1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: %
3:
4:
5: %\usepackage{amsmath}
6: \newcommand {\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand {\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand {\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand {\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10:
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: %\begin{flushright} IPM/P-2004/073
15: %\\ hep-ph/0605272 \\
16: %\today
17: %\end{flushright}
18:
19: \def \a'{\alpha'}
20: \baselineskip 0.65 cm
21: \begin{flushright}
22: IPM/P-2006/033\\
23: \today
24: \end{flushright}
25: \begin{center}{\large
26: {\bf Reconciling large CP-violating phases with bounds
27: on the electric dipole moments in the MSSM }}
28: {\vskip 0.5 cm}
29:
30: {\bf Seyed Yaser Ayazi and Yasaman Farzan
31: }{\vskip 0.5 cm }
32: Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics (IPM)\\
33: P.O. Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran\\
34: \end{center}
35:
36:
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: The possibility of cancelation between different contributions to
40: $d_e$, $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ has been reconsidered with special
41: emphasis on the region that is phenomenologically interesting
42: (intermediate values of $\tan \beta$ and sub-TeV sfermion masses).
43: It is found that in the range favored by electroweak baryogenesis
44: ({\it i.e.,} $|\mu|\simeq M_1$ or $|\mu|\simeq M_2$), $\sin
45: [\theta_\mu+\theta_{M_1}]\sim 1$ can be compatible with the EDM
46: bounds even for slepton masses below 500~GeV. Such large values of
47: the phases promise a successful electroweak baryogenesis. The
48: possibility of large CP-odd effects at linear collider has also
49: been discussed.
50: \end{abstract}
51: %\section{Introduction}
52: %\be
53: % W = Y^{ik}_\ell \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} H_{1\alpha} E_i
54: %, L_{j\beta}
55: % - Y^{ij}_\nu\epsilon_{\alpha\beta} H_{2\alpha} N_i L_{j\beta}
56: % - \mu \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}
57: %H_{1\alpha}H_{2\beta}+ 1/2 M_{ij} N_i N_j \
58: %\end{equation}
59: %\begin{figure}
60: %\begin{center}
61: %\hskip -7.0cm \parbox[c]{3.5in}{\mbox{ \qquad\epsfig{file=mh2.ps,
62: %bb=75 578 528 744, clip=true, width=5 in, height=2
63: %in}}}\end{center} \vskip -0.8 cm \caption{Diagrams contributing to
64: %$m_{H_u}^2$. $F_N^k$ represent auxiliary field associated with the
65: %right-handed neutrino $N_k$. The $A_\nu$ vertices are marked with
66: %black circles. The neutrino $B$-term and $M$ insertions are
67: %indicated by $\otimes$ and $\Delta$, respectively.}
68: % \label{bh2}
69: %\end{figure}
70: \section{Introduction}
71: Elementary particles can possess Electric Dipole Moments (EDMs),
72: only if the CP symmetry is violated. For this reason, studying
73: EDMs of the elementary particles is of prime importance as it can
74: teach us about CP-violation which is closely related to the
75: creation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe. It is well-known
76: that within the Standard Model (SM) of the elementary particles
77: violation of CP can take place. In fact in the Kaon and B-meson sector, the CP
78: symmetry has been observed to be violated in accordance with the
79: prediction of the Standard Model.
80: %\footnote{In this sector, there are some discrepancies
81: %between the predictions of the SM and observation, which are yet
82: %to be confirmed [].}.
83: However, the maximum possible values of EDMs
84: in the context of SM are extremely small; the SM predicts $d_e\sim
85: 10^{-38}\ e \ {\rm cm}$ \cite{e} and the prediction of SM for
86: $d_n$ ranges from $ 10^{-31}\ e \ {\rm cm}$ to $ 10^{-33}\ e \
87: {\rm cm}$ \cite{n}. So far no electric dipole moment for the
88: electron or neutron has been detected but strong bounds on these
89: quantities have been obtained \cite{pdg,commins,cerncourier}
90: \begin{equation}
91: |d_e|<1.4\times 10^{-27} \ e \ {\rm cm}
92: \ \ \ \ \ \ |d_n|<3.0 \times 10^{-26} \ e \ {\rm cm}.\label{10-27}
93: \end{equation}
94: There are good prospects of improving these bounds by several
95: orders of magnitude in the next few years \cite{prospect}. Values
96: of EDMs much larger than the SM prediction would indicate new
97: sources of CP-violation with origin in physics beyond the SM.
98:
99: The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is arguably the
100: most popular model beyond the SM. The general MSSM introduces 44
101: sources of CP-violation \cite{godbole}. Mainly for the sake of
102: simplicity, studies in the literature are concentrated on the
103: mSUGRA model (which is also called constrained MSSM or cMSSM)
104: which assumes that at the GUT scale the masses of scalar
105: components of the chiral superfields are unified to $m_0$ while
106: the masses of gauginos are also unified to $m_{1/2}$. In this
107: model, the A-terms (the trilinear scalar terms in the soft
108: supersymmetry breaking potential) are also universal and set to be
109: proportional to the corresponding Yukawa couplings: at the GUT
110: scale, $A_\ell=a_0 Y_\ell, \ A_u =a_0 Y_u \ {\rm and} \ A_d=a_0
111: Y_d $. In the constrained MSSM the number of independent
112: CP-violating phases are reduced to two which are usually
113: attributed to the phases of $a_0$ and the mu-term (bilinear Higgs
114: mass term in the superpotential). Taking the values of the
115: parameters at their phenomenologically favorable range
116: ($m_{1/2}\sim m_0 \sim 100 \ {\rm GeV}, \ \tan \beta\sim 10, \
117: \theta_\mu\sim 1 \ {\rm and } \ \theta_{A_e} \sim 1$), one finds
118: that the EDMs of the electron, neutron and mercury exceed the
119: experimental bounds by several orders of magnitude. In principle,
120: to suppress the EDMs to below their experimental bounds, three
121: possibilities exist:
122: \begin{itemize}
123: \item The first generation of sleptons and the first two generation of squarks are very heavy \cite{heavymasses}.
124: This means the production and study of these particles at ILC and LHC will be difficult, if possible
125: at all.
126: The other reason that this
127: possibility is in disfavor is that, with large sfermion masses the
128: annihilation rate of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP)
129: may be too low and as a result the relic density of the LSP may be
130: larger than the observed dark matter density.
131:
132: \item The phases of $\mu$ and $a_0$ are both zero or very small which
133: means that there will not be any interesting display of
134: CP-violation in colliders. Moreover, electroweak baryogenesis
135: cannot take place in this case \cite{rubakov,stefano}.
136: \item
137: The contributions of the phases of $\mu$ and $a_0$ cancel each
138: other. From the phenomenological point of view, this is the most
139: interesting solution because it leaves room for a host of
140: non-trivial CP-violating as well as CP-conserving phenomena to be
141: discovered.
142: \end{itemize}
143:
144: The third possibility has been extensively studied in the
145: literature \cite{cancelation} and unfortunately it seems that
146: cancelation scenario works only if the phase of $\mu$ is ${\cal
147: O}(10^{-2})$ or less which is too small to result in detectable
148: CP-violating effects in colliders. This is due to two reasons: 1)
149: The severe upper bounds on $d_{Hg}$ and $d_n$ have to be
150: simultaneously satisfied that is while there are only two
151: CP-violating phases. It seems natural that in the parameter range
152: that the contributions of $\theta_{a_0}$ and $\theta_{\mu}$ to
153: $d_e$ cancel each other, their contribution to $d_{Hg}$ add up and
154: vice versa. 2) In the large $\tan \beta$ regime (which is favored
155: by the LEPII data \cite{pdg} as well as the SO(10) model
156: \cite{so(10)}), the contribution of $\theta_\mu$ to the EDMs of
157: the electron as well as the down quark is enhanced such that it
158: cannot be canceled by the effect of the phase of $a_0$, unless the
159: phase of $\mu$ itself is small. This means that, for large
160: $\tan\beta$ regime, even if we relax the condition of universality
161: of the $A$-terms at the GUT scale (taking $A_e$, $A_u$ and $A_d$,
162: at the low energy scale, arbitrary), cancelation condition can be
163: hardly satisfied \cite{olive1}.
164:
165: In this paper, we relax some of
166: the universality conditions and find that for a range of
167: parameters, which from phenomenological point of view is
168: interesting, the cancelation scenario is revived even for
169: intermediate values of $\tan \beta$ ($\tan \beta\simeq 10$). This
170: basically happens when the masses of sfermions are low while the
171: values of $M_2$ (Wino mass), $A_e$ and $A_d$ are large. Putting it
172: in another way, the suppression scenario discussed here engages
173: two of the above conditions: cancelation as well as having large
174: mass parameters. However, we only take some of the parameters
175: large; i.e., there is a small hierarchy of order of 10 among the
176: supersymmetric parameters at the electroweak scale. Such a
177: hierarchy is not by any means peculiar to this model. Even in the
178: context of the mSUGRA model, at the low scale the colored
179: particles are expected to be (5$-$10) times heavier than those
180: which are singlets of SU(3).
181:
182: In section 2, we describe the model and discuss that having $A_e$
183: and $A_d$ at the TeV scale can be consistent with the bounds from
184: the Color and Charge Breaking (CCB) vacua considerations. In
185: section 3, we study the behavior of EDMs by varying different
186: parameters and discuss the robustness of our results. In section
187: 4, we study the possibility of cancelation in the parameter range
188: favored by resonant electroweak baryogenesis. In section 5, we
189: discuss if the cancelation opens the possibility of large enough
190: phases to cause sizeable CP-violating effects in colliders.
191: Conclusions are summarized in section 6.
