Download EDMs in the SM - INFN-LNF

EDM as a Probe of Physics Beyond SM
Isabella Masina (Fermi Ctr. Rome)
OUTLINE:
* Introduction
- EDMs of elementary s=1/2 particles
- EDMs in the SM
1*
EDM probe  of SM or NP beyond SM?
2*
Which NP scales and couplings are probed?
3*
SUSY is a NP candidate. Which constraints from EDMs on:
3a)  ?
3b) the relevant phases in SUSY SU(5) ?
* Conclusions
EDMs of elementary particles
Dirac equation for s=1/2, charged e, massive m, elementary particle interacting with an e.m. field
Beyond SM: d=5
g
s
mB
[mNP, dNP]=M-1
dNP  0
P
T=CP
50’s: Purcell & Ramsey look for dn (not elementary!) as a probe of P,T in strong interaction
dn < 3x10-18 e cm = 3x10-5 e fm  dn/(e rn) < 3x10-5 , like 100m/Rearth ...now 1mm (Ellis)
rn
Also de/(e re) < 10-17 , like 0.1nm
!
EDMs in the SM
2 sources of CPV:
one strongly constrained by EDM,
one measured to be large but
uneffective for EDM
=60°14°

d4 
STRONG CP PROBLEM:
=0 due to PQ?
and
of VCKM
 of UMNS with mn
MULTI-LOOP<<EXP
present
planned
dn
1.5 x 10-26
10-28
O(10-10)
10-31
dHg
2 x 10-28
10-28
O(10-9-10-10)
?
dD
?
10-29
10-28
 upp. limit pr.
O(10-13) plnd
SM+mn with
=0
?
dp
5 x 10-24
O(10-8)
?
dTl
0.9 x 10-24
O(10-4)
?
de
1.6 x 10-27
10-30
10-38
dm
10-19
10-24
10-35
...which generically contains MANY fundamental sources of CPV (resulting in eff. op of d>4 at l.e.)
At least one NP CPV source is NECESSARY to explain matter-antimatter asymmetry!!!
EDM probe  of SM or NP beyond SM?
With present (planned) dn
NP
if measure:
dm
dTl
dHg
dD > 10-26(-28) e cm
dp > 5x10-26(-28) e cm
if below there is ambiguity
Planned dD will be the most sensitive to :
NP if measure:
dm
dTl
dHg
dn
dp
with dD < 10-29 e cm
As EDMs probe in general different combinations of CPV sources they are
ALL IMPORTANT
DIFFERENT EDM measurements are NECESSARY to understand NP CPV
....but also upper limits are strongly welcome!
see for instance the present
limits on leptonic sector
Which NP scales and couplings are to be probed?
Consider possible
1-loop NP
d=5 
j
i
Where
e.m.charge chirality flip
loop factor
coupling of NP with leptons:
adimensional and naturally O(1)
mass of
NP in loops
MDM
EDM
probe
NPij
,
hence
i,j =e,m,t
LFVdecays
GNPij/ MNP2
present
de [e cm]
EDM
MDM
LFV
dm [e cm]
1.6x10-27
10-19
planned
at present MNP >
planned
10-30
(ImGee)1/2 x 6 TeV
-> 250 TeV
10-24
(ImGmm)1/2 x 10 GeV
-> 3 TeV
dae
6x10-11
(ReGee)1/2 x 30 GeV
dam
(1-3)x10-9
(ReGmm)1/2 x 0.2 TeV
BR(m->e g)
10-11
10-14 (PSI)
|Gme|1/2 x 4 TeV
-> 20 TeV
BR(t->mg)
10-6
10-8 (LHC)
|Gtm|1/2 x 0.1 TeV
-> 0.5 TeV
th?
N.B.: 0) if GNP = O(1) -> EDM, LFV , MDM, probe now MNP at O(TeV), in future at O(10 TeV)
1) if MNP  TeV (like susy) -> constraint on G from de and m->e g (susy CP and flavour problems)
2) if ImG << ReG -> CP must be a good symmetry also for NP!
Hence NP CPV sources MUST be
SUPPRESSED (like m in susy)
3) if ImGee=ImGmm (universality) then dm< mm/me de < 3x10-25 e cm , below planned...
...but violation of universality is reasonable!!!
Unfortunately, extracting a bound on MNP from hadronic EDMs is much more involved ......
EDM of NON-elementary particles
E
MNP
New Phys fundamental CPV phases (e.g.  and A in
susy)
1 GeV
-term
d
EDM & CEDM
Weinberg & 4-fermion op’s
nuclear
-N interactions
N-EDMs
atomic
e-N interactions
dTl = -585 de – e 43 GeV CS
Measure: dTl , dHg , dD
atomic matrix elements known with 20% accuracy
EDM of NON-elementary particles
E
MNP
New Phys fundamental CPV phases (e.g.  and A in
susy)
1 GeV
-term
EDM & CEDM
Weinberg & 4-fermion op’s
nuclear
LIKE dn NON PERT PROBLEM!
dnp=DIFFICULT
N-EDMs
atomic
dHg=
dD=
-N interactions
Measure: dTl , dHg , dEVEN
NOT
WORSE!
BAD
D
e-N interactions
Models for hadronic EDMs
Assume =0
Agree within a
factor of 2
~
Chiral lagrangian: + 0.26 ds e cm
Combining chiral and SR techniques
UNCERTAINTIES are LARGE ~ factor of 2
(hopefully overall for Hg, D)
...and they also depend on which contribution dominates, hence depend on NP itself!
Generically it turns out that the sensitivity of
hadronic EDMs to NP is also around TeV
Consider here...
Supersymmetry
Always the best for hierarchy, gcu,dark matter candidate, connection with string, ...
....but LFV and EDM are a problem
Amplitudes arise from
Loops of Sfermions & Gauginos
The SUSY Flavor & CP problems: msusy =O(TeV)  Gijsusy <<1
G M2sferm
misalignment in flavour between f e sf mass matrices
and can contain many CPV sources
Universal:
can compare EDMs sensitivities on eq grounds
FC = diag :
FV = off-diag :
dRRji)
NON universal:
different EDMs probe different phases
ALL EDMs are IMPORTANT
m =Arg(m) & ai=Arg(ai)
phases of dLLij dRRij dLRij dRLij. EDM probe combinations like Im(dLLij mj
(assuming no cancellations)
tgb=10
Which EDM better constrain m ?
PRESENT
[IM and C. Savoy,
hep-ph/0211283]
PLANNED
10-5
2x10-2
5x10-6
10-2
e
m @ 3x10
2x10-6
4x10-3
-25
Take mSugra with
ecm
A measure of dm would
be a signal of a non
universal source of
CPV ( )
10-3
NOW
5x10-7
LHC
(assuming no cancellations)
tgb=10
Which EDM better constrain m ?
PRESENT
[IM and C. Savoy,
hep-ph/0211283]
10-5
5x10-6
10-2
2x10-6
4x10-3
-25
ecm
A measure of dm would
be a signal of a non
universal source of
CPV ( )
[Olive, Pospelov, Ritz and
Santoso, hep-ph/0506106
-updated by IM for n, D]
Remember
factor of 2
PLANNED
2x10-2
e
m @ 3x10
Take mSugra with
Hg
n
10-3
5x10-7
LHC
NOW
0.1
3x10-2
10-2
10-6
10-2
4x10-3
PRESENT: ne
D
pn
5x10-7
3x10-5
5x10-6
10-4
10-5
PLANNED: De
Could perfectly be  =0 .
THEN ?
A-term and FV d’s a source of EDM
Idem for CEDMs
Notice also
d = d (0) + d (rad)
Misalignment in soft masses at MPl
NOT present in mSUGRA
because an INHIBITION mechanism is at work
Misalignment INDUCED in soft masses
running from MPl to msusy
by LFV&CPV Yukawas of NP Heavy States
Are exp’s are ALREADY TESTING it?
susy seesaw (nR):
LFV yes,
[Borzumati Masiero; Hisano; etc...]
susy GUTs (nR+HT):
EDM no
[Ellis Hisano Raidal; IM; etc]
yes for both LFV and EDM
[Barbieri Hall; Mohapatra; Hisano; IM Savoy; etc ]
SUSY SU(5)+seesaw
[IM, hep-ph/0304299]
3x10-2
Relevant phase which is constrained by de :
Im(dLL13 mt dRR31)  Im(e-ib VL13)
ynD32
Where VL ynD VR = diag(ynD)
In the basis where ch. leptons and R-n’s are diagonal
dm
de
IF VR = 1
(Strong assumption!!)
5
=
|Vts|
Im(VL23)
>40?
10-2
3x10-3
tgb=10
MT=2x1016 GeV
MN3=1015 GeV
|Vtd| Im(e-ib VL13)
-> VL = UMNS & ynD32 = MN3/1015GeV
Assuming also Im=O(1),
CEDM of d puts a bound on
Ue3 as a function of MN3
N.B.: SU(5) just toy because ruled out by p-decay
In realistic SO(10) where tp is ok, EDMs are even
larger as there are more heavy states
[for de : IM Savoy, hep-ph/0309067]
[Hisano Kakizaki Nagai Shimizu,
hep-ph/0407169]
de
dp
dD
tgb=10
MT=2x1016 GeV
Conclusions
EDMs are effective probes of TeV-scale NP beyond SM
- in particular SUSY
Even thought is interesting to compare their sensitivities by considering
just ONE CPV source...
- like m in SUSY
...in general different EDMs probe different CPV sources
- like dm and de in SUSY SU(5)
ALL EDMs SEARCHES are SIGNIFICANT
- much work to do also in the theory sector!