_{2\beta}) \over m_H^2-m_h^2}\right)
759: { g(m_{\chi_1}^2/M_H^2) \over m^2_{\chi_1} }
760: + 2{ f(m_{\chi_1}^2/M_A^2) \over m^2_{\chi_1} }
761: - \Bigl(m_{\chi_1} \rightarrow m_{\chi_2}\Bigr) \right] \ .
762: \end{equation}
763:
764: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
765:
766: \bibitem{mssm}
767: %
768: H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. {\bf 110}, 1 (1984);
769: %
770: H. Haber and G. Kane, Phys. Rept. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985);
771: %
772: S.~Dawson,
773: %``SUSY and such,''
774: arXiv:hep-ph/9612229;
775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612229;%%
776: %
777: M. Drees, hep-ph/9611409; M. Peskin, hep-ph/9705479;
778: S. Martin, hep-ph/9709356; etc.
779: %\cite{Farrar:hn}
780: \bibitem{Farrar:hn}
781: G.~R.~Farrar and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
782: %``Baryon Asymmetry Of The Universe In The Standard Electroweak
783: %Theory,''
784: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 774 (1994)
785: [arXiv:hep-ph/9305275].
786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305275;%%
787:
788:
789: \bibitem{bau}
790: %%
791: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~Wagner,
792: %``Opening the Window for Electroweak Baryogenesis,''
793: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 380}, 81 (1996)
794: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603420];
795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603420;%%
796: M.~Carena, J.~M.~Moreno, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~Wagner,
797: %``Supersymmetric CP-violatng currents and electroweak baryogenesis,''
798: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 599}, 158 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0011055];
799: %%
800: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, A.~Riotto, I.~Vilja and C.~E.~Wagner,
801: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and low energy supersymmetry,''
802: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503}, 387 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9702409];
803: %%
804: J.~M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen,
805: %``Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis in the WKB approximation,''
806: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417}, 79 (1998)
807: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 448}, 321 (1998)]
808: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708393];
809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708393;%%
810: J.~M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen,
811: %``Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
812: JHEP {\bf 0007}, 018 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006119]. Erratum:
813: %``Erratum for 'Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis',''
814: arXiv:hep-ph/0110031;
815: %%
816: S.~J.~Huber, P.~John and M.~G.~Schmidt,
817: %``Bubble walls, CP violation and electroweak baryogenesis in the
818: %MSSM,''
819: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 695 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101249];
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101249;
821: P.~Huet and A.~E.~Nelson,
822: %``Electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetric models,''
823: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4578 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9506477];
824: %%
825: M.~Quiros,
826: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and the Higgs and stop masses,''
827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 101}, 401 (2001)
828: [arXiv:hep-ph/0101230];
829: %%
830: M. Aoki, N. Oshimo and A. Sugamoto,
831: %ELECTROWEAK BARYOGENESIS FROM CHARGINO TRANSPORT IN THE SUPERSYMMETRIC
832: %MODEL.
833: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 98} 1179 (1997),
834: [Archive:hep-ph/9612225];
835: %%
836: %M. Aoki, A. Sugamoto and N. Oshimo,
837: %IMPLICATIONS OF BARYON ASYMMETRY FOR THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT OF THE
838: %NEUTRON.
839: Prog.Theor.Phys.98:1325-1332,1997
840: [Archive: hep-ph/9706287].
841: %
842:
843: \bibitem{KO} Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo,
844: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D46}, 3025 (1992);
845: J. Ellis, S. Ferrara and D.V. Nanopoulos,
846: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B114}, 231 (1982);
847: W. Buchm\"uller and D. Wyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B121}, 321 (1983);
848: J. Polchinski and M. Wise, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B125}, 393 (1983);
849: F. del Aguila, M. Gavela, J. Grifols and A. Mendez,
850: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B126}, 71 (1983);
851: D.V. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B128}, 61 (1983);
852: M. Dugan, B. Grinstein and L. Hall, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B255}, 413 (1985).
853: %
854:
855: \bibitem{oneloop}
856: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
857: %``The neutron and the electron electric dipole moment in N = 1
858: %supergravity unification,''
859: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 478 (1998)
860: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58}, 019901 (1998)]
861: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708456];
862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708456;%
863: %
864:
865: \bibitem{ref:Abel}
866: S. Abel, S. Khalil, and O. Lebedev,
867: Nucl.Phys.B606:151-182,2001
868: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103320 ].
