1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LaTeX file %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: 

4: \usepackage{graphicx,epstopdf,amsmath}

5: 

6: 

7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.15cm}

8: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.3cm}

9: \setlength{\topmargin}{0 cm}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}%

11: 

12: \parskip=4pt

13: 

14: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

15: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

16: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

18: \def\ge{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

19: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

20: \newcommand{\sect}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

21: \def\thesection{\arabic{section}}

22: \def\theequation{\arabic{equation}}

23: %\newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}

24: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

25: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

26: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{$\sigma$}}

27: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}

28: \newcommand{\fr}[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}

29: \newcommand{\gm}{\mbox{$\gamma_{\mu}$}}

30: \newcommand{\gn}{\mbox{$\gamma_{\nu}$}}

31: \newcommand{\Le}{\mbox{$\fr{1+\gamma_5}{2}$}}

32: \newcommand{\R}{\mbox{$\fr{1-\gamma_5}{2}$}}

33: \newcommand{\GD}{\mbox{$\tilde{G}$}}

34: \newcommand{\gf}{\mbox{$\gamma_{5}$}}

35: \newcommand{\tb}{\tan\beta}

36: \newcommand{\Ima}{\mbox{Im}}

37: \newcommand{\Rea}{\mbox{Re}}

38: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

39: \newcommand{\psl}{\slash{\!\!\!p}}

40: \newcommand{\cp}{\;\;\slash{\!\!\!\!\!\!\rm CP}}

41: \newcommand{\qq}{\langle \ov{q}q\rangle}

42: \newcommand{\uGu}{\bar{u}g_s(G\si) u}

43: \newcommand{\dGd}{\bar{d}g_s(G\si) d}

44: \newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}

45: \newcommand{\uu}{\bar{u}u}

46: \newcommand{\dd}{\bar{d}d}

47: \nc{\gone}{\bar g_{\pi NN}^{(1)}}

48: \nc{\gzero}{\bar g_{\pi NN}^{(0)}}

49: \nc{\al}{\alpha}

50: \nc{\ga}{\gamma}

51: \nc{\de}{\delta}

52: \nc{\ep}{\epsilon}

53: \nc{\ze}{\zeta}

54: \nc{\et}{\eta}

55: \nc{\ka}{\kappa}

56: %\nc{\la}{\lambda}

57: \nc{\rh}{\rho}

58: \nc{\si}{\sigma}

59: \nc{\ta}{\tau}

60: \nc{\up}{\upsilon}

61: \nc{\ph}{\phi}

62: \nc{\ch}{\chi}

63: \nc{\ps}{\psi}

64: \nc{\om}{\omega}

65: \nc{\Ga}{\Gamma}

66: \nc{\De}{\Delta}

67: \nc{\La}{\Lambda}

68: \nc{\Si}{\Sigma}

69: \nc{\Up}{\Upsilon}

70: \nc{\Ph}{\Phi}

71: \nc{\Ps}{\Psi}

72: \nc{\Om}{\Omega}

73: \nc{\ptl}{\partial}

74: \nc{\del}{\nabla}

75: \nc{\ov}{\overline}

76: \nc{\newcaption}[1]{\centerline{\parbox{15cm}{\caption{#1}}}}

77: 

78: 

79: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

80: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

81: \def\bmat{\begin{displaymath}}

82: \def\emat{\end{displaymath}}

83: \def\bear{\begin{eqnarray}}

84: \def\eear{\end{eqnarray}}

85: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

86: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

87: \def\bery{\begin{array}}

88: \def\ery{\end{array}}

89: \def\bit{\begin{itemize}}

90: \def\eit{\end{itemize}}

91: \def\ben{\begin{enumerate}}

92: \def\een{\end{enumerate}}

93: \def\btab{\begin{tabular}}

94: \def\etab{\end{tabular}}

95: \def\btbl{\begin{table}}

96: \def\etbl{\end{table}}

97: \def\bfig{\begin{figure}[htb]}

98: \def\efig{\end{figure}}

99: \def\bpic{\begin{picture}}

100: \def\epic{\end{picture}}

101: 

102: 

103: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fonts and Spacings %%%%%

104: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

105: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

106: \def\hsx{\hspace{0.06in}}

107: \def\hse{\hspace{0.08in}}

108: \def\hst{\hspace{0.12in}}

109: \def\nnl{\nonumber \\}

110: \def\nl{\nonumber \\ &&}

111: 

112: 

113: \def\hocm{\hspace{1cm}}

114: \def\htcm{\hspace{2cm}}

115: 

116: %%%%%%%%%%%% Special symbols, etc %%%%%

117: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

118: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

119: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}

120: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

121: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}

122: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

123: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\widetilde\chi}\, h^2}

124: \def\gyr{{\rm \, G\kern-0.125em yr}}

125: \def\mev{{\rm \, Me\kern-0.125em V}}

126: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}

127: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}

128: \def\cp{C\!P}

129: \def\tsq{|{\cal T}|^2}

130: \def\halft{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}

131: \def\slash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 1 mu /$}}#1}%

132: \def\tbt{\tan \beta}

133: \def\ttbt{\tan^2 \beta}

134: \def\hc{{\rm h.c.}}

135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

136: \def\emunu{\eta^{\hspace{0.01in} \mu \hspace{0.01in} \nu}}

137: \def\bfp{{\bf p}}

138: \def\nhat{{\bf \hat{n}}}

139: 

140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

141: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

142: \def\athird{\frac{1}{3}}

143: \def\aforth{\frac{1}{4}}

144: \def\Tr{\rm Tr}

145: \def\Ker{\rm Ker}

146: \def\index{\rm index}

147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

148: \def\bmtheta{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

149: \def\bmphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

150: \def\bmalpha{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

151: \def\bmsigma{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

152: \def\bmgamma{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

153: \def\bmomega{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}

154: 

155: 

156: \newcommand{\FRAME}[1]{\fbox{\mbox{$#1$}}}

157: 

158: \begin{document}

159: 

160: \begin{titlepage}

161: 

162: 

163: 

164: 

165: 

166: 

167: \setcounter{page}{1}

168: 

169: \vspace*{0.2in}

170: 

171: \begin{center}

172: 

173: \hspace*{-0.6cm}\parbox{17.5cm}{\Large \bf \begin{center}

174: Sensitivity to new supersymmetric thresholds through flavour and $CP$ violating physics\end{center}}

175: 

176: \vspace*{0.5cm}

177: \normalsize

178: 

179: 

180: {\bf  Maxim Pospelov$^{\,(a,b)}$, 

181: Adam Ritz$^{\,(a)}$ and Yudi Santoso$^{\,(a)}$}

182: 

183: 

184: 

185: \smallskip

186: \medskip

187: 

188: $^{\,(a)}${\it Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, \\

189:      Victoria, BC, V8P 1A1 Canada}

190: 

191: $^{\,(b)}${\it Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo,

192: ON, N2J 2W9, Canada}

193: 

194: \smallskip

195: \end{center}

196: \vskip0.2in

197: 

198: 

199: \centerline{\large\bf Abstract}

200: 

201: Treating the MSSM as an effective theory below a threshold scale $\La$, we study the consequences

202: of having dimension-five operators in the superpotential for flavour and $CP$-violating processes.

203: Below the supersymmetric threshold such terms generate flavour changing and/or $CP$-odd 

204: effective operators of dimension six composed from the Standard Model fermions,

205: that have the interesting property of decoupling linearly with the threshold scale, i.e. as 

206: $1/(\Lambda m_{\rm soft})$, where $m_{\rm soft}$ is the scale of soft supersymmetry breaking.

207: The assumption of weak-scale supersymmetry, together with the stringent limits on electric dipole moments 

208: and lepton flavour-violating processes, then provides sensitivity to $\Lambda$ as high as 

209: $10^7-10^9$ GeV. We discuss the varying sensitivity to these scales within several MSSM benchmark scenarios

210: and also outline the classes of UV physics which could generate these operators. 

211: 

212: 

213: \vfil

214: \leftline{August 2006}

215: 

216: \end{titlepage}

217: 

218: 

219: \section{Introduction}

220: 

221: Weak-scale supersymmetry (SUSY) is a theoretical framework 

222: that helps to soften the so-called gauge hierarchy problem 

223: by removing the power-like sensitivity of the dimensionful parameters in the 

224: Higgs potential to the square of the ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$. 

225: This feature, among others, has stimulated a large body of theoretical work on weak-scale supersymmetry,

226: supplemented by continuing experimental searches, which now spans almost 

227: three decades. Yet the supersymmetrized version of the Standard Model (SM), the minimal supersymmetric 

228: Standard Model (MSSM), suffers from well known problems such as the large array of 

229: allowed free parameters responsible for soft SUSY breaking, and the consequent

230: possibility of large flavour and $CP$ violating amplitudes. 

231: The absence of $CP$-violation at the ${\cal O}(1)$ level in the soft-breaking sector of 

232: the MSSM, as suggested by the null results of electric dipole moment (EDM) searches 

233: and the perfect accord of the observed $K$ and $B$ meson mixing and decay

234: with the predictions of the SM, implies that the 

235: soft-breaking sector of the MSSM somehow conserves $CP$ and does not 

236: source new flavour-changing processes. Whether or not such a pattern of soft-breaking masses 

237: is theoretically feasible is the subject of on-going studies addressing the mechanism of SUSY breaking 

238: and mediation (see, {\it e.g.}  \cite{mssm}). In this work, we will make the assumption that an (approximately) 

239: flavour-universal and $CP$-conserving soft-breaking sector is realized, and study the consequences of 

240: the presence of SUSY-{\em preserving} higher-dimensional operators on flavour and $CP$-violating 

241: observables. 

242: 

243: These operators may be thought to emerge from new physics at some 

244: high-energy scale $\Lambda$, which is larger than the electroweak scale. 

245: Even though the field content of the MSSM may be perfectly `complete' 

246: at the electroweak scale, it is clear that almost by construction the MSSM cannot be 

247: a fundamental theory because of the required high-energy 

248: physics responsible for SUSY breaking and mediation. In recent years there is also a more phenomenological 

249: motivation for a new threshold, namely the new physics responsible for neutrino masses (assuming they

250: are Majorana) and mixings.  Beyond these primary concerns, the possibility of new thresholds, intermediate between the 

251: weak and the GUT scales, is also suggested by the axion solution to the strong $CP$ problem, by the  SUSY

252: leptogenesis scenarios \cite{leptogen} and, more entertainingly, by the possibility of a lowered 

253: GUT/string scale arising from the large radius compactification of extra dimensions \cite{LED}.

254: In summary, given the assumed existence of weak-scale supersymmetry, there seems ample motivation to

255: expect additional new physics thresholds above the electroweak scale and possibly below the GUT scale. 

256: The presence of such thresholds will generically be manifest not just through corrections to relevant and marginal

257: operators, but also through the presence of higher-dimensional operators. 

258: 

259: 

260: As is easy to see, both K\"ahler terms and the superpotential can receive additional 

261: non-renormalizable terms at the leading dimension five level \cite{Weinberg,SY}. Some of these operators are well-known

262: and were studied in connection with baryon-number violating processes and also the see-saw mechanism for neutrino masses.

263: However, to the best of our knowledge,  an analysis of the full set of dimension-five operators  with respect to flavour and $CP$-violating 

264: observables is still lacking. The purpose of this paper is thus to consider all possible dimension five extensions of the 

265: MSSM superpotential and K\"ahler terms, concentrating on those that conserve 

266: lepton and baryon number  and are $R$-parity symmetric.  We initiated such a study recently \cite{prs}, and will provide further details and 

267: extensions in the present work. As we shall see, such operators can induce 

268: large corrections to flavour-changing and/or $CP$-violating amplitudes and therefore 

269: can be efficiently probed with existing experiments and future searches. 

270: 

271: There is a clear parametric distinction between the effects induced by nonuniversal soft-breaking terms

272: and by the higher-dimensional extensions of the superpotential. Whereas the former typically 

273: scale as $m_{\rm soft}^{-2}$ times one or two powers of the flavour-mixing 

274: angle $\delta_{ij}$ in the squark(slepton) sector, the latter 

275: decouple as $(\Lambda m_{\rm soft})^{-1}\delta'_{ij}$, where  $\delta'_{ij}$ parametrizes flavour violation in 

276: the dimension five operators. When $\La$ is relatively large, and thus the threshold corrections to the soft-terms

277: are small, we may have scenarios where  

278: $\delta_{ij} \simeq 0$ while $\delta'_{ij}$ are significant, 

279: and the corrections to the superpotential can be the dominant mechanism for SUSY

280: flavour and $CP$ violation, providing considerable sensitivity to $\Lambda$.

281: At the same time, the additional $CP$ and flavour violation introduced in this way

282:  can be rendered harmless by simply increasing $\Lambda$. 

283: 

284: The layout of the paper is as follows. In the next section we list the possible 

285: operators in the MSSM superpotential and the K\"ahler terms 

286: at dimension five level, including for completeness those that violate $R$-parity. The relevant supersymmetric renormalization

287: group equations for the operators of interest are included in an Appendix. In section 3, we 

288: perform the required calculations at the SUSY threshold to connect this extension of the superpotential 

289: with the resulting Wilson coefficients in front of various effective SM operators of phenomenological interest. Section 4 

290: addresses the consequent predictions for the most sensitive $CP$-odd and 

291: flavour-violating amplitudes and infers the characteristic sensitivity to $\Lambda$ in each channel. In section 5, we perform this analysis

292: within four SPS benchmark scenarios~\cite{sps} (see also~\cite{bregop}) in

293: order to infer the dependence of this sensitivity on the features of the SUSY spectrum.

294: Section 6 contains a discussion and also a brief analysis of the general classes of new physics which could be responsible for

295: these operators, while our conclusions are summarized in section 7. 

296: 

297: 

298: 

299: 

300: 

301: \section{Dimension-5 operators in the MSSM}

302: 

303: In this section, we will enumerate all the allowed structures in the 

304: superpotential and K\"ahler potential up to dimension 5 according to the standard symmetries 

305: of the MSSM (see, {\em e.g.} \cite{Weinberg,SY}).

306: We begin by recalling in Table~1 the  chiral superfields of the MSSM \cite{DG}

307: along with their gauge quantum numbers.

308: \begin{table}

309: \begin{center}

310: \btab{||c|c|c|c|c||}

311: \hline

312: Superfield & $SU(3)_C$ & $SU(2)_L$ & $U(1)_Y$ & $P_M$ \\

313: \hline

314: $Q$ & {\bf 3} & {\bf 2} & 1/6 & -1 \\

315: $U$ & $\overline{\bf 3}$ & {\bf 1} & -2/3 & -1 \\

316: $D$ & $\overline{\bf 3}$ & {\bf 1} & 1/3 & -1 \\

317: $L$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 2} & -1/2 & -1 \\

318: $E$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 1} & 1 & -1 \\

319: $H_u$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 2} & 1/2 & +1 \\

320: $H_d$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 2} & -1/2 & +1 \\ 

321: \hline

322: \etab

323: \caption{\footnotesize Representations and quantum numbers for chiral fields in the MSSM.}

324: \end{center}

325: \end{table}

326: 

327: The matter parity, $P_M$, is defined in the usual way,

328: \beq

329: P_M \equiv (-1)^{3(B-L)}

330: \eeq

331: where $B$ is the baryon number and $L$ the lepton number. 

332: This can be restated as $R$-parity, defined as

333: \beq

334: P_R = (-1)^{3(B-L) + 2s}

335: \eeq

336: where $s$ is the spin of the component field. All known Standard Model particles have

337: $P_R = +1$, while their superpartners have $P_R = -1$. However, when using the superfield

338: formalism it is often more convenient to use matter parity in which all fields

339: belonging to the same superfield have the same value of $P_M$. 

340: 

341: The superpotential of the MSSM contains a number of dimensionless parameters, and one 

342: dimensionful parameter $\mu$ or, in equivalent language, is composed from one 

343: dimension three and several dimension four operators:

344: \bear

345: {\cal W}^{(3)} &=& - \mu H_dH_u  

346: \\

347: {\cal W}^{(4)} &=& Y_u  U Q  H_u - Y_d D Q  H_d - Y_e E L H_d,

348: \eear

349: where gauge and generation indices are suppressed. 

350: All these terms conserve $R$-parity. In counting the dimensions, 

351: one should keep in mind that we are implicitly including dim$[d^2\theta] =1$.

352: At the renormalizable level, there are additional terms that

353: are forbidden by matter/$R$ parity but allowed by gauge invariance,

354: \bear

355: {\cal W}^{(3)}_{\not{R}} &=& -\mu' L H_u 

356: \\

357: {\cal W}^{(4)}_{\not{R}} &=& \lambda L L E +\lambda' LQ D  + \lambda^{''} UDD\, .

358: \eear

359: 

360: Going beyond the renormalizable level, at dimension-five there are a number of operators

361: allowed by symmetries. It is worth recalling that in the Standard Model, above the electroweak scale, there

362: is only a single class of dimension-five operators allowed by symmetries -- the seesaw operator -- which can naturally

363: provide a small Majorana mass for the active neutrinos. Within the MSSM, the list is only slightly longer. 

364: Suppressing a variety of  gauge and generational indices, the collection of 

365: dimension five operators can be presented in the following schematic form:

366: \bear

367: \label{dim5}

368: {\cal W}^{(5)} &=& c_{qq} Q U

369:  Q D + c_{qe} Q U L E + 

370: c_{h}H_u H_d H_u H_d\\ 

371: && +c_{\nu}H_u L H_u L  + 

372: c_{p1}U U D E + c_{p2}QQQL\, . \nonumber 

373: \eear 

374: The final two terms in this list violate baryon and lepton number by 

375: one unit, and therefore induce proton decay. Detailed studies 

376: of these operators induced by triplet Higgs exchange have been 

377: conducted over the years in the context of SUSY GUT models \cite{Weinberg,SY} (for a recent 

378: assessment, see {\em e.g.} \cite{Murayama:2001ur}). 

379: The $H_u L H_u L$ operator is the superfield generalization of the SM see-saw operator and can be responsible 

380: for generating the neutrino masses and mixings. Assuming neutrinos are Majorana, the flavour structure

381: of $c_\nu$ is currently being determined in neutrino physics experiments (see {\em e.g.} \cite{neutrinos}). 

382: 

383: Going over to $R$-parity violating terms (see {\em e.g.} \cite{sakis}), 

384: one finds additional dimension five operators,

385: \beq

386: {\cal W}^{(5)}_{\not{R}} =  c^{\not{R}}_1Q U H_d E + c^{\not{R}}_2H_u H_d H_u L + c^{\not{R}}_3 QQQH_d,

387: \label{dim5rpv}

388: \eeq

389: that can be obtained from (\ref{dim5}) upon the simple substitution $L \leftrightarrow H_d$. 

390: 

391: If we now consider the K\"ahler potential, it is easy to see that at dimension four 

392: one has the standard $\Phi^\dagger e^V \Phi$ operators, where $\Phi$ represents 

393: a generic MSSM chiral superfield, and the additional dimension four operators $Le^VH_d^\dagger$

394: that violate $R$ parity. In all cases, $V$ should be chosen as the  correct linear combination of 

395: individual vector superfields to insure gauge invariance. 

396:  At dimension five level, we have three additional 

397: structures that are allowed by all gauge symmetries and $R$-parity,

398: \be

399: {\cal K}^{(5)} = c_{u}QUH_d^\dagger  + c_{d}QDH_u^\dagger + c_{e}LEH_u^\dagger,

400: \label{kdim5}

401: \ee

402: and several further operators that violate $R$-parity,

403: \be

404: {\cal K}^{(5)}_{\not{R}} = c^{\not{R}}_{K1}EH_d H_u^\dagger + c^{\not{R}}_{K2}QUL^\dagger + 

405: c^{\not{R}}_{K3}UED^\dagger + c^{\not{R}}_{K4}QQD^\dagger.

406: \ee

407: 

408: At this point, it is important to recall that the equations of motion can be utilized within

409: the effective Lagrangian to remove various redundancies in the full set of higher-dimensional 

410: operators listed above. We will work with tree-level matching at the $\La$-threshold and thus, if one leaves aside 

411: corrections from SUSY breaking, all the structures in  

412: ${\cal K}^{(5)}$ can be reduced on the superfield equations of motion and 

413: absorbed into ${\cal W}^{(4)}$ and ${\cal W}^{(5)}$. Indeed, in the limit of exact SUSY, the 

414: superfield equation of motion for {\em e.g.} $H_u^\dagger$ reads

415: \be

416: \bar {\rm D}^2 H_u^\dagger \propto -\mu H_d + Y_uQU,

417: \ee

418: where $\bar{\rm D}$ is the spinorial derivative. Substituting this into the expression for $K^{(5)}$, we observe that

419: the operator $LEH_u^\dagger$, for example, reduces to a linear combination of the usual Yukawa structure 

420: with $\Delta Y_e = \mu c_e$ and the dimension-five superpotential term:

421: \be

422: \int d^4\theta c_{e}LEH_u^\dagger \propto \int d^2\theta c_{e}LE {\rm \bar D}^2 H_u^\dagger

423: \propto \int d^2\theta(-c_e\mu LEH_d +c_eY_u QULE).

424: \label{eom}

425: \ee

426: The inclusion of soft SUSY breaking terms in the equation of motion would change this 

427: analysis only slightly; new soft-breaking structures such as dimension-four four-sfermion 

428: interactions $\tilde Q \tilde U \tilde L \tilde E$ and new trilinear terms 

429: such as $\tilde L \tilde E H^\dagger_u$ \cite{H*} would appear.  Since the analysis of 

430: higher-dimensional soft-breaking terms goes beyond the scope of the present paper, 

431: we choose to eliminate all K\"ahler higher dimensional terms via the equations of motion and analyze

432: only the corrections to superpotential. 

433: 

434: Comparing the $H_uLH_uL$-induced neutrino masses to the characteristic 

435: mass splitting $\sim (0.01-0.1)$~eV observed in neutrino oscillations, we deduce the corresponding range of the

436: energy scales $\Lambda_\nu$:

437: \be

438: (0.01-0.1)~{\rm eV} \sim c_\nu \langle H_u^2\rangle \qquad\Longrightarrow \qquad\Lambda_{\nu} 

439: \sim c_\nu^{-1} \sim (10^{14} - 10^{16})~{\rm GeV}.

440: \ee

441: The actual mass scale of the new states responsible for generating the effective 

442: term $H_uLH_uL$ can be lower than 

443: $\Lambda_\nu$. Indeed, in the see-saw scheme $c_\nu = Y_\nu^2M_R^{-1}$,

444: and the mass of the right-handed neutrinos $M_R$ can be smaller than 

445: $\Lambda_\nu$ if $Y_\nu$ is small. A considerably smaller energy scale for $M_R$ than 

446: $10^{14}$ GeV is indeed suggested by SUSY leptogenesis scenarios \cite{leptogen}.

447: 

448: The mediation of proton decay by the $QQQL$ and $DUUE$ operators has been extensively studied 

449: over more than two decades in the context of SUSY GUT models. Typically, such 

450: operators are induced by the exchange of a colour-triplet Higgs superfield, and

451: therefore the operators are proportional to the square of the Yukawa couplings. For this study, 

452: we will not go into the details of how such terms were generated, and simply deduce the sensitivity to 

453: $c_{p1}$ and $c_{p2}$.  The absence of proton-decay at the level of $\Gamma^{-1} > 10^{32}$yr  implies a

454: rather stringent upper bound on the baryon and lepton number violating couplings $c_{p}$,

455: \be

456: \Lambda_{p} \sim c^{-1}_p > 10^{24}~{\rm GeV},

457: \ee

458: which is well above the scale of quantum gravity, $10^{19}$GeV. 

459: The discrepancy in the scales $\Lambda_{p}$ and $\Lambda_\nu$ is 

460: somewhat problematic for SUSY GUTs, and is part of the  doublet-triplet 

461: splitting problem.  In any event, the disparity 

462: between $\Lambda_{p}$ and $\Lambda_\nu$ clearly illustrates the fact that the 

463: energy scales associated with the effective operators in (\ref{dim5}) could be widely 

464: different, and thus motivates  a dedicated study to determine the sensitivity to 

465: $c_{qq}$, $c_{qe}$ and $c_h$. 

466: 

467: 

468: 

469: 

470: \section{Induced operators at the SUSY threshold}

471: 

472: We begin our analysis by making explicit the colour and flavour structure of 

473: the new dimension five operators.  It is easy to see that the $SU(2)$ indices can be contracted 

474: in only one way,  via the antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon_{ij}$. 

475: Therefore, we  suppress these indices in the expression below:

476: \ba

477: {\cal W} &=& {\cal W}_{\rm MSSM} + \fr{y_h}{\Lambda_{h}}H_dH_uH_dH_u +

478: \fr{Y^{qe}_{ijkl}}{\Lambda_{qe}}(U_i Q_j )E_k L_l  \nonumber\\

479:  &&\;\;\;\;\;\;+ 

480: \fr{Y^{qq}_{ijkl}}{\Lambda_{qq}}(U_iQ_{j}) (D_k Q_{l} )+

481: \fr{\tilde Y^{qq}_{ijkl}}{\Lambda_{qq}}(U_it^AQ_{j}) (D_kt^AQ_{l}).\label{qule}

482: \ea

483: Here $y_h$, $Y_{qe}$, $Y_{qq}$ and $\tilde Y_{qq}$ are dimensionless coefficients

484: with the latter three also being tensors in flavour space, while the $\Lambda$'s are the 

485: corresponding energy scales. The parentheses $(...)$ in (\ref{qule}) denote the contraction of 

486: colour indices. Note, that for the case of one

487: generation there is only one way of arranging the $SU(3)$ indices, 

488: as $(Qt^AU) (Qt^A D)$ reduces to $(QU) (Q D)$ upon the 

489: use of the completeness relation for the generators of $SU(3)$. 

490: 

491: From the superfield formulation of Eq. (\ref{qule}), 

492: one can easily move to the component form using the standard rules 

493: of supersymmetric field theories. However, the full interaction 

494: Lagrangian resulting from (\ref{qule}) is quite cumbersome, and we 

495: will quote only those terms that are $\sim 1/\Lambda$ and of potential phenomenological 

496: importance, namely the terms in the Lagrangian that involve two SM fermions and 

497: two sfermions. As an example, the $QULE$ operator in the superpotential generates the following 

498: semi-leptonic two fermion - two boson interaction terms:

499: \ba

500: \int d^2 \theta \, QULE \supset \bar U Q \tilde L \tilde E^* - \bar E L \tilde Q \tilde U^*+

501: \bar U E^c \tilde Q \tilde L - \bar U L \tilde Q \tilde E^* 

502: +\bar Q^cL \tilde U^* \tilde E^* + \bar E Q \tilde L \tilde U^*.

503: \label{2q2l}

504: \ea

505: In this expression, letters with a tilde atop denote sfermions, and four-dimensional spinors 

506: are used for fermions with $Q$ being the left-handed quark doublet and $Q^c$ 

507: its charge conjugate, etc. The generalization of (\ref{2q2l}) to the rest of the 

508: operators in (\ref{qule}) is straightforward. 

509: 

510: At the next step, we integrate out the squarks and sleptons  to obtain  operators 

511: composed from SM fields alone, or to be more precise, from the fields of a type II 

512: two-Higgs doublet model. This procedure is facilitated by the observation that the first two terms in 

513: (\ref{2q2l}) have a close resemblance to the LR squark and slepton mixing terms, with the only 

514: difference being that instead of the usual

515: $m_{e(u)}\mu \tan^{\pm1}\beta$ and/or $A_{u(e)}m_{u_e}$ mixing coefficients one has  dimension three 

516: fermion bilinear insertions $\bar U Q$ and $\bar E L$. It is then clear that $\tilde L \tilde E^*$

517: and $\tilde Q \tilde U^*$ can be integrated out straightforwardly encountering 

518: loop integrals that are common in the MSSM literature. 

519: Notice that only in the first two terms in (\ref{2q2l}) can the sfermions be integrated out at one 

520: loop, as the remaining terms contain a slepton and a squark, and so integrating them out 

521: requires at least two loops.

522: 

523: 

524: 

525: \subsection{Corrections to the SM fermion masses}

526: 

527: The SM operators of lowest dimension that are of phenomenological interest are the 

528: fermion masses. In Figure~\ref{f1}, we show the one-loop diagrams that lead 

529: to the logarithmic renormalization of the fermion masses. Cutting the 

530: ultraviolet divergence at the corresponding threshold $\Lambda$, we arrive at the 

531: following expression for fermion masses corrected by the dimension five operators:

532: \begin{eqnarray}

533: \label{delta_m}

534: (M_e)_{ij} &=& (M_e^{(0)})_{ij} + Y^{qe}_{klij}(M_u^{(0)})^*_{kl}

535: ~\fr{3\ln(\Lambda_{qe}/m_{\rm sq})}{8\pi^2 \Lambda_{qe}}

536: (A_u^* + \mu \cot\beta)\\

537: (M_d)_{ij} &=& (M_d^{(0)})_{ij} +K^{qq}_{klij}(M_u^{(0)})^*_{kl}

538: ~\fr{\ln(\Lambda_{qq}/m_{\rm sq})}{4\pi^2 \Lambda_{qq}}

539: (A_u^* + \mu \cot\beta)\nonumber\\

540: (M_u)_{ij} &=& (M_u^{(0)})_{ij} + Y^{qe}_{ijkl}(M_e^{(0)})_{kl}

541: ~\fr{\ln(\Lambda_{qe}/m_{\rm sl})}{8\pi^2 \Lambda_{qe}}

542: (A_e + \mu \tan\beta)\nonumber\\

543: &&+K^{qq}_{ijkl}(M_u^{(0)})^*_{kl}

544: ~\fr{\ln(\Lambda_{qq}/m_{\rm sq})}{4\pi^2 \Lambda_{qq}}(A_u^* + \mu \cot\beta)

545: \nonumber

546: \end{eqnarray} 

547: with implicit summation over the repeated flavour indices, and we have also defined the

548: combination,

549: \be

550:  K^{qq} \equiv  Y^{qq} - \frac{2}{3}\tilde{Y}^{qq},

551: \ee

552: that will reappear again below. $M^{(0)}_{e,d,u}$ denote the unperturbed 

553: mass matrices arising from dimension four terms in the superpotential.

554: 

555: \begin{figure}

556: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{deltam.eps}}

557:  \caption{\footnotesize A one-loop correction to the  masses of SM fermions generated 

558: by the dimension-5 operators in the superpotential. Here and below crossed vertices stand for the two-fermion--two-boson 

559: operators generated by the dimension five operators.}

560: \label{f1} 

561: \end{figure}

562: 

563: Some of the mass corrections in (\ref{delta_m}) correspond to new ``non-holomorphic" operators

564: such as $\bar U Q H_d^\dagger$, which break supersymmetry, and 

565: scale as $\Delta m/m \sim (A/\Lambda) \times \log \Lambda$. 

566: The other set of corrections survive in the limit of unbroken SUSY, 

567: scaling as $\Delta m/m \sim (\mu/\Lambda) \times \log \Lambda$.

568: This is a correction to the standard mass term in the superpotential, $UQH_u$

569: generated by the dimension five operator. Given the non-renormalization 

570: theorem for the superpotential  \cite{WB}, it may look surprising that 

571: such corrections could arise at all. A more careful look at the diagram in Fig.~\ref{f1} 

572: reveals that  it is the dimension five K\"ahler term $QUH_d^\dagger$ that receives a 

573: logarithmic loop correction, leading to the quark mass correction in (\ref{delta_m}) 

574: upon the use of the equation of motion (\ref{eom}).

575: 

576: 

577: 

578: 

579: \subsection{Dipole operators}

580: 

581: Dimension five dipole operators first arise at two-loop order via integrating out the heavy-flavour 

582: squarks from $\bar E L \tilde U^* \tilde Q$, as in Fig.~\ref{f2}. The results for these diagrams can be deduced from the

583: calculations of the two-loop Barr-Zee-type supersymmetric diagrams in the limit of large 

584: pseudoscalar mass \cite{CKP}. In the charged lepton sector they result in 

585: \be

586: \label{dipole}

587: {\cal L}_{e} =    

588: \fr{A_u +\mu\cot\beta}{\Lambda^{qe}m_{\rm sq}^2} \fr{e\alpha}{12\pi^3} 

589: (M_u)^*_{kl}Y^{qe}_{klij}\bar E_i (F\sigma) P_L E_j +(h.c.),

590: \ee

591: where we treated $LR$ squark mixing as a mass insertion, and used $P_L = \fr{1-\gamma_5}{2}$ and 

592: $(F\sigma) = F_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}$.  In the quark sector the corresponding results are more cumbersome 

593: to write down due to a large number of possible diagrams.

594: 

595: \begin{figure}

596: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{2loopd5.eps}}

597:  \caption{\footnotesize A representative of the two-loop SUSY threshold diagrams that generate 

598: dipole amplitudes and contribute to EDMs, $\mu\to e\gamma$, the anomalous magnetic moment 

599: of the muon, etc. }

600: \label{f2} 

601: \end{figure}

602: 

603: 

604: 

605: 

606: 

607: \subsection{Semileptonic four-fermion operators}

608: 

609: Going up another dimension, we now consider dimension-six four-fermion 

610: operators composed from the SM fermion fields 

611: generated by the operators (\ref{qule}). Two representatives 

612: of the relevant one-loop diagrams are shown in Figure~\ref{f3}. 

613: The loop functions entering these calculations are identical to those found 

614: in the calculation of the corrections to the SM fermion masses arising from the

615: SUSY threshold \cite{masscorr}. We will generalize the results of \cite{prs} by

616: working with the full loop function \cite{masscorr}, 

617: \be

618:  I(x,y,z) = - \frac{xy\ln(x/y) + yz\ln(y/z) + zx\ln(z/x)}{(x-y)(y-z)(z-x)},

619: \ee

620: which satisfies

621: \be

622:    I(z,z,z) =  \frac{1}{2z},

623: \ee

624: allowing us to consider several benchmark SUSY spectra later on.

625: All the SUSY masses, $m_{\rm sq}$, $m_{\rm sl}$, $M_i$ 

626: and the $\mu$ parameter are considered to be

627: somewhat larger than $M_W$, so that the effects of gaugino-Higgsino mixing in the chargino 

628: and neutralino sector are not particularly important for the values of the 

629: loop integrals.

630: 

631: Integrating out gauginos and sfermions at one-loop level, we find the 

632: following semileptonic operators, sourced by the $QULE$ term in the superpotential,

633: \be

634: {\cal L}_{qe} = \fr{1}{\Lambda_{qe}}\left[\fr{2\alpha_s}{3\pi} 

635: M_3^* I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2) -

636: \fr{\alpha_1}{4\pi} 

637: M_1^* I(m_{\tilde{e}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{e}_2}^2, |M_1|^2) \right]

638: Y^{qe}_{ijkl}\bar U_i Q_j \bar E_k L_l   + (h.c.).

639: \label{qqll}

640: \ee

641: In this expression, we retained the gluino-squark contribution as the largest in the 

642: squark sector and the sfermion-bino contribution in the lepton sector. If all SUSY masses

643: are approximately the same, then the second term in the square bracket of Eq.~(\ref{qqll})

644: is subdominant, but this may not be the case if the masses in the slepton-bino sector 

645: are significantly lighter than in the squark-gluino sector.

646: Notice the absence of contributions from $SU(2)$ gauginos, that turn out to 

647: be suppressed by additional power(s) of $M_W/m_{\rm soft}$. 

648: Finally, as expected the overall coefficient in front of

649: the semileptonic operator (\ref{qqll}) scales as $(\Lambda m_{\rm soft})^{-1}$. 

650: 

651: \begin{figure}

652: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{fourf.eps}}

653:  \caption{\footnotesize One-loop SUSY threshold diagrams that generate 

654: dimension six four-fermion operators composed from the SM fields. Diagram (a) is a 

655: squark-gluino loop giving rise to a semi-leptonic operator, and diagram (b) is a 

656: squark-Higgsino loop leading to a four-fermion operator in the down-quark sector.  }

657: \label{f3} 

658: \end{figure}

659: 

660: 

661: 

662: 

663: 

664: \subsection{Four-quark operators}

665: 

666: Purely hadronic operators in (\ref{qule}) give rise to the following four-quark 

667: effective operators upon integrating out gluinos and squarks:

668: \begin{eqnarray}

669: {\cal L}_{qq} &=& \fr{1}{\Lambda_{qq}}\fr{\alpha_s}{6\pi} 

670: M_3^* I(m_{\tilde{q}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{q}_2}^2,|M_3|^2)\nonumber \\

671: && \times K^{qq}

672: \left(\fr{8}{3}(\bar U Q) (\bar D Q)+

673: (\bar U t^A Q) (\bar D t^A Q)\right)

674:  + (h.c.),

675: \label{qqqq}

676: \end{eqnarray}

677: where  the summation over flavour is carried out exactly as in Eq.~(\ref{qule}). 

678: 

679: It is well-known that the strongest constraints on FCNC in the quark sector often arise 

680: from $\Delta F = 2$ amplitudes in the down-squark sector that contribute to the 

681: mixing of neutral $K$ and $B$ mesons. It is easy to see that such amplitudes are not present in 

682: Eq. (\ref{qqqq}) where two of the quarks are always of the up-type. Of course, they can be 

683: converted to down-type quarks at the expense of an additional loop with $W$-bosons, but

684: this introduces an additional numerical suppression. In any event, the conversion of the right-handed 

685: quark field $U$ into a $D$ field would necessarily require additional Yukawa suppression. 

686: There is, however, a more-direct one-loop SUSY threshold diagram that can give rise to 

687: $\Delta F =2$ amplitudes in the down-quark sector.

688: As shown in Figure~\ref{f3}b, it consists of a Higgsino--up-squark loop. The result 

689: for this diagram,

690: \begin{eqnarray}\label{dddd}

691: {\cal L}_{dd} &=& \fr{1}{\Lambda_{qe}}\fr{1}{8\pi^2} 

692: \mu^* I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|\mu|^2)(Y^*_u)_{im}(Y^*_d)_{nj}

693: \nonumber\\

694: &&\times  K^{qq}_{ijkl}\left[\fr{1}{3}(\bar Q_m D_n) (\bar D_k Q_l)

695: - (\bar Q_m t^A D_n) (\bar D_k t^A Q_l)\right]

696:   + (h.c.),

697: \end{eqnarray}

698: inevitably contains additional suppression by the Yukawa couplings of the up and down 

699: type quarks originating from the Higgsino-fermion-sfermion vertices. 

700: 

701: Notice that in the limit $\mu\gg m_{sq}$ the overall coefficient in equation 

702: (\ref{dddd}) scales as $(\Lambda\mu)^{-1}\log(\mu/m_{sq})$ and thus has only mild 

703: dependence on the soft-breaking scale. In this case, the operator (\ref{dddd}) must

704: have an explicit superfield generalization. Indeed, it is easy to see that in 

705: this limit (\ref{dddd}) corresponds to a dimension six  K\"ahler term:

706: $Q^\dagger DD^\dagger Q$. 

707: 

708: 

709: 

710: \subsection{Modifications to the Higgs sector and sparticle spectrum}

711: 

712: Thus far, we have not considered the consequences of the presence of the first operator in (\ref{qule}), 

713: which consists entirely of Higgs superfields. Its most obvious implication is a modification of the Higgs potential and 

714: the sparticle spectrum. The addition to the Higgs potential, linear in $y_h$, has a simple form:

715: \be

716: \Delta V_h = -\fr{2\mu^*y_h}{\Lambda_h}\left[(H_u^\dagger H_u) + (H_d^\dagger H_d)\right](H_dH_u)

717: + (h.c.).

718: \label{vh}

719: \ee

720: If $\mu^*y_h$ has a cumulative phase, this would create mixing between 

721: $A$ and the $h$, $H$ bosons that violate $CP$ symmetry.  However, its most important consequence

722: for our study here will be an induced complex shift of the bilinear soft parameter $m_{12}^2$, which

723: enters one-loop contributions for fermion EDMs. 

724: 

725: The mixing of left- and right-handed sfermions is also affected by this term.

726: In addition to the usual $\mu$ or $A$-proportional mixing, we 

727: have the following contribution to the mixing matrix element of $\tilde u_L$ and $\tilde u_R$,

728: \be

729: \de(M_{\tilde u}^2)_{LR} = - m_u \fr{y_h v_{SM}^2}{\Lambda_h}\cos^2\beta,

730: \label{mlr}

731: \ee

732: and analogous formulae for $\tilde e$ and $\tilde d$ with the $\cos\beta \rightarrow \sin\beta$

733: substitution. In this expression, $v_{SM}^2 = 4M_W^2/g^2_W$ corresponds to the SM 

734: Higgs v.e.v. 

735: 

736: The neutralino mass matrix also receives two new (complex) entries, i.e. 

737: Majorana masses for the neutral components of $\tilde H_u$ and $\tilde H_d$,

738: proportional to $y_h\lambda_h^{-1}v_{SM}^2\cos^2\beta$ and $y_h\lambda_h^{-1}v_{SM}^2\sin^2\beta$

739: respectively.

740: 

741: 

742: 

743: 

744: 

745: 

746: \section{Phenomenological consequences and sensitivity to $\Lambda$}

747: 

748: In this section, we estimate the sensitivity of various experimental searches

749: to the energy scales $\Lambda^{qe}$ and $\Lambda^{qq}$. Of course, one of the most important 

750: issues is then the assumed flavour structure of the new couplings $Y^{qe}$, $Y^{qq}$ and $\tilde Y^{qq}$. 

751: Since we are thinking of $\La$ as an intermediate scale and wish to explore the full reach of precision measurements,

752: we will make the generous assumption that these coefficients are complex, of order one, and {\em do not factorize}

753: into products of Yukawa matrices in the superpotential: $Y^{qe} \neq Y_u Y_e$. It is clear that a much more restrictive

754: assumption, {\it e.g.} minimal flavour violation, would dramatically reduce the sensitivity to these 

755: operators, but we will not explore this option here.

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: \subsection{Naturalness bounds -- fermion masses and the $\theta$-term}

760: 

761: With the above assumption on flavour structure, we should first investigate the requirement that the corrections to 

762: masses of the SM fermions do not exceed their measured values, as otherwise we will face a new fine-tuning 

763: problem in the flavour sector. 

764: Taking $(M_u A_u)_{kl} =  (M_u A_u)_{33} \sim m_tA_t \sim 175 \, {\rm GeV}

765: \times 300 \, {\rm GeV}$

766: and using the expression for $\Delta m_e$ in (\ref{delta_m}), we arrive at the following estimate,

767: \be

768: \Delta m_e \sim \fr{3 m_t A_t}{8\pi^2\Lambda^{qe}}\ln\left(\fr{\La^{qe}}{m_{sq}}\right)

769: \sim 1 {\rm MeV} \times \fr{10^7\, {\rm GeV}}{\Lambda^{qe}},

770: \ee

771: which clearly suggests that the `naturalness' scale for the new physics 

772: encoded in semileptonic dimension five operators in the superpotential 

773: is on the order of $10^7$~GeV, while the analogous sensitivity in the 

774: squark sector is slightly lower, $\Lambda^{qq}\sim 10^6$~GeV. This high naturalness scale is

775: simply a restatement of the small Yukawa couplings for the light SM fermions. However, perhaps surprisingly,

776: we will see below that this sensitivity is not the dominant constraint on the threshold scale.

777: 

778: Before we proceed to estimate the effects induced by four-fermion operators, 

779: we would like to consider the effective shift of the QCD $\theta$-angle due to the mass corrections

780: (\ref{delta_m}). Assuming an arbitrary overall phase for the $Y^{qq}$ matrices relative to the phases of 

781: the eigenvalues of $Y_u$ and $Y_d$, one typically finds the 

782: following shift of the $\bar \theta$ parameter,

783: \be

784: \Delta \bar\theta \sim \fr{{\rm Im}(m_d)}{m_d} \sim 

785: \fr{ {\rm Im}(Y^{qq}m_tA_t)}{4\pi^2 m_d\Lambda^{qq}}  \ln\left(\fr{\La^{qe}}{m_{sq}}\right)

786: \sim 10^{-10}\times 

787: \fr{10^{17}~{\rm GeV}}{\Lambda^{qq}}.

788: \label{delta_th}

789: \ee

790: This is a remarkable sensitivity of $\Delta \theta$ to new sources of $CP$ and flavour violation, 

791: and can translate into a strong bound on $\Lambda^{qq}$ depending on how the 

792: strong $CP$ problem is addressed. If it is solved by an axion, there are no consequences of 

793: (\ref{delta_th}). However, in other possible approaches $\bar\theta\simeq 0$ is engineered by hand,

794: using {\em e.g.} discrete symmetries at high energies \cite{discrete}. In this case, 

795: dimension five operators can pose a potential threat up to the energies $\Lambda^{qq} \sim 

796: 10^{17}$ GeV, which by itself is very remarkable. Future progress in measuring the electric 

797: dipole moments (EDMs) of neutrons and heavy atoms \cite{PR2005}, can clearly bring this scale up to the 

798: Planck scale and beyond. 

799: 

800: 

801: 

802: 

803: \subsection{Electric dipole moments from four-fermion operators}

804: 

805: Electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron \cite{n} and heavy 

806: atoms and molecules \cite{Tl,Hg,TlF,Xe,Cs,YbF,PbO} are primary  

807: observables in probing for sources of flavour-neutral $CP$ violation. 

808: The high degree of precision with which various experiments have put 

809: limits on possible EDMs translates into stringent constraints on a variety of 

810: extensions of the Standard Model at and above the electroweak scale (see, e.g. \cite{KL,PR2005}). 

811: Currently, the strongest constraints on $CP$-violating parameters arise 

812: from the atomic EDMs of thallium \cite{Tl} and mercury \cite{Hg}, and that of 

813: the neutron \cite{n}:

814: \ba

815: |d_{\rm Tl}| &<& 9 \times 10^{-25} e\, {\rm cm} \nonumber\\

816: |d_{\rm Hg}| &<& 2   \times 10^{-28}  e\, {\rm cm}     \\

817: |d_n|  &<&   3\times 10^{-26} e\, {\rm cm}.\nonumber

818: \label{explimit}

819: \ea

820: 

821: When $\bar\theta$ is removed by an appropriate symmetry, 

822: the EDMs are mediated by higher-dimensional operators. Both 

823: (\ref{qqll}) and (\ref{qqqq}) are capable of inducing the 

824: atomic/nuclear EDMs if the overall coefficients contain an extra 

825: phase relative to the quark masses. 

826: Restricting Eq.~(\ref{qule}) to the first generation and dropping the 

827: $U(1)$ contribution, we find the following 

828: $CP$-odd operator:

829: \be

830: {\cal L}_{CP-odd} = -

831: \fr{1}{\Lambda_{qe}}\fr{\alpha_s}{3\pi} 

832: |M_3Y^{ue}|   I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2)   \sin\delta

833: \times \left[(\bar uu) (\bar ei\gamma_5 e) + (\bar ui\gamma_5u)( \bar e e) \right],

834: \ee

835: with the $CP$-violating phase $\delta = {\rm Arg}(M_3^*Y^{qe})$ in a 

836: basis with real $m_e$ and $m_u$. Taking into account the $QCD$ running from the superpartner mass scale 

837: to $1$~GeV,  and upon the use of hadronic matrix elements over nucleon states,

838: $\langle N|\bar uu |N\rangle$ and $\langle N|\bar ui \gamma_5u |N\rangle$, 

839: we can make a connection to the $C_S$ and $C_P$ coefficients in the 

840: effective $CP$-odd electron-nucleon Lagrangian, 

841: \be

842:  {\cal L} = C_S \bar NN \bar e i \gamma_5 e + C_P \bar Ni \gamma_5N \bar e  e.

843:  \ee

844: The isospin singlet part of the $C_S$ coefficient is given by

845: \ba

846: C_S &=& -\frac{4\al_s}{3\pi \La^{qe}} {\rm Im}(M_3^* Y^{uuee})I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2) \nonumber\\

847:     &\sim& 2\times 10^{-4} (1\,{\rm GeV}\times\Lambda^{qe})^{-1},

848: \label{CS}

849: \ea

850: where in the latter equality we also assumed maximal violation of $CP$,

851:  $ |Y^{qe}|_{(M_Z)}\sim \sin \delta \sim O(1)$,  and chose the 

852:  superpartner masses degenerate at 300~{\rm GeV}.

853: The quark matrix element, $\langle N| (\bar uu + \bar dd)/2|N\rangle \simeq 4$, 

854: is in accord with standard values for the quark masses and the nucleon $\sigma$-term. 

855: 

856: Using the same assumptions, and the pseudoscalar matrix element

857: over the neutron,

858: $\langle n|\bar ui \gamma_5u |n\rangle \simeq -0.4(m_N/m_u)\bar n i \gamma_5 n$,

859: we obtain a similar expression for the neutron $C_P$ coefficient, 

860: \ba

861: C_P &=& \frac{\al_s}{6\pi \La^{qe}} \left(0.4\frac{m_n}{m_u}\right){\rm Im}(M_3^* Y^{uuee})I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2) 

862:  \nonumber\\

863: &\sim& 4\times 10^{-3} (1\,{\rm GeV}\times\Lambda^{qe})^{-1}.

864: \label{CP}

865: \ea

866: 

867: Comparing (\ref{CS}) and (\ref{CP}) to the limits on $C_S$ and $C_P$ deduced from 

868: the bounds on the EDMs of Tl and Hg \cite{FG}, we obtain the following sensitivity 

869: to the energy scale $\Lambda^{qe}$,

870: \begin{eqnarray}

871: \label{cslimit}

872: \Lambda^{qe} &\ga& 3 \times 10^8 ~{\rm GeV} ~~~~~~~~~~{\rm from~ Tl~ EDM} \\

873: \Lambda^{qe} &\ga& 1.5 \times 10^8 ~{\rm GeV} ~~~~~~~~{\rm from~ Hg~ EDM}

874: \end{eqnarray}

875: These are remarkably large scales, and indeed not far from the intermediate scale suggested by 

876: neutrino physics. In fact, the next generation of atomic/molecular EDM experiments have the chance of 

877: increasing this scale by two-three orders of magnitude which would put it

878: close to the scales often suggested for right-handed neutrino masses.

879: 

880: Going over to purely hadronic $CP$-violating operators, {\it e.g.} $C_{ud} (\bar d i \gamma_5 d)(\bar u u)$,

881: we note that these would induce the EDMs of neutrons, and EDMs of diamagnetic atoms 

882: mediated by the Schiff nuclear moment $S(\bar{g}_{\pi NN})$. In particular, we have for the $CP$-odd 

883: isovector pion-nucleon coupling,

884: \be

885:  \bar{g}^{(1)}_{\pi NN} = - 4 \times 10^{-2} \frac{C_{ud}}{m_d}, 

886: \ee

887: with 

888: \be

889: C_{ud} = -\frac{\al_s}{9\pi \La^{qq}} {\rm Im}(M_3^* Y^{uudd})I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2),

890: \ee

891: obtained as for the semileptonic operators above.

892: The typical sensitivity to $\Lambda^{qq}$ in this case is 

893: somewhat lower than in the case of semi-leptonic operators,

894: \be

895: \Lambda^{qq} ~\ga~ 3\times 10^7 ~{\rm GeV} ~~~~~~~~{\rm from~ Hg~ EDM}\nonumber.

896: \label{edmqq}

897: \ee

898: 

899: Semileptonic operators involving heavy quark superfields are also tightly constrained 

900: by experiment, via the two-loop diagrams of Fig.~\ref{f2}. Assuming no additional $CP$ violation 

901: in the soft-breaking sector and taking into account only 

902: the stop loops, we obtain the following result for the EDM of the electron:

903: \be

904: d_e = e\fr{\alpha}{12\pi^3}~\fr{{\rm Im}(Y^{ttee})}{\Lambda^{qe}}\frac{m_t|A_t - \mu^*\cot\beta|}{|m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2|}

905: \ln\left(\fr{m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2}{m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2}\right),

906: \label{de2l}

907: \ee

908: where $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ and $m_{\tilde{t}_2}$ are the stop masses in the physical basis.

909: Assuming maximal $CP$-odd phases and large stop mixing, we arrive at the following estimate for $d_e$,

910: \be

911: d_e \sim  \fr{10^8\,{\rm GeV}}{\Lambda^{qe}}\times 10^{-27} ~e\,{\rm cm},

912: \ee

913: which together with the sensitivity to the electron EDM inferred from the constraint on

914: $d_{\rm Tl}$, $|d_e|\la 1.6\times 10^{-27} e\, {\rm cm} $, translates to 

915: $$

916: \Lambda^{qe}\ga 6 \times 10^7\,{\rm GeV}.

917: $$

918: Expressions similar to (\ref{de2l}) can be obtained for the quark EDMs and color

919: EDMs, furnishing similar sensitivity to $\Lambda^{qq}$.  

920:  

921:  

922:  

923:  

924: \subsection{Lepton flavour violation}

925: 

926: Searches for lepton-flavour violation, such as the decay $\mu\to e\gamma$ and 

927: $\mu\to e$ conversion on nuclei have resulted in stringent upper bounds on the 

928: corresponding branching ratio \cite{muegamma} and the rate of conversion 

929: normalized on capture rate \cite{sindrum}\footnote{A recent announcement from the SINDRUM II collaboration

930: suggests a slightly stronger constraint, $R({\mu \to e^-~  {\rm on ~Au}}) < 7\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{sindrum2}.}:

931: \begin{eqnarray}

932: && {\rm Br}({\mu\to e\gamma}) < 1.2\times 10^{-11} \\

933: &&R({\mu \to e^-~  {\rm on ~Ti}}) < 4.3\times 10^{-12} .

934: \end{eqnarray}

935: 

936: Focussing first on $\mu\to e$ conversion, one can deduce the sensitivity of these searches

937: to the energy scale of the semileptonic  operators (\ref{qule}) as the conversion is mediated by the 

938: $(\bar uu)(\bar e i \gamma_5 \mu)$ and $(\bar uu) (\bar e \mu)$ operators, and thus 

939: involves the same matrix elements as does $C_S$. Indeed, the characteristic amplitude for the scalar operator

940: has the form

941: \be

942:  \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \et_{e\mu} = -\frac{4\al_s}{3\pi \La^{qe}} {\rm Im}(M_3^* Y^{uue\mu})I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|M_3|^2).

943:  \ee

944: Using the bounds on such scalar operators

945: derived elsewhere (see {\em e.g.} \cite{faessler}),

946: we conclude that $\mu\to e$ conversion currently probes energy scales as high as 

947: \be

948: \Lambda^{qe} \ga 1\times 10^8 \,{\rm GeV}~~~~~{\rm from}~{\mu^- \to e^-~  {\rm on ~Ti}}.

949: \label{muelimit}

950: \ee

951: However, it is important to note that the bound on the conversion rate is necessarily proportional to $(\et_{e\mu})^2$ and thus

952: these effects decouple as $(\La^{qe})^{-2}$ in contrast to the linear decoupling of the EDMs.

953: 

954: A sensitivity to slightly lower scales arises from the two-loop--mediated $\mu\to e\gamma$ 

955: process. We have 

956: \be

957:  {\rm Br}({\mu\to e\gamma}) = 384\,\pi^2 \frac{\mu_{e\mu}^2}{4G_F^2 m_{\mu}^2},

958:  \ee

959:  with the transition amplitude generated in the same manner as $d_e$,

960:  \be

961:   \mu_{e\mu} = \fr{\alpha}{12\pi^3}~\fr{{\rm Re}(Y^{ttee})}{\Lambda^{qe}}\frac{m_t|A_t - \mu^*\cot\beta|}{|m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2|}

962: \ln\left(\fr{m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2}{m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2}\right), 

963: \ee

964: where once again the sensitivity in the branching fraction 

965: is weakened relative to the EDMs by quadratic decoupling with the threshold scale.

966: 

967: Future progress in lepton flavour violation searches should be able to extend the reach of 

968: these probes by one-two orders of magnitude. Disregarding a factor of a few between (\ref{cslimit})

969: and (\ref{muelimit}), we conclude that currently the EDMs and searches for lepton flavour

970: violation probe these extensions of the MSSM up to similar energy scales 

971: of $\sim10^8$ GeV. 

972: 

973: It is also worth noting that sensitivity to $\La^{qe}$, that is somewhat more robust to changing assumptions on 

974: the flavour structure of  $Y^{ue}$, can also be achieved through comparison of the two modes of charged pion decay 

975: into first and second generation leptons. The typical sensitivity to 

976: $\Lambda^{qe}$ in this case could be as large as 

977: $$

978: \Lambda^{qe} ~\ga~ 10^4 ~{\rm GeV}~~~~~~~~{\rm from~ \mu-}e 

979: {\rm ~universality~in~\pi^\pm ~decay }\nonumber.

980: $$

981: 

982: Finally, the two-loop amplitudes in Fig.~3 would also give corrections to the anomalous magnetic moments 

983: of $e$ and $\mu$. In the latter case, one can estimate the sensitivity to $\Lambda^{qe}$

984: as no higher than about 1 TeV. 

985: 

986: 

987: 

988: \subsection{$K$ and $B$ meson mass-difference}

989: 

990: Often, the most constraining piece of experimental information comes from the 

991: contributions of new physics to the mixing of neutral mesons, $K$ and $B$. 

992: In the case of generic couplings $Y^{qq}$ and $\tilde Y^{qq}$, the four-fermion 

993: operators (\ref{dddd}) will contain $(\bar s_R d_L)(\bar s_L d_R)$  and 

994: $(\bar b_R d_L)(\bar b_L d_R)$ terms. Using a simple vacuum factorization ansatz, we find

995: \ba

996: \langle K^0|(\bar d_R s_L)(\bar d_L s_R)|\bar K^0\rangle 

997: &=& \left[\fr{1}{24}

998: +\fr 14\left(\fr{m_K}{m_s+m_d}\right)^2\right]m_K f_K^2

999: \simeq 2 m_K f_K^2,

1000: \nonumber\\

1001: \langle K^0|(\bar d_R t^As_L)(\bar d_L t^As_R)|\bar K^0\rangle 

1002: &=& \fr{1}{18}

1003: m_K f_K^2 =0.055 m_K f_K^2,

1004: \ea

1005: and therefore can neglect $(\bar d_R t^As_L)(\bar d_L t^As_R) $

1006: due to its small matrix element. 

1007: Taking into account the one-loop QCD evolution of 

1008: the $(\bar d_R s_L)(\bar d_L s_R) $ operators from the SUSY threshold scale down to 1 GeV,

1009: \ba

1010: (\bar d_R s_L)(\bar d_L s_R)_{1~{\rm GeV}} \simeq 5 (\bar d_R s_L)(\bar d_L s_R)_{M_Z},

1011: \ea

1012: we can estimate the contribution of additional four-fermion operators to the mass splitting 

1013: of $K$ mesons:

1014: \ba

1015: \label{DmK}

1016: \Delta m_K = -2{\rm Re}\langle K^0|{\cal L}_{dd}|\bar K^0\rangle 

1017: \simeq - 5\fr{m_K f_K^2\mu I(m_{\tilde{u}_1}^2,m_{\tilde{u}_2}^2,|\mu|^2) }{6\pi^2\Lambda^{qq}}

1018: ~{\cal Y}_{ds},

1019: \ea

1020: where we took $\mu$ to be real, and introduced the following notation for the relevant combination 

1021: of Yukawa couplings:

1022: \ba

1023: {\cal Y}_{ds}={\rm Re}

1024: (Y^*_u)_{i1}(Y^*_d)_{2j}      K^{qq}_{ij12}

1025: +{\rm Re}(Y_u)_{i2}(Y_d)_{1j}  K^{qq*}_{ij21}.

1026: \label{yds}

1027: \ea

1028:  It is easy to see that the presence of 

1029: $Y_u$ and $Y_d$ in (\ref{yds}) results in a significant numerical suppression of 

1030: the corresponding Wilson coefficients even with $Y^{qq}\sim O(1)$. The minimal suppression

1031: is realized with an intermediate stop-loop, in which case 

1032: the first term in (\ref{yds}) becomes of order $ V_{td}y_t y_s$, while the second 

1033: term is $\sim V_{ts}y_t y_d$. Numerically, this corresponds to

1034: a suppression factor,

1035: \be

1036: {\cal Y}_{ds}\sim 3\times 10^{-4} \times \fr{\tan\beta}{50},

1037: \label{ydsnumber}

1038: \ee

1039: which is also $\tan\beta$-dependent. 

1040: 

1041: Putting all the factors together, with the same assumption of degenerate soft mass parameters at

1042: 300{\rm GeV}, 

1043: we come to a disappointingly weak result:

1044: \be

1045: \Delta m_K \sim 3\times 10^{-6} \, {\rm eV}\times \fr{\tan\beta}{50}\times

1046: \fr{200\,{\rm GeV}}{\Lambda^{qq}},

1047: \label{dmklimit}

1048: \ee

1049: with the actual measured value of the mass splitting being $3.5\times 10^{-6}$eV. 

1050: The calculation of $\Delta m_B$ results in a similar sensitivity level, 

1051: prompting the conclusion that neither $\Delta m_K$ nor $\Delta m_B$ can probe 

1052: the flavour structure of additional dimension five operators beyond the SUSY threshold. 

1053: The $CP$-violating observable $\epsilon_K$ will obviously be more sensitive by almost 

1054: three orders of magnitude, resulting in

1055: \be

1056: \Lambda^{qq} \ga 10^5\,{\rm GeV}\times \fr{\tan\beta}{50}~~~~~~~{\rm  from}~\epsilon_K,

1057: \label{epsk}

1058: \ee

1059: which is still clearly inferior to the sensitivity of EDMs and lepton flavour violation. 

1060: Moreover, it is easy to see that if the complete theory at scales 

1061: $\Lambda$ also provides new dimension-six operators in the K\"ahler potential, the 

1062: possible consequences of those for $\De m_K$ and $\De m_B$  would be considerably more serious that of the

1063: dimension-five operators. We give an explicit example of this in the discussion section. 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: 

1067: \subsection{Constraining the  Higgs operator}

1068: 

1069: The strength of the constraints on $QULE$ and $QUQD$ 

1070: comes primarily from the fact that such operators flip the chirality of 

1071: light fermions without paying the usual price of small Yukawa couplings.

1072: This was a consequence of our assumption on the arbitrary flavour structure

1073: of the dimension-five operators.

1074: Should all transitions from $u_R$ to $u_L$ and $e_R$ to $e_L$ 

1075: be suppressed by $m_f/v$, the constraints (\ref{cslimit}), (\ref{muelimit})

1076: and (\ref{epsk}) would be relaxed all the way to the weak scale and below.

1077: Therefore, it would come as no surprise if the effective operator in the

1078: Higgs potential were to have very weak implications for $CP$-violating physics

1079: and no consequences at all for the flavour-changing transitions. 

1080: 

1081: We note first of all that the mixing of the left- and right-handed $d$-squarks is 

1082: affected by the Higgs operator (\ref{mlr}).  This feeds into the one-loop $d$-quark EDM diagram, 

1083: where this parameter behaves similarly to the insertion of the complex $A$-term,

1084: $A_d^{eff} \sim y_h v_{SM}^2 \Lambda_h^{-1}$ and leads to a contribution to $d_d$ that does not 

1085: grow with $\tan \beta$.  The typical sensitivity of the neutron and 

1086: mercury EDMs to the imaginary part of the $A_d$ parameter \cite{ourlateststuff}, 

1087: with the superpartner masses in the ballpark of  $\sim 300$ GeV, then implies 

1088: \be

1089: \Lambda_h \ga 1~{\rm TeV}~~~~~~~{\rm maximal~}CP~{\rm violation,~ neutron~EDM}.

1090: \ee

1091: Of course, a mere increase of the superpartner masses to around 1 TeV would 

1092: completely erase this sensitivity.

1093:  

1094: Another possibly interesting $CP$-violating effect would come from the 

1095: admixture of the pseudoscalar Higgs $A$ to the scalars $h$ and $H$  at tree level. 

1096: Subsequent Higgs exchange would then induce the $C_S$ operator \cite{Barr,LP},

1097: or contribute to the two-loop EDM of quarks and electrons \cite{BZ}. 

1098: The latter results in contributions to observable  EDMs that are $\tan\beta$-dependent and 

1099: furnish a sensitivity to $\Lambda_h$ up to a few TeV. 

1100: 

1101: 

1102: These are relatively minor effects. However, it turns out that significant sensitivity

1103: to this operator can indeed arise through its shift of the Higgs potential (\ref{vh}), and

1104: more specifically the effective shift of the  $m_{12}^2$ parameter,

1105: \be

1106: m_{12}^2 H_u H_d \to \left(m_{12}^2 + \fr{\mu y_hv_{SM}^2}{\Lambda_h}\right)H_u H_d ,

1107: \label{meff}

1108: \ee

1109: assuming the reality of $\mu$. The quantity in the parentheses is

1110: an effective $m_{12}^2$ parameter, which is complex 

1111: on account of Im$(y_h)$. Moreover, its complex phase is enhanced in the large

1112: $\tan\beta$ limit because $m_{12}^2 \simeq m_A^2\tan^{-1}\beta$. The resulting 

1113: phase affects the one-loop SUSY EDM diagrams. Assuming for simplicity a common mass scale 

1114: $m_{\rm soft}$ for sleptons, gauginos, and $\mu$, we have \cite{ourlateststuff}:

1115: \ba

1116: d_e &\sim& \fr{em_e \tan\beta}{16\pi^2m_{\rm soft}^2}\left (\fr{5 g_2^2}{24}+\fr{g_1^2}{24}\right)

1117:  \sin \left[{\rm Arg}\frac{\mu M_2}{ (m_{12}^2)_{\rm eff})}\right] .

1118: \ea

1119: Expanding to leading order in $1/\La_h$, and imposing the present limit on $d_e$, we find

1120: the sensitivity,

1121: \be

1122: \Lambda_h \ga 2\times 10^7 ~{\rm  GeV} \left(\fr{\tan\beta}{50}\right)^2

1123: \left(\fr{300{\rm GeV}}{M_{\rm SUSY}}\right)\left(\fr{300{\rm GeV}}{m_A}\right)^2,

1124: \ee

1125: which reaches impressively high scales for maximal $\tan\beta$. 

1126: 

1127: 

1128: 

1129: 

1130: 

1131: \section{Constraints within MSSM benchmark scenarios}

1132: 

1133: A summary of the characteristic sensitivity to the threshold scale $\La$ in different channels is given in Table~2,

1134: assuming generic and degenerate SUSY spectra. 

1135: In this section, we will go somewhat further and examine the variation in sensitivity among a few benchmark SUSY scenarios, with different

1136: spectra chosen in order to satisfy other constraints, including requiring the correct relic LSP density to form dark

1137: matter. We have also included the leading one-loop SUSY evolution of the dimension-five operators from the $\La$-scale

1138: to the soft threshold. These effects are generally on the order of 20-40\%, and the relevant RG equations are included 

1139: in the Appendix.

1140: 

1141: \begin{table}

1142: \begin{center}

1143: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||}

1144: \hline

1145: operator & sensitivity to $\La$ (GeV) & source \\ \hline\hline

1146: $Y^{qe}_{3311}$ & $\sim 10^7$ & naturalness of $m_e$\\

1147: Im($Y^{qq}_{3311})$ & $\sim 10^{17}$ & naturalness of $\bar \theta$, $d_n$\\

1148: Im($Y^{qe}_{ii11}$) & $10^7-10^9$ & Tl, Hg EDMs \\ 

1149: $Y^{qe}_{1112}$, $Y^{qe}_{1121}$ & $10^7-10^8$& $\mu\rightarrow e$ conversion \\ 

1150: Im($Y^{qq}$) & $10^7-10^8$ & Hg EDM \\ 

1151: Im($y_h$) & $10^3-10^8$ & $d_e$ from Tl EDM \\ \hline

1152: \end{tabular}

1153: \end{center}

1154: \caption{Sensitivity to the threshold scale. Note that the naturalness bound on Im$(Y^{qq})$ 

1155: doesn't apply to the axionic solution of the strong $CP$ problem, the best sensitivity to Im$(y_h)$ 

1156: is achieved at maximal $\tan\beta$, and the Hg EDM constraint on Im$(Y^{qq})$ applies when at least one pair 

1157: of quarks belongs to the 1$^{\rm st}$ generation.

1158: }

1159: \label{table1}

1160: \end{table}

1161: 

1162: The benchmark spectra we have chosen are the following representative SPS points~\cite{sps}:

1163: \begin{itemize}

1164: \item SPS1a -- msugra 

1165: \item SPS2 --  focus point 

1166: \item SPS4 -- large $\tan\beta$ in the funnel region

1167: \item SPS8 -- gauge mediation

1168: \end{itemize}

1169: \begin{figure}

1170: \begin{picture}(450,200)

1171: \put(0,0){\centerline{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_Cs.eps}\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_gbar.eps}}}

1172: \put(143,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^7\,$ GeV]}}

1173: \put(0,240){{$d_{Tl}(C_S)$}}

1174: \put(400,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^5\,$ GeV]}}

1175: \put(258,240){{$d_{Hg}(\bar{g}_{\pi NN})$}}

1176: \end{picture}

1177:  \caption{\footnotesize Constraints on the benchmark scenarios from contributons to $d_{Tl}(C_s)$ and $d_{Hg}(\bar{g})$. In these plots and

1178:  those below, SPS1a = red (solid), SPS2 = blue (dashed), SPS4 = green (dotted), SPS8 = brown (dot-dashed). The shaded region is above the

1179:  current experimental bound.}

1180: \label{b1} 

1181: \end{figure}

1182: 

1183: \begin{figure}

1184: \begin{picture}(450,200)

1185: \put(0,0){\centerline{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_mu2e.eps}\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_muega.eps}}}

1186: \put(143,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^7\,$ GeV]}}

1187: \put(0,240){{$R(\mu\rightarrow e)$}}

1188: \put(400,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^5\,$ GeV]}}

1189: \put(258,240){{$Br(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma)$}}

1190: \end{picture}

1191:  \caption{\footnotesize Constraints on the benchmark scenarios from contributons to  $\mu\rightarrow e$

1192:  conversion and $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$.}

1193: \label{b2} 

1194: \end{figure}

1195: 

1196: \begin{figure}

1197: \begin{picture}(450,220)

1198: \put(0,0){\centerline{\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_de2l.eps}\includegraphics[width=9cm]{bench_deh.eps}}}

1199: \put(143,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^7\,$ GeV]}}

1200: \put(0,240){{$d_{Tl}(d_e({\rm 2l}))$}}

1201: \put(400,0){{$\Lambda$ [$10^6\,$ GeV]}}

1202: \put(258,240){{$d_{Tl}(d_e(y_h))$}}

1203: \end{picture}

1204:  \caption{\footnotesize Constraints on the benchmark scenarios from contributons to $d_{Tl}(d_e)$.}

1205: \label{b3} 

1206: \end{figure}

1207: \noindent

1208: The results are shown in Figs.~(\ref{b1}-\ref{b3}), with the observables normalized to their current experimental bound plotted

1209: against the threshold scale $\La$.  All of the scenarios exhibit broadly similar sensitivity to the degenerate spectrum

1210: utilized previously. However, there is still significant variation in terms of the level of sensitivity exhibited within different benchmark

1211: spectra. 

1212: 

1213: If we focus first on Fig.~\ref{b1}, the constraints on $C_S$  and $\bar{g}_{\pi NN}$ are most 

1214: stringent within SPS1a, while SPS2 exhibits least sensitivity simply through having a generically heavy SUSY 

1215: spectrum. 

1216: 

1217: Fig.~\ref{b2} shows the constraints imposed by lepton flavour violating observables, and the quadratic sensitivity to

1218: $\La$ is clearly evident in comparison to the EDM bounds. The strongest constraints again arise within SPS1a and SPS4 due to

1219: having a generically lighter SUSY spectrum. The differences in the constraints from $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ are particularly

1220: marked, with SPS2 and SPS8 exhibiting rather minimal sensitivity. This can be understood from the two-loop 

1221: amplitude as due to the relatively small stop mixing in these cases.

1222: 

1223: Fig.~\ref{b3} exhibits the constraints from the electron EDM. The constraints from the two-loop amplitude on the left

1224: naturally exhibit very similar features to the constraints from $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$, given the similarity

1225: between the two dipole amplitudes. The constraints on the Higgs operator on the right of Fig.~\ref{b3} are most pronounced

1226: in SPS4 as one would expect due to $\tan\beta$-enhancement. The weak constraint from SPS2 is primarily because of the

1227: large value of $m_{12}^2$ which acts to suppress the effect of the additive complex shift.

1228: 

1229: 

1230: 

1231: 

1232: \section{Discussion}

1233: 

1234: So far we have kept our discussion rather general within the context of effective field theory, without 

1235: concerning ourselves  with the details of particular renormalizable UV models.

1236: In the case of the see-saw operator and proton-decay operators, such 

1237: models are well-studied. We would now like to briefly provide an

1238: example of how the effective terms in the superpotential 

1239: studied in this paper can be generated by renormalizable interactions.

1240: 

1241: We will limit our discussion here to scenarios in which these operators can be generated

1242: by tree level exchange of additional heavy states. As a basic example, consider the MSSM

1243: with an expanded Higgs sector -- an additional heavy singlet $S$ and heavy pair of doublets $H_u'$ and $H_d'$.

1244: This is sufficient to generate all the operators we have considered assuming renormalizable interactions of

1245: the form:

1246: \ba

1247: {\cal W} &=&  \frac{1}{2}MS^2 + \ka S H_u H_d - \mu H_d H_u

1248: - \mu' H_d' H_u'\\

1249:  &&+ U Q( Y_u  H_u + Y_u'  H_u') -  D Q (Y_d H_d + Y_d'H_d') - E L (Y_e H_d+Y_e' H_d'). \nonumber

1250: \label{4higgs}

1251: \ea

1252: Integrating out the singlet $S$ will clearly generate the operator $(H_uH_d)^2$. 

1253: The complex parameters $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are the eigenvalues of a 2$\times$2

1254: complex matrix of $\mu$ parameters that can always be reduced to diagonal form by 

1255: bi-unitary transformations in the $(H_u,H_u')$ and $(H_d,H_d')$ spaces. Assuming the 

1256: hierarchy, $\mu'\gg \mu$, we can integrate out heavy Higgs superfields, 

1257: producing a set of dimension five operators,

1258: \be

1259: {\cal W}^{(5)} = \frac{\ka^2}{M} H_uH_dH_uH_d + \fr{Y_e'Y_u'}{\mu'}ELUQ + \fr{Y_u'Y_d'}{\mu'}(UQ)(DQ).

1260: \label{4higgseff}

1261: \ee

1262: Comparing (\ref{4higgseff}) with (\ref{qule}), we can make the identification $y_h/\La_h = \ka^2/M$, 

1263: $\tilde Y^{qq} = 0$, $Y^{qe}/\Lambda^{qe} = Y_e'Y_u'/\mu'$,

1264: and $Y^{qq}/\Lambda^{qq} = Y_u'Y_d'/\mu'$ and translate 

1265: the sensitivity to the $\Lambda$'s into a sensitivity 

1266: to the extra Higgs fields. Since {\em a priori} there is no correlation 

1267: or dependence between the two sets of Yukawa matrices, 

1268: one can expect novel flavour and $CP$ violating effects 

1269: induced by (\ref{4higgseff}). More specific predictions 

1270: could be made in models that predict or constrain 

1271: the Yukawa couplings $Y$ and $Y'$, due {\em e.g.} to horizontal flavour 

1272: symmetries, Yukawa unification, or discrete symmetries such as parity or $CP$.  

1273: 

1274: All the  effects which decouple as $1/\Lambda$, when 

1275: put in the language of  the model (\ref{4higgs}), probe the exchange of 

1276: heavy Dirac fermions, namely Higgsino particles composed from 

1277: $\tilde H_u'$ and $\tilde H_d'$. It is then natural to ask 

1278: the question of whether the dimension six

1279: operators induced by the exchange of the heavy scalar Higgses

1280: could provide better  sensitivity to $\mu'$. It is easy to see that in the 

1281: case of arbitrary $Y'_{u,d} \sim O(1)$, the contribution of

1282: dimension six operators to the $K$ meson mass splitting is

1283: \be

1284: \Delta m_K \sim \fr{0.25 {\rm ~ GeV}^3}{\mu'^2} 

1285: \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \mu' \ga 8\times 10^6~{\rm GeV},

1286: \label{dim6dk}

1287: \ee

1288: while $\epsilon_K$ is sensitive to scales $\sim 1 \times 10^8$ GeV. 

1289: The reason why this dimension-six contribution dominates so dramatically over

1290: (\ref{dmklimit}) and (\ref{epsk}) is the suppression of the dimension five 

1291: effects by loop and Yukawa factors (\ref{ydsnumber}).

1292: 

1293: We conclude that $\Delta F=2$ processes mediated by dimension-six operators

1294: in the MSSM extended by an additional pair of Higgses 

1295:  comes very close in sensitivity to the estimates (\ref{edmqq}) and (\ref{cslimit}),

1296: with the latter being somewhat more stringent. This statement does of course depend on the SUSY mass 

1297: spectrum, and having heavier squarks and gluinos would reduce the EDM sensitivity. 

1298: In contrast we should also note that unlike the previous limits 

1299: (\ref{cslimit}) and (\ref{muelimit}), the constraint (\ref{dim6dk}) is 

1300: essentially `static', {\em i.e.} difficult to improve upon, as there is a limited extent to which new physics

1301: contributions to $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$ can be isolated from SM uncertainties.

1302: 

1303: We will end this section with a few additional remarks on issues that we

1304: touched on in this work:

1305: 

1306: (i) Thus far, we have studied the subset of all possible dimension 

1307: five operators neglecting, for example, $R$-parity violation. 

1308: It is easy to see, however, that no strong constraints on the $R$-parity violating 

1309: terms in (\ref{dim5rpv}) would arise at dimension-five level. 

1310: Indeed, limits on $R$-parity violation usually come from 

1311: SM processes which have to be bilinear in $R$-parity violating 

1312: parameters. Thus, only a combination of two dimension-five terms, 

1313: or  a dimension-five term with a  dimension-four term,

1314: would induce four-fermion operators for example. Since the dimension-four 

1315: terms are tightly constrained (see, {\em e.g.} \cite{sakis}), 

1316: one would not expect the limits on dimension-five operators to be competitive 

1317: with (\ref{cslimit}). 

1318: 

1319: (ii) A primary goal of any theory of $CP$ violation

1320: is to provide a solution to the strong $CP$ problem. We have shown that the 

1321: effective shift in $\theta$ can be quite significant even if 

1322: higher-dimensional operators are suppressed by $10^{17}$ GeV. 

1323: This has implications for  solutions to the strong $CP$ problem that do not employ 

1324: the dynamical relaxation of $\bar\theta$. For example, if

1325: $\bar \theta =0$ is achieved due to a new global symmetry 

1326: that forces $m_u = 0$ at the dimension-four level but is broken {\em e.g.} by

1327: quantum gravity effects, one could expect the emergence of Planck-scale 

1328: suppressed operators in the superpotential and, remarkably enough, progress in neutron EDM measurements 

1329: by just one or two orders of magnitude would directly probe such a scenario!

1330: Similarly, supersymmetric models that construct a small $\bar\theta$ using 

1331: discrete symmetries can also be affected by these operators,

1332: with possible observable consequences for the neutron EDM. 

1333: 

1334: (iii) Since the $CP$-odd effective interaction $C_S\bar NN \bar e i \gamma_5 e$ 

1335: provides the leading sensitivity to the energy scale of new physics 

1336: encoded in the semileptonic dimension-five operator in the superpotential, 

1337: it is prudent to recall that  the best constraint on $C_S$ comes from the EDM of the Tl atom, which is 

1338: also used for extracting a constraint on $d_e$. To make both bounds independent 

1339: of the possibility for mutual cancellations, one should use experimental 

1340: information from other atomic EDM measurements. In this respect, the interpretation of 

1341: promising new molecular EDM experiments that aim to improve the sensitivity  to $d_e$ \cite{YbF,PbO}

1342: will require additional theoretical input on the exact dependence on $C_S$. 

1343: 

1344: (iv) Finally, we would like to emphasize that the main result of this paper, 

1345: namely the sensitivity to the high-energy scale in Eqs.~(\ref{cslimit}) and (\ref{muelimit}),

1346: is quite robust in the sense that it has a mild dependence on the SUSY threshold as exhibited in 

1347: the preceding section.

1348: For example, an increase of the average superpartner mass to 3 TeV would reduce the sensitivity to 

1349: $\Lambda^{qe}$ and $\Lambda^{qq}$ by only a factor of 10, still probing scales of 

1350: a few$\times 10^{7}$ GeV. Contrary to this, the dependence of the electron EDM on the 

1351: Higgs operator is highly  dependent on the details of the SUSY spectrum, as

1352: taking $\tan\beta \sim 5$ and $m_A\sim M_{\rm SUSY} \sim 1 $TeV would reduce the sensitivity to 

1353: $\Lambda_h$ to a few TeV. 

1354: 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \section{Conclusions}

1358: 

1359: 

1360: Continuing progress in precision experiments searching for $CP$- 

1361: and flavour-violation provides an increasingly stringent test for 

1362: models of new physics beyond the electroweak scale, and supersymmetric 

1363: theories in particular.  In this paper, we have presented an analysis of flavour and $CP$

1364: violating effects in a two-stage theoretical framework: assuming first that 

1365: the SM becomes supersymmetric at or near  the weak scale, and then that the MSSM 

1366: gives way at some higher scale $\La$ to a theory with additional degrees of freedom.

1367: If nature indeed chooses supersymmetry, both steps can clearly be justified.

1368: The first one follows from the solution to the gauge 

1369: hierarchy problem offered by SUSY and the evidence for the 

1370: second (third, etc.) energy scale comes from rather intrinsic features that are required by, but not contained within, the MSSM: 

1371: mediation of SUSY breaking, neutrino masses, not to mention problems which require other solutions, i.e.

1372: baryogenesis, the strong $CP$ problem, etc. 

1373: 

1374: 

1375: 

1376: We have examined  new flavour- and $CP$-violating effects 

1377: mediated by dimension five operators in the superpotential 

1378: to show that sensitivity to these operators extends far beyond the weak scale, 

1379: and indeed probes very high energies. The semi-leptonic operators that 

1380: mediate flavour-violation in the leptonic sector and/or break $CP$ could be 

1381: detectable even if the scale of new physics is as high as $10^{9}$ GeV. 

1382: Since the effects studied here decouple linearly, 

1383: an increase of sensitivity by just two orders of  

1384: magnitude would already start probing the scales that are relevant for 

1385: Majorana neutrino physics. It is also important to note that theoretically, 

1386: should a major breakthrough in the precision of  EDM measurements take place, 

1387: there is ample room for

1388: the EDMs of paramagnetic atoms to probe $CP$-violating operators 

1389: suppressed by the $GUT$ or string scale without facing the SM background from 

1390: the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase, which is known to induce 

1391: tiny EDMs in the lepton sector \cite{myself}. 

1392: 

1393: The MSSM can contain a variety of  new sources of flavour- and $CP$-violation 

1394: related to the soft-breaking sector. This plethora of sources appears highly excessive 

1395: given the rather minimalist pattern of $CP$ and flavour violation observed experimentally.

1396: A number of model-building scenarios have addressed this issue, often 

1397: successfully, especially if supersymmetry is broken at a relatively

1398: low energy scale. Supposing that the wish of many theorists is granted, 

1399: and a $CP$-symmetric, and flavour-conserving, pattern of soft SUSY breaking is 

1400: achieved in a compelling manner, we may ask the following question: is there any new information 

1401: about such a SUSY theory  that could be provided by the continuation of the low-energy precision

1402: experimental program? This paper provides a clear  affirmative answer to this question. 

1403: 

1404: 

1405: 

1406: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}

1407: This work was supported in part by NSERC, Canada. Research at the Perimeter Institute 

1408: is supported in part by the Government

1409: of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MEDT. 

1410: 

1411: \pagebreak

1412: 

1413: \section*{Appendix A}

1414: 

1415: In this appendix, we summarize the 1-loop renormalization group equations used to evolve the dimension five operators

1416: down to the soft threshold. This evolution of course arises purely from the K\"ahler terms.

1417: 

1418: In general, we have:

1419: \ba

1420: \frac{d}{dt} y_h &=& y_h \left[ \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left( \Tr [ \,  

1421: 6 \, y_u  y_u^\dag +

1422: 6 \, y_d  y_d^\dag + 2 \, y_e  y_e^\dag \, ] - 6 \, g_2^2 

1423: - \frac{6}{5} g_1^2 \right) + \ldots

1424: \right]   \\

1425: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qe}_{ijkl} &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ Y^{qe}_{ijkm} (y_e^\dag

1426: y_e)_{ml} + Y^{qe}_{ijml} (2 \, y_e^\dag y_e)_{mk} 

1427: + Y^{qe}_{imkl} (y_u^\dag y_u + y_d^\dag y_d)_{mj} \right. \nonumber \\

1428: && \left. + Y^{qe}_{mjkl} (2 \, y_u^\dag y_u)_{mi} - Y^{qe}_{ijkl} \left(

1429: \frac{16}{3} g_3^2 + 3 \, g_2^2 + \frac{31}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right] + \ldots  \\

1430: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qq}_{ijkl} &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ Y^{qe}_{ijkm} (y_u^\dag

1431: y_u + y_d^\dag y_d)_{ml} + Y^{qq}_{ijml} (2 \, y_d^\dag y_d)_{mk} 

1432: \right. \nonumber \\ &&  

1433: + Y^{qq}_{imkl} (y_u^\dag y_u + y_d^\dag y_d)_{mj} 

1434: + Y^{qq}_{mjkl} (2 \, y_u^\dag y_u)_{mi} \nonumber \\ &&

1435: \left. - Y^{qq}_{ijkl} \left(

1436: \frac{32}{3} g_3^2 + 3 \, g_2^2 + \frac{11}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right] + \ldots  

1437: \ea

1438: and similarly for $\tilde Y^{qq}_{ijkl}$, where $y_u, y_d, y_e$ are $3 \times 3$ Yukawa matrices, and the dots represent

1439: higher order terms.

1440: 

1441: In practice, since only the third generation Yukawa couplings are significant, we can make use of 

1442: the simplified RGEs, 

1443: \ba

1444: \frac{d}{dt} y_h &\simeq& \frac{y_h}{16 \pi^2} \left[ 6 \, y_t  y_t^\ast +

1445: 6 \, y_b  y_b^\ast + 2 \, y_\tau  y_\tau^\ast 

1446: - 6 \, g_2^2 - \frac{6}{5} g_1^2  

1447: \right]  \\

1448: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qe}_{uuee} &\simeq& \frac{Y^{qe}_{uuee}}{16 \pi^2} \left[  

1449: - \left( \frac{16}{3} g_3^2 + 3\,  g_2^2 + \frac{31}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right] 

1450: \\

1451: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qe}_{ttee} &\simeq& \frac{Y^{qe}_{ttee}}{16 \pi^2} \left[ 

1452: 3 \, y_t^\ast y_t + y_b^\ast y_b -  

1453: \left( \frac{16}{3} g_3^2 + 3\,  g_2^2 + \frac{31}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right]   

1454: \\

1455: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qe}_{uue\mu} &\simeq& \frac{Y^{qe}_{uue\mu}}{16 \pi^2} \left[  

1456: - \left( \frac{16}{3} g_3^2 + 3\,  g_2^2 + \frac{31}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right] 

1457: \\

1458: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qe}_{tte\mu} &\simeq& \frac{Y^{qe}_{tte\mu}}{16 \pi^2} \left[ 

1459: 3 \, y_t^\ast y_t + y_b^\ast y_b -  

1460: \left( \frac{16}{3} g_3^2 + 3\,  g_2^2 + \frac{31}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right]   

1461: \\

1462: \frac{d}{dt} Y^{qq}_{uudd} &\simeq& \frac{Y^{qq}_{uudd}}{16 \pi^2} \left[ 

1463: - \left(

1464: \frac{32}{3} g_3^2 + 3 g_2^2 + \frac{11}{15} g_1^2 \right) \right]   

1465: \ea

1466: 

1467: \pagebreak

1468: 

1469: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1470: 

1471: \bi{mssm} S.~P.~Martin,

1472:   %``A supersymmetry primer,''

1473:   arXiv:hep-ph/9709356;

1474:   M.~A.~Luty,

1475:   %``2004 TASI lectures on supersymmetry breaking,''

1476:   arXiv:hep-th/0509029.

1477:   

1478:   \bi{leptogen} 

1479:   W.~Buchmuller, R.~D.~Peccei and T.~Yanagida,

1480:   %``Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,''

1481:   Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 55}, 311 (2005)

1482:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0502169].

1483: 

1484: 

1485: \bi{LED}I.~Antoniadis,

1486:   %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''

1487:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246} (1990) 377; 

1488:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

1489:   %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

1490:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429} (1998) 263.

1491:   

1492: \bi{Weinberg} S.~Weinberg,

1493:   %``Supersymmetry At Ordinary Energies. 1. Masses And Conservation Laws,''

1494:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26} (1982) 287.

1495: 

1496: \bi{SY} N.~Sakai and T.~Yanagida,

1497:   %``Proton Decay In A Class Of Supersymmetric Grand Unified Models,''

1498:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 197} (1982) 533.

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{Murayama:2001ur}

1501:   H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,

1502:   %``Not even decoupling can save minimal supersymmetric SU(5),''

1503:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055009 (2002)

1504:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0108104].

1505: 

1506: 

1507: \bi{prs}

1508:   M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,  

1509:   %``Flavor and CP violating physics from new supersymmetric thresholds,''  

1510:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 091801 (2006)  [arXiv:hep-ph/0510254].  

1511:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510254;%%

1512: 

1513: 

1514: \bi{sps} 

1515:   B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.},

1516:   %``The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches,''

1517: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,

1518:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 113

1519:   [eConf {\bf C010630} (2001) P125]

1520:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0202233];

1521:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%

1522:   N.~Ghodbane and H.~U.~Martyn,

1523:   %``Compilation of SUSY particle spectra from Snowmass 2001 benchmark

1524:   %models,''

1525: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,

1526:   arXiv:hep-ph/0201233.

1527:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201233;%% 

1528: 

1529: 

1530: \bi{bregop} 

1531:   M.~Battaglia, A.~De Roeck, J.~R.~Ellis, F.~Gianotti, K.~A.~Olive and L.~Pape,

1532:   %``Updated post-WMAP benchmarks for supersymmetry,''

1533:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33} (2004) 273

1534:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0306219].

1535:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306219;%%

1536: 

1537: 

1538: 

1539: \bi{DG} S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,

1540:   %``Softly Broken Supersymmetry And SU(5),''

1541:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193} (1981) 150.

1542:   

1543: \bi{neutrinos} R.~N.~Mohapatra {\it et al.},

1544:   %``Theory of neutrinos,''

1545:   arXiv:hep-ph/0412099.

1546: 

1547: \bi{sakis} 

1548:   B.~C.~Allanach, A.~Dedes and H.~K.~Dreiner,

1549:   %``The R parity violating minimal supergravity model,''

1550:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 115002.

1551: 

1552: \bi{H*} 

1553:   F.~Borzumati, G.~R.~Farrar, N.~Polonsky and S.~Thomas,

1554:   %``Soft Yukawa couplings in supersymmetric theories,''

1555:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 555} (1999) 53.

1556: 

1557:     

1558: \bi{WB} 

1559:   J. Wess and  J. Bagger, {\em Supersymmetry and Supergravity}, 

1560:   (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1992).

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{CKP}

1563:   D.~Chang, W.~Y.~Keung and A.~Pilaftsis,

1564:   %``New two-loop contribution to electric dipole moment in supersymmetric

1565:   %theories,''

1566:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82} (1999) 900

1567:   [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 83} (1999) 3972]

1568:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9811202];

1569:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811202;%%

1570: A.~Pilaftsis,

1571:   %``Higgs-boson two-loop contributions to electric dipole moments in the

1572:   %MSSM,''

1573:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 471}, 174 (1999)

1574:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9909485].

1575:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909485;%%

1576: 

1577: 

1578: 

1579: 

1580: \bi{masscorr}

1581:  R.~Hempfling,

1582:   %``Yukawa coupling unification with supersymmetric threshold corrections,''

1583:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6168; L.~J.~Hall, R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid,

1584:   %``The Top quark mass in supersymmetric SO(10) unification,''

1585:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 7048;  T.~Blazek, S.~Raby and S.~Pokorski,

1586:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 4151.

1587: 

1588:   

1589:   

1590: \bibitem{discrete}

1591: S.~Dimopoulos and S.~Thomas,

1592:   %``Dynamical Relaxation of the Supersymmetric CP Violating Phases,''

1593:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 465} (1996) 23

1594:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9510220];

1595:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510220;%%

1596:     R.~Kuchimanchi,

1597:   %``Solution to the Strong CP Problem: Supersymmetry with Partiy,''

1598:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 76} (1996) 3486

1599:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9511376];

1600:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511376;%%

1601:   R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Rasin,

1602:   %``Simple supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem,''

1603:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 76} (1996) 3490

1604:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9511391];

1605:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511391;%%

1606:   M.~E.~Pospelov,

1607:   %``Radiative corrections to theta term in the left-right supersymmetric

1608:   %models,''

1609:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391} (1997) 324

1610:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9609458];

1611:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609458;%%

1612:   G.~Hiller and M.~Schmaltz,

1613:   %``Solving the strong CP problem with supersymmetry,''

1614:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 263

1615:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0105254].

1616:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105254;%% 

1617:   

1618: \bibitem{PR2005} 

1619:   M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,

1620:   %``Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,''

1621:   Annals Phys.\  {\bf 318} (2005) 119.

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{n}

1627:   P.~G.~Harris {\it et al.},

1628:   %``New experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron,''

1629:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82} (1999) 904;

1630:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,82,904;%%

1631:    C.~A.~Baker {\it et al.},

1632:    %``An improved experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the

1633:   %neutron,''

1634:   arXiv:hep-ex/0602020.

1635:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0602020;%%

1636:    

1637: \bi{Tl} 

1638:   B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,

1639:   %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''

1640:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} (2002) 071805.

1641:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%

1642: 

1643: \bi{Hg} 

1644:   M.~V.~Romalis, W.~C.~Griffith and E.~N.~Fortson,

1645:   %``A new limit on the permanent electric dipole moment of Hg-199,''

1646:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86} (2001) 2505

1647:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0012001].

1648:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012001;%%

1649: 

1650: \bi{TlF} 

1651:   D.~Cho, K.~Sangster and E.~A.~Hinds,

1652:   %``Tenfold Improvement Of Limits On T Violation In Thallium Fluoride,''

1653:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 63} (1989) 2559.

1654:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,63,2559;%%

1655: 

1656: \bi{Xe} 

1657:   M.~A.~Rosenberry and T.~E.~Chupp,

1658:   %``Atomic Electric Dipole Moment Measurement Using Spin Exchange Pumped Masers

1659:   %  of 129Xe and 3He,'' 

1660:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 22. 

1661: 

1662: \bi{Cs} 

1663:   S.~A.~Murthy, D.~Krause,~Jr., Z.~L.~Li and L.~R.~Hunter,

1664:   %``New Limits on the Electron Electric Dipole Moment from Cesium,'' 

1665:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63} (1989) 965.

1666: 

1667: \bi{YbF}  

1668:   J.~J.~Hudson, B.~E.~Sauer, M.~R.~Tarbutt and E.~A.~Hinds,

1669:   %``Measurement of the electron electric dipole moment using YbF molecules,''

1670:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 023003

1671:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0202014].

1672:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202014;%%

1673: 

1674: \bi{PbO} 

1675:   D. DeMille {\it et al.},

1676:   %``Investigation of PbO as a system for measuring the electric dipole moment

1677:   % of the electron,''

1678:   Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61} (2000) 052507.

1679: 

1680: \bi{KL} 

1681:   I.~B.~Khriplovich and S.~K.~Lamoreaux, 

1682:   {\it CP Violation Without Strangeness}, 

1683:   Springer, 1997.

1684:   

1685:   

1686:   

1687: 

1688: \bi{FG}

1689:   J.~S.~M.~Ginges and V.~V.~Flambaum,

1690:   %``Violations of fundamental symmetries in atoms and tests of unification

1691:   %theories of elementary particles,''

1692:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 397} (2004) 63.

1693:   

1694:   

1695: \bi{muegamma} 

1696:   M.~L.~Brooks {\it et al.}  [MEGA Collaboration],

1697:   %``New limit for the family-number non-conserving decay mu+ $\to$ e+ gamma,''

1698:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83} (1999) 1521.

1699: 

1700:   

1701: \bi{sindrum} 

1702:   J.~Kaulard {\it et al.}  [SINDRUM II Collaboration],

1703:   %``Improved limit on the branching ratio of mu- $\to$ e+ conversion on

1704:   %titanium,''

1705:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 422} (1998) 334.

1706:  

1707:  \bi{sindrum2}

1708:  W. Bertl [SINDRUM II Collaboration], talk at the 3rd workshop on ``Flavour in the era of the LHC", 

1709:  CERN, May 2006.

1710: 

1711:  

1712: \bi{faessler}

1713:   A.~Faessler, T.~S.~Kosmas, S.~Kovalenko and J.~D.~Vergados,

1714:   %``Exotic mu e conversion in nuclei and R-parity violating supersymmetry,''

1715:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 587} (2000) 25.

1716: 

1717: \bi{ourlateststuff}    

1718:   K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,

1719:   %``CP-odd phase correlations and electric dipole moments,''

1720:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 075001

1721:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506106].

1722:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506106;%%

1723: 

1724:   

1725:   

1726: \bi{Barr}  

1727:   S.~M.~Barr,

1728:   %``Measurable T and P odd electron - nucleon interactions from Higgs boson

1729:   %exchange,''

1730:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 68} (1992) 1822;

1731:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,68,1822;%%

1732:   %S.~M.~Barr,

1733:   %``The Magnitude of Higgs exchange CP violation in two doublet models with

1734:   %large tan Beta,''

1735:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 2025.

1736: 

1737: \bi{LP} 

1738:   O.~Lebedev and M.~Pospelov,

1739:   %``Electric dipole moments in the limit of heavy superpartners,''

1740:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 101801

1741:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0204359];

1742:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204359;%%

1743:   D.~A.~Demir, O.~Lebedev, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,

1744:   %``Electric dipole moments in the MSSM at large tan(beta),''

1745:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 680}, 339 (2004)

1746:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311314].

1747:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311314;%%

1748:   

1749: \bi{BZ} S.~M.~Barr and A.~Zee,

1750:   %``Electric Dipole Moment Of The Electron And Of The Neutron,''

1751:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 65} (1990) 21

1752:   [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 65} (1990) 2920].

1753:   

1754:   

1755: \bi{myself} 

1756:   M.~E.~Pospelov and I.~B.~Khriplovich,

1757:   %``Electric dipole moment of the W boson and the electron in the

1758:   %Kobayashi-Maskawa model,''

1759:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 53} (1991) 638

1760:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 53} (1991) 1030].

1761: 

1762: 

1763: \end{thebibliography}

1764: \end{document}

1765: 

1766: 

1767: 

1768: 

1769: 

1770: 

1771: 

1772: 

1773: