1: %
2: % Radion effects on unitarity in gauge-boson scattering
3: % -----------------------------------------------------
4: %
5: % Tao Han, Graham D. Kribs, Bob McElrath
6: %
7: % hep-ph/0104074, April 2001
8:
9: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
10: \usepackage{epsf}
11: \usepackage{axodraw}
12:
13: % doesn't work with xxx???
14: %\usepackage{cite}
15:
16: \setlength{\headheight}{0in}
17: \setlength{\headsep}{0in}
18: \setlength{\topskip}{1ex}
19: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5cm}
20: \setlength{\textheight}{8.5in}
21: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.35in}
22: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.05in}
23: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}
24: \setlength{\parskip}{1ex}
25: \setlength{\parindent}{2em}
26:
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28: % definitions
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: % \gsim and \lsim provide >= and <= signs.
31:
32: \newcommand{ \centeron }[2]{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim
33: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi \copy0
34: \kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1
35: \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}
36: \newcommand{ \ltap }{\>\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}
37: {\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\>}
38: \newcommand{ \gtap }{\>\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}
39: {\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\>}
40: \newcommand{ \gsim }{\mathrel{\gtap}}
41: \newcommand{ \lsim }{\mathrel{\ltap}}
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: % Slash character...
45:
46: \newcommand{ \slashchar }[1]{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
47: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
48: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
49: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
50: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
51: #1 % and print #1
52: \else % / is bigger
53: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
54: / % and print /
55: \fi} %
56:
57: %%EXAMPLE: $\slashchar{E}$ or $\slashchar{E}_{t}$
58:
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60:
61: \newcommand{ \Mpl }{M_{\rm Pl}}
62: \newcommand{ \Mmess }{M}
63: \newcommand{ \ra }{\rightarrow}
64: \newcommand{ \textfrac }[2]{ {\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}} }
65: \newcommand{ \ph }{\gamma}
66:
67: % draw box with width #1pt and line thickness #2pt
68: \newcommand{\drawsquare}[2]{\hbox{%
69: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}\hskip-#2pt% left vertical
70: \rule{#1pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#1pt% lower horizontal
71: \rule[#1pt]{#1pt}{#2pt}}\rule[#1pt]{#2pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#2pt% upper horizontal
72: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}}% right vertical
73: \newcommand{\Yfund}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}% fund
74:
75:
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77: % Spacing macros
78:
79: %
80: % final version: 150 -> 110 for both ``bit'' and ``abstract'' spacing
81:
82: \def\doublespaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply
83: \baselineskip by 200\divide\baselineskip by 100}
84: \def\singleandabitspaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply
85: \baselineskip by 110\divide\baselineskip by 100}
86: \def\abstractspacing{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip\multiply
87: \baselineskip by 110\divide\baselineskip by 100}
88: \def\singlespaced{\baselineskip=\normalbaselineskip}
89:
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91: % References to main physics journals
92:
93: \newcommand{\Journal}[4]{{#1}\ \textbf{#2}, #3 (#4)} % APS style
94: \newcommand{ \NPB }[3]{\Journal{Nucl. Phys.}{B#1}{#2}{#3}}
95: \newcommand{ \PLB }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Lett. B}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
96: \newcommand{ \PLBold }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Lett.}{#1B}{#2}{#3}}
97: \newcommand{ \PRD }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Rev. D}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
98: \newcommand{ \PR }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Rev.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
99: \newcommand{ \PRL }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
100: \newcommand{ \MPL }[3]{\Journal{Mod. Phys. Lett.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
101: \newcommand{ \PREP }[3]{\Journal{Phys. Rep.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
102: \newcommand{ \ZPC }[3]{\Journal{Z. Phys. C}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
103: \newcommand{ \APJ }[3]{\Journal{Astrophys. J.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
104: \newcommand{ \PTP }[3]{\Journal{Prog. Theor. Phys.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
105: \newcommand{ \CPC }[3]{\Journal{Computer Physics Commun.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
106: \newcommand{ \PPNP }[3]{\Journal{Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
107: \newcommand{ \NPPS }[3]{\Journal{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
108: \newcommand{ \RMP }[3]{\Journal{Rev. Mod. Phys.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}
109: \newcommand{ \JHEP }[3]{JHEP #1:#2 (#3)}
110:
111: % Preprints in xxx
112: \newcommand{ \xxx }[1]{\texttt{[#1]}}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115:
116:
117: \begin{document}
118:
119: \singlespaced
120:
121: \begin{titlepage}
122:
123: \begin{flushright}
124: hep-ph/0104074 \\
125: MADPH--01--1219 \\
126: \end{flushright}
127:
128: \vspace{1.5cm}
129:
130: \begin{center}
131: \mbox{\LARGE \textbf{Radion effects on unitarity in
132: gauge-boson scattering}} \\
133:
134: \vspace*{2.0cm}
135: {\Large Tao Han, Graham D. Kribs, and Bob McElrath} \\
136: \vspace*{0.5cm}
137: \textit{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, \\
138: 1150 University Ave., Madison, WI~~53706-1390} \\
139:
140: \vspace*{1.0cm}
141:
142: \texttt{than@pheno.physics.wisc.edu, kribs@pheno.physics.wisc.edu,
143: mcelrath@pheno.physics.wisc.edu}
144:
145: \vspace*{1.0cm}
146:
147: \begin{abstract}
148: \indent
149:
150: \abstractspacing
151:
152: The scalar field associated with fluctuations in the positions
153: of the two branes, the ``radion'', plays an important role determining
154: the cosmology and collider phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum solution
155: to the hierarchy problem. It is now well known that the radion mass is
156: of order the weak scale, and that its couplings to standard model
157: fields are order ${\cal O}({\rm TeV}^{-1})$ to the trace of the energy
158: momentum tensor. We calculate longitudinal vector boson scattering
159: amplitudes to explore the constraints on the radion mass and its
160: coupling from perturbative unitarity. The scattering cross section
161: can indeed become non-perturbative at energies prior to reaching the
162: TeV brane cutoff scale, but only when some curvature-Higgs mixing
163: on the TeV brane is present. We show that the coefficient of the
164: curvature-Higgs mixing operator must be less than about $3$ for
165: the 4-d effective theory to respect perturbative unitarity up to
166: the TeV brane cutoff scale. Mass bounds on the Higgs boson
167: and the radion are also discussed.
168:
169: \end{abstract}
170:
171: \end{center}
172: \end{titlepage}
173:
174: \newpage
175: \setcounter{page}{2}
176: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
177: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
178: \singleandabitspaced
179:
180: \section{Introduction}
181: \label{introduction-sec}
182:
183: Theories with extra dimensions have received tremendous attention
184: within the last a few years. One of the most interesting
185: incarnations was formulated by Randall and Sundrum (RS1) \cite{RS1},
186: who postulated a universe with two 4-d surfaces (``branes'') bounding a
187: slice of 5-d AdS spacetime. The Standard Model (SM) fields are assumed
188: to be located on one brane (the ``TeV brane''). Gravity lives on the
189: other brane (the ``Planck brane'') and in the bulk as well as the TeV brane.
190: Both branes have equal but opposite tension,
191: while the bulk has a (negative) cosmological constant. By carefully
192: tuning the brane tensions against the bulk cosmological constant,
193: one can achieve a low energy effective theory that has flat 4-d spacetime.
194: The RS1 metric takes the form\footnote{In our
195: conventions, the metric has signature ($+$,$-$,$-$,$-$), Greek
196: indices $\mu,\nu,$ etc., run from $0,1,2,3$ denoting ordinary 4-d
197: spacetime. The extra dimension is assumed to be compactified on
198: a $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold.}
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: d s^2 &=& e^{-2 k L y} \eta_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu} - L^2 dy^2
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: where $L$ is the size of the extra dimension and $0 \le y \le 1$.
203: All mass scales in the full 5-d theory are of order the Planck scale.
204: By placing the SM fields at $y=1$, all mass terms must be rescaled
205: by an exponential suppression factor (``warp factor'') $e^{-k L}$ that
206: can bring them down to the TeV scale. This merely requires that
207: $L \sim 35/k$, and thus roughly $35$ times the fundamental Planck length.
208: This is a dramatic improvement over the original hierarchy problem
209: between the electroweak scale and the 4-d Planck scale $\Mpl$.
210:
211: The first obvious difficulty with this scenario is to arrange
212: that the extra dimension stabilizes to a size of about an order
213: of magnitude larger than the Planck length. In the original
214: proposal, the potential for the size of the extra dimension
215: is flat, so that all sizes are classically equivalent.
216: The actual size of the extra dimension was tuned
217: appropriately to solve the hierarchy problem.
218: A more serious concern was first identified by Ref.~\cite{Csaba1},
219: in which enforcing $d L(t)/dt = 0$
220: in a cosmological context implied a nontrivial relationship
221: between the TeV and Planck brane energy densities.
222: %Namely, $\rho_{\rm Pl} = - e^{-4 k L} \rho_{\rm TeV}$.
223: Ultimately this was shown to be a direct result of assuming the
224: potential for the size of the extra dimension is flat. Hence, the
225: scalar field associated with fluctuations of the size of the
226: extra dimension, the ``radion'', is massless. If, on the other
227: hand, \emph{bulk} dynamics setup a potential whose minimum
228: determined the distance separating the two branes, then the
229: radion acquires a mass.
230:
231: Goldberger and Wise (GW) \cite{GWstable} noticed that a potential
232: could be setup for the radion, by adding a 5-d bulk scalar to RS1
233: arranged so that it acquires an $y$-dependent vacuum expectation value (vev).
234: Furthermore, the classical potential is stable against quantum
235: corrections \cite{GoldRoth}.
236: In their analysis, the 5-d metric was generalized to
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: d s^2 &=& e^{-2 k L(x) y} \eta_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu} - L(x)^2 dy^2 \; ,
239: \label{naive-eq}
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: where $L$ has a vev and an $x_{\mu}$-dependent fluctuation.
242: This generalization with radial fluctuations, however, does not
243: satisfy Einstein's equations, and so a different ansatz for
244: the metric is needed to calculate the mass and couplings of the radion.
245: Charmousis, Gregory, and Rubakov \cite{CharmGregRub} proposed the metric
246: \begin{eqnarray}
247: d s^2 &=& e^{-2 A(y) - 2 F(x)} \eta_{\mu\nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}
248: - \left( 1 + 2 F(x) \right) dy^2
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: in which they showed that a consistent treatment of the
251: radial fluctuations characterized by the scalar field $F(x)$
252: is possible while solving the linearized Einstein equations.
253: (In the Randall-Sundrum model, $A(y) = k L y$.)
254:
255: This analysis, however, did not take into
256: account the effect of the bulk scalar field back onto the metric
257: (the ``back-reaction'').
258: Including the back-reaction of the bulk scalar field on the
259: metric is in general highly nontrivial. However, DeWolfe, Freedman,
260: Gubser, and Karch \cite{DeWolfe} proposed an interesting
261: generating solution technique motivated from gauged supergravity.
262: Their technique allows one to calculate the potential for the
263: size of the extra dimension consistently including the effects
264: of the bulk scalar field vev profile into the metric. This
265: manifested itself through additional $y$-dependent terms in $A(y)$.
266: However, radial fluctuations were not considered.
267:
268: This motivated the work by Cs\'aki, Graesser, and Kribs \cite{CGK}
269: (see also \cite{TanakaMontes})
270: that used the generating solution technique by
271: DeWolfe et al.\ \cite{DeWolfe}, combined with the CGR metric
272: ansatz \cite{CharmGregRub}, to show that a consistent treatment of
273: the fluctuations in the size of the extra dimension could be done.
274: In this work, the wave-function, mass, and couplings of the radion
275: were explicitly calculated. In particular, it was shown that
276: the mass of radion is of order TeV/35, multiplied by the size
277: of the back-reaction (taken as a perturbation). Remarkably, this closely
278: matched the radion mass calculation in Refs.~\cite{GWstable, Csaba2,
279: GWpheno}, that used the ``naive'' ansatz in Eq.~(\ref{naive-eq}).
280: The radion couplings could be obtained through
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: r \frac{\delta S}{\delta r} =
283: r \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} \frac{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}{\delta r} =
284: \frac{r}{e^{-kL} \Mpl} T_\mu^\mu
285: \end{eqnarray}
286: and thus couples
287: to the trace of the energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$. Here $r$ is the
288: canonically normalized radion field, related to $F(x)$ via \cite{CGK}
289: \begin{eqnarray}
290: F(x) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6} \Mpl e^{-k L}} r(x) \; .
291: \end{eqnarray}
292: The strength of the radion couplings are proportional to
293: the inverse ``warped'' Planck scale, and thus
294: for appropriate choice of $L$, the TeV scale. One of the new results
295: of this analysis is that the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the
296: bulk scalar field couple to the SM fields, albeit suppressed by the
297: size of the back-reaction divided by the KK mass (of order the warped
298: Planck scale).
299:
300: With a radion mass that is
301: of order the weak scale, and couplings that are of order
302: 1/TeV, several groups proceeded to analyze the phenomenology of
303: the radion \cite{GRW2,BaeFeb2000,radionpheno}.
304: It was quickly realized that
305: the radion couplings are analogous to the Higgs at tree-level.
306: (At one loop, the radion couples to the trace anomaly \cite{GRW2,BaeFeb2000},
307: and therefore has a significantly different coupling to, for example,
308: massless gauge bosons.)
309: In particular, the tree-level couplings of the radion to
310: the electroweak gauge bosons are the same as those of the SM Higgs,
311: upon substituting
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: h \longrightarrow -\gamma r, \; \ {\rm with}\ \
314: \gamma = \frac{v}{\sqrt{6} \Lambda} \; ,
315: \label{hr}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: where $h,r$ are the Higgs and radion mass eigenstates,
318: $v = 246$ GeV is the electroweak vev, and the warped Planck scale
319: is $\Lambda = e^{-k L} \Mpl$ \cite{Csaba2,GWpheno,CGK}.
320: Hereafter, we will use ``TeV brane cutoff scale'' or just
321: ``cutoff scale'' to refer to the warped Planck scale,
322: since our 4-d effectively theory is valid only up to about $\Lambda$.
323: This leads to new contributions to the electroweak
324: precision observables, such as the oblique corrections \cite{CGK}.
325: Generally, the size of this effect is rather small, since
326: for a cutoff scale of order a TeV, $\gamma$ is order $0.1$.
327: For much lower cutoff scales, direct KK graviton production
328: is important, and can provide constraints on the RS1
329: scenario \cite{DHR}.
330:
331: Since the radion couplings to the SM are similar to those of
332: the Higgs boson, it is natural to ask if the radion has any
333: significant effects on the electroweak symmetry breaking sector,
334: especially in the pessimistic scenario where the SM Higgs
335: is rather heavy and may not be easily produced at collider
336: experiments.
337: In this paper we consider the effects of the radion on perturbative
338: unitarity bounds in the SM\@. A few papers
339: \cite{Mahantaunitarity,Baeunitarity}
340: have considered some of the effects of the radion on unitarity
341: involving external Higgs bosons, although no explicit description
342: of the Goldstone boson
343: equivalence theorem is present, nor the effects of including
344: curvature-Higgs mixing. The paper is organized as follows.
345: In Sec.~\ref{unitarity-sec} we give a brief discussion of
346: unitarity issues in the SM, and the bound on the Higgs mass
347: that results. In Sec.~\ref{radioneffects-sec} we introduce
348: the 4-d effective theory that includes the radion and write
349: the relevant interactions for gauge boson scattering.
350: In Sec.~\ref{W-scat-sec} we calculate the partial wave amplitude
351: including the effects of the radion to the largest process in the SM,
352: namely $W^+W^- \rightarrow W^+W^-$, and show that there is in general
353: no significant constraint on the radion mass or coupling in the absence
354: of other interactions. In Sec.~\ref{radion-gold-sec} we explicitly
355: demonstrate that the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem can
356: be applied, and thus in the high energy limit (large $s$) one obtains
357: the same result replacing the longitudinally polarized $W$'s by the eaten
358: Goldstone bosons. The above analysis, however, neglected curvature-Higgs
359: Higgs mixing (localized on the TeV brane). In
360: Sec.~\ref{curv-scalar-sec}, we introduce the mixing,
361: and recalculate the partial wave amplitude. We find that
362: with a mixing coefficient $|\xi| \gsim 2.7$, the partial
363: wave amplitude for $W$ scattering does exceed the unitarity bound
364: for scattering energies \emph{lower} than the cutoff scale.
365: Finally, in Sec.~\ref{conclusions-sec} we present our conclusions.
366:
367: \section{Perturbative unitarity}
368: \label{unitarity-sec}
369:
370: In the SM, the longitudinal components of the electroweak
371: gauge bosons ($W^\pm_L,Z_L$) arise from the eaten Goldstone bosons
372: resulting from the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak gauge symmetry.
373: The study of scattering of
374: longitudinally polarized gauge bosons would thus be the most
375: direct means to explore the mechanism of the electroweak
376: symmetry breaking. In this section, we briefly review
377: the physics with longitudinal gauge boson scattering in
378: the SM and discuss perturbative unitarity bounds. This serves as
379: the basis for our further study including the radion.
380:
381: We focus on the process
382: \begin{equation}
383: W^+_L W^-_L \rightarrow W^+_L W^-_L
384: \end{equation}
385: since, in the high energy limit, this gives the largest contribution
386: to the partial wave amplitude of all $2 \rightarrow 2$ electroweak
387: gauge boson scattering processes in the SM.
388: The Feynman diagrams are shown in
389: Fig.~\ref{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}.
390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
391: \begin{figure}[t]
392: \begin{picture}(440,100)
393: %
394: % s-channel g.b. exchange
395: \Text( 17, 80 )[r]{$W^+_L$}
396: \Text( 17, 20 )[r]{$W^-_L$}
397: \Photon( 20, 80 )( 60, 50 ){5}{5}
398: \Photon( 20, 20 )( 60, 50 ){5}{5}
399: \Photon( 60, 50 )( 110, 50 ){5}{5}
400: \Photon( 110, 50 )( 150, 80 ){5}{5}
401: \Photon( 110, 50 )( 150, 20 ){5}{5}
402: \Text( 85, 63 )[c]{$\ph/Z$}
403: \Text( 155, 80 )[l]{$W^+_L$}
404: \Text( 155, 20 )[l]{$W^-_L$}
405: \Text( 85, 10 )[c]{(a)}
406: %
407: % t-channel g.b. exchange
408: \Photon( 200, 95 )( 240, 70 ){5}{5}
409: \Photon( 240, 70 )( 280, 95 ){5}{5}
410: \Photon( 240, 70 )( 240, 30 ){5}{5}
411: \Photon( 200, 05 )( 240, 30 ){5}{5}
412: \Photon( 240, 30 )( 280, 05 ){5}{5}
413: \Text( 248, 50 )[l]{$\ph/Z$}
414: \Text( 240, 0 )[c]{(b)}
415: %
416: % 4-point coupling
417: \Photon( 330, 80 )( 370, 50 ){5}{5}
418: \Photon( 370, 50 )( 410, 80 ){5}{5}
419: \Photon( 330, 20 )( 370, 50 ){5}{5}
420: \Photon( 370, 50 )( 410, 20 ){5}{5}
421: \Text( 370, 10 )[c]{(c)}
422: \end{picture}
423: \begin{picture}(440,100)
424: %
425: % s-channel higgs exchange
426: \Photon( 50, 80 )( 90, 50 ){5}{5}
427: \Photon( 50, 20 )( 90, 50 ){5}{5}
428: \DashLine( 90, 50 )( 140, 50 ){3}
429: \Photon( 140, 50 )( 180, 80 ){5}{5}
430: \Photon( 140, 50 )( 180, 20 ){5}{5}
431: \Text( 115, 60 )[c]{$h$}
432: \Text( 115, 10 )[c]{(d)}
433: %
434: % t-channel higgs exchange
435: \Photon( 260, 95 )( 300, 70 ){5}{5}
436: \Photon( 300, 70 )( 340, 95 ){5}{5}
437: \DashLine( 300, 70 )( 300, 30 ){3}
438: \Photon( 260, 05 )( 300, 30 ){5}{5}
439: \Photon( 300, 30 )( 340, 05 ){5}{5}
440: \Text( 305, 50 )[l]{$h$}
441: \Text( 300, 0 )[c]{(e)}
442: \end{picture}
443: \caption{Tree-level Feynman diagrams for $WW$ scattering
444: in the SM.}
445: \label{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}
446: \end{figure}
447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
448: At high energies, the wave-function of a longitudinal gauge
449: boson can be written as
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \epsilon^{W_L}_\mu(p) &=& \frac{p_\mu}{M_W} +
452: {\cal O}\left( \frac{M_W}{E} \right) \; ,
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: This indicates that the longitudinally polarized gauge bosons are
455: behaving as their eaten Goldstone boson counterparts with corrections of
456: order $M_W/E$ where $E$ is the gauge boson energy.
457:
458: With this substitution, the contributions from the diagrams in
459: Fig.~\ref{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}(a), (b), or (c) individually
460: leads to a contribution ${\cal O}(s^2/M_W^4)$, but these
461: terms cancel among each other due to electroweak gauge
462: symmetry. The leading order result for the sum of these three diagrams,
463: neglecting ${\cal O}(M_W^2/s)$ terms, is
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: -i {\cal M} &=& - \frac{u}{v^2} \; .
466: \label{gb-scat-eq}
467: \end{eqnarray}
468: At some point, the contribution to the partial
469: wave amplitude is sufficiently large that the partial
470: wave unitarity will be violated. This can be seen from the
471: zeroth order partial wave amplitude
472: \begin{eqnarray}
473: a_0 &=& \frac{1}{32\pi} \int_{-1}^1 d\cos\theta (-i{\cal M}) \; = \;
474: % \frac{1}{16\pi s \beta^2} \int_{-s \beta^2}^0 d t (-i {\cal M})
475: -\frac{s}{32\pi v^2} \; .
476: \label{part-eq}
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: If we interpret the partial wave unitarity bound to be
479: \begin{eqnarray}
480: \left|{\rm Re}(a_0)\right| &<& \frac{1}{2} \; ,
481: \end{eqnarray}
482: then one obtains the bound $\sqrt s < 1.7$ TeV. This is
483: commonly referred as the indication of a strongly
484: interacting electroweak sector at the TeV scale \cite{cg}.
485: On the other hand, by including the Higgs contribution
486: of Figs.~\ref{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}(d) and (e), the
487: amplitude becomes
488: \begin{eqnarray}
489: -i {\cal M}_{SM} &=& - \frac{m_h^2}{v^2}
490: \left( \frac{s}{s - m_h^2} + \frac{t}{t - m_h^2} \right) \; \to \;
491: - \frac{2 m_h^2}{v^2} \quad {\rm for} \quad m_h^2 \ll s,|t| \; .
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: A light Higgs boson thus naturally restores partial wave unitarity,
494: through a precise cancellation of the high energy divergence of the
495: gauge boson scattering amplitude against the additional physical Higgs
496: contribution. This mysterious cancellation becomes transparent
497: by simply replacing the full massive spin-1
498: external gauge boson fields by the scalar Goldstone bosons,
499: as dictated by the equivalence theorem \cite{lqt,cg,et}.
500: However, this also implies an upper bound on the Higgs
501: boson mass $m_h < 900$ GeV if perturbative unitarity is
502: maintained to arbitrarily high energies \cite{lqt}.
503:
504: Although the unitarity bound cannot predict any specific
505: form of new physics in the electroweak symmetry breaking
506: sector, it does provide a general argument for a scale
507: (around 1 TeV) at which the physics responsible for EWSB
508: must show up. Furthermore, any new physics that couples
509: to the EWSB sector significantly at high energies may be
510: subject to constraints from partial wave unitarity.
511:
512: \section{The radion effects}
513: \label{radioneffects-sec}
514:
515: In Randall-Sundrum scenarios, the low energy 4-d effective theory
516: includes the ordinary 4-d graviton, the radion, and the KK
517: excitations of the graviton and the bulk scalar. Here we are assuming
518: the SM remains on the TeV brane (see e.g., Refs.~\cite{DHR,RS-SM-inbulk}
519: for alternatives). At energies well below
520: the cutoff scale, we need only consider the radion as the additional
521: degree of freedom in our effective theory. As we approach (or exceed)
522: the cutoff scale $\Lambda$, additional contributions from the KK modes
523: (and perhaps other quantum gravity states) must be included in the
524: calculations. However, including these contributions is subtle and
525: model-dependent.
526: For example, in the holographic viewpoint \cite{holographic}, the
527: holographic dual 4-d theory is becoming strongly coupled in the
528: transition to a 4-d conformal field theory above $\Lambda$.
529: In any case, we will restrict ourselves to energies below the cutoff
530: scale, and consider only the contribution from the radion.
531:
532: As stated in the introduction, the radion couples to fields
533: localized on the SM brane through
534: \begin{eqnarray}
535: - \frac{\gamma}{v} \, r \, T_\mu^\mu \label{trace-eq}
536: \end{eqnarray}
537: which leads to the three-point interaction terms
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: {\cal L} &=& - \gamma \frac{2 M_W^2}{v} \, r \, W_\mu^+ W^{- \mu}
540: - \gamma \frac{M_Z^2}{v} \, r \, Z_\mu Z^\mu
541: \label{rww-eq}
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: between the radion and the electroweak gauge bosons.
544: The Lagrangian written above is not complete \cite{CGK},
545: since there are additional gauge-fixing terms that must be
546: added. In addition, in dimensional regularization the Lagrangian
547: is continued into $d$ dimensions, and there are yet more terms
548: with coefficients that depend explicitly on $(d-4)$.
549: Both of these sets of terms, however, will not be relevant here since
550: we are exclusively considering tree-level scattering amplitudes.
551: We now proceed to calculate the scattering amplitude using
552: gauge bosons, and then compare by doing the same calculation using
553: Goldstone bosons.
554:
555: \subsection{Radion contributions to $W^+_L W^-_L$ scattering}
556: \label{W-scat-sec}
557:
558: Since the radion couplings of Eq.~(\ref{rww-eq})
559: are analogous to the Higgs, there
560: are additional contributions to electroweak gauge boson
561: scattering from radion exchange. The radion contributes
562: two additional diagrams
563: to $W^+_L W^-_L \rightarrow W^+_L W^-_L$ scattering,
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565: \begin{figure}[t]
566: \begin{picture}(440,100)
567: %
568: % s-channel radion exchange
569: \Photon( 50, 80 )( 90, 50 ){5}{5}
570: \Photon( 50, 20 )( 90, 50 ){5}{5}
571: \DashLine( 90, 50 )( 140, 50 ){3}
572: \Photon( 140, 50 )( 180, 80 ){5}{5}
573: \Photon( 140, 50 )( 180, 20 ){5}{5}
574: \Text( 115, 60 )[c]{$r$}
575: \Text( 115, 10 )[c]{(a)}
576: %
577: % t-channel radion exchange
578: \Photon( 260, 95 )( 300, 70 ){5}{5}
579: \Photon( 300, 70 )( 340, 95 ){5}{5}
580: \DashLine( 300, 70 )( 300, 30 ){3}
581: \Photon( 260, 05 )( 300, 30 ){5}{5}
582: \Photon( 300, 30 )( 340, 05 ){5}{5}
583: \Text( 305, 50 )[l]{$r$}
584: \Text( 300, 0 )[c]{(b)}
585: \end{picture}
586: \caption{Tree-level Feynman diagrams for $W$ scattering through
587: a radion.}
588: \label{radion-W-feyn-diag-fig}
589: \end{figure}
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: as shown in Fig.~\ref{radion-W-feyn-diag-fig}.
592: The amplitude for the sum of the two contributions at high energy,
593: neglecting ${\cal O}(M_W^2/s)$ terms as before, is
594: \begin{eqnarray}
595: -i {\cal M}_r &=& -g^2 \gamma^2 \Bigg[ \frac{s}{4 M_W^2} + \frac{t}{4 M_W^2}
596: + \frac{m_r^2}{2 M_W^2}
597: + \frac{m_r^2}{4 M_W^2}
598: \left( \frac{m_r^2}{s - m_r^2} + \frac{m_r^2}{t - m_r^2} \right)
599: \nonumber \\ & &{} \qquad \quad
600: + 2 \frac{t}{s}
601: + \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_r^2} + 1 - 2 \frac{m_r^2}{s} \right)
602: \frac{m_r^2}{s - m_r^2}
603: + \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_r^2} + 1 + 2 \frac{m_r^2}{s} \right)
604: \frac{m_r^2}{t - m_r^2} \Bigg] \; .
605: \label{radion-amp-eq}
606: \end{eqnarray}
607: In the limit of large $s$, the leading order behavior of this amplitude
608: is $s/\Lambda^2$, irrespective of the radion mass. This suggests that
609: for sufficiently large $s$, the radion contribution is not perturbatively
610: calculable and thus may violate unitarity.
611: Following the analysis discussed in the previous section,
612: the zeroth partial wave is easily obtained:
613: \begin{eqnarray}
614: a_0 &=& -\frac{g^2}{16 \pi} \gamma^2 \Bigg[ \frac{s}{8 M_W^2} - \frac{3}{2}
615: + \frac{m_r^2}{2 M_W^2}
616: + \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_r^2} + 1 + \frac{m_r^2}{4 M_W^2}
617: + 2 \frac{m_r^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_r^2}{s - m_r^2}
618: \nonumber \\ & &{} \qquad\qquad
619: - \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_r^2} + 1 + \frac{m_r^2}{4 M_W^2}
620: - 2 \frac{m_r^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_r^2}{s}
621: \ln \left( 1 + \frac{s}{m_r^2} \right) \Bigg] \; .
622: \label{a0-eq}
623: \end{eqnarray}
624: The leading order term for $s \gg M_W^2,m_r^2$ can be rewritten
625: compactly as
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: a_0|_{\rm leading} &=& - \frac{1}{192 \pi} \frac{s}{\Lambda^2} \; .
628: \end{eqnarray}
629: Thus, the radion mass does not regularize the
630: bad high energy behavior of the partial wave amplitude
631: because there are no particular symmetry relations between
632: the radion and the Goldstone bosons. However, we have already
633: argued that our 4-d effective theory is valid for energies
634: only up to about the cutoff scale $\Lambda$. Under the condition
635: $s,m_r^2 < \Lambda^2$, the radion contributions will not
636: saturate unitarity and thus no significant bounds can be
637: obtained.
638:
639: \subsection{Radion interactions with electroweak Goldstone bosons}
640: \label{radion-gold-sec}
641:
642: The above analysis utilized the the gauge boson -- radion
643: Feynman rules while attaching longitudinally polarized $W$s
644: to the external lines. It is instructive to see the same
645: calculation done more directly by simply considering the couplings
646: of the radion to the Goldstone bosons. This can be done by
647: starting with the fundamental couplings of the radion
648: in Eq.~(\ref{trace-eq}), but writing out only the scalar
649: kinetic and potential terms. This is equivalent to turning off
650: the electroweak gauge couplings, $g = g' \ra 0$. In fact,
651: only the kinetic terms are relevant
652: \begin{eqnarray}
653: S &=& \int d^4 x \, \partial_\mu H^{\dag} \partial^\mu H
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: where $H = (-i\omega^+, \textfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (h + i z))$
656: and $\omega^\pm$, $z$ are the charged and neutral Goldstone bosons
657: respectively.
658: This results in the following interactions between the
659: Goldstone bosons and the radion at ${\cal O}(r)$,
660: \begin{eqnarray}
661: {\cal L} &=& - \frac{2 \gamma}{v} r \partial_\mu w^+ \partial^\mu w^-
662: - \frac{\gamma}{v} r \partial_\mu z \partial^\mu z \; ,
663: \end{eqnarray}
664: leading to the Feynman rules shown in Fig.~\ref{feyn-rule-Goldstone-fig}.
665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
666: \begin{figure}[t]
667: \begin{picture}(440,140)
668: %
669: % goldstone boson feynman rules
670: % omega^+ omega^- r
671: \Text( 60, 140 )[r]{$\omega^+(p_1)$}
672: \Text( 60, 80 )[r]{$\omega^-(p_2)$}
673: \DashLine( 70, 140 )( 110, 110 ){3}
674: \DashLine( 70, 80 )( 110, 110 ){3}
675: \DashLine( 110, 110 )( 160, 110 ){3}
676: \Text( 170, 110 )[l]{$r$}
677: \Text( 300, 110 )[l]{$i 2 (\gamma/v) \,\, p_1 \cdot p_2$}
678: % z z r
679: \Text( 60, 60 )[r]{$z(p_1)$}
680: \Text( 60, 0 )[r]{$z(p_2)$}
681: \DashLine( 70, 60 )( 110, 30 ){3}
682: \DashLine( 70, 0 )( 110, 30 ){3}
683: \DashLine( 110, 30 )( 160, 30 ){3}
684: \Text( 170, 30 )[l]{$r$}
685: \Text( 300, 30 )[l]{$i 2 (\gamma/v) \,\, p_1 \cdot p_2$}
686: \end{picture}
687: \caption{Feynman rules for the Goldstone bosons $\omega^\pm$ and $z$
688: with all momenta incoming.}
689: \label{feyn-rule-Goldstone-fig}
690: \end{figure}
691: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
692: Using these Feynman rules we obtain the same leading order amplitude
693: given by the terms in the first line of Eq.~(\ref{radion-amp-eq}).
694:
695: At this point, we should comment on this equivalence.
696: The physical Higgs is part of the full Higgs doublet of the SM,
697: and so its interactions are enforced by the electroweak symmetry.
698: It is not immediately obvious that the Goldstone boson
699: approximation automatically applies for radion interactions, since
700: the latter are dimension five operators added to SM Lagrangian. In fact,
701: naively one might add a curvature-Higgs mixing term to the scalar
702: Lagrangian that is arranged to cancel the kinetic terms in the
703: energy momentum tensor. This addition ``improves'' the
704: energy momentum tensor by rendering it classically conformally
705: invariant. However, as we will see in the next Section, the
706: addition of curvature-Higgs mixing can be consistently treated
707: in either prescription. Hence, the Goldstone boson approximation
708: does indeed apply for the case with the radion, including when mixed
709: with the Higgs.
710:
711: Since the radion contributions to the gauge boson scattering amplitude
712: are suppressed by $\gamma^2 \propto 1/\Lambda^2$, there is no region
713: where a large contribution is expected in the 4-d effective theory,
714: despite the ${\cal O}(s/M_W^2)$ divergence. This same result
715: can be trivially applied to all other gauge boson scattering
716: amplitudes involving the exchange of an (internal) radion.
717: Fundamentally this result is straightforward to see from the
718: radion interactions -- the radion contribution is always
719: suppressed by $1/\Lambda$ instead of $1/v$.
720: There is, however, one important difference between the Higgs and
721: the radion interactions: At one-loop the radion
722: couples to trace anomaly gauge interaction \cite{GRW2,BaeFeb2000}.
723: Here, the strength
724: of the interaction is $\gamma b_a g_a^2/16 \pi^2$, where $b_a$ is
725: one-loop beta function coefficient for the $a$ coupling. This is
726: generally much larger than the analogous one-loop coupling to the Higgs
727: [at least for $a=$SU(3)],
728: scaling roughly with the number of heavy fermions running in the loop.
729: Nevertheless, this is still \emph{suppressed} relative to the size
730: of tree-level couplings and thus does not give rise to any new unitarity
731: problems.
732:
733: \section{Curvature-Higgs mixing}
734: \label{curv-scalar-sec}
735:
736: The couplings of the radion that we have used to calculate gauge
737: boson scattering were independent of the Higgs couplings. This need
738: not be the case, however. In particular, on the TeV brane we ought
739: to add all terms to the action that are not forbidden by symmetries.
740: One important term is a curvature-Higgs mixing operator \cite{GRW2}
741: \begin{eqnarray}
742: S^{\rm mixing} &=& \int d^4 x\ \sqrt{-g_{\rm ind}} \,\, \xi \,
743: H^\dagger H {\cal R}^{(4)}(g_{\rm ind}) \; ,
744: \end{eqnarray}
745: where $\xi$ is the dimensionless coefficient of this operator,
746: $g_{\rm ind}$ is the induced metric on the TeV brane and
747: ${\cal R}^{(4)}(g_{\rm ind})$ is the 4-d Ricci scalar written
748: explicitly as a function of the induced metric. In theories with
749: a flat extra dimension, this term gives rise to a tiny $1/\Mpl$
750: suppressed mixing between the radion and the Higgs.
751: In RS1, however, this mixing is suppressed by the inverse warped
752: Planck scale $1/\Lambda$. The curvature-Higgs mixing operator
753: induces kinetic mixing between the radion and the Higgs \cite{GRW2,CGK}
754: \begin{eqnarray}
755: S^{\rm mixing} &=& \int d^4 x \left[ 6 \xi \gamma h\ \Yfund r
756: + 3 \xi \gamma^2\ (\partial r)^2 \right] \; .
757: \end{eqnarray}
758: This mixing can be diagonalized by appropriate field redefinitions
759: and rotations, resulting in the following relations between the
760: interaction and mass eigenstates \cite{CGK}
761: \begin{equation}
762: \begin{array}{rcl}
763: h & \rightarrow & A h_m + B r_m \\
764: -\gamma r & \rightarrow & C h_m + D r_m
765: \end{array} \label{mixed-eq}
766: \end{equation}
767: where
768: \begin{equation}
769: \begin{array}{rcl}
770: A &=& \cos \theta - \frac{6\xi \gamma }{Z} \sin \theta \\
771: B &=& \sin \theta + \frac{6\xi \gamma }{Z} \cos \theta \\
772: C &=& \frac{\sin \theta}{Z} \gamma \\
773: D &=& -\frac{\cos \theta}{Z} \gamma
774: \end{array}
775: \label{ABCD-eq}
776: \end{equation}
777: and
778: \begin{eqnarray}
779: Z^2 &=& 1 + 6 \xi \gamma^2 \left( 1 - 6 \xi \right)
780: \label{Z-eq} \\
781: \tan 2\theta &=& 12 \xi \gamma Z \frac{m_h^2}{m_r^2-m_h^2
782: \left( Z^2 - 36 \xi^2 \gamma^2 \right)} \; .
783: \label{tantheta-eq}
784: \end{eqnarray}
785: The mass eigenstates are written as $h_m$ and $r_m$, although we
786: should emphasize that these are mixed scalars with interactions
787: that do not necessarily resemble the Higgs and radion interaction
788: eigenstates. Nevertheless, in the limit that $\xi \rightarrow 0$,
789: the mixing matrix becomes
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: \left( \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\ C & D \end{array} \right)
792: \stackrel{\xi \rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow}
793: \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -\gamma \end{array} \right)
794: \end{eqnarray}
795: and hence $h \rightarrow h_m$ and $r \rightarrow r_m$.
796:
797: The Feynman rules for the mixed states can be easily read off from
798: Eq.~(\ref{rww-eq}) after substituting Eq.~(\ref{mixed-eq}). For
799: completeness, we show them in Fig.~\ref{mixed-feyn-rules-fig}.
800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
801: \begin{figure}[t]
802: \begin{picture}(440,140)
803: %
804: % h_m interaction
805: \Photon( 70, 140 )( 110, 110 ){5}{5}
806: \Photon( 70, 80 )( 110, 110 ){5}{5}
807: \DashLine( 110, 110 )( 160, 110 ){3}
808: \Text( 60, 80 )[r]{$V_\mu$}
809: \Text( 60, 140 )[r]{$V_\nu$}
810: \Text( 165, 110 )[l]{$h_m$}
811: \Text( 300, 110 )[c]{$i \frac{2 M_V^2}{v} \left( A + C \right)
812: \eta_{\mu\nu}$}
813: %
814: % r_m interaction
815: \Photon( 70, 60 )( 110, 30 ){5}{5}
816: \Photon( 70, 0 )( 110, 30 ){5}{5}
817: \DashLine( 110, 30 )( 160, 30 ){3}
818: \Text( 60, 0 )[r]{$V_\mu$}
819: \Text( 60, 60 )[r]{$V_\nu$}
820: \Text( 165, 30 )[l]{$r_m$}
821: \Text( 300, 30 )[c]{$i \frac{2 M_V^2}{v} \left( B + D \right)
822: \eta_{\mu\nu}$}
823: \end{picture}
824: \caption{Feynman rules for three-point gauge boson couplings
825: including curvature-Higgs mixing.}
826: \label{mixed-feyn-rules-fig}
827: \end{figure}
828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
829:
830: \subsection{Mass independent contributions to $a_0$}
831: \label{radioneffects-curv-sec}
832:
833: Since the Higgs interaction is modified, the cancellation between
834: the Higgs contribution shown in Fig.~\ref{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}(d),(e)
835: and the gauge contribution Fig.~\ref{W-scat-feyn-diag-fig}(a),(b),(c)
836: is no longer complete. There are now several important contributions:
837: the two mixed scalar (Higgs and radion) contributions, and the incompletely
838: canceled gauge boson piece. The leading order, mass independent
839: amplitude for the sum of these contributions is
840: \begin{eqnarray}
841: -i {\cal M} &=& - g^2 \left( (A + C)^2 + (B + D)^2 - 1 \right)
842: \left[ \frac{s}{4 M_W^2} + \frac{t}{4 M_W^2} + 2 \frac{t}{s} \right] \; .
843: \label{M-mi-eq}
844: \end{eqnarray}
845: Using Eqs.~(\ref{ABCD-eq})--(\ref{tantheta-eq}), the coefficient
846: can be written as
847: \begin{eqnarray}
848: (A + C)^2 + (B + D)^2 &=& 1 + \left( \frac{1 - 6 \xi}{Z} \gamma \right)^2
849: \label{ACBD-relation-eq}
850: \end{eqnarray}
851: and so Eq.~(\ref{M-mi-eq}) reduces to
852: \begin{eqnarray}
853: -i {\cal M} &=& - g^2 \left( \frac{1 - 6 \xi}{Z} \gamma \right)^2
854: \left[ \frac{s}{4 M_W^2} + \frac{t}{4 M_W^2} + 2 \frac{t}{s} \right] \; .
855: \end{eqnarray}
856: Again, the same result can be obtained through the Goldstone
857: boson approximation, as shown in the Appendix.
858:
859: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
860: \begin{figure}[t]
861: \centering
862: \hspace*{0in}
863: \epsfxsize=5.0in
864: \epsffile{bound1.eps}
865: \caption{Bound on $\gamma = 1/(\sqrt{6} \Lambda)$ as a function of $\xi$.
866: The dark shaded region (red) is excluded by requiring that
867: kinetic terms for the Higgs and radion are positive
868: (the crossover is shown by the dashed line).
869: The light shaded region (yellow) is excluded by requiring
870: that the gauge boson partial wave scattering amplitude
871: does not exceed the perturbative unitarity bound prior to the
872: TeV brane cutoff scale. The scattering energy $\sqrt{s}$ in TeV
873: at which perturbative unitarity is violated is indicated
874: by the contours in this region.}
875: \label{bound-fig}
876: \end{figure}
877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
878: For small $\xi$ and $\gamma$, the coefficient of the $s/M_W^2$ term becomes
879: \begin{eqnarray*}
880: (1 - 12 \xi) \gamma^2
881: \end{eqnarray*}
882: and so there is no significant enhancement of the scalar contribution
883: to the gauge boson scattering amplitude. However, if $\xi$ is
884: proportional to $1/\gamma$, then the coefficient may not be suppressed
885: by $\gamma^2$. For instance, suppose $\xi = -\epsilon/6 \gamma$ with
886: $\epsilon \lsim 1$, then the coefficient becomes
887: \begin{eqnarray*}
888: \frac{\epsilon^2}{1 - \epsilon^2 + \epsilon \gamma}
889: \end{eqnarray*}
890: which is ${\cal O}(1)$ and \emph{not} suppressed by $\gamma^2$.
891: Hence, for a large curvature-Higgs mixing coefficient
892: there can be large contributions to the gauge boson scattering
893: amplitude. The partial wave amplitude
894: for the mass independent (``mi'') terms is
895: \begin{eqnarray}
896: a_0^{\rm mi} &=&
897: - \frac{g^2}{16 \pi} \left( \frac{1 - 6 \xi}{Z} \gamma \right)^2
898: \left[ \frac{s}{8 M_W^2} - \frac{3}{2} \right] \; .
899: \label{a0-mi-eq}
900: \end{eqnarray}
901: Requiring that this contribution to the partial wave amplitude does
902: not exceed the perturbative unitarity bound implies an upper bound
903: on the gauge boson scattering energy, for moderate or large $\xi$.
904: We show the bound as a function of $\xi$ in Fig.~\ref{bound-fig}.
905: This is one of the central results of this paper.
906: If we require that our 4-d effective theory is perturbative
907: up to the TeV brane cutoff scale, meaning
908: \begin{eqnarray}
909: a_0(s) &<& \frac{1}{2} \qquad
910: \mbox{for all} \; s \; \mbox{up to} \; \Lambda^2 \; ,
911: \end{eqnarray}
912: then the light shaded region (yellow) is excluded. We find that
913: $|\xi|$ must be less than about $2.7$, for perturbative unitarity to
914: be respected in our 4-d effective theory independent of the cutoff scale.
915: As expected, for small $|\xi|$, the mass independent contribution
916: never exceeds the perturbative unitarity bound, which is consistent
917: with the discussion in Sec.~\ref{W-scat-sec}. For $|\xi| \gsim 2.7$,
918: we can identify the gauge boson scattering energy at which perturbation
919: theory breaks down, which is shown by the contours.
920: The contours halt at small $|\xi|$ when $\sqrt{s} = \Lambda$.
921: The dark shaded region is excluded by requiring that the
922: kinetic terms for the radion and the Higgs are positive definite,
923: and so $Z^2 > 0$ in Eq.~(\ref{Z-eq}) \cite{CGK}.
924: No significant bound is obtained for the region $\Lambda \lsim 1$ TeV
925: ($\gamma \gsim 0.1$), since at best the leading order term is
926: ${\cal O}(1 \; {\rm TeV}^2/M_W^2)$, and we already know
927: that the ${\cal O}(m_h^2/M_W^2)$ term with $m_h \sim 1$ TeV is
928: marginally allowed in the SM.
929:
930: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
931: \begin{figure}[!t]
932: \hspace*{0in}
933: \centerline{
934: \epsfxsize=0.55\textwidth
935: \epsffile{bound_mass_1TeV_largelabels.eps}
936: \hfill
937: \epsfxsize=0.55\textwidth
938: \epsffile{bound_mass_3TeV_largelabels.eps}
939: }
940: \caption{The contribution to the $j=0$ partial wave amplitude $a_0$
941: from all tree-level diagrams, including the mass effects of Higgs
942: and the radion. The $x$-axis corresponds to the interaction eigenstate
943: masses of the Higgs and radion (taken to be equal for illustration).
944: The scattering amplitude was evaluated at the maximal energy
945: $\sqrt{s} = \Lambda = (1,3)$ TeV for the graph on the (left,right).
946: Contours of various values of the curvature-Higgs mixing parameter
947: $\xi$ are shown.}
948: \label{mass-effect-fig}
949: \end{figure}
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951:
952: \subsection{Mass dependent contributions to $a_0$}
953:
954: Up to now we have considered the mass independent terms to
955: gauge boson scattering. The full result, including mass effects, is
956: \begin{eqnarray}
957: a_0^{\rm total} &=& a_0^{\rm mi}
958: - (B + D)^2 \Bigg[ \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{2 M_W^2}
959: \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_{r_m}^2} + 1 + \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{4 M_W^2}
960: + 2 \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{s - m_{r_m}^2}
961: \nonumber \\ & &{} \qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;\;
962: - \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_{r_m}^2} + 1 + \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{4 M_W^2}
963: - 2 \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_{r_m}^2}{s}
964: \ln \left( 1 + \frac{s}{m_{r_m}^2} \right) \Bigg]
965: \nonumber \\ & &{}
966: - (A + C)^2 \Bigg[ \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{2 M_W^2}
967: \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_{h_m}^2} + 1 + \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{4 M_W^2}
968: + 2 \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{s - m_{h_m}^2}
969: \nonumber \\ & &{} \qquad\qquad\quad\;
970: - \left( \frac{M_W^2}{m_{h_m}^2} + 1 + \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{4 M_W^2}
971: - 2 \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{s} \right) \frac{m_{h_m}^2}{s}
972: \ln \left( 1 + \frac{s}{m_{h_m}^2} \right) \Bigg]
973: \label{a0-total-eq}
974: \end{eqnarray}
975: where $m_{h_m},m_{r_m}$ are the physical masses of the mixed
976: Higgs/radion scalars. Notice that the scalar mixing coefficients
977: are positive definite, and in fact from Eq.~(\ref{ACBD-relation-eq})
978: it is obvious that $(A + C)^2 > \textfrac{1}{2}$ or
979: $(B + D)^2 > \textfrac{1}{2}$, and so there are always significant
980: contributions to the partial wave amplitude from these mass terms.
981: We illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{mass-effect-fig}
982: in two cases with $\sqrt{s}=\Lambda=1, 3$ TeV
983: by varying the masses and the curvature-Higgs mixing $\xi$, while
984: fixing the interaction eigenstate
985: masses to be equal.
986: One has to take care in doing the calculation, since now there
987: are poles in $1/(s - m^2)$ for $m=m_{h_m}$ and $m=m_{r_m}$. With
988: maximal $s = \Lambda^2$, the effects of these poles show up only
989: when the mass is ${\cal O}(\Lambda)$, which is
990: already in the region in which we cannot reliably calculate.
991: The result is that the ``allowed'' region shown in Fig.~\ref{bound-fig}
992: is further reduced by including the finite
993: mass effects of radion and the Higgs.
994:
995: The above results were obtained by assuming the masses of the
996: two scalars are (approximately) equal. Even when the masses
997: are widely separated, we find that the unitarity bound is
998: reduced. We illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{mass-bound-fig}
999: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1000: \begin{figure}[t]
1001: \centering
1002: \hspace*{0in}
1003: \epsfxsize=4.0in
1004: \epsffile{mhmrcontours.eps}
1005: \caption{Constraints on the radion and Higgs masses from
1006: the perturbative unitarity bound. For this graph, we set
1007: $\sqrt{s} = \Lambda = 5$ TeV\@. Contours of various values of
1008: $\xi$ are shown with $a_0 = 0.5$. The allowed region lies below
1009: and to the left of the contours.}
1010: \label{mass-bound-fig}
1011: \end{figure}
1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1013: where we show contours of $|a_0| = 0.5$ as a function of
1014: the Higgs and radion masses, for the choice $\sqrt{s} = \Lambda = 5$ TeV
1015: and various values of $\xi$.
1016: The interaction eigenstate masses are shown on the axes, although they are
1017: nearly the same as the the physical masses throughout the plot.
1018: Thus, requiring perturbative unitarity is not violated places
1019: upper bounds on the masses of the mixed scalars (radion and Higgs),
1020: in regions of ($\gamma$,$\xi$) parameter space \emph{allowed}
1021: by Fig.~\ref{bound-fig}.
1022:
1023: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1024: \begin{figure}[t]
1025: \centering
1026: \hspace*{0in}
1027: \epsfxsize=4.0in
1028: \epsffile{a0vroots.eps}
1029: \caption{The partial wave amplitude as a function of $\sqrt{s}$.
1030: The dashed line is the SM for $m_h = 500$ GeV (width effects
1031: were \emph{not} taken into account). The solid line shows
1032: the behavior for the same Higgs mass but with a radion of mass
1033: $\sim 2 m_h$ with curvature-Higgs mixing in the spectrum.
1034: Notice that destructive interference occurs between
1035: $m_h < \sqrt{s} < m_r$, due to the differing sign
1036: of the (leading) pole contributions, which contrasts with the
1037: asymptotically flat behavior of the partial wave amplitude in the SM.}
1038: \label{amp-func-s-fig}
1039: \end{figure}
1040: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1041: The contributions to the partial wave amplitude above the Higgs and
1042: radion mass poles always constructively interfere, and so the
1043: presence of a radion universally increases the size of the partial
1044: wave amplitude. Below the mass of the Higgs and the radion
1045: $\sqrt{s} \ll m_h, m_r$,
1046: the partial wave amplitude is given by Eq.~(\ref{part-eq})
1047: with no dependence on the masses of the scalars, as the
1048: decoupling theorem requires. The remaining region, namely
1049: $m_h < \sqrt{s} < m_r$ (or $m_r < \sqrt{s} < m_h$) has the
1050: interesting behavior that the contribution from the Higgs
1051: and the radion have opposite sign due to the differing sign
1052: of the pole $m^2/(s - m^2)$. While this does not give
1053: rise to any new unitarity problems nor does it relax the above
1054: constraints, it is an interesting \emph{distinction} as compared
1055: with the high energy behavior of the partial wave amplitude of the Higgs.
1056: In Fig.~\ref{amp-func-s-fig} we illustrate the differing behavior
1057: of the partial wave amplitude as a function of scattering energy.
1058: Notice that for scattering energies lower than the radion mass,
1059: the partial wave amplitude drops rapidly. This should be compared
1060: against the SM (or the ``SM + radion'' no mixing case) which
1061: asymptotes to a constant at large energy.
1062:
1063: \section{Conclusions}
1064: \label{conclusions-sec}
1065:
1066: We have calculated the tree-level contribution to gauge boson
1067: scattering including the radion in the 4-d effective theory,
1068: valid below the cutoff scale $\Lambda = e^{-kL} \Mpl$,
1069: obtained from the Randall-Sundrum solution to the hierarchy problem.
1070: In general, the radion provides a new contribution that is linearly
1071: divergent in $s$, going as $s/\Lambda^2$. This was calculated
1072: using longitudinally polarized gauge bosons with the three-point
1073: $W_\mu^+ W_\nu^- r$ couplings, and independently using the eaten
1074: Goldstone bosons with their $\omega^+\omega^- r$ couplings.
1075: However, since our effective
1076: theory is only valid up to of order $\Lambda$, no significant
1077: bounds can be obtained when the Higgs and radion are mass
1078: eigenstates with no mixing. This linear contribution is exactly
1079: analogous to the Higgs, but unlike the Higgs there is no gauge
1080: cancellation between this term and ordinary gauge boson exchange.
1081:
1082: Including curvature-Higgs mixing into the 4-d effective theory
1083: dramatically affects the gauge boson scattering cross section.
1084: In particular, we found that the mixing coefficient $|\xi|$
1085: must be less than $3$ so that perturbative unitarity
1086: is not violated \emph{prior} to reaching the TeV brane cutoff
1087: scale $\Lambda$, independent of the mass of the radion and Higgs
1088: as seen in Fig.~\ref{bound-fig}. It is interesting to
1089: remark that with the curvature-Higgs mixing coefficient
1090: $\xi \sim -1/(6 \gamma)$, electroweak precision constraints can
1091: be satisfied with $m_h,m_r \gg M_W$ \cite{CGK}. We find, however,
1092: that this large mixing implies the theory must also become
1093: non-perturbative at a scale significantly \emph{below} the TeV brane
1094: cutoff scale.
1095: We also calculated the partial wave
1096: amplitude including the radion and Higgs masses, and we found
1097: that the allowed region of $(\gamma,\xi)$ satisfying perturbative
1098: unitarity is further reduced. Mass bounds on the Higgs boson and
1099: the radion can be inferred for large $\xi$,
1100: as shown in Fig.~\ref{mass-bound-fig}.
1101: Via our explicit calculations, we verified the validity of
1102: the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem with the existence
1103: of the curvature-Higgs mixing.
1104:
1105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1106: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1107: \indent
1108:
1109: G.D.K.\ thanks the theoretical physics group at LBL where part of
1110: this work was completed.
1111: This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
1112: under grant number DE-FG02-95ER40896, and in part by the Wisconsin
1113: Alumni Research Foundation.
1114:
1115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1116: \begin{appendix}
1117:
1118: \section*{Appendix: Goldstone boson calculation including mixing}
1119:
1120: Given the action
1121: \begin{eqnarray}
1122: S &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( g^{\mu\nu} D_\mu H^\dag D_\nu H
1123: + \xi H^\dag H {\cal R}^{(4)} \right)
1124: \end{eqnarray}
1125: with the Higgs doublet $H = [ -i \omega^+ , \textfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (h + iz)]$
1126: expressed in terms of the Goldstone bosons $\omega^\pm$ and $z$.
1127: The induced metric expressed explicitly in terms of the radion
1128: field is \cite{CGK}
1129: \begin{eqnarray}
1130: g_{\mu\nu} = e^{-2 k L - 2 (\gamma/v) r} \eta_{\mu\nu} \; .
1131: \end{eqnarray}
1132: It is straightforward to carry out the rescalings of the fields
1133: $H \ra e^{-kL} H$, etc., so that the curvature-Higgs mixing term
1134: $H^\dag H {\cal R}^{(4)}$ can be expressed as
1135: $(\omega^+ \omega^- + \textfrac{1}{2} z^2) \Yfund r$ to ${\cal O}(r)$.
1136: Suitable manipulations of this term result in the Goldstone boson/radion
1137: interaction terms
1138: \begin{eqnarray}
1139: {\cal L} &=& - 2 \frac{\gamma}{v} \left( 1 - 6 \xi \right) r
1140: \left[ \partial_\mu \omega^+ \partial^\mu \omega^-
1141: + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu z \partial^\mu z \right] \; .
1142: \end{eqnarray}
1143: We have implicitly used the Landau gauge, setting
1144: $\Yfund \omega^\pm = \Yfund z = 0$.
1145:
1146: Following the discussion in Sec.~\ref{curv-scalar-sec}, we then
1147: rewrite the Lagrangian in terms of the physical eigenstates.
1148: To see that we obtain the
1149: same leading order mass-independent amplitude, we can make the
1150: simplification $m_h = m_r = 0$ in Eq.~(\ref{tantheta-eq}),
1151: and then from Eq.~(\ref{ABCD-eq}) it is clear that $r = r_m/Z$.
1152: Using the interaction Lagrangian above, with the physical radion
1153: mass eigenstate $r_m$, the Goldstone boson partial wave amplitude
1154: is \emph{exactly} the same as Eq.~(\ref{a0-mi-eq}).
1155: It is also not hard to verify the leading order mass dependent
1156: terms given in Eq.~(\ref{a0-total-eq}) can be similarly obtained.
1157:
1158: \end{appendix}
1159:
1160: %\vspace*{0.8cm}
1161: %\newpage
1162:
1163: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1164: \singlespaced
1165:
1166: \bibitem{RS1}
1167: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
1168: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
1169: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
1170: [hep-ph/9905221].
1171: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
1172:
1173: \bibitem{Csaba1}
1174: C.~Cs\'aki, M.~Graesser, C.~Kolda and J.~Terning,
1175: %``Cosmology of one extra dimension with localized gravity,''
1176: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 462}, 34 (1999)
1177: [hep-ph/9906513].
1178: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906513;%%
1179:
1180: \bibitem{GWstable}
1181: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
1182: %``Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,''
1183: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4922 (1999)
1184: [hep-ph/9907447].
1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907447;%%
1186:
1187: \bibitem{GoldRoth}
1188: W.~D.~Goldberger and I.~Z.~Rothstein,
1189: %``Quantum stabilization of compactified AdS(5),''
1190: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 491}, 339 (2000)
1191: [hep-th/0007065].
1192: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007065;%%
1193:
1194: %\bibitem{RS2}
1195: %L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
1196: %%``An alternative to compactification,''
1197: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999)
1198: %[hep-th/9906064].
1199: %%%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%
1200:
1201: \bibitem{CharmGregRub}
1202: C.~Charmousis, R.~Gregory and V.~A.~Rubakov,
1203: %``Wave function of the radion in a brane world,''
1204: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 067505 (2000)
1205: [hep-th/9912160].
1206: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912160;%%
1207:
1208: \bibitem{DeWolfe}
1209: O.~DeWolfe, D.~Z.~Freedman, S.~S.~Gubser and A.~Karch,
1210: %``Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,''
1211: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 046008 (2000)
1212: [hep-th/9909134].
1213: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909134;%%
1214:
1215: \bibitem{CGK}
1216: C.~Cs\'aki, M.~L.~Graesser and G.~D.~Kribs,
1217: %``Radion dynamics and electroweak physics,''
1218: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 065002 (2001)
1219: [hep-th/0008151].
1220: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008151;%%
1221:
1222: \bibitem{TanakaMontes}
1223: T.~Tanaka and X.~Montes,
1224: %``Gravity in the brane-world for two-branes model with stabilized modulus,''
1225: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 259 (2000)
1226: [hep-th/0001092].
1227: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001092;%%
1228:
1229: \bibitem{Csaba2}
1230: C.~Cs\'aki, M.~Graesser, L.~Randall and J.~Terning,
1231: %``Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization,''
1232: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 045015 (2000)
1233: [hep-ph/9911406].
1234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911406;%%
1235:
1236: \bibitem{GWpheno}
1237: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
1238: %``Phenomenology of a stabilized modulus,''
1239: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475}, 275 (2000)
1240: [hep-ph/9911457].
1241: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911457;%%
1242:
1243: \bibitem{GRW2}
1244: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,
1245: %``Graviscalars from higher-dimensional metrics and curvature-Higgs mixing,''
1246: hep-ph/0002178.
1247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002178;%%
1248:
1249: %\cite{Bae:2000pk}
1250: \bibitem{BaeFeb2000}
1251: S.~B.~Bae, P.~Ko, H.~S.~Lee and J.~Lee,
1252: %``Phenomenology of the radion in the Randall-Sundrum scenario at colliders,''
1253: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487}, 299 (2000)
1254: [hep-ph/0002224];
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002224;%%
1256:
1257: \bibitem{radionpheno}
1258: %\cite{Mahanta:2000zp}
1259: %\bibitem{Mahanta:2000zp}
1260: U.~Mahanta and S.~Rakshit,
1261: %``Some low energy effects of a light stabilized radion in the
1262: %Randall-Sundrum model,''
1263: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 480}, 176 (2000)
1264: [hep-ph/0002049];
1265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002049;%%
1266: %\cite{Mahanta:2000ci}
1267: %\bibitem{Mahanta:2000ci}
1268: U.~Mahanta and A.~Datta,
1269: %``Production of light stabilized radion at high energy hadron colliders,''
1270: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 483}, 196 (2000)
1271: [hep-ph/0002183];
1272: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002183;%%
1273: %\cite{Kim:2000ks}
1274: %\bibitem{Kim:2000ks}
1275: J.~E.~Kim, B.~Kyae and J.~D.~Park,
1276: %``The radion contribution to the weak mixing angle,''
1277: hep-ph/0007008;
1278: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007008;%%
1279: %\cite{Mahanta:2000nc}
1280: %\bibitem{Mahanta:2000nc}
1281: U.~Mahanta,
1282: %``Implications of radion Higgs couplings for high-energy scattering in the
1283: %Randall-Sundrum model,''
1284: hep-ph/0008042;
1285: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008042;%%
1286: %\bibitem{kingman}
1287: %\cite{Cheung:2001rw}
1288: %\bibitem{Cheung:2001rw}
1289: K.~Cheung,
1290: %``Phenomenology of radion in Randall-Sundrum scenario,''
1291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 056007 (2001)
1292: [hep-ph/0009232].
1293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009232;%%
1294: %\cite{Park:2000xp}
1295: %\bibitem{Park:2000xp}
1296: S.~C.~Park, H.~S.~Song and J.~Song,
1297: %``Radion effects on the production of an intermediate-mass
1298: %scalar and $Z$ at LEP II,''
1299: hep-ph/0009245;
1300: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009245;%%
1301: %\cite{Choudhury:2000fj}
1302: %\bibitem{Choudhury:2000fj}
1303: S.~R.~Choudhury, A.~S.~Cornell and G.~C.~Joshi,
1304: %``Radion signature in gamma gamma scattering,''
1305: hep-ph/0012043.
1306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012043;%%
1307:
1308: \bibitem{DHR}
1309: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
1310: %``Phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum gauge hierarchy model,''
1311: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 2080 (2000)
1312: [hep-ph/9909255];
1313: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909255;%%
1314: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2000wi}
1315: %\bibitem{Davoudiasl:2000wi}
1316: %H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
1317: ibid.,
1318: %``Experimental probes of localized gravity: On and off the wall,''
1319: hep-ph/0006041.
1320: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006041;%%
1321:
1322: \bibitem{Mahantaunitarity}
1323: U.~Mahanta,
1324: %``Unitarity bound on the radion mass in the Randall-Sundrum model,''
1325: hep-ph/0004128.
1326: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004128;%%
1327:
1328: \bibitem{Baeunitarity}
1329: %\bibitem{Bae:2001id}
1330: S.~Bae, P.~Ko, H.~S.~Lee and J.~Lee,
1331: %``Radion phenomenology in the Randall Sundrum scenario,''
1332: hep-ph/0103187.
1333: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103187;%%
1334:
1335: \bibitem{cg}
1336: M.~S.~Chanowitz and M.~K.~Gaillard,
1337: %``The Tev Physics Of Strongly Interacting W's And Z's,''
1338: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 261}, 379 (1985).
1339: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B261,379;%%
1340:
1341: \bibitem{lqt}
1342: B.~W.~Lee, C.~Quigg and H.~B.~Thacker,
1343: %``Weak Interactions At Very High-Energies: The Role Of The Higgs Boson Mass,''
1344: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 16}, 1519 (1977).
1345: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D16,1519;%%
1346:
1347: %\cite{Cornwall:1974km}
1348: \bibitem{et}
1349: J.~M.~Cornwall, D.~N.~Levin and G.~Tiktopoulos,
1350: %``Derivation Of Gauge Invariance From High-Energy Unitarity Bounds On The S - Matrix,''
1351: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10}, 1145 (1974);
1352: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,1145;%%
1353: %\cite{Bagger:1990fc}
1354: %\bibitem{Bagger:1990fc}
1355: J.~Bagger and C.~Schmidt,
1356: %``Equivalence Theorem Redux,''
1357: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 264 (1990);
1358: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,264;%%
1359: %\cite{He:1992ng}
1360: %\bibitem{He:1992ng}
1361: H.~He, Y.~Kuang and X.~Li,
1362: %``On the precise formulation of equivalence theorem,''
1363: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69}, 2619 (1992).
1364: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,2619;%%
1365:
1366: \bibitem{RS-SM-inbulk}
1367: %\cite{Goldberger:1999wh}
1368: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
1369: %``Bulk fields in the Randall-Sundrum compactification scenario,''
1370: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 107505 (1999)
1371: [hep-ph/9907218];
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907218;%%
1373: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2000tf}
1374: %\bibitem{DHRbulkgauge}
1375: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
1376: %``Bulk gauge fields in the Randall-Sundrum model,''
1377: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 43 (2000)
1378: [hep-ph/9911262];
1379: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911262;%%
1380: %\cite{Grossman:2000ra}
1381: %\bibitem{Grossman:2000ra}
1382: Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert,
1383: %``Neutrino masses and mixings in non-factorizable geometry,''
1384: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474}, 361 (2000)
1385: [hep-ph/9912408];
1386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912408;%%
1387: %\cite{Gherghetta:2000qt}
1388: %\bibitem{GP1}
1389: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol,
1390: %``Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,''
1391: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 141 (2000)
1392: [hep-ph/0003129].
1393: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003129;%%
1394:
1395: %\cite{Verlinde:2000fy}
1396: \bibitem{holographic}
1397: H.~Verlinde,
1398: %``Holography and compactification,''
1399: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 264 (2000)
1400: [hep-th/9906182];
1401: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906182;%%
1402: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}
1403: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}
1404: N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,
1405: %``Holography and phenomenology,''
1406: hep-th/0012148;
1407: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%
1408: %\cite{Rattazzi:2000hs}
1409: %\bibitem{Rattazzi:2000hs}
1410: R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,
1411: %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''
1412: hep-th/0012248.
1413: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%
1414:
1415: \end{thebibliography}
1416:
1417: \end{document}
1418:
1419: