Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/317557780
CITATIONS READS
3 34
4 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mario Reig on 14 June 2017.
Mario Reig,1, ∗ José W.F. Valle,1, † C.A. Vaquera-Araujo,1, ‡ and Frank Wilczek2, 3, 4, 5, §
1
AHEP Group, Institut de Fı́sica Corpuscular – C.S.I.C./Universitat de València, Parc Cientı́fic de Paterna.
C/ Catedrático José Beltrán, 2 E-46980 Paterna (Valencia) - SPAIN
2
Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, Cambridge MA 02139 USA
3
Wilczek Quantum Center, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
4
Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91 Sweden
5
Department of Physics and Origins Project, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 25287 USA
(Dated: June 13, 2017)
Comprehensive - that is, gauge and family - unification using spinors has many attractive features,
but it has been challenged to explain chirality. Here, by combining an orbifold construction with
arXiv:1706.03116v1 [hep-ph] 9 Jun 2017
more traditional ideas, we address that difficulty. Our candidate model features three chiral families
and leads to an acceptable result for quantitative unification of couplings. A potential target for
accelerator and astronomical searches emerges.
energy supersymmetry - the unification of couplings - in We can decompose a generic five-dimensional field as:
a different way. One can, of course, assume that super- ∞
symmetry is present in a more basic underlying theory, 1 X (n)
Φ(x, y) = √ φ (x)fn (y) , (8)
but broken at the Planck scale. Here, however, we will 2L n=0
not address issues of ultraviolet completion.
where φ(n) are the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations and
Our model employs an S1 /Z2 orbifold. Specifically, we
the KK eigenmodes, fn (y), obey:
consider a circular fifth dimension of radius L/π, with
walls at y = 0, L and a warped metric [6]: 1
Z L
dy e(2−s)σ fm (y)fn (y) = δmn , (9)
2L −L
ds2 = e−2σ(y) ηµν dxµ dxν + dy 2 , (1)
where s = 2, 4, 1 when the field is a vector field, a scalar
with or a fermion, respectively [5].
In more detail, according to Eq. (5), the SO(18) gauge
σ(y) = σ(y + 2L) = σ(−y) (2)
adjoint representation will split as
σ(y) = ky for 0 ≤ y ≤ L .
153 = (45, 1)++ + (1, 28)++ + (10, 8)−+ , (10)
We define the equivalence relations [7]
so only adjoint fields corresponding to SO(10) × SO(8)
P0 : y ∼ −y , have zero modes. Because the fifth components, Ay , have
(3)
P1 : y 0 ∼ −y 0 . opposite boundary condition, they have only Kaluza-
Klein modes.
where y 0 ≡ y + L Thus the second relation in Eq. (3) A left-handed fermion field will have a massless zero-
is equivalent to y ∼ y + 2L. In the standard Randall- mode only when it has Neumann (+) boundary condi-
Sundrum terminology, we can say that the bulk region, tions at both Planck and IR branes
0 < y < L, is sandwiched between a Planck brane (y = 0) 1 (0)
and a IR brane (y = L). φ(++) (x, y) = √ (φ++ (x)f (y)(0) + higher modes) ,
πR
The action of these equivalences P0 , P1 on matter (11)
fields is The same occurs with right-handed fields that have
Dirichlet (−) boundary conditions at both branes, while
Φ(x, y) ∼ P0Φ Φ(x, −y) ,
(4) fields with (+, −) or (−, +) do not have zero modes re-
Φ(x, y 0 ) ∼ P1Φ Φ(x, −y 0 ) , gardless of their chirality. The φ(0) (x) zero mode is
a massless field in four dimensions, while the φ(n) (x)
where P0Φ and P1Φ are matrices that represent the action
Kaluza-Klein modes have masses of order O(1/L), and
of the Z2 on the bulk fields. We can classify fields by
do not appear in the low-energy spectrum of the theory.
their (P0Φ , P1Φ ) values. It will be convenient to write the
For the fermion spinor we have [8]:
orbifold conditions for gauge fields as:
256 = (16, 8)++ + (16, 80 )−+ . (12)
Aµ A µ
(x, yj − y) ∼ PjA (x, yj + y)(PjA )−1
Ay −Ay Since only the first of these supports zero modes, the mir-
(5) ror families decouple from low-energy phenomenology.
where (y1 , y2 ) ≡ (0, L). Thus Together with the bulk spinor and gauge fields, we
will incorporate brane-localized scalars which implement
AM (x, y + 2L) = U AM (x, y)U −1 (6) spontaneous symmetry breaking by condensation (Higgs
mechanism). Further breaking to the Standard Model
with U = P1A P0A . might proceed through intermediate steps associated
We will choose with either a Pati-Salam [9] or left-right symmetric [10]
P0A = diag(I10 , −I8 ) , stage. However, here we assume just the simplest case of
(7) direct breaking by Higgs fields in the representations
P1A = diag(I18 ) .
(210, 1) + (126, 1) + (10, 1) . (13)
and the corresponding representation matrices for PjΦ .
These boundary conditions reduce SO(18) → SO(10) × While the scalars (210, 1) and (126, 1) are localized at
SO(8). the Planck brane, the (10, 1) is confined to the IR brane.
3
Quantitative unification of couplings roughly supports We take the cut-off scale to be Λ ∼ k, which implies the
this simplest choice a posteriori, as will appear. The numerical values [12]:
(10, 1) lies at the TeV scale and drives electroweak break-
I 1,0 = 1.024 ,
ing. Planck brane scalars naturally acquire large masses,
I 1,i = 0.147 ,
thanks to the warp factor. (16)
A special feature of SO(8) is the existence of three I 1/2,0 = 1.009 ,
different 8-dimensional representations: vector, spinor, I 2,0 = 1.005 .
and alternate spinor. They are equivalent to one another
For scalars localized on branes, we just change I 2,0 (Λ) →
under a symmetric S3 “triality” group of outer automor-
1. In Fig. (1) we fix, for definiteness, the unification scale
phisms. For our purposes, it may be simplest to regard
at 1015 GeV, and perform a first estimate of the elec-
the spinor 8 of our fermions as an equivalent vector, and
troweak mixing angle within a top-down approach. We
break SO(8) → SO(5) by means of an adjoint, or three
find sin2 θw ≈ 0.215, to be compared with the observed
vectors. Alternatively, we might take the spinor as it
value 0.22. Given our neglect of (inherently uncertain)
comes, and note that it decomposes as 8 → 2 × 1 + 6 un-
threshold corrections and higher order renormalization,
der the natural SU (4) subgroup of SO(8). We can break
this seems an acceptable result (see below).
to that using a spinor. Then exploiting the isomorphism
SU (4) → SO(6), we break down to SO(5) using a vec- α-1
80
tor of SO(6). In either case, we have 8 → 3 × 1 + 5
70
under SO(8) → SO(5). Assuming that this breaking
60
occurs through SO(10) singlet scalars localized on the
50
Planck brane, the details do not influence low energy
phenomenology. 40
60
bi MGU T
αi−1 (MZ ) = αGU
−1
T + log + ∆i , (14) 30
2π MZ
20
where ∆i denote threshold corrections. Within a five di-
10
mensional warped space-time one should take into ac-
count contributions from the Kaluza-Klein modes, as 0
100 105 108 1011 1014 1017
E(GeV)
into a kink in the evolution of the Standard Model cou- the lowest mass dimension operator that creates them
plings at this value. Thanks to the large number of “ac- involves the product of 5 hyperquark fields. Although
tive” flavors, the evolution of g3 is nearly flat all the they are highly stable individually, hyperbaryons can an-
way from few TeV up to the GUT scale (see red curve). nihilate into ordinary matter in pairs. Conversely, they
Above the GUT scale α10 (blue curve) rises again due to might be pair-produced in high energy collisions.
the large Higgs boson multiplets. At high enough temperatures in the early universe,
In Fig. (2) we compare the bottom-up running at one T 10 TeV, hyperbaryons would be in thermal equilib-
loop compared with a similar Standard Model extrapola- rium and their number density will be comparable to the
tion. One sees that our simple unification scenario gives a photon number density. As the temperature cools below
marginal improvement with respect to the minimal Stan- their mass M , their equilibrium abundance will diminish,
dard Model case. However, these results come from a until they become so rare that annihilation cannot keep
rough estimate, taking renormalization group evolution up with the expansion of the universe, and a residual
to first order and neglecting threshold corrections. abundance freezes out. This scenario has a long history
Charged fermion masses arise from the h(10, 1)i vac- in cosmology.
uum expectation value, while neutrino masses can be The ratio of the residual number density of hyper-
induced by the conventional (high scale) seesaw mech- baryons to photons is of order ∼ M/MPlanck , and the
anism [10, 11, 14–17]. Note also that the doublet-triplet freezout temperature is parametrically less than M by a
splitting problem may be solved with a generalization of logarithmic factor, roughly ln M/MPlanck . A more care-
the Dimopoulos-Wilczek mechanism [18] for SO(18), us- ful calculation, following [20], gives
ing a heavy bulk scalar that leaves the SU(2) doublet 2
massless. Ωχ h2 ≈ 10−5 M/T eV (18)
sue spinor unification further, to bring in the space-time [5] T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B586, 141
spinor structure, as recently discussed in Ref.[21]. (2000), hep-ph/0003129.
[6] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370
(1999), hep-ph/9905221.
Acknowledgements [7] A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B613, 3
(2001), hep-ph/0106166.
[8] R. Slansky, Phys.Rept. 79, 1 (1981).
Work supported by Spanish grants FPA2014-58183-P,
[9] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974).
Multidark CSD2009-00064, SEV-2014-0398 (MINECO), [10] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D23,
PROMETEOII/2014/084 (Generalitat Valenciana). 165 (1981).
M.R. would like to thank Paula Sáez for motivation [11] M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc.
during the initial stages of this work. C.A.V-A. ac- C790927, 315 (1979), 1306.4669.
knowledges support form Mexican grant CONACYT [12] L. Randall and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
No. 274397. FW’s work is supported by the U.S. 081801 (2002), hep-th/0108115.
[13] A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4004 (2000), hep-
Department of Energy under grant Contract Number
ph/0005293.
DE-SC0012567 and by the Swedish Research Council [14] S. Glashow, Proc. of 1979 Cargese Summer Institute (M.
under Contract No. 335-2014-7424. Lévy et al, eds.), Plenum Press, New York 687 (1980).
[15] T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979).
[16] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys.Rev. D22, 2227
(1980).
∗
[17] G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys.
Electronic address: mario.reig@ific.uv.es B181, 287 (1981).
†
Electronic address: valle@ific.uv.es [18] S. Dimopoulos and F. Wilczek, Report. No. NSF-ITP-
‡
Electronic address: vaquera@ific.uv.es 82-07 (1982).
§
Electronic address: wilczek@mit.edu
[19] See, for instance, O. Antipin, M. Redi, A. Strumia, and
[1] H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Phys.Rev.Lett. 32, 438
E. Vigiani, JHEP 07, 039 (2015), 1503.08749.
(1974).
[20] K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64,
[2] F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D25, 553 (1982).
615 (1990).
[3] J. Bagger and S. Dimopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B244, 247
[21] Y. BenTov and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D93, 065036 (2016),
(1984).
1505.04312.
[4] P. Chen, G. J. Ding, A. D. Rojas, C. A. Vaquera-Araujo
and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP 01, 007 (2016), 1509.06683.