192: \section{The model} In this paper, we
193: consider the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model with
194: superpotential
195: \be
196: W_{MSSM} = Y_{u}\widehat{{u}^c} \ \widehat{Q} \cdot \widehat{H_{u}}
197: -Y_{d} \widehat{{d}^c} \ \widehat{Q} \cdot \widehat{H_{d}}
198: - Y_{e} \widehat{{e}^c} \ \widehat{L} \cdot \widehat{H_{d}}
199: -\mu\ \widehat{H_{u}}\cdot \widehat{H_{d}} \ee
200: where, $\widehat{L}$, $\widehat{Q}$, $\widehat{H_{u}}$, $ \widehat{H_{d}}$
201: are doublets of chiral superfields associated respectively with
202: left-handed leptons, left-handed quarks and the two Higgs doublets of the
203: MSSM. In the above formula,
204: $\widehat{{u}^c}$, $\widehat{{d}^c}$ and $\widehat{{e}^c}$ are
205: the chiral superfields associated with the corresponding
206: right-handed fields. The soft supersymmetry breaking part of
207: Lagrangian, at the electroweak scale, is taken to have the form
208: \ba \label{MSSMsoft}\L_{\rm soft}^{\rm MSSM} &=&-\ 1/2 \left( M_3
209: \widetilde{g} \widetilde{g} + M_2 \widetilde{W} \widetilde{W}+ M_1
210: \widetilde{B}\widetilde{B} +{\rm H.c.} \right) \cr &-&(A_{u
211: i}Y_{u ii} \widetilde{{u_{i}}^c} \ \widetilde{Q_{i}} \cdot
212: H_{u}-A_{d i}Y_{d ii} \widetilde{{d_{i}}^c} \ \widetilde{Q_{i}}
213: \cdot H_{d}-A_{e i}Y_{e ii} \widetilde{{e_{i}}^c} \
214: \widetilde{L_{i}} \cdot H_{u} + {\rm H.c.} )\cr &-& \widetilde{Q
215: _{i}}^{\dag} \ m_{\tilde{Q} ii}^{2}\widetilde{Q_{i}} -
216: \widetilde{L_{i}} ^{\dag} \ m_{\tilde{L} ii}^{2}\widetilde{L_{i}}
217: - \widetilde{(u_{i}^c)} ^{\dag} \ m_{\tilde{u}
218: ii}^{2}\widetilde{u_{i}^c} - \widetilde{(d_{i}^c)} ^{\dag} \
219: m_{\tilde{d} ii}^{2}\widetilde{d_{i}^c} - \widetilde{e_{i}^c
220: }^{\dag} \ m_{\tilde{e} ii}^{2}\widetilde{e_{i}^c}\cr &-& \
221: m_{H_{u}}^{2}\ H_{u}^{\dag}\ H_{u}-\ m_{H_{d}}^{2}\ H_{d}^{\dag}\
222: H_{d}-(\ B_H \ H_{u}\cdot H_{d}+ {\rm H.c.}),\ea where the ``$i$"
223: indices determine the flavor. We have relaxed the universality
224: assumption ({\it i. e.,} in general, $m_{\tilde{\mu}}^2\ne
225: m_{\tilde{e}}^2 \ne m_{H_u}^2 \ne {\rm etc}$); however, we have
226: taken a flavor conserving soft potential ({\it i.e.,} there is no
227: off-diagonal terms in the flavor basis). The latter assumptions
228: is motivated by observation \cite{flavor}. We have defined the
229: $A$-parameters factoring out the corresponding Yukawa couplings.
230: Notice that since we do not assume any universality, from the
231: beginning we concentrate on the potential at the electroweak scale
232: rather than some high GUT scale.
233: % In Eq.~\ref{MSSMsoft}, $M_3$, $M_2$, and $M_1$ are respectively the
234: %mass parameters of gluino, wino, and bino at the electroweak scale.
235: Hermiticity of the Lagrangian implies that $m_{H_u}^2$,
236: $m_{H_d}^2$ and the sfermion masses are
237: real.
238: %Motivated by observation \cite{flavor}, we have
239: %assumed all the terms in Eq. (\ref{MSSMsoft}) are flavor diagonal.
240: %The Hermiticity of the Lagrangian then implies that the masses of
241: %sfermions are real.
242: %\footnote{In Ref. [], written before the recent
243: %Babar results they have shown that phases of flavor off-diagonal
244: %elements of sfermion mass matrix can lead to interesting
245: %cancelation between different contributions to EDM but by advent
246: %of stronger bounds on the off-diagonal elements, one has to update
247: %the analysis of []}
248: The rest of parameters in Eq.~\ref{MSSMsoft} can in general be complex.
249: By rephasing the
250: fields we can make $B_H $ and $M_2$ real but, in this basis the
251: phases of $\mu$- and $A$-parameters as well as $M_3$ and $M_1$
252: cannot be rotated away and should be considered as new sources of
253: CP-violation.
254:
255: In Ref \cite{plehn}, the possibility of cancelation between
256: contributions of the phases of $A_e$, $A_d$, $A_u$, $M_1$, $M_3$
257: and $\mu$ has been studied for $|A_i|<1$~TeV and $\tan \beta<10$.
258: As expected, they have found that increasing $\tan \beta$, the
259: range of $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation is possible shrinks.
260: In this paper, we focus on $|A_s|, |A_d|>1$~TeV and show that, for
261: large values of $|A_i|$, cancelation scenario is revived even for
262: the intermediate values of $\tan \beta$.
263:
264: One can reconstruct models for which deviation from universality
265: is partial. For example, it is shown \cite{yasaman} that in the
266: context of type I seesaw mechanism embedded in the MSSM, the
267: neutrino B-term radiatively induces different corrections to $A_u$
268: and $A_e$ (lifting their universality) however, in this model, the
269: universality of gaugino masses (at the GUT scale) is maintained.
270: Considering such possibilities, we first perform an analysis
271: setting the phases of gaugino masses equal to zero and then allow
272: the phases of $M_1$ and $M_3$ to be nonzero. Of course, allowing
273: more phases to be nonzero, the likelihood of cancelation
274: increases.
275:
276: For large values
277: of $A$-terms, one of course has to check the CCB bounds. In the
278: following, we discuss that by relaxing the condition of
279: universality at the GUT scale, we can have values of $A_e$ and
280: $A_d$ as large as a
281: few TeV while keeping the sfermion masses below TeV
282: without encountering Color or Charge Breaking (CCB) vacua. In the
283: end, we suggest a way to test the preassumption that goes into
284: this possibility.
285:
286: As it is well-known, at the tree level, the conditions for the electroweak
287: symmetry breaking are \be |\mu|^2+m_{H_d}^2=B_H \tan
288: \beta-\frac{m_Z^2}{2}\cos 2 \beta \label{Mhd}\ee and
289: $$ |\mu|^2+m_{H_u}^2=B_H \cot \beta+\frac{m_Z^2}{2}\cos 2 \beta.$$
290: For large $\tan \beta$, we can neglect $B_H \cot \beta$ and write
291: \ba m_{H_u}^2&\simeq&-|\mu|^2+\frac{m_Z^2}{2} \cos 2 \beta\cr
292: m_{H_d}^2&\simeq&B_H \tan \beta+m_{H_u}^2-m_Z^2 \cos 2\beta ,\ea
293: so we expect
294: $m_{H_u}^2$ to be negative. In the mSUGRA, the values of
295: $m_{H_u}^2$, $m_{H_d}^2$ as well as the sfermion and gaugino
296: masses are all determined by two parameters $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$.
297: This means that to have a low spectrum, $B_H \tan \beta$ should be
298: small, too. For large values of $\tan \beta$, this means that $B_H
299: $ should be much smaller than other supersymmetric parameters
300: which sounds unnatural (see however \cite{however}). Now if we
301: relax the unification of the masses at high energies and take $B_H
302: $ to be of order of $|m_{H_u}^2|$, we find that $m_{H_d}^2$ can be
303: positive and large.
304:
305: For positive $m_{H_d}^2$ as discussed in \cite{gunion} to
306: guarantee that no CCB occurs, it is sufficient to have \footnote{
307: The bounds (\ref{aebound},\ref{adbound}) are based on tree-level
308: analysis. However, \cite{casas} shows that loop effects do not
309: affect these results.} \be \label{aebound} A_e^2
310: <3(m_{H_d}^2+m_{\tilde{e}_L}^2+m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2)\ee and \be
311: \label{adbound} A_d^2
312: <3(m_{H_d}^2+m_{\tilde{d}_L}^2+m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2)\ee The larger
313: $m_{H_d}^2$ and $B_H /\cos \beta$, the less stringent the upper
314: bounds on $A_e$ and $A_d$. Remembering that the masses of CP-odd
315: Higgs field ($A^0$), the heavier CP-even Higgs ($H^0$) and charged
316: Higgses ($H^\pm$) are given by $(2 B_H/\sin 2 \beta)^{1/2}$, the
317: assumption of large $m_{H_d}^2$ can put into test at the LHC
318: \cite{hashemi}.
319: %In other words,
320: %within this model we expect a Higgs sector similar to the standard
321: %model but supersymmetric particles such neutralinos and selectrons
322: %will be accessible to LHC.
323: Finally, since
324: we are assuming that off-diagonal elements of the $A$-terms are
325: absent, we do not need to be concerned about the region unbounded
326: from below \cite{casas}.
327:
328:
329: \section{Numerical results} In this section, we study the electric
330: dipole moments of the electron, mercury and neutron to find ranges
331: of phases for which cancelation is possible.
332: %We first set
333: %the phases of gaugino masses equal to zero and study the
334: %possibility of cancelation between the phases of the $A$-terms and
335: %$\mu$. We next turn on the phases of the gaugino masses and
336: %perform a similar analysis.
337: We first discuss the constraints on the input parameters from
338: various observations with special emphasis on the uncertainty in
339: the input parameters and theoretical formulae. We then discuss
340: how, by varying the input variables, the overall behavior of the
341: bounds changes. We then analyze the possibility of cancelation in
342: the following two cases that are phenomenologically interesting:
343: 1) close to the benchmark SPS1a' \cite{sps1a'} ($\equiv$B''
344: \cite{b''}); 2) the range $\mu\simeq M_1$ where the Higgsino-Bino
345: mixing is large. The latter case is of interest because in this
346: regime, neutralino annihilation is relatively large, yielding the
347: desirable dark matter density.
348:
349: We assign various values in the relevant range to CP-conserving
350: parameters of the model ($\tan \beta$, the $\mu$ parameters, the
351: $A$-parameters, the selectron masses, the masses of superpartners
352: of light quarks and gaugino masses). As it is well-known, the
353: condition for electroweak symmetry breaking determines the values of
354: $\mu$ in terms of $m_{H_d}^2$, $m_{H_u}^2$ and $\tan \beta$. In
355: this paper, as we discussed earlier we do not make a priori any
356: assumption on the values of $m_{H_u}^2$ and $m_{H_d}^2$ so we are
357: free to assign any value to $|\mu|$. In this regard, our model
358: resembles the Non-Universal Higgs Mass (NUHM) model which has
359: recently received attention in the literature \cite{nuhm}.
360:
361: One of the triumphs of the MSSM is providing a natural candidate
362: for the dark matter; i.e. the lightest neutralino
363: ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$). In order for the relic density of
364: neutralinos to satisfy the precise results of WMAP, the parameter
365: space of the constrained MSSM is reduced to narrow strips in the
366: $m_0-m_{1/2}$ plane for given values of $\tan \beta$ and $A_0$
367: \cite{petra}. The contribution of neutralino to Dark matter energy
368: density is determined by annihilation rate after the temperature
369: drops below its mass. In the present model, it is possible to
370: tune the (co)annihilation rate of neutralino to a value that
371: explains the data: For the parameter range that we have chosen
372: $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ has a large $\tilde{B}^0$ component which
373: means it has a large annihilation cross section with
374: $\tilde{\tau}_R$. If the mass of $\tilde{\tau}_R$ is close to that
375: of $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, for temperatures slightly below their mass,
376: their density will be comparable. This means the coannihilation
377: rate of neutralinos with $\tilde{\tau}_R$ can be large enough to
378: bring the contribution of neutralinos to the dark matter density
379: to the desired values. Notice that in this scenario the dark
380: matter density is not sensitive to the value of $M_2$ (Wino mass)
381: because (i) the $\tilde{W}^0$ component of $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ is
382: small; (ii) $\tilde{\tau}_R$ does not couple to $\tilde{W}^0$. So,
383: varying the values of $M_2$ (as in Fig. \ref{deM2new}), will not
384: considerably affect the neutralino density.
385:
386: Another major
387: constraint on the MSSM parameters comes from the radiative
388: correction to Br$(b \to s \gamma)$ (see {\it e.g.,}
389: \cite{btosgamma}). The leading 1-loop SUSY diagrams involve loops
390: with a charged Higgs and a top quark and loops with a chargino and
391: a squark. Since in the present analysis the deviation from the
392: cMSSM spectrum is in the direction of increasing $M_2$ and $B_H $
393: (and hence $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+}$ and $m_{H^+}$) the SUSY correction
394: to $b \to s \gamma$ is further suppressed and as a result the
395: bounds from $b \to s \gamma$ cannot be significant.
396:
397:
398: To
399: calculate the EDMs and CEDMs of the elementary particles, we use the formalism developed in \cite{nath}.
400: In the literature, there are various different formulae for the
401: EDM of mercury:
402: \begin{itemize}
403: \item according to \cite{falk}
404: \be \label{Hgfalk}d_{Hg}=-(\tilde{d}_d-\tilde{d}_u -0.012
405: \tilde{d}_s)\times 3.2 \cdot 10^{-2} e, \ee where $\tilde{d}_d$,
406: $\tilde{d}_u$ and $\tilde{d}_s$ are respectively the
407: chromoelectric dipole moments of the $d$, $u$ and $s$ quarks.
408: \item that is while according to \cite{shimizu1}
409: \be \label{Hgshimizu}d_{Hg}=8.7\times 10^{-3} \times
410: e(\tilde{d}_d-\tilde{d}_u -0.0051 \tilde{d}_s) \ee
411: \end{itemize}
412: In this paper, we study the both formulae and discuss the effects of the
413: theoretical uncertainty.
414:
415: In the literature, to calculate the EDM of neutron various
416: theoretical approaches have been taken which give different and
417: even conflicting results. For example, the QCD sum rules yield
418: \cite{ritz} \be d_n=(1\pm 0.5) {|\langle \bar{q} q \rangle | \over
419: (225~{\rm MeV})^3} \times \left[ 0.55 e (\tilde{d}_d+0.5
420: \tilde{d}_u)+0.7(d_d-0.25 d_u) \right],\label{sumrule}\ee while
421: SU(3) chiral Lagrangian technique \cite{hisano} gives \be d_n
422: =(1.6 \times \tilde{d}_u+1.3 \times \tilde{d}_d +0.26 \times
423: \tilde{d}_s)\ \ {\rm e~cm}. \label{su(3)}\ee Notice that since we
424: expect $\tilde{d}_s/\tilde{d}_d \sim m_s/m_d\simeq 19$
425: \cite{mstomd}, in the latter formula the dominant contribution is
426: that of the strange quark whose effect is completely neglected in
427: the former formula. On the other hand, in the latter formula the
428: effects of EDM of quarks are neglected and only chromoelectric
429: dipole moments are considered. Because of these theoretical
430: uncertainties, we do not put much emphasis on the bounds from
431: neutron EDM. In our calculation, we will be using the formulation
432: in \cite{hisano}.
433:
434:
435: Figs (\ref{deM2new},\ref{deM1Ae}) display the maximum values
436: of $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation between the contributions of
437: the phases of $A_e$ and $\mu$ is possible. Since the masses of
438: selectrons and sneutrino are taken to be relatively small
439: ($<1$~TeV), the dominant effects are given by one-loop chargino
440: and neutralino exchanges \cite{nath} and the effect of two-loop
441: diagrams can be neglected \cite{pilaftsis}.
442:
443: Drawing Fig.~\ref{deM2new}, the phases of gauginos are
444: set equal to zero. From Fig.~\ref{deM2new} we conclude that with
445: growing
446: $M_2$, cancelation for larger values of $\theta_\mu$ becomes
447: possible. This is because the dominant contribution to $d_e$
448: comes from the chargino exchange which depends only on the phase
449: of $\mu$. That is while only the subdominant effect (the
450: neutralino exchange diagram) depends on the phase of $A_e$.
451: Increasing $M_2$, the effect of chargino exchange is suppressed
452: and in turn cancelation between two effects will be possible for
453: higher values of $\theta_\mu$.
454: As expected, increasing the value of $|A_e|$, the range of values of $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation
455: is possible is enlarged. This can be observed by comparing curves
456: (a1) with (a2); (a3) with (a4); and (b1) with (b2). Increasing
457: $\tan \beta$ from 10 to 20, the maximum values for which
458: cancelation is possible is considerably reduced [see curves (b1)
459: and (b2)]. Comparing curves (a1) and (a3) with (c1), (c2) and
460: (c3), we observe that by increasing the masses of the
461: supersymmetric particles the maximum $\theta_\mu$ for which
462: cancelation is possible is reduced. This rather counter-intuitive
463: behavior is also observed by \cite{plehn} for lower values of
464: $\tan \beta$ and $|A_e|$. However, as expected for larger values
465: of sfermion masses the degree of fine tuning of the phases
466: necessary for cancelation is smaller; {\it i.e.,} for larger
467: sfermion masses, the value of $
468: d_e^{exp}/d_e(\theta_\mu,\theta_{A_e}={\rm arbitrary })$ is
469: smaller. Finally comparing curves (c1), (c2) and (c3) with each
470: other and contrasting (a1) and (a2) versus (a3) and (a4), we
471: observe that the results are robust against varying the values of
472: $|\mu|$.
473: %The vertical lines correspond to the prediction of cMSSM ($3/5
474: %\cot^2 \theta_W M_1$) for $M_1=155$~GeV, $M_1=175$~GeV and
475: %$M_1=195$~GeV, from left to right.
476:
477: Fig.~\ref{deM1Ae} shows maximum and minimum values of
478: $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation among the contributions of the
479: phases of $M_1$, $A_e$ and $\mu$ is possible. Each curve
480: corresponds to a different value of $\theta_{M_1}$ as indicated.
481: For input parameters, we have chosen the spectrum of the SPS1a'
482: benchmark which is compatible with all the present bounds and will
483: be investigated by the LHC \cite{sps1a'}. As far as the EDM bounds
484: are concerned, this benchmark is a typical of points close to it.
485: We confirmed the robustness of these results by varying the input
486: parameters around this point.
487: When $\theta_\mu$ and
488: $\theta_{M_1}$ have opposite signs, cancelation becomes possible
489: for larger values of $|\theta_\mu|$ than in the case that the
490: relative sign is positive. In the latter case, even values of
491: $|\theta_\mu|$ of order of one are compatible with the bounds on
492: $d_e$. Notice that the results are symmetric under $\theta_\mu \to
493: -\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_{M_1} \to -\theta_{M_1}$. If future
494: searches put stronger bounds on $d_e$, our results will still be
495: valid but a greater degree of fine tuning for successful
496: cancelation will be required.
497:
498:
499:
500: Let us now discuss the possibility of
501: cancelation between different contributions to $d_{Hg}$. This
502: possibility has been studied in Fig. (\ref{HgM3Ad}). Since, at the
503: electroweak scale, $m_{H_u}^2$ is negative (electroweak symmetry
504: breaking implies $m_{H_u}^2\simeq -|\mu|^2$), the CCB bounds
505: severely restrict the value of $|A_u|$. That is why we have taken
506: $|A_u|=300~{\rm GeV} \ll |A_d|,|A_s|$. For a given set of phases,
507: the contribution of $\tilde{d}_u$ to $d_{Hg}$ is subdominant. This
508: is expected because (i) $|A_u| \ll |A_d|,|A_s|$; ii)
509: the dominant contribution from $\theta_\mu$ to $\tilde{d}_u$
510: is suppressed by $\cot \beta$; that is while the corresponding
511: contribution to $\tilde{d}_d$ and $\tilde{d}_s$ is enhanced by
512: $\tan \beta$.
513: %For the same reason, we do not expect the current rather large
514: %uncertainty in the value of $m_u$ to affect our result.
515: In general, we expect the uncertainty in the values of $m_d$ and
516: $m_s$ to dramatically affect the values of the calculated EDMs.
517: However, since the ratio $m_s/m_d$ is known to a rather high
518: accuracy \cite{mstomd} the region of parameter space in which
519: cancelation occurs is not considerably affected by the uncertainty
520: in knowledge of $m_d$. Nevertheless, the theoretical uncertainty
521: in calculating $d_{Hg}$ [{\it e.g.,} Eq. (\ref{Hgshimizu}) vs. Eq.
522: (\ref{Hgfalk})] can change the conditions for cancelation to some
523: extent.
524:
525: Fig.~\ref{HgM3Ad}
526: displays the maximum values of $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation
527: among the contributions of the phases of $M_3$, $\mu$, $A_d$,
528: $A_s$ and $A_u$ to $d_{Hg}$ is possible. Each curve corresponds
529: to a different value of $\theta_{M_3}$. The same as in Fig.
530: \ref{deM1Ae}, we have set the input parameters close to the
531: benchmark SPS1a' \cite{sps1a'}. For a given value of
532: $\theta_{M_3}$, using the formula given in \cite{shimizu1} [see
533: Eq. (\ref{Hgshimizu})] the bound on $d_{Hg}$ appears more
534: restrictive than the formula given by the QCD sum rule \cite{falk}
535: [see Eq. (\ref{Hgfalk})]. This can be observed from Fig.
536: \ref{HgM3Ad}: the thin discrete points lie above the thick points
537: connected by lines. This is expected because when the contribution
538: of $\tilde{d}_s$ is taken to be large, the phase of $A_s$ can play
539: a greater role in canceling the other effects. From Fig.
540: \ref{HgM3Ad}, we conclude that the cancelation scenario is open
541: for a wider range of $\theta_\mu$ if the relative sign of
542: $\theta_{M_3}$ and $\theta_\mu$ is positive. This is because of
543: the partial cancelation that occurs between their respective
544: contributions in this case. When both $\theta_{M_3}$ and
545: $\theta_\mu$ are positive, even phases close to $\pi/2$ are
546: compatible with the bound on $d_{Hg}$.
547:
548: Remember that
549: we have allowed the $A$-parameters of the electron and quarks to
550: be different from each other, so the degrees of freedom are enough
551: to simultaneously fulfill the cancelation conditions for $d_e$ and
552: $d_{Hg}$ with non-vanishing solutions for phases. However one
553: should check if there is an overlap between the range of
554: $\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_{M_1}$ for which $d_e$ and $d_{Hg}$ can
555: vanish because of cancelation. Relaxing the assumption of
556: universality, this comparison is rather non-trivial because
557: $d_{Hg}$ and $d_e$ are sensitive to different sets of input
558: parameters. Since the mass spectrum for both figures \ref{deM1Ae}
559: and \ref{HgM3Ad} correspond to the same benchmark, it makes sense
560: to compare them. To make such a comparison, we should notice that
561: 1) $d_e$ does not depend on $\theta_{M_3}$; 2) sensitivity of
562: $d_{Hg}$ to $\theta_{M_1}$ is low. Comparison shows that we can
563: simultaneously satisfy both bounds for $|\theta_\mu|\sim {\cal
564: O}(1)$. Figs. \ref{overlap} also show the range of
565: ($\theta_\mu,\theta_{M_1}$) [or $\theta_\mu,\theta_{M_3}$] for
566: which cancelation is possible. To draw these figures, we have
567: taken the spectrum of SPS1a' as input for masses but we have taken
568: $|A_e|=2000$~GeV, $|A_u|=300$~GeV and $|A_s|=|A_d|=3000$~GeV. Fig
569: (\ref{overlap}-a) shows the range of $\theta_\mu$ and
570: $\theta_{M_1}$ for which cancelation between contributions of
571: phases of $\mu$, $M_1$ and $A_e$ to $d_e$ is possible. Notice that
572: even $\theta_\mu=\pi/2$ can be compatible with the upper bound on
573: $d_e$. In the area shadowed in Fig. (\ref{overlap}-b), cancelation
574: between contributions of the phases of $\mu$, $M_3$, $A_u$, $A_d$
575: and $A_s$ to $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ can suppress $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$
576: to values below the strong bounds on them. To draw Fig.
577: (\ref{overlap}-b), we have set $\theta_{M_1}=0$. Fig.
578: (\ref{overlap}-c) is similar to Fig. (\ref{overlap}-b) except that
579: in the case of Fig. (\ref{overlap}-c), $\theta_{M_3}$ instead of
580: $\theta_{M_1}$ is set equal to zero.
581: Fig. (\ref{overlap}-d) displays the range of $\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_{M_1}$ for which
582: cancelation between different contributions to $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$
583: is possible. Drawing Fig (\ref{overlap}-d) the phases
584: $\theta_\mu$, $\theta_{M_1}$, $\theta_{M_3}$, $ \theta_{A_d}$,
585: $\theta_{A_u}$ and $\theta_{A_s}$ are all allowed to vary in order
586: to satisfy the bounds on $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$. As expected, Figs.
587: (\ref{overlap}-c) and (\ref{overlap}-d) look similar but Fig.
588: (\ref{overlap}-d) covers a larger range because in this case there
589: is one more degree of freedom to satisfy the bounds. To
590: simultaneously satisfy all the bounds, the values of $\theta_\mu$
591: and $\theta_{M_1}$ should be in the overlap of Figs
592: (\ref{overlap}-a) and (\ref{overlap}-d). Contrasting these two
593: figures we find out that values of $\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_{M_1}$
594: of order of 1 are possible. It is interesting that the maximal
595: CP-violating case $\theta_\mu=\pm \frac{\pi}{2}$ which is
596: compatible with $d_e$ is excluded by the bounds on $d_{Hg}$ and
597: $d_n$ and on the other hand, $\theta_{M_1}=\pm \frac{\pi}{2}$
598: which is compatible with the $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ bounds is ruled
599: out by bound on $d_{e}$ . One should be aware that in this range
600: of parameters the bound from $d_n$ is more restrictive than the
601: bound from $d_{Hg}$. If we redraw the Figs. (\ref{overlap}-b) to
602: (\ref{overlap}-d) overlooking the bound on $d_{Hg}$, we find that
603: results do not considerably change. This shows that in order to
604: derive conclusive results from EDMs, solving the theoretical
605: uncertainties in calculation of $d_n$ is imperative.
606:
607: From cosmological point of view, the region $\mu\simeq M_1$ is
608: specially interesting because in this region, the Higgsino Bino
609: mixing is sizeable yielding relatively large
610: $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ annihilation rate in accord
611: with the dark matter density measurements. Recently it has been
612: shown \cite{semenov} that varying the values of the CP-violating
613: phases, the range of parameters compatible with the measured dark
614: matter density will be enlarged. Fig.~\ref{HBmixing} tries to
615: find out if large CP-violating phases, for sub-TeV selectron
616: masses, are allowed. From these figures, we find out that although
617: $\theta_{M_1}$ can be ${\cal O}(\pi/2)$, $\theta_\mu$ cannot
618: exceed 0.1$\pi$ even if $A_e=4000$~GeV. We have checked the
619: robustness of this result by varying the parameters along
620: $\mu\simeq M_1$ and the result seems generic.
621:
622:
623: \section{EDM bounds and electroweak baryogenesis}
624:
625: Arguably the most important manifestation of CP-violation is
626: its role in the creation of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe.
627: In the context of MSSM, all three Sakharov's famous conditions can
628: be fulfilled and, in principle, through a mechanism known as
629: electroweak baryogenesis, the baryon asymmetry of the Universe can
630: be explained. To have strong first order electroweak phase
631: transition necessary for the creation of the baryon asymmetry of
632: the universe, one of the top squarks should be lighter than the
633: top quark. If we demand the lightest neutralino to be the lightest
634: supersymmetric particle, this in turn implies
635: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}<m_t$. The other requirement for having
636: successful electroweak baryogenesis is of course having large
637: enough CP-violating phases. However, in \cite{stefano} it is shown
638: that even for values of $\sin\theta_\mu$ as low as $10^{-2}$
639: successful electroweak baryogenesis can be a possibility provided
640: that we are at the resonance region \cite{ramsey,resonance} (i.
641: e., $|\mu|\simeq |M_1|$ or $|\mu|\simeq |M_2|$). Moreover to have
642: a successful electroweak baryogenesis the mass of the CP-odd Higgs
643: boson, $m_{A^0}$, should be relatively low ($m_{A^0}\ll $~TeV).
644: Notice that if the masses of selectron and sneutrino are below the
645: TeV scale, even values of $\sin\theta_\mu$ as low as $10^{-2}$
646: will not be compatible with the bounds on the electric dipole
647: moment of electron, unless the cancelation scenario is at work.
648: Suppose future experiments (the LHC and ILC) confirm supersymmetry
649: and find out that $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}<m_{\tilde{t}_R}<m_t$ and
650: discover a relatively light $A^0$. These conditions are
651: tantalizingly close to the requirement for a successful
652: electroweak baryogenesis. Now, suppose that the masses of
653: selectrons turn out to be at the scale of few hundred GeV. Does
654: this mean that the electroweak baryogenesis is ruled out? Figs
655: (\ref{baryogenesis200},\ref{baryogenesis340}) try to address this
656: question by studying the possibility of cancelation between
657: different contributions to $d_e$. As we discussed in the previous
658: section, since we have set the masses of sfermions below the TeV
659: scale, the one-loop effects dominate over the two-loop effects.
660: Taking the two-loop effects into account only slightly shifts the
661: cancelation point.
662:
663: To draw Fig \ref{baryogenesis200}, we have set $\tan \beta
664: =10$, $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=392$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=218$~GeV,
665: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=385$~GeV, and $M_2=415$~GeV. Moreover we have
666: set $|M_1|=|\mu|=200$ GeV which means we are in the
667: neutralino-driven resonant electroweak baryogenesis regime
668: \cite{stefano}. For this choice of parameters the lightest
669: neutralino is indeed lighter than the top quark. We have set
670: $A_e=700$~GeV which is smaller than
671: $[3(m_{\tilde{e}_L}^2+m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2)]^{1/2}$ thus, as long as
672: $m_{H_d}^2$ is positive \cite{gunion}, no CCB will take place (see
673: Eq.~\ref{aebound}). Positiveness of $m_{H_d}^2$ sets a lower bound
674: on $b\tan\beta\simeq m_{A^0}^2$ [see Eq. (\ref{Mhd})] which for
675: our choice of parameters is 190~GeV. Thus, for these parameters
676: $A^0$ (the CP-odd Higgs boson) can still be sufficiently light.
677: Increasing $A_e$ the cancelation can of course become possible for
678: larger values of $\theta_\mu$ but the lower bound on $m_{A^0}$
679: will also be stronger and on the other hand, for heavier
680: $m_{A^0}$ the produced baryon asymmetry is suppressed. As shown in
681: \cite{stefano}, the neutralino-driven resonant baryogenesis is
682: only marginally compatible with the indirect searches of dark
683: matter so this choice of parameters in near future will be tested
684: not only by collider data but also by further indirect dark matter
685: searches.
686:
687: From Fig. \ref{baryogenesis200}, we observe that for universal
688: gaugino masses [$\theta_{M_1}=\theta_{M_2}=0$], cancelation can
689: take place even for values of $|\sin \theta_\mu|$ up to 0.06
690: which according to \cite{stefano} can easily yield the
691: baryon-antibaryon asymmetry compatible with the WMAP results. This
692: confirms the results of \cite{ramsey}. In the neutralino-driven
693: electroweak baryogenesis regime, the combination of the phases
694: which determines baryogenesis is $\theta_\mu+\theta_{M_1}$
695: \cite{private}. Notice that $\theta_\mu+\theta_{M_1}$ is a
696: rephasing invariant quantity. Fig \ref{baryogenesis200} shows
697: that, relaxing the assumption of the universality of the gaugino
698: masses [$\theta_{M_1}\ne \theta_{M_2}=0$], cancelation makes
699: $|\sin(\theta_\mu +\theta_{M_1})|\sim 1$ compatible with the
700: bounds on $d_e$.
701: %To find the effect of this phase on baryogenesis,
702: %one should repeat the baryogenesis analysis relaxing the
703: %assumption of universality between the phases of gauginos.
704:
705: Now let us discuss fine tuning required for such cancelation. If
706: the phases of $\mu$ and $M_1$ are at the region where cancelation
707: can take place, the generic value of $d_e$ is already around
708: $10^{-26}$~e cm so to reduce the value of $d_e$ down to below the
709: upper bound on it (see Eq.~\ref{10-27}), a cancelation of $10\%$
710: will be enough which means the fine tuning of the phases is not a
711: problem. It can be shown that for this range of $\theta_\mu$ and
712: $\theta_{M_1}$, the different contributions from phases of $M_3$,
713: $M_1$, $\mu$, $A_d$ and $A_s$
714: to $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ can also cancel each other to satisfy the
715: experimental upper bounds. The degree of fine-tuning necessary for
716: suppressing the values of $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ down to the values
717: below the upper bounds on them depends on the scale of $M_3$ and
718: squark masses as well as $A$-terms. We have checked the degree of
719: fine tuning needed for effective cancelation setting $M_3\simeq
720: 1400$~GeV and $m_{\tilde{d}}=1200$~GeV (these are the values
721: corresponding to the prediction of cMSSM if the values of $M_1$
722: and selectron are as above). We have set $A_s=A_d=900$~GeV which
723: are smaller than $\sqrt{3(m_{\tilde{d}_L}^2+m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2)}$.
724: For the phases in the shadowed region shown in Fig
725: \ref{baryogenesis200} cancelation required in order to suppress
726: $d_{Hg}$ below the upper bound on it is not stronger than $\sim$
727: 5\% ($\sim$ 20\%) if we take the formula in \cite{falk}
728: (\cite{shimizu1}). We have also found that cancelation required in
729: order to suppress $d_{n}$ below its upper bound is not stronger
730: than $\sim$ 3\% ($\sim$ 15\%) if we take the formula in
731: \cite{hisano} (\cite{ritz}). In near future, the experiments are
732: going to become sensitive to even smaller values of $d_n$,
733: $d_{Hg}$ and $d_{e}$. Moreover, there are proposals to probe EDM
734: of deuteron down to $(1-3)\times 10^{-27}$~e~cm \cite{dD}. If one
735: or more of these experiments detect a nonzero electric dipole
736: moment, it will be a strong hint in favor of the electroweak
737: baryogenesis. On the other hand, if they all report null results,
738: we still cannot rule out the cancelation scenario even though a
739: new piece of information (the bound on $d_D$) is added. However a
740: greater degree of fine tuning would be necessary for the
741: cancelation.
742:
743: Fig. \ref{baryogenesis340} explores the possibility of cancelation
744: scenario and having large CP-violating phases in the
745: chargino-driven resonant electroweak baryogenesis regime
746: ($|\mu|\simeq M_2$). The above discussion holds in this case, too,
747: with the difference that for the chargino-driven electroweak
748: baryogenesis the combination of phases that relevant for
749: baryogenesis is $\theta_\mu+\theta_{M_2}$. According to this
750: figure $\sin(\theta_\mu+\theta_{M_1})$ can reach 0.09 which may
751: be enough for a successful baryogenesis \cite{stefano}. In case of
752: Fig. \ref{baryogenesis340}, since $|\mu|$ is larger, the lower
753: bound on the CP-odd Higgs boson will be stronger:
754: $m_{A^0}>335$~GeV. Unlike the case of neutralino-driven
755: electroweak baryogenesis,
756: the chargino-driven electroweak baryogenesis is not sensitive to the indirect dark matter
757: searches.
758:
759: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
762:
763: \section{Implication of cancelation scenario for CP-violation searches in the colliders} The
764: CP-violating phases can manifest themselves as both CP-even and CP-odd quantities in the LHC
765: \cite{godbole,cplhc} and International Linear Collider, ILC \cite{cpilc,kittelthesis,kittel}.
766: Due to high precision and capability of polarizing the initial beams, the ILC will have a
767: greater chance to observe CP-violation in the production and decay of sparticles.
768: In \cite{kittelthesis,kittel}, it is shown that even small values of CP-violating phases can
769: result in an asymmetry between $e^+e^- \to \tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\tau}_1^+ \tau^-$
770: and $e^+e^- \to\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\tau}_1^- \tau^+$. Following \cite{kittelthesis},
771: let us define
772: \begin{equation} A_{CP}\equiv {P_2-\bar{P}_2 \over 2}. \end{equation}
773: In the above definition, $P_2$ is the polarization of $\tau$ which is produced in the subsequent processes
774: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\chi}_i^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_i^0 \to \tau^-\tilde{\tau}^+$.
775: The polarization vector is
776: defined as
777: \begin{equation}
778: \vec{P}\equiv \frac{{\rm Tr}[ \rho \vec{\sigma}]}{{\rm Tr}[\rho]},
779: \end{equation}
780: where $\rho$ is the spin density of $\tau$ and direction 2 is
781: taken to be perpendicular to the plane defined by the momenta of
782: the $\tau$ and the initial electron. Curves in Fig.
783: \ref{figkittel}, which are borrowed from Fig. 2.12.b of
784: \cite{kittelthesis}, show different contour lines corresponding to
785: various values of $A_{CP}$. The input data for the curves are
786: $\theta_{A_\tau}=0$, $A_\tau=250$~GeV and
787: ($P_{e^-},P_{e^+})=(-0.8,0.6)$. The rest of the input parameters
788: are given in the caption of Fig. \ref{figkittel}. Notice that the
789: input parameters satisfy the relations that we would have expected
790: in the cMSSM. It is remarkable that $A_{CP}=\pm 45\% $ can be
791: possible for values of $\theta_\mu$ as small as $\pm 0.1 \pi$ and
792: $\theta_{M_1}=\pm 1/6\pi$ or for $\theta_\mu=\pm 0.06 \pi$ and
793: $\theta_{M_1}=\pm \pi/2$. The shadowed areas superimposed on the
794: curves show the region for which the cancelation scenario can
795: result in vanishing $d_e$. In order to check if in the same area
796: vanishing $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ is possible, we calculated the
797: corresponding gluino and squark masses in the specific point in
798: the cMSSM space chosen above and inserted them in the formulae for
799: $d_{Hg}$ and $d_n$. We found that for any given set of
800: $\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_{M_1}$ total cancelation can
801: simultaneously suppress the values of $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$. The
802: overlap of curves with the shadowed area indicates that even for
803: light sfermion masses, we still have a hope to observe
804: CP-violating effects in the ILC provided that the systematic and
805: statistical errors are under control.
806:
807: Let us now discuss the fine tuning required for suppressing the
808: EDMs below the upper bounds on them. Taking $\theta_\mu$ and
809: $\theta_{M_1}$ in the shadowed area and assigning a general value
810: between $-\pi$ and $\pi$ to $\theta_{A_e}$ we find that $d_e$
811: cannot exceed $10^{-26}$~e cm. This means that the fine tuning
812: required to suppress $d_e$ below the bound in Eq. \ref{10-27} is
813: not larger than 10\%. However, although simultaneous suppression
814: of $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ is possible for a wider range of phases, we
815: have found that the required fine-tuning in this case is greater
816: and is of order of 1\%.
817: \section{Conclusions}
818: In this paper, we have studied the possibility of satisfying the
819: bounds on $d_e$, $d_{Hg}$ and $d_n$ by cancelation scenario,
820: relaxing the universality of parameters at the GUT scale. We have
821: discussed that relaxing universality of the Higgs mass parameters
822: ($m_{H_d}^2$ and $m_{H_u}^2$) the color and charge breaking bounds
823: on $A_e$, $A_d$ and $A_s$ will be less severe allowing $A$-terms
824: of order of few TeV. We have focused on the part of parameter
825: space with intermediate values of $\tan \beta$ ($\tan \beta \simeq
826: 10$) and TeV scale A-terms. This range has not been explored in
827: the literature before. We have found that the bounds on $d_e$ and
828: $d_n$, in this range, are complementary. We have argued that the
829: uncertainty in evaluating $d_n$ in terms of the EDMs and CEDMs of
830: the elementary particles causes large uncertainty in deriving
831: bounds on the CP-violating phases. For the mass spectrum close to
832: that of the SPS1a' benchmark (which will be soon explored at the
833: LHC) $|\sin \theta_\mu|,|\sin \theta_{M_1}|\sim {\cal O}(1)$ is a
834: possibility but requires high fine tuning (0.1\%).
835:
836: We have also
837: studied the possibility of cancelation for the region that
838: electroweak baryogenesis is enhanced ($|\mu| \simeq |M_1|$ and
839: $|\mu|\simeq |M_2|$) and found that $|\sin \theta_\mu|\simeq 0.1$
840: and $|\sin \theta_{M_1}| \simeq 1$, even for the sub-TeV slepton
841: masses, can be compatible with the EDM bounds. The main point is
842: that relaxing the assumption of the universality of gaugino mass
843: phases $(\theta_{M_1}\ne \theta_{M_2})$ opens up the possibility
844: of cancelation such that values of $\left| \sin [\theta_\mu
845: +\theta_{M_1}]\right| \sim 1$ become compatible with the bounds on
846: $d_e$. This opens new windows towards successful electroweak
847: baryogenesis. Notice that in this range of parameters the
848: fine-tuning required for successful cancelation is not too high.
849:
850:
851: We have explored the possibility of
852: cancelation in the regime that the Higgino-Bino mixing is large.
853: This part of the parameter space is of interest from neutralino
854: relic density point of view.
855: In the literature \cite{semenov}, it is shown that varying the CP-violating phases in a large range broadens
856: the parameter range compatible with the WMAP dark matter
857: measurements. We find that in this regime, $|\sin\theta_\mu|$
858: cannot exceed 0.1 but $|\sin \theta_{M1}|$ can reach 1, even for
859: relatively small sfermion masses.
860:
861: We expect in the future, the running and planned experiments to
862: probe smaller values of $d_n$ and $d_{Hg}$ and $d_e$
863: \cite{prospect}. Moreover the proposed experiments can probe $d_D$
864: with high sensitivity \cite{dD}. Even if all these experiments
865: report null results, the range of parameters where cancelation is
866: possible will not change but greater degree of fine tuning will be
867: required.
868:
869: \section{Acknowledgement}
870: We would like to thank D. Demir, J. Ellis, R. Godbole and M.
871: Hashemi for the useful discussions. We are specially thankful to
872: S. Profumo for pointing out a mistake in the first version of the
873: manuscript. We appreciate O. Kittel for giving us the permission
874: to use his plots. We are also grateful to R. Asgari for teaching
875: us how to use the software for drawing the plots. Y. F. is
876: grateful to the CERN theory division for the hospitality during
877: her stay at CERN when a part of this work was done.
878:
879: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
880: \bibitem{e} W.~Bernreuther and M.~Suzuki,
881: %``The Electric Dipole Moment Of The Electron,''
882: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 63} (1991) 313
883: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 64} (1992) 633];
884: %%CITATION = RMPHA,63,313;%%
885: Notice that a more recent analysis reports a substantially smaller
886: value: M.~J.~Booth,
887: %``The Electric dipole moment of the W and electron in the Standard Model,''
888: arXiv:hep-ph/9301293.
889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301293;%%
890:
891:
892: \bibitem{n} E.~P.~Shabalin,
893: %``The Electric Dipole Moment Of The Neutron In A Gauge Theory,''
894: Sov.\ Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf 26} (1983) 297
895: [Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 139} (1983) 561];
896: %%CITATION = SOPUA,26,297;%%
897: M.~B.~Gavela {\it et al.,}
898: %``CP Violation Induced By Penguin Diagrams And The Neutron Electric Dipole
899: %Moment,''
900: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 109} (1982) 215;
901: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B109,215;%%
902: I.~I.~Y.~Bigi and N.~G.~Uraltsev,
903: %``Effective gluon operators and the dipole moment of the neutron,''
904: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 73} (1991) 198;
905: %%CITATION = SPHJA,73,198;%%
906: I.~B.~Khriplovich and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
907: %``What Is The Value Of The Neutron Electric Dipole Moment In The
908: %Kobayashi-Maskawa Model?,''
909: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 109} (1982) 490.
910: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B109,490;%%
911: \bibitem{pdg}
912: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
913: %``Review of particle physics,''
914: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.
915: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
916:
917: \bibitem{commins}
918: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,
919: %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''
920: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 071805.
921: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%
922: \bibitem{cerncourier}
923: C.~A.~Baker {\it et al.},
924: %``An improved experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the
925: %neutron,''
926: arXiv:hep-ex/0602020.
927: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0602020;%%
928:
929: \bibitem{prospect}
930: Kawall {\it et al.,} electron in AIP conf. Proc.
931: {\bf 698} (2004) 192;
932: S.~K.~Lamoreaux,
933: %``Solid state systems for electron electric dipole moment and other
934: %fundamental measurements,''
935: arXiv:nucl-ex/0109014;
936: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0109014;%%
937: Y.~K.~Semertzidis,
938: %``Electric dipole moments of fundamental particles,''
939: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 131} (2004) 244
940: [arXiv:hep-ex/0401016];
941: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401016;%%
942: http://p25ext.lanl.gov/edm/edm.html.
943: \bibitem{godbole}
944: R.~M.~Godbole,
945: %``CP violation in supersymmetry and the LHC,''
946: Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55} (2005) B221
947: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503088].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503088;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{heavymasses}
951: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
952: %``The chromoelectric and purely gluonic operator contributions to the
953: %neutron electric dipole moment in N = 1 supergravity,''
954: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 418} (1998) 98
955: [arXiv:hep-ph/9707409];
956: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707409;%%
957: M.~Brhlik, G.~J.~Good and G.~L.~Kane,
958: %``Electric dipole moments do not require the CP-violating phases of
959: %supersymmetry to be small,''
960: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 115004
961: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810457];
962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810457;%%
963: A.~Bartl {\it et al.},
964: %``Electron and neutron electric dipole moments in the constrained MSSM,''
965: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 073003
966: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903402];
967: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903402;%%
968: T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,
969: %``MSSM predictions for the electric dipole moment of the Hg-199 atom,''
970: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560} (1999) 3
971: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904393].
972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904393;%%
973:
974: \bibitem{rubakov}
975: V.~A.~Kuzmin, V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
976: %``On The Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation In The Early
977: %Universe,''
978: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155}, 36 (1985).
979: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,36;%%
980:
981: \bibitem{stefano}
982: V.~Cirigliano, S.~Profumo and M.~J.~Ramsey-Musolf,
983: %``Baryogenesis, electric dipole moments and dark matter in the MSSM,''
984: arXiv:hep-ph/0603246.
985: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603246;%%
986:
987: \bibitem{cancelation}
988: K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,
989: %``CP-odd phase correlations and electric dipole moments,''
990: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 075001
991: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506106];
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506106;%%
993: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,
994: %``EDM constraints in supersymmetric theories,''
995: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 151
996: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103320];
997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103320;%%
998: T.~Falk {\it et al.,}
999: %``MSSM predictions for the electric dipole moment of the Hg-199 atom,''
1000: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560} (1999) 3
1001: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904393];
1002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904393;%%
1003: A.~Afanasev, C.~E.~Carlson and C.~Wahlquist,
1004: %``Soft contributions to hard pion photoproduction,''
1005: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 034014
1006: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903493].
1007: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903493;%%
1008:
1009: \bibitem{so(10)}
1010: H.~Baer and J.~Ferrandis,
1011: %``Supersymmetric SO(10) GUT models with Yukawa unification and a positive mu
1012: %term,''
1013: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 211803
1014: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106352];
1015: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106352;%%
1016: H.~Baer, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
1017: %``Sparticle mass spectra from SO(10) grand unified models with Yukawa
1018: %coupling unification,''
1019: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 111701
1020: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907211];
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907211;%%
1022: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante,
1023: P.~Quintana and X.~Tata,
1024: %``Yukawa unified supersymmetric SO(10) model: Cosmology, rare decays and
1025: %collider searches,''
1026: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015007
1027: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005027];
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%
1029: T.~Blazek, R.~Dermisek and S.~Raby,
1030: %``Yukawa unification in SO(10),''
1031: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 115004
1032: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201081];
1033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201081;%%
1034: T.~Blazek, R.~Dermisek and S.~Raby,
1035: %``Predictions for Higgs and SUSY spectra from SO(10) Yukawa unification with
1036: %mu > 0,''
1037: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 111804
1038: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107097].
1039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107097;%%
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044: \bibitem{olive1}
1045: T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive,
1046: %``More on electric dipole moment constraints on phases in the constrained
1047: %MSSM,''
1048: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439} (1998) 71
1049: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806236];
1050: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806236;%%
1051: T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive,
1052: %``Electric Dipole Moment Constraints on Phases in the Constrained MSSM,''
1053: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 375} (1996) 196
1054: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602299].
1055: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602299;%%
1056:
1057: \bibitem{flavor} %\cite{Hagelin:1992tc}
1058: J.~S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and T.~Tanaka,
1059: %``Supersymmetric flavor changing neutral currents: Exact amplitudes and
1060: %phenomenological analysis,''
1061: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 415} (1994) 293.
1062: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B415,293;%%
1063:
1064: \bibitem{plehn}
1065: V.~D.~Barger, T.~Falk, T.~Han, J.~Jiang, T.~Li and T.~Plehn,
1066: %``CP-violating phases in SUSY, electric dipole moments, and linear
1067: %colliders,''
1068: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 056007 (2001)
1069: [arXiv:hep-ph/0101106] {\it and refrences therein}.
1070: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101106;%%
1071:
1072: \bibitem{yasaman}
1073: Y.~Farzan,
1074: %``Effects of the neutrino B-term on slepton mixing and electric dipole
1075: %moments,''
1076: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 073009
1077: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310055];
1078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310055;%%
1079: Y.~Farzan,
1080: %``Effects of the neutrino B-term on the Higgs mass parameters and
1081: %electroweak symmetry breaking,''
1082: JHEP {\bf 0502} (2005) 025
1083: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411358];
1084: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411358;%%
1085: Y.~Farzan,
1086: %``On effects of large neutrino B-term on low energy physics,''
1087: arXiv:hep-ph/0505004.
1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505004;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{however}
1091: H.~Baer, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
1092: %``Are supersymmetric models with large tan(beta) natural?,''
1093: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 561} (2003) 145
1094: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211418].
1095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211418;%%
1096:
1097: \bibitem{gunion}
1098: J. F. Gunion {\it et al.,} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}306 (1988) 1.
1099: \bibitem{hashemi}
1100: M. Baarmand, M.~Hashemi, A. Nikitenko, in press.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{casas}
1103: J.~A.~Casas,
1104: %``Charge and color breaking,''
1105: arXiv:hep-ph/9707475;
1106: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707475;%%
1107: J.~A.~Casas and S.~Dimopoulos,
1108: %``Stability bounds on flavor-violating trilinear soft terms in the MSSM,''
1109: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 387}, 107 (1996)
1110: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606237].
1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606237;%%
1112:
1113: \bibitem{sps1a'}
1114: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},
1115: %``Supersymmetry parameter analysis: SPA convention and project,''
1116: arXiv:hep-ph/0511344.
1117: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511344;%%
1118:
1119: \bibitem{b''}
1120: A.~De Roeck, J.~R.~Ellis, F.~Gianotti, F.~Moortgat, K.~A.~Olive
1121: and L.~Pape,
1122: %``Supersymmetric benchmarks with non-universal scalar masses or gravitino
1123: %dark matter,''
1124: arXiv:hep-ph/0508198.
1125: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508198;%%
1126:
1127: \bibitem{nuhm}
1128: V.~Berezinsky {\it et al.,}
1129: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 5}, 1 (1996)
1130: [arXiv:hep-ph/9508249];
1131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508249;%%
1132: M.~Drees {\it et al.,}
1133: %``Light Higgsino dark matter,''
1134: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 276 (1997)
1135: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 64}, 039901 (2001)]
1136: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701219];
1137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701219;%%
1138: P.~Nath and R.~Arnowitt,
1139: %``Non-universal soft SUSY breaking and dark matter,''
1140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 2820 (1997)
1141: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701301];
1142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701301;%%
1143: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
1144: %``Probing the supersymmetric parameter space by WIMP direct detection,''
1145: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 125003 (2001)
1146: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010203];
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010203;%%
1148: D.~G.~Cerdeno and C.~Munoz,
1149: %``Neutralino dark matter in supergravity theories with non-universal scalar
1150: %and gaugino masses,''
1151: JHEP {\bf 0410}, 015 (2004)
1152: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405057];
1153: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405057;%%
1154: H.~Baer, A.~Mustafayev, S.~Profumo, A.~Belyaev and X.~Tata,
1155: %``Direct, indirect and collider detection of neutralino dark matter in SUSY
1156: %models with non-universal Higgs masses,''
1157: JHEP {\bf 0507}, 065 (2005)
1158: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504001];
1159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504001;%%
1160: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,
1161: %``The MSSM parameter space with non-universal Higgs masses,''
1162: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539}, 107 (2002)
1163: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204192];
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204192;%%
1165: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,
1166: %``Exploration of the MSSM with non-universal Higgs masses,''
1167: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 652}, 259 (2003)
1168: [arXiv:hep-ph/0210205];
1169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210205;%%
1170: A.~De Roeck {\it et al.,}
1171: %``Supersymmetric benchmarks with non-universal scalar masses or gravitino
1172: %dark matter,''
1173: arXiv:hep-ph/0508198.
1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508198;%%
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178: \bibitem{petra}
1179: L.~S.~Stark, P.~Hafliger, A.~Biland and F.~Pauss,
1180: %``New allowed mSUGRA parameter space from variations of the trilinear scalar
1181: %coupling A0,''
1182: JHEP {\bf 0508}, 059 (2005)
1183: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502197].
1184: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502197;%%
1185:
1186:
1187: \bibitem{btosgamma}
1188: H.~Baer, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and A.~Mustafayev,
1189: %``SUSY normal scalar mass hierarchy reconciles (g-2)(mu), b $\to$ s gamma
1190: %and relic density,''
1191: JHEP {\bf 0406} (2004) 044
1192: [arXiv:hep-ph/0403214].
1193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403214;%%
1194:
1195: \bibitem{nath}
1196: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
1197: %``The neutron and the electron electric dipole moment in N = 1 supergravity
1198: %unification,''
1199: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 478
1200: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58} (1998\ ERRAT,D60,079903.1999\ ERRAT,D60,119901.1999) 019901]
1201: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708456].
1202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708456;%%
1203:
1204: \bibitem{falk}
1205: T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,
1206: %``MSSM predictions for the electric dipole moment of the Hg-199 atom,''
1207: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560} (1999) 3
1208: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904393].
1209: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904393;%%
1210:
1211: \bibitem{shimizu1}
1212: J.~Hisano, M.~Kakizaki, M.~Nagai and Y.~Shimizu,
1213: %``Hadronic EDMs in SUSY SU(5) GUTs with right-handed neutrinos,''
1214: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604} (2004) 216
1215: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407169].
1216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407169;%%
1217:
1218: \bibitem{ritz}
1219: M.~Pospelov and A. Ritz,
1220: %``Neutron EDM from electric and chromoelectric dipole moments of quarks,''
1221: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 073015
1222: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010037].
1223: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010037;%%
1224: \bibitem{hisano}
1225: J.~Hisano and Y.~Shimizu,
1226: %``Hadronic EDMs induced by the strangeness and constraints on supersymmetric
1227: %CP phases,''
1228: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 093001
1229: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406091].
1230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406091;%%
1231:
1232: \bibitem{mstomd}
1233: H.~Leutwyler,
1234: %``Non-lattice determinations of the light quark masses,''
1235: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 94} (2001) 108
1236: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011049];
1237: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011049;%%
1238: H.~Leutwyler,
1239: %``The ratios of the light quark masses,''
1240: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 378} (1996) 313
1241: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602366].
1242: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602366;%%
1243:
1244:
1245: \bibitem{pilaftsis}
1246: D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and A.~Pilaftsis,
1247: %``New two-loop contribution to electric dipole moment in supersymmetric
1248: %theories,''
1249: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 900 (1999)
1250: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 83}, 3972 (1999)]
1251: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811202].
1252: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811202;%%
1253:
1254: \bibitem{semenov}
1255: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, S.~Kraml, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1256: %``Relic density of neutralino dark matter in the MSSM with CP violation,''
1257: arXiv:hep-ph/0604150.
1258: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604150;%%
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264:
1265:
1266:
1267: %\bibitem{stefano}
1268: % V.~Cirigliano, S.~Profumo and M.~J.~Ramsey-Musolf,
1269: %``Baryogenesis, electric dipole moments and dark matter in the MSSM,''
1270: %arXiv:hep-ph/0603246.
1271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603246;%%
1272: \bibitem{ramsey}
1273: C.~Lee, V.~Cirigliano and M.~J.~Ramsey-Musolf,
1274: %``Resonant relaxation in electroweak baryogenesis,''
1275: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 075010
1276: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412354].
1277: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412354;%%
1278:
1279: \bibitem{resonance}
1280: M.~Carena {\it et al.},
1281: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and low energy supersymmetry,''
1282: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503} (1997) 387
1283: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702409];
1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702409;%%
1285: M.~Carena {\it et al.},
1286: %``Supersymmetric CP-violating currents and electroweak baryogenesis,''
1287: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 599} (2001) 158
1288: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011055].
1289: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011055;%%
1290:
1291:
1292: %\bibitem{CPelectroweak}
1293: %S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Drees and J.~S.~Lee,
1294: %``Loop corrections to the neutral Higgs boson sector of the MSSM with
1295: %explicit CP violation,''
1296: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 481}, 57 (2000)
1297: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002287].
1298: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002287;%%
1299:
1300:
1301: \bibitem{private}
1302: S. Profumo, private correspondence.
1303:
1304:
1305: \bibitem{dD}
1306: O.~Lebedev, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,
1307: %``Probing CP violation with the deuteron electric dipole moment,''
1308: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 016003 (2004)
1309: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402023].
1310: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402023;%%
1311:
1312: \bibitem{cplhc}
1313: T.~Gajdosik, R.~M.~Godbole and S.~Kraml,
1314: %``Fermion polarization in sfermion decays as a probe of CP phases in the
1315: %MSSM,''
1316: JHEP {\bf 0409} (2004) 051
1317: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405167];
1318: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405167;%%
1319: A.~Dedes and S.~Moretti,
1320: %``Effect of large supersymmetric phases on Higgs production,''
1321: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 22
1322: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908516];
1323: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908516;%%
1324: G.~L.~Kane and L.~T.~Wang,
1325: %``Implications of supersymmetry phases for Higgs boson signals and limits,''
1326: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 488} (2000) 383
1327: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003198];
1328: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003198;%%
1329: A.~Arhrib, D.~K.~Ghosh and O.~C.~W.~Kong,
1330: %``Observing CP violating MSSM Higgs bosons at hadron colliders?,''
1331: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 537} (2002) 217
1332: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112039];
1333: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112039;%%
1334: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Mrenna, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1335: %``Collider probes of the MSSM Higgs sector with explicit CP violation,''
1336: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 659} (2003) 145
1337: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211467];
1338: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211467;%%
1339: M.~Carena {\it et al.},
1340: %``Collider probes of the MSSM Higgs sector with explicit CP violation,''
1341: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 659} (2003) 145
1342: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211467];
1343: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211467;%%
1344: E.~Christova, H.~Eberl, W.~Majerotto and S.~Kraml,
1345: %``CP violation in charged Higgs decays in the MSSM with complex
1346: %parameters,''
1347: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 639} (2002) 263
1348: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 647} (2002) 359]
1349: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205227];
1350: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205227;%%
1351: %``CP violation in charged Higgs boson decays into tau and neutrino,''
1352: JHEP {\bf 0212} (2002) 021
1353: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211063].
1354: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211063;%%
1355:
1356: \bibitem{cpilc}
1357: S.~Y.~Choi {\it et al.},
1358: %``Reconstructing the chargino system at e+ e- linear colliders,''
1359: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 535
1360: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002033];
1361: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002033;%%
1362: S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Guchait, J.~Kalinowski and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1363: %``Chargino pair production at e+ e- colliders with polarized beams,''
1364: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 479} (2000) 235
1365: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001175];
1366: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001175;%%
1367: S.~Y.~Choi {\it et al.,}
1368: %``Determining SUSY parameters in chargino pair-production in e+ e-
1369: %collisions,''
1370: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 8} (1999) 669
1371: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812236];
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812236;%%
1373: S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Drees and B.~Gaissmaier,
1374: %``Systematic study of the impact of CP-violating phases of the MSSM on
1375: %leptonic high-energy observables,''
1376: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 014010
1377: [arXiv:hep-ph/0403054];
1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403054;%%
1379: J.~L.~Kneur and G.~Moultaka,
1380: %``Phases in the gaugino sector: Direct reconstruction of the basic
1381: %parameters and impact on the neutralino pair production,''
1382: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 095003
1383: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907360];
1384: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907360;%%
1385: V.~D.~Barger, T.~Han, T.~J.~Li and T.~Plehn,
1386: %``Measuring CP violating phases at a future linear collider,''
1387: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475} (2000) 342
1388: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907425].
1389: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907425;%%
1390:
1391: \bibitem{kittelthesis}
1392:
1393: O.~Kittel,
1394: %``CP violation in production and decay of supersymmetric particles,''
1395: arXiv:hep-ph/0504183.
1396: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504183;%%
1397: \bibitem{kittel}
1398: A.~Bartl, T.~Kernreiter and O.~Kittel,
1399: %``A CP asymmetry in e+ e- $\to$ neutralino(i) neutralino(j) $\to$
1400: %neutralino(j) tau stau(k) with tau polarization,''
1401: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578} (2004) 341
1402: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309340].
1403: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309340;%%
1404:
1405:
1406: \end{thebibliography}
1407:
1408: \begin{figure}
1409: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm} \vskip 2.5cm
1410: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
1411: \psfig{figure=deM2new.eps,bb=33 37 553 501, clip=true, height=4
1412: in} \caption{Maximum values of $\theta_\mu$ for which cancelation
1413: between contributions of the phases of $A_e$ and $\mu$ to $d_e$ is
1414: possible. For curves (a1-a2-a3-a4), $\tan \beta=10$,
1415: $|\mu|=440$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=305$~GeV,
1416: $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=175$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=295$~GeV and
1417: $M_1=155$~GeV. The values of $|A_e|$ and $|\mu|$ for these curves
1418: are as follows: a1) $|A_e|=2000$~GeV and $|\mu|=440$~GeV; a2)
1419: $|A_e|=4000$~GeV and $|\mu|=440$~GeV; a3) $|A_e|=2000$~GeV and
1420: $|\mu|=550$~GeV; a4) $|A_e|=4000$~GeV and $|\mu|=550$~GeV. For
1421: curves (b1) and (b2), $\tan \beta=20$, $|\mu|=500$~GeV,
1422: $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=450$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=345$~GeV,
1423: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=440$~GeV and $M_1=175$~GeV. For (b1),
1424: $|A_e|=2000$~GeV while for (b2) $|A_e|=4000$~GeV. For (c1-c2-c3),
1425: $\tan \beta=10$, $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=405$~GeV,
1426: $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=255$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=400$~GeV,
1427: $M_1=195$~GeV and $|A_e|=2000$~GeV. The values of $|\mu|$ for
1428: curves (c1), (c2) and (c3) correspond to $|\mu|=500$~GeV, $|\mu|=
1429: 400$~GeV and $|\mu|= 600$~GeV, respectively.} \label{deM2new}
1430: \end{figure}
1431:
1432: \begin{figure} \psfig{figure=deM1Ae.eps,bb=33 37 553 501, clip=true,
1433: height=5 in} \caption{Maximum and minimum values of $\theta_\mu$
1434: for which cancelation among the contributions of the phases of
1435: $M_1$, $A_e$ and $\mu$ is possible. Each curve corresponds to a
1436: different value of $\theta_{M_1}$ as indicated. We have taken
1437: $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=190$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=125$~GeV,
1438: $m_{\tilde{\nu}}=295$~GeV, $|M_1|=97$~GeV, $M_2=200$~GeV, $\tan
1439: \beta=10$ which correspond to the values of these parameter for
1440: the SPS1a' benchmark \cite{sps1a'}. However, the value of $|\mu|$
1441: deviates from that of SPS1a': $|\mu|=440$~GeV.} \label{deM1Ae}
1442: \end{figure}
1443:
1444:
1445:
1446:
1447: \begin{figure} \psfig{figure=dHgphi3Ad.eps,bb=33 37 553 501,
1448: clip=true, height=4 in} \caption{Maximum values of $\theta_\mu$
1449: for which cancelation among the contributions of the phases of
1450: $A_d$, $A_s$, $M_3$ and $\mu$ to $d_{Hg}$ is possible. We have
1451: taken $|A_u|=300$~GeV, $|A_s|=3000$~GeV, $m_d=6.3$~MeV,
1452: $m_s=119$~MeV and $m_u=3$~MeV. Drawing the curves shown by
1453: discrete thin points the formula (\ref{Hgfalk}) is used while for
1454: the rest of the curves (thick points connected with lines) we have
1455: used Eq.~\ref{Hgshimizu}. We have taken $|\mu|=440$ GeV while the
1456: rest of parameters correspond to the SPS1a' benchmark
1457: \cite{sps1a'}: $m_{\tilde{d}_L}=m_{\tilde{s}_L}=565$~GeV,
1458: $m_{\tilde{d}_R}=m_{\tilde{s}_R}=547$~GeV, $M_1=97$~GeV,
1459: $M_2=200$~GeV, $|M_{\tilde{g}}|=607$~GeV and $\tan
1460: \beta=10$.}\label{HgM3Ad}
1461: \end{figure}
1462:
1463:
1464: \begin{figure}[h]
1465: \begin{center}
1466: \centerline{\vspace{-1.2cm}}
1467: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=thetaSPS.eps,width=7cm}\hspace{5mm}\epsfig{figure=phaseM3.eps,width=7cm}}
1468: \centerline{\vspace{1.cm}\hspace{1cm}(a)\hspace{7cm}(b)}
1469: \centerline{\vspace{-1.2cm}}
1470: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Hg_notronE.eps,width=7cm}\hspace{5mm}\epsfig{figure=phaseM3-M1.eps,width=7cm}}
1471: \centerline{\hspace{1.2cm}(c)\hspace{7cm}(d)}
1472: \centerline{\vspace{-1.5cm}}
1473: \end{center}
1474: \caption{Shadowed areas depict the range of phases for which
1475: cancelation is possible. We have set $|\mu|=400$ GeV and the
1476: sfermion and gaugino masses correspond to their values for the
1477: SPS1a' benchmark \cite{sps1a'} as explained in Figs.
1478: (\ref{deM1Ae},\ref{HgM3Ad}). The horizontal dotted lines
1479: correspond to $\theta_\mu=-0.9 \pi, -0.1 \pi, 0.1 \pi$ and $0.9
1480: \pi$. a) The range of $\theta_\mu-\theta_{M_1}$ for which
1481: cancelation between contributions of the phases of $A_e$, $\mu$,
1482: and $M_1$ can yield zero $d_e$. We have set $|A_e|=2000$~GeV. b)
1483: Region where cancelation between contributions of the phases of
1484: the $A$-terms, $\mu$ and $M_3$ can yield $d_n=d_{Hg}=0$. We have
1485: set $\theta_{M_1}=0$ and taken $|A_u|=300$~GeV,
1486: $|A_s|=|A_d|=3000$~GeV. c) The same as (b) except that here we
1487: have set $\theta_{M_3}=0$. d) The same as (b,c) except that here
1488: all phases ($\theta_{M_1}$, $\theta_{M_3}$, $\theta_\mu$,
1489: $\theta_{A_u}$, $\theta_{A_d}$ and $\theta_{A_s}$) are allowed to
1490: vary. }\label{overlap}
1491: \end{figure}
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495: \begin{figure}[h]
1496: \begin{center}
1497: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=HinoBinoMixingA2000.eps,width=7cm}\hspace{5mm}\epsfig{figure=HinoBinoMixingA4000.eps,width=7cm}}
1498: \centerline{\vspace{1.cm}\hspace{1cm}(a)\hspace{7cm}(b)}
1499: \end{center}
1500: \caption{The shadowed areas show the values of phases for which
1501: different contributions to $d_e$ can cancel each other. The
1502: horizontal dotted lines correspond to $\theta_\mu=-0.9 \pi, -0.1
1503: \pi, 0.1 \pi$ and $0.9 \pi$. We have chosen input parameters such
1504: that the Bino-Higgsino mixing is sizeable: a) $|\mu|=200$~GeV,
1505: $|M_1|=150$~GeV, $M_2=312$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=336$~GeV,
1506: $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=223$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=327$~GeV,
1507: $|A_e|=2000$~GeV and $\tan \beta=10$;
1508: b) the same as (a) except $|A_e|=4000$~GeV. } \label{HBmixing}
1509: \end{figure}
1510:
1511:
1512: \begin{figure} \psfig{figure=thetabaryon.eps, bb=50 38 340 297,
1513: clip=true, height=4 in} \caption{The range of phases of $\mu$ and
1514: $M_1$ for which total cancelation among the contributions of the
1515: phases $\mu$, $M_1$ and $A_e$ to $d_e$ is possible. We have taken
1516: $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=392$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=220$~GeV,
1517: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=385$~GeV, $|A_e|=700$~GeV, $|M_1|=200$~GeV and
1518: $M_2=415$~GeV and $\tan \beta=10$. We have set $|\mu|=200$~GeV$=
1519: |M_1|$ which corresponds to the neutralino-driven resonance
1520: condition of electroweak baryogenesis. The purple dotted
1521: horizontal lines depict $\sin \theta_\mu=\pm 0.1$.}
1522: \label{baryogenesis200}
1523: \end{figure}
1524: \begin{figure} \psfig{figure=thetabaryon3.eps, bb=50 38 340 297,
1525: clip=true, height=4 in} \caption{The range of phases of $\mu$ and
1526: $M_1$ for which total cancelation among the contributions of the
1527: phases $\mu$, $M_1$ and $ A_e$ to $d_e$ is possible. We have taken
1528: $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=333$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=187$~GeV,
1529: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=324$~GeV, $|A_e|=700$~GeV, $|M_1|=167$~GeV and
1530: $M_2=348$~GeV and $\tan \beta=10$. We have set
1531: $|\mu|=340$~GeV$\simeq M_2$ which corresponds to the
1532: chargino-driven resonance condition of electroweak baryogenesis.
1533: The purple dotted horizontal lines depict $\sin \theta_\mu=\pm
1534: 0.1$.}\label{baryogenesis340}
1535: \end{figure}
1536:
1537: \begin{figure}[h]
1538: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm} \vskip 2.5cm
1539: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
1540: \psfig{figure=thetakittel.eps,bb= 33 37 553 501, clip=true,
1541: height=5 in} \caption{Shadowed areas show the region where cancelation can yield vanishing
1542: $d_e$. The curves, which are borrowed from Fig. 2.12.b of \cite{kittelthesis},
1543: correspond to various values of $A_{CP}$ (see the text for the definition of $A_{CP}$):
1544: Dashed lines correspond to $A_{CP}=\pm 45$\%; curves marked with $+$ indicate $A_{CP}=\pm 30$\%
1545: and finally the pink curves correspond to $A_{CP}=\pm 15$ \%. To draw the shadowed area we have
1546: used the same input parameters as in Fig 2.12.b of \cite{kittelthesis}:
1547: $|\mu|=300$~GeV,
1548: $m_{\tilde{e}_L}=378$~GeV, $m_{\tilde{e}_R}=211$~GeV,
1549: $m_{\tilde{\nu}_L}=370$~GeV, $|M_1|=192$~GeV, $M_2=400$~GeV,
1550: $|A_e|=2000$~GeV and $\tan \beta=5$. The horizontal dotted lines
1551: correspond to $\theta_\mu=-0.9 \pi, -0.1 \pi, 0.1 \pi$ and $0.9
1552: \pi$. } \label{figkittel}
1553: \end{figure}
1554:
1555:
1556:
1557:
1558:
1559:
1560:
1561:
1562:
1563: \end{document}
1564: