1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%    dualising the dual standard model   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%                                        %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%    nathan,     1.1                     %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: 

7: \documentstyle[prl,aps,twocolumn,floats,amssymb,epsfig]{revtex}

8: %add manuscript to []part if wish

9: 

10: %put my own redefinitions in here

11: 

12: % some useful symbols

13: \def\bbC{{\mathbb C}}

14: \def\bbN{{\mathbb N}}

15: \def\bbR{{\mathbb R}}

16: \def\bbZ{{\mathbb Z}}

17: \def\su{{\mathfrak{su}}}

18: \def\u{{\mathfrak{u}}}

19: \def\SU{{\rm{SU}}}

20: \def\U{{\rm{U}}}

21: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\ifmmode#1\else\mbox{$#1$}\fi}

22: 

23: % The greek alphabet is abbreviated and useable in normal text

24: \newcommand\al{\mb{\alpha}}

25: \newcommand\as{\mb{\alpha_s}}

26: \newcommand\be{\mb{\beta}}

27: \newcommand\ga{\mb{\gamma}}

28: \newcommand\de{\mb{\delta}}

29: \newcommand\ep{\mb{\epsilon}}

30: \newcommand\varep{\mb{\varepsilon}}

31: \newcommand\ze{\mb{\zeta}}

32: \newcommand\et{\mb{\eta}}

33: %\newcommand\th{\mb{\theta}}

34: \newcommand\io{\mb{\iota}}

35: \newcommand\ka{\mb{\kappa}}

36: \newcommand\la{\mb{\lambda}}

37: \newcommand\muu{\mb{\mu}} % use completely illogical abbreviation for

38: \newcommand\nuu{\mb{\nu}} % two-letter Greek symbols

39: \newcommand\xii{\mb{\xi}}

40: \newcommand\pii{\mb{\pi}}

41: \newcommand\rh{\mb{\rho}}

42: \newcommand\si{\mb{\sigma}}

43: \newcommand\ta{\mb{\tau}}

44: \newcommand\up{\mb{\upsilon}}

45: \newcommand\ph{\mb{\phi}}

46: \newcommand\varph{\mb{\varphi}}

47: \newcommand\ch{\mb{\chi}}

48: \newcommand\ps{\mb{\psi}}

49: \newcommand\om{\mb{\omega}}

50: \newcommand\Ga{\mb{\Gamma}}

51: \newcommand\De{\mb{\Delta}}

52: %\newcommand\Th{\mb{\Theta}}

53: 

54: \newcommand\La{\mb{\Lambda}}

55: \newcommand\Xii{\mb{\Xi}}

56: \newcommand\Pii{\mb{\Pi}}

57: \newcommand\Si{\mb{\Sigma}}

58: \newcommand\Up{\mb{\Upsilon}}

59: \newcommand\Ph{\mb{\Phi}}

60: \newcommand\Ps{\mb{\Psi}}

61: \newcommand\Om{\mb{\Omega}}

62: \newcommand\el{\mb{\ell}}

63: \newcommand\calA{\mb{{\cal A}}}

64: \newcommand\calB{\mb{{\cal B}}}

65: \newcommand\calC{\mb{{\cal C}}}

66: \newcommand\calD{\mb{{\cal D}}}

67: \newcommand\calE{\mb{{\cal E}}}

68: \newcommand\calF{\mb{{\cal F}}}

69: \newcommand\calG{\mb{{\cal G}}}

70: \newcommand\calH{\mb{{\cal H}}}

71: \newcommand\calI{\mb{{\cal I}}}

72: \newcommand\calJ{\mb{{\cal J}}}

73: \newcommand\calK{\mb{{\cal K}}}

74: \newcommand\calL{\mb{{\cal L}}}

75: \newcommand\calM{\mb{{\cal M}}}

76: \newcommand\calN{\mb{{\cal N}}}

77: \newcommand\calO{\mb{{\cal O}}}

78: \newcommand\calP{\mb{{\cal P}}}

79: \newcommand\calQ{\mb{{\cal Q}}}

80: \newcommand\calR{\mb{{\cal R}}}

81: \newcommand\calS{\mb{{\cal S}}}

82: \newcommand\calT{\mb{{\cal T}}}

83: \newcommand\calU{\mb{{\cal U}}}

84: \newcommand\calV{\mb{{\cal V}}}

85: \newcommand\calW{\mb{{\cal W}}}

86: \newcommand\calX{\mb{{\cal X}}}

87: \newcommand\calY{\mb{{\cal Y}}}

88: \newcommand\calZ{\mb{{\cal Z}}}

89:                     

90: % A few other vaguely useful abbreviations

91: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{\begin{equation}#1\end{equation}}

92: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}#1\end{eqnarray}}

93: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

94: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

95: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

96: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

97: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

98: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\parallel \! {#1} \! \parallel}

99: \newcommand{\mod}[1]{\mid \!\! {#1} \!\! \mid}

100: \newcommand{\inprod}[2]{\langle {#1}, {#2} \rangle}

101: \newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}

102: \newcommand{\inproda}[2]{\{ {#1}, {#2} \}}

103: \newcommand{\emb}{\mb{{\rm emb}}}

104: \newcommand{\tr}{\mb{{\rm tr}\,}}

105: \newcommand{\deriv}[2]{\frac{d {#1}}{d {#2}}}

106: \newcommand{\pderiv}[2]{\frac{\partial {#1}}{\partial {#2}}}

107: \newcommand{\x}{\mb{\times}}

108: \newcommand{\rhat}{\mb{\hat{\bm r}}}

109: \newcommand{\corr}[1]{\langle {#1} \rangle}

110: \newcommand{\Ad}{{\rm Ad}}

111: \newcommand{\gsim}

112: {\raise.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}$\:$}}

113: \newcommand{\lsim}

114: {\raise.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}$\:$}}

115: \newcommand{\ts}{\textstyle}

116: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

117: \newcommand{\half}{\mb{\ts \frac{1}{2}}}

118: \newcommand{\quarter}{\mb{\ts \frac{1}{4}}}

119: \newcommand{\third}{\mb{\ts \frac{1}{3}}}

120: \newcommand{\twothird}{\mb{\ts \frac{2}{3}}}

121: \newcommand{\fifth}{\mb{\ts \frac{1}{5}}}

122: \newcommand{\fourfifth}{\mb{\ts \frac{4}{5}}}

123: \newcommand{\wt}[1]{\widetilde{#1}}

124: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

125: \newcommand{\sm}{{\rm SM}}

126: \newcommand{\rmC}{{\rm C}}

127: \newcommand{\rmCp}{{\rm C'}}

128: \newcommand{\rmI}{{\rm I}}

129: \newcommand{\rmY}{{\rm Y}}

130: \newcommand{\minus}{{\mbox{$$-$$}}}

131: 

132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

135: 

136: \begin{document}

137: \draft

138: 

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%       abstract and title page    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: 

141: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname @twocolumnfalse\endcsname

142: \title{Dualising the Dual Standard Model}

143: \author{Nathan\  F.\  Lepora\footnotemark}

144: %\address{101 Larkhall Rise, Clapham, England}

145: \date{February 7, 2001}

146: \maketitle

147: 

148: \begin{abstract}

149: We discuss how the dual standard model and the dualised standard model

150: are complementary theories. That is, how their implications have no

151: overlap, whilst together they explain most features of the standard model. 

152: To illustrate how these two theories might be combined we consider the dual 

153: standard model in a theta vacuum. Whilst there are issues to be considered, 

154: the dual standard model does then appear to become naturally 

155: dualised. This supports an origin of a dual formulation of the 

156: standard model through the properties of SU(5) solitons in a theta vacuum.

157: \end{abstract}

158: \pacs{pacs no.s.}]

159: 

160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%         the text   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

161: 

162: \section{Introduction}

163: \footnotetext[1]{\ email: n$\_$lepora@hotmail.com} 

164: 

165: Recently a remarkable correspondence has been discovered between the 

166: monopoles from Georgi-Glashow gauge unification and the observed 

167: elementary particles. 

168: Vachaspati found that the magnetic charges of the five stable

169: SU(5) monopoles have a one-to-one identification with the electric charges

170: of the five multiplets in one standard model generation~\cite{vach95}.

171: Motivated by this he conjectured that the elementary particles may originate as

172: solitons from SU(5) gauge unification.

173: 

174: A concrete way for examining this conjecture has been proposed by Liu and 

175: Vachaspati in the form of the {\em dual standard model}~\cite{vachdsm}. 

176: This relies on

177: the notion, familiar from electromagnetism, that electric particles can

178: also be described by monopoles in the dual gauge potential. In this sense

179: the dual standard model would be the dual description of the standard model,

180: with all of the elementary particles represented instead as monopoles.

181: 

182: By expressing the standard model in this dual formulation it is possible that

183: there may emerge features that are presently hidden within the usual

184: particle description. That is, a dual standard model

185: may uncover a hidden simplicity and regularity of form that could prove 

186: crucial to understanding the nature and origin of the standard model. 

187: Also possible is that new physics may have to be included to arrive at

188: a simple and consistent form.

189: 

190: This discovery of the SU(5) monopole-particle correspondence

191: strongly hints that a dual standard model should be formulated around the 

192: monopoles from gauge unification. In Vachaspati's words~\cite{vach95}:

193: {\em This correspondence suggests that perhaps unification should be based on

194: a magnetic SU(5) symmetry group with only a bosonic sector and the presently

195: observed fermions are really the monopoles of that theory.}

196: Much work still needs to be done on this proposal, but several encouraging

197: features do occur. For instance the incorporation of spin~\cite{vachspin} 

198: and a consistent picture of confinement~\cite{vachdsm,gold99}. 

199: 

200: In this paper we are concerned with the construction of the dual standard model

201: and whether it could be naturally dualised, 

202: in the sense of Chan and Tsou~\cite{chandual}.

203: In their {\em dualised standard model}~\cite{chandsm} 

204: (which should not be confused with the dual standard model) they interpret many

205: properties of the elementary particles as emerging from duality; for instance

206: three generations arise from just one generation of dyons. 

207: Remarkably this gives accurate estimations for both the masses and mixing 

208: angles of the elementary particles~\cite{chanckm}.  

209: 

210: A central point of this paper is that both the methodology and the conclusions

211: of the dual and dualised standard models appear to be

212: complementary to each other. That is, there is no overlap in their 

213: conclusions, whilst taking the two models together appears to explain most

214: observed features of the elementary particles. For this reason we examine

215: whether these two models could be considered together.

216: 

217: To illustrate how these models might be combined we investigate

218: the dual standard model in a theta vacuum. Whilst

219: there are issues to be considered, it appears that the initial 

220: assumptions of the dualised standard model can emerge. In this sense the dual 

221: standard model becomes naturally dualised. Also, giving further

222: corroboration, this calculation appears to explain 

223: the chirality assignments of the elementary fermions; a feature that 

224: cannot be derived in either of the original models.

225: 

226: If the above two models can be combined together in such a simple and natural

227: way then perhaps a very simple theory of particle and gauge

228: unification could ensue. Indeed it seems possible that 

229: {\em all features of a dual standard model could naturally emerge within the 

230: properties of SU(5) monopoles in a theta vacuum.}

231: As we have mentioned such a behaviour does seem to be occurring. However more

232: research is necessary to determine whether this can be fully realised. 

233: 

234: The composition of this paper is as follows. In sec.~(\ref{secstart}) 

235: we briefly discuss the dual and dualised standard models and how they relate

236: to each other. Then in sec.~(\ref{dual}) we discuss how the two models may

237: naturally combine in a theta vacuum. Finally in sec.~(\ref{conc})

238: we draw our conclusions.

239: 

240: Before starting we note that an alternative viewpoint for realising a

241: dual standard model has been presented by Vachaspati and Steer~\cite{steer}.

242: 

243: \section{Duality and the Standard Model}

244: \label{secstart}

245: 

246: In this section we quickly remind the reader of some results within

247: the dual standard model and the dualised standard model. This

248: discussion is also intended to clarify the complementary 

249: roles these theories presently take. 

250: 

251: \subsection{The Dual Standard Model}

252: \label{dsm}

253: 

254: The construction of a dual standard model is based around a Georgi-Glashow

255: unification~\cite{gg} of the standard model gauge symmetry within an SU(5) 

256: group~\footnote{Note that (\ref{su5}) relies on the

257: elementary particles forming representations of $\SU(3)\x\SU(2)\x\U(1)/\bbZ_6$;

258: as is implied by an observed $\bbZ_6$ relation between their colour,

259: isospin and hypercharge assignments~\cite{cs81}.}

260: \beq

261: \label{su5}

262: \SU(5)\rightarrow H_\sm = \SU(3)_\rmC\x\SU(2)_\rmI\x\U(1)_\rmY/\bbZ_6,

263: \eeq

264: which breaks via condensation~\cite{higgs} of an adjoint scalar field. 

265: This implies a spectrum of stable SU(5) monopoles, having various colours, 

266: isospins and hypercharges. Their magnetic charges are specified by the 

267: magnetic field 

268: \beq

269: \label{b}

270: \bm B \sim \frac{1}{2g}\frac{\rhat}{r^2}M,\ \ \ \ 

271: M=m_\rmC T_\rmC + m_\rmI T_\rmI + m_\rmY T_\rmY,

272: \eeq

273: with a suitable choice of generators, for instance,

274: \bea

275: T_\rmC ={\rm diag}

276: (\mbox{-}\ts\frac{1}{3},\mbox{-}\ts\frac{1}{3},\ts\frac{2}{3},0,0),\ \ \ 

277: T_\rmI = {\rm diag}(0,0,0,\mbox{-}1,1),\nn\\

278: T_\rmY = {\rm diag}(1,1,1,\mbox{-}\ts\frac{3}{2},\mbox{-}\ts\frac{3}{2}).

279: \hspace{3em}

280: \label{gen}

281: \eea

282: When the scalar masses

283: are much smaller than the gauge masses Gardner and Harvey showed there 

284: are five, topologically distinct, stable monopoles with magnetic charges 

285: forming the pattern~\cite{gard84}:

286: 

287: \begin{table}[h]

288: \caption{SU(5) monopole charges.}

289: \begin{eqnarray*}

290: \begin{array}{|c|c|ccc|c|}

291: \hline

292: {\rm topology\ }n &

293: {\rm diag}\ M &m_{\rm C}&m_{\rm I}&m_{\rm Y}&{\rm multiplet} \\

294: \hline

295: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&& \\

296: 1&(0,0,1,$-$1,0)& 1 & \half & \third & (u, d)_L  \\

297: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&& \\

298: 2&(0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1)& $-1$ & 0 & \twothird & \bar{d}_L  \\

299: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&& \\

300: 3&(1,1,1,$-$2,$-$1) & 0 & $-$\half & 1 & (\bar{\nu}, \bar{e})_R\\

301: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&& \\

302: 4&(1,1,2,$-$2,$-$2)& 1 & 0 & \ts\frac{4}{3} & u_R \\

303: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&& \\

304: 6&(2,2,2,$-$3,$-$3)& 0 & 0 & 2 & \bar{e}_L \\

305: \hline 

306: \end{array}

307: \end{eqnarray*}

308: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

309: \label{tab1}

310: \end{table}

311: 

312: Based upon this a dual standard model

313: could be constructed along the following lines:

314: 

315: \noindent (i)

316: First and foremost the magnetic charges in table~\ref{tab1} are identical to 

317: the electric charges in one standard model generation~\cite{vach95}. This 

318: suggests that one generation of standard model particles have a monopole 

319: description as solitons from a dual $\wt\SU(5)$ unification of the magnetic

320: gauge symmetry 

321: $\wt{H}_\sm = \wt\SU(3)_\rmC\x\wt\SU(2)_\rmI\x\wt\U(1)_\rmY/\bbZ_6$ in the 

322: dual standard model.

323: 

324: \noindent (ii)

325: To represent standard model fermions these solitons should have an

326: intrinsic one-half angular momentum. This can

327: be naturally achieved through the fermions from bosons 

328: effect~\cite{jackiw:spin,gold:spin}; from which the

329: dyons formed from combining SU(5) monopoles and quanta of a 

330: $\bm 5$ scalar field $H$ have the requisite angular momenta~\cite{vachspin}. 

331: 

332: \noindent (iii) 

333: Confinement is expressed through breaking dual colour

334: $\wt\SU(3)_\rmC\rightarrow\bbZ_3$~\cite{vachdsm,gold99}, which attaches

335: the appropriate monopoles to topological vortices.

336: 

337: \noindent (iv)

338: When normalising the generators (\ref{gen})

339: to tr$\,T^2=1$ the gauge-monopole couplings naturally scale

340: within the minimal coupling $g A_\mu^a T^a$. This suggests the dual 

341: standard model unifies when

342: $\ts\frac{1}{3}\,g_\rmC = g_\rmI = \surd\ts\frac{15}{2}\,g_\rmY$~\cite{meunif}.

343: Curiously such scaled coupling do unify, although the scale of unification

344: is rather low and could prove problematic:

345:  

346: \begin{figure}[h]

347: \begin{center}

348: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=14em \epsfbox{couplings.eps}

349: \end{center}

350: \caption{Rescaled running gauge couplings.}

351: \label{fig1}

352: \end{figure}

353: 

354: \subsection{The Dualised Standard Model}

355: 

356: To construct a dualised standard model Chan and Tsou propose the

357: elementary fermions are dyonically charged, with dynamics depending

358: upon both an electric and magnetic gauge symmetry~\cite{chandual}

359: \beq

360: \label{dsd}

361: H_\sm \x \wt{H}_\sm.

362: \eeq

363: Note an independent treatment of Abelian dualised 

364: gauge symmetry has been given by Kleinert~\cite{kleinert}.

365: 

366: The main implication of the dualised structure (\ref{dsd}) is associated 

367: with the existence and properties of three standard model 

368: generations~\cite{chandsm}. Following a theorem of 't~Hooft, colour 

369: confinement implies dual colour $\wt\SU(3)_\rmC$ breaks to 

370: triviality~\cite{chanord}. Then a dual colour multiplet

371: \[

372: \psi = (\psi^{\wt r},\psi^{\wt g},\psi^{\wt b}),

373: \]

374: splits into three components, with each component's mass determined

375: by the details of the breaking. Interpreting this dual colour as a horizontal 

376: generational symmetry naturally leads to three generations of fermions from one

377: generation of dual colour charged particles. 

378: 

379: To describe symmetry breaking the relevant condensing scalar degrees 

380: of freedom must be identified. Chan and Tsou claim such scalar

381: fields occur as frame vectors within the non-Abelian electric-magnetic 

382: duality. In this sense these scalar fields are interpreted as independent 

383: degrees of freedom arising naturally from the dualised nature of (\ref{dsd}).

384: Within a dualised standard model this gives two isospin doublets 

385: and three dual colour triplets.

386: 

387: This structure allows an estimation of fermion masses by

388: constructing Yukawa couplings between the fermions and the dual colour

389: scalar fields. Analogous to electroweak theory this is possible

390: when only the isospin doublet fermions are dual colour charged. 

391: At tree level this coupling diagonalises into only one massive generation, 

392: which roughly approximates the standard model. To first order non-zero masses

393: are induced for the other two generations~\cite{chanckm}:

394: 

395: \begin{table}[h]

396: \caption{Particle mass predictions.}

397: \begin{eqnarray*}

398: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|}

399: \hline

400: & \ \ \ {\rm calculation}\ \ \  & \ \ \ {\rm experiment}\ \ \  \\

401: \hline

402: m_c & 1.327\, {\rm GeV} & 1.0-1.6\, {\rm GeV} \\

403: m_s & 173\, {\rm MeV} & 100-300\, {\rm MeV} \\

404: m_\mu & 106\, {\rm MeV} & 105.7\, {\rm MeV} \\

405: m_u & 235\, {\rm MeV} & 2-8\, {\rm MeV} \\

406: m_d & 17\, {\rm MeV} & 5-15\, {\rm MeV} \\

407: m_e & 7\, {\rm MeV} & 0.511\, {\rm MeV} \\

408: \hline 

409: \end{array}

410: \end{eqnarray*}

411: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

412: \end{table}

413: 

414: \noindent 

415: Note the poor match for the lightest generation, which they attribute

416: to their approximation techniques.

417: The CKM mixing angles also derive from the same inputs   

418: \[

419: \mod{V_{rs}} =

420: \left( 

421: \begin{array}{ccc} 

422: 0.9752 & 0.2215 & 0.0048 \\

423: 0.2210 & 0.9744 & 0.0401 \\

424: 0.0136 & 0.0381 & 0.9992 

425: \end{array} \right);

426: \]

427: again these compare favourably with experiment

428: \[

429: \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 

430: 0.9745 - 0.976 & 0.217 - 0.224 & 0.0018 - 0.0045 \\

431: 0.217 - 0.224 & 0.9737 - 0.9753 & 0.036 - 0.042 \\

432: 0.004 - 0.013 & 0.035 - 0.042 & 0.9991 - 0.9994

433: \end{array} \right).

434: \]

435: 

436: \subsection{Complementarity of the Dual and Dualised Standard Models}

437: 

438: In this section we discuss how the above two models complement each other.

439: That is, how their physical implications have no overlap, whilst their total

440: implications explain most of the standard model.

441: It is important to stress that these models are completely independent, 

442: and that they discuss different aspects of non-Abelian duality.

443: 

444: Firstly, the principle success of the dual standard model is to predict the 

445: electric charges for just one standard model generation, whilst it gives

446: no explanation for three generations. Complementary to this

447: the dualised standard model takes these electric charges as input, 

448: whilst deriving three generations.

449: 

450: Secondly, the dual standard model explains the origin of spin through

451: considering dyons instead of monopoles. Complementary to this the dualised

452: standard model takes these spins as input, whilst assuming the fermions are

453: dyonic to derive three generations. Later we will see that the specific 

454: representations required to achieve these effects can be consistent.

455: 

456: Thirdly, no particle masses have been derived in the dual standard model, 

457: whilst this is a central aspect of the dualised standard model.

458: Currently the only indication for the dual standard model mass scale is

459: through the gauge unification in fig.~\ref{fig1}, which suggests a few GeV.

460: 

461: Finally for electroweak symmetry breaking and confinement the dual standard

462: model assumes the necessary scalar field structure. 

463: Complementary to this the dualised standard model derives such

464: fields from the properties of non-Abelian duality.

465: 

466: We hope this gives some motivation for treating these two theories 

467: together. For further corroboration we now make some additional comments.

468: 

469: The point of both the dualised standard model and the dual standard model

470: is to express the standard model in a simpler form. The dualised standard

471: model does this by reducing the situation to essentially one generation

472: of fermions. In the dual standard model one generation of fermions is

473: understood to originate from gauge unification. In this sense the dual 

474: standard model 

475: reduces the fermions to simply a consequence of gauge interaction.

476: 

477: Finally the dual and the dualised standard model complement each other

478: on a theoretical level. The dual standard model is based on the notion that 

479: electric particles can also be described as monopoles in the dual 

480: gauge potential. The dualised standard model is based on a quite different 

481: aspect of duality, where both electric and magnetic interactions are 

482: considered together as a dualised theory.

483: 

484: \subsection{Combining the Dual and Dualised Standard Models}

485: 

486: In the previous section we discussed how the dual and dualised standard

487: models are complementary theories. This motivates that perhaps they

488: should be combined together to give a full description of the standard model.

489: A natural way to do this would be to dualise the dual standard model by

490: somehow inducing colour charges on the monopoles.

491: 

492: However as the two models presently stand there are difficulties with this

493: dualisation. This is because the construction of dual colour Yukawa couplings 

494: requires dual colour matter assignments ${\bm 3}_L, {\bm 1}_R\x 3$,

495: with only $(u,d)_L$ and $(\nu,e)_L$ dyonic~\cite{chandsm}. 

496: That is, the dualised standard model

497: derives three generations by postulating a dual colour structure analogous 

498: to electroweak isospin. The evidence for this are the rather accurate 

499: estimations of fermion masses and mixing angles~\cite{chanckm}.

500: 

501: However this structure is not compatible with dualising the dual standard 

502: model. There only one generation of $u_R$, $d_R$ and $e_R$ are derived; not 

503: the three required to construct dual colour Yukawa couplings. Instead,

504: from a dual standard model perspective, it appears natural that

505: all SU(5) monopoles should somehow gain dual colour charge; then

506: three generations would originate solely from dual colour. Certainly the

507: physical mechanism of dual colour breaking still appears to apply, although

508: the fermion masses and mixing angles would not.

509: 

510: Perhaps an investigation of the effective 

511: couplings between monopoles may yield similar couplings; for

512: instance if ${\bm 3}_R$ is first broken to ${\bm 1}_R\x 3$

513: then such Yukawa couplings can be constructed. In the dualised standard model 

514: these Yukawa couplings are effective anyway; since they are not

515: gauge invariant unless derived from a non-renormalisable 

516: interaction~\cite{chandsm}.

517: 

518: Perhaps many of these issues relate to quantising the dual

519: standard model (indeed we will see later there are other problems 

520: with quantisation). As a preliminary investigation one might determine

521: whether such dual colour charges may naturally occur within the classical 

522: monopole theory. That is the subject of the next section.

523: 

524: \section{Dualising the Dual Standard Model}

525: \label{dual}

526: 

527: In the previous section we motivated that perhaps one should 

528: combine the dual standard model and the dualised standard model together.

529: Within this section we give an illustration of the sort of methods that 

530: could be used.

531: 

532: Essentially we examine here only whether the most basic proposal in

533: the dualised standard model is consistent with a dual standard model. That

534: is whether the dual standard model can be naturally dualised such that

535: every elementary particle has the dual colour required for three generations.

536: In addition we check whether this procedure is consistent with the parity 

537: and angular momentum assignments of the elementary particles.

538: 

539: We should make it clear that there are some difficult issues 

540: when extrapolating the 

541: following to the fully quantised regime. These issues and some potential

542: resolutions are discussed in sec.~(\ref{problems}). For this reason 

543: the following represents an investigation of whether a consistent 

544: classical/semi-classical theory can be obtained. 

545: 

546: \subsection{SU(5) Monopoles in a Theta Vacuum}

547: \label{sec1}

548: 

549: To start we consider the effects of a theta vacuum on the SU(5)

550: monopole spectrum of sec.~(\ref{dsm}). Such a theta vacuum has been motivated

551: to play an important role in formulating a dual standard 

552: model~\cite{vach95,vachdsm}. This is because the SU(5) monopole spectrum is 

553: parity invariant (unlike the standard model) unless a theta vacuum is 

554: included.

555: 

556: The effect of a theta term in the SU(5) gauge theory

557: \beq

558: \label{ltheta}

559: \calL_\theta = \frac{\theta g^2}{8\pi^2}\,\tr\bm E \cdot \bm B

560: \eeq

561: is to induce theta dependent electric charge~\cite{witten} on the monopoles in 

562: table~\ref{tab1}. A simple way to see this is to consider 

563: the interaction of a monopole with a gauge field $(\phi,\bm a)$. 

564: Following an argument of Coleman's~\cite{cole} 

565: the electric and magnetic fields  

566: \beq

567: \bm E = \bm\nabla \phi,\hspace{1em}

568: \bm B = \bm\nabla \wedge \bm a + \frac{1}{2g} \frac{\rhat}{r^2}M, 

569: \eeq

570: are substituted into (\ref{ltheta}) to give, upon integration by parts,

571: \beq

572: L_\theta = \int {\rm d}^3\bm r\  \calL_\theta =

573:  - \frac{\theta g}{2\pi} \int {\rm d}^3\bm r\  \de^3(\bm r)\,\tr\, \phi M.

574: \eeq

575: But this is precisely the interaction between the

576: gauge potential and an electric charge $Q_\theta = - \ts\frac{\theta}{2\pi}M$.

577: Consequently each monopole in table~\ref{tab1} gains a theta

578: dependent electric charge, becoming a dyon

579: \beq

580: \label{thetae}

581: \bm E \sim -\frac{\theta g}{2\pi}\frac{\hat\bm r}{4\pi r^2}M,\hspace{1em}

582: \bm B \sim \frac{1}{2g}\frac{\hat\bm r}{r^2}M.

583: \eeq

584: 

585: Here we are particularly interested in the effects of this theta vacuum

586: on the interactions of these monopoles with electric charges.

587: To be specific we consider the bosons associated with the components

588: $H_i$, $i=1,..,5$, of a $\bm 5$ scalar field. These source a non-Abelian

589: electric field

590: \beq

591: \bm E = g \frac{\rhat}{4\pi r^2}Q_i,

592: \eeq

593: with $Q_i$ the electric generator, which has the form

594: \bea

595: \label{Qi}

596: Q_1&=&{\rm diag}(\fourfifth,-\fifth,-\fifth,-\fifth,-\fifth),\nn\\

597: \cdots && \hspace{3em}\cdots\hspace{3em} \\

598: Q_5&=&{\rm diag}(-\fifth,-\fifth,-\fifth,-\fifth,\fourfifth).\nn

599: \eea

600: Similarly the $\bar H$ bosons have electric generators $\bar{Q}_i$

601: of opposite sign.

602: Then $\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\}$ form a colour triplet and $\{Q_4,Q_5\}$ form 

603: an isospin doublet; each with the appropriate colour and isospin charges.

604: 

605: Note that this scalar field $H$ associated with the above bosons

606: is directly relevant 

607: to constructing a dual standard model. In points (ii) and (iii) of 

608: sec.~(\ref{dsm}) this field is used to obtain fermions from bosons 

609: and for breaking dual colour.

610: 

611: Because of the global properties of 

612: charge around a monopole the theta induced charge is always associated with

613: an Abelian interaction. That is, not all electric charges can be defined

614: in the presence of a monopole (with some gaining an infinite energy string

615: singularity), but the theta induced charge is necessarily well defined

616: as a $\U(1)_M$ interaction~\cite{globcol,bala}. This induced charge then 

617: interacts with the $H_i$ bosons through their $\U(1)_M$ charge components.

618: 

619: The feature we wish to draw attention to is that the theta induced charge will

620: attract some electric charges and repel others in a parity violating manner. 

621: Whether

622: they are attracted or repelled depends upon whether the $H_i$ bosons have 

623: positive/negative $\U(1)_M$ charges. This provides a natural,

624: parity violating mechanism for forming dyonic composites. Many of these have

625: one-half angular momentum, as is necessary to construct a dual standard model.

626: 

627: This can be illustrated by considering the theta induced Coulomb potential 

628: between a monopole with generator $M$ and a charge $Q$

629: \beq

630: \label{pot}

631: V(r) \sim -\frac{\theta g^2}{2\pi} \frac{\tr QM}{4\pi r},

632: \hspace{2em} r\gsim R_c.

633: \eeq

634: Here both the charge and monopole are approximated as point sources 

635: outside the monopole core. Inside the core the magnetic field (and hence

636: induced electric field) decreases continuously to zero by Gauss's law.

637: Clearly this potential is binding/repulsive depending upon whether

638: $\tr{QM}$ is positive/negative.

639:  

640: That the potential (\ref{pot}) results in a parity violating spectrum of 

641: bound dyons is because of the even/odd properties of the electric/magnetic 

642: fields under parity inversion. Then $\calP:(Q,M)\mapsto(Q,-M)$

643: takes a bound dyon into a non-bound state.

644: 

645: An interesting property of the stable dyons is that their angular momentum 

646: assignments

647: also violate parity. For scalar electric charges the angular momentum of the

648: resulting dyonic composites is

649: \beq

650: \label{J}

651: J_3 = \int {\rm d}^3r\, [\bm r \wedge (\bm E \wedge \bm B)]_3= \half\,\tr{QM},

652: \eeq

653: with the monopole-charge axis orientated to $\hat\bm x_3$. 

654: Then their parity conjugates have the opposite angular momentum.

655: 

656: \subsection{The Dual Standard Model in a Theta Vacuum}

657: 

658: We now apply the above properties of a theta vacuum to the 

659: construction of a dual standard model. The central idea is to use the theta

660: binding effect to naturally form a parity violating spectrum of SU(5)

661: dyons, all of which have one-half angular momenta.

662: 

663: As well as trying to achieve angular momentum assignments compatible with

664: the standard model we would also like the resulting dyon spectrum to be

665: compatible with obtaining three generations through the methods of Chan

666: and Tsou. To help along these lines we take some indications from

667: the dualised standard model. There they require dual colour to be broken,

668: whilst dual isospin appears to be confining, with a large confinement scale 

669: (say over a hundred GeV) to not be presently observed.

670: 

671: Therefore we do not consider SU(5) dyons with electric isospin, as 

672: in the dualised standard model these are confined into very heavy dual 

673: isospin hadrons. As we will see this conveniently simplifies

674: the following calculations.

675: 

676: Such composite dyons can be formed by combining the monopoles in 

677: table~\ref{tab1} with the charges $\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\}$ in (\ref{Qi}). However 

678: these are not the only dyons present in the dual standard model;

679: there are also non-Abelian analogues of the Julia-Zee dyon~\cite{julia75}. 

680: In principle the theta induced charge can also 

681: bind their electric charge to the monopoles.

682: 

683: The description of these monopole gauge excitations

684: is quite involved and we refer to ref.~\cite{comp} for a fuller

685: discussion. Care has to be taken with the global properties of electric charge,

686: because not all charges are well defined around a magnetic monopole.

687: The dyon spectrum is obtained upon performing a semi-classical quantisation

688: of the global electric degrees of freedom around a monopole. This results in 

689: the following spectrum of possible electric charges, with colour,

690: isospin and hypercharges defined through

691: $Q=q_\rmC T_\rmC + q_\rmI T_\rmI + q_\rmY T_\rmY$:

692: 

693: \begin{table}[h]

694: \caption{Gauge excitations of the monopoles.}

695: \begin{eqnarray*}

696: \begin{array}{|c|ccc|c|}

697: \hline

698: {\rm diag}\ Q &q_{\rm C}&q_{\rm I}&q_{\rm Y}&{\rm allowed\ on} \\

699: \hline

700: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

701: (0,0,1,$-$1,0)& 1 & \half & \third & {\rm all} \\

702: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

703: (0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1)& $-1$ & 0 & \twothird & \bar d, (\bar\nu, \bar e), u, 

704: \bar e\\ 

705: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

706: (1,1,1,$-$2,$-$1) & 0 & $-$\half & 1 & (\bar\nu, \bar e), u, \bar e\\

707: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

708: (1,1,2,$-$2,$-$2)& 1 & 0 & \ts\frac{4}{3} & (\bar\nu, \bar e), u, \bar e\\

709: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

710: (1,2,2,$-$3,$-$2)& $-$1 & \half & \ts\frac{5}{3} & (\bar\nu,\bar e), u, 

711: \bar e\\

712: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

713: (2,2,2,$-$3,$-$3)& 0 & 0 & 2 & (\bar\nu, \bar e), u, \bar e \\

714: \hline 

715: \end{array}

716: \end{eqnarray*}

717: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

718: \label{tab3}

719: \end{table}

720: 

721: \noindent

722: Here we restrict our attention to the lower charged and therefore least 

723: energetic excitations. Of these there are three that are 

724: uncharged under isospin

725: \bea

726: Q_\rmC &=& {\rm diag}(0,1,1,\minus 1,\minus 1),\hspace{2em}

727: Q_\rmCp = {\rm diag}(1,1,2,\minus 2,\minus 2),\nn\\

728: &&\hspace{3em}Q_\rmY = {\rm diag}(2,2,2,\minus 3,\minus 3).

729: \eea

730: From now on we will take these charges as input, and not consider

731: their origin from the semi-classical quantisation.

732: 

733: Now we need to determine the angular momenta of these gauge excited dyons. 

734: For this there are two situations:

735: 

736: \noindent (i) Spherically symmetric dyons have vanishing angular momentum. 

737: There is a simple criterion for determining whether the dyons are spherically

738: symmetric from their $(Q,M)$ charge, as described in sec.~(VIII) of 

739: ref.~\cite{comp}. 

740: 

741: \noindent (ii) Otherwise dyons will have angular momentum, although there

742: are many issues that have not been fully understood. As a simple model

743: for calculating their angular momentum we consider $Q$ to be composed of 

744: two components $Q=Q_0+Q_s$, where $Q_0$ defines a spherically symmetric dyon. 

745: Then the angular momentum originates from $Q_s$, which we interpret 

746: as a single gauge boson in the background of the monopole. This gives

747: \beq

748: \label{gex}

749: J_3 = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \half\,\tr Q_sM - 1,\ \ \ \tr Q_sM\geq 0,\\

750: \half\,\tr Q_sM + 1,\ \ \ \tr Q_sM\leq 0, \end{array} \right.

751: \eeq

752: in which we have included the spin of the gauge boson as being energetically

753: orientated opposite to the magnetic field~\cite{comp} and taken the 

754: monopole-charge axis as $\bm x_3$.

755: 

756: It should be noted that there are many issues with gauge excitations 

757: that have not been fully understood. However the above configurations

758: are present in the SU(5) monopole theory, and one may use Goldhaber's

759: argument~\cite{gold:spin} to show they are fermionic. It is possible that 

760: (\ref{gex}) is only valid for some gauge

761: excitations, although we have checked that those dyons in table~\ref{tab4}

762: below are compatible with the semi-classical analysis of Dixon~\cite{dixon84}.

763: 

764: From this we can determine the angular momenta 

765: of the appropriate dyons in the dual standard model:

766: 

767: \begin{table}[h]

768: \caption{Angular momenta of the dyons.}

769: \begin{eqnarray*}

770: \begin{array}{|c|c|cccccc|}

771: \hline

772: n & {\rm multiplet} & Q_1 & Q_2 & Q_3 & Q_\rmC & Q_\rmC' & Q_\rmY \\

773: \hline

774: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

775: 1&(u,d) & 0 & 0 & \half & - & - & - \\

776: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

777: 2&\bar d & 0 & \half & \half & 0 & - & - \\ 

778: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

779: 3&(\bar\nu, \bar e) & \half & \half & \half  & -\half & \pm 1 &  0 \\

780: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

781: 4&u & \half & \half & 1 & -\half & 0 & 0 \\

782: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

783: 6&\bar e & 1 & 1 & 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 \\

784: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&&&&& \\

785: 6&\bar e^* & \half & \half & 2 & \half & 0 & 0 \\

786: \hline 

787: \end{array}

788: \end{eqnarray*}

789: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

790: \label{tab4}

791: \end{table}

792: \noindent

793: In this table we also 

794: include an $\bar e^*$ monopole with $M=(1,1,4,\minus 3,\minus 3)$,

795: which has extra non-topological magnetic charge.

796: Vachaspati and Steer have motivated that this

797: non-topological degree of freedom relates to the internal structure

798: of the monopole, so that the long range magnetic interactions are

799: unaffected. For more details we refer to their paper~\cite{steer}.

800: 

801: For the scalar boson-monopole composites 

802: only the states $(Q,M)$ with non-zero angular momentum can be bound 

803: configurations. This is because both the binding potential (\ref{pot}) and

804: angular momentum (\ref{J}) are proportional to tr$\, QM$. The charge 

805: conjugates $(-Q,-M)$ have also the same stability and 

806: angular momenta, whilst the parity conjugates $(Q,-M)$ have

807: the opposite stabilities.

808: 

809: In conclusion this mechanism has been of some success within

810: the dual standard model. Certainly all of the monopoles become

811: naturally dyonic, with a spectrum of non-zero angular momenta that violates

812: parity maximally. Also all are colour charged, 

813: as is consistent with a dualised standard model. However there are problems:

814: 

815: \noindent (i)

816: There is no $\bar{e}$ dyon with one-half angular momentum. To

817: construct such a state requires two quanta of $H$, which is problematic as 

818: such a dyon possesses dual isospin.

819: 

820: \noindent (ii)

821: As well as the desired standard model states there are other angular momentum

822: analogues for the $(\bar\nu,\bar e)$, $u$ and $\bar{e}$ dyons. Certainly

823: no such states have been observed in the standard model.

824: 

825: A way of solving problem (i) is to instead consider the $\bar e^*$ monopole,

826: which has dyons with one-half angular momentum. Later we will see that

827: the $\bar e$ dyons have a complicated energy spectrum at

828: non-zero theta. This raises the possibility that a dyon with

829: non-topological magnetic charge could be the admissible  state.

830: 

831: Problem (ii) is less straightforward. It seems that some energetic 

832: criterion should be applied. We examine this in the next section.

833: 

834: \subsection{Dualising the Dual Standard Model}

835: \label{sec3}

836: 

837: As the above mechanism stands there is another reason why all

838: the above composites cannot represent

839: standard model fermions. One should require each composite's mass to be

840: less than their possible decay products, since only then are the dyons

841: absolutely stable to decay. Note that similar ideas have been 

842: proposed in ref.~\cite{steer}, although the following discussion

843: is very different from that.

844: 

845: In this section we will take the charges and spins of the dyons as

846: input and consider only the classical charge-monopole interactions.

847: This is because there are some difficult issues associated with a fully

848: quantised treatment, as discussed in the next section.

849: 

850: The SU(5) monopole masses can be estimated in a fairly simple way from their 

851: solitonic properties. Their scalar core energy and magnetic mass 

852: are determined by the coupling $g$, vev $v$, and core-size $R_c$

853: \bea

854: \calE_s &\sim& \half\ds\int_{r<R_c}{\rm d}^3r\,\tr\!\mod{\bm D \Phi}^2 

855: \sim 2\pi R_cv^2,\\

856: \calE_B &\sim& \half\ds\int_{r>R_c}{\rm d}^3r \,\tr B^2 

857: \sim \frac{2\pi}{g^2R_c}\mod{M}^2,

858: \eea

859: where $\mod{M}^2=\tr{M^2}$. For simplicity we approximate the scalar and 

860: gauge core sizes as equal, which does not appreciably effect the central 

861: result~(\ref{elen}) below.

862: An equilibrium between the scalar and magnetic energies leads to

863: \beq

864: \label{rm}

865: R_c \sim \frac{\mod{M}}{gv},\hspace{2em} 

866: m_{\rm mon}\sim \calE_B+\calE_s \sim \frac{4\pi v}{g}\mod{M}.

867: \eeq

868: It is interesting that the electromagnetic mass essentially

869: determines the monopole's mass $m_{\rm mon}$. 

870: The problem of electromagnetic mass has

871: a long history (see ref.~\cite{feyn}); for instance it diverges in many 

872: situations. For the above solitons the role of electromagnetic 

873: mass is clear: it simply constitutes half of the monopole's mass.

874: 

875: The electromagnetic mass is also central to calculating the

876: soliton's mass in a theta vacuum. Then the total mass is the sum of 

877: $m_{\rm mon}$ in (\ref{rm}) and the mass in the theta induced electric field

878: (\ref{thetae})

879: \beq

880: \calE_E \sim \half\ds\int_{r>R_c}{\rm d}^3r \,\tr E^2

881: \sim \frac{\theta^2g^3v}{32\pi^3}\mod{M}.

882: \eeq

883: 

884: An interesting point is that a dyon's electric charge 

885: can cancel off part of the theta induced electric field. 

886: This will decrease the electric mass of the dyon.

887: There are many issues with this observation, but let us 

888: explore the consequences for the stable dyon spectrum.

889: 

890: Considering a dyon $(Q,M)$ in a theta vacuum,

891: \beq

892: \bm E \sim g\frac{\rhat}{4\pi r^2}(Q-\frac{\theta}{2\pi}M),\hspace{2em}

893: \bm B \sim \frac{1}{2g}\frac{\rhat}{r^2}M.

894: \eeq

895: Then the electric mass of this dyon is 

896: \beq

897: \label{elen}

898: \calE_E \sim \half\ds\int_{r>R_c}{\rm d}^3r\,\tr E^2 

899: \sim \frac{g^3v}{8\pi\mod{M}}\,\tr(Q-\frac{\theta}{2\pi}M)^2,

900: \eeq

901: whilst the magnetic mass stays the same.

902: 

903: For the dyons in table~\ref{tab4} we now plot all of their electric energies

904: with theta in figs.~\ref{fig2} to \ref{fig7}. Those dyons not included on 

905: the figures, which includes the different gauge orientations, have been 

906: verified to not be of least energy. 

907: 

908: In conclusion for $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\frac{10}{11}\pi)$ the states with

909: least electric mass are: 

910: 

911: \begin{table}[h]

912: \caption{States of least electric mass for 

913: $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\frac{10}{11}\pi)$.}

914: \begin{eqnarray*}

915: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

916: \hline

917: n& {\rm diag}\ Q & {\rm diag}\ M & \ J_3\  & {\rm fermion} \\

918: \hline

919: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

920: 1&($-$\fifth,$-$\fifth,\fourfifth,$-$\fifth,$-$\fifth)

921: & (0,0,1,$-$1,0) & \half &(u,d)_L \\ 

922: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

923: 2&($-$\fifth,$-$\fifth,\fourfifth,$-$\fifth,$-$\fifth) & (0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1)&

924: \half & \bar{d}_L \\ 

925: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

926: 3&(0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1) & (1,1,1,$-$1,$-$2) & $-$\half & (\bar\nu,\bar e)_R \\

927: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

928: 4&(0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1) & (1,1,2,$-$2,$-$2) & $-$\half & u_R \\

929: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

930: 6&(0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1) & (2,2,2,$-$3,$-$3) & 1 & - \\

931: \vspace*{-0.35cm} &&&& \\

932: 6&(0,1,1,$-$1,$-$1) & (1,1,4,$-$2,$-$2) & \half & \bar{e}^*_L \\

933: \hline 

934: \end{array}

935: \end{eqnarray*}

936: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

937: \label{tab5}

938: \end{table}

939: 

940: \noindent

941: Thus if the criterion for selecting relevant states is

942: the dyon's electric mass then this does give the required spectrum, with

943: all states having $\mod{J_3}=\half$. We stress that in no way was this result

944: necessary or predetermined; the dynamics just happened to give the desired 

945: answer. There are difficulties with the $\bar e$ states, but $\bar e^*$ may

946: be less massive and these two monopoles differ only by their internal

947: structure~\cite{steer}.

948: 

949: Note that all dyons in table~\ref{tab5} are electrically colour charged, and

950: transform fundamentally under electric colour.

951: Therefore their dyonic charges are compatible with Chan and Tsou's 

952: interpretation of three generations. 

953: 

954: 

955: \begin{figure}[p]

956: \begin{center}

957: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{ud.eps}

958: \end{center}

959: \caption{Electric mass of the $(u,d)$ monopole and dyons $(Q_3,M)$ and 

960: $(Q_1,M)$. For $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\pi)$ the $(Q_3,M)$ dyon with

961: $J_3=\half$ has least electric mass.}

962: \label{fig2}

963: \end{figure}

964: \begin{figure}[p]

965: \begin{center}

966: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{d.eps}

967: \end{center}

968: \caption{Electric mass of the $\bar d$ monopole and dyons 

969: $(Q_3,M)$ and $(Q_1,M)$. For $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\pi)$ the

970: $(Q_3,M)$ dyon with $J_3=\half$ has least electric mass.}

971: \label{fig3}

972: \end{figure}

973: \begin{figure}[p]

974: \begin{center}

975: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{ne.eps}

976: \end{center}

977: \caption{Electric mass of the $(\bar\nu,\bar e)$ monopole and dyons 

978: $(Q_3,M)$ and $(Q_\rmC,M)$. For $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\pi)$ the 

979: $(Q_\rmC,M)$ dyon with $J_3=-\half$ has least electric mass.}

980: \label{fig4}

981: \end{figure}

982: \begin{figure}[p]

983: \begin{center}

984: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{u.eps}

985: \end{center}

986: \caption{Electric mass of the $u$ monopole and dyons $(Q_1,M)$, $(Q_3,M)$

987: and $(Q_\rmC,M)$. For a range of theta the

988: $(Q_\rmC,M)$ dyon with $J_3=-\half$ has least electric mass.}

989: \label{fig5}

990: \end{figure}

991: \begin{figure}[p]

992: \begin{center}

993: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{e.eps}

994: \end{center}

995: \caption{Electric mass of the $\bar e$ monopole and the dyons $(Q_1,M)$ and 

996: $(Q_\rmC,M)$. For a range of theta the 

997: $(Q_\rmC,M)$ dyon with $J_3=1$ has least electric mass.}

998: \label{fig6}

999: \end{figure}

1000: \begin{figure}[p]

1001: \begin{center}

1002: \epsfxsize=20em \epsfysize=15em \epsffile{es.eps}

1003: \end{center}

1004: \caption{Electric mass of the $\bar e^*$ monopole and the dyons $(Q_1,M)$,

1005: $(Q_3,M)$, $(Q_{\rmC'},M)$ and $(Q_\rmC,M)$. For

1006: $\theta\in(\frac{4}{5}\pi,\frac{10}{11}\pi)$ the $(Q_\rmC,M)$ 

1007: dyon with $J_3=\half$ has least electric mass.}

1008: \label{fig7}

1009: \end{figure}

1010: 

1011: \newpage

1012: An interesting and unexpected bonus of the above calculation is that we also

1013: appear to have obtained an association between the fermion's chirality

1014: assignments and the sign of the dyon's angular momenta. In the high momentum

1015: limit $p\gg m$

1016: the angular momentum of a chiral fermion is unambiguously determined

1017: through the helicity projection operator $\Pi^{\pm}(\bm p)=\half(1\pm\ga_5)$. 

1018: In that limit its angular momentum along the direction of motion is

1019: \beq

1020: J_3\psi_L=\half\psi_L,\hspace{2em}J_3\psi_R=-\half\psi_R.

1021: \eeq

1022: 

1023: Therefore table~\ref{tab5} also gives a correspondence between

1024: these angular momenta and those of the associated dyons. Again

1025: the pattern $\{+\half,+\half,-\half,-\half,+\half\}$ occurred 

1026: through the specific dynamics of the situation.

1027: 

1028: Thus the question is: does this least electric mass criterion

1029: justify that the dyon is stable? Fortunately there is at least one 

1030: situation where this appears to be so.

1031: 

1032: At strong electric coupling $g^2/4\pi\gg 1$ in a theta vacuum 

1033: a monopole's electric mass is the dominant mass contribution.

1034: Then the magnetic mass, the gauge boson masses, and the scalar boson masses

1035: may be consistently taken to be much smaller than this electric mass. 

1036: If so then figs.~\ref{fig2} to \ref{fig7} appear to represent the dyon's 

1037: masses, of which table~\ref{tab5} contains those with least mass.

1038: 

1039: However there are then some difficult issues, mainly relating

1040: to quantisation.  These are discussed in the next section.

1041: 

1042: \subsection{Issues and Interpretation}

1043: \label{problems}

1044: 

1045: In the previous section we saw that a reasonable spectrum of dyons could

1046: be derived providing the gauge theory is strongly coupled. However

1047: there are then some difficult issues, as we now explain.

1048: 

1049: When the gauge theory is strongly coupled the nature of the monopoles is

1050: different from at weak coupling. This can be seen by comparing 

1051: their core size $R_c$ with their Compton wavelength $\la\sim m^{-1}$

1052: \beq

1053: \label{22}

1054: \la/R_c \sim g^2/4\pi.

1055: \eeq

1056: Thus at weak coupling the monopoles are classical soliton configurations,

1057: whilst at strong coupling they are fully quantum mechanical.

1058: 

1059: At first sight this seems promising for the dual standard model because the

1060: observed fermions are fully quantum mechanical. That is, the observed 

1061: elementary

1062: particles are not quantised semi-classically but are fully quantised through

1063: methods such as the path-integral formalism. Then it would seem as if a proper

1064: quantisation of the dual standard model should yield a quantum field theory

1065: similar to the standard model. 

1066: 

1067: However some difficult issues arise when extending the calculations in 

1068: secs.~(\ref{sec1}-\ref{sec3}) to the fully quantum regime at strong

1069: coupling. Specifically:

1070: 

1071: \noindent (i) Whilst the theta induced charge is valid at strong coupling

1072: in a classical context, the effects of quantisation are not known.

1073: 

1074: \noindent (ii) Also, a substantial theta vacuum would give a strong 

1075: $\calC\calP$ problem. The strong interactions are time reversal symmetric

1076: to large accuracy and a large $\theta$ would appear to be at odds with

1077: this. Additionally, although we have not discussed weak $\calC\calP$

1078: violation in this work, the induced violation would be too large there as 

1079: well.

1080: 

1081: It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully 

1082: address these issues. Indeed, as we

1083: discuss below, their resolution may require a detailed understanding of 

1084: the quantisation of solitons at strong coupling; a subject that is poorly

1085: understood. We discuss now a couple of different perspectives on these

1086: issues.

1087: 

1088: Firstly it could transpire that the dual standard model is only appropriate

1089: as a classical, effective description of the elementary particles. This

1090: would be analogous to the Skyrme model, in which baryons are 

1091: accurately described as solitons of a classical field theory~\cite{skyrme}. 

1092: 

1093: It is worth commenting that the modern interpretation of the Skyrme model 

1094: is as a consequence of large $N$ QCD~\cite{largeN}, 

1095: whereas the dual standard model

1096: is motivated by SU(5) unification and duality. Otherwise the 

1097: Skyrme model and dual standard model share many similar features and outlook;

1098: indeed, many of Skyrme's original motivations also apply to the dual standard

1099: model~\cite{sky88}.

1100: 

1101: A second perspective is to tackle the above issues through a full 

1102: quantisation of the dual standard model. Unfortunately, the techniques

1103: to carry out such a program have not been developed, so that

1104: no definitive conclusions can presently be made. 

1105: However some tentative suggestions for resolving (i) and (ii) might then be:

1106: 

1107: \noindent (i) Perhaps the stable dyons can be represented by a second

1108: quantised fermionic field theory. In this sense the field theory may

1109: be largely insensitive to the internal details of the dyon, somewhat in

1110: analogy to how proton-electromagnetic interactions are described by QED, 

1111: even though the proton has a quark substructure. 

1112: 

1113: \noindent (ii) If a full quantisation of the SU(5) solitons was to yield a

1114: reasonable description of the standard model fermions then an $O(1)$ 

1115: contribution to the theta angle should arise from the determinant of the

1116: resulting quark mass matrix. Perhaps

1117: this could be arranged to cancel with the classical part used in this paper. 

1118: In some sense this situation arises naturally in the standard model, since

1119: a suitable $\theta F\tilde{F}$ term is required to cancel this contribution; 

1120: however here we interpret this necessary theta term 

1121: as a starting ingredient of the dual standard model.

1122: 

1123: Whatever the interpretation we wish to stress that the classical

1124: arguments given in this paper do appear to produce the desired angular

1125: momentum assignments of the elementary particles. This is on top of the

1126: other successful features of the dual standard model.

1127: 

1128: \section{Conclusion}

1129: \label{conc}

1130: 

1131: In this paper we have stressed that the dual and dualised standard models

1132: are complementary theories. That is, their implications have no overlap, 

1133: whilst

1134: taking their consequences together appears to yield an explanation for 

1135: most of the standard model. For instance the dual standard model

1136: explains the properties of one generation of standard model 

1137: fermions as solitons originating from SU(5) gauge unification; whilst the 

1138: dualised standard model explains the properties of three 

1139: generations as originating from a dualised fermion spectrum.

1140: 

1141: A central aspect of this paper is the suggestion that inclusion of a 

1142: theta vacuum naturally combines these two theories together. 

1143: Such a theta vacuum is expected to be important for a dual

1144: standard model because it should play a role in introducing parity violation. 

1145: We have shown that in addition to this it has the effect of dualising the 

1146: soliton spectrum. In doing so it also suggests an explanation

1147: for the chirality assignments of the elementary particles; a feature that

1148: cannot be derived in either of the original dual or dualised standard models.

1149: 

1150: There are difficult issues associated with the interpretation of these 

1151: calculations at strong coupling. Whilst the arguments are well motivated 

1152: classically, it is beyond the scope of this paper to carry them over to the 

1153: fully quantised regime. We note, however, that the methodology is natural and 

1154: the conclusions are consistent with the standard model.

1155: 

1156: If a consistent quantisation of the dual standard model does allows it to be

1157: naturally dualised by a theta vacuum, then perhaps a 

1158: very simple theory of unification may ensue. In that instance particle and

1159: gauge unification could consist of merely a broken dual theta-gauge theory

1160: $\wt\SU(5)\rightarrow\wt\SU(3)_\rmC\x\wt\SU(2)_\rmI\x\wt\U(1)_\rmY/\bbZ_6$,

1161: with {\em all} presently observed particle properties occurring within the 

1162: resulting soliton spectrum.

1163: 

1164: \acknowledgments

1165: 

1166: Part of this work was supported by a junior research fellowship at

1167: King's College, Cambridge. I thank H-M.~Chan, T.~Kibble, D.~Steer and  

1168: S.~Tsou for help and advice. I am also indebted to T. ~Vachaspati

1169: for his many helpful comments regarding this work.

1170: 

1171: 

1172: 

1173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1174: 

1175: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1176: 

1177: \bibitem{vach95}

1178: T.~Vachaspati,

1179: %``An Attempt to Construct the Standard Model with Monopoles,''

1180: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76} (1996) 188

1181: [hep-ph/9509271].

1182: 

1183: \bibitem{vachdsm}

1184: H.~Liu and T.~Vachaspati,

1185: %``SU(5) Monopoles and the Dual Standard Model,''

1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D56} (1997) 1300

1187: [hep-th/9604138].

1188: 

1189: \bibitem{vachspin}

1190: T. Vachaspati, 

1191: %``Field configurations with half-integer angular momentum

1192: %in purely bosonic theories without topological charge'',

1193: Phys.\  Lett.\  {\bf B427} (1998) 323 \newline

1194: [hep-th/9709149].

1195: 

1196: \bibitem{gold99}

1197: A.~S.~Goldhaber,

1198: %``Dual confinement of grand unified monopoles?,''

1199: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 315} (1999) 83

1200: [hep-th/9905208].

1201: 

1202: \bibitem{chandual}

1203: H.~Chan and S.~T.~Tsou,

1204: %``Nonabelian generalization of electric-magnetic duality: A brief  review,''

1205: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf A14} (1999) 2139

1206: [hep-th/9904102]; see also S.~T.~Tsou,

1207: %``Concepts in gauge theory leading to electric-magnetic duality,''

1208: hep-th/0006178.

1209: 

1210: \bibitem{chandsm}

1211: H.~Chan and S.~T.~Tsou,

1212: %``Physical consequences of nonabelian duality in the standard model,''

1213: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D57} (1998) 2507

1214: [hep-th/9701120];

1215: H.~Chan and S.~T.~Tsou,

1216: %``Standard model with duality: Physical consequences,''

1217: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\  {\bf B28} (1997) 3041

1218: [hep-ph/9712436];

1219: H.~Chan, J.~Bordes and S.~Tsou,

1220: %``The dualized standard model and its applications,''

1221: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf A14} (1999) 2173

1222: [hep-ph/9809272].

1223: 

1224: \bibitem{chanckm}

1225: J.~Bordes, H.~Chan, J.~Faridani, J.~Pfaudler and S.~Tsou,

1226: %``CKM matrix and fermion masses in the dualized standard model,''

1227: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D58} (1998) 013004 [hep-ph/9712276].

1228: 

1229: \bibitem{steer}

1230: T.~Vachaspati and D.~A.~Steer,

1231: %``Spin and dualization of SU(5) dyons,''

1232: hep-th/0005243.

1233: 

1234: \bibitem{gg}

1235: H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,

1236: %``Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces,''

1237: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 32} (1974) 438.

1238:  

1239: \bibitem{cs81}

1240: H.~Chan and S.~T.~Tsou,

1241: %``Monopole Charges In Unified Gauge Theories,''

1242: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B189} (1981) 364.

1243: 

1244: \bibitem{higgs}

1245: P.~W.~Higgs,

1246: %``Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown Without Massless Bosons,''

1247: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 145} (1966) 1156;

1248: T.~W.~B.~Kibble,

1249: %``Symmetry Breaking In Nonabelian Gauge Theories,''

1250: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 155} (1967) 1554.

1251: 

1252: \bibitem{gard84}

1253: C.~Gardner and J.~Harvey,

1254: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 52} (1984) 879.

1255: 

1256: \bibitem{jackiw:spin}

1257: R.~Jackiw and C.~Rebbi,

1258: %``Spin From Isospin In A Gauge Theory,''

1259: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 36} (1976) 1116;

1260: P.~Hasenfratz and G.~'t Hooft,

1261: %``A Fermion - Boson Puzzle In A Gauge Theory,''

1262: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 36} (1976) 1119.

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{gold:spin}

1265: A.~S.~Goldhaber,

1266: %``Spin And Statistics Connection For Charge - Monopole Composites,''

1267: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 36} (1976) 1122.

1268: 

1269: \bibitem{meunif}

1270: N.~F.~Lepora,

1271: %``Gauge unification within the dual standard model,''

1272: JHEP {\bf 0002} (2000) 036

1273: [hep-ph/9910493].

1274: 

1275: \bibitem{kleinert}

1276: H. Kleinert,

1277: %``The Extra Gauge Symmetry of String Deformations

1278: %in Electromagnetism with Charges and Dirac Monopoles,''

1279: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A7} (1992), 4693;

1280: H. Kleinert,

1281: %``Double-Gauge Invariance and Local Quantum Field Theory of Charges and 

1282: %Dirac Magnetic Monopoles,''

1283: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 246} (1990), 127;

1284: H. Kleinert,

1285: %``Abelian Double-Gauge Invariant Continuous Quantum Field Theory of 

1286: %Electric Charge Confinement,''

1287: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 293} (1992), 168. 

1288: 

1289: \bibitem{chanord}

1290: H.~Chan and S.~T.~Tsou,

1291: %``'t Hooft's order-disorder parameters and the dual potential,''

1292: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D56} (1997) 3646

1293: [hep-th/9702117];

1294: G.~'t Hooft,

1295: %``Topology of the gauge condition and new confinement phases in 

1296: %non-Abelian gauge theories,''

1297: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B190} (1981) 455.

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{witten}

1300: E.~Witten,

1301: %``Dyons Of Charge E Theta / 2 Pi,''

1302: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B86} (1979) 283.

1303: 

1304: \bibitem{cole}

1305: S.~Coleman,

1306: %``The Magnetic Monopole Fifty Years Later,''

1307: HUTP-82/A032

1308: {\it Lectures given at Int. Sch. of Subnuclear Phys., Erice, Italy, 1981}.

1309: 

1310: %\bibitem{hoofttheta}

1311: %G.~'t Hooft,

1312: %%``Monopoles, instantons and confinement,''

1313: %hep-th/0010225.

1314: 

1315: \bibitem{globcol}

1316: P.~Nelson,

1317: %``Excitations Of SU(5) Monopoles,''

1318: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 50} (1983) 939;

1319: P.~Nelson and A.~Manohar,

1320: %``Global Color Is Not Always Defined,''

1321: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 50} (1983) 943;

1322: A.~Abouelsaood,

1323: %``Are There Chromodyons?,''

1324: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B226} (1983) 309;

1325: P.~Nelson and S.~Coleman,

1326: %``What Becomes Of Global Color,''

1327: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B237} (1984) 1.

1328: 

1329: \bibitem{bala}

1330: A.~P.~Balachandran, G.~Marmo, N.~Mukunda, J.~S.~Nilsson, E.~C.~Sudarshan and 

1331: F.~Zaccaria,

1332: %``Nonabelian Monopoles Break Color. 1. Classical Mechanics,''

1333: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D29} (1984) 2919;

1334: A.~P.~Balachandran, G.~Marmo, N.~Mukunda, J.~S.~Nilsson, E.~C.~Sudarshan and 

1335: F.~Zaccaria,

1336: %``Nonabelian Monopoles Break Color. 2. Field Theory And Quantum Mechanics,''

1337: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D29} (1984) 2936.

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{julia75}

1340: B.~Julia and A.~Zee,

1341: %``Poles With Both Magnetic And Electric Charges In Nonabelian Gauge Theory,''

1342: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D11} (1975) 2227.

1343: 

1344: \bibitem{comp}

1345: N.~F.~Lepora, hep-ph/0008322.

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{dixon84}

1348: L.~J.~Dixon,

1349: %``Spherically Symmetric Monopoles And Dyons With Spin,''

1350: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B248} (1984) 90.

1351: 

1352: \bibitem{feyn}

1353: See, for instance, chapter 28 of: R.~Feyman, R.~Leighton and M.~Sands,

1354: %``The Feynman Lectures on Physics,'' 

1355: Volume II, Addison-Webley Publishing (1964).

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{skyrme}

1358: T.~H.~R.~Skyrme,

1359: Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) {\bf A260} (1961) 127;

1360: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B3} (1962) 556;

1361: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 12} (1971) 1735.

1362: 

1363: \bibitem{largeN}

1364: G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B72} (1974) 461; {\bf B75} (1975) 461;

1365: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160} (1979) 57.

1366: 

1367: \bibitem{sky88}

1368: See, for instance: T. H. R. Skyrme, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A3} (1988)

1369: 2745. Talk reconstructed by I. Aitchison.

1370: 

1371: \end{thebibliography}

1372: 

1373: \end{document}

1374: