1:
2: \title{Fermion Dipole Moments from R-parity Violating Parameters.}
3:
4: \author{Otto C. W. Kong}
5:
6: \address{Department of Physics, National Central University, Chung-li, TAIWAN 32054
7: \\E-mail: otto@phy.ncu.edu.tw}
8: \maketitle
9:
10: \begin{abstract}
11: We have developed an efficient formulation for the study of the generic supersymmetric
12: standard model, which admits all kind of R-parity violating terms. Using the formulation,
13: we discuss all sources of fermion dipole moment contributions from
14: R-parity violating, or rather lepton number violating, parametersand the constraints
15: obtained. Stringent constraints comparable to those from neutrino masses are resulted
16: in some cases.
17: \end{abstract}
18: %\pacs{}
19: %\vskip0pc]
20: %\vskip2pc]
21: %\narrowtext
22: \thispagestyle{empty}
23:
24: \section{Introduction}
25: Fermion electric dipole moments (EDMs) are known to be extremely useful
26: constraints on (the CP violating part of) models depicting interesting
27: scenarios of beyond Standard Model (SM) physics. In particular, the
28: experimental bounds on neutron EDM ($d_n$) and electron EDM ($d_e$) are very
29: stringent. The current numbers are given by
30: $d_n < 6.3 \cdot 10^{-26}\,e \cdot \mbox{cm}$
31: and $d_e < 4.3 \cdot 10^{-27}\,e \cdot \mbox{cm}$. The SM contributions are
32: known to be very small, given that the only source of CP violation has to
33: come from the KM phase in (charged current) quark flavor mixings :
34: $d_n \sim 10^{-32}\,e\cdot \mbox{cm}$ and
35: $d_e \sim 8 \cdot 10^{-41}\,e\cdot \mbox{cm}$.
36:
37: Extensions of the SM normally are expected to have potentially large EDM
38: contributions. For instance, for the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM),
39: there are a few source of such new contributions. For example, they can come in
40: through $LR$ sfermion mixings. The latter have two parts, an $A$-term contribution
41: as well as a $F$-term contribution. The $F$-term is a result of the complex phase
42: in the so-called $\mu$-term. The resulted constraints on MSSM have been studied
43: extensively. We are interested here in the modified version with R parity
44: not imposed. We will illustrate that there are extra contributions at the same
45: level and discuss the class of important constraints hence resulted.
46:
47: \section{Formulation and Notation}
48: A theory built with the minimal superfield spectrum incorporating the SM particles,
49: the admissible renormalizable interactions dictated by the SM (gauge) symmetries
50: together with the idea that supersymmetry (SUSY) is softly broken is what should
51: be called the the generic supersymmetric standard model (GSSM). The popular
52: MSSM differs from the generic version in having a discrete symmetry, called R
53: parity, imposed by hand to enforce baryon and lepton number conservation. With
54: the strong experimental hints at the existence of lepton number violating neutrino
55: masses, such a theory of SUSY without R-parity deserves ever more attention. The
56: GSSM contains all kinds of (so-called) R-parity violating (RPV) parameters.
57: The latter includes the more popular trilinear ($\lambda_{ijk}$, $\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime}$, and $\lambda_{ijk}^{\prime\prime}$) and bilinear
58: ($\mu_i$) couplings in the superpotential, as well as soft SUSY breaking
59: parameters of the trilinear, bilinear, and soft mass (mixing) types. In order not
60: to miss any plausible RPV phenomenological features, it is important that all of
61: the RPV parameters be taken into consideration without {\it a priori} bias.
62: We do, however, expect some sort of symmetry principle to guard against the very
63: dangerous proton decay problem. The emphasis is hence put on the lepton number
64: violating phenomenology.
