text:
# Neutralino relic density in minimal supergravity with co-annihilations

## 1 Introduction

A wide variety of astrophysical measurements are being used to pin down some of the basic cosmological parameters of the universe. High resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation imply that the energy density of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho /\rho _c1`$, consistent with inflationary cosmology. Here, $`\rho _c=3H^2/8\pi G_N`$ is the critical closure density of the universe, where $`G_N`$ is Newton’s constant and $`H=100h`$ km/sec/Mpc is the scaled Hubble constant. The value of $`h`$ itself is determined to be $`0.7\pm 0.1`$ by improved measurements of distant galaxies. Meanwhile, data from distant supernovae imply a nonzero dark energy content of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$, a result which is confirmed by fits to the CMB power spectrum. Analyses of Big Bang nucleosynthesis imply the baryonic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.020\pm 0.002`$, although the CMB fits suggest a somewhat higher value of $`0.03`$. Hot dark matter, for instance from massive neutrinos, should give only a small contribution to the total matter density of the universe. In contrast, a variety of data ranging from galactic rotation curves to large scale structure and the CMB imply a significant density of cold dark matter (CDM) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_ch^20.2\pm 0.1`$.

In many $`R`$-parity conserving supersymmetric models of particle physics, the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$) is also the lightest SUSY particle (LSP); as such, it is massive, neutral and stable. For this case, relic neutralinos left over from the Big Bang provide an excellent candidate for the CDM content of the universe. In the early universe, such neutralinos would exist in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic soup. As the universe expanded and cooled, the thermal energy would no longer be sufficient to produce neutralinos at an appreciable rate, although they could still annihilate away. Their number density is governed by the Boltzmann equation formulated for a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe.

In this paper, our goal is to present results of calculations of the neutralino relic density within the context of the paradigm minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA, or CMSSM). In mSUGRA, it is assumed that SUSY breaking occurs in a hidden sector of the model, with SUSY breaking effects communicated from hidden to observable sectors via gravitational interactions. The model parameter space is given by

$$m_0,m_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{and}sign(\mu ).$$
(1)
Here, $`m_0`$ is the universal scalar mass, $`m_{1/2}`$ is the universal gaugino mass and $`A_0`$ is the universal trilinear mass all evaluated at $`M_{GUT}`$, while $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of Higgs field vevs ($`v_u/v_d`$), and $`\mu `$ is a supersymmetric Higgs mass term. The soft SUSY breaking parameters, along with gauge and Yukawa couplings, evolve from $`M_{GUT}`$ to $`M_{weak}`$ according to their renormalization group (RG) equations. At $`M_{weak}`$, the RG improved 1-loop effective potential is minimized, and electroweak gauge symmetry is broken radiatively. In this report, we implement the mSUGRA solution encoded in ISAJET v7.59.

There is a long history of increasingly sophisticated solutions for the relic density of neutralinos in supersymmetric models. The key ingredient to solving the Boltzmann equation is to evaluate the thermally averaged neutralino annihilation cross section times velocity factor. Traditionally, the solution is made by expanding the annihilation cross section as a power series in neutralino velocity, so that angular and energy integrals can be evaluated analytically. The remaining integral over temperature can then be performed numerically. The power series solution is excellent in many regions of model parameter space because the relic neutralino velocity is expected to be highly non-relativistic.

However, it was emphasized by Griest and Seckel that annihilations may occur through $`s`$-channel resonances at high enough energies that a relativistic treatment of thermal averaging might be necessary. Drees and Nojiri found that at large values of the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, neutralino annihilation can be dominated by $`s`$-channel scattering through very broad $`A`$ and $`H`$ Higgs resonances. The proper formalism for relativistic thermal averaging was developed by Gondolo and Gelmini (GG), and was implemented in the code of Baer and Brhlik. Working within the framework of the mSUGRA model, it was found that at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, indeed large new regions of model parameter space gave rise to reasonable values for the CDM relic density. At large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`A`$ and $`H`$ resonances are broad enough (typically 10-50 GeV) that even if the quantity $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ is several partial widths away from exact resonance, there can still be a significant rate for neutralino annihilation. Thus, in the mSUGRA model at low $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, neutralino annihilation is dominated by $`t`$-channel slepton exchange, and reasonable values of the relic density occur only for relatively low values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$. At high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, a much larger parameter space is allowed, owing to off-resonance neutralino annihilation through the broad Higgs resonances.

In addition, there exist regions of mSUGRA model parameter space where co-annihilation processes are important, and even dominant. It was stressed by Griest and Seckel that in regions with a higgsino-like LSP, the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ masses become nearly degenerate, so that all three species can exist in thermal equilibrium, and annihilate against one another. The relativistic thermal averaging formalism of GG was extended to include co-annihilation processes by Edsjö and Gondolo, and was implemented in the DarkSUSY code for co-annihilation of charginos and heavier neutralinos.

The importance of neutralino-slepton co-annihilation was stressed by Ellis et al. and others. In regions of mSUGRA parameter space where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ (or other sleptons) were nearly degenerate (at low $`m_0`$), co-annihilations could give rise to reasonable values of the relic density even at very large values of $`m_{1/2}`$, at both low and high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In addition, for large values of the parameter $`A_0`$ or for non-universal scalar masses, top or bottom squark masses could become nearly degenerate with the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, so that squark co-annihilation processes can become important as well.

In this paper, our goal is to calculate the relic density of neutralinos in the mSUGRA model including co-annihilation processes in addition to relativistic thermal averaging of the annihilation cross section times velocity. Since there are very many Feynman diagrams to evaluate for neutralino annihilations and co-annihilations, we use CompHEP v.33.24, which provides for fast and efficient automatic evaluation of tree level processes in the SM or MSSM. For initial states including $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$, we count 1722 subprocesses, including 7618 Feynman diagrams. For those processes we have calculated the squared matrix element and have written it down in the form of CompHEP FORTRAN output.

The weak scale parameters from supersymmetric models are generated using ISAJET v7.59, and interfaced with the squared matrix elements from CompHEP. Details of our computational algorithm are given in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3 we present a variety of results for the relic density in mSUGRA model parameter space. Much of parameter space is ruled out at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ since the relic density is too high, and would yield too small an age of the universe. At high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, large regions of parameter space are available with a reasonable relic density in the range $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.3`$. In Sec. 4, we compare our results with some previous results on the reach of colliders, and draw some implications. In Sec. 5, we conclude.

As we were completing this work, the group of Belanger, Boudjema, Pukhov and Semenov reported on a calculation similar to ours in scope and method. In addition, a paper by Nihei, Roszkowski and de Austri appeared, containing analytic calculations of all $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ annihilation cross sections.

## 2 Calculational Details

The evolution of the number density of supersymmetric relics in the universe is described by the Boltzmann equation as formulated for a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. For calculations including many particle species, such as the case where co-annihilations are important, there is a Boltzmann equation for each particle species. Following Griest and Seckel, the equations can be combined to obtain a single equation

$$\frac{dn}{dt}=3Hn\sigma _{eff}v\left(n^2n_{eq}^2\right)$$
(2)
where

$$n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}n_i$$
(3)
and the sum extends over the $`N`$ particle species contributing to the relic density, with $`n_i`$ being the number density of the $`i`$th species. Furthermore, $`n_{eq,i}`$ is the number density of the $`i`$th species in thermal equilibrium, given by

$$n_{eq,i}=\frac{g_im_i^2T}{2\pi ^2}K_2\left(\frac{m_i}{T}\right),$$
(4)
where $`K_j`$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind of order $`j`$.

The quantity $`\sigma _{eff}v`$ is the thermally averaged cross section times velocity. A succinct expression for this quantity using relativistic thermal averaging was computed by Gondolo and Gelmini for the case of a single particle species, and was extended by Edsjö and Gondolo for the case including co-annihilations. We adopt this latter form, given by

$$\sigma _{eff}v(x)=\frac{_2^{\mathrm{}}K_1\left(\frac{a}{x}\right)_{i,j=1}^N\lambda (a^2,b_i^2,b_j^2)g_ig_j\sigma _{ij}(a)da}{4x\left(_{i=1}^NK_2\left(\frac{b_i}{x}\right)b_i^2g_i\right)^2},$$
(5)
where $`x=T/m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ is the temperature in units of mass of the relic neutralino, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the cross section for the annihilation reaction $`ijX`$ ($`X`$ is any allowed final state consisting of 2 SM and/or Higgs particles), $`\lambda (a^2,b_i^2,b_j^2)=a^4+b_i^4+b_j^42(a^2b_i^2+a^2b_j^2+b_i^2b_j^2)`$, $`a=\sqrt{s}/m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ and $`b_i=m_i/m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$. This expression is our master formula for the relativistically thermal averaged annihilation cross section times velocity.

To solve the Boltzmann equation, we introduce a freeze-out temperature $`T_F`$, so that the relic density of neutralinos is given by111The procedure we follow gives numerical results valid to about 10% versus a direct numerical solution of the Boltzmann equation.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2=\frac{\rho (T_0)}{8.1\times 10^{47}\mathrm{GeV}^4}$$
(6)
where

$$\rho (T_0)1.66\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}\left(\frac{T_{m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}}}{T_\gamma }\right)^3T_\gamma ^3\sqrt{g_{}}\frac{1}{_0^{x_F}\sigma _{eff}v𝑑x}.$$
(7)
The freeze-out temperature $`x_F=T_F/m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ is determined as usual by an iterative solution of the freeze-out relation

$$x_F^1=\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}}{2\pi ^3}\frac{g_{eff}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{45}{2g_{}G_N}}\sigma _{eff}v(x_F)x_F^{1/2}\right].$$
(8)
Here, $`g_{eff}`$ denotes the effective number of degrees of freedom of the co-annihilating particles, as defined by Griest and Seckel. The quantity $`g_{}`$ is the SM effective degrees of freedom parameter with $`\sqrt{g_{}}9`$ over our region of interest.

The challenge then is to evaluate all possible channels for neutralino annihilation to SM and/or Higgs particles, and also all co-annihilation reactions. The 7618 Feynman diagrams are evaluated using CompHEP, leading to about 50 MB of FORTRAN code. To achieve our final result with relativistic thermal averaging, a three-dimensional integral must be performed over i.) the final state subprocess scattering angle $`\theta `$, ii.) the subprocess energy parameter $`a=\sqrt{s}/m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$, and iii.) the temperature $`T`$ from freeze-out $`T_F`$ to the present day temperature of the universe, which can effectively be taken to be 0. We perform the three-dimensional integral using the BASES algorithm, which implements sequentially improved sampling in multi-dimensional Monte Carlo integration, generally with good convergence properties. We note that the three-dimensional integration appearing in the case of our relativistic calculations involving several species in thermal equilibrium is about 2 orders of magnitude more CPU-time consuming than the series expansion approach, which requires just one numerical integration.

## 3 Results

Our first results in Fig. 1 show regions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$ in the $`m_0vs.m_{1/2}`$ plane in the minimal supergravity model for $`A_0=0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and for $`\mu <0`$ and $`\mu >0`$. The upper plots show the contribution if only $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ annihilation reactions occur, while the lower frames include as well all co-annihilation processes. The red shaded regions are excluded by theoretical constraints (lack of REWSB on the right, a charged LSP in the upper left). The unshaded regions have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2>1`$, and should be excluded, as they would lead to a universe of age less than 10 billion years, in conflict with the oldest stars found in globular clusters. The light blue shaded regions have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.02`$, which wouldn’t be enough CDM even to explain galactic rotation curves. The green region yields values of $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.3`$, i.e. in the most cosmologically favored region. The yellow ($`0.02<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.1`$) and dark blue ($`0.3<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<1`$) correspond to regions with intermediate values of low and high relic density, respectively. Points with $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{<}{}150`$ GeV give rise to chargino masses below bounds from LEP2; the LEP2 excluded regions due to chargino, slepton and Higgs searches are not shown on these plots, but will be shown in Sec. 4.

The structure of these plots can be understood by examining the thermally averaged cross section times velocity, integrated from zero temperature to $`T_F`$. In Fig. 2 we show this quantity for a variety of contributing subprocesses plotted versus $`m_0`$ for fixed $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, $`\mu >0`$, and all other parameters as in Fig. 1. At low values of $`m_0`$, the neutralino annihilation cross section is dominated by $`t`$-channel scattering into leptons pairs, as shown by the black solid curve. However, at the very lowest values of $`m_0`$, the annihilation rate is sharply increased by neutralino-stau and stau-stau co-annihilations, leading to very low relic densities where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$. As $`m_0`$ increases, the slepton masses also increase, which suppresses the annihilation cross section, and the relic density rises to values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2>1`$. When $`m_0`$ increases further, to beyond the $`1`$ TeV level, and approaches the excluded region, the magnitude of the $`\mu `$ parameter falls, and the higgsino component of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ increases. This is the so called “focus point” region, explored in Ref. . In this region, the annihilation rate is dominated by scattering into $`WW`$, $`ZZ`$ and $`Zh`$ channels. At even higher $`m_0`$ values, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}`$, and these co-annihilation channels increase even more the annihilation rate. Finally, at the large $`m_0`$ bound on parameter space, $`|\mu |0`$, and appropriate REWSB no longer occurs. Most of the structure of Fig. 1 can be understood in these terms, with the exception being the horizontal band of very low relic density at $`m_{1/2}125`$ GeV.

In this region, which is nearly excluded by LEP2 bounds on the chargino mass, there is enhanced neutralino annihilation through the $`Z`$ and $`h`$ resonances. In fact, a higher degree of resolution on our plots would resolve these horizontal bands into two bands, corresponding to each of the separate resonances, as shown in Ref. . Finally, the glitch in contours around $`m_01500`$ GeV and $`m_{1/2}425`$ GeV occurs because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}m_t=175`$ GeV, so that $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1t\overline{t})`$ becomes large.

The $`m_0vs.m_{1/2}`$ planes for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The structure of these plots are qualitatively the same as in Fig. 1. Quantitatively, they differ mainly in that the cosmologically favored regions are expanding as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ grows. One reason is that the light stau becomes even lighter as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases, and this increases the neutralino annihilation rate $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\tau \overline{\tau }`$ through $`t`$-channel stau exchange. In addition, the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings increase with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which increases the annihilation cross sections into $`\tau `$s and $`b`$s. Finally, the $`H`$ and $`A`$ Higgs boson masses are decreasing with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and annihilation rates which proceed through these resonances increase. Co-annihilations again gives enhanced annihilation cross sections on the left and farthest right hand sides of the allowed parameter space.

In Fig. 4, we show the $`m_0vs.m_{1/2}`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$. In this case, the structure of the plane is changing qualitatively, especially for $`\mu <0`$. First, there is a new region of disallowed parameter space for $`\mu <0`$ in the lower left due to $`m_A^2<0`$, which signals a breakdown of the REWSB mechanism. Second, a corridor of very low relic density passes diagonally through the plot. The center of this region is where $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}m_A`$ and $`m_H`$. At the $`A`$ and $`H`$ resonance, there is very efficient neutralino annihilation into $`b\overline{b}`$ final states. This is illustrated in Fig. 5, where we show the integrated annihilation cross section times velocity versus $`m_0`$ for $`m_{1/2}=600`$ GeV and $`\mu <0`$. At the very lowest values of $`m_0`$, there is again the sharp peak due to neutralino-stau and stau-stau co-annihilations. For larger values of $`m_0`$, however, the annihilation rate is dominantly into $`b\overline{b}`$ final states over almost the entire $`m_0`$ range. This is due to the large annihilation rates through the $`s`$-channel $`A`$ and $`H`$ diagrams, even when the reactions occur off resonance. In this case, the widths of the $`A`$ and $`H`$ are so large (both $`1040`$ GeV across the range in $`m_0`$ shown) that efficient $`s`$-channel annihilation can occur throughout the bulk of parameter space, even when the resonance condition is not exactly fulfilled. The resonance annihilation is explicitly displayed in this plot as the annihilation bump at $`m_0`$ just below 1300 GeV. Another annihilation possibility is that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1b\overline{b}`$ via $`t`$ and $`u`$ channel graphs. In fact, these annihilation graphs are enhanced due to the large $`b`$ Yukawa coupling and decreasing value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}`$, but we have checked that the $`s`$-channel annihilation is still far the dominant channel. Annihilation into $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ is the next most likely channel, but is always below the level of annihilation into $`b\overline{b}`$ for the parameters shown in Fig. 5. At even higher values of $`m_0`$ where the higgsino component of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ becomes non-negligible, the annihilations into $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ again dominate; finally, at the highest values of $`m_0`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ co-annihilation channels become important.

In Fig. 6, we show again the subprocess annihilation rates versus $`m_0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$, but this time for $`\mu >0`$ and for $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV. Although no explicit resonance is evident for $`\mu >0`$, the dominant annihilations are once again into $`b\overline{b}`$ final states over most of the parameter space, due to the very wide Higgs resonances. At the highest values of $`m_0`$, where $`\mu `$ is becoming small, the annihilation rate into the dominant $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ final states becomes suppressed. The suppression is due to the diminishing mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ as $`\mu 0`$. As $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ falls below $`M_Z`$ and then $`M_W`$, there is thermal suppression of annihilation into the $`ZZ`$ and $`WW`$ final states.

To summarize the regions of mSUGRA model parameter space with reasonable values of neutralino relic density, we can label four important regions: $`i.`$) annihilation through $`t`$-channel slepton– especially stau– exchange, as occurs for low values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$, $`ii.`$) the stau co-annihilation region for low values of $`m_0`$ on the edge of the excluded region, $`iii.`$) the large $`m_0`$ region with non-negligible higgsino-component annihilation, and also $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ (and possibly $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$) co-annihilation occurs near the edge of the limit of parameter space, and $`iv.`$) annihilation into $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ final states through $`s`$-channel $`A`$ and $`H`$ resonances at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Other regions can include top or bottom squark co-annihilation for large values of $`A_0`$, again on the edge of parameter space where $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ become light, or annihilation through $`Z`$ or $`h`$ resonances. These latter regions are essentially excluded now by constraints on sparticle masses from LEP2.

It is useful to view the relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$ directly as a function of model parameters. We show in Fig. 7 the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$ versus the parameter $`m_0`$ for fixed $`m_{1/2}=600`$ GeV, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu <0`$ and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, 30 and 45. The dashed curves show the result with no co-annihilations, while the solid curves yield the complete calculation. The shaded band denotes the cosmologically favored region with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.3`$. For this value of $`m_{1/2}`$, the lower $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ curves yield a favored relic density only in the very low and very high $`m_0`$ regions, and here the curves have a very sharp slope. The large slope is indicative of large fine-tuning, in that a small change of model parameters, in this case $`m_0`$, yields a large change in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$. In contrast, the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$ curve shows a large region with good relic density and nearly zero slope, hence very little fine-tuning.

In Fig. 8, we show the corresponding values of the fine-tuning, basically the logarithmic derivative, as advocated by Ellis and Olive:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)=\left|\frac{m_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2}{m_0}\right|$$
(9)
As indicated earlier, the low fine-tuning regions mostly coincide with that of neutralino annihilation via $`t`$-channel slepton exchange (region $`i.`$)), or off-resonance annihilation through $`A`$ and $`H`$ (region $`iv.`$)). The co-annihilation region $`ii.)`$ and focus point region $`iii.`$) tend to have higher fine-tunings due to the steep rise of the cross sections. Regions with simultaneous low fine- tuning and preferred $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$ values are the best candidates for viable mSUGRA parameters.

In Fig. 9, we show $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2`$ versus $`m_0`$ for $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$ and the same three $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ parameters. The curves reflect the broad regions of parameter space with reasonable relic density values at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The corresponding plot of the fine-tuning parameter is shown in Fig. 10. Again, there is large fine-tuning at the edges of parameter space, but low fine-tuning in the intermediate regions. In conclusion, the relic density and the fine-tuning parameter together tend to prefer mSUGRA model parameters in regions $`i.`$) or $`iv.`$). These two regions lead to distinct collider signatures for future searches for supersymmetric matter.

## 4 Comparison with collider reaches

It is worthwhile to compare our results on the neutralino relic density with various collider reaches222Non-accelerator direct and indirect dark matter search reach results are summarized in the last two papers of Ref. . To do so, we first show in Fig. 11 the $`m_0vs.m_{1/2}`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`A_0=0`$ and $`\mu >0`$, but this time including information from different collider projections. First, the region excluded by LEP2 sparticle searches is shown by the pink shading, and reflects mSUGRA model points where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}<100`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}<100`$ GeV, or $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<76`$ GeV. These LEP2 bounds sharply constrain the regions where neutralino annihilation could occur via the $`Z`$ and light Higgs $`h`$ resonances. In addition, we plot contours of light Higgs boson mass $`m_h=110`$, 115 and 120 GeV. Since the light Higgs scalar $`h`$ is usually SM-like in the mSUGRA model, the region below $`m_h=115`$ GeV is largely excluded by the direct LEP2 Higgs search. We note that the Higgs mass varies slowly in parameter space, so a small change in Higgs mass can lead to large changes in model parameters. Thus, these bounds may have some fuzziness to them, reflecting uncertainties on the theoretical calculations and experimental search results. The reach of the Fermilab Tevatron for SUSY particles has been estimated recently in Ref.  for an integrated luminosity of $`25`$ fb-1. Almost all the reach comes from the search for clean trilepton events. The $`3\sigma `$ reach is denoted by the two lower black contours. The results show that Tevatron experiments will be able to probe a significant part of the favored relic density region where annihilation occurs through $`t`$-channel slepton exchange. Also, some of the “focus point” region with large $`m_0`$ and small $`m_{1/2}`$ is accessible.

The reach of the CERN LHC is also shown for 10 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. The LHC reach extends well beyond the $`t`$-channel slepton region, but cannot exclude all the low and high $`m_0`$ regions corresponding to slepton co-annihilations or to higgsino-like neutralinos, where annihilation cross sections are enhanced. We remark, however, that these regions on the edge of parameter space, although perhaps not directly accessible to LHC searches, are also disfavored by fine-tuning requirements.

We also show the reach of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider for SUSY particles for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV (NLC500) and $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV (NLC1000), assuming 30 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. The left-most NLC region is explorable via slepton pair searches, while the lower and right NLC regions are explorable via chargino pair searches. A small intermediate region is accessible via $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ searches.

A similar comparison of neutralino relic density versus collider searches is shown in Fig. 12, although in this case, results for the NLC reach are unavailable. A large part of the green region is actually excluded by the LEP2 Higgs search results. Furthermore, the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron barely extends to the cosmologically favored region. The CERN LHC covers most of the green region, with the exception of the stau co-annihilation band, and the higgsino-like LSP band.

## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have performed a calculation of the neutralino relic density in the minimal supergravity model including all $`22`$ neutralino annihilation and co-annihilation processes, where the initial state includes $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$. The calculation was performed using the CompHEP program for automatic evaluation of Feynman diagrams, coupled with ISAJET for sparticle mass evaluation in the mSUGRA model, and for standard and supersymmetric couplings and decay widths. We implemented relativistic thermal averaging, which is especially important for evaluating the relic density when resonances in the annihilation cross section are present, and neutralino thermal velocities can be relativistic. The three-dimensional integration was performed by Monte Carlo evaluation with importance sampling, which yields in general good convergence even in the presence of narrow resonances. We note once again that a calculation of similar scope and procedure was recently reported in Ref. .

It may be useful to compare our results against other recent evaluations of the neutralino relic density including all co-annihilation effects. We compared against several recently published results. Our results agree qualitatively with these other published results. Quantitatively, these various papers largely disagree amongst themselves and with our work at very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this region, even one loop calculations of sparticle and Higgs boson masses can be very unstable, and especially the value of $`m_A`$ is very sensitive to the exact procedure involved in calculating sparticle masses. This results in differences in the precise location of the corridor of annihilation through the $`A`$ and $`H`$ resonances. Our value of $`m_A`$ at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ seems generally larger than the values obtained in Refs. , and somewhat smaller than those obtained in Refs.  and . Clearly, more theoretical work needs to be done to stabilize the SUSY and Higgs particle mass predictions at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Finally, the width of the bands of cosmologically favored relic density around the $`A`$, $`H`$ annihilation corridors appears much wider in our results than in the results of Refs. . This might be an effect of our improved treatment including relativistic  thermal averaging. It would be useful to have a comparison against similar results from the group Belanger et al. when these become available.

We presented all our results within the framework of the mSUGRA model. We found four regions of parameter space that led to relic densities in accord with results from cosmological measurements, i.e. $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}h^2<0.3`$. These include i.) the region dominated by $`t`$-channel slepton exchange, ii.) the region dominated by stau co-annihilation, iii.) the large $`m_0`$ region dominated by a more higgsino-like neutralino and iv.) the broad regions at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dominated by off-shell annihilation through the $`A`$ and $`H`$ Higgs boson resonances. Regions ii.) and iii.) generally have large fine-tuning associated with them, and although it is logically possible that nature has chosen such parameters, any slight deviation of model parameters would lead to either too low or too high a relic density. Region i.) generally has the property that some of the sleptons have masses less than about 300-400 GeV. This region can give rise to a rich set of collider signatures, since many of the sparticles are relatively light.

Region iv.) gives broad regions of model parameter space with reasonable values of relic density as well as low values of the fine-tuning parameter. It can also allow quite heavy values of SUSY particle masses, which would be useful to suppress many flavor-violating (such as $`bs\gamma `$) and CP violating loop processes, and the muon $`g2`$ value. In many respects region iv.) is a favored region of parameter space. The neutralino relic density may well point the way to the sort of SUSY signatures we should expect at high energy collider experiments.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank Manuel Drees, Konstantin Matchev, Leszek Roszkowski and Xerxes Tata for discussions. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-97ER41022.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Possible Suppression of Neutron EDM

Tomoko ASAGA111JSPS fellow, e-mail: asaga@phys.cst.nihon-u.ac.jp and Takehisa FUJITA222e-mail: fffujita@phys.cst.nihon-u.ac.jp

Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology

Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT

Employing generalized Schiff’s transformation on electric dipole moments (EDM) in quantum field theory, we show that the chromoelectric EDM lagrangian density is transformed into the electric EDM term with a new coefficient. Under the new constraint on the EDM operators, the neutron EDM can be described by a unique combination of electric EDM $`d_f`$ and chromoelectric EDM $`\stackrel{~}{d}_f`$ of quarks. If the special relation of $`d_f={\displaystyle \frac{e_f}{2g_s}}\stackrel{~}{d}_f`$ holds, then the neutron EDM is suppressed significantly.

PACS numbers: 13.40.Em,11.30.Er,12.38.Cy

1. Introduction

Recent measurements of electric dipole moments (EDM) in neutrons and atoms have presented tight upper bounds \[1-5\] which are rather close to theoretical predictions of the EDM by supersymmetric theory calculations \[6-10\]. Even though there are some free parameters in the calculations, it is expected that the finite EDM values may well be observed soon. In particular, the recent measurement of the muon $`g2`$  should give severe constraints on the theoretical EDM values.

Recently, there have been many theoretical investigations of the neutron EDM \[11-18\]. In particular, Pospelov and Ritz  suggest that the contributions to the neutron EDM which come from the chromoelectric interactions may well be comparable to the electric EDM estimation. Therefore, careful studies of the EDM operator arising from the chromoelectric fields must be quite important for the reliable estimation of the neutron EDM.

In this Letter, we study a constraint on the chromoelectric EDM operators due to the unitary transformation which is analogous to Schiff’s theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Here, we show that the chromoelectric EDM lagrangian density $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_f}{2}}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5t^a\psi G^{\mu \nu ,a}`$ is transformed into a new term $`i{\displaystyle \frac{e_f}{4g_s}}\stackrel{~}{d_f}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }`$ which is just the same as the electric EDM lagrangian density. Thus, the coefficient of the EDM lagrangian density is modified from $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_f}{2}}`$ to $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(d_f{\displaystyle \frac{e_f}{2g_s}}\stackrel{~}{d_f}\right)`$. Therefore, any neutron EDM calculations should be described with the combinations of $`\left(d_f{\displaystyle \frac{e_f}{2g_s}}\stackrel{~}{d_f}\right)`$. This should present some constraints which should be satisfied by any calculations of the neutron EDM.
2. Schiff’s theorem in QED

In 1963, Schiff proved  that the effect of the EDM interaction cannot be measured in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics with electromagnetic interactions. This can be easily seen since the hamiltonian with the EDM interaction

$$H=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+eA_0(r)𝐝𝐄$$
$`(1)`$
can be rewritten with the replacement of $`𝐫𝐫{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{e}}`$ as

$$H=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+eA_0(r)+𝐝A_0(r)=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+eA_0(|𝐫+\frac{𝐝}{e}|)+O(d^2)=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+eA_0(r)+O(d^2)$$
$`(2)`$
where $`𝐄(𝐫)=A_0(r)`$, and we have made use of the fact that the momentum $`𝐩`$ does not change under the replacement of $`𝐫𝐫{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{e}}`$. This means that the spectrum of the original hamiltonian with the EDM term becomes just the same as that of the hamiltonian without the EDM term since the $`O(d^2)`$ term is negligibly small. This is Schiff’s theorem, and the EDM effect cannot be observed in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics with electromagnetic interactions.

Next, we treat the field theory version of Schiff’s theorem and consider the unitary transformation in QED . The lagrangian density of QED with the electromagnetic EDM terms can be written as

$$=\overline{\psi }i(_\mu +ieA_\mu )\gamma ^\mu \psi m_0\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }i\frac{d_f}{2}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }$$
$`(3)`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the field tensor given as

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .$$
$`(4)`$
Now, we consider the following unitary transformation with $`p_\mu =i_\mu `$,

$$\psi ^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{d_f}{e}\gamma _5p_\mu \gamma ^\mu \right)\psi .$$
$`(5)`$
Under this transformation, the total lagrangian density becomes, up to the order of $`d_f`$

$$^{}=\overline{\psi }i(_\mu +ieA_\mu )\gamma ^\mu \psi m_0\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }2i\frac{d_f}{e}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5(p_\mu p^\mu eA_\mu p^\mu )\psi .$$
$`(6)`$
This is the new lagrangian density in QED and states that the new EDM term does not couple to the external electric field while the original EDM term has the coupling with the electric field $`𝐄`$ in the first order as seen in eq.(3). This is just the same as Schiff’s statement that the EDM interaction does not have the first order perturbation energy with the external electric field any more. Here, it should be noted that, even though eq.(6) contains the $`A_\mu p^\mu `$ term, the hamiltonian constructed from eq.(6) contains only the three dimensional vector potential $`𝐀𝐩`$ term which does not contribute to the EDM. This is wellknown in the EDM evaluation in atomic physics .

Therefore, the EDM of a composite system can be generated in the second order perturbation as

$$d_n=2\underset{N^{}}{}\frac{<N|\underset{i}{}e_iz_i|N^{}><N^{}|H_{edm}|N>}{E_NE_N^{}}$$
$`(7)`$
where the sum should be taken over excited states in the composite system and $`H_{edm}`$ corresponds to the EDM lagrangian term in eq.(6). $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ denote the ground and excited states of the composite system.

At this point, we make a comment on the gauge sysmmetry violation of the unitary transformation of eq.(5). This transformation leads to the violation of the gauge symmetry, but this is justified as long as one is interested in evaluating the low energy state property of the system up to the order of $`g`$. This is the same as Weinberg-Salam treatment of spontaneous symmetry breaking where the gauge symmetry is broken when evaluating the ground state property of the system. Even though Weinberg-Salam’s model is not exact, their treatment is economical. Clearly, one can obtain the same result with the spontaneous symmetry breaking procedure as the result that is solved exactly for the low energy property. But obviously the exact calculation of the Weinberg-Salam’s model is far from economical.
3. Unitary transformation in QCD plus QED

Recently, there have been several papers which treat the chromoelectric EDM terms \[15-19\]. The neutron EDM which comes from the chromoelectric EDM of quarks seems to depend on the model calculations. The calculations with QCD sum rules in ref. suggest a suppression of the neutron EDM from the chromoelectric EDM of quarks while the chiral loop estimate gives a sizable contribution to the neutron EDM . Further, Pespelov and Ritz  show that the chromoelectric EDM term gives a significant contribution to the neutron EDM when they employ QCD sum rules.

In this section, we show that the dominant contributions from the chromoelectric EDM can be transformed into the identical shape to the electric EDM term with some modified coefficients.

We start from QCD plus QED lagrangian density with electric and chromoelectric EDM terms where the charge of the $`f`$ flavor quark is denoted by $`e_f`$ ,

$$=\overline{\psi }i(_\mu +ig_sA_\mu ^at^a+ie_fA_\mu )\gamma ^\mu \psi m_0\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{\mu \nu ,a}$$

$$i\frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_f}{2}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5t^a\psi G^{\mu \nu ,a}i\frac{d_f}{2}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }$$
$`(8)`$
where

$$G_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^ag_sC_{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.$$
$`(9)`$
Now, we consider the following unitary transformation

$$\psi ^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_f}{2g_s}\gamma _5(p_\mu g_sA_\mu ^at^a)\gamma ^\mu \right)\psi .$$
$`(10)`$
Under this transformation, we obtain the following new lagrangian density,

$$^{}=\overline{\psi }i(_\mu +ig_sA_\mu ^at^a+ie_fA_\mu )\gamma ^\mu \psi m_0\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{\mu \nu ,a}$$

$$\frac{i}{2}\left(d_f\frac{e_f}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_f\right)\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\psi F^{\mu \nu }i\frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_f}{g_s}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\left\{(p_\mu g_sA_\mu ^at^a)^2e_fA^\mu (p_\mu g_sA_\mu ^at^a)\right\}\psi .$$
$`(11)`$
Eq.(11) shows that the chromoelectric EDM term disappears, and instead the coefficient of the electric EDM term now changes into a new form. Further, the last term which is similar to the QED case of eq.(6) is generated. This term gives rise to the neutron EDM in the second order perturbation theory in the same way as eq.(7).

Here, it should be noted that the two representations of the EDM operators are indeed equivalent when we estimate their expectation values with exact wave functions. However, when we consider the EDM of any composite systems like neutrons, the difference between the two operators becomes important since we cannot normally obtain the exact wave functions of neutrons. Employing the new EDM operators, we can calculate the EDM of neutrons in a transparent and economical fashion since it can be evaluated in the first order perturbation theory.
4. Neutron EDM

Now, we want to estimate the neutron EDM based on the lagrangian density obtained in the previous section. The EDM hamiltonian which corresponds to the new EDM lagrangian can be written as

$$H_{edm}=\underset{f}{}\left\{\left(d_f\frac{e_f}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_f\right)\gamma _0𝚺𝐄\frac{i\stackrel{~}{d}_f}{g_s}\gamma _0\gamma _5\left(p_\mu ^22g_s𝐀^a𝐩t^a+g_s^2(A_\mu ^at^a)^2\right)\right\}$$
$`(12)`$
where we dropped the term which is proportional to the electromagnetic vector potential $`A_\mu `$ since the neutron state does not contain any photon states in the ground state. Also, the magnetic term is not included in eq.(12).

Now, we estimate the first term of eq.(12) in the first order perturbation. Using the SU(6) quark model, we obtain for the neutron EDM,

$$d_n^{(1)}=\left[\frac{4}{3}(d_d\frac{e_d}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_d)\frac{1}{3}(d_u\frac{e_u}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_u)\right]N_R$$
$`(13)`$
where $`N_R`$ denotes the overlapping integral, and $`N_R=1`$ for nonrelativistic quark models and $`N_R0.5`$ for the MIT bag model .

Next, we evaluate the contribution to the neutron EDM from eq.(12) in the second order perturbation as given in eq.(7). Since there is no $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ state nearby in the neutron excited states, there is no enhancement, contrary to the atomic cases .

Here, we carry out a naive estimation of eq.(7) with the MIT bag model , and therefore, we employ the closure approximation. In this case, eq.(7) becomes

$$d_n^{(2)}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}<N|\underset{i=d,d,u}{}e_iz_i\underset{j=d,d,u}{}\{(d_j\frac{e_j}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_j)\gamma _0^{(j)}𝚺^{(j)}𝐄^{(j)}$$

$$\frac{i\stackrel{~}{d}_j}{g_s}\gamma _0^{(j)}\gamma _5^{(j)}(p_{\mu }^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}2g_s𝐀^a𝐩^{(j)}t_j^a+g_s^2(A_\mu ^at_j^a)^2)\}|N>$$
$`(14)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is an average excitation energy of neutron $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states which should be of the order of nucleon mass $`M_N`$. $`𝐄^{(j)}`$ denotes the electric field which the $`j`$th quark feels inside the bag. After some numerical calculations, we obtain

$$d_n^{(2)}\frac{2}{3R_0\mathrm{\Delta }E}\left[2e_d^2\left(d_d\frac{e_d}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_d\right)+e_u^2\left(d_u\frac{e_u}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_u\right)\right]+\frac{4R_0}{9g_s\mathrm{\Delta }E}\left(2e_dm_d^2\stackrel{~}{d}_d+e_um_u^2\stackrel{~}{d}_u\right)$$
$`(15)`$
where $`m_d`$ ($`m_u`$) denotes the mass of the $`d`$ ($`u`$) quarks. Now, we take the $`\mathrm{\Delta }EM_N`$ and $`R_0\frac{1}{m_\pi }`$ with $`m_\pi `$ the pion mass, and therefore, the total neutron EDM can be written as

$$d_n=\left[\frac{4}{3}\left(d_d\frac{e_d}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_d\right)\frac{1}{3}\left(d_u\frac{e_u}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_u\right)\right]N_R$$

$$+\frac{2m_\pi }{3M_N}\left[2e_d^2\left(d_d\frac{e_d}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_d\right)+e_u^2\left(d_u\frac{e_u}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_u\right)\right]+\frac{4}{9g_sm_\pi M_N}\left(2e_dm_d^2\stackrel{~}{d}_d+e_um_u^2\stackrel{~}{d}_u\right).$$
$`(16)`$
Since the second line of eq.(16) is much smaller than the first line contribution, we can practically neglect the second order perturbation contribution to the neutron EDM as long as the first two terms (the first line) survive.
5. Possible suppression of neutron EDM

As can be seen from eq.(16), the neutron EDM must be significantly suppressed if the following relation holds for $`f`$ flavor quark,

$$d_f=\frac{e_f}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_f.$$
$`(17)`$
Recently, Chang, Keung and Pilaftsis  presented the two-loop calculation to the EDM in supersymmetric theories. They show that the electric EDM $`d_f`$ and the chromoelectric EDM $`\stackrel{~}{d}_f`$ of a light fermion $`f`$ can be given as

$$d_f=e_f\frac{3\alpha _{em}}{64\pi ^3}\frac{R_fm_f}{M_a^2}\underset{q=t,b}{}Q_q^2H_q$$
$`(18a)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{d}_f=g_s\frac{\alpha _s}{128\pi ^3}\frac{R_fm_f}{M_a^2}\underset{q=t,b}{}H_q$$
$`(18b)`$
where $`\alpha _{em}`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ are the electromagnetic and the chromomagnetic fine structure constants, respectively. Also, $`R_f`$ is given as $`R_f=\mathrm{cot}\beta `$, and $`M_a`$ denotes the tree level mass of the CP-odd Higgs. $`H_q`$ is defined as

$$H_q=\xi _q\left[F\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}{M_a^2}\right)F\left(\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}{M_a^2}\right)\right]$$
$`(19)`$
where $`F(z)`$ denotes a two loop function as given in ref.,

$$F(z)=_0^1𝑑x\frac{x(1x)}{zx(1x)}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{x(1x)}{z}\right].$$

Also, $`\xi _q`$’s are the CP violating couplings which are given in the MSSM scheme .

Now, we want to see the relation between $`d_f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_f`$. From eqs.(18), we find

$$d_f=\frac{e_f}{2g_s}\stackrel{~}{d}_f\left\{\left(\frac{12\alpha _{em}}{\alpha _s}\right)\frac{\underset{q=t,b}{}Q_q^2H_q}{_{q=t,b}H_q}\right\}.$$
$`(20)`$
Since the value of $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{12\alpha _{em}}{\alpha _s}}\right)`$ is close to unity at the electroweak scale, the parameters in $`H_q`$ will control the magnitude of the curly bracket of eq.(20). If the value of the curly bracket is unity, then the relation of eq.(17) holds.

At the present stage, we do not know whether the parameters that appear in eqs.(18) can be estimated reliably or not in the supersymmetric theories. If these parameters can be determined reliably, it would be very interesting to examine the validity of the relation.

We thank T. Nihei and M. Hiramoto for helpful discussions and comments. This work is supported in part by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References

1. I.B.Khriplovich and S.K.Lamoreaux, CP Violation Without Strangeness,

Springer 1997

2. K.F. Smith $`et`$ $`al.`$, Phys. Lett. B234 (1990) 191

3. P.G. Harris $`et`$ $`al.`$, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 904

4. E.D. Commins $`et`$ $`al.`$, Phys. Rev. A50 (1994) 2960

5. M.V. Romalis, W.C. Griffith, and E.N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2505

6. S.M. Barr and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 21

7. A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Lett. B435 (1998) 88,

Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 096010

8. H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 150

9. N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C11 (1981) 153

10. A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan, and A.E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 588

11. H. Georgi and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 189

12. R. Arnowitt, J.L. Lopez, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 2423

13. R. Arnowitt, M.J. Duff, and K.S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3085

14. T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 478

15. M. Pospelov and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1999) 2526

16. V.M. Khatsimovsky, I.B.Khriplovich, and A.S. Yelkhovsky,

Ann. Phys. 186 (1988) 1

17. L.L. Kogan and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B274 (1992) 100

18. V.M. Khatsimovsky and I.B.Khriplovich, Phys. Lett. B296 (1994) 219

19. M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev D63 (2001) 073015

20. L.I.Schiff, Phys. Rev. 132 (1963) 2194

21. T. Asaga, T. Fujita and M. Hiramoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106 (2001) 1223

22. D. Chang, W.Y. Keung, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 900

23. H.N. Brown $`et`$ $`al.`$, Muon ($`g2`$) Collaboration, hep-ex/0102017

24. A. Chodos $`et`$ $`al.`$, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 3471

25. W.R.Johnson, D. S.Guo, M. Idrees and J. Sapirstein,

Phys. Rev. A34 (1986) 1043