1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: \setlength{\textwidth}{155mm}

3: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm}

4: \setlength{\textheight}{220mm}

5: \setlength{\topmargin}{-7mm}

6: \parskip=1ex plus0.5ex minus0.2ex

7: %\renewcommand{\theequation}

8: %{\mbox{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}}

9: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

10: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}[section]

11: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]

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

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

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

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

16: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}

17: \newcommand{\s}{\scriptstyle}

18: \newcommand{\ssc}{\scriptscriptstyle}

19: \newcommand{\U}{\hat{U}}

20: \newcommand{\V}{\hat{V}}

21: \newcommand{\W}{\hat{W}}

22: \newcommand{\G}{\hat{G}}  

23: \newcommand{\hnu}{\hat{\nu}}

24: \newcommand{\hmu}{\hat{\mu}}

25: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}}

26: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}}

27: \newcommand{\re}{{\rm Re}}

28: \newcommand{\im}{{\rm Im}}

29: \newcommand{\sign}{{\rm sign}}

30: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\Big\langle #1 \Big\rangle}

31: \newcommand{\pars}{\partial^\ast}

32: \newcommand{\thp}{\theta^+_{\pars p}}

33: \newcommand{\thm}{\theta^-_{\pars p}}

34: \newcommand{\bth}{\bar{\theta}}

35: \newcommand{\bb}{\bar{b}}

36: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}

37: \newcommand{\Z}{{\cal Z}}

38: \input epsf

39: \begin{document} 

40: 

41: \hfill \vbox{\hbox{UCLA/01/TEP/14}} 

42: \begin{center}{\Large\bf Light fermion mass generation  

43: in dynamical symmetry breaking}\\[2cm] 

44: {\bf E. T. Tomboulis}\footnote{Research supported by 

45: NSF grant NSF-PHY 9819686}\\

46: {\em Department of Physics, UCLA, Los Angeles, 

47: CA 90095-1547}\\

48: {\sf e-mail: tombouli@physics.ucla.edu}

49: \end{center}

50: \vspace{1cm}

51: 

52: \begin{center}{\Large\bf Abstract} 

53: \end{center}

54: We reconsider the question of mass generation for 

55: fermions coupled to a set of gauge bosons (in 

56: particular, the electroweak gauge bosons) when the latter get 

57: their masses through the Goldstone bosons originating 

58: in a simple (i.e. not extended) technicolor sector. The  

59: fermion global chiral symmetries are broken by including 

60: four-fermion interactions. We find that the system can be 

61: nonperturbatively unstable under fermion mass fluctuations 

62: driving the formation of an effective coupling 

63: between the technigoldstone bosons and the ordinary fermions.   

64: Minimization of an effective action for the 

65: corresponding composite operators describes then  

66: dynamical generation of light fermion masses $\sim M \exp(-k/g^2)$, 

67: where $M$ is some cutoff mass. 

68: 

69: 

70: \vfill

71: \pagebreak 

72: 

73: \section{Introduction}

74:     

75: Electroweak dynamical symmetry breaking (DSB) provides a  

76: natural and attractive mechanism for generating the $W$ and $Z$ 

77: masses. It has proven much more difficult, however, to 

78: satisfactorily account for  

79: the quark and lepton masses within such a framework. 

80: Extended technicolor, walking technicolor, top condensation,  

81: and top-color assisted technicolor are among the various 

82: proposals that have been investigated. (For reviews and references,   

83: see \cite{C}.) 

84: 

85: 

86: In this paper we reconsider the question of fermion 

87: mass generation in a framework employing only  

88: simple (i.e. not extended) technicolor.    

89: Specifically, we investigate the following question. 

90: Consider the system consisting of 

91: a simple technicolor sector, electroweak interactions, and the 

92: ordinary quarks and leptons.  

93: In addition, postulate four-fermi interactions among the 

94: ordinary fermions that explicitly break their global chiral symmetries. 

95: Thus, restricting to one fermion family only,     

96: introduce the interactions \cite{MTY}: 

97: \beq 

98: {\cal L}_{4f} = {4\pi^2\over N_c\Lambda^2}\Bigg[ \,

99: G_1\,(\bar{q}_L^i q_R^j)(\bar{q}_R^j q_L^i) + 

100: G_3\,(\bar{q}_L^i q_R^j)\,\tau^3_{jk}(\bar{q}_R^k q_L^i) 

101: + G_2\, (\bar{q}_L^i q_R^j)\,\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}

102: (\bar{q}_L^k q_R^l) +\mbox{h.c.}\Bigg] \label{4f}

103: \eeq 

104: where sum over color indices is understood, $i,j,k,l$ are 

105: isospin indices, and $\Lambda$ some UV cutoff. 

