1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}
2: \textwidth=17cm
3: \textheight=22.5cm
4:
5: \topmargin -1.5cm
6: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
7: %\evensidemargin -0.8cm
8:
9:
10: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
11: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
12: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
14: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
15: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
16: \def\ie{{\em i.e.}}
17: \def\eg{{\em e.g.}}
18: \def\vev#1{\langle #1\rangle}
19: \def\r#1{$\bf#1$}
20: \def\rb#1{$\bf\overline{#1}$}
21: \def\AJ{{\it Astrophys.J.} }
22: \def\AJL{{\it Ap.J.Lett.} }
23: \def\AJS{{\it Ap.J.Supp.} }
24: \def\AM{{\it Ann.Math.} }
25: \def\AP{{\it Ann.Phys.} }
26: \def\APJ{{\it Ap.J.} }
27: \def\APP{{\it Acta Phys.Pol.} }
28: \def\ASAS{{\it Astron. and Astrophys.} }
29: \def\BAMS{{\it Bull.Am.Math.Soc.} }
30: \def\CMJ{{\it Czech.Math.J.} }
31: \def\CMP{{\it Commun.Math.Phys.} }
32: \def\FP{{\it Fortschr.Physik} }
33: \def\HPA{{\it Helv.Phys.Acta} }
34: \def\IJMP{{\it Int.J.Mod.Phys.} }
35: \def\JMM{{\it J.Math.Mech.} }
36: \def\JP{{\it J.Phys.} }
37: \def\JCP{{\it J.Chem.Phys.} }
38: \def\LNC{{\it Lett. Nuovo Cimento} }
39: \def\SNC{{\it Suppl. Nuovo Cimento} }
40: \def\MPL{{\it Mod.Phys.Lett.} }
41: \def\NAT{{\it Nature} }
42: \def\NC{{\it Nuovo Cimento} }
43: \def\NP{{\it Nucl.Phys.} }
44: \def\PL{{\it Phys.Lett.} }
45: \def\PR{{\it Phys.Rev.} }
46: \def\PRL{{\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} }
47: \def\PRTS{{\it Physics Reports} }
48: \def\PS{{\it Physica Scripta} }
49: \def\PTP{{\it Progr.Theor.Phys.} }
50: \def\RMPA{{\it Rev.Math.Pure Appl.} }
51: \def\RNC{{\it Rivista del Nuovo Cimento} }
52: \def\SJPN{{\it Soviet J.Part.Nucl.} }
53: \def\SP{{\it Soviet.Phys.} }
54: \def\TMF{{\it Teor.Mat.Fiz.} }
55: \def\TMP{{\it Theor.Math.Phys.} }
56: \def\YF{{\it Yadernaya Fizika} }
57: \def\ZETF{{\it Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.} }
58: \def\ZP{{\it Z.Phys.} }
59: \def\ZMP{{\it Z.Math.Phys.} }
60:
61:
62: \parskip 0.3cm
63:
64: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}
65: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
66:
67: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}
68: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
69:
70: \def\Toprel#1\over#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}}}
71: \def\FF{\Toprel{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle(-)$}}\over{$\nu$}}
72:
73:
74:
75: \begin{document}
76: \pagestyle{empty}
77: \begin{flushright}
78: {ACT-04/02} \\
79: {CERN-TH/2002-117} \\
80: {CTP-11/02} \\
81: hep-ph/0205336 \\
82: \end{flushright}
83: \vspace*{5mm}
84: \begin{center}
85: {\large {\bf FLIPPING $SU(5)$ OUT OF TROUBLE}}
86: \\
87: \vspace*{5mm}
88: {\bf John Ellis}$^1$,
89: {\bf D.V. Nanopoulos}$^{2,3,4}$ and
90: {\bf J. Walker}$^2$\\ \vspace{0.5cm}
91: $^1$ Theoretical Physics Division, CERN,\\
92: CH 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\ \vspace{0.5cm}
93: $^2$ Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics,
94: Texas A\&M
95: University,\\ College Station, TX 77843--4242, USA\\ \vspace{0.5cm}
96: $^3$ Astroparticle Physics Group, Houston Advanced Research
97: Center (HARC),\\
98: The Mitchell Campus, The Woodlands, TX 77381, USA\\ \vspace{0.5cm}
99: $^4$ Chair of Theoretical Physics,
100: Academy of Athens,
101: Division of Natural Sciences,\\
102: 28~Panepistimiou Avenue,
103: Athens 10679, Greece\\
104:
105:
106: \vspace*{5mm}
107:
108: {\bf ABSTRACT} \\ \end{center}
109:
110: \vspace*{5mm}
111:
112: \noindent
113: Minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ GUTs are being squeezed by the recent
114: values of $\alpha_s$, $\sin^2 \theta_W$, the lower limit on the lifetime
115: for $p \to {\bar \nu} K$ decay, and other experimental data. We show how
116: the minimal flipped $SU(5)$ GUT survives these perils, accommodating the
117: experimental values of $\alpha_s$ and $\sin^2 \theta_W$ and other
118: constraints, while yielding a $p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0$ lifetime beyond the
119: present experimental limit but potentially accessible to a further round
120: of experiments. We exemplify our analysis using a set of benchmark
121: supersymmetric scenarios proposed recently in a constrained MSSM
122: framework.
123:
124: \vspace*{1cm}
125:
126: \begin{flushleft}
127: CERN-TH/2002-117 \\
128: May 2002
129: \end{flushleft}
130:
131: \newpage
132:
133: %\pagestyle{empty}
134: %\clearpage\mbox{}\clearpage
135:
136:
137: \setcounter{page}{1}
138: \pagestyle{plain}
139:
140: One of the key pieces of circumstantial evidence in favour of grand
141: unification has long been the consistency of the gauge couplings measured
142: at low energies with a common value at some very high energy scale, once
143: renormalization effects are taken into account. This consistency is
144: significantly improved when light supersymmetric particles are included in
145: the renormalization-group running, in which case the agreement improves
146: to the per-mille level~\cite{EKN}.
147:
148: However, this circumstantial evidence is not universally accepted as
149: convincing. For example, it has recently been suggested that the
150: logarithmic unification of the gauge couplings is as fortuitous as the
151: apparent similarity in the sizes of the sun and moon~\cite{Ibanez}.
152: Alternatively, it has been argued that the unification scale could be as
153: low as 1 TeV, either as a result of power-law running of the effective
154: gauge couplings in theories with more than four dimensions~\cite{power},
155: or in theories with many copies of the $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$
156: gauge group in four dimensions~\cite{Georgi}.
157:
158: For some time now, detailed calculations have served to
159: emphasize~\cite{Ross} how much fine tuning is needed in models with
160: power-law running to reproduce the effortless success of supersymmetric
161: grand unification with logarithmic running of the gauge couplings.
162: Moreover, data from particle physics and cosmology provide independent
163: hints for low-energy supersymmetry. Precision electroweak data favour
164: quite strongly a low-mass Higgs boson~\cite{LEPEWWG}, as required in the
165: minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model
166: (MSSM)~\cite{SusyHiggs}, and the lightest supersymmetric particle is a
167: perfect candidate~\cite{EHNOS} for the cold dark matter thought by
168: astrophysicists to infest the Universe. Many studies have shown
169: that these and other low-energy data - such those on $b \rightarrow s
170: \gamma$ decay~\cite{bsg} and $g_\mu - 2$~\cite{g-2} - are completely
171: consistent with low-energy supersymmetry, and a number of benchmark
172: supersymmetric scenarios have been proposed~\cite{Bench}.
173:
174: Issues arise, however, when one considers specific supersymmetric grand
175: unified theories. One is the exact value of $\sin^2 \theta_W$, which
176: acquires important corrections from threshold effects at the electroweak
177: scale, associated with the spectrum of MSSM particles~\cite{EKNII,ELN},
178: and at the grand unification scale, associated with the spectrum of GUT
179: supermultiplets~\cite{EKNII,Heavy}. Precision measurements indicate a
180: small deviation of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ even from the value
181: predicted in a minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ GUT, assuming the range of
182: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ now indicated by experiment~\cite{baggeretal}.
183:
184: The second issue is the lifetime of the proton. Minimal supersymmetric
185: $SU(5)$ avoids the catastrophically rapid $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ decay that
186: scuppered non-supersymmetric $SU(5)$. However, supersymmetric $SU(5)$
187: predicts $p \to {\bar \nu} K^+$ decay through $d = 5$ operators at a rate
188: that may be too fast~\cite{PDK} to satisfy the presently available lower
189: limit on the lifetime for this decay~\cite{SK,PDG}. The latter requires
190: the $SU(5)$ colour-triplet Higgs particles to weigh $> 7.6 \times
191: 10^{16}$GeV, whereas conventional $SU(5)$ unification for $\alpha_s(M_Z) =
192: 0.1185 \pm 0.002$, $sin^2 \theta_W = 0.23117 \pm 0.00016$ and
193: $\alpha_{em}(M_Z) = 1/(127.943 \pm 0.027)$~\cite{PDG} would impose the
194: upper limit of $3.6 \times 10^{15}$~GeV at the 90\% confidence
195: level~\cite{PDK}. This problem becomes particularly acute if the sparticle
196: spectrum is relatively light, as would be indicated if the present
197: experimental and theoretical central values of $g_\mu - 2$~\cite{g-2}
198: remain unchanged as the errors are reduced.
199:
200: The simplest way to avoid these potential pitfalls is to flip
201: $SU(5)$~\cite{f5,AEHN}. As is well known, flipped $SU(5)$ offers the
202: possibility of decoupling somewhat the scales at which the Standard Model
203: $SU(3), SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ factors are unified. This would allow the
204: strength of the $U(1)$ gauge to become smaller than in minimal
205: supersymmetric $SU(5)$, for the same value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$~\cite{ELN}.
206: Moreover, in addition to having a longer $p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0$ lifetime
207: than
208: non-supersymmetric $SU(5)$, flipped $SU(5)$ also suppresses the $d = 5$
209: operators that are dangerous in minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$, by virtue
210: of its economical missing-partner mechanism~\cite{f5}.
211:
212: In this paper, we re-analyze the issues of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ and proton
213: decay in flipped $SU(5)$~\cite{ELN}, in view of the most recent precise
214: measurements of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and $\sin^2\theta_W$, and the latest
215: limits on supersymmetric particles. We study these issues in the MSSM,
216: constraining the soft supersymmetry-breaking gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and
217: scalar masses $m_0$ to be universal at the GUT scale (CMSSM), making both
218: a general analysis in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane and also more detailed
219: specific analyses of benchmark CMSSM parameter choices that respect all
220: the available experimental constraints~\cite{Bench}. We find that the $p
221: \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0$ decay lifetime exceeds the present experimental lower
222: limit~\cite{SK}, with a significant likelihood that it may be accessible
223: to the next round of experiments~\cite{UNO}. We recall the ambiguities and
224: characteristic ratios of proton decay modes in flipped $SU(5)$.
225:
226: We first recall the lowest-order expression for $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ in
227: conventional $SU(5)$ GUTs, namely
228: \begin{equation}
229: \alpha_s(M_Z)={{7 \over 3}\,\alpha\over 5\sin^2\theta_W-1}\ .
230: \label{eq:LO}
231: \end{equation}
232: The present central experimental value of
233: $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.118$ is obtained if one takes $\sin^2\theta_W=0.231$
234: and $\alpha^{-1}=128$, indicating the supersymmetric grand unification is
235: in the right ball-park. However, at the next order, one should include
236: two-loop corrections $\delta_{\rm 2loop}$ as well as electroweak and GUT
237: threshold
238: corrections, that we denote by $\delta_{\rm light}$ and $\delta_{\rm
239: heavy}$. Their effects can be included
240: by making the following substitution in (\ref{eq:LO})~\cite{EKNII}:
241: \begin{equation}
242: \sin^2\theta_W\to \sin^2\theta_W-\delta_{\rm 2loop}
243: -\delta_{\rm light}-\delta_{\rm heavy}\ ,
244: \label{eq:NLO}
245: \end{equation}
246: where $\delta_{\rm 2loop}\approx0.0030$,
247: whereas $\delta_{\rm light}$ and
248: $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ can have either sign. If one neglects $\delta_{\rm
249: light}$ and $\delta_{\rm heavy}$, the conventional $SU(5)$ prediction
250: increases to $\alpha_s(M_Z)\approx0.130$~\cite{baggeretal}.