65:
66: The renormalizable superpotential for the GSSM can be written as
67: \small\beqa
68: W \!\! &=& \!\varepsilon_{ab}\Big[ \mu_{\alpha} \hat{H}_u^a \hat{L}_{\alpha}^b
69: + h_{ik}^u \hat{Q}_i^a \hat{H}_{u}^b \hat{U}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
70: + \lambda_{\alpha jk}^{\!\prime} \hat{L}_{\alpha}^a \hat{Q}_j^b
71: \hat{D}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
72: %\nonumber \\
73: %&+&
74: +
75: \frac{1}{2}\, \lambda_{\alpha \beta k} \hat{L}_{\alpha}^a
76: \hat{L}_{\beta}^b \hat{E}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C} \Big] +
77: \frac{1}{2}\, \lambda_{ijk}^{\!\prime\prime}
78: \hat{U}_i^{\scriptscriptstyle C} \hat{D}_j^{\scriptscriptstyle C}
79: \hat{D}_k^{\scriptscriptstyle C} ,
80: \eeqa\normalsize
81: where $(a,b)$ are $SU(2)$ indices, $(i,j,k)$ are the usual family (flavor)
82: indices, and $(\za, \zb)$ are extended flavor indices going from $0$ to $3$.
83: At the limit where $\lambda_{ijk}, \lambda^{\!\prime}_{ijk},
84: \lambda^{\!\prime\prime}_{ijk}$ and $\mu_{i}$ all vanish,
85: one recovers the expression for the R-parity preserving MSSM,
86: with $\hat{L}_{0}$ identified as $\hat{H}_d$. Without R-parity imposed,
87: the latter is not {\it a priori} distinguishable from the $\hat{L}_{i}$'s.
88: Note that $\lambda$ is antisymmetric in the first two indices, as
89: required by the $SU(2)$ product rules, as shown explicitly here with
90: $\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle 12} =-\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle 21}=1$.
91: Similarly, $\lambda^{\!\prime\prime}$ is antisymmetric in the last two
92: indices, from $SU(3)_{\scriptscriptstyle C}$.
93:
94: R-parity is exactly an {\it ad hoc} symmetry put in to make $\hat{L}_{0}$,
95: stand out from the other $\hat{L}_i$'s as the candidate for $\hat{H}_d$.
96: It is defined in terms of baryon number, lepton number, and spin as,
97: explicitly, ${\mathcal R} = (-1)^{3B+L+2S}$. The consequence is that
98: the accidental symmetries of baryon number and lepton number in the SM
99: are preserved, at the expense of making particles and superparticles having
100: a categorically different quantum number, R parity. The latter is actually
101: not the most effective discrete symmetry to control superparticle
102: mediated proton decay\cite{pd}, but is most restrictive in terms
103: of what is admitted in the Lagrangian, or the superpotential alone.
104: On the other hand, R parity also forbides neutrino masses in the
105: supersymmetric SM. The strong experimental hints for the existence of
106: (Majorana) neutrino masses is an indication of lepton
107: number violation, hence suggestive of R-parity violation.
108:
109: \thispagestyle{empty}
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: Doing phenomenological studies without specifying a choice
118: of flavor bases is ambiguous. It is like doing SM quark physics with 18
119: complex Yukawa couplings, instead of the 10 real physical parameters.
120: As far as the SM itself is concerned, the extra 26 real parameters
121: are simply redundant, and attempts to relate the full 36 parameters to
122: experimental data will be futile. In the GSSM, the choice of an optimal
123: parametrization mainly concerns the 4 $\hat{L}_\alpha$ flavors. We use
124: here the single-VEV parametrization\cite{ru,as8} (SVP), in which flavor
125: bases are chosen such that :
126: 1/ among the $\hat{L}_\alpha$'s, only $\hat{L}_0$, bears a VEV,
127: {\it i.e.} {\small $\langle \hat{L}_i \rangle \equiv 0$};
128: 2/ {\small $h^{e}_{jk} (\equiv \lambda_{0jk})
129: =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} \,{\rm diag}
130: \{m_{\scriptscriptstyle 1},
131: m_{\scriptscriptstyle 2},m_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}\}$};
132: 3/ {\small $h^{d}_{jk} (\equiv \lambda^{\!\prime}_{0jk} =-\lambda_{j0k})
133: = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\rm diag}\{m_d,m_s,m_b\}$};
134: 4/ {\small $h^{u}_{ik}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}
135: V_{\mbox{\tiny CKM}}^{\!\scriptscriptstyle T} \,{\rm diag}\{m_u,m_c,m_t\}$},
136: where ${v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} \equiv \sqrt{2}\,\langle \hat{L}_0 \rangle$
137: and ${v_{\scriptscriptstyle u} } \equiv \sqrt{2}\,
138: \langle \hat{H}_{u} \rangle$. The big advantage of the SVP is that it gives
139: the complete tree-level mass matrices of all the states (scalars and fermions)
140: the simplest structure\cite{as5,as8}.
141:
142: \section{Leptons in GSSM}
143: The SVP gives quark mass matrices exactly in the SM form. For the masses
144: of the color-singlet fermions, all the RPV effects are paramatrized by the
145: $\mu_i$'s only. For example, the five charged fermions ( gaugino
146: + Higgsino + 3 charged leptons ), we have
147: \small\beq \label{mc}
148: {\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}} =
149: \left(
150: {\begin{array}{ccccc}
151: {M_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} &
152: \frac{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt 2}
153: & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
154: \frac{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt 2} &
155: {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} & {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}} &
156: {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} & {{ \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}} \\
157: 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}} & 0 & 0 \\
158: 0 & 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} & 0 \\
159: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {{m}_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}}
160: \end{array}}
161: \right) \; .
162: \eeq\normalsize
163: Moreover each $\mu_i$ parameter here characterizes directly the RPV effect
164: on the corresponding charged lepton ($\ell_i = e$, $\mu$, and $\tau$).
165: This, and the corresponding neutrino-neutralino masses and mixings,
166: has been exploited to implement a detailed study of the tree-level
167: RPV phenomenology from the gauge interactions, with interesting
168: results\cite{ru}.
169:
170: \thispagestyle{empty}
171:
172: Neutrino masses and oscillations is no doubt one of the most important aspects
173: of the model. Here, it is particularly important that the various RPV
174: contributions to neutrino masses, up to 1-loop level, be studied in a
175: framework that takes no assumption on the other parameters. Our formulation
176: provides such a framework. Interested readers are referred to
177: Refs.\cite{as5,ok,as1,as9,AL}.
178:
179: \section{Soft SUSY Breaking Terms and the Scalar Masses}
180: Obtaining the squark and slepton masses is straightforward, once all the
181: admissible soft SUSY breaking terms are explicitly written down\cite{as5}.
182: The soft SUSY breaking part of the Lagrangian can be written as
183: \beqa
184: V_{\rm soft} &=& \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab}
185: B_{\za} \, H_{u}^a \tilde{L}_\za^b +
186: \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab} \left[ \,
187: A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle U}_{ij} \,
188: \tilde{Q}^a_i H_{u}^b \tilde{U}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
189: + A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle D}_{ij}
190: H_{d}^a \tilde{Q}^b_i \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
191: + A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}_{ij}
192: H_{d}^a \tilde{L}^b_i \tilde{E}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j \,
193: \right] + {\rm h.c.}\nonumber \\
194: &+&
195: \epsilon_{\!\scriptscriptstyle ab}
196: \left[ \, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda^\prime}_{ijk}
197: \tilde{L}_i^a \tilde{Q}^b_j \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k
198: + \frac{1}{2}\, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda}_{ijk}
199: \tilde{L}_i^a \tilde{L}^b_j \tilde{E}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k
200: \right]
201: + \frac{1}{2}\, A^{\!\scriptscriptstyle \lambda^{\prime\prime}}_{ijk}
202: \tilde{U}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_i \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_j
203: \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_k + {\rm h.c.}
204: \nonumber \\
205: &+&
206: \tilde{Q}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {Q}}^2 \,\tilde{Q}
207: +\tilde{U}^{\dagger}
208: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {U}}^2 \, \tilde{U}
209: +\tilde{D}^{\dagger} \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {D}}^2
210: \, \tilde{D}
211: + \tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2 \tilde{L}
212: +\tilde{E}^{\dagger} \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {E}}^2
213: \, \tilde{E}
214: + \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u}}^2 \,
215: |H_{u}|^2
216: \nonumber \\
217: && + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}}{2} \tilde{B}\tilde{B}
218: + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}}{2} \tilde{W}\tilde{W}
219: + \frac{M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 3}}{2} \tilde{g}\tilde{g}
220: + {\rm h.c.}\; ,
221: \label{soft}
222: \eeqa
223: where we have separated the R-parity conserving $A$-terms from the
224: RPV ones (recall $\hat{H}_{d} \equiv \hat{L}_0$). Note that
225: $\tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{L}}^2 \tilde{L}$,
226: unlike the other soft mass terms, is given by a
227: $4\times 4$ matrix. Explicitly,
228: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}_{00}}^2$ corresponds to
229: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d}}^2$
230: of the MSSM case while
231: $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}_{0k}}^2$'s give RPV mass mixings.
232:
233: The only RPV contribution to the squark masses is given by a
234: $- (\, \mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{ijk}\, ) \;
235: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt{2}}$ term in the $LR$ mixing part.
236: Note that the term contains flavor-changing ($j\ne k$) parts which,
237: unlike the $A$-terms ones, cannot be suppressed through a flavor-blind
238: SUSY breaking spectrum. Hence, it has very interesting implications
239: to quark electric dipole moments (EDMs) and related processses
240: such as $b\to s\, \gamma$\cite{as4,as6,cch1}.
241:
242: \thispagestyle{empty}
243:
244: The mass matrices are a bit more complicated in the scalar sectors\cite{as5,as7}.
245: We illustrated explicitly here only the charged scalare mass matrix.
246: The $1+4+3$ charged scalar masses are given in terms of the blocks
247: \small\beqa
248: && \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H\!u}^2 =
249: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle H_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u}}^2
250: + \mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}^{}
251: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
252: \left[ \,\frac{1}{2} - \sin\!^2\theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right]
253: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \sin\!^2 \beta \;
254: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}]
255: \; ,
256: \nonumber \\
257: &&\widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle LL}^2
258: = \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2 +
259: m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}^\dag m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}^{}
260: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
261: \left[ -\frac{1}{2} + \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right]
262: + \left( \begin{array}{cc}
263: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!^2 \beta \;
264: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}]
265: & \quad 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 1 \times 3} \quad \\
266: 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1} & 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 3}
267: \end{array} \right)
268: + (\mu_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \za}^* \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \zb}^{})
269: \; ,
270: \nonumber \\
271: && \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RR}^2 =
272: \tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {E}}^2 +
273: m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}^{} m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}^\dag
274: + M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \cos\!2 \beta
275: \left[ - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}\right] \; ; \qquad
276: \eeqa
277: {\normalsize and}
278: \beqa
279: \label{ELH}
280: \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle LH}^2
281: &=& (B_{\za}^*)
282: + \left( \begin{array}{c}
283: {1 \over 2} \,
284: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle Z}^2\, \sin\!2 \beta \,
285: [1 - \sin\!^2 \theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}] \\
286: 0_{\scriptscriptstyle 3 \times 1}
287: \end{array} \right)\; ,
288: \qquad
289: \\
290: \label{ERH}
291: \widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RH}^2
292: &=& -\,(\, \mu_i^*\lambda_{i{\scriptscriptstyle 0}k}\, ) \;
293: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt{2}} \; ,
294: \\
295: \label{ERL}
296: (\widetilde{\cal M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle RL}^{2})^{\scriptscriptstyle T}
297: &=& \left(\begin{array}{c}
298: 0 \\ A^{\!{\scriptscriptstyle E}}
299: \end{array}\right)
300: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}{\sqrt{2}}
301: -\,(\, \mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}^*
302: \lambda_{{\scriptscriptstyle \za\zb}k}\, ) \,
303: \frac{v_{\scriptscriptstyle u}}{\sqrt{2}} \; .
304: \eeqa \normalsize
305: Note that $\tilde{m}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle {L}}^2$ here is a $4\times 4$
306: matrix of soft masses for the $L_\za$, and $B_\za$'s are the corresponding
307: bilinear soft terms of the $\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle \za}$'s.
308: $A^{\!{\scriptscriptstyle E}}$ is just the $3\times 3$ R-parity conserving
309: leptonic $A$-term. There is no contribution from the admissible RPV $A$-terms
310: under the SVP. Also, we have used
311: $m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \equiv \mbox{diag} \{\,0, m_{\!\scriptscriptstyle E}\,\}
312: \equiv \mbox{diag} \{\,0, m_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}, m_{\scriptscriptstyle 2},
313: m_{\scriptscriptstyle 3}\,\}$.
314:
315: \section{Neutron Electric Dipole Moment}
316: Let us take a look first at the quark dipole operator through 1-loop diagrams
317: with $LR$ squark mixing. A simple direct example is given by the gluino diagram.
318: Comparing with the MSSM case, the extra (RPV) to the $d$ squark $LR$ mixing
319: in GSSM obvious modified the story. If
320: one naively imposes the constraint for this RPV contribution
321: itself not to exceed the experimental bound on neutron EDM, one gets roughly
322: $\mbox{Im}(\mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1})
323: \lsim 10^{-6}\,\mbox{GeV}$, a constraint that is interesting even
324: in comparison to the bounds on the corresponding parameters obtainable
325: from asking no neutrino masses to exceed the super-Kamiokande
326: atmospheric oscillation scale\cite{as4}.
327:
328: In fact, there are important contributions beyond the gluino diagram and without
329: $LR$ squark mixings involved. For the MSSM, it is well-known that there is such
330: a contribution from the chargino diagram, which is likely to be more important
331: than the gluino one when a unification type gaugino mass relationship is
332: imposed. The question then is if the GSSM has a similar RPV analog. A RPV
333: version of the chargino diagram is given in Fig.1. The diagram, however, looks
334: ambiguous. Looking at the diagram in terms of the electroweak states involved
335: under our formulation, it seems like a
336: ${l}_k^{\!\!\mbox{ -}}$--$\tilde{W}^{\scriptscriptstyle +}$
337: mass insertion is required, which is however vanishing. However, putting in
338: extra mass insertion, with a $\mu_i$ flipping the ${l}_k^{\!\!\mbox{ -}}$ into
339: a $\tilde{h}_u^{\scriptscriptstyle +}$ first seems to give a non-zero result.
340: The structure obviously indicates a GIM-like cancellation at worked, and we
341: have to check its violation due to the lack of mass degeneracy.
342:
343: \begin{figure}[h]
344: %\vspace*{2in}
345: \special{psfile=as6-n6a.eps angle=270 hscale=50
346: vscale=50 hoffset=70 voffset=0}
347: \vspace*{2in}
348: \caption{The new charginolike diagram.}
349: \end{figure}
350: %\vspace*{.5in}
351:
352: \thispagestyle{empty}
353:
354: We have performed an extensive analytical and numerical study, including the
355: complete charginolike contributions, as well as the neutralinolike contributions,
356: to the neutron EDM\cite{as6}. The charginolike part is given by the following
357: formula :
358: \beq \label{edmco}
359: \left({d_{\scriptscriptstyle f} \over e} \right)_{\!\!\chi^{\mbox{-}}} =
360: {\alpha_{\!\mbox{\tiny em}} \over 4 \pi \,\sin\!^2\theta_{\!\scriptscriptstyle W}} \;
361: \sum_{\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}
362: \sum_{n=1}^{5} \,\mbox{Im}({\cal C}_{\!fn\mp}) \;
363: {{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_n} \over
364: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \;
365: \left[ {\cal Q}_{\!\tilde{f}'} \;
366: B\!\left({{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_{n}}^2 \over
367: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \right)
368: + ( {\cal Q}_{\!{f}} - {\cal Q}_{\!\tilde{f}'} ) \;
369: A\!\left({{M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_{n}}^2 \over
370: M_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{f}'\mp}^2} \right)
371: \right] \; ,
372: \eeq
373: for $f$ being $u$ ($d$) quark and $f'$ being $d$ ($u$), where
374: \beqa
375: {\cal C}_{un-} &=&
376: % C^L C^R*
377: {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,\,
378: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}_{d11} \;
379: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!1n} \,{\cal D}^{*}_{d11}
380: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
381: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d21}
382: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
383: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d21} \right) \; ,
384: \nonumber \\
385: {\cal C}_{un+} &=&
386: % C^L C^R*
387: {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,\,
388: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}_{d12} \;
389: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!1n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{d12}
390: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
391: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d22}
392: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
393: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}\, {\cal D}^{*}_{d22} \right) \; ,
394: \nonumber \\
395: {\cal C}_{dn-} &=&
396: % C^L C^R*
397: \left( {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
398: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}
399: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
400: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n} \right)\! {\cal D}_{u11} \;
401: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n} \,{\cal D}^{*}_{u11}
402: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,
403: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u21} \right) \; ,
404: \nonumber \\
405: {\cal C}_{dn+} &=&
406: % C^L C^R*
407: \left( {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle d} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
408: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n}
409: + {\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} }\,\,
410: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n} \right)\! {\cal D}_{u12} \;
411: \left( - \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u12}
412: + {y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle u} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,
413: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!2n} \, {\cal D}^{*}_{u22} \right) \; ,
414: \nonumber \\
415: && \mbox{\hspace*{2.5in}\small(only repeated index $i$ is to be summed)} \; ;
416: \label{Cnmp}
417: \eeqa
418: $\mbox{\boldmath $V$}^\dag {\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}} \,
419: \mbox{\boldmath $U$} = \mbox{diag}
420: \{ {M}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle \chi^{\mbox{-}}_n} \} \equiv
421: \mbox{diag}
422: \{ {M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}, {M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}},
423: m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau \}$ while ${\cal D}_{u}$ and ${\cal D}_{d}$ diagonalize
424: the $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{d}$ squark mass-squared matrices respectively;
425: and
426: \beq
427: A(x) = {1 \over 2 \, (1-x)^2} \left(3 - x + {2\ln x \over 1-x} \right)\;,
428: \qquad \qquad
429: B(x) = {1 \over 2\,(x-1)^2} \left[1 + x + {2\,x \ln x \over (1-x) } \right].
430: \nonumber
431: \eeq
432:
433: To extract the contribution from the diagram of Fig.~1, we have to look at the
434: pieces in ${\cal C}_{dn\mp}$ with a $\mbox{\boldmath $V$}^{\!*}_{\!\!1n}$
435: and a $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)n}$. It is easy to see that the $n=1$ and
436: $2$ mass eigenstates, namely the chargino states, do give the dominating
437: contribution. With the small $\mu_i$ mixings strongly favored by the
438: sub-eV neutrino masses, we have
439: \beq
440: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)1} =
441: \frac{{\mu_k^*}}{{M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}}
442: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{21}}
443: \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
444: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(k+2)2} =
445: \frac{{\mu_k^*}}{{M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}}
446: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{22}}
447: \eeq
448: where the $R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R}$ denotes the right-handed rotation
449: that would diagonalize the first $2\times 2$ block of
450: ${\mathcal{M}_{\scriptscriptstyle C}}$. The latter rotation matrix is expected
451: to have elements of order 1. Hence, we have the dominating result
452: proportional to
453: \[
454: \sum_{n=1,2}
455: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{12}}^{\,*} \,
456: R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R_{2}n} \;
457: {\mu_k^* \,\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}} \;
458: F_{\!\scriptscriptstyle B\!A}\!\!
459: \left( M_{c_{\scriptscriptstyle n}}^2 \right)
460: \]
461: where $F_{\!\scriptscriptstyle B\!A}$ denotes the mass eigenvalue
462: dependent part. The result agrees with what we say above. It vanishes for
463: ${M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}={M}_{c {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}$, showing
464: a GIM-like mechanism. However, with unequal chargino masses, our numerical
465: results indicate that the cancellation is generically badly violated.
466: More interestingly, it can be seen from the above analysis that a complex
467: phase in ${\mu_k^* \,\lambda^{\!\prime}_{k\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}}$
468: is actually no necessary for this potentially dominating chargino
469: contribution to be there, so long as complex CP violating phases exist
470: in the $R_{\!\scriptscriptstyle R}$ matrix, {\it i.e.} in the R-parity
471: conserving parameters such as ${\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}$.
472:
473: An illustration of the result is given in Fig.~3 in which variations of the
474: EDM contribution against the $\tan\!\zb$ value is plotted.
475: On the whole, the magnitude of the parameter combination
476: $\mu_i^*\lambda^{\!\prime}_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}$ is shown to be
477: responsible for the RPV 1-loop contribution to neutron EDM and is hence
478: well constrained. This applies not only to the complex phase, or imaginary part
479: of, the combination. Readers are referred to Ref.\cite{as6} for more details.
480:
481: %\newpage
482: %\begin{center}{\rule{5in}{.01mm}}\end{center}
483: \thispagestyle{empty}
484:
485: \begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
486: \twocolumn
487:
488: %\vspace*{cm}
489: %#11
490: \begin{figure}[b]
491: \vspace*{10.5cm}
492: \special{psfile=as6-11.ps angle=0 hscale=55 vscale=60 hoffset=-80 voffset=-100}
493: %\vspace*{1in}
494: %\caption{\small
495: \end{figure}
496: \vspace*{-.1in}
497: \parbox{7.5cm}{\small FIG.2
498: Logarithmic plot of (the magnitude of) the neutron EDM result verses
499: $\tan\!\zb$. We show here the MSSM result, our general result with RPV phase
500: only, and the generic result with complex phases of
501: both kinds. In particular, the $A$ and $\mu_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}$
502: phases are chosen as $7^o$ and $0.1^o$ respectively, for the MSSM line. They are
503: zero for the RPV-only line, with which we have a phase of ${\pi\over 4}$ for
504: $\lambda^{\!\prime}_{\scriptscriptstyle 31\!1}$. All the given nonzero values
505: are used for the three phases for the generic result (from our complete formulae)
506: marked by GSSM.
507: \vspace*{.5in}}
508: \end{minipage}
509:
510: \begin{minipage}[b]{\textwidth}
511: %\twocolumn
512: \vspace*{7.5cm}
513: \parbox{7.3cm}
514: {
515: \section{Dipole Moments of the Electron and Other Fermions}
516: \hspace*{0.5cm}
517: There is in fact a second class of 1-loop diagrams contributing to the
518: quark EDMs. These are diagrams with quarks and scalars in the loop, and
519: hence superpartners of the charginolike and neutralinolike diagrams discussed
520: above. The R-parity
521: conserving analog of the class of diagrams has no significance, due to
522: the unavoidable small Yukawa couplings involved. With the latter replaced
523: by flavor-changing $\lambda^{\!\prime}$-couplings. We can have a $t$ quark
524: loop contributing to neutron EDM, for example.
525:
526: \hspace*{0.5cm}
527: For the case of the
528: charged leptons, the two classes of superpartner diagrams merges into one.
529: But then, all scalars has to be included. The assumption hidden, in our
530: quark EDM formula above, that only the (two) superpartner sfermions
531: have a significant role to play does not stand any more.
532:
533: \hspace*{0.5cm}
534: The above quark EDM formula obviously applies with some trivial modifications
535: to the cases of the other quarks. For the charge leptons, while the exact formulae
536: would be different, there are major basic features that are more or less
537: the same. For instance, for the charged lepton, the $\lambda$-couplings
538: play the role of the $\lambda^{\!\prime}$-couplings. The
539: $\mu_i^*\lambda_{i\scriptscriptstyle 1\!1}$ combination contributes to
540: electron EDM while the $\mu_i^*\lambda_{i\scriptscriptstyle 22}$
541: combination contributes to that of the muon. As we have no explicit
542: numerical results to show at the moment, we refrain from showing any details
543: here. However, we have finished a $\mu \to e \,\gamma$
544: study\cite{as7},
545:
546: %\hspace*{0.5cm}
547: }\end{minipage}
548: \onecolumn
549:
550: \noindent
551: from which the charged lepton EDM
552: formula could be extracted without too much effort.
553: Interested readers may check the reference for details.
554:
555: \thispagestyle{empty}
556:
557: \section{Neutrino dipole moments}
558: Another topic we want to discuss briefly here
559: is the dipole moments of the neutrinos. Neutrinos as
560: Majorana fermions have vanishing dipole moments. However, flavor
561: off-diagonal dipole moments, or known as transition dipole moments
562: are interesting. There are good terrestial as well as astrophysical
563: and cosmological bounds available\cite{nudm}.
564:
565: The same set of diagrams giving rise to 1-loop neutrino masses
566: within the model give rise also to dipole moments when an extra
567: photon line is attached. There are two types of such neutrino
568: mass diagrams, the charged and neutral loop ones. A neutral
569: loop diagram has, of course, no place to attach a photon line.
570: Hence, only the charged loop diagrams contribute. Checking
571: parameter fits to both neutrino masses and their implications
572: on dipole moments would be very interesting.
573:
574: We give in Ref.\cite{as9}, all contributions
575: to 1-loop neutrino masses within GSSM under a systematic
576: framework. For example, each diagram composes of
577: two (external) neutrino interaction vertices. The charged
578: vertices are given by
579: \beqa
580: {\cal C}^{\scriptscriptstyle R}_{inm}
581: &=&
582: \frac{y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle e_i}}{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} \,
583: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}_{\!\!(i+2)n} \, D^{l^*}_{\!2m}
584: - \frac{\lambda_{ikh}^{\!*}}{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}}
585: \mbox{\boldmath $V$}_{\!\!(h+2)n} \, D^{l^*}_{\!(k+2)m} \; ,
586: \nonumber \\
587: {\cal C}^{\scriptscriptstyle L}_{inm}
588: &=&
589: - \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!1n} \, {\cal D}^{l^*}_{\!(i+2)m}
590: + \frac{y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle e_i}}{g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}} \,
591: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!2n} \, {\cal D}^{l^*}_{\!(i+5)m}
592: - {\lambda_{ihk} \over g_{\scriptscriptstyle 2} } \,
593: \mbox{\boldmath $U$}_{\!(h+2)n} \, {\cal D}^{l^*}_{\!(k+5)m} \; .
594: \label{Cnm}
595: \eeqa
596: A ${\cal C}^{\scriptscriptstyle R^*}_{jnm} $
597: ${\cal C}^{\scriptscriptstyle L}_{inm} $ combination plays the role
598: of ${\cal C}_{\!fn\mp}$ in the formula of Eq.(\ref{edmco}), for $\nu_i$
599: and $\nu_j$. Here, we are interested not only in the imaginary part;
600: the real part contribute magnetic moments. Nevertheless, we have to
601: switch back to the mass eigenstate basis for the neutrinos to better
602: understand and use the dipole moment results\cite{new}.
603:
604: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
605: \bibitem{pd}
606: L.E. Ib\'a\~nez and G.G. Ross,
607: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B368}, 3 (1992).
608: \bibitem{ru}
609: M. Bisset, O.C.W. Kong, C. Macesanu, and L.H. Orr,
610: Phys. Lett. {\bf B430}, 274 (1998);
611: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, {\it 035001} (2000).
612: \bibitem{as8}
613: O.C.W. Kong, {IPAS-HEP-k008}, {\it hep-ph/0205205}.
614: \bibitem{as5}
615: O.C.W. Kong, JHEP {\bf 0009}, {\it 037} (2000).
616: \bibitem{ok}
617: O.C.W. Kong, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A14}, 903 (1999).
618: \bibitem{as1}
619: K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong,
620: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, {\it 113012} (2000).
621: \bibitem{as9}
622: S.K. Kang and O.C.W. Kong, {IPAS-HEP-k009}, {\it hep-ph/0206009}.
623: \bibitem{AL}
624: See also
625: A. Abada and M. Losada, hep-ph/9908352;
626: S. Davidson and M. Losada, JHEP {\bf 0005}, {\it 021} (2000);
627: hep-ph/0010325.
628: \bibitem{as4}
629: Y.-Y. Keum and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 393 (2001).
630: \bibitem{as6}
631: Y.-Y. Keum and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, {\it 113012} (2001).
632: \bibitem{cch1}
633: See also
634: K. Choi, E.J. Chun, and K. Hwang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, {\it 013002} (2001).
635: \bibitem{as7}
636: K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, {\it 095007}, (2001).
637: \bibitem{nudm}
638: See, for example, G.G. Rafflet, Phys. Rep. {\bf 320}, 319 (1999).
639: \bibitem{new}
640: O.C.W. Kong {\it et.al.}, {\it work in progress}.
641:
642: \end{thebibliography}
643: