Radiative processes [τ→μλ, μ→eλ and (g-2)μ] as probes of the extended supersymmetric standard model in SO(10)

Physical Review D

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Babu, K S ^a   Pati, Jogesh C ^b,c  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Maryland   (United States)

^c SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; ELEMENTARY PARTICLE; LIGHT SCATTERING; MASS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OSCILLATION; PARTICLE RADIATION;

EID: 33751085676     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.035004     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. J.C. Pati, Phys. Lett. B 228, 228 (1989);
2. K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and H. Stremnitzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1688 (1991);
3. K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2190 (1992);
4. K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and H. Stremnitzer, Phys. Rev. D., ibid. 51, 2451 (1995).
5. K.S. Babu and J.C. Pati, Phys. Lett. B 384, 140 (1996).
6. K.S. Babu and J.C. Pati, hep-ph/0203029.
7. NuTeV Collaboration, G.P. Zeller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091801 (2002).
8. LEP Electroweak Working Group Report, hep-ex/0112021.
9. Muon g - 2 Collaboration, H.N. Brown et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2227 (2001).
10. The sign reversal in the light-by-light hadronic contribution to (g - 2), relative to previous calculations, was realized in M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 65, 073034 (2002);
11. M. Knecht, A. Nyffeler, M. Perrottet, and E. de Rafael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 071802 (2002);
12. M. Hayakawa and T. Kinoshita, hep-ph/0112102;
13. J. Bijnens, E. Pallante, and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. B626, 410 (2002).
14. M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 041601 (2002).
15. J. Bijnens, E. Pallante, and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. B474, 379 (1996).
16. For some early and a sample of few recent works on supersymmetric contributions to (g -2)μ, see T.C. Yuan, R. Arnowitt, A.H. Chamseddine, and P. Nath, Z. Phys. C 26, 407 (1984);
17. D.A. Kosower, L.M. Krauss, and N. Sakai, Phys. Lett. 133B, 305 (1983);
18. A. Czarnecki and W. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013014 (2001);
19. J.L. Feng and K.T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3480 (2001);
20. L.L. Everett, G.L. Kane, S. Rigolin, and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett., ibid. 86, 3484 (2001);
21. J. Ellis, D.V. Nanopoulos, and K. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 508, 65 (2001);
22. a recent review and a list of other relevant references may be found in U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti, and P. Nath, hep-ph/0202275.
23. -≈400-800 GeV, say), together with moderately large tan β, could, however, pose theoretical dilemmas pertaining to issues of (a) proton decay within SUSY grand unification, and possibly also (b) EDM's of the electron and the neutron.
24. K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B566, 33 (2000).
25. This mechanism for interfamily mass hierarchy was also noted by S. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3150 (1990). In this work the vectorlike families were assumed to have GUT scale masses, which would not be relevant for present discussions.
26. G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, and S. Jadach, Nucl. Phys. B369, 3 (1992);
27. M. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990).
28. See, e.g., K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2190 (1992).
29. R. Hempfling, Phys. Lett. B 351, 206 (1995);
30. C. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 55, 4252 (1997);
31. M. Bastero-Gil and B. Brahmachari, Nucl. Phys. B575, 35 (2000).
32. P. Ginsparg, Phys. Lett. B 197, 139 (1987);
33. V.S. Kaplunovsky, Nucl. Phys. B307, 145 (1988);
34. B382, 436(E) (1992);
35. for recent discussions, see K. Dienes, Phys. Rep. 287, 447 (1997) and references therein.
36. For a recent discussion, see Dienes [17] and references therein; J.C. Pati, Proceedings of the Salam Memorial Meeting (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998);
37. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 2949 (1999).
38. Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000).
39. See, e.g., P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4028 (1993).
40. Babu, Pati, and Wilczek [12]; for a recent update on proton decay calculations, see J.C. Pati, hep-ph/0204240.
41. Masses and mixings of the first family fermions (in the hat basis) are attributed to higher dimensional operators consistent with flavor symmetries which directly provide entries of order 1 MeV in the 3 × 3 sector involving the chiral families.
42. f would typically be cancelled either by the presence of other massless fields or by the Green-Schwarz mechanism. Vanishing of the D term of an anomalous U(1) can generically induce GUT scale VEVs of certain fields (such as X and X′) without a superpotential for such fields.
43. ESSM ∼(1/3-1/10).
44. b.
45. E, by (say) 10-20% at the electroweak scale, but the sign of the departure from unity in Eq. (4) will not alter our discussion of τ→μγ (see the next section).
46. E=ME′ at the GUT scale.
47. E′) may vary in a range, such as that given by Eq. (4). Allowing for the κ term would, however, not have a major effect on the relevant mixing angles.
48. See, e.g., T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 57, 478 (1998);
49. A. Czarneki and W. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D., ibid. 64, 013014 (2001).
50. s.
51. K.S. Babu, J.C. Pati, and H. Stremnitzer, Phys. Rev. D 51. 2451 (1995).
52. See, e.g., J.P. Leveille, Nucl. Phys. B137, 63 (1978);
53. K.S. Babu, K. Fujikawa, and A. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 333, 196 (1994);
54. G. Ecker, W. Grimus, and H. Neufeld, Nucl. Phys. B229, 421 (1983).
55. +.
56. See, e.g., A. Buras and M. Misiak, Acta Phys. Pol. B 33, 2597 (2002).
57. See, e.g., J. Hewett and J. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5549 (1997).
58. Y. Semertzidis et al., in Proceedings of the International Workshop on High Intensity Muon Sources (HIMUS99), KEK, Japan, 1999, hep-ph/0012087.
59. See, e.g., K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 64, 053009 (2001).
60. s) and W fields respectively.
61. μ such as those from supersymmetry which do not contribute to off-diagonal transitions.
62. μ mixing and of the large angle MSW solution for the solar neutrino puzzle, will be taken up in a separate paper.
63. S. Dimopoulos and F. Wilczek, in Proceedings of the 19th Course of the International School of Subnuclear Physics, Erice, Italy, 1981, edited by A. Zichichi (Plenum, New York, 1981), Report No. NSF-ITP-82-07;
64. K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 48, 5354 (1993).
65. μ [see Eq. (19)]. The two models would differ somewhat however, as regards their predictions for τ → μγ. For other similarities and differences between the two models, see Ref. [3].