251: A value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ within one standard deviation
252: of the present central experimental value requires
253: $\delta_{\rm light}$ and/or $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ to be non-negligible,
254: so that the combination ($\delta_{\rm 2loop}
255: +\delta_{\rm light}+\delta_{\rm heavy}$) is suppressed. However, in large
256: regions of parameter space $\delta_{\rm light}>0$, which does not help.
257: Moreover, in conventional $SU(5)$, as was pointed out
258: in~\cite{EKNII,baggeretal},
259: a compensatory value of $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ is difficult
260: to reconcile with proton decay constraints. This problem is exacerbated by
261: the most recent lower limit on $\tau(p \to {\bar \nu}
262: K^+)$~\cite{SK}~\footnote{It
263: is true, as pointed out recently~\cite{GS}, that this is not a problem if
264: one allows
265: arbitrary squark mixing patterns. However, such options must respect
266: low-energy flavour-changing neutral-interaction limits~\cite{EN}, and are
267: not possible in the CMSSM.}.
268:
269: As has been advertized previously~\cite{ELN}, an alternative way to lower
270: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ is to flip $SU(5)$.
271: In a flipped $SU(5)$ model, there is a first unification scale $M_{32}$ at
272: which the $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$ gauge couplings become equal,
273: which is given to lowest order by~\cite{faspects}
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: {1\over\alpha_2}-{1\over\alpha_5}&=&{b_2\over2\pi}\,
276: \ln{M_{32}\over M_Z}\ ,
277: \label{eq:RGE2}\\
278: {1\over\alpha_3}-{1\over\alpha_5}&=&{b_3\over2\pi}\,
279: \ln{M_{32}\over M_Z}\ ,
280: \label{eq:RGE3}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: where $\alpha_2=\alpha/\sin^2\theta_W$, $\alpha_3=\alpha_s(M_Z)$, and the
283: one-loop beta function coefficients are $b_2=+1$, $b_3=-3$. The
284: hypercharge gauge coupling $\alpha_Y={5\over3}
285: (\alpha/\cos^2\theta_W)$ has, in general, a lower
286: value $\alpha_1'$ at the scale $M_{32}$:
287: \begin{equation}
288: {1\over\alpha_Y}-{1\over\alpha_1'}={b_Y\over2\pi}\,
289: \ln{M_{32}\over M_Z}\ ,
290: \label{eq:RGEY}
291: \end{equation}
292: where $b_Y= 33 / 5$. Above the scale $M_{32}$, the gauge group is the
293: full $SU(5) \times U(1)$, with the $U(1)$ gauge coupling $\alpha_1$
294: related to $\alpha_1'$ and the $SU(5)$ gauge coupling $\alpha_5$ as
295: follows:
296: \begin{equation}
297: {25\over\alpha_1'}={1\over\alpha_5}+{24\over\alpha_1}\ .
298: \label{eq:U(1)}
299: \end{equation}
300: The $SU(5)$ and $U(1)$ gauge couplings then become
301: equal at some higher scale $M_{51}$. The maximum
302: possible value of $M_{32}$, namely $M^{\rm max}_{32}$, is obtained
303: by substituting $\alpha_1'=\alpha_5(M_{32})$ into (\ref{eq:RGEY}),
304: and coincides with the unification scale in conventional $SU(5)$:
305: $M^{\rm max}_{32} = M_Z \times exp((3 - 8\sin^2 \theta_W)\pi
306: /14\alpha_{em}(M_Z))$, where $M_Z = 91.1882 \pm 0.0022$~GeV~\cite{PDG}.
307: In general, one has
308: \begin{equation}
309: \alpha_s(M_Z)={{7 \over 3}\,\alpha\over 5\sin^2\theta_W-1
310: +{11\over2\pi}\,\alpha\ln(M^{\rm max}_{32}/M_{32})},
311: \label{eq:fLO}
312: \end{equation}
313: and the flipped $SU(5)$ prediction for $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ is in general
314: smaller than in minimal SU(5), for the same value of $\sin^2 \theta_W$.
315: The next-to-leading order corrections to (\ref{eq:fLO}) are also obtained
316: by the substitution in (\ref{eq:NLO}). Numerically, an increase
317: of $\sim10\%$ in the denominator in (\ref{eq:LO}),
318: which would compensate for
319: the decrease due to $\delta_{\rm 2loop}$, could be achieved simply by
320: setting $M_{32}\approx{1\over3}M^{\rm max}_{32}$ in (\ref{eq:fLO}).
321:
322: In order to understand the implications for $\tau(p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$
323: decay, we first calculate $M_{32}$, using (\ref{eq:fLO}) with
324: $\sin^2\theta_W$ replaced by $\sin^2\theta_W - \delta_{\rm 2loop}$,
325: leaving for later discussions of the possible effects of $\delta_{\rm
326: light, heavy}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:m32alphas} exhibits the correlation between
327: $M_{32}$ and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ in flipped $SU(5)$. The solid lines indicate
328: the range of values of $M_{32}$ allowed for a given value of
329: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ (as given in the ${\overline {MS}}$ prescription),
330: assuming the experimentally-allowed range $\sin^2 \theta_W^{\overline
331: {MS}} = 0.23117 \pm 0.00016$~\cite{PDG}, and making no allowance for
332: either light or heavy thresholds. For the central experimental value
333: $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1185$, we see immediately that $M_{32}$ is
334: significantly lower than its maximum value, which is $M^{\rm max}_{32} =
335: 20.3 \times 10^{15}$~GeV for our central values of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and
336: $\sin^2\theta_W$.
337:
338: \begin{figure}[h]
339: \begin{center}
340: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth,angle=0]{m32alphas.eps}
341: \end{center}
342: \caption[]{\it
343: The solid lines show the correlation between $M_{32}$ in
344: flipped $SU(5)$ and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ in the ${\overline {MS}}$
345: prescription, assuming $\sin^2 \theta_W^{\overline {MS}} = 0.23117 \pm
346: 0.00016$, including $\delta_{\rm 2loop}$ but neglecting $\delta_{\rm
347: light}$ and $\delta_{\rm heavy}$. The points indicate the changes in $\tau
348: (p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$ found for $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1185$ and the central
349: value of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ when including also the values of
350: $\delta_{\rm light}$ calculated for the CMSSM benchmark points.
351: }
352: \label{fig:m32alphas}
353: \end{figure}
354:
355: We now explore the possible consequences of $\delta_{\rm light}$
356: for $M_{32}$, following~\cite{EKNII,ELN}. We approximate
357: the $\delta_{\rm light}$ correction by
358: \begin{eqnarray}
359: \delta_{\rm light}&=&{\alpha\over20\pi}\Bigl[
360: -3L(m_t)+{28 \over 3}L(m_{\tilde g})-{32 \over 3}L(m_{\tilde w})
361: -L(m_h)-4L(m_H)\nonumber\\
362: &&+{5 \over 2}L(m_{\tilde q})-3L(m_{\tilde \ell_L})
363: +2L(m_{\tilde \ell_R})-{35 \over 36}L(m_{\tilde t_2})
364: -{19 \over 36}L(m_{\tilde t_1})\Bigr]\ ,
365: \label{eq:delta_l}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where $L(x)=\ln(x/M_Z)$. As already mentioned, we assume that the soft
368: supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses $m_0$, gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and
369: trilinear coefficients $A_0$ are universal at the GUT scale (CMSSM). We
370: used {\tt ISASUGRA}~\cite{ISASUGRA} to calculate the sparticle spectra in
371: terms of these quantities, $\tan \beta$ and the sign of $\mu$, assuming
372: $m_t = 175$~GeV~\footnote{Heavy singlet neutrinos were not used in the
373: renormalization-group equations.}. In evaluating (\ref{eq:delta_l}),
374: $m_{\tilde w}$ ($m_H$)
375: ($m_{\tilde q}$) ($m_{\tilde \ell}$) were interpreted as the geometric
376: means
377: of the chargino and neutralino ($H, A, H^\pm$) (${\tilde u}, {\tilde d},
378: {\tilde s}, {\tilde c}$) (${\tilde e}, {\tilde \mu}$) masses,
379: respectively, and the mixings of ${\tilde \tau}, {\tilde b}$ and ${\tilde
380: t}$ were all taken separately into account.
381:
382: The unknown parameters in (\ref{eq:delta_l}) were constrained by requiring
383: that electroweak symmetry breaking be triggered by radiative corrections,
384: so that the correct overall electroweak scale and the ratio $\tan \beta$
385: of Higgs v.e.v.'s fix $|\mu|$ and $m_A$ in terms of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$.
386: Before making a more general survey, we recall that a number of benchmark
387: CMSSM scenarios have been proposed~\cite{Bench}, which include these
388: constraints and are consistent with all the experimental limits on
389: sparticle masses, the LEP lower limit on $m_h$, the world-average value of
390: $b \to s \gamma$ decay, the preferred range $0.1 < \Omega_\chi h^2 < 0.3$
391: of the supersymmetric relic density, and $g_\mu - 2$ within 2~$\sigma$ of
392: the present experimental value. These points all have $A_0 = 0$, but
393: otherwise span the possible ranges of $m_{1/2}, m_0, \tan \beta$ and
394: feature both signs for $\mu$. Fig.~\ref{fig:m32alphas} also shows the
395: change in $M_{32}$ induced by the values of $\delta_{\rm light}$ in these
396: benchmark models, assuming a fixed value $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1185$. In
397: general, these benchmark models {\it increase} $M_{32}$ for any fixed
398: value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and $\sin^2 \theta_W$. As $\alpha_s(M_Z)$
399: varies, the predicted value of $M_{32}$ in each model varies in the same
400: way as indicated by the sloping lines. We recall that the estimated error
401: in $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ is about 0.002, corresponding to an uncertainty in
402: $M_{32}$ of the order of 20\%, and hence a corresponding uncertainty in
403: the proton lifetime of a factor of about two. The error associated with
404: the uncertainty in $\sin^2 \theta_W$ is somewhat smaller~\footnote{We note
405: from Fig.~\ref{fig:m32alphas} that {\it there is no benchmark model} for
406: which conventional $SU(5)$ grand unification is possible, with the
407: measured values of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and $\sin^2 \theta_W$, {\it unless} one
408: invokes GUT threshold effects.}.
409:
410: We now turn to the calculation of $\tau(p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$. We recall
411: first
412: that the form of the effective dimension-6 operator in flipped $SU(5)$ is
413: different~\cite{faspects,ELNO} from that in conventional
414: $SU(5)$~\cite{BEGN,EGN}:
415: \begin{eqnarray}
416: {\bar {\cal L}}_{\Delta B \ne 0} & = & \frac{g_5^2}{2 M_{32}^2}
417: \left[ (\epsilon^{ijk}
418: {\bar d^c}_{k} e^{2 i \eta_{11}} \gamma^\mu P_L d_{j}) (u_{i}
419: \gamma_\mu P_L \nu_L) + h.c. \right. \nonumber \\
420: & + & \left. (\epsilon^{ijk}
421: ({\bar d^c}_{k} e^{2 i \eta_{11}} \cos \theta_c
422: + {\bar s^c}_{k} e^{2 i \eta_{21}} \sin \theta_c)
423: \gamma^\mu P_L u_{j}) (u_{i}
424: \gamma_\mu P_L \ell_L) + h.c. \right]
425: \label{32}
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: where $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo angle~\footnote{Note the
428: absence~\cite{faspects,ELNO} in the corresponding decay rate of the factor
429: $(1 + (1 + |V_{ud}|^2)^2)$ found~\cite{BEGN,EGN} in conventional $SU(5)$,
430: as recently re-emphasized in~\cite{PDK}. This {\it lengthens} $\tau_p$
431: by $\approx 5$ in flipped $SU(5)$, an effect that is typically
432: more than offset by the reduction in $M_{32}$.}. Also
433: appearing in (\ref{32}) are
434: two unknown but irrelevant CP-violating phases $\eta_{11,21}$ and lepton
435: flavour eigenstates $\nu_L$ and $\ell_L$ that are related to mass
436: eigenstates
437: by unknown but relevant mixing matrices:
438: \beq
439: \nu_L =\nu_F U_\nu ~~~~~ , ~~\ell_L =\ell_F U_\ell.
440: \label{33}
441: \eeq
442: Despite our ignorance of the mixing matrices (\ref{33}), some
443: characteristic flipped $SU(5)$ predictions can be made~\cite{faspects}:
444: \begin{eqnarray}
445: \Gamma(p \rightarrow e^+ \pi^o) = \frac{\cos ^2 \theta_c}{2}
446: |U_{\ell_{11}}|^2
447: \Gamma(p \rightarrow {\bar \nu} \pi^+) = \cos ^2 \theta_c
448: |U_{\ell_{11}}|^2
449: \Gamma(n \rightarrow {\bar \nu} \pi^o) \nonumber \\
450: \Gamma(n \rightarrow e^+ \pi^-) = 2
451: \Gamma(p \rightarrow e^+ \pi^o) ~~,~~
452: \Gamma(n \rightarrow \mu^+ \pi^-) = 2
453: \Gamma(p \rightarrow \mu^+ \pi^o) \nonumber \\
454: \Gamma(p \rightarrow \mu^+ \pi^o) = \frac{\cos ^2 \theta_c}{2}
455: |U_{\ell_{12}}|^2
456: \Gamma(p \rightarrow {\bar \nu} \pi^+) = \cos ^2 \theta_c
457: |U_{\ell_{12}}|^2
458: \Gamma(n \rightarrow {\bar \nu} \pi^o)
459: \label{gammas}
460: \end{eqnarray}
461: In the light of recent experimental evidence for near-maximal
462: neutrino mixing, it is reasonable to think that (at least some of) the
463: $e/\mu$ entries in $U_\ell$ are ${\cal O}(1)$.
464: In what follows, we assume that the lepton mixing factors
465: $|U_{\ell_{11,12}}|^2$ are indeed ${\cal O}(1)$, and do not lead to
466: large numerical suppressions of both the $p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0$ decay
467: rates.
468: Note that there is no corresponding suppression of the $p \to {\bar \nu}
469: \pi^+$ and $n \to {\bar \nu} \pi^0$ decay rates, since all the neutrino
470: flavours are summed over. However, without further information, we are
471: unable to predict the ratio of $p \to e^+ X$ and $p \to \mu^+ X$ decay
472: rates. Hereafter,
473: wherever we refer to $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ decay, this mixing-angle ambiguity
474: should be understood.
475:
476: The $p \to e^+ \pi^0$
477: decay amplitude is proportional to the overall normalization of the
478: proton wave function at the origin. The relevant matrix elements are
479: $\alpha, \beta$, defined by
480: \begin{eqnarray}
481: \vev{0 | \epsilon_{ijk} (u^i d^j)_R u^k_L | p ({\mathbf k})} & \equiv &
482: \alpha \, {\rm u}_L ({\mathbf k}), \\
483: \vev{0 | \epsilon_{ijk} (u^i d^j)_L u^k_L | p ({\mathbf k})} & \equiv &
484: \beta \, {\rm u}_L ({\mathbf k}).
485: \label{alphabeta}
486: \end{eqnarray}
487: The reduced matrix elements $\alpha, \beta$ have recently been
488: re-evaluated in a lattice approach~\cite{lattice},
489: yielding values that are very similar and
490: somewhat larger than had often been assumed previously, and therefore
491: exacerbating the proton-stability problem for conventional supersymmetric
492: $SU(5)$. Here, we use
493: here the new central value $\alpha = \beta = 0.015$~GeV$^3$ for reference. The
494: error quoted on this determination is below 10\%, corresponding to an
495: uncertainty of less than 20\% in $\tau(p \to e^+ \pi^0)$, which would be
496: negligible compared with other uncertainties in our calculation.
497: Thus, we have the following estimate, based on~\cite{ELNO,PDK} and
498: references therein:
499: \begin{equation}
500: \tau(p \to e^+ \pi^0) \, = \, 3.8 \times 10^{35} \left( {M_{32} \over
501: 10^{16}
502: {\rm GeV}} \right)^4
503: \left( {\alpha_5(M^{\rm max}_{32}) \over \alpha_5(M_{32})} \right)^2
504: \left( {0.015 {\rm
505: GeV}^3 \over
506: \alpha} \right)^2~{\rm y}
507: \label{eq:taup}
508: \end{equation}
509: for use in the subsequent analysis,
510: where we have absorbed reference values for $M_{32}$ and
511: $\alpha_5(M_{32})$ as well as $\alpha$ and $\beta$, and
512: $\alpha_5(M^{\rm max}_{32})/\alpha_5(M_{32}) =
513: 1 - (33/28) (\alpha_5(M^{\rm max}_{32})/2 \pi) {\rm
514: ln}(M_{32}/M^{\rm max}_{32})$.
515:
516: We present a general view of flipped $SU(5)$ proton decay in the CMSSM in
517: Fig.~\ref{fig:planes}. The thick solid (blue) lines are contours of
518: $\tau(p \to e^+ \pi^0)$ for the indicated choices of $\tan \beta$ and the
519: sign of $\mu$~\footnote{The horizontal spacing between points sampled was
520: comparable to the thickness of these lines.}, which span (most of) the
521: range of possibilities.
522: Where applicable, we have indicated by (blue) crosses and labels the CMSSM
523: benchmark points with the corresponding value of $\tan \beta$ and sign of
524: $\mu$~\cite{Bench}. Following~\cite{EOS3}, the dark (red) shaded regions
525: in the bottom right-hand parts of each panel are excluded because the LSP
526: is the lighter ${\tilde \tau}$: astrophysics excludes a charged LSP. The
527: light (turquoise) shaded regions have LSP relic densities in the preferred
528: range $0.1 < \Omega_\chi h^2 < 0.3$ for cold dark matter. The intermediate
529: (green) shaded regions at lower $m_{1/2}$ are excluded by $b \to s
530: \gamma$, which is a more important constraint for $\mu < 0$. The other
531: shaded (pink) regions at large $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ are consistent with $g_\mu
532: - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level. In panels (c) and (d), the hatched regions
533: at low $m_{1/2}$ and
534: large $m_0$ are those where electroweak symmetry
535: breaking is no longer possible, and the horizontally-striped regions at
536: low $m_0$ have tachyons. The dash-dotted (blue) line at small
537: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ in panel (a) corresponds to $m_{\tilde e} = 100$~GeV. The
538: near-vertical dashed (black) lines at small $m_{1/2}$ correspond to the
539: LEP lower limit $m_\chi^\pm = 103.5$~GeV, and the dot-dashed (red) lines
540: to LEP lower limit $m_h = 114$~GeV as calculated using the {\tt FeynHiggs}
541: code~\cite{FeynHiggs}. In each case, only larger values of $m_{1/2}$ are
542: allowed, although there is uncertainty in the location of the $m_h$
543: line~\footnote{For fuller discussions of the implementations of these
544: constraints with and without {\tt ISASUGRA}, see~\cite{Bench,EOS3}.}.
545:
546: \begin{figure}
547: \vskip 0.5in
548: \vspace*{-0.75in}
549: %\hspace*{-.70in}
550: \begin{minipage}{8in}
551: \epsfig{file=C10.eps,height=3.3in}
552: \hspace*{-0.17in}
553: \epsfig{file=CN10.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill
554: \end{minipage}
555: %\vspace*{-3in}
556: %\hspace*{-.70in}
557: \begin{minipage}{8in}
558: %\hskip -1.40in
559: %\vskip -.75in
560: \epsfig{file=CN39.eps,height=3.3in}
561: \hspace*{-0.2in}
562: \epsfig{file=C45.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill
563: \end{minipage}
564: %\vskip 2.5in
565: \caption{{\it
566: The solid (blue) lines are contours of $\tau(p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$ in the
567: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for the CMSSM with (a) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0$,
568: (b) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu < 0$, (c) $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0$ and (d)
569: $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0$. The (blue) crosses indicate the CMSSM
570: benchmark points with the corresponding value of $\tan \beta$ and sign of
571: $\mu$~\cite{Bench}. Following~\cite{EOS3}, the dark (red) shaded regions
572: are excluded because the
573: LSP is
574: charged, the light (turquoise) shaded regions have $0.1 < \Omega_\chi h^2
575: < 0.3$, intermediate (green) shaded regions at low $m_{1/2}$ are excluded
576: by $b \to s \gamma$, shaded (pink) regions at large $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$
577: are consistent with $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level, and
578: electroweak symmetry breaking is not possible in the hatched
579: regions. The near-vertical
580: dashed (black) lines correspond to the LEP lower limit $m_\chi^\pm =
581: 103.5$~GeV, the dot-dashed (red) lines to $m_h = 114$~GeV as calculated
582: using the {\tt FeynHiggs} code~\cite{FeynHiggs}, and the dotted (blue)
583: lines at small
584: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ to $m_{\tilde e} = 100$~GeV.
585: }}
586: \label{fig:planes}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: We see in Fig.~\ref{fig:planes} that the `bulk' regions of the parameter
590: space preferred by astrophysics and cosmology, which occur at relatively
591: small values of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$, generally correspond to $\tau (p \to e^+
592: \pi^0) \sim (1~-~2) \times 10^{35}$~y. However, these `bulk' regions
593: are generally disfavoured by the experimental lower limit on $m_h$
594: and/or by $b \to s \gamma$ decay. Larger values of $\tau (p
595: \to e^+ \pi^0)$ are found in the `tail' regions of the cosmological
596: parameter space, which occur at large $m_{1/2}$ where $\chi - {\tilde
597: \ell}$ coannihilation may be important, and at larger $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$
598: where resonant direct-channel annihilation via the heavier Higgs bosons
599: $A, H$ may be important.
600:
601: We turn finally to the possible implications of the GUT threshold effect
602: $\delta_{\rm heavy}$~\cite{EKNII,Heavy}. A general expression for this in
603: flipped $SU(5)$ is given in~\cite{EKNII}:
604: \begin{equation}
605: \delta_{\rm heavy}={\alpha\over20\pi}
606: \left[ -6\ln{M_{32}\over M_{H_3}}-6\ln{M_{32}\over M_{\bar H_3}}
607: +4\ln{M_{32}\over M_V}\right]={\alpha\over20\pi}
608: \left[ -6\ln{r^{4/3}g^{2/3}_5\over\lambda_4\lambda_5}\right]
609: \label{heavyfSU5}
610: \end{equation}
611: where $M_{H_3}=\lambda_4|V|$ and $M_{\bar H_3}=\lambda_5|V|$ are the
612: masses of
613: the heavy triplet Higgs supermultiplets, the $X,Y$ gauge bosons and
614: gauginos have common masses $M_V=g_5|V|$ where $V$ is the common v.e.v.
615: of the
616: ${\mathbf 10}$ and ${\mathbf {\overline {10}}}$ Higgs supermultiplets,
617: $\lambda_{4,5}$
618: are (largely
619: unconstrained) Yukawa couplings, $g_5$ is the $SU(5)$ gauge coupling, and
620: $r \equiv {\rm max}\{g_5,\lambda_4,\lambda_5\}$. Thanks to the economical
621: missing-partner mechanism of flipped $SU(5)$, the $H_3$ and $\bar H_3$ do
622: not mix, and hence do not contribute significantly to proton decay. Thus
623: there is no strong constraint on $M_{H_3,\bar H_3}$ from proton decay in
624: flipped $SU(5)$, and it is possible that $M_{H_3,\bar H_3}<M_V$ (\ie,
625: $r=g_5$). In this case, we can see from (\ref{heavyfSU5}) that
626: $\delta_{\rm heavy} < 0$ naturally. For instance, as pointed out
627: in~\cite{ELN}, if $\lambda_4,\lambda_5\sim{1\over8}g_5$, then $\delta_{\rm
628: heavy}\approx-0.0030$, which completely compensates the $\delta_{\rm
629: 2loop}$ contribution.
630:
631: We also recall that, in general,
632: including $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ leads to a re-scaling
633: of the $M_{32}/M^{\rm max}_{32}$:
634: \begin{equation}
635: {M_{32}\over M^{\rm max}_{32}}\to {M_{32}\over M^{\rm max}_{32}}
636: \ e^{-10\pi\,\delta_{\rm heavy}/11\alpha}\ .
637: \label{scaling}
638: \end{equation}
639: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:lines} the possible numerical effects of
640: $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ on $\tau (p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$ in the various
641: benchmark
642: scenarios, assuming the plausible ranges $-0.0016 < \delta_{\rm heavy} <
643: 0.0005$~\cite{ELN}. The boundary between the different shadings for each
644: strip
645: corresponds to the case where $\delta_{\rm heavy} = 0$. The left (red)
646: parts of the strips show how much $\tau (p \to e^+ \pi^0)$ could be
647: reduced by a judicious choice of $\delta_{\rm heavy}$, and the right
648: (blue) parts of the strips show how much $\tau (p \to e^+ \pi^0)$
649: could be
650: increased. The inner bars correspond to the uncertainty in $\sin^2
651: \theta_W$. On the optimistic side, we see that some models could yield
652: $\tau (p \to e^+ \pi^0) < 10^{35}$~y, and all models might have $\tau (p
653: \to e^+ \pi^0) < 5 \times 10^{35}$~y. However, on the pessimistic side, in
654: no model can we exclude the possibility that $\tau (p \to e^+ \pi^0) >
655: 10^{36}$~y.
656:
657: \begin{figure}[h]
658: \begin{center}
659: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth,angle=0]{lines.eps}
660: \end{center}
661: \caption[]{\it
662: For each of the CMSSM benchmark points, this plot shows,
663: by the lighter
664: outer bars, the range of $\tau (p \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$ attained by varying
665: $\delta_{\rm heavy}$ over the range -0.0016 to + 0.0005~\cite{ELN}. The
666: central boundary of
667: the narrow inner bars (red, blue) corresponds to the effect of
668: $\delta_{\rm light}$ alone, with $\delta_{\rm heavy} = 0$, while the
669: narrow bars themselves represent uncertainty in $\sin^2 \theta_W$.
670: We see that heavy threshold effects could make $\tau (p \to e/\mu^+
671: \pi^0)$
672: slightly shorter or considerably longer.
673: }
674: \label{fig:lines} \end{figure}
675:
676: We recall that a new generation of massive water-{\v C}erenkov detectors
677: weighing up to $10^6$~tonnes is being proposed~\cite{UNO}, that may be
678: sensitive to $\tau (p \to e^+ \pi^0) < 10^{35}$~y. According to our
679: calculations, such an experiment has a chance of detecting proton decay in
680: flipped $SU(5)$, though nothing can of course be guaranteed. We recall
681: that there is a mixing-angle ambiguity (\ref{gammas}) in the final-state
682: charged lepton, so any such next-generation detector should be equipped to
683: detect $e^+$ and/or $\mu^+$ equally well. We also
684: recall~\cite{faspects,ELNO} that flipped $SU(5)$ makes predictions
685: (\ref{gammas}) for ratios of decay rates involving strange particles,
686: neutrinos and charged leptons that differ characteristically from those of
687: conventional $SU(5)$. Comparing the rates for $e^+$, $\mu^+$ and neutrino
688: modes would give novel insights into GUTs as well as mixing patterns.
689:
690: We conclude that flipped $SU(5)$ evades two of the pitfalls of
691: conventional supersymmetric $SU(5)$. As we have shown in this paper, it
692: offers the possibility of lowering the prediction for $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ for
693: any given value of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ and choice of sparticle spectrum. As
694: for proton decay, we first recall that flipped $SU(5)$ suppresses $p \to
695: {\bar \nu} K^+$ decay naturally via its economical missing-partner
696: mechanism. As in conventional supersymmetric $SU(5)$, the lifetime for $p
697: \to e/\mu^+ \pi^0$ decay generally exceeds the present experimental lower
698: limit. However, as we have shown in this paper, the flipped $SU(5)$
699: mechanism for reducing $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ reduces the scale $M_{32}$ at which
700: colour $SU(3)$ and electroweak $SU(2)$ are unified, bringing $\tau(p \to
701: e/\mu^+ \pi^0)$ tantalizingly close to the prospective sensitivity of the
702: next round of experiments. Proton decay has historically been an
703: embarrassment for minimal $SU(5)$ GUTs, first in their non-supersymmetric
704: guise and more recently in their minimal supersymmetric version. The
705: answer may be to flip $SU(5)$ out of trouble.
706:
707: \section*{Acknowledgements}
708: The work of D.V.N. was partially supported by DOE grant
709: DE-F-G03-95-ER-40917.
710:
711: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
712:
713: \bibitem{EKN}
714: J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
715: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 249} (1990) 441;
716: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B249,441;%%
717: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 131;
718: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,131;%%
719: U.~Amaldi, W.~de Boer and H.~Furstenau,
720: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 447;
721: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,447;%%
722: C.~Giunti, C.~W.~Kim and U.~W.~Lee,
723: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6} (1991) 1745.
724: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A6,1745;%%
725:
726: \bibitem{Ibanez}
727: L.~E.~Ibanez,
728: arXiv:hep-ph/0109082.
729: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109082;%%
730:
731: \bibitem{power}
732: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,
733: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436} (1998) 55
734: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803466];
735: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803466;%%
736: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 537} (1999) 47
737: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806292].
738: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806292;%%
739:
740: \bibitem{Georgi}
741: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
742: arXiv:hep-th/0108089.
743: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108089;%%
744:
745: \bibitem{Ross}
746: D.~M.~Ghilencea and G.~G.~Ross,
747: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 101
748: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102306].
749: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102306;%%
750:
751: \bibitem{LEPEWWG}
752: LEP Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group and SLD Heavy-Flavour
753: Working Group, LEPEWWG/2002-01, available from \\
754: {\tt http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/stanmod/}.
755:
756: \bibitem{SusyHiggs}
757: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
758: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 85} (1991) 1;
759: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
760: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
761: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257} (1991) 83;
762: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
763: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,
764: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66} (1991) 1815.
765: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
766:
767: \bibitem{EHNOS}
768: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive
769: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 238} (1984) 453; see also
770: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.
771:
772: \bibitem{bsg}
773: M.S. Alam et al., [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}
774: (1995) 2885 as updated in
775: S.~Ahmed et al., {CLEO CONF 99-10};
776: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0003, contribution to the 30th
777: International conference on High-Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000.
778: See also
779: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, [Belle Collaboration],
780: [arXiv:hep-ex/0107065];
781: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107065;%%
782: L.~Lista [BaBar Collaboration],
783: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110010];
784: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110010;%%
785: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,
786: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];
787: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%
788: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,
789: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141
790: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003].
791: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%
792: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,
793: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007
794: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];
795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%
796: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,
797: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338
798: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104034].
799: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%
800:
801: \bibitem{g-2}
802: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.} [Muon g-2 Collaboration],
803: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 2227
804: [arXiv:hep-ex/0102017].
805: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{Bench}
808: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 535
809: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].
810: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%
811:
812: \bibitem{EKNII}
813: J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
814: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373} (1992) 55;
815: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,55;%%
816: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 287} (1992) 95
817: [arXiv:hep-ph/9206203].
818: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9206203;%%
819:
820: \bibitem{ELN}
821: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~L.~Lopez and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
822: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 371} (1996) 65
823: [arXiv:hep-ph/9510246].
824: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510246;%%
825:
826: \bibitem{Heavy}
827: R. Barbieri and L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} (1992) 752;
828: J. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev.
829: Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 1014;
830: K. Hagiwara and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70} (1993) 709;
831: F. Anselmo, L. Cifarelli, A. Peterman, and A. Zichichi,
832: Nuovo Cim. {\bf105A} (1992) 1025;
833: P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev.{\bf 47} (1993) 4028.
834:
835: \bibitem{baggeretal}
836: M. Bastero-Gil and J. Perez-Mercader, Phys. Lett. B
837: {\bf 322} (1994) 355;
838: A. Faraggi and B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 422} (1994) 3;
839: P. Chankowski, Z. Pluciennik and S. Pokorski, Nucl.
840: Phys. B {\bf 439} (1995) 23;
841: P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, arXiv:hep-ph/9503214;
842: L. Clavelli and P. Coulter, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51} (1995) 3913;
843: J. Bagger, K. Matchev, and D. Pierce, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 348} (1995) 443.
844:
845: \bibitem{PDK}
846: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,
847: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 055009
848: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108104].
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108104;%%
850:
851: \bibitem{SK}
852: M.~Shiozawa {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
853: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 3319
854: [arXiv:hep-ex/9806014];
855: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9806014;%%
856: Y.~Hayato {\it et al.} [SuperKamiokande Collaboration],
857: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 1529
858: [arXiv:hep-ex/9904020].
859: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9904020;%%
860:
861: \bibitem{PDG}
862: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
863: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15} (2000) 1.
864: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
865:
866: \bibitem{f5}
867: S.~M.~Barr,
868: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 112} (1982) 219;
869: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B112,219;%%
870: J.~P.~Derendinger, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
871: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 139} (1984) 170;
872: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B139,170;%%
873: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
874: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194} (1987) 231.
875: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B194,231;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{AEHN}
878: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
879: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 205} (1988) 459;
880: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B205,459;%%
881: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 208} (1988) 209
882: [Addendum-ibid.\ B {\bf 213} (1988) 562];
883: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B208,209;%%
884: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 231} (1989) 65.
885: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B231,65;%%
886:
887: \bibitem{UNO}
888: C.~K.~Jung,
889: arXiv:hep-ex/0005046.
890: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005046;%%
891:
892: \bibitem{GS}
893: B.~Bajc, P.~F.~Perez and G.~Senjanovic,
894: arXiv:hep-ph/0204311.
895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204311;%%
896:
897: \bibitem{EN}
898: J.~R.~Ellis and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
899: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) 44;
900: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,44;%%
901: R.~Barbieri and R.~Gatto,
902: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) 211.
903: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,211;%%
904:
905: \bibitem{faspects}
906: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
907: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 311} (1988) 1.
908: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B311,1;%%
909:
910: \bibitem{ISASUGRA}
911: We use version {\tt 7.51} of
912: H.~Baer, F.~E.~Paige, S.~D.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,
913: {\it ISAJET 7.48: A Monte Carlo event generator for $p p, {\bar p} p$, and
914: $e^+ e^-$ reactions}, [arXiv:hep-ph/0001086],
915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001086;%%
916: modified as in version {\tt 7.58}.
917:
918: \bibitem{ELNO}
919: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,
920: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 308} (1993) 70
921: [arXiv:hep-ph/9303307].
922: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303307;%%
923:
924: \bibitem{BEGN}
925: A.~J.~Buras, J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
926: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 135} (1978) 66.
927: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B135,66;%%
928:
929: \bibitem{EGN}
930: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
931: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 88} (1979) 320.
932: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B88,320;%%
933:
934: \bibitem{lattice}
935: Y.~Kuramashi [JLQCD Collaboration],
936: arXiv:hep-ph/0103264.
937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103264;%%
938:
939: \bibitem{EOS3}
940: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,
941: arXiv:hep-ph/0202110.
942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202110;%%
943:
944: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}
945: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
946: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 124} (2000) 76
947: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%
949: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
950: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 343
951: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].
952: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%
953:
954: \end{thebibliography}
955:
956: \end{document}
957:
958: