1 / 15

EDM as a Probe of Physics Beyond SM

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?

baakir
Download Presentation

EDM as a Probe of Physics Beyond SM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Beyond SM: d=5 [mNP, dNP]=M-1 g mB s dNP 0 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 , like100m/Rearth ...now 1mm(Ellis) P T=CP rn Also de/(e re) < 10-17 , like 0.1nm! EDMs of elementary particles Dirac equation for s=1/2, charged e, massive m, elementary particle interacting with an e.m. field

  3. =60°14° EDMs in the SM 2 sources of CPV: one strongly constrained by EDM, one measured to be large but uneffective for EDM  of VCKM d4  and ofUMNS with mn STRONG CP PROBLEM: =0due toPQ? MULTI-LOOP<<EXP EDMs PROBE NP beyond SM & SEESAW! ...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!!!

  4. see for instance the present limits on leptonic sector 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!

  5. Which NP scales and couplings areto be probed? Consider possible 1-loop NP d=5  Wherei,j =e,m,t j i 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. EDM MDM LFV 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->eg (susy CP and flavour problems) 2) if ImG << ReG -> CP must be a good symmetry also for NP! 3) if ImGee=ImGmm (universality) then dm< mm/me de < 3x10-25 e cm , below planned... ...but violation of universality is reasonable!!! Hence NP CPV sources MUST be SUPPRESSED (like min susy) Unfortunately, extracting a bound on MNP from hadronic EDMs is much more involved ......

  7. E New Phys fundamental CPV phases (e.g.  and A in susy) d -term EDM & CEDM Weinberg & 4-fermion op’s -N interactions e-N interactions N-EDMs dTl = -585 de – e 43 GeV CS atomic matrix elements known with 20% accuracy EDM of NON-elementary particles MNP 1 GeV nuclear Measure: dTl , dHg , dD atomic

  8. New Phys fundamental CPV phases (e.g.  and A in susy) dn=DIFFICULT NON PERT PROBLEM! -N interactions e-N interactions N-EDMs EDM of NON-elementary particles E MNP 1 GeV -term EDM & CEDM Weinberg & 4-fermion op’s dpLIKEdn nuclear dHg=EVEN 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. 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 NON universal: different EDMs probe different phases ALL EDMs are IMPORTANT Universal: can compare EDMs sensitivities on eq grounds FC = diag : m =Arg(m) & ai=Arg(ai) FV = off-diag : phases ofdLLij dRRij dLRij dRLij. EDM probe combinations like Im(dLLij mjdRRji)

  11. m@ 3x10-25 ecm gm-2 A measure of dm would be a signal of a non universal source of CPV () (assuming no cancellations)Which EDM better constrain m ? Take mSugra with tgb=10 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. m@ 3x10-25 ecm gm-2 A measure of dm would be a signal of a non universal source of CPV () (assuming no cancellations)Which EDM better constrain m ? Take mSugra with tgb=10 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 [Olive, Pospelov, Ritz and Santoso, hep-ph/0506106 -updated by IM for n, D] 0.1 3x10-2 5x10-6 10-2 10-6 Hg n 5x10-7 Remember factor of 2 D pn 10-2 10-4 3x10-5 4x10-3 10-5 PRESENT: ne PLANNED: De

  13. 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 Misalignment INDUCEDin soft masses running from MPl to msusy by LFV&CPVYukawasof NPHeavy States NOT present in mSUGRAbecause an INHIBITION mechanism is at work Are exp’s are ALREADY TESTING it? susy seesaw (nR): LFV yes, EDM no [Borzumati Masiero; Hisano; etc...] [Ellis Hisano Raidal; IM; etc] susy GUTs (nR+HT): yes for both LFV and EDM [Barbieri Hall; Mohapatra; Hisano; IM Savoy; etc ]

  14. 5 >40? dm |Vts| Im(VL23) = de |Vtd| Im(e-ib VL13) SUSY SU(5)+seesaw [IM, hep-ph/0304299] 3x10-2 Relevant phase which is constrained by de : Im(dLL13 mtdRR31)  Im(e-ib VL13) ynD32 10-2 Where VL ynD VR = diag(ynD) In the basis where ch. leptons and R-n’s are diagonal 3x10-3 tgb=10 MT=2x1016 GeV MN3=1015 GeV [Hisano Kakizaki Nagai Shimizu, hep-ph/0407169] IF VR = 1 -> VL = UMNS&ynD32 = MN3/1015GeV (Strong assumption!!) Assuming also Im=O(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 tgb=10 MT=2x1016 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 SUSYSU(5) ALL EDMs SEARCHES are SIGNIFICANT - much work to do also in the theory sector!

More Related