text:
# Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of colloids

## I Introduction

Much is known about the hydrodynamic description of colloidal systems. This is described in a number of well written books on the subject . In these books a multitude of details about the interesting behavior of suspended asymmetric colloidal particles in shear flow is treated. What is not being done is to treat these systems in the context of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. That such a treatment is possible becomes clear reading the monograph by De Gennes  on The Physics of Liquid Crystals. Rather than going into detail regarding the motion of individual particles he discusses, both the equilibrium and the nonequilibrium properties of these materials, using thermodynamics. In this paper we will apply nonequilibrium thermodynamics to these colloidal systems. As it is not our intention to duplicate all the well described knowledge about the collective behavior of these systems, we will focus on one aspect which has remained puzzling from the viewpoint of nonequilibrium thermodynamics.

It is well-known that the viscosity in these systems depends on the shear rate. In view of the fact that the shear rate is not a thermodynamic state variable, like, for instance, the temperature, classical nonequilibrium thermodynamics, as explained in the classic monograph by de Groot and Mazur , does not allow such a dependence. Books on colloidal hydrodynamics explain this dependence in terms of the behavior of asymmetric suspended particles in shear flow. The question we pose ourselves in this paper is: explain this dependence using nonequilibrium thermodynamics alone. Interestingly enough Prigogine and Mazur  already mentioned this problem as one of the three possible examples of their method of internal variables. The orientation of the suspended particles was suggested as such an internal variable. In de Groot and Mazur’s book  the other two examples are treated in detail but this one was not pursued. It had to wait for a better understanding of these systems. In this paper we will show that it is now possible to answer this question for a suspension of asymmetric colloidal particles. In addition to answering a question of principle, the treatment is simpler and more direct than the current explanations. It is also not restricted to dilute suspensions.

In the second section we give the Gibbs relation for an isotropic system with asymmetric colloidal particles. The particles are assumed to have a symmetry axis. A new term appears which gives the entropy change due to a change in a tensorial order parameter $`𝐐`$. This order parameter characterizes the alignment of the particles . This is precisely the new internal variable Prigogine and Mazur  needed. In the third section the resulting entropy production is presented. This leads to linear laws in which the viscous pressure tensor and the time rate of change of the order parameter are expressed in their conjugate thermodynamic forces. In the fourth section these laws are solved for the special case of stationary shear flow. An expression is found for the viscous pressure in terms of the shear gradient. Their ratio defines an effective viscosity. This effective viscosity is found to be a function of the shear. Crucial to obtain this result is the fact that the Onsager coefficients in general depend on the order parameter $`𝐐`$ which is a state variable. This answers the principle question. We proceed in chapter five with a analysis of time dependent shear flow. It is found that this results in a frequency dependent effective shear viscosity. In the last section we derive a simple expression for the dependence of one of the Onsager coefficients on the order parameter to make this point clear beyond doubt.

## II The Gibbs relation

In an isotropic suspension of particles, which are cylindrically symmetric, a tensorial order parameter $`𝐐`$ appears as a new thermodynamic variables . $`𝐐`$ is a traceless symmetric tensor, which is defined as the ensemble average of $`\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}\mathrm{𝟏}/3\right),`$ where $`𝐚`$ is a unit vector along the symmetry axis of one of the particles and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit tensor. In an isotropic phase $`𝐐`$ is, in the absence of any directing field, zero. In, for instance, a magnetic field $`𝐐`$ is nonzero. Changes of $`𝐐`$ lead to changes of the entropy. It is therefore important to take the order parameter along in the description of the system. The total differential of the entropy is given by the following Gibbs relation

$$Tds_v=du_v\mu d\rho \mu _sd\rho _s𝐰:d𝐐$$
(1)
Here $`T`$ is the temperature, $`s_v=\rho s`$ the entropy density, $`u_v=\rho u`$ the internal energy density, $`\mu `$ the chemical potential of the solvent, $`\rho `$ the solvent particle number density, $`\mu _s`$ the chemical potential of the suspended particles and $`\rho _s`$ the suspended particle number density. The densities with a subscript $`v`$, in addition to $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _s,`$ are per unit of volume. $`𝐰`$ is the variable conjugate to $`𝐐`$ and is given by

$$𝐰=T\left(\frac{s_v}{𝐐}\right)_{u_v,\rho ,\rho _s}$$
(2)
Alternatively one may use the relation to the free energy $`f_v`$

$$𝐰=\left(\frac{f_v}{𝐐}\right)_{T,\rho ,\rho _s}$$
(3)
Furthermore $`:`$ between two matrices signifies a double contraction. De Gennes \[4 (page 48),5\] writes as explicit expression for the free energy density

$$f_v(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)=f_v^0(T,\rho ,\rho _s)+\frac{1}{2}A(T,\rho ,\rho _s)tr(𝐐.𝐐)+\frac{1}{3}B(T,\rho ,\rho _s)tr(𝐐.𝐐.𝐐)+\left(𝐐^4\right)$$
(4)
where $``$ is the order symbol. Here $`tr`$ signifies the trace of a matrix. Note that $`tr(𝐐.𝐐)=𝐐:𝐐`$. The resulting traceless symmetric conjugate variable is

$$𝐰=A(T,\rho ,\rho _s)𝐐+B(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\stackrel{}{\overline{𝐐.𝐐}}+\left(𝐐^3\right)$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{\overline{𝐐.𝐐}}`$ is the traceless symmetric part of $`𝐐.𝐐`$. This relation may be inverted to give the order parameter in terms of its conjugate variable

$$𝐐=A^1(T,\rho ,\rho _s)𝐰A^3(T,\rho ,\rho _s)B(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\stackrel{}{\overline{𝐰.𝐰}}+\left(𝐰^3\right)$$
(6)
The typical size of $`A`$ is of the order of $`k_BT\rho _s`$ where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant.

## III The entropy production

Without the $`𝐐`$ term the Gibbs relation is equivalent to the one used in de Groot and Mazur . Note that they use densities per unit of mass while we use densities per unit of volume like de Gennes  is doing. The calculation of the entropy production, using the balance equations, is essentially identical to the one they give. The only difference is the appearance of a term due to the order parameter $`𝐐`$. In order to describe the contributions of the order parameter to the dynamical behavior of the system we may restrict ourselves, using the Curie principle, to contributions of force-flux pairs which are symmetric traceless tensors. The rate of entropy production density, as a function of position $`𝐫`$ and time $`t`$, due to these contributions becomes

$$T\sigma _{tens}(𝐫,t)=\stackrel{}{\overline{𝚷(𝐫,t)}}:\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}𝐰(𝐫,𝐭):\frac{d𝐐(𝐫,𝐭)}{dt}$$
(7)
here $`\stackrel{}{\overline{𝚷}}`$ is the symmetric traceless part of the viscous pressure tensor and $`\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯}}`$ the symmetric traceless part of the velocity gradient.

The resulting linear laws are

$`\stackrel{}{\overline{𝚷(𝐫,t)}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta \stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}\mathrm{}𝐰(𝐫,𝐭)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐐(𝐫,𝐭)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}\mathrm{}_Q𝐰(𝐫,𝐭)`$ (9)
Here we used that, $`\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}`$ is odd and $`𝐰(𝐫,𝐭)`$ even for time reversal,so that the matrix of Onsager coefficients is antisymmetric. The Onsager coefficients are in general functions of the thermodynamic state variables, so that we have

$$\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐),\mathrm{}(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)\text{and}\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)$$
(10)
In line with the assumption of linearity, they are not allowed to be functions of $`\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}`$ and $`d𝐐(𝐫,𝐭)/dt`$. The diagonal coefficient $`\eta `$ is the viscosity and the diagonal coefficient $`\mathrm{}_Q`$ is a typical rotational mobility of the suspended particles divided by $`\rho _s`$. The cross coefficient $`\mathrm{}`$ is dimensionless and is expected to be a positive constant of the order unity.

## IV Stationary elongational flow

The above equations may easily be solved for stationary elongational flow

$$𝐯(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{.}{\gamma }(y,x,0)$$
(11)
The resulting velocity gradient is

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}=grad𝐯(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
Using the second linear law, eq.(9b), results in

$$𝐰(𝐫,𝐭)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}_Q}\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯(𝐫,t)}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{}_Q}\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
Substitution in eq.(6) gives

$$𝐐=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2A\mathrm{}_Q}\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{.}{\gamma }}\right)$$
(14)
The first linear law, eq.(9a), then yields

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{𝚷(𝐫,t)}}=(\eta +\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mathrm{}_Q})\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\eta _{eff}\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
Writing the dependence on the thermodynamic state variables explicitly, the effective viscosity becomes

$$\eta _{eff}(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s,𝐐)}$$
(16)
In view of the above relation of the order parameter with the rate of elongation, one may write this relation as

$$\eta _{eff}(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\stackrel{.}{\gamma })=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s,\stackrel{.}{\gamma })+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\stackrel{.}{\gamma })}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\stackrel{.}{\gamma })}$$
(17)
The effective viscosity depends therefore on the rate of elongation.

## V Oscillatory elongational flow

The above equations may also easily be solved in the case of oscillatory elongational flow. In that case the velocity field, its symmetric traceless gradient, the order parameter and its conjugate variable all become proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$. We now neglect the nonlinear terms in eq.(5) and the $`𝐐`$ dependence of the transport coefficients in order to avoid the appearance of higher order harmonics. Though this is an interesting phenomenon, it is not our present concern. In the second linear law we must now replace $`d𝐐(𝐫,𝐭)/dt`$ by $`i\omega 𝐐(𝐫,𝐭)`$. In the solution this implies that

$$𝐐=A^1𝐰=\frac{\mathrm{}}{A\mathrm{}_Qi\omega }\stackrel{}{\overline{grad𝐯}}$$
(18)
The resulting complex frequency dependent effective viscosity then becomes

$$\eta _{eff}(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\omega )=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\left(1i\omega \tau (T,\rho ,\rho _s)\right)}$$
(19)
with a relaxation time

$$\tau (T,\rho ,\rho _s)=\frac{1}{A(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}$$
(20)
This relaxation time is the reorientation time of the suspended particles due to rotational diffusion, and is therefore of the order of the rotational diffusion coefficient. It follows that $`\omega \tau `$ is the relevant Péclet number for rotational diffusion in an oscillating velocity field. For low frequencies the effective viscosity is enhanced by the coupling to the order parameter

$$\eta _{eff}\left(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\omega =0\right)=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}$$
(21)
This is the same result as found above, eq.(16), for the stationary case if one neglects the dependence of the coefficient on the order parameter. For high frequencies one finds

$$\eta _{eff}\left(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\omega =\mathrm{}\right)=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s)$$
(22)
Writing the complex viscosity as the sum of a real and imaginary part, $`\eta _{eff}=\eta _{eff}^{}+i\eta _{eff}^{\prime \prime }`$, one has

$$\eta _{eff}^{}(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\omega )=\eta (T,\rho ,\rho _s)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\left(1+\omega ^2\tau ^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\right)}$$
(23)
and

$$\eta _{eff}^{\prime \prime }(T,\rho ,\rho _s,\omega )=\frac{\omega \mathrm{}^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)}{2\mathrm{}_Q(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\left(1+\omega ^2\tau ^2(T,\rho ,\rho _s)\right)}$$
(24)
This last expression gives the elastic contribution to the complex viscosity.

## VI The Onsager coefficients

Nonequilibrium thermodynamics does not derive expressions for the Onsager coefficients. Like the thermodynamic derivatives of the entropy as for instance $`A(T,\rho ,\rho _s)`$, they have to be either measured or calculated from a description in terms of the motion of the separate particles. Above we have given estimates of the typical order of magnitude of the various coefficients on the basis of the physical meaning of the coefficients and dimensional arguments.

As the shear dependence of the effective viscosity is the property we set out to find, we will pursue this element a bit further. One may write

$$\eta =\eta _0\left(1+\left[\eta \right]\varphi \right)$$
(25)
where $`\varphi =V\rho _s,`$ with $`V`$ the volume of the monodisperse suspended particles. $`\left[\eta \right]`$ is the so-called intrinsic viscosity. Each suspended particle contributes to the viscous dissipation. For low densities the intrinsic viscosity is independent of their concentration. Einstein  found that the intrinsic viscosity for spheres was equal to 2.5. For rods the contribution depends on the orientation $`𝐚`$ of the rod. In order to get the intrinsic viscosity one must then first calculate the contribution of a rod to the viscous pressure tensor as a function of its orientation and then average over the orientations .

The distribution over orientations may be calculated using the rotational diffusion equation for this distribution. For the stationary state distribution corresponding to a given order parameter $`𝐐`$ one has

$$f\left(𝐚\right)=\frac{15}{8\pi }\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{3}\right):𝐐+\frac{1}{4\pi }$$
(26)
For spheroids, which are useful as a model system, the solution of the velocity field has been given by Jeffery . In the monograph by van de Ven  the resulting contribution to the pressure tensor is given. In the appendix we average those expressions over the above orientation distribution. This results in

$`\left[\eta \right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}(r_e^21)[{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{}}{4\left(2r_e^2\left(12r_e^2\right)A_e\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{.}{\gamma }}{A\mathrm{}_Q}}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{26r_e^224r_e^2A_e15A_e}{\left(2r_e^23A_e\right)\left(2r_e^2\left(2r_e^2+1\right)A_e\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\left(r_e^2+1\right)\left(3A_e2\right)}}]`$
Here the aspect ratio $`r_e=a/b`$ is the ratio of the diameter $`a`$ along the symmetry axis and the diameter $`b`$ normal to the symmetry axis. Furthermore

$`A_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_e^2}{r_e^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_earccoshr_e}{\left(r_e^21\right)^{3/2}}}\text{for }r_e>1`$ (29)
$`A_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_e\mathrm{arccos}r_e}{\left(1r_e^2\right)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_e^2}{1r_e^2}}\text{for }r_e<1`$ (30)
Note that $`\stackrel{.}{\gamma }/A\mathrm{}_Q`$ is the rotational Péclet number so that eq.(28) is an expansion in the Péclet number. In the limit of a sphere, $`r_e1,`$ one may verify that the expression reduces to 2.5. In that case the shear dependence of the effective viscosity disappears. Prolate spheroids, $`r_e>1`$, are shear thickening and oblate spheroids, $`r_e<1`$, are shear thinning for small Péclet numbers in elongational flow .

## VII Discussion and conclusions

The main objective was to show that a straightforward application of nonequilibrium thermodynamics leads to a shear dependent viscosity. We were able to derive a general nonlinear expression for this dependence. The important reason for this is the coupling to the orientation of the suspended colloidal particles. This orientation is described by a tensorial order parameter $`𝐐`$ as thermodynamic state variable. The fact that the Onsager coefficients depend on this state variable then results in a shear dependent viscosity. Of course the critical reader could have doubted such a dependance of the Onsager coefficients on $`𝐐.`$ In order to defend us against this critique, we derive an explicit formula for small Péclet numbers, $`\stackrel{.}{\gamma }/A\mathrm{}_Q`$. This gives a linear relation for this dependence. For larger Péclet numbers the nonlinear relation between $`𝐐`$ and $`𝐰`$ must be taken into account. This will lead to more realistic and interesting predictions. One interesting aspect is that the powers of $`𝐐`$ lead to shear field with a different ”direction”. As the principle question, why the viscosity depends on the shear, has been answered, we will not here pursue these points.

The frequency dependence is due to a single exponential decay of the order parameter. For low frequencies the viscosity is enhanced by the coupling to the orientation of the colloidal particles. For higher frequencies the orientation lags behind. This leads to thinning of the fluid and a reversible elastic response. One can extend the analysis, within the general frame of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, by introducing the whole angular distribution of the particles as an internal thermodynamic variable . The details for such an analysis have recently been worked out by Mazur . This results in a whole spectrum of relaxation times and consequently gives a more complex frequency dependence in the transition from low frequency to high frequency behavior.

In our analysis we do not need to analyse the orientational distribution function in any detail. The knowledge of the order parameter is enough. This makes our analysis much simpler that the usual procedure, where the rotational diffusion equation for this distribution function is solved numerically. As we said above , the orientational distribution function can be introduced as an internal thermodynamic variable. In addition to a richer frequency dependence this will also lead to a more complex shear dependence.

The low frequency and the low shear behavior of the viscosity has a very similar non-analytic dependance on these parameters . This is a general phenomenon which is not specifically due to the asymmetry, or for that matter the presence, of the suspended particles. It falls outside the scope of the present article.

In the field of socalled extended irreversible thermodynamics , one assumes that fluxes, fluxes of fluxes, etc., are also thermodynamic state variables. This assumption distinguishes it from classical irreversible thermodynamics, where this is not considered to be a proper assumption. The viscous pressure is such a flux and is, according to extended irreversible thermodynamics, a state variable. On the basis of this assumption the viscosity can be a function of the viscous pressure. As a result, the viscosity then becomes a function of the shear. The assumption, so to say, defines the problem away. We will not try to invalidate their assumption. We only want to stress that the present paper shows that such an assumption is not needed to obtain a shear dependent viscosity. As such their assumption seems to be one to many.

Acknowledgement

We want to thank T.G.M. van de Ven for a clarification of some of the formulae in his book. D. Bedeaux wants to thank DGICYT for supporting a visit to the University of Barcelona where this work was started. J.M. Rubi wants to thank N.W.O. for support of a visit to Leiden University where part of this work was finalized.

## VIII Appendix

We use the results of Jeffery  as presented in van de Ven’s monograph , see in particular pages 229-231. The shear field he uses is $`v_1=v_2=0`$ and $`v_3=Gx_2`$. In our notation $`x=x_2,y=x_3,z=x_1,\varphi =c`$ and $`\stackrel{.}{\gamma }=G`$. The symmetric traceless part of this simple shear field is identical to the one we used above. In view of the linearity of the problem we may therefore use the symmetric traceless part of the contribution to the viscous pressure tensor van de Ven uses:

$$𝚷=𝚷_0+\frac{8\pi \eta _0}{V}\varphi 𝐌$$
(31)
where $`V=4\pi b^3r_e/3`$ is the volume of the particle. $`𝚷_0=2\eta _0grad𝐯(𝐫,t)`$ is the viscous pressure one would have in the absense of the suspended particles. He gives the tensor $`𝐌`$ as $`𝐌^{}`$ in eq.(3.280) in a coordinate frame attached to the particle. Using the distribution given above, eq.(26), we have

$$𝐌=\frac{15}{8\pi }\left[𝐌\left(𝐚\right)\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{3}\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right]:𝐐+\frac{1}{4\pi }𝐌\left(𝐚\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(32)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi `$ with $`0<\theta <\pi `$ and $`0<\varphi <2\pi `$. The integral between square brackets gives a constant times the four index symmetric traceless unit tensor $`𝚫`$. The matrix elements of this tensor are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ijkl}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\frac{1}{2}\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}$$
(33)
The constant can be calculated by taking $`i=l`$, $`j=k`$ and summing over $`i`$ and $`j`$. This results in

$$𝐌=\frac{3}{16\pi }[𝐌\left(𝐚\right):(\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{3})d\mathrm{\Omega }]𝐐+\frac{1}{4\pi }𝐌\left(𝐚\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(34)
The contraction of two matrices is independent of the reference frame and we may therefore use the reference frame attached to the particle. In this reference frame $`\left(\mathrm{𝐚𝐚}\mathrm{𝟏}/3\right)=\left(2/3\right)𝐞_1𝐞_1\left(1/3\right)𝐞_2𝐞_2\left(1/3\right)𝐞_3𝐞_3`$ in terms of the unit vectors in this frame. This gives

$$𝐌=\frac{1}{16\pi }\left[\left(2M_{11}^{}M_{22}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )M_{33}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right]𝐐+\frac{1}{4\pi }𝐌(\theta ,\varphi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(35)
Using eq.(3.280) we see that $`M_{22}^{}`$ and $`M_{33}^{}`$ integrate to zero while $`M_{11}^{}`$ is independent of direction. In the second integral we can use eqs.(3.282)-(3.284) to obtain the only nonzero contribution. The result is

$$𝐌=\frac{1}{2}M_{11}^{}𝐐+\frac{b^3r_e}{6}\left(\frac{4}{15}C_1+\frac{1}{3}C_2+\frac{2}{3}C_3\right)\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
Substitution of $`𝐐`$ then yields

$$𝐌=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{4A\mathrm{}_Q}M_{11}^{}+\frac{b^3r_e}{6}\left(\frac{4}{15}C_1+\frac{1}{3}C_2+\frac{2}{3}C_3\right)\right]\stackrel{.}{\gamma }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(37)
Substitution into eq.(31) and comparing with eq.(25) gives for the intrinsic viscosity

$$\left[\eta \right]=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{A\mathrm{}_Q}\frac{3M_{11}^{}}{2b^3r_e}+\frac{4}{15}C_1+\frac{1}{3}C_2+\frac{2}{3}C_3\right]$$
(38)
Substitution of eqs.(3.280) and (3.284) finally gives eq.(28).


format: text

text:
# Lepton flavor violation in the supersymmetric standard model with vectorlike leptons

## I Introduction

The $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ supersymmetric (SUSY) grand unified theory (GUT) and the $`\mathrm{E}_8\times \mathrm{E}_8^{}`$ superstring theory are good candidates for unified theories of elementary particle physics. While such theories manifest themselves at the ultrahigh energy scale ($`10^{16}`$ GeV), it is natural to expect that they have some effects on physics at the electroweak scale ($`10^2`$ GeV) e6 . It is, however, difficult to determine precisely what effective theory actually appears at the electroweak scale. This may be understood by considering the facts that the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ SUSY GUT has many possible symmetry breaking patterns and that the superstring theory has many possible compactification patterns. Hence, in the present experimental circumstances, it will not be so useful to perform detailed investigations on specific models. We are rather interested in the general aspects of the low-energy effects of the unified theories. Particularly, in this article we study the effects on lepton physics at the electroweak scale. In the standard model, the lepton number and flavor are conserved automatically. Hence, if the processes violating these quantum numbers are observed, including the neutrino masses and oscillations, $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\mu 3e`$, and so on, they indeed provide important information of new physics above the electroweak scale.

In the supersymmetric models with supergravity scenario Chamseddine:1982jx , which would be derived from the unified theories, the renormalization effects on the soft supersymmetry breaking terms may induce sizable lepton flavor violation. These lepton flavor violating renormalization effects are actually obtained in the SUSY GUT Barbieri:1994pv ; Barbieri:1995tw ; hisano2  and the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with heavy right-handed neutrinos Borzumati:1986qx ; hisano ; Hisano:1998fj . Here, as another intriguing possibility for lepton flavor violation, we investigate the supersymmetric standard model incorporating vectorlike $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublet leptons ll ; Dubovsky:1997rq . Especially, the significant slepton mixing may be generated by radiative corrections with the couplings between the ordinary leptons and these exotic leptons. It is remarkable that this new physics with exotic leptons can be discovered just around the electroweak scale in contrast to the cases of GUT and right-handed neutrinos.

The present model is motivated by the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ type unification. The $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ 27 representation contains one generation of the ordinary quarks and leptons in the standard model, the vectorlike $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ singlet quarks, the vectorlike $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublet leptons, the right-handed neutrino, and the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ singlet Higgs field. The ordinary left-handed neutrinos may acquire Majorana masses through the seesaw mechanism with the right-handed neutrinos seesaw . These ordinary neutrino masses can be very small as required phenomenologically, if the right-handed neutrinos are superheavy or if they have extremely small Yukawa couplings with the left-handed lepton doublets. Hence, given the small ordinary neutrino masses, we do not consider further the effects of the right-handed neutrinos in the electroweak physics. In this investigation, we concentrate on the lepton flavor violating effects of the vectorlike lepton doublets $`(L,L^c)`$ and their scalar superpartners. Specifically, these supersymmetric effects of the exotic leptons may provide the significant Br($`\mu e\gamma `$), while the lepton flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC’s) at the tree level are suppressed naturally by the hierarchy of the charged lepton masses.

The down type quark singlets $`(D^c,D)\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_C+\mathrm{𝟑}_C`$ are also present in the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ unification, which may form the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟓}`$ of SU(5) subgroup with $`(L,L^c)\mathrm{𝟐}_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{𝟐}_\mathrm{L}`$. The survival of these exotic particles to the electroweak scale depends on the symmetry breakings. The $`\mathrm{𝟐}_\mathrm{L}`$-$`\mathrm{𝟑}_C`$ mass splitting in the 5 can be realized with suitable Higgs multiplets, e.g. the 351 of $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ including the 24 of SU(5), as usually considered to obtain the light $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublet Higgs field. Hence, it is possible that $`(L,L^c)`$ survive while $`(D^c,D)`$ become superheavy in the 27. It may also be considered in the superstring theory that $`(L,L^c)`$ become light while $`(D^c,D)`$ do not in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$. On the other hand, $`(D^c,D)`$ and $`(L,L^c)`$ are expected to survive together for the gauge coupling unification. Even in this case, $`(D^c,D)`$ and $`(L,L^c)`$ may originate in different 27’s and/or ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$)’s. Then, it should be noted in these cases, whether $`(D^c,D)`$ survive or not, that the simple $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ relations no longer hold for the Yukawa couplings after the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ breaking. In particular, the flavor violating couplings with $`(L,L^c)`$ may be described independently of those with $`(D^c,D)`$. Given this general situation, we concentrate on the lepton flavor violation with $`(L,L^c)`$ in the present article. A detailed examination of the quark flavor violation with $`(D^c,D)`$, particularly the supersymmetric effects, is reserved for a separate publication. (Such supersymmetric effects are investigated in Ref.Dubovsky:1997rq  in a context different from the present one.) Of course, if $`(D^c,D)`$ and $`(L,L^c)`$ originate in the same 27, the flavor violating effects of these exotic leptons and quarks will be provided from some common $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ coupling. In this specific case, the calculations made in the present analysis for the lepton flavor violation such as $`\mu e\gamma `$ can be extended readily for the quark flavor violation such as $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. Simple order estimates, as will be quoted occasionally in the text, indicate that the constraints from the quark flavor violating effects are in fact less stringent than those from the lepton flavor violating effects.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we describe the lepton mixing in the presence of vectorlike lepton doublets. Then, the contributions to Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) due to the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing are shown to be negligibly small. In Section III, we investigate the slepton mixing generated by radiative corrections with the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings. Significant contributions to Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) can be obtained from this slepton mixing. Section IV is devoted to the summary.

## II The lepton mixing

In this section, we describe the lepton mixing including the vectorlike lepton doublets, which contributes to the lepton flavor changing processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$. We show that the modification of the gauge interactions provided by this lepton mixing is fairly suppressed even if the relevant flavor violating Yukawa couplings take significant values. This feature is indeed attributed to the mass hierarchy between ordinary leptons and exotic leptons.

The ordinary leptons are represented by $`l_i(\nu _i,e_i)`$ and $`e_i^c`$ with the subscript $`i=1,2,3`$ for the generations. The vectorlike leptons and singlet Higgs field are also listed as follows with their quantum numbers of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}\times \mathrm{U}(1)_Y`$:

$`Ll_4=\left(\begin{array}{c}N\\ E\end{array}\right):(\mathrm{𝟐},1/2),L^c=\left(\begin{array}{c}E^c\\ N^c\end{array}\right):(\mathrm{𝟐},1/2),S:(\mathrm{𝟏},0).`$ (5)
We here describe the case with one generation of $`L`$ and $`L^c`$ for simplicity. It is straightforward to extend the analysis for several generations of vectorlike leptons, and similar results are obtained for the lepton flavor violating processes. We examine two typical models in the following, for which distinct results will be obtained concerning the supersymmetric contributions to the lepton number violating processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$.

In the first model, the superpotential relevant for the leptonic superfields is given by

$`𝒲=\lambda _1^{aj}l_aH_1e_j^c+\lambda _2^{a4}l_aL^cS+\lambda _3H_1H_2S+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4}{3}}S^3,`$ (6)
where $`a=i,4`$ and $`i,j=1,2,3`$. The Higgs fields include the pair of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublets $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ and the singlet $`S`$. The vacuum expectation value (VEV) of $`S`$ gives the mass terms involving the exotic lepton doublets $`L`$ and $`L^c`$ as well as the $`\mu `$ term for the Higgs doublets $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. The $`R`$-parity invariance is assumed for the lepton number conservation. The $`\mathrm{Z}_3`$ symmetry is also assumed to exclude the mass term of $`S`$ which is independent of the electroweak scale. (The cosmological domain wall problem associated with the spontaneous breaking of $`\mathrm{Z}_3`$ may be evaded by introducing small explicit breaking in the higher order terms.) The coupling matrices in eq.(6) may be simplified without loss of generality by redefinition of the relevant fields at some unification scale such as the gravitational scale $`M_\mathrm{G}`$. The elements $`\lambda _1^{4j}`$ in the $`4\times 3`$ coupling matrix $`\lambda _1`$ can be eliminated by an appropriate unitary transformation among the left-handed doublets $`l_i`$ and $`l_4L`$. Then, the submatrix $`\lambda _1^{ij}`$ can be diagonalized by a redefinition of the ordinary leptons. Accordingly, we may take

$`\lambda _1(M_\mathrm{G})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _{ij}\lambda _1^{ii}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).`$ (9)
Furthermore, the components of $`\lambda _1\lambda _4`$ can all be made real and non-negative.

In the second model, the above form of $`\lambda _1`$ is realized in terms of another $`\mathrm{Z}_3`$, under which the nontrivial transformations of the relevant fields are given by

$`L\omega L,L^c\omega ^{}L^c,S\omega S,H_2\omega ^{}H_2`$ (10)
with $`\omega ^3=1`$. Then, we have a bare mass term for $`L`$ and $`L^c`$ by making the following replacement in the superpotential (6):

$`\lambda _2^{44}LL^cS\text{[model (1)]}M_LLL^c\text{[model (2)]}.`$ (11)
In the lepton basis where the $`\lambda _1(M_\mathrm{G})`$ is given by eq.(9), the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ provide the source of lepton flavor violation. The lepton flavor violating elements in $`\lambda _1`$ are then generated at $`M_W`$ through the renormalization group evolution with these couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$. The renormalization group equations for the Yukawa couplings are given in the model (1) by

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\lambda _1^{aj}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}`$ $`[3{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _1^{ak}\lambda _1^{bk}\lambda _1^{bj}+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _1^{bj}\lambda _2^{a4}\lambda _2^{b4}`$ (12)
$`+\lambda _1^{aj}\{{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\lambda _1^{bk})^2+\lambda _3^2+3\lambda _4^2\}\lambda _1^{aj}(3g_2^2+3g_1^2)],`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\lambda _2^{a4}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}`$ $`[\lambda _2^{a4}\{4{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda _2^{b4})^2+2\lambda _3^2+2\lambda _4^2\}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\lambda _2^{b4}\lambda _1^{ai}\lambda _1^{bi}\lambda _2^{a4}(3g_2^2+g_1^2)].`$
The renormalization group equations in the model (2) are also obtained by setting $`\lambda _2^{44}=0`$ in the above equations. Then, we have the leading corrections for the off-diagonal elements of the $`\lambda _1`$ coupling as

$`\lambda _1^{aj}(M_W)\lambda _1^{aj}(M_\mathrm{G}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\lambda _1^{jj}\lambda _2^{j4}\lambda _2^{a4}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}}(aj).`$ (14)
Hence, even if $`\lambda _1^{aj}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$ ($`aj`$) at $`M_\mathrm{G}`$ as given in eq.(9), these flavor changing elements of the $`\lambda _1`$ coupling arise at $`M_W`$. It should here be remarked that these corrections for $`\lambda _1`$ are in fact proportional to the corresponding diagonal elements $`\lambda _1^{jj}`$. It should also be mentioned that in the model (2) $`\lambda _1^{4j}0`$ and $`\lambda _2^{44}0`$, which is ensured by the $`\mathrm{Z}_3`$ symmetry (10).

The mass terms of the leptons are produced by the vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) of the Higgs fields,

$`H_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1\\ 0\end{array}\right),H_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_2\end{array}\right),S=v_3,`$ (19)
where $`v=(v_1^2+v_2^2)^{1/2}174\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$. These VEV’s may acquire nonvanishing phases introducing a new source of $`CP`$ violation. We, however, do not consider this possibility for simplicity, and therefore take the real VEV’s. Then, the charged lepton mass matrix is given at $`M_W`$ by

$`M_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _1^{ij}v_1& \lambda _2^{i4}v_3\\ \lambda _1^{4j}v_1& \lambda _2^{44}v_3\end{array}\right).`$ (22)
It should here be remembered that $`\lambda _2^{44}v_3M_L`$ in the model (2). This $`4\times 4`$ real matrix is diagonalized by two orthogonal matrices $`U_{}`$ and $`V_{}`$ as

$`U_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{}V_{}=\mathrm{diag}.(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau ,M_E).`$ (23)
The neutral lepton mass matrix is also produced as

$`M_𝒩=\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _2^{i4}v_3\\ \lambda _2^{44}v_3\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
This $`4\times 1`$ real matrix is diagonalized with an orthogonal matrix $`O_𝒩`$ as

$`O_𝒩^\mathrm{T}M_𝒩=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟎}\\ M_N\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
The masses of the ordinary charged leptons are given by

$`m_{e_i}\lambda _1^{ii}v_1,`$ (30)
where the radiative corrections (14) for the $`\lambda _1`$ coupling are considered. The masses of the exotic leptons are also given by

$`M_EM_N=v_3\left[{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda _2^{a4})^2\right]^{1/2}.`$ (31)
The zero modes in eq.(29) are the three generations of ordinary neutrinos. It is noticed that the orthogonal matrix $`O_𝒩`$ is not determined uniquely at this stage. An arbitrary $`3\times 3`$ transformation, say $`O_\nu ^{}`$, to redefine the (approximately) massless ordinary neutrinos can be incorporated in $`O_𝒩`$. The ordinary neutrinos may acquire very small Majorana masses through the seesaw mechanism with the right-handed neutrinos of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ singlet. Then, the neutrino mixing matrix $`O_𝒩`$ is determined completely.

We here consider some relevant properties of the transformation matrices $`U_{}`$, $`V_{}`$, and $`O_𝒩`$. First, the orthogonal transformation $`V_{}`$, which represents the right-handed charged lepton mixing, diagonalizes the matrix $`M_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{}`$. By considering the structure of $`M_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{}`$ from eq.(22) with eq.(14), the right-handed ordinary-exotic lepton mixing in $`V_{}`$, which is relevant for describing the gauge interactions as seen below, is estimated in the leading order (with $`M_Ev_3`$ for definiteness) as

$`(V_{})_{i4}(V_{})_{4i}(m_{e_i}/M_E)\lambda _2^{i4}.`$ (32)
It should here be remarked that the right-handed lepton mixing effects are suppressed sufficiently by the mass ratios $`m_{e_i}/M_E`$ with the experimental bound $`M_E>97.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ l3 , even if the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ take significant values. On the other hand, the left-handed ordinary-exotic lepton mixings in $`U_{}`$ and $`O_𝒩`$ are estimated as

$`(U_{})_{i4}(U_{})_{4i}(O_𝒩)_{i4}(O_𝒩)_{4j}(O_\nu ^{})_{ji}\lambda _2^{i4},`$ (33)
where the ambiguity in $`O_𝒩`$ as mentioned above is extracted explicitly by suitably choosing the orthogonal transformation $`O_\nu ^{}`$ of the ordinary neutrinos. These left-handed mixings are no longer suppressed by $`m_{e_i}/M_E`$. Here, we note the similarity between $`U_{}`$ for the charged leptons and $`O_𝒩`$ for the neutral leptons. In fact, the effective combination of left-handed lepton mixing is estimated as

$`(U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩)_{i4}(U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩)_{4j}(O_\nu ^{})_{ji}(m_{e_i}/M_E)^2\lambda _2^{i4},`$ (34)
$`(U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩)_{ik}(O_\nu ^{})_{kj}\delta _{ij}(m_{e_i}/M_E)(m_{e_j}/M_E)\lambda _2^{i4}\lambda _2^{j4}.`$ (35)
This similarity of the left-handed lepton mixings described in terms of the $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ couplings and the ordinary-exotic lepton mass ratios is indeed stable against the radiative corrections. It can be understood by noting the following facts. (i) By setting $`\lambda _1^{ii}=0`$ at $`M_\mathrm{G}`$ in eq.(14), we have $`\lambda _1^{aj}0`$ at any scales as seen from eq.(12). Then, $`M_{}`$ essentially coincides with $`M_𝒩`$, and they are diagonalized with the left-handed lepton transformation $`U_{}=O_𝒩`$ to eliminate the $`\lambda _2^{i4}v_3`$ term. (ii) The change $`\lambda _1\lambda _1`$ of the Yukawa coupling in $`M_{}`$ is compensated by the change $`e_i^ce_i^c`$ of the right-handed ordinary leptons. This means that the sign change of $`\lambda _1`$ does not affect the left-handed lepton mixing. Hence, by considering (i) and (ii) we find that the difference between $`U_{}`$ and $`O_𝒩`$ should appear at the second order of $`\lambda _1^{aj}(M_W)\lambda _1^{jj}m_{e_j}/v_1`$. (iii) By setting $`\lambda _2^{i4}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$ so that $`\lambda _2^{i4}=0`$ at any scales, the $`\lambda _1`$ coupling remains to be diagonal even if the radiative corrections are included. Hence, in this limit with $`\lambda _2^{i4}=0`$, $`M_{}`$ and $`M_𝒩`$ are diagonal, and the complete similarity follows with $`U_{}=O_𝒩=\mathrm{𝟏}_4`$ ($`4\times 4`$ unit matrix).

It can be shown that the flavor violating gauge couplings of leptons are suppressed naturally due to the smallness of $`(V_{})_{i4}`$ and the similarity between $`U_{}`$ and $`O_𝒩`$. The charged gauge interaction coupled to $`W`$ boson is given by

$`_W={\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}}(U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩)_{ab}\overline{}_a\gamma ^\mu P_\mathrm{L}𝒩_bW_\mu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}}(V_{})_{4a}\overline{}_a\gamma ^\mu P_\mathrm{R}𝒩_4W_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (36)
where $`_a(e_i,E)`$ and $`𝒩_a(\nu _i,N)`$ ($`a=14`$) represent the four-component Dirac spinors of the lepton mass eigenstates, and $`P_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`P_\mathrm{R}`$ are the chiral projections to the left-handed and right-handed parts, respectively. This charged gauge interaction is relevant for the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. The lepton flavor violating terms with the factors $`(U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩)_{ab}`$ ($`ab`$) are apparently induced in the left-handed couplings of eq.(36). However, due to the similarity between $`U_{}`$ and $`O_𝒩`$ as shown in eqs.(34) and (35), they are almost rotated out with the suitable redefinition $`O_\nu ^{}`$ of the ordinary neutrinos neglecting the tiny neutrino masses $`m_{\nu _i}`$. The flavor changing right-handed couplings are also suppressed by the small factors $`(V_{})_{4i}`$, as shown in eq.(32). Hence, the effects of the charged gauge interaction appear to be extremely small for the lepton flavor violating processes.

The neutral gauge interaction of charged leptons coupled to $`Z`$ boson is given by

$`_Z=_Z^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(g_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W+g_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\right)(V_{})_{4a}(V_{})_{4b}\overline{}_a\gamma ^\mu P_\mathrm{R}_bZ_\mu ,`$ (37)
where $`_Z^0`$ represents the usual flavor diagonal part which is obtained by turning off the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing. The lepton flavor violating term appears only in the right-handed couplings of eq.(37). This is because the left-handed leptons all form the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$ doublets. Since the FCNC’s of ordinary leptons in eq.(37) are proportional to $`(V_{})_{4i}(V_{})_{4j}`$, their effects are fairly suppressed by the small mass ratios $`(m_{e_i}/M_E)(m_{e_j}/M_E)`$. If the quark singlets $`(D^c,D)`$ are also present, they may have the flavor violating coupling which has the common $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ origin with the $`\lambda _2`$ coupling of $`(L,L^c)`$. In this case, the FCNC’s of ordinary quarks appear as well to be negligibly small due to the suppression factors $`(m_{d_i}/M_D)(m_{d_j}/M_D)`$.

We now estimate the contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay which are provided by these gauge interactions. We will in fact observe below that these contributions are negligibly small. The decay amplitude of $`\mu e\gamma `$ is generally given by

$`T(\mu e\gamma )=eϵ^\alpha \overline{u}_e(pq)\left[i\sigma _{\alpha \beta }q^\beta (A_\mathrm{L}P_\mathrm{L}+A_\mathrm{R}P_\mathrm{R})\right]u_\mu (p).`$ (38)
Then, the decay rate is calculated by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}e^2m_\mu ^3(|A_\mathrm{L}|^2+|A_\mathrm{R}|^2).`$ (39)
The contributions to the amplitudes $`A_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`A_\mathrm{R}`$ are provided by the one-loop diagrams with the intermediate states of the neural leptons ($`W`$ mediated) and charged leptons ($`Z`$ mediated). We can see from eqs.(32) – (35) that all these diagrams include the significant suppression factor $`(m_e/M_E)(m_\mu /M_E)10^8`$. Then, the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ contributions to the decay amplitude are given by

$`A_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}^{(W)}A_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}^{(Z)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\mu ^2}{M_W^2M_E^2}}\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}.`$ (40)
Therefore, the flavor violating gauge couplings induced by the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing provide tiny contributions $`10^{21}`$ to the branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$. This feature is actually confirmed by numerical calculations.

## III The slepton mixing

In the supersymmetric model, significant effects of flavor violation may be obtained through the slepton mixing. It is expected that the supersymmetry breaking is provided in the minimal supergravity model with the soft terms at the gravitational scale $`M_\mathrm{G}10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$, including the common slepton masses squared $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^{2}{}_{ab}{}^{}=m_0^2\delta _{ab}`$, etc., the $`A`$ terms $`A_k=a_0m_0\lambda _k`$, and the gaugino masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. We have seen that in the present sort of models the original source of lepton flavor violation is the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$. At the tree-level with the universal soft supersymmetry breaking terms, however, the flavor violating effects of these couplings are still suppressed by the ordinary-exotic lepton mass ratios $`m_{e_i}/M_E`$, since the lepton and slepton mass matrices are diagonalized simultaneously in this limit. Significant effects of flavor violation are rather provided from the radiative corrections on the soft terms which are generated with the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$.

The soft mass terms and $`A`$-terms at the electroweak scale $`M_W`$ deviate from the universal forms through the renormalization group evolution Hall:1986dx . In the leading order approximation the corrections are given for the model (1) by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^{2}{}_{aa}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[2m_0^2(3+a_0^2)\left\{(\lambda _1^{aa})^2+(\lambda _2^{a4})^2\right\}(6m_2^2g_2^2+2m_1^2g_1^2)\right]\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}},`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^{2}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^2}}m_0^2(3+a_0^2)\lambda _2^{a4}\lambda _2^{b4}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}}(ab),`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{e}^c}^{2}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[4m_0^2(\lambda _1^{ii})^2(3+a_0^2)8g_1^2m_1^2\right]\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}},`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{L}^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[2m_0^2(3+a_0^2){\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda _2^{a4})^2(6g_2^2m_2^2+2g_1^2m_1^2)\right]\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}},`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\lambda _1^{ii}[\text{}3a_0m_0\{(\lambda _2^{i4})^2+\lambda _3^2+3\lambda _4^2+3(\lambda _1^{ii})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\lambda _1^{jj})^2\}`$ (45)
$`3a_0m_0(g_2^2+g_1^2)6(g_2^2m_2+g_1^2m_1)\text{}]\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^{aj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(4\pi )^2}}a_0m_0\lambda _1^{jj}\lambda _2^{a4}\lambda _2^{j4}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}}(aj),`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }A_2^{a4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\lambda _2^{a4}[\text{}3a_0m_0\{4{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda _2^{b4})^2+2\lambda _3^2+2\lambda _4^2+(\lambda _1^{aa})^2\}`$ (47)
$`a_0m_0(3g_2^2+g_1^2)2(3g_2^2m_2+g_1^2m_1)\text{}]\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{G}}{M_W}}.`$
We should set $`\lambda _2^{44}=0`$ for the model (2) in these formulas. Because of these radiative corrections, the slepton mass matrices and the corresponding lepton mass matrices are no longer diagonalized simultaneously, providing the new source of lepton flavor violation in the slepton mixing. Then, this slepton mixing is expected to contribute significantly to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. The lepton-slepton interactions with the neutralinos $`\chi _\alpha ^0`$ ($`\alpha =15`$) and the charginos $`\chi _\kappa ^\pm `$ ($`\kappa =1,2`$), which are relevant for $`\mu e\gamma `$, are given, respectively, by

$`_{\chi ^0}=N_{a\alpha A}^\mathrm{R}\overline{}_aP_\mathrm{R}\chi _\alpha ^0\stackrel{~}{}_A+N_{a\alpha A}^\mathrm{L}\overline{}_aP_\mathrm{L}\chi _\alpha ^0\stackrel{~}{}_A+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (48)
and

$`_{\chi ^\pm }=C_{a\kappa K}^\mathrm{R}\overline{}_aP_\mathrm{R}\chi _\kappa ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K+C_{a\kappa K}^\mathrm{L}\overline{}_aP_\mathrm{L}\chi _\kappa ^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (49)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_A`$ ($`A=18`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K`$ ($`K=15`$) are the slepton mass eigenstates. The coupling coefficients are given in terms of the transformation matrices to diagonalize the mass matrices of leptons, sleptons, charginos, and neutralinos.

We here evaluate the decay rate of $`\mu e\gamma `$ which is provided by the slepton mixing. By calculating the one-loop diagrams for the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process mediated by the neutralinos and charginos, as shown in fig.1, we obtain the contributions to the decay amplitudes hisano

$`A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{n})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A,\alpha }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{M_{\stackrel{~}{}_A}^2}}N_{1\alpha A}^\mathrm{R}N_{2\alpha A}^Rf_1(x_{\alpha A})+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _\alpha ^0}}{M_{\stackrel{~}{}_A}^2}}N_{1\alpha A}^\mathrm{R}N_{2\alpha A}^Lf_2(x_{\alpha A})\right],`$ (50)
$`A_\mathrm{L}^{(\mathrm{n})}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{n})}(RL),`$ (51)
$`A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{c})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{K,\kappa }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K}^2}}C_{1\kappa K}^\mathrm{R}C_{2\kappa K}^Rf_3(x_{\kappa K})+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _\kappa ^{}}}{M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K}^2}}C_{1\kappa K}^\mathrm{R}C_{2\kappa K}^Lf_4(x_{\kappa K})\right],`$ (52)
$`A_\mathrm{L}^{(\mathrm{c})}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{c})}(RL),`$ (53)
where $`f_1f_4`$ are certain functions of $`x_{\alpha A}(M_{\chi _\alpha ^0}/M_{\stackrel{~}{}_A})^2`$ and $`x_{\kappa K}(M_{\chi _\kappa ^{}}/M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_K})^2`$. We estimate below $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ with these contributions for the model (1) and (2). We will see that these models provide quite different results. In fact, these supersymmetric contributions are rather suppressed in the model (1) with the extra factor involving $`m_e`$ as well as $`m_\mu `$.

### III.1 Model (1)

The charged slepton mass matrix is given as

$`_\stackrel{~}{}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2& M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LR}}}^2\\ M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{RL}}}^2& M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{RR}}}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (56)
where $`\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\mathrm{R}`$ represent the chirality of the corresponding leptons. The neutral slepton mass matrix is also given in a similar form. In order to see the flavor changing structure of the lepton-slepton-gaugino interactions, it is suitable to transform this slepton mass matrix by the orthogonal matrices which diagonalize the lepton mass matrix:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{}}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{}^\mathrm{T}& 0\\ 0& V_{}^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right)_\stackrel{~}{}^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{}& 0\\ 0& V_{}\end{array}\right).`$ (61)
The universality for the soft supersymmetry breaking at $`M_\mathrm{G}`$ is violated at $`M_W`$ due to the renormalization group effects. Then, the reduced slepton mass matrix $`_{\stackrel{~}{}}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}`$ involves the flavor changing elements.

In the model (1), the components of the slepton mass matrix are given including the renormalization group effects as

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_{\mathrm{LL}}M_{}M_{}^\mathrm{T}+y_{\mathrm{LL}}m_0^2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_{\mathrm{LL}}^{ij}(\lambda _1^{ii})^2+c_{\mathrm{LL}}^{ji}(\lambda _1^{jj})^2& d_{\mathrm{LL}}^i(\lambda _1^{ii})^2\\ d_{\mathrm{LL}}^j(\lambda _1^{jj})^2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (64)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LR}}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{RL}}}^2)^\mathrm{T}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`x_{\mathrm{LR}}m_0M_{}+x_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}m_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& M_𝒩\end{array}\right)+m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{ij}f_{\mathrm{LR}}^i\lambda _1^{ii}& g_{\mathrm{LR}}^i(\lambda _1^{ii})^2\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{RR}}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_{\mathrm{RR}}M_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{}+y_{\mathrm{RR}}m_0^2\mathrm{𝟏}_4+z_{\mathrm{RR}}m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 1\end{array}\right)+m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{ij}c_{\mathrm{RR}}^i(\lambda _1^{ii})^2& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (73)
where $`x_{\mathrm{LL}},\mathrm{}1`$ are the relevant parameters. The terms proportional to the $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}_4`$ as well as those given by the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_{}`$ are diagonalized by the transformation in eq.(61). The term given by the neutral lepton mass matrix $`M_𝒩`$ is almost diagonalized by the similarity of $`U_{}^\mathrm{T}O_𝒩`$. The third term of eq.(73) provides a contribution $`(V_{})_{4i}(V_{})_{4j}`$ for the slepton mixing, which is substantially suppressed by the lepton mass ratios $`(m_{e_i}/M_E)(m_{e_j}/M_E)`$. The remaining terms involve the Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _1^{ii}m_{e_i}/v_1`$. Among these contributions in the model (1), the significant flavor mixing arises from the fourth term of eq.(73) in the right-handed charged slepton sector as

$`(M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{RR}}}^2)_{ij}/m_0^2(V_{}^\mathrm{T})_{ii}(\lambda _1^{ii})^2(V_{})_{ij}+(V_{}^\mathrm{T})_{ij}(\lambda _1^{jj})^2(V_{})_{jj}.`$ (74)
It is here noted that the right-handed ordinary charged lepton mixing induced by the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing is related to the charged lepton masses as

$`(V_{})_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{e_i}m_{e_j}}{m_{e_i}^2+m_{e_j}^2}}\lambda _2^{i4}\lambda _2^{j4}(ij).`$ (75)
By considering these arguments on the slepton mixing, the dominant contribution from the neutralino couplings to the decay amplitude of $`\mu e\gamma `$ is estimated as

$`A_\mathrm{L}^{(\mathrm{n})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3\lambda _1^{22}v_2v_3}{m_0^3}}(\lambda _1^{22})^2(m_e/m_\mu )\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}.`$ (76)
Here, the right-handed $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }^c`$-$`\stackrel{~}{e}^c`$ slepton mixing $`(\lambda _1^{22})^2(V_{})_{12}`$ given by eqs.(74) and (75) is used for the $`e_\mathrm{R}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }^c`$-$`\chi ^0`$ vertex, and the chirality flip $`\lambda _3\lambda _1^{22}v_2v_3`$ of the intermediate $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ state is provided by the $`|F_{H_1}|^2`$ term. The chargino couplings provide a contribution of the same order as eq.(76), where the chirality flipping $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{e}^c`$ slepton mixing given by $`(O_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{LR}}}^2)_{41}/m_0(m_e/m_0)\mathrm{tan}\beta \lambda _2^{14}`$ is used for the $`e_\mathrm{R}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-$`\chi _0`$ vertex, and the the left-handed $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$ slepton mixing in the intermediate state is provided by $`(O_{}^\mathrm{T}M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2)_{42}/m_0^2(m_\mu /M_W)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \lambda _2^{24}`$. Accordingly, in the model (1) the contributions to the decay amplitude are dominantly given by

$`A_\mathrm{L}^{(\mathrm{n})}A_\mathrm{L}^{(\mathrm{c})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\mathrm{tan}^3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\mu ^2}{M_W^2m_0^2}}\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24},`$ (77)
where $`v_3m_0`$ is considered for definiteness. These contributions should be compared to the non-supersymmetric contributions given in eq.(40). Although these supersymmetric contributions have the specific dependence on the relevant lepton masses similar to eq.(40), it can be enhanced significantly by the power of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We roughly estimate the branching ratio as

$`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{32\pi }}\mathrm{tan}^6\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_em_\mu }{m_0^2}}\right)^2\left(\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}\right)^2`$ (78)
$``$ $`10^{13}(\mathrm{tan}\beta 20,\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}0.3).`$
It should here be remarked as seen in eq.(77) that in the model (1) the chirality of the charged leptons is mainly specified as $`\mu _\mathrm{L}^{}e_\mathrm{R}^{}\gamma `$.

The dependence of the decay amplitudes on both $`m_e`$ and $`m_\mu `$, as seen in eq.(77), can be understood as follows by means of approximate flavor symmetries. Set $`\lambda _1^{11}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$ in eq.(9). Then, we can make $`\lambda _2^{14}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$ by a suitable transformation of the left-handed lepton doublets $`l_1`$ and $`l_4=L`$, while keeping $`\lambda _1(M_\mathrm{G})`$ with $`\lambda _1^{11}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$. In this limit, a flavor symmetry $`\mathrm{U}(1)_e`$ appears under the phase transformation $`l_1\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }l_1`$ and $`e_1^c\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }e_1^c`$. If the universal form is assumed for the supersymmetry breaking terms at $`M_\mathrm{G}`$, this flavor symmetry $`\mathrm{U}(1)_e`$ is still preserved in the limit $`\lambda _1^{11}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$. This is the case even if the renormalization group corrections are included. Therefore, we find that in the limit $`\lambda _1^{11}(M_\mathrm{G})=0`$ corresponding to $`m_e=0`$, the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay is prevented for the electron number conservation by the $`\mathrm{U}(1)_e`$. Similarly, the decay amplitudes of $`\mu e\gamma `$ depend on $`m_\mu `$ as well due to the approximate $`\mathrm{U}(1)_\mu `$ symmetry. It should further be remarked that even for the case with several pairs of vectorlike lepton doublets, the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay amplitudes are dominantly given by eq.(77) in the model (1) without the bare mass term $`M_LLL^c`$. This can be justified by extending readily the above symmetry argument.

In order to confirm the estimate of $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ given in eq.(78), we have made numerical calculations by taking reasonable values of the model parameters. In the model (1), the most important parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ for the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing. The values of $`\lambda _1^{ii}`$ are determined so as to reproduce the actual lepton masses $`m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau `$. The exotic leptons $`E`$ and $`N`$ have typically the masses $`M_EM_N100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ by taking $`\lambda _2^{44}0.3`$ and $`v_3500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.

In fig.2, Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) is shown as a function of $`\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}`$ by taking randomly the values of $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$. We have also taken typically $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, $`v_3=500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`m_0=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`a_0=1`$, $`m_1=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`\lambda _2^{44}=0.3`$, $`\lambda _3=0.6`$ and $`\lambda _4=0.5`$. It is clearly observed in fig.2 that Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) is roughly proportional to $`(\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24})^2`$, as indicated in eq.(78).

The relation between Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is shown in fig.3. Here, we have taken typically $`v_3=500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`m_0=200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`a_0=0`$, $`m_1=200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`\lambda _2^{a4}=0.3`$, $`\lambda _3=0.6`$ and $`\lambda _4=0.5`$. This result indicates the strong $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence as $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$. It is, in particular, interesting that if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger than 20, $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ might be comparable to the experimental bound $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ brbound .

As for the $`\mu 3e`$ decay, the penguin diagrams associated with fig.1 provide dominant contributions in the present model with $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu 3e)/\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )7\times 10^3`$, as is usually the case hisano . The tree-level $`Z`$ mediated FCNC’s given in eq.(37) provide only a contribution smaller by a few orders. We have also the supersymmetric contributions to $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, which are estimated in eq.(78) by replacing the relevant charged lepton masses and the $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ couplings. In particular, $`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ is enhanced as

$`\mathrm{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu m_\tau }{m_em_\mu }}\right)^2\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ (79)
$``$ $`10^7(\mathrm{tan}\beta 20,\lambda _2^{24}\lambda _2^{34}0.3),`$
which can be comparable to the experimental bound $`1.1\times 10^6`$ Ahmed:1999gh . Therefore, in the model (1) the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ decay seems to be more promising to observe the lepton flavor violation due to the ordinary-exotic lepton mixing with supersymmetry.

The $`\lambda _2`$ coupling may also contribute to the flavor violation in the quark sector if the quark singlets $`(D^c,D)`$ survive as well to the electroweak scale in the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ unification. Then, we have dominantly the right-handed squark mixings such as $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{\mathrm{RR}}}^2)_{12}/m_0^2(m_sm_d/v^2)\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 10^8\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$, which are the same as the right-handed slepton mixings given in eqs.(74) with (75). It is clearly found that even for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ this squark mixing is much smaller than the bound $`10^2`$ obtained from the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ system Gabbiani:1996 .

### III.2 Model (2)

In the model (2), we have more significant contributions for the right-handed decay amplitudes. This is because the $`\mathrm{U}(1)_e\times \mathrm{U}(1)_\mu `$ considered in the case of model (1) is substantially violated due to the presence of bare mass term $`M_LLL^c`$ of the vectorlike lepton doublets. Actually, the soft supersymmetry breaking mass terms for the ordinary slepton doublets $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ and the vectorlike slepton doublet $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ acquire the renormalization group corrections in somewhat different way with $`\lambda _2^{44}0`$. Then, we have an extra terms for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2`$ as

$`z_{\mathrm{LL}}m_0^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& 1\end{array}\right)M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2.`$ (82)
This extra term provides the significant mixing for the left-handed sleptons as

$`(M_{\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2)_{ij}/m_0^2(M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2)_{ij}/m_0^2(U_{}^\mathrm{T})_{i4}(U_{})_{4j}\lambda _2^{i4}\lambda _2^{j4},`$ (83)
where the similarity $`U_{}O_𝒩`$ is considered. These left-handed slepton mixings can be taken for the one-loop diagrams similar to those considered in the model (1) with chirality change $`\mathrm{L}\mathrm{R}`$. Then, we obtain the contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay amplitude as

$`A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{n})}A_\mathrm{R}^{(\mathrm{c})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_0^2}}\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}.`$ (84)
It is here important that these supersymmetric contributions are no longer suppressed by the very small extra factor $`m_em_\mu /M_W^2`$ as seen in eq.(77) for the model (1). We roughly estimate the branching ratio as

$`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{32\pi }}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{M_W}{m_0}}\right)^4\left(\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}\right)^2`$ (85)
$``$ $`10^{11}(\mathrm{tan}\beta 1,\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}0.01).`$
As seen in eq.(84), the chirality of the charged leptons is mainly specified as $`\mu _\mathrm{R}^{}e_\mathrm{L}^{}\gamma `$ in the model (2) contrary to the case of model (1). It is also mentioned that this significant supersymmetric contribution to $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ may be obtained even in the model (1), if the soft slepton masses squared $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}^2`$ are different between $`\stackrel{~}{l}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}_4=\stackrel{~}{L}`$ already at $`M_\mathrm{G}`$ for some reason.

We have also made numerical calculations to evaluate $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ in the model (2) with the bare mass term, which is expected to be much larger than in the model (1).

In fig.4, Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) is shown as a function of $`\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}`$ by taking randomly the values of $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$. We have also taken typically $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, $`v_3=500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`m_0=300\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`a_0=1`$, $`m_1=300\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`M_L=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`\lambda _3=0.8`$ and $`\lambda _4=0.7`$. It is clearly observed in fig.4 that Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) is roughly proportional to $`(\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24})^2`$, as indicated in eq.(85). It is interesting to observe in fig.4 that $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ becomes comparable to the experimental bound $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ brbound  for the rather small ordinary-exotic couplings $`(\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24})^{1/2}0.02`$ with the moderate value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$.

The relation between Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) and the gravitino mass $`m_0`$ is shown in fig.5 for $`m_03\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ with somewhat larger $`\lambda _2^{i4}=0.07`$, where the other parameters are taken typically as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, $`v_3=500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`a_0=1`$, $`m_1=1000\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`M_L=100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`\lambda _3=0.8`$ and $`\lambda _4=0.7`$. It is here noticed that cancellation between the neutralino and chargino contributions occurs for certain values of $`m_0`$, where Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) becomes substantially small. It is also remarkable in the model (2) that even for the relatively large soft supersymmetry breaking with $`m_01\mathrm{TeV}`$, Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) can be comparable to the experimental bound by taking the relatively large ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}0.1`$.

We have also the supersymmetric contributions to $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, which are estimated in eq.(84) by replacing $`m_\mu `$ with $`m_\tau `$ and the $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ couplings. The resultant branching ratios of $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are similar to that of $`\mu e\gamma `$, since they are almost independent of $`m_\tau `$ in this case. Therefore, by considering the experimental bounds on the branching ratios, the $`\mu e\gamma `$ seems to be more promising to observe the lepton flavor violation in the model (2) with the bare mass term, if the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings $`\lambda _2^{i4}`$ are comparable each other.

The possible contributions of the $`\lambda _2`$ coupling to the flavor violation in the quark sector are estimated in this model (2) as follows. We have here the significant left-handed squark mixings such as $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{\mathrm{LL}}}^2)_{12}/m_0^2\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}`$, which is the same as the left-handed slepton mixings given in eq.(83). Then, a constraint $`\lambda _2^{14}\lambda _2^{24}10^2`$ is placed from the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ system Gabbiani:1996 . This constraint is, however, less stringent than that from the $`\mu e\gamma `$.

## IV Summary

In summary, we have investigated the lepton flavor violating processes, especially the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay, which are obtained from the mixing between the ordinary leptons and the vectorlike leptons. Although the lepton FCNC’s appear at the tree level, their effects are small naturally because of the hierarchy of the charged lepton masses. Hence, the fine tuning of parameters is not necessary to suppress the FCNC’s sufficiently. In the supersymmetric model, significant effects of lepton flavor violation are obtained from the slepton mixing which is generated by radiative corrections with the ordinary-exotic lepton couplings. In the model (1) without the bare mass term of the vectorlike lepton doublets, the supersymmetric contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay are rather suppressed by $`m_e`$ as well as $`m_\mu `$ due to the approximate $`\mathrm{U}(1)_e\times \mathrm{U}(1)_\mu `$ symmetry, which is similar to the gauge boson mediated contributions. It is, however, remarkable that these supersymmetric contributions to $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ are substantially enhanced by the factor $`\mathrm{tan}^6\beta `$ compared to the gauge boson mediated contributions. Then, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger than 20, $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ might be comparable to the present experimental bound. In the model (2) with the bare mass term, much larger contributions to $`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )`$ are obtained through the slepton mixing. In either case we have shown that the slepton mixing contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay can be large enough to be observed in the near future experiments. It should also be noted that in the model (1) the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ decay may be more promising as seen in eq.(79).

The discovery of $`\mu e\gamma `$ clearly indicates the new physics. The supersymmetric contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay have been considered so far in the literature for other supersymmetric models such as the SUSY GUT Barbieri:1994pv ; Barbieri:1995tw ; hisano2  and the MSSM with right-handed neutrinos Borzumati:1986qx ; hisano ; Hisano:1998fj . The predictions of Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) in these models are within reach of the future experiments. These are, however, the effects of ultra high energy physics much above the electroweak scale. In the supersymmetric model with vectorlike leptons, which may be motivated by the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ type unification, the significant contributions to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay can be obtained due to the exotic leptons and their scalar partners which exist just around the electroweak scale. Therefore, the direct experimental search is feasible for these new particles l3 ; search . It is also observed in the model (2) with the bare mass term of vectorlike leptons that even if the soft supersymmetry breaking scale is around $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, Br($`\mu e\gamma `$) can be comparable to the current experimental bound with relatively large ordinary-exotic lepton couplings. These features are salient to the supersymmetric model with vectorlike leptons in contrast to the other supersymmetric models.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Y. Okada and J. Hisano for useful discussions.