869: %
870:
871: \bibitem{more}
872: A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan, and A.E. Nelson, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf
873: B388}, 588 (1996).
874: %; L. J. Hall and L. Randall, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 2939 (1990).
875: %%%
876:
877: \bibitem{ckp}
878: D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung and A Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
879: {\bf 82}, 900 (1999); ibid. {\bf 83}, 3972 (1999).
880: The contribution of the chargino loop has been pointed out in this
881: paper, but detailed analysis was only given to the stop-loop contribution.
882: See also
883: D. Chang, W.-F. Chang and W.-Y. Keung, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B478}, 239 (2000);
884: A.~Pilaftsis,
885: %``Higgs-boson two-loop contributions to electric dipole moments in
886: %the MSSM,''
887: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 471}, 174 (1999).
888: %%
889:
890: \bibitem{BZ}
891: S.M. Barr and A. Zee, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 21 (1990).
892: %%
893:
894: \bibitem{cky-eEDM}
895: D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and T.~C.~Yuan,
896: %``Two Loop Bosonic Contribution To The Electron Electric Dipole Moment,''
897: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 14 (1991).
898: %%
899: R.~G.~Leigh, S.~Paban and R.~M.~Xu,
900: %``Electric Dipole Moment Of Electron,''
901: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 352}, 45 (1991).
902: %
903: C. Kao and R.-M. Xu, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B296}, 435 (1992).
904: %
905: D. Chang, W.-S Hou, W.-Y. Keung,
906: %Two--loop Contributions of Flavor Changing Neutral Higgs Boson to $\mu \to
907: %e\gamma$
908: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D48} 217 (1993);
909: %
910: D. Chang, W.-F. Chang, C.-H. Chou and W.-Y. Keung,
911: %Large Two-Loop Contributions to g-2 from a Generic Pseudoscalar Boson
912: %hep-ph/0009292
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} 091301 (2001).
914: %
915:
916: \bibitem{cky-cEDM}
917: D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung and T.C. Yuan, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B251}, 608 (1990);
918: J.F. Gunion and D. Wyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B248}, 170 (1990);
919: D. Chang, W.-F. Chang, M. Frank and W.-Y. Keung, Phys.\ Rev.\
920: {\bf D62}, 095002 (2000).
921: %%
922:
923: \bibitem{oshimo}
924: T. Kadoyoshi, N. Oshimo
925: %NEUTRON ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT FROM SUPERSYMMETRIC ANOMALOUS W BOSON
926: %COUPLING.
927: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55}, 1481 (1997), [Archive: hep-ph/9607301].
928: This paper also used the same CP violating source from the chargino
929: mixing, however, their two-loop amplitudes are not
930: the dominant ones.
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
932: %\bibitem{Weinberg:me}
933: %S.~Weinberg,
934: %``Unitarity Constraints On CP Nonconservation In Higgs Exchange,''
935: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42}, 860 (1990).
936: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,860;%%
937:
938: \bibitem{eEDM2002}
939: B.C.~Regan et al, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{\bf 88},071805(2002).
940:
941: %\cite{Haber:1996fp}
942: \bibitem{Haber:1996fp}
943: H.~E.~Haber, R.~Hempfling and A.~H.~Hoang,
944: %``Approximating the radiatively corrected Higgs mass in the minimal
945: %supersymmetric model,''
946: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 75}, 539 (1997)
947: [arXiv:hep-ph/9609331].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609331;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{nEDMn}
951: P.G.~ Harris et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.{\bf 82}, 904 (1999).
952:
953: \bibitem{nEDMo}
954: K.F.~ Smith et al., Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 234}, 191 (1990).
955:
956: \bibitem{nEDMi}
957: S. K.~ Lamoreaux and R.~ Golub, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 61}, 051301(R)
958: (2000).
959:
960: \bibitem{cline}
961: For a review see, J.~M.~Cline,
962: %``Status of electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis,''
963: Pramana {\bf 54}, 1 (2000) [Pramana {\bf 55}, 33 (2000)]
964: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003029] and Ref.\cite{murayama}.
965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003029;%%
966:
967: \bibitem{murayama}
968: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,
969: %``Signatures of baryogenesis in the MSSM,''
970: arXiv:hep-ph/0201261.
971: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201261;
972:
973: \bibitem{cline2}
974: J.~ M.~Cline, arXiv:hep-ph/0201286.
975:
976: \bibitem{wagner}
977: %%Improved Results in Supersymmetric Electroweak Baryogenesis
978: M. Carena, M. Quiros, M. Seco, C.E.M. Wagner arXiv: hep-ph/0208043
979: hep-ph/0201286.
980:
981: \end{thebibliography}
982: %\end{document}
983:
984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
985: %\end{document} %
986: % Remaining part is graphics. If you just want %
987: % the main body in text, remove the rest from here.%
988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
989: %\section*{Figure Captions}
990: %\begin{itemize}
991: %\item[Fig.~1]
992: %A two-loop diagram of the EDM of the electron, or q$
993: %The chargino runs in the inner loop.
994: %
995: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
996: %% beginning of Fig 2. %
997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
998: \newpage
999: \begin{center}
1000: \begin{picture}(400,500)(20,0)
1001: \epsffile{hm.ps}
1002: \end{picture}
1003: \end{center}
1004: \begin{itemize}
1005: \item[Fig.~2]
1006: The mass of the light Higgs boson $h^0$ versus $\tan\beta$.
1007: The lower set of curves corresponds to the tree-level result.
1008: The upper set of curves includes the leading one-loop $(t,\tilde t)$
1009: effect, for $m_{\tilde t_L}=1 $ TeV and $m_{\tilde t_R}=150 GeV $.
1010: %%
1011: Curves within each set are in the order of cases
1012: $m_A=150,200,250,300$ GeV, from bottom to top.
1013: \end{itemize}
1014: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1015: %% End of Fig 2. %
1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1018: %% beginning of Fig 3. %
1019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1020: \newpage
1021: \begin{center}
1022: \begin{picture}(400,500)(20,0)
1023: \epsffile{edm1.ps}
1024: \end{picture}
1025: \end{center}
1026: \begin{itemize}
1027: \item[Fig.~3]
1028: The predicted value of the
1029: electron EDM versus $\tan\beta$ from different contribtuions due to
1030: the Higgs bosons $h^0, A^0$ and $H^0$,
1031: at the maximal CP violation when $\phi=\pi/2$.
1032: Masses are set at the electroweak scale,
1033: $M_A=150$ GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.
1034: \end{itemize}
1035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1036: %% End of Fig 3. %
1037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1038: %%%
1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1040: %% beginning of Fig. 4 %
1041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1042: \newpage
1043: \begin{center}\begin{picture}(400,600)(80,300)
1044: \epsffile{Econtour.ps}
1045: \end{picture}\end{center}
1046: \begin{itemize}
1047: \item[Fig.~4]
1048: The electron EDM contour plot versus
1049: $M_2$ and $\mu$ for the case $\tan\beta=3$, $M_A=100$ GeV, and
1050: $\phi=\pi/2$.
1051: \end{itemize}
1052: %
1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1054: %% End of Fig. 4 %
1055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1056: %%
1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1058: %% beginning of Fig. 5 %
1059: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1060: \newpage
1061: \begin{center}\begin{picture}(400,600)(80,300)
1062: \epsffile{Ncontour.ps}
1063: \end{picture}\end{center}
1064: \begin{itemize}
1065: \item[Fig.~5]
1066: The neutron EDM contour plot versus
1067: $M_2$ and $\mu$ for the case $\tan\beta=3$, $M_A=100$ GeV, and
1068: $\phi=\pi/2$.
1069: %%
1070: \end{itemize}
1071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1072: %% End of Fig. 5 %
1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1074: %%
1075: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1076: %% beginning of Fig. 6 %
1077: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1078: \newpage
1079: \begin{center}\begin{picture}(400,500)(20,0)
1080: \epsffile{edmltn.ps}
1081: \end{picture}\end{center}
1082: \begin{itemize}
1083: \item[Fig.~6]
1084: The predicted value of the
1085: electron EDM versus large $\tan\beta$,
1086: at the maximal CP violation when $\phi=\pi/2$.
1087: Masses are set at the electroweak scale,
1088: $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.
1089: Curves from top to bottom are in the order of cases
1090: $m_A=150,300,450,600$ GeV.
1091: %%
1092: \end{itemize}
1093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1094: %% End of Fig. 6 %
1095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1096:
1097: \end{document}
1098: