The Todd R and D correlations in beta decay.
We review and discuss the timereversalodd R and D correlations in neutron and nuclear beta decay. Key words: beta decay; CPviolation; physics beyond the Standard Model; timereversal violation. 1. Introduction CPviolation (CPV) (1) has been seen in the mixing of the neutral kaons, and recently also in the K[degrees] [right arrow] 2[pi] amplitudes [2] and in the decays of the neutral Bmesons [3]. At present there is no unambiguous direct evidence for timereversal (T) violation. (2) We know however that Tinvariance is violated, since the parameter [epsilon] in [K.sub.L] [right arrow] 2[pi] decays is dominated by a CPTinvariant interaction. (2) In the models which we shall consider in the following all the interactions are CPT invariant, and we shall use therefore the terms "Tviolation" and "CPviolation" interchangeably. To date there is no firm evidence against the possibility that the observed CPV effects are due to the KobayashiMaskawa phase [[delta].sub.KM] in the Standard Model (SM). (3,4) A major question in the field of CPV is whether there are sources of CPV other than [[delta].sub.KM], independently of their relevance or lack of it for the observed CPV. New sources of CPV are present in many extensions of the SM. It is relevant to mention in this connection that [[delta].sub.KM] is not sufficient to generate the baryon asymmetry of the universe. (5) The most suitable observables to probe the existence of new CPV interactions are those for which the contribution from [[delta].sub.KM] is small. Examples of observables of this kind are the electric dipole moments of the neutron and atoms, and Todd correlations in leptonic and semileptonic decays. In this talk we shall review and discuss the status of Todd correlations in beta decay. In the next section we review the expressions for the coefficients of D and R correlations for a general d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interaction. In Section 3 we summarize the limits on the CPV beta decay coupling constants implied by beta decay experiments. In Section 4 we consider D and R in extensions of the SM. Section 5 contains a summary of our conclusions. 2. General Considerations Timereversal (T) violating components in the d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interaction manifest themselves in beta decay through contributions to Todd correlations in the decay probability [9]. Sensitive experimental information is available on the coefficients D and R of the correlations <J> * [p.sub.e] X [p.sub.v] / J [E.sub.e][E.sub.v] and [sigma] * <J> X [p.sub.e] / J [E.sub.e] ([sigma] [equivalent to] electron spin, J [equivalent to] nuclear spin, [p.sub.e] [equivalent to] electron momentum, [p.sub.v] [equivalent to] neutrino momentum, [E.sub.e] [equivalent to] electron energy, [E.sub.v] [equivalent to] neutrino energy), respectively. The Todd correlations are present even in the absence of Tviolation, induced by final state interactions. The latter are dominated by contributions from the electromagnetic interaction. We shall write D and R as D = [D.sub.t] + [D.sub.f] and R = [R.sub.t] + [R.sub.f], where [D.sub.t], [R.sub.f] represent the Tviolating contribution, and [D.sub.f], [R.sub.f] are the Tinvariant contributions due to the final state interactions. In the SM the d [right arrow] u[e.sup.][bar.v.sub.e] transition arises from Wexchange, and has a VA form: (6) H = ([G.sub.F][V.sub.ud]/[square root of 2])[bar.e][[gamma].sub.[lambda]](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.e.sup.(L)][bar.u][[gamma].sup.[lambda]](1  [[gamma].sub.5])d + H.c., (1) where [G.sub.F] / [square root of 2] = [g.sup.2] / 8 [M.sub.W.sup.2], and [V.sub.ud] is the udelement of the KobayashiMaskawa matrix. The neutrino state [V.sub.e.sup.(L)] accompanies the lefthanded electron in a doublet of SU(2)[.sub.L]. It is a linear combination of the lefthanded components of the mass eigenstates: [v.sub.e.sup.(L)] = [summation over (i)][U.sub.ei.sup.(L)][v.sub.iL], (2) where [v.sub.iL] = 1/2(1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.j]. The interaction (1) is CP (and T) invariant. In the quark and gluon sector of the SM there are two sources of CPviolation: the KobayashiMaskawa phase [[delta].sub.KM] in the quark mixing matrix, and the [theta]term in the QCD Lagrangian. [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] from these sources are extremely small, of the order of [10.sup.12]a [11], where a is defined in Eq. (10) below. The reason is that [[delta].sub.KM] contributes only in second order in the weak interaction, and the [theta]term is constrained by the stringent bound [theta] [approximately less than] 4 X [10.sup.10] from the experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron. In the SM with massive neutrinos CPviolation can be present also in the mixing of leptons. The effect of this in beta decay would not show up in first order in the weak interaction either. Thus [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] probe sources of CPviolation beyond those present in the SM. To first order in new d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interactions [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] arise from interference between the SM amplitude and the amplitude from the new interactions. We shall neglect in [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] terms proportional to neutrino masses. All the remaining terms must come from interactions involving lefthanded neutrinos. The most general d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e.sup.(L)] interaction involving the neutrino state (2) (7) can be written as (8) [H.sub.[beta].sup.(L)] = [H.sub.V,A.sup.(L)] + [H.sub.S.sup.(L)] + [H.sub.P.sup.(L)] + [H.sub.T.sup.(L)], (3) where [H.sub.V,A.sup.(L)] = [bar.e][[gamma].sup.[lambda]](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.e.sup.(L)] [[a.sub.LL][bar.u][[gamma].sub.[lambda]](1  [[gamma].sub.5])d + [a.sub.LR][bar.u][[gamma].sub.[lambda]](1 + [[gamma].sub.5])d] + H.c., (4) [H.sub.S.sup.(L)] = [a.sub.LS][bar.e](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.e.sup.(L)][bar.u]d + H.c., (5) [H.sub.P.sup.(L)] = [a.sub.LP][bar.e](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.e.sup.(L)][bar.u][[gamma].sub.5]d + H.c., (6) [H.sub.T.sup.(L)] = [a.sub.LT][bar.e][[sigma].sub.[lambda][mu]][1/[square root of 2]](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.e.sup.(L)][bar.u][1/[square root of 2]][[sigma].sup.[lambda][mu]]d + H.c., (7) The fields e, u, and d in Eqs. (4)(7) are the mass eigenstates. The coupling constants are in general complex, in which case the Hamiltonians violate Tinvariance. The constant [a.sub.LL] in Eq. (4) contains the SM contribution, and can therefore be written as, [a.sub.LL] = ([a.sub.LL])[.sub.SM] + [a'.sub.LL], where ([a.sub.LL])[.sub.SM] = [g.sup.2][V.sub.ud]/8[M.sub.W.sup.2] and [a'.sub.LL] represents contributions from new interactions. The contribution of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (3) to [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] in allowed beta decays is given by [9] [D.sub.t] [equivalent] aIm[bar.a.sub.LR], (8) [R.sub.t] [equivalent] [[a [ or +] b]/[2[g.sub.A]]][g.sub.T]Im[bar.a.sub.LT]  [a/[2[g.sub.[gamma]]]][g.sub.S]Im[bar.a.sub.LS], (9) where the upper (lower) sign in the first term in Eq. (9) is for decays with [e.sup.]([e.sup.+]) in the final state. In Eqs. (8) and (9) [bar.a.sub.ik] = [a.sub.ik]/[a.sub.LL] (ik = LR, LT, LS); a and b are constants containing the Fermi and GamowTeller matrix elements [M.sub.F] and [M.sub.GT]: a = [[4[[delta].sub.J'J][M.sub.F][M.sub.GT][J/(J + 1)][.sup.1/2][g.sub.V][g.sub.A]]/[[g.sub.V.sup.2][M.sub.F][.sup.2] + [g.sub.A.sup.2][M.sub.GT][.sup.2]]], (10) b = [4[[lambda].sub.J'J][M.sub.GT][.sup.L][g.sub.A.sup.2]]/[[g.sub.V.sup.2][M.sub.F][.sup.2] + [g.sub.A.sup.2][M.sub.GT][.sup.2]]. (11) In Eq. (11) [[lambda].sub.J'J] is an angular momentum factor, defined in Ref. [9]. The quantities [g.sub.k] [equivalent to] [g.sub.k](0) (k = V, A, S, T) are defined by <p[bar.u][[gamma].sub.[lambda]]dn> = [g.sub.V]([q.sup.2])[bar.u.sub.p][[gamma].sub.[lambda]][u.sub.n], (12) <p[bar.u][[gamma].sub.[lambda]][[gamma].sub.5]dn> = [g.sub.A]([q.sup.2])[bar.u.sub.p][[gamma].sub.[lambda]][[gamma].sub.5][u.sub.n], (13) <p[bar.u]dn> = [g.sub.S]([q.sup.2])[bar.u.sub.p][u.sub.n], (14) <p[bar.u][[sigma].sub.[lambda][mu]]dn> = [g.sub.T]([q.sup.2])[bar.u.sub.p][[sigma].sub.[lambda][mu]][u.sub.n]. (15) CVC predicts [g.sub.V] = 1, and (neglecting the effects of the possible new interactions) the experimental value of [g.sub.A]/[g.sub.V] is [g.sub.A]/[g.sub.V] = 1.2670 [+ or ] 0.0030 [13]. The constants [g.sub.S] and [g.sub.T] were calculated in Ref. [14] in connection with a study of neutral current interactions of a general Lorentz structure. Employing a quark model with spherically symmetric wave functions, [g.sub.S] and [g.sub.T] are given by [g.sub.S] =  1/2 + 9/10 [g.sub.A] [equivalent] 0.6, [g.sub.T] = 5/3 (1/2 + 3/10 [g.sub.A]) [equivalent] 1.46. The uncertainty in these predictions has been estimated to be about 30% to 60% [14]. Including an uncertainty of this size, one has 0.25 [approximately less than] [g.sub.S] [approximately less than] 1, (16) 0.6 [approximately less than] [g.sub.T] [approximately less than] 2.3. (17) For neutron decay [M.sub.F] = 1, [M.sub.GT] = [square root of 3], implying a [equivalent] 0.87, b [equivalent] 2.2, so that ([D.sub.t]) [equivalent] 0.87 Im[bar.a.sub.LR], (18) ([R.sub.t]) [equivalent] 0.53[g.sub.T]Im[bar.a.sub.LT]  0.44[g.sub.S]Im[bar.a.sub.LS]. (19) 3. Limits on the CPViolating Coupling Constants From Beta Decay Experiments The best current limits on Im[bar.a.sub.LR], Im[bar.a.sub.LS], and Im[bar.a.sub.LS] from beta decay experiments are Im[bar.a.sub.LR] < 1.1 X [10.sup.3] (90% c.l.), (20) [g.sub.T]Im[bar.a.sub.LT] < 8.6 X [10.sup.3] (90% c.l.), (21) [g.sub.S]Im[bar.a.sub.LS] [approximately less than] 0.1. (22) The limit, Eq. (20), follows from the result (D)[.sub.Ne] = (0.1 [+ or ] 0.6) X [10.sup.3] of a measurement of D in [.sup.19]Ne decay [15]. For this decay a [equivalent] 1.03 [15]. [D.sub.f] has been estimated to be [D.sub.f] [equivalent] 2 X [10.sup.4] [p.sub.e] ([p.sub.e])[.sub.max] [16]. Experiments to measure D in neutron decay are in progress at NIST by the emiT collaboration [17] and at the ILL by the Trine collaboration [18]. [D.sub.f] is smaller in neutron decay than in [.sup.19]Ne by an order of magnitude [16]. The initial run of the emiT experiment yielded (D)[.sub.n] = [0.6 [+ or ] 1.2 (stat) [+ or ] 0.5(syst)] X [10.sup.3] [19], implying Im[bar.a.sub.LR] < 3.1 X [10.sup.3] (90% c.l.). The Trine experiment obtained (D)[.sub.n] = [2.8 [+ or ] 6.4(stat) [+ or ] 3.0(syst)] X [10.sup.4] [20], yielding Im[bar.a.sub.LR] < 1.7 X [10.sup.3] (90% c.l.). Improved measurements of (D)[.sub.n] by the emiT and Trine collaborations are under way [17], [18]. The limit in Eq. (21) on the tensor interaction comes from the result ([R.sub.Li])[.sub.expt] = (1.6 [+ or ] 2.2) X [10.sup.3] [21] of a measurement of R in [.sup.8]Li [right arrow] [.sup.8]Be + [e.sup.] + [v.sub.e] decay. For this case one has a [equivalent] 0, and b = 4/3, so that [R.sub.t] [equivalent] 0.53 [g.sub.T] Im[bar.a.sub.LT]. Subtracting from ([R.sub.Li])[.sub.expt] the final state interaction contribution, which for this case is [R.sub.f] [equivalent] 7 X [10.sup.4] [21], yields [R.sub.t] = (0.9 [+ or ] 2.2) X [10.sup.3] [21]. Finally, the limit, Eq. (22), follows from a measurement of the e  v correlation in [.sup.32]Ar beta decay [22]. A limit, which is weaker than (22), is implied by a measurement of R in [.sup.19]Ne decay [23]. An experiment to measure R in neutron decay to an accuracy of 5 X [10.sup.3] is being developed at PSI [21]. In neutron decay [R.sub.f] [equivalent] [10.sup.3]. As seen from Eq. (19), such a result, combined with the bound in Eq. (21) will set an upper bound of about 2 X [10.sup.2] on [g.sub.S]Im[bar.a.sub.LS]. 4. [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] in Extensions of the Standard Model In this section we shall discuss briefly [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] in extensions of the SM. We shall restrict our attention only to models where the required interactions can arise at the tree level, since loopinduced interactions are expected to be weak. 4.1 [D.sub.t] An [a.sub.LR]type interaction can arise at the tree level in models containing a new charged gauge boson with righthanded couplings to the quarks (as in leftright symmetric models), in the SM model if it is extended to contain new heavy "exotic" quarks which have righthanded couplings to the W and which mix with the known quarks, and in models with leptoquarks. (9) In all these cases the [a.sub.LR]interaction can be represented for beta decay by contact nonderivative fourfermion interactions. Contact [a.sub.LR]interactions can arise also in composite models, from the exchange of constituents. (10) Since the [a.sub.LR]interaction is not invariant under the standard electroweak gauge group, it must be proportional to an SU(2)[.sub.L] X U(1) breaking parameter. In leftright symmetric models this is the nondiagonal element of the [W.sub.L][W.sub.R] mixing matrix, and in exotic fermion models the lightheavy quark mixing angles. In leptoquark models the [a.sub.LR]interaction arises from mixing of leptoquarks of different SM quantum numbers. In composite models an [a.sub.LR]interaction must contain the factor [nu]/[LAMBDA] relative to the SU(2)[.sub.L] X U(1) invariant interactions, where v is the vacuum expectation value of the SM Higgs boson and [LAMBDA] is the compositness scale. In leftright and exotic fermion models an [a.sub.LR]type d [right arrow] ue  [bar.v.sub.e] interaction is accompanied by a strangeness conserving quarkquark interaction of strength [a.sub.LR], which has a P,Tviolating component of the form [26], [12] [H.sub.P,T] = (Im[a.sub.LR]){[bar.u][[gamma].sub.[lambda]](1 + [[gamma].sub.S])d, d[[gamma].sup.[lambda]](1  [[gamma].sub.S])u}[.sub.+] + H.c. (23) The interaction (23) contributes to the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron and to the isovector P,Tviolating [pi]NN coupling constant [bar.g.sub.[pi]NN.sup.(1)']. The latter induces atomic EDMs through the Schiff moment. The coupling constant [bar.g.sub.[pi]NN.sup.(1)'], which is given by the N [right arrow] N[pi] matrix element of the Hamiltonian (23), can be written as [bar.g.sub.[pi]NN.sup.(1)'] = [G.sub.F][V.sub.ud][m.sub.[pi].sup.2]k(Im[bar.a.sub.LR]), (24) where the constant k is expected to be of the order of [m.sub.[pi]]/([m.sub.u] + [m.sub.d]) [equivalent] 10, in view of the leftright structure of the operator, Eq. (23). The EDMs set stringent limits on Im[bar.a.sub.LR]. The best one is Im[bar.a.sub.LR] [approximately less than] [[5 X [10.sup.5]]/k], (25) implied by the experimental upper limit (d([.sup.199]Hg) < 2.1 X [10.sup.28] e cm (90% c.l.) [27]) on the EDM of the mercury atom. (11) An estimate of k [30] using factorization and QCD sum rules yielded k [equivalent] 10, implying Im[bar.a.sub.LR] [approximately less than] 5 X [10.sup.6]. (26) The neutron EDM, estimated in Ref. [30], leads to the limit Im[bar.a.sub.LR] [approximately less than] [10.sup.5], nearly the same as Eq. (26). For [D.sub.t]/a from leptoquark exchange the constraints are weaker [31]. The P,Tviolating strangeness conserving quarkquark interaction, which is generated at oneloop level from diagrams involving Wexchange and containing a leptoquark propagator in one of the vertices, is suppressed by [m.sub.u.sup.2] or [m.sub.d.sup.2]. The electron EDM and the quark electric and chromoelectric dipole moments do not arise at the one loop level. Based on dimensional estimates of the dipole moments, the conclusion is that they allow [D.sub.t]/a to be as large as the present experimental limit on [D.sub.t]/a. 4.2 [R.sub.t] Scalar d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interactions can arise at the tree level from the exchange of Higgs bosons, spinzero or spinone leptoquarks, and in supersymmetric models with Rparity violation from the exchange of sleptons. Tensor type d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interactions can arise from the exchange of spinzero leptoquarks. Scalar and tensor d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interactions can appear also in composite models, generated by the exchange of constituents. Let us consider [R.sub.t] in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with Rparity violation [32]. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), unlike in the SM, the conservation of lepton number (L) and of baryon number (B) is not automatic: the superpotential can contain renormalizable and gauge invariant L and Bviolating terms. If both the L and the Bviolating terms are present, some of the products of the corresponding coupling constants would have to be extremely small to prevent too rapid proton decay. One way to deal with this problem is to demand invariance under Rparity [R = (1)[.sup.3B + L  2s], where s is the spin of the particle; thus R = +1 for particles of the SM, and R = 1 for their superpartners]. This would eliminate both the B and the Lviolating terms. Alternatively, one can demand invariance under "baryon parity" (under baryon parity the quark fields change sign, and the lepton and Higgs fields remain unchanged), which eliminates only the Bviolating terms. The model we shall consider in the following is the Rparity violating minimal supersymmetric standard model ([begin strikethrough]R[end strikethrough]MSSM), defined as the MSSM with the leptonnumber violating terms [W.sub.L] included in the superpotential. (12) The general form of [W.sub.L] is given by [W.sub.L] = [1/2] [[lambda].sub.ijk][L'.sub.i][L'.sub.j][E.sub.k.sup.c'] + [[lambda]'.sub.ijk][L'.sub.i][Q'.sub.j][D.sub.k.sup.c'] + [[mu].sub.i][L'.sub.i][H.sub.u], (27) where i, j, k = 1, 2, 3 are family indices, and summations over i, j, k are implied. In Eq. (27), [L'.sub.i], [Q'.sub.i] are the SU(2)doublet lepton and quark superfields, [E.sub.i.sup.c'], [U.sub.i.sup.c'], [D.sub.i.sup.c'] are the SU(2)singlet charged lepton and up and downtype quark superfields; [H.sub.u] is the Higgs superfield which generates the masses of the uptype quarks. The primes on the fields indicate that they are the weak eigenstates. The presence of Rparity violating couplings has rich phenomenological implications. One of these is that they can contribute to SM processes through the exchange of single squarks or sleptons. There are two classes of contributions to beta decay. One of them is governed by [[lambda]'.sub.11k][.sup.2] and mediated by the [~.d.sub.kR] (k = 1, 2, 3). [36]. These d [right arrow] u[e.sup.] [bar.v.sub.e] interactions have a V  A form [36], and therefore do not contribute to Todd correlations. The other class, which involves both [[lambda].sub.ijk] and [[lambda]'.sub.ijk], has scalar and pseudoscalar components. There are two such contributions, given by [H.sub.[beta].sup.(j)] = [[[[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11][[omega].sub.B]]/[4 [m.sub.[~.e.sub.j]L.sup.2]]][bar.e](1  [[gamma].sub.5])[v.sub.1][bar.u](1 + [[gamma].sub.5])d + H.c. (j = 2,3). (28) In the Hamiltonian, Eq. (28), the fields are the mass eigenstates; in the sum [v'.sub.eL] = [[SIGMA].sub.i][v.sub.ei.sup.(v)][v.sub.iL] we kept only the [v.sub.1]term for simplicity. The quantity [[omega].sub.B] contains the product of the elements of the mixing matrices involved. From (28) we have Im[bar.a.sub.LS] = [summation over (j=2,3)] [[Im([[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11][[omega].sub.B])]/[4 [m.sub.[~.e.sub.j]L.sup.2]]]([square root of 2]/[[G.sub.F][V.sub.ud]]). (29) CPviolation can arise in (28) from complex [[lambda].sub.1j1] and [[lambda]'.sub.j11], and also from complex [[omega].sub.B]. In the following we shall assume for simplicity that [[lambda].sub.1j1] and [[lambda]'*.sub.j11] are real, and that mixing for the righthanded fields and for [u.sub.L]type quarks can be neglected. Then Im([[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11][[omega].sub.R]) = [[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'.sub.j11] cos [[theta].sub.v] sin [[phi].sub.B], where [[theta].sub.v] is a mixing angle in [V.sub.ei.sup.(v)], and [e.sup.j[phi]B] is a CPV phase. In deriving limits on Im[bar.a.sub.LS] we shall assume (to preclude additional constraints to apply and the possibility of a cancellation in Im[bar.a.sub.LS]) that only one of the products [[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11] has a significant size at a time. The limits on Im[bar.a.sub.LS] in Eq. (29) implied by limits on the individual coupling constants [[lambda].sub.1j1] and [[lambda]'.sub.j11], derived from various processes [35], are not better than a few times [10.sup.2]. A stringent limit Im[bar.a.sub.LS] < 4 X [10.sup.4] (30) on Im[bar.a.sub.LS] comes from the ratio [R.sub.[pi]] = [GAMMA]([pi] [right arrow] e[v.sub.e])/[GAMMA]([pi] [right arrow] [mu][v.sub.[mu]]) [37]. This limit arises because the [a.sub.LP]component of (28) contributes to [pi] [right arrow] e[v.sub.e], and [a.sub.LS] = [a.sub.LP]. Potentially the strongest limits on Im[bar.a.sub.LS] come from experimental bounds on P,Tviolating electronquark (e  q) interactions. As pointed out in Ref. [38], electroweak radiative corrections to scalar, pseudoscalar, and tensor interactions of any origin induce contributions to P,Tviolating e  q interactions. For the Hamiltonian (28) this interaction is of the form (13) [H.sub.ed] = [[G.sub.F]/[square root of 2]][k.sub.Sd]([bar.e]i[[gamma].sub.5]e[bar.d]d  [bar.e]e[bar.d]i[[gamma].sub.5]d) (31) with [k.sub.Sd] [equivalent to] ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.r] = 4[rho][V.sub.ud]Im[bar.a.sub.LS], (32) where [rho] = ([alpha]/4[pi]) ln ([[LAMBDA].sup.2]/[m.sub.W.sup.2]); [LAMBDA] is a cutoff parameter. Taking conservatively, as in Ref. [38], ln ([[LAMBDA].sup.2]/[m.sub.W.sup.2]) = 1, one has [rho] [equivalent] 6 X [10.sup.4]. In addition to ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.r], there is also a treelevel contribution ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.t] to [k.sub.Sd], governed by the same products [[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11] as [H.sub.[beta].sup.(j)] in Eq. (28). This is a consequence of gauge invariance of [W.sub.L] before symmetry breaking. ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.t] is given by ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.t] =  [[Im([[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11][[omega].sub.e])]/[2 [m.sub.[bar.v.sub.j]L.sup.2]]]([square root of 2]/[G.sub.F]), (33) where [[omega].sub.e] contains the product of the appropriate mixing matrix elements. Under our simplifying assumptions Im([[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'*.sub.j11][[omega].sub.e]) = [[lambda].sub.1j1][[lambda]'.sub.j11] cos[[theta].sub.e] sin[[phi].sub.e]. It can be shown that the phases [e.sup.i[phi]B] and [e.sup.i[phi]e] are in general different. The total contribution to [k.sub.Sd] can be written as [k.sub.Sd] = ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.r] + ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.t] = (4 [rho] + 2 [[m.sub.[~.e]jL.sup.2]/[m.sub.[~.v]jL.sup.2]] [[cos[[theta].sub.e]sin[[phi].sub.e]]/[cos[[theta].sub.v]sin[[phi].sub.B]]])[V.sub.ud]Im[bar.a.sub.LS]. (34) It can be shown that [m.sub.[~.e]j.sup.2]/[m.sub.[~.v]jL.sup.2] [approximately less than] 4. The best limit on [k.sub.Sd] comes from the EDM of the Tl atom. The experimental limit on d(Tl) [40] implies (14) [k.sub.Sd] < 4.5 X [10.sup.8], so that Im[bar.a.sub.LS] < [[4.5 X [10.sup.8]]/[[V.sub.ud](4[rho]+2 [[m.sub.[~.e]jL.sup.2]/[m.sub.[~.v]jL.sup.2]] [[cos[[theta].sub.e]sin[[phi].sub.e]]/[cos[[theta].sub.v]sin[[phi].sub.B]]])]]. (35) ([k.sub.Sd])[.sub.r] alone would give a limit Im[bar.a.sub.LS] < 2 X [10.sup.5]. The upper limit on Im[bar.a.sub.LS] could be larger than 2 X [10.sup.5] if 2 ([m.sub.[~.e]j.sup.2]/[m.sub.[~.v]jL.sup.2])(cos[[theta].sub.e]sin[[phi].sub.e]/cos[[theta].sub.v]sin[[phi].sub.B]) is small, and there is a cancellation between the two terms in the denominator in Eq. (35). To allow Im[bar.a.sub.LS] [equivalent] [10.sup.2] this cancellation would have to occur through 3 orders of magnitude! The bound [Eq. (30)] from [R.sub.[pi]] would however still remain. This bound would become weaker if there is some cancellation between the contributions to [pi] [right arrow] e[v.sub.e] and [pi] [right arrow] [mu][v.sub.[mu]]. A contribution to [pi] [right arrow] [mu][v.sub.[mu]] is present in the model. For [R.sub.t] in the other extensions of the SM the situation is similar to the one in the ([begin strikethrough]R[end strikethrough]MSSM), provided that the associated P,Tviolating e  q interaction involves only the dquark. If e  u interactions are present, a cancellation between the radiative and treelevel contributions cannot be arranged in more than one atomic EDM. Stringent limits, albeit not as strong as from d(TI), then persist [32]. 5. Conclusions In this talk we have discussed treelevel contributions to [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] in extensions of the SM. A major question is what experimental sensitivities are required to obtain new information on the new interactions involved. For [D.sub.t]/a (Eq. 8) in leftright symmetric and exotic fermion models the EDMs of the neutron and of mercury set upper limits about two orders of magnitude below the present direct limits. Since the limits from the EDMs have uncertainties (from the calculation of the hadronic matrix elements and for d(Hg) also from nuclear structure) which are difficult to asses, the possibility that [D.sub.t]/a is larger cannot be ruled out. For [D.sub.t] mediated by leptoquark exchange the conclusion based on dimensional estimates of the electron EDM and the electric and chromoelectric quark dipole moments is that [D.sub.t]/a can be as large as the present experimental limit on [D.sub.t]/a. For [R.sub.t] in neutron decay (Eq. 19) experimental limits on atomic EDMs set limits which are below the level where [R.sub.t] can be probed. Nevertheless, the possibility that [R.sub.t] is larger, even as large as ~[10.sup.2], cannot be completely ruled out. This would require some very finetuned cancellations between the contributions to P,Tviolating e  q interactions and in the ratio [GAMMA]([pi] [right arrow] e[v.sub.e])/[GAMMA]([pi] [right arrow] [mu][v.sub.[mu]]). Acknowledgment This work was supported by the Department of Energy under contract W7405ENG36. 6. References [1] L. Wolfenstein, hepph/0210025. [2] A. AlaviHarati, et al., (KTeV Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 22 Lett. B 465, 335 (1999). [3] B. Aubert, et al., (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 201802 (2002); K. Abe, et al., (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 66, 071102(R) (2002). [4] L. Wolfenstein, hepph/0011400. [5] A. J. Buras, hepph/0307203. [6] K. Abe, et al., (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 261602 (2003). [7] B. Aubert, et al., (BABAR Collaboration), hepex/0403026. [8] A. Riotta and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 35 (1999). [9] J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Jr., Phys. Rev. 106, 517 (1957). [10] J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, McGrawHill, New York (1963). [11] P. Herczeg and I. B. Khriplovich, Phys. Rev. D 56, 80 (1997). [12] P. Herczeg, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 46, 413 (2001). [13] Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002). [14] S. L. Adler, et al., Phys. Rev. D 11, 3309 (1975). [15] A. L. Hallin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 337 (1984). [16] C. G. Callan, Jr., and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 162, 1494 (1967). [17] J. F. Wilkerson, in these Proceedings. [18] C. Plonka, in these Proceedings. [19] L. J. Lising, et al., (emiT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 62, 055501 (2000). [20] T. Soldner, L. Beck, C. Plonka, K. Schreckenbach, and O. Zimmer, Phys. Lett. B 581, 49 (2004). [21] R. Huber, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202301 (2003). [22] E. G. Adelberger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1299 (1999); E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2856 (1993), (E) ibid. 71, 469 (1993). [23] M. B. Schneider, F. P. Calaprice, A. T. Hallin, D. W. MacArthur, and D. F. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1239 (1983). [24] P. Herczeg, Phys. Rev. D 28, 200 (1983): P. Herczeg, in Fundamental Symmetries in Nuclei and Particles, H. Henrikson and P. Vogel, eds., World Scienti.c, Singapore (1990) p. 46. [25] E. J. Eichten, K. D. Lane, and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett, 50, 811 (1983). [26] P. Herczeg, in Tests of Time Reversal Invariance in Neutron Physics, N. R. Roberson, C. R. Gould, and J. D. Bowman, eds., World Scientifc, Singapore (1987) p. 24. [27] M. V. Romalis, W. C. Griffith, J. P. Jacobs, and E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2505 (2001). [28] V. F. Dmitriev and R. A. Sen'kov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 66, 1940 (2003) [Yad. Fiz. 66, 1980 (2003)]. [29] V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, J. S. M. Ginges, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012111 (2002). [30] V. M. Khatsymovsky, I. B. Khriplovich, and A. S, Yelkhovsky, Ann. Phys. 186, 1 (1988). [31] P. Herczeg, TViolation in Beta Decay: The Dcoefficient, in preparation. [32] P. Herczeg, TViolation in Beta Decay: The Rcoefficient, in preparation. [33] S. P. Martin, hepph/9709356, v3., 1999 [extended version of a contribution to the book Perspectives in Supersymmetry, G. L. Kane, ed., World Scientific, Singapore (1998). [34] H. Dreiner, in Perspectives in Supersymmetry, G. L. Kane, ed., World Scientific, Singapore (1998). [35] R. Barbier, et al., hepph/0406039. [36] R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3457 (1986). [37] P. Herczeg, Phys. Rev. D 52, 3949 (1995). [38] I. B. Khriplovich, Nucl. Phys. B 352, 385 (1991). [39] I. B. Khriplovich and S. K. Lamoreaux, CPViolation Without Strangeness, SpringerVerlag, Berlin (1997). [40] B. C. Regan, E. D. Commins, C. J. Schmidt, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 071805 (2002). [41] P. Herczeg, Phys. Rev. D 68, 116004 (2003). Peter Herczeg Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Accepted: August 11, 2004 Available online: http://www.nist.gov/jres (1) For a review, see Ref. [1]. (2) For a review, see Ref. [4]. (3) For a review, see Ref. [5]. (4) It should be noted however that a disagreement has been found between experiment and the SM prediction in B[degrees] [right arrow] [K.sub.S][phi] decay [6]. See however Ref. [7]. (5) For a review, see for example Ref. [8]. (6) Our metric, [gamma] matrices and [[sigma].sub.[lambda][mu]] are the same as in Ref. [10]. (7) Couplings involving neutrino states other than [v.sub.e.sup.(L)] are possible, but for those in most cases additional constraints apply. Also, the choice [v.sub.e.sup.(L)] in Eq. (3) guarantees for [D.sub.t] and [R.sub.t] maximal overlap in the interference with the SM amplitude. (8) For a recent review of possible new interactions in beta decay see Ref. [12]. (9) Ref. [24]. See also Ref. [12]. (10) Ref. [25]. Contact beta decay interactions have been discussed in Ref. [12]. (11) For the Schiff moment and the EDM of mercury we used the results obtained in Refs. [28] and [29], respectively. (12) For reviews, see Refs. [33], [34], and [35]. (13) Ref. [38]. See also Ref. [39]. (14) Ref. [39]. See also Ref. [41]. 

Reader Opinion