Electric Dipole Moments: Phenomenology & Implications

Electric Dipole Moments: Phenomenology & Implications M.J. Ramsey-Musolf U Mass Amherst http://www.physics.umass.edu/acfi/ ACFI Workshop, Amherst January 015! 1

Goals for this talk Set the context for the workshop: What are key scientific questions & how do they fit in the broader context? Illustrate the broader implications of present & prospective EDM searches Introduce terminology & notation Pose questions for hadronic structure theory

Outline I. The BSM & NP context II. Electric dipole moments III. Questions for hadronic structure theory IV. Outlook 3

I. The BSM & NP Context 4

Scientific Questions 007 NSAC LRP: What are the masses of neutrinos and how have they shaped the evolution of the universe? Why is there more matter than antimatter in the present universe? What are the unseen forces that disappeared from view as the universe cooled? 5

The Origin of Matter Baryons Cosmic Energy Budget Dark Matter 7 % 5 % 68 % Dark Energy Explaining the origin, identity, and relative fractions of the cosmic energy budget is one of the most compelling motivations for physics beyond the Standard Model

The Origin of Matter Baryons Cosmic Energy Budget Dark Matter 7 % 5 % EDMs & DBD 68 % Dark Energy Explaining the origin, identity, and relative fractions of the cosmic energy budget is one of the most compelling motivations for physics beyond the Standard Model

Ingredients for Baryogenesis B violation (sphalerons) C & CP violation Out-of-equilibrium or CPT violation

Ingredients for Baryogenesis Standard Model BSM B violation (sphalerons) C & CP violation Out-of-equilibrium or CPT violation

Ingredients for Baryogenesis Scenarios: leptogenesis, EW baryogenesis, Afflek- Dine, asymmetric DM, cold baryogenesis, postsphaleron baryogenesis Standard Model BSM B violation (sphalerons) C & CP violation Out-of-equilibrium or CPT violation

Ingredients for Baryogenesis Scenarios: leptogenesis, EW baryogenesis, Afflek- Dine, asymmetric DM, cold baryogenesis, postsphaleron baryogenesis Testable Standard Model BSM B violation (sphalerons) C & CP violation Out-of-equilibrium or CPT violation

Symmetries & Cosmic History New Forces? EW Symmetry Breaking: Higgs Standard Model Universe QCD: q+g! n,p QCD: n+p! nuclei Astro: stars, galaxies,..

Symmetries & Cosmic History EW Symmetry Breaking: Higgs Baryogenesis: When? Standard CPV? SUSY? Model Neutrinos? Universe QCD: q+g! n,p QCD: n+p! nuclei Astro: stars, galaxies,..

Symmetries & Cosmic History? EW Symmetry Breaking: Higgs Baryogenesis: When? Standard CPV? SUSY? Model Neutrinos? Universe QCD: q+g! n,p QCD: n+p! nuclei Astro: stars, galaxies,..

Symmetries & Cosmic History? EW Symmetry Breaking: Higgs Baryogenesis: When? Standard CPV? SUSY? Model Neutrinos? Universe Leptogenesis: look for ingred s w/ νs: DBD, ν osc EW Baryogenesis: testable w/ EDMs + colliders QCD: q+g! n,p QCD: n+p! nuclei Astro: stars, galaxies,..

Recent Results Discovery of BEH-like scalar at the LHC Non-observation (so far) of sub-tev particles at LHC New stringent limits on EDMs

Recent Results Discovery of BEH-like scalar at the LHC Idea of φ-driven spontaneous EW symmetry breaking is likely correct Non-observation (so far) of sub-tev particles at LHC Sub-TeV BSM spectrum is compressed Sub-TeV BSM is purely EW or Higgs portal BSM physics lies at very different mass scale New stringent limits on EDMs BSM CPV lies at high mass scale BSM CPV doesn t talk directly to SM fermions BSM CPV is flavor non-diagonal

II. Electric Dipole Moments Discovery potential & interpretation: need for searches in multiple systems Benchmark sensitivities: three examples Challenges & opportunities for hadronic & manybody theory 18

EDMs: New CPV? System Limit (e cm) * SM CKM CPV BSM SM CPV 199 Hg ThO n 3.1 x 10-9 8.7 x 10-9 ** 3.3 x 10-6 10-33 10-38 10-31 background well 10 below new CPV expectations 10 New expts: 10 to 10 3 more sensitive 10-6 CPV needed for BAU? * 95% CL ** e - equivalent 19

EDMs: New CPV? System 199 Hg ThO n Limit (e cm) * 3.1 x 10-9 8.7 x 10-9 ** 3.3 x 10-6 SM CKM CPV 10-33 10-38 10-31 BSM SM CPV background well 10 below new CPV expectations 10 New expts: 10 to 10 3 more sensitive 10-6 CPV needed for BAU? * 95% CL ** e - equivalent Mass Scale Sensitivity ψ e ϕ ϕ γ sinφ CP ~ 1! M > 5000 GeV M < 500 GeV! sinφ CP < 10-0

Why Multiple Systems?

Why Multiple Systems? Multiple sources & multiple scales 3

EDM Interpretation & Multiple Scales Baryon Asymmetry Early universe CPV BSM CPV SUSY, GUTs, Extra Dim Collider Searches Particle spectrum; also scalars for baryon asym? Energy Scale QCD Matrix Elements d n, g πnn, Expt Nuclear & atomic MEs Schiff moment, other P- & T-odd moments, e-nucleus CPV 4

Effective Operators: The Bridge + 5

EDM Interpretation & Multiple Scales Baryon Asymmetry Early universe CPV BSM CPV SUSY, GUTs, Extra Dim Collider Searches Particle spectrum; also scalars for baryon asym d= 6 Effective Operators: CPV Sources fermion EDM, quark chromo EDM, 3 gluon, 4 fermion Energy Scale QCD Matrix Elements d n, g πnn, Expt Nuclear & atomic MEs Schiff moment, other P- & T-odd moments, e-nucleus CPV 6

Wilson Coefficients: Summary δ f fermion EDM (3) ~ δ q quark CEDM () C G ~ 3 gluon (1) C quqd non-leptonic () C lequ, ledq semi-leptonic (3) C ϕud induced 4f (1) 1 total + θ light flavors only (e,u,d) 7 65s

BSM Origins EDM: γff CEDM: gff Weinberg ggg: MSSM LRSM RS Four fermion udhh ϕ d L W + u R u L ϕ d R 9

Complementarity: Three Illustrations CPV in an extended scalar sector (HDM): Higgs portal CPV Weak scale baryogenesis (MSSM) Model-independent 30

this symmetry general haveunder a di erent expression another basistoobtained by the transformatio ethough CPV complex phases will thatinare invariant a rephasing of theinscalar fields. 0 totaking a basis where the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the j = UY jk transformation L U(1) k. For example, complex: while that associated with the neutral component of is in general 1 1 1 For future purposes,+we emphasize U = p that the value, of is not invariant. ( 1 1 H1+ H Inoue, R-M, Zhang: tan = v / v1,0 the,minimization conditions in the(5) Hk0 and A0k directions give us the, Denoting = 1403.457 p1 (v1 + H 0 + ia0 ) p1 (v + H 0+ ia ) 1 1 thetransformation (1) corresponds to i i Higgs Portal CPV m11 = 1v cos +( 3 + 4 )v sin Re(m1 e ) tan + Re( 5e )v sin GeV, v1 = v1 and v = v ei. It is apparent that in0 general the relative $ +0( 3. +denotes m = v sin Re(m1 ei ) cot + Re( 5 ei )v cos (3 4 )v cos 1 CPV & HDM: Type I & II λ6,7 = 0 for simplicity lobal rephasing transformation i i Im(m e ) = v sin cos Im( 5 e ). We then take the Higgs i potential to have the1form 0 j (6) j = e j, h given the complex i parameters From the last equation, it is clear that the phase can be solved1 for 1 = the ( useful, ( to )express + 3 ( this )( ) +in terms however, 1) + 4 ( 1 of )(the 5 ( 1 ) + h.c. 1 1condition 1k): + e redefined tovabsorb 1global phases n h i o 0 m sin( sin( 0 i( 1 ) 1 i( 1 ) 1). 1 (4 (m1 ) = e m1m, 11 ( 15 = e m1 ( 1 5,) + h.c. + m ( ) 1.) = 5 v1 v(7) 1) + In the limit that the to small but non-vanishing that rephasing will be appropriate for our later phenomeno k are l is unchanged. It is then straightforward observe that there exist two eventually to EDMs. A repr work, only the scalar loop could contribute to C1 and The complex coefficientseq. in (1) the potential are m1 and 5. In general, the presence of the then implies 1 term, in conjunctio the right panel of Fig. 1. It is proportional to with the Z -conserving quartic interactions, will induce other Z -breaking quartic operators at one-loop order. Simp v sin ).. Give 5 v1 vim( 5 m1 v1 v ) = 5m1 v1/(16 EWSB power counting implies that the responding coefficients are finite with magnitude proportional to m 1 k = Arg (m ), 1 1 m1 5 1, isterm. our attention tousing 1 the 1/16 suppression, we thethe tree-level Z -breaking bilinear relationin Eq. (13), the above quantity indeed related to the unique CPV will restrict 5 v1 v = Arg (m )v v. (8) 1 1 The fermionic loops do not contribute because the Higgs and quar 5 1 m1a rephasing physical It is instructive to identify the CPV complex phases proportional that are toinvariant under of thecharge scalar fields. T the corresponding CKM element. As a result, the coefficients Cij are that end, we perform an SU()L U(1)Y transformationimaginary. to a basis vacuum expectation value (vev) of th They where contributethe to magnetic dipole moments instead of EDMs. so that there exists only one independent CPV phase in the theory after EWSB. neutral component of 1 is real while that associated with the neutral component of is in general complex: A special case arises when 1 = 0. In this case, Eq. (1) implies that + M at the electroweak scale without the Z symmetry flavor violation, flavor H1+ is to assume minimal H sin( ) = 0 5 v1 v0 sin(, = m1p1 studies., ), (5 not discuss this possibility, but refer [13 15] for recent phenomenological 1 0 0 1 = to p (v + H + ia ) (v + H + ia ) Viable EWB & CPV: 1 1 1 or H 0 /H + p H+ i where v = vedms + v = 46 GeV, v = v and v = v e. It is apparent that in general denotes the relativ 1 are -loop 1 1 1 m 1 H phase of v and v1. Under the global rephasing transformation cos W ±=. CPV is flavor non-diag the couplings m1 j =e i j 0 j, f 5 v1 v f f W+ H0 (6 When the right-hand side is less than 1, has solutions two solutions of equal magnitude and op to the presence of spontaneous CPV (SCPV) [17, 18]: and sponding 5 can be redefined to absorb the global phases FIG. 1: Left: quark or lepton EDM from W ± H exchange and CPV Higgs interactions. then contributes as the upper loop of t to W a B µ e ective operator, which to EDM 0 i( 1 ) 1 µ 01 i( m 1 m 1 ) 1 1 (m1 ) = e m arccos, (7 5 =e = 5±,. = ±1 cos sin v v v The gauge invariant to EDM 5 1 contributions 5 from this class of diagrams have been c a

Future Reach: Higgs Portal CPV CPV & HDM: Type II illustration λ 6,7 = 0 for simplicity Hg ThO n Ra Present sin α b : CPV scalar mixing Future: d n x 0.1 d A (Hg) x 0.1 d ThO x 0.1 d A (Ra) Future: d n x 0.01 d A (Hg) x 0.1 d ThO x 0.1 d A (Ra) Inoue, R-M, Zhang: 1403.457 68

EDMs & EW Baryogenesis: MSSM f ~ f ~ V f γ, g Heavy sfermions: LHC consistent & suppress 1-loop EDMs Sub-TeV EW-inos: LHC & EWB - viable but non-universal phases Compatible with observed BAU d e = 10-8 e cm ACME: ThO sin(µm 1 b * ) d n = 10-7 e cm sin(µm 1 b * ) d e = 10-9 e cm d n = 10-8 e cm Next gen d e Next gen d n Li, Profumo, RM 09-10 33

Wilson Coefficients: Model Independent δ f fermion EDM (3) ~ δ q quark CEDM () C G ~ 3 gluon (1) C quqd non-leptonic () C lequ, ledq semi-leptonic (3) C ϕud induced 4f (1) 1 total + θ light flavors only (e,u,d) 35 71

Global Analysis: Input Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 36

Paramagnetic Systems: Two Sources e Electron EDM γ e N e γ (Scalar q) x (PS e - ) N e Tl, YbF, ThO 37

Paramagnetic Systems: Two Sources e Electron EDM γ e N e γ (Scalar q) x (PS e - ) N e Tl, YbF, ThO 38

Paramagnetic Systems: Two Sources e Electron EDM γ Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 e N e γ (Scalar q) x (PS e - ) N e Tl, YbF, ThO 39

Paramagnetic Systems: Two Sources e Electron EDM γ Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 e N e γ p (Scalar q) x (PS e - ) N e > (1.5 TeV) p sin CPV Electron EDM (global) > (1300 TeV) p sin CPV C S (global) Tl, YbF, ThO 40

Global Analysis: Diamagnetic Systems Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 41

Hadronic CPV: Nucleons, Nuclei, Atoms PVTV πn p interaction π γ π +! n π π chromo EDM 3 gluon 4 quark θ QCD Nucleon EDM + quark EDM Nuclear EDM & Schiff moment + quark EDM Neutron, proton & light nuclei (future), diamagnetic atoms 4

Diamagnetic Systems: P- & T-Odd Moments Schiff Screening Atomic effect from nuclear finite size: Schiff moment Schiff moment, MQM, EDMs of diamagnetic atoms ( 199 Hg )

Diamagnetic Systems Nuclear Moments P T P T P T P T C J T M J T E J E O O E O E EDM, Schiff MQM. Anapole 44

Diamagnetic Systems Nuclear Moments C J T M J P T P T P T P T E O O E EDM, Schiff MQM. Nuclear Enhancements T E J O E Anapole 45

Nuclear Schiff Moment Nuclear Enhancements Schiff moment, MQM, Nuclear polarization: mixing of opposite parity states by H TVPV ~ 1 / ΔE EDMs of diamagnetic atoms ( 199 Hg ) 46

Nuclear Enhancements: Octupole Deformation Nuclear Schiff Moment Opposite parity states mixed by H TVPV Nuclear amplifier EDMs of diamagnetic atoms ( 5 Ra ) Nuclear polarization: mixing of opposite parity states by H TVPV ~ 1 / ΔE Thanks: J. Engel 47 94

Diamagnetic Global Fit N e γ N π γ N e N Tensor eq TVPV πnn Short distance d n Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 48

Diamagnetic Global Fit Isoscalar CEDM (+) q v < 0.01 > ( TeV) p sin CPV Caveat: Large hadronic uncertainty Chupp & R-M: 1407.1064 49

Hadronic Matrix Elements Engel, R-M, van Kolck 13 50

Hadronic Matrix Elements Engel, R-M, van Kolck 13 51

Hadronic Matrix Elements (CEDM) Engel, R-M, van Kolck 13 5

Nuclear Matrix Elements Engel, R-M, van Kolck 13 53

Had & Nuc Uncertainties CPV & HDM: Type II illustration λ 6,7 = 0 for simplicity Present sin α b : CPV scalar mixing Inoue, R-M, Zhang: 1403.457 80

III. Questions What is the roadmap for reducing hadronic theory uncertainties for EDMs? What progress can be achieved through different approaches (lattice, DSE, EFT )? Are they complementary? If so, how? What are the key conceptual and/or technical challenges that must be addressed make progress? Are there emerging new directions that call for further theoretical progress (e.g., few-body nuclear EDMs)? 55

IV. Outlook Searches for permanent EDMs of atoms, molecules, hadrons and nuclei provide powerful probes of BSM physics at the TeV scale and above and constitute important tests of weak scale baryogenesis Studies on complementary systems is essential for first finding and then disentangling new CPV The interpretation of diamagnetic system EDMs (including the nucleon) is plagued by substantial hadronic and nuclear many-body uncertainties The advancing experimental sensitivity challenges hadronic structure theory to aim for an unprecedented level of reliability 56