EDM as a Probe of Physics Beyond SM

1
EDM as a Probe of Physics Beyond SM
Isabella Masina (Fermi Ctr. Rome)
OUTLINE Introduction -
EDMs of elementary s1/2 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
2
EDMs of elementary particles
Dirac equation for s1/2, charged e, massive m,
elementary particle interacting with an e.m.
field
3
EDMs in the SM
60?14
2 sources of CPV one strongly constrained by
EDM, one measured to be large but uneffective for
EDM
? of VCKM
?d?4 ?
and ? of UMNS with mn
STRONG CP PROBLEM ?0 due to PQ?
MULTI-LOOPltltEXP
present planned ? upp. limit pr. SMmn with ?0
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 O(10-13) plnd ?
dp 5 x 10-24 10-28 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
EDMs PROBE NP beyond SM
SEESAW!
...which generically contains MANY fundamental
sources of CPV (resulting in eff. op of dgt4 at
l.e.)
At least one NP CPV source is NECESSARY to
explain matter-antimatter asymmetry!!!
4
EDM probe ? of SM or NP beyond SM?
With present (planned) dn
NP if measure dm dTl dHg
dD gt 10-26(-28) e cm dp gt 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 lt 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!
5
Which NP scales and couplings are to be probed?
?d5 ?
Consider possible 1-loop NP
Where i,j e,m,t
i
j
chirality flip
e.m.charge
loop factor
coupling of NP with leptons
mass of NP in loops
adimensional and naturally O(1)
MDM EDM
LFVdecays
probe ?NPij , hence GNPij/ MNP2
6
present planned at present MNP gt planned
de e cm 1.6x10-27 10-30 (ImGee)1/2 x 6 TeV -gt 250 TeV
dm e cm 10-19 10-24 (ImGmm)1/2 x 10 GeV -gt 3 TeV
dae 6x10-11 (ReGee)1/2 x 30 GeV
dam ?(1-3)x10-9 ?(ReGmm)1/2 x 0.2 TeV th?
BR(m-gte g) 10-11 10-14 (PSI) Gme1/2 x 4 TeV -gt 20 TeV
BR(t-gtmg) 10-6 10-8 (LHC) Gtm1/2 x 0.1 TeV -gt 0.5 TeV
EDM
MDM
LFV
N.B. 0) if GNP O(1) -gt EDM, LFV , MDM,
probe now MNP at O(TeV), in future at O(10 TeV)
1) if MNP ? TeV (like susy) -gt
constraint on G from de and m-gte g (susy CP and
flavour problems) 2) if ImG ltlt ReG
-gt CP must be a good symmetry also for NP!
3) if ImGeeImGmm (universality) then dmlt
mm/me de lt 3x10-25 e cm , below planned...

...but violation
of universality is reasonable!!!
Hence NP CPV sources MUST be SUPPRESSED (like ?m
in susy)
Unfortunately, extracting a bound on MNP from
hadronic EDMs is much more involved ......
7
EDM of NON-elementary particles
MNP
1 GeV
nuclear
Measure dTl , dHg , dD
atomic
8
EDM of NON-elementary particles
E
MNP
1 GeV
?-term
EDM CEDM
Weinberg 4-fermion ops
dp LIKE dn
nuclear
dHgEVEN WORSE!
dD NOT BAD
Measure dTl , dHg , dD
atomic
9
Models for hadronic EDMs
Assume ?0
Agree within a factor of 2

Chiral lagrangian 0.26 ds e cm
from
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
10
Supersymmetry
Consider here...
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 ltlt1
G? M2sferm
misalignment in flavour between f e sf mass
matrices and can contain many CPV sources
NON universal
different EDMs probe different phases
ALL EDMs are IMPORTANT
Universal
can compare EDMs
sensitivities on eq grounds
FC diag ?m Arg(m) ?aiArg(ai) FV
off-diag phases of dLLij dRRij dLRij
dRLij. EDM probe combinations like Im(dLLij mj
dRRji)
11
(assuming no cancellations) Which EDM better
constrain ?m ? Take mSugra with tgb10
PRESENT
PLANNED
IM and C. Savoy, hep-ph/0211283
10-5
2x10-2
5x10-6
10-2
e
2x10-6
4x10-3
10-3
5x10-7
LHC
NOW
12
(assuming no cancellations) Which EDM better
constrain ?m ? Take mSugra with tgb10
PRESENT
PLANNED
IM and C. Savoy, hep-ph/0211283
10-5
2x10-2
5x10-6
10-2
e
2x10-6
4x10-3
10-3
5x10-7
LHC
NOW
0.1
Olive, Pospelov, Ritz and Santoso,
hep-ph/0506106 -updated by IM for n, D
3x10-2
5x10-6
10-2
10-6
5x10-7
Hg n
D p?n
Remember factor of 2
10-2
10-4
3x10-5
4x10-3
10-5
PRESENT n?e
PLANNED D?e
13
A-term and FV ds a source of EDM
Could perfectly be ?? 0 . THEN ?
Idem for CEDMs
Notice also
d d (0) d (rad)
Misalignment INDUCED in soft masses
running from MPl to msusy
by LFVCPV Yukawas of NP Heavy States
Misalignment in soft masses at MPl
NOT present in mSUGRA because an
INHIBITION mechanism is at work
Are exps are ALREADY TESTING it?
susy seesaw (nR) LFV yes,
EDM no
Borzumati Masiero Hisano etc...
Ellis Hisano Raidal IM etc
susy GUTs (nRHT) yes for both LFV and EDM
Barbieri Hall Mohapatra Hisano IM Savoy etc

14
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
10-2
Where VL ynD VR diag(ynD) In the basis
where ch. leptons and R-ns are diagonal
3x10-3
tgb10
MT2x1016 GeV MN31015 GeV
Hisano Kakizaki Nagai Shimizu, hep-ph/0407169
IF VR 1 -gt VL UMNS ynD32
MN3/1015GeV
(Strong assumption!!)
Assuming also ImO(1), CEDM of d puts a bound on
Ue3 as a function of MN3
de
dp
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
dD
tgb10
MT2x1016 GeV
15
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!