106: (\ref{4f}) reduces the weak symmetry group to just 

107: $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$.\footnote{Indeed, the symmetry of the three 

108: terms is $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_A$, 

109: $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_A$, and 

110: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_V$, respectively.} Recall 

111: that in the standard Higgs model this is a function fulfilled 

112: by the Yukawa couplings.    

113: Note that for sufficiently large values of the $G_1$ coupling, 

114: this four-fermion interaction can induce dynamic chiral symmetry 

115: breaking and mass generation (NJL model), as in fact is assumed 

116: in top condensation schemes \cite{C}. Here we will always 

117: assume that four-fermion 

118: couplings in (\ref{4f}) are below their critical value 

119: for inducing any mass generation effects solely by themselves.     

120:  

121: The electroweak gauge bosons are assumed to acquire mass 

122: through the Goldstone bosons associated with CSB in the 

123: technicolor sector. We then ask 

124: whether in this system mass generation for the

125: ordinary fermions can also occur.  

126: 

127: Now since, with only the interactions specified above present,  

128: the ordinary fermions 

129: can communicate with the techniquark sector only through 

130: the electroweak gauge bosons, and gauge interaction vertices 

131: preserve chirality, it is clear that this cannot happen to 

132: any finite order in  the couplings. The question is whether 

133: it can happen nonperturbatively. The conventional answer to this 

134: would appear to be negative: the weak interactions are `too weak' 

135: to produce such dynamical mass generation. This, however, is actually 

136: a spurious argument. The weakness of the weak interactions could be  

137: no more relevant here than it is in the generation of the $W$ and $Z$ 

138: masses. It is the strong technicolor interactions that 

139: produce the necessary Goldstone bosons, and  the relevant question is 

140: whether an effective Yukawa coupling can form nonperturbatively 

141: between these Godstone bosons and the quarks. What determines this, in 

142: physical terms, is whether the coupled system is unstable under mass 

143: fluctuations. If it is, then even very weak interactions can 

144: drive the instability (even though the instability cannot be 

145: seen to any finite order in perturbation theory). 

146: 

147: 

148: The same question arises more generally when   

149: the standard electroweak gauge bosons are replaced by some other set 

150: of gauge bosons at a different, perhaps much higher, mass scale.   

151: In fact it is in this form that the question would more likely be   

152: pertinent to mass generation for all three fermion generations, 

153: as well as more general use of DSB in the construction of models.  

154: In the following we consider only the case of the    

155: standard electroweak interactions with one fermion family, 

156: and the simplest QCD-like technicolor sector;  

157: but the same analysis 

158: applies in the more general context. This analysis 

159: leads to a definition of an effective action, and 

160: hence, by minimization, to a set of self-consistent 

161: equations for dynamically generated effective Yukawa vertices. 

162: Unfortunately, consideration of these equations in general entails   

163: very considerable computational complexity, but the physical 

164: context is transparent. 

165: The trivial (perturbative) solution is always a solution,  

166: but one finds that, depending on the model, 

167: a nontrivial solution may also exist. 

168: From the structure of the 

169: self-consistent equations, it follows that 

170: a nontrivial solution, when it exists, generically describes 

171: dynamical generation of fermion masses $\sim M \exp(-k/g^2)$, 

172: where $k$ depends on the couplings $G_i$ in (\ref{4f}), and 

173: $M$ is some (cutoff) mass. In the case of the electroweak 

174: interactions treated below this gives very small fermion masses  

175: $\sim m_W \exp(-{\rm k}/g^2)$.     

176:   

177: \section{\hbox{\bf Preliminaries}}

178: We consider the minimal technicolor theory with technicolor 

179: gauge group $G_{TC}$, and two flavors of 

180: fundamental representation massless 

181: techniquarks $Q =(U,\;D)$. (It is important for our purposes to 

182: work within a model that allows a certain amount of computation. 

183: $G_{TC}=SU(2)$ may in fact be the only 

184: experimentally still viable QCD-like simple technicolor model.)   

185: The global chiral group is then $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$, and is 

186: spontaneously broken by the strong technicolor interaction 

187: to diagonal $SU(2)$ resulting in mass $M$ for the technifermions, 

188: and a triplet of Goldstone bosons (the technipions) $\phi^a$. 

189: The corresponding broken chiral generators are given by $\gamma^5\tau^i$, 

190: $i=1,2,3$, where $\tau^i$ are the Pauli matrices. 

191: The coupling of the Nambu-Goldstone bosons to the technifermions  

192: is, for momenta below a cutoff $\Lambda \sim M$, adequately 

193: represented in a simple NJL model (for review and references, 

194: see e.g. \cite{dR}),  

195: or an equivalent linear sigma model effective description, giving 

196: \beq

197: \begin{minipage}{3cm}

198: \epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tcgold.eps}

199: \end{minipage} \quad = \gamma^5\tau^a G\,P(p+k,p) 

200: \label{gold} 

201: \eeq

202: with (dimensionless) wave-function 

203: $P(p+k,p) = 1 + O(k/M) $. For momenta above $\Lambda$, $P(p,k)$ 

204: decays rapidly to zero -- the detailed UV behavior will in fact be 

205: irrelevant for physics at scales well below $M$. The effective 

206: coupling $G$ is related to the technipion decay constant $F$ 

207: by the GT relation $M=FG$. The triplet of pions is accompanied by 

208: a massive bound state, the sigma or real higgs scalar, of mass $2M$. 

209: 

210:  

211: For application to standard electroweak theory, the techniquarks form 

212: an electroweak left-handed doublet 

213: $Q_L= (\,U_L\; D_L\,)$, and right-handed singlets $U_R$, $D_R$. 

214: Anomalies are cancelled by assigning  

215: hypercharge $0$ to $Q_L$, and $\pm1/2$ to $U_R$, $D_R$, respectively. 

216: As it is well-known, the electroweak gauge bosons then acquire mass through 

217: the pole in their polarization tensor (Schwinger mechanism) 

218: generated by the coupling of the Goldstone bosons (figure \ref{tcvacp}). 

219: \begin{figure}[htb]

220: {\hfill\epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tcvacp.eps}\hfill}

221: \caption[vacp]{\label{tcvacp}Schwinger mechanism} 

222: \end{figure}  

223: The resulting mass matrix   

224: reproduces the familiar electroweak gauge boson mass matrix with    

225: $m_W=gF/2$.   

226: 

227: It should be noted that the pole contribution represented in 

228: figure \ref{tcvacp}

229: gives only the $k^\mu k^\nu$ part of the   

230: polarization tensor $\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(k)=

231: (k^2 g_{\mu\nu} - k^\mu k^\nu)\Pi_{ab}(k^2)$.  

232: It is not easy to identify    

233: directly in terms of diagrammatic contributions, such as in 

234: figure \ref{tcvacp}, the accompanying $g_{\mu\nu}$-part 

235: which must be there because of gauge 

236: invariance. This is typical of DSB computations where one often 

237: must rely on general, in principle non-perturbative, constraints 

238: to trace the symmetry breaking effects. In the present case,   

239: the transverse polarization tensor is related to the 

240: 3-gauge boson proper vertex by a Ward identity, which in 

241: the zero momentum transfer limit becomes 

242: \beq 

243: \lim_{q\to 0} q^\mu\,\Gamma^{\mu\kappa\lambda}_{abc}(q,k,-k-q) = 

244: -i(k^2 g^{\kappa\lambda} - k^\kappa k^\lambda )\,[\,(T^a - B^a), 

245: \Pi(k^2)\,]_{\ \atop \scriptstyle bc}

246: .\label{WI1a} 

247: \eeq   

248: Here $T^a$ are the adjoint generators of $SU(2)\times U(1)$.  

249: (Coupling constants are included in the definition of generators.) The 

250: matrix $B^a$, also proportional to $T^a$, involves the 

251: FP ghosts and is actually irrelevant for the development below. 

252: The pole contribution $\Pi_{ab}(k^2){ \ \atop{\longrightarrow\atop k^2\to 0}}

253: \mu^2_{ab}/k^2$ then satisfies 

254: \beq

255: \lim_{q,k \to 0} q^\mu\,\Gamma^{\mu\kappa\lambda}_{abc}(q,k,-k-q) = 

256: (g^{\kappa\lambda} - {k^\kappa k^\lambda\over k^2} )\,[\,T^a , 

257: \mu^2\,]_{\ \atop \scriptstyle bc} \, .\label{WI1b}

258: \eeq 

259: A Goldstone pole with nonvanishing residue 

260: in the 3-gauge boson proper vertex then implies a nonvanishing 

261: symmetry-violating  mass matrix such that the commutator 

262: $[\,T^a, \mu^2\,]$ on the r.h.s. does not vanish. 

263: The occurrence of such poles follows from the 

264: existence of nonvanishing effective $\phi^{\pm}W^{\mp}V$ couplings, 

265: ($V=\gamma, Z$), as is easily verified by explicit computation 

266: using (\ref{gold}) and the GT relation. The resulting residues 

267: on the l.h.s. of (\ref{WI1b}) precisely match the commutator 

268: on the r.h.s. computed with the 

269: mass matrix surmised from figure \ref{tcvacp}. 

270: 

271: \section{How the fermions can get mass}

272: 

273: Consider now the coupling of the ordinary quarks and leptons. 

274: It suffices to consider a singlet doublet $q=(u,d)$.   

275: The gauge boson-quark-quark proper vertex is related to the 

276: inverse quark propagator $iS^{-1}(p) = \slash{p} - \Sigma(p)$ 

277: by the non-Abelian version of the original QED WI. In the 

278: zero momentum transfer limit one has   

279: \beq

280: \lim_{q\to 0} q_\mu \Gamma^{\mu a}_{ij}(p+q,p) = 

281:  -i\Sigma_{il}(p)\,[\,t^a_{lj} - B^a_{lj}(p)\,] 

282: + i \gamma^0\,[\,t^a_{il}- 

283: B^a_{il}(p)\,]\,\gamma^0 \Sigma_{lj}(p) .\label{WI2a} 

284: \eeq  

285: The $t^a$'s denote the generators in the fermion representation. 

286: Again, the quantity $B^a_{ij}$ involves the FP ghosts 

287: and need not be given explicitly here as it does not enter 

288: the argument in the following. 

289: 

290: If the l.h.s. does not vanish, i.e. if the gauge boson-quark-quark 

291: proper vertex $\Gamma^{\mu a}_{ij}$ acquires a pole, (\ref{WI2a}) 

292: shows that the quark 

293: self-energy $\Sigma(p)$ must possess a symmetry violating 

294: part resulting in a (dynamically generated) nonvanishing mass 

295: matrix. Now $\Gamma^{\mu a}_{ij}$ will acquire a pole if 

296: an effective vertex 

297: \beq 

298: \begin{minipage}{155mm}

299: {\hfill\epsfysize=2.5cm\epsfbox{tcI.eps}\hfill}

300: \end{minipage} \label{effI}

301: \eeq

302: linking the Golstone bosons to the quarks can be 

303: dynamically generated. 

304: Since communication with the techniquark sector  

305: occurs only through the exchange of gauge bosons, it is clear that,  

306: starting with massless bare quarks, this cannot happen to any finite 

307: perturbative order. But nonvanishing contributions to (\ref{effI}) 

308: can arise in the presence of mass fluctuations, i.e. massive 

309: quark propagators, and the question is whether a consistent 

310: nonperturbative solution fixing a nonzero mass can exist. 

311: 

312: 

313: 

314: 

315: 

316: To lowest order in the electroweak couplings, such nonvanishing 

317: contributions are shown in figure \ref{tc2ex}.  

318: \begin{figure}[htb]

319: {\hfill\epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tc2ex.eps}\hfill}

320: \caption[2ex]{\label{tc2ex}Contribution to (\ref{effI}) in presence of 

321: mass fluctuations.} 

322: \end{figure}  

323: The computation of graphs in figure \ref{tc2ex}  

324: and in what follows is done as follows.  

325: Propagators for internal gauge boson lines are in Landau gauge, 

326: and, correspondingly, all external lines are 

327: transverse except for those external lines taken with longitudinal 

328: polarization as part of the statement of a WI (incoming line 

329: of momentum $q$ in the above cases). As always in dynamical symmetry 

330: breaking computations, the use of the Landau gauge is practically   

331: mandatory. It automatically 

332: ensures that the Goldstone pole remains massless, 

333: and it contributes only at a vertex to which 

334: the particular longitudinal leg(s) specified in the WI is (are)  attached - 

335: the transverse Landau propagator automatically eliminating graphs with  

336: longitudinal Goldstone pole contribution in all other vertices. 

337: All self-energies are assumed resumed giving dressed propagators.  

338: 

339: 

340: 

341:    

342: 

343: 

344: Connecting the $\phi$'s in figure \ref{tc2ex} to incoming 

345: $W^+$ ($W^-$) (cp. figure \ref{tcvacp}), one obtains, for 

346: quark momentum $p\to 0$, a contribution to the vertex 

347: $\Gamma^{\mu a}_{ij}$ given by:   

348: \bea

349:  \mp\, ig\,{q^\mu \over q^2 + ie}\; 3e^2\;

350: \Bigg[\, J(M, m_W, m_V, m_u) \; 

351: q_1 m_u \;\frac{1}{2}(1\mp \gamma^5) & +&  \nonumber \\

352:  \qquad \qquad\qquad  J(M, m_W, m_V, m_d) \;q_2 m_d \;

353: \frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma^5)\, \Bigg]\;{\tau^{\pm}\over 2} & & \qquad 

354: .  \label{WI2b}

355: \eea 

356: Upper (lower) signs refer to incoming $W^+$($W^-$), and  

357: \bea 

358: J(M, m_W, 0, m) & = & {1\over 16\pi^2}\,\Bigg[\;\ln({m^2_W\over

359: m^2}) + O( g^2, {m^2_W\over M^2}, m\ln m)\;\Bigg] \label{J1}\\

360: J(M, m_W, m_Z, m) & = & {1\over 16\pi^2}\,\Bigg[\;

361: ({m^2_W\over m_z^2}) + 

362: O( g^2, {m^2_W\over M^2}, m\ln m)\;\Bigg]\;.\label{J2}

363: \eea 

364: In (\ref{WI2b}) $m_V=0$ or $m_Z$ for $V=\gamma$ or $Z$, resp.; for $V=Z$ one 

365: must also replace $e^2 \to e^2\,\tan^2\theta_W$. Also, $

366: q_u\;q_d$ denote the elm charges of the quark or lepton doublet 

367: $(u,d)$. In obtaining (\ref{WI2b}) we made use of the GT relation, 

368: and approximated the fermion self-energy by 

369: \beq 

370: \Sigma (k) \approx \Sigma(0) = {\bf m}_q = 

371: {\rm diag}(\,m_u \;m_d\,) \label{massmtrx}\; . 

372: \eeq   

373: 

374: Consider then (\ref{WI2a}) at $p=0$. 

375: Inserting (\ref{WI2b}) in the l.h.s. of (\ref{WI2a}), one sees that, 

376: as expected, the WI is (trivially) satisfied by the 

377: perturbative solution ${\bf m}=0$. There is, however, also 

378: the possibility of a nonperturbative 

379: solution ${\bf m}\neq 0$ if 

380: \bea

381: 3e^2\;\sum_{V=\gamma,Z} J(M, m_W, m_V, m_u) \; q_u &=& 1 \label{c1}\\

382: 3e^2\;\sum_{V=\gamma,Z} J(M, m_W, m_V, m_u) \; q_d &=& -1 \label{c2}\;. 

383: \eea   

384: 

385: Then (\ref{c1}), (\ref{c2}) give 

386: \beq 

387: m_q = m_W\;\exp \Big\{\,-{8\pi^2\over e^2}{1\over 3|q_q|} + {1\over2}

388: ({m_W^2\over m_Z^2})\,\tan^2\theta_W) \,\Big\}\;\Big(1 + 

389: O(g^2, {m^2_W\over M^2})\Big)\,, \qquad q=u,d \label{m}

390: \eeq 

391: with $q_u>0$, $q_d <0$.  

392: 

393: It should be noted that the loop involving the gauge bosons is 

394: UV convergent and receives little contribution from momenta well above 

395: $m_W$. In particular, in the case of photon exchange practically the 

396: entire contribution to the integral, the logarithmic term in (\ref{J1}),  

397: comes from the IR regime well below $m_W$. In fact, the integral 

398: becomes singular in the limit $m_q\to 0$. This justifies the approximation 

399: (\ref{massmtrx}). Thus, (\ref{WI2a}) is solved by a dynamical fermion 

400: $\Sigma(k)$ taken to be a slowing varying function representing a 

401: soft mass $\sim m_q$ given by (\ref{m}) for momenta well below $M$, and 

402: falling off rapidly in the UV region $\stackrel{>}{\sim} M$ - one is  

403: essentially approximating $\Sigma(k)$ by a step function.  

404: In a more refined approximation the falloff is fixed by the correction 

405: terms in (\ref{J1}), (\ref{J2}). (Analogous remarks   

406: apply of course also to the dynamically generated $m_W$, $m_Z$, 

407: and techniquark masses.)  

408: 

409: 

410: 

411: The possible existence of such a nonperturbative solution 

412: to the WI would signify that the 

413: $m_q=0$ solution is unstable under any nonzero mass fluctuation. 

414: This situation occurs in a wide range of mass generation phenomena, 

415: including chiral symmetry breaking in QCD. 

416: We noted that there is no smooth $m\to 0$ limit in the conditions  

417: (\ref{c1})-(\ref{c2}). Also, the nonperturbative 

418: form  $\sim \exp(-{\rm const.}/e^2)$   

419: for the resulting mass ratio is characteristic of mass 

420: generation driven by gauge interactions as opposed to   

421: quadratically divergent scalar  

422: or four-Fermi interactions. 

423: 

424: By the same token, however, multiple gauge boson 

425: exchanges beyond the lowest two gauge boson exchange of figure 

426: \ref{tc2ex} cannot, in general, be ignored. 

427: This is because an $n+1$ gauge 

428: boson exchange contribution to (\ref{effI}), for example, 

429: may in general contain $\Big(\ln({m^2_W/m^2})\Big)^n$ terms which, 

430: for $m$ of the form (\ref{m}), are comparable to the 

431: lowest order two-rung exchange of figure \ref{tc2ex}. Thus the 

432: higher loop contributions cannot be ignored, and the 

433: solution (\ref{m}) cannot be trusted. 

434: 

435: This is in fact illustrated by turning to 

436: the remaining WI's (\ref{WI2a}), i.e. those for 

437: the generators $t^3$, $t^0$. 

438: The latter, corresponding to incoming photon, 

439: is trivially satisfied: due to the nonchiral photon 

440: coupling, contributions to both sides of (\ref{WI2a}) (in 

441: particular pole contributions such as those of arising from 

442: figure \ref{tc2ex}), vanish identically. In the case of 

443: incoming $Z$ connecting to $\phi^0$, however, it is not hard to 

444: check  that there is no nonvanishing contribution to the proper 

445: $\phi^0\,\bar{u}u$ and $\phi^0 \bar{d}d$ vertices 

446: analogous to figure \ref{tc2ex}, i.e. involving the exchange of 

447: just two gauge bosons.    

448: (This in fact reflects the structure of the electroweak 

449: gauge boson mass matrix.) 

450: As can be explicitly verified, nonvanishing such contributions 

451: to (\ref{effI}) begin with the exchange of 

452: three gauge bosons.    

453: 

454: Though (\ref{m}) cannot be trusted, the computation leading to it 

455: does show how fermion mass generation mediated by the generation of  

456: an effective coupling (\ref{effI}) between technipions and quarks  

457: is in principle possible and consistent with gauge invariance. 

458: The problem is how to estimate the effective vertex (\ref{effI}). 

459: Contributions to the blob on the r.h.s. in (\ref{effI}) 

460: involve  not only direct exchange of gauge bosons, 

461: but also technistrong interaction effects   

462: through, e.g., further Golstone boson exchanges. Thus a nonvanishing 

463: contribution of the type of figure \ref{tc2ex} 

464: gives rise to further processes of the type:   

465: \begin{figure}[h]

466: {\hfill\epsfysize=2.5cm\epsfbox{tcmex.eps}\hfill} 

467: %\caption[2ex]{\label{tcmex}} 

468: \vspace {-3mm}

469: \end{figure} 

470: 

471: \noindent These, assuming a solution for nonzero mass of the form (\ref{m}), 

472: can indeed give a larger contribution than other direct 

473: gauge boson exchange processes, and in fact further generate  

474: an infinite set of such exchanges by iteration.  

475: As always in DSB one cannot expect to be able to 

476: express a nonperturbatively generated effective vertex by any finite 

477: set of particular contributions. Rather,    

478: one has to determine the effective  

479: vertex, in this case (\ref{effI}), through self-consistent equations 

480: which implicitly incorporate infinite sets of graphs 

481: without double-counting. 

482: 

483: \section{Self-consistent equations for dynamical mass 

484: generation} 

485: 

486: The only systematic way of obtaining such equations is through 

487: the construction of the effective action for composite operators \cite{CJT} 

488: here applied to $\phi q\bar{q}$.   

489: This is done as follows. One introduces a source $v^a_{ij}(x,\bar{y},y)$ 

490: coupled to $\phi^a(x)\bar{q}_i(\bar{y}) q_j(y)$ in the functional 

491: integral for techniquarks, electroweak gauge bosons and quarks 

492: to obtain the generating functional $iW[v] = \ln Z[v]$. 

493: (Note that $\phi$ is itself a composite field, but we assume that the 

494: techniquark sector is adequately described by the effective linear 

495: sigma model description, cp. (\ref{gold}).) 

496: The effective action $\Gamma$ for the 3-point vertex 

497: \beq

498: g^a_{ij}= {\delta W[v]\over \delta v^a_{ij}} \equiv 

499: \Delta^{ab}S_{ik} \,\gamma^b_{kl}\, S_{lj} \label{effver}

500: \eeq 

501: is then defined by 

502: \beq 

503: \Gamma[\gamma] = W[v] - v\cdot g \;,\qquad 

504: {\delta \Gamma\over \delta g } = -v \;. \label{effact}

505: \eeq 

506: Here $S$, $\Delta$ denote the full quark and Goldstone 

507: propagators, and hence $\gamma$ represents the proper 

508: vertex (\ref{effI}). The effective action $\Gamma[\gamma]$     

509: can be expanded in the form:  

510: \beq 

511: \Gamma[\gamma] = \Gamma_0 - \frac{1}{2}\,

512: \gamma^b_{lk}\,S_{jl}\,\Delta_{ba}\,S_{ki}\,

513: \gamma^a_{ij} + \Gamma_3[\gamma] \,,\label{effexp1} 

514: \eeq 

515: where 

516: \beq 

517: \Gamma_3 = \Bigg\{ \mbox{sum of all only trivially 3PR 

518: vacuum graphs} \Bigg\}.\label{effexp2}

519: \eeq  

520: (Obvious condensed notation with summation-integration 

521: over repeated generalized indices is used.) An only  trivially 

522: 3PR (3-particle-reducible) graph is a 2PI (2-particle irreducible) 

523: graph that can be cut into two parts by cutting three lines 

524: if and only if one and only one of the two parts 

525: consists of a single 3-point vertex. 

526: Otherwise the graph is 3PI. All graphs are computed with 

527: dressed propagators. 

528: 

529: 

530: The $\gamma^a_{ij}$ vertices are determined by 

531: the minimization of the effective action (\ref{effact}): 

532: \beq

533: {\delta \Gamma[\gamma]\over \delta \gamma} = 0 . \label{min} 

534: \eeq 

535: Imposing (\ref{min}) gives, to lowest order in the skeleton loop 

536: expansion (\ref{effexp2}), the following coupled set of 

537: self-consistent equations: 

538: \beq

539: \begin{minipage}{155mm}

540: \epsfysize=4.5cm\epsfbox{tcsc1.eps}

541: \end{minipage} \label{sc1}

542: \eeq

543: \beq

544: \begin{minipage}{155mm}

545: \epsfysize=4.5cm\epsfbox{tcsc2.eps}

546: \end{minipage} 

547: \label{sc2}

548: \eeq

549: There is also the corresponding set of equations with the  

550: $\phi^+\bar{u}\,d$, $\phi^-\bar{d}\,u$ vertices on the l.h.s. 

551: In (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) oriented wavy lines represent $W^{\pm}$'s 

552: and oriented dashed lines represent $\phi^{\pm}$'s, with 

553: positive charge flow into a vertex in the direction of the arrow. 

554: Unoriented wavy and dashed lines represent 

555: $\gamma$, $Z$, and $\phi^0$, respectively. 

556: For brevity, each graph depicted in (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) 

557: is understood to stand for a set of     

558: graphs that, in addition to the graph in question, 

559: also includes all `crossed' graphs that may be  

560: formed by permutations of its vertices.     

561: The small filled blobs represent the techniquarkloop-induced 

562: vertices between $W^{\pm}$, $Z$, 

563: $\gamma$ and technipions, e.g 

564: \beq

565: \begin{minipage}{3cm}

566: \epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tcv1.eps}

567: \end{minipage}  \quad \equiv  

568: \begin{minipage}{3cm}

569: \epsfysize=2.5cm\epsfbox{tcv2.eps}

570: \end{minipage} \quad 

571:     =  -ig^2\,s_W\,{1\over2}g^{\mu\nu}\; +\; O(k^2/M^2)\,, \label{tcv}  

572: \eeq

573: (with $s_W\equiv \sin \theta_W$, $k$ of the order of the external 

574: momenta). The last graph on the r.h.s. in (\ref{sc1}) and 

575: (\ref{sc2}) is the contribution from the 

576: four-quark interactions (\ref{4f}) (square vertices). 

577: 

578: 

579: The Goldstone boson is massless (Landau gauge). 

580: The self energy in the dressed quark propagator in 

581: (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}), on the other hand, is related by the WI 

582: (\ref{WI2a}) to the vertex (\ref{effI}). Indeed, making use of  

583: the GT relation,  (\ref{WI2a}) is seen to be 

584: equivalent to the following relation between   

585: the self energy, in the approximation (\ref{massmtrx}), and 

586: the effective $\gamma$ vertices:     

587: \bea

588: \begin{minipage}{2cm}

589: \epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tceff1.eps}\end{minipage}&  =& \qquad

590: \mp {1\over\sqrt{2}}\,g\,\Bigg[\,{m_u\over m_W} 

591:              \;\frac{1}{2}(1\mp \gamma^5)  

592:               - {m_d\over m_W} \; \frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma^5)\, 

593:                     \Bigg]\;. \label{eff1} \\

594: \begin{minipage}{2cm}

595: \epsfysize=2cm\epsfbox{tceff2.eps}\end{minipage} &=& \qquad

596: {1\over2}\,g\;{{\bf m}_q\over m_W}\cdot\tau^3\,\gamma^5 

597:             \label{eff2}

598: \eea 

599: (In (\ref{eff1}) upper (lower) signs refer to incoming 

600: $d$ ($u$)). 

601: 

602: 

603: (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) are to be solved together with 

604: (\ref{eff1}), (\ref{eff2}). 

605: Note that these equations are indeed what one would 

606: basically expect to get in a self-consistent Hartree-Fock approximation 

607: for the vertices (\ref{eff1})-(\ref{eff2}). The effective action 

608: (\ref{effexp2}), however,  provides in principle 

609: a systematic approximation scheme. $m_u=m_d=0$ is seen to be, 

610: trivially, always a solution; we are looking for a nontrivial 

611: nonperturbative ${\bf m}_q\not=0$ solution. 

612: 

613:  

614:  

615: Note that,  

616: when terms suppressed by inverse powers of $M$ are neglected, 

617: the techniquarkloop-induced vertices are essentially those of 

618: the standard model (cp. second equality in (\ref{tcv})). 

619: Even so, the system (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) 

620: appears rather formidable due to the remaining $2$-loop 

621: structures and the large number of graphs involved.     

622: 

623: What makes computations  feasible is the fact that 

624: in the limit of vanishing external momenta all $2$-loop graphs 

625: are in principle explicitly computable in terms of Spence (di-log) 

626: functions \cite{dBV}. By a variety of tricks, every $2$-loop integral with 

627: numerator momentum tensor structures can be reduced to a series of 

628: $2$-loop scalar field theory integrals, which in turn can be 

629: related to standard types involving four propagators. These 

630: procedures generally generate large number of terms. The 

631: scalar integrals can then be explicitly integrated in terms 

632: of dilogs, which can finally be expanded in ratios of masses. 

633: In the case at hand the use of Landau gauge gives numerator 

634: tensor structures with up to six powers of momenta making 

635: computation of graphs very laborious and lengthy. The 

636: structure of the results, however, is rather easily stated.  

637: 

638: In computing the r.h.s. of (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) we assume that  

639: $m_q = m_d$, $m_u$ are much smaller than all other mass scales, and are  

640: interested in exhibiting the expected large double and single 

641: pure $\ln(m_q/m_W)$ terms. Fortunately, not all graphs in 

642: (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) provide such large logs. Examination of 

643: the expansion in mass ratios of all possible dilogs resulting 

644: from the various graphs shows that 

645: only graphs containing a photon line give such logs. It 

646: should be pointed out that this is 

647: not really a consequence of the masslessness of the photon, 

648: but of the (near) degeneracy of the $Z$, $W^+$, and $W^-$ masses. 

649: We also take the cutoff in 

650: (\ref{4f}) to be of the order of the technicolor CSB cutoff. 

651: 

652: We have computed explicitly planar graphs (taking the 

653: techniquark loop structure into account) on the r.h.s 

654: of (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}). Though this is a  

655: lengthy computation, the structure of the resulting two conditions 

656: for $m_d$, $m_u$ is simple. Taking $G_2$ in (\ref{4f}) to be 

657: small compared to $G_1$, $G_3$, one finds:    

658: \bea 

659: \Big({g^2\over 16\pi^2}\Big)^2\,\Bigg[\,s^2_w q_q \,\Big[\,{9\over8}   

660: \,\ln^2({m_W^2\over m_q^2}) + (c_1 + c^\prime_1 \ln({M^2\over m_W^2}))\,

661: \ln({m_W^2\over m_q^2})\Big] & & \label{scconds}\\ \nonumber

662:  +O\Big(\ln^2({M^2\over m_W^2}), \,1, \, 

663: {m^2_W\over M^2}, \,{m_{u,d}^2\over m_W^2}\ln({m^2_{u,d}\over m_W^2})

664: \Big)\,\Bigg]  + (\,G_1 \pm G_3\,)\,[\,1 + 

665: O({m_q^2\over M^2}\,\ln({M^2\over m_q^2}))\,] 

666: & = &\pm1 

667: \eea 

668: for $m_q=m_u$, $q_q=q_u$ and upper sign, and for $m_q=m_d$, $q_q=q_d$ 

669: and lower sign. $c_1$, $c_1^\prime$ are numerical constants of order unity, 

670: and only the order of all other resulting terms is indicated. 

671: (\ref{scconds}) then gives: 

672: \beq

673: m_q \sim m_W\;\exp \Big\{\,-{8\pi^2\over g^2} \bigg( {1-C_q\over  

674: s_W^2|q_q|c_2}\bigg)^{1/2} \,\Big\}\;\,, \qquad q=u,d \label{scm}

675: \eeq 

676: where $c_2=9/8$, and $C_u=(G_1+G_3)$, $C_d=G_1-G_3$.  

677: 

678: The masses obtained in (\ref{scm}) are naturally tiny compared 

679: to $m_W$. We have not examined the possibility of solutions 

680: to ({\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) with $m_q$ not much smaller than 

681: all other mass scales. 

682: 

683: A complete derivation of (\ref{scm}) would include also computation 

684: of the nonplanar contributions in (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}) which 

685: has not yet been completed. These will change the numerical value 

686: of the coefficient $c_2$, but should not change the qualitative 

687: behavior. 

688: 

689: \section{Discussion}

690: 

691: The exponential form of the solution (\ref{scm}) is 

692: due to the presence of the gauge interactions which are responsible  

693: for the pure log terms in (\ref{scconds}). The role of the 

694: four-fermion interactions (\ref{4f}), however, should now be noted. They 

695: contribute the factors $(1-C_q)$ in the exponent.  

696: Variations in the values of the couplings in (\ref{4f}), therefore, 

697: may produce very large variations in the dynamically generated masses. 

698: More importantly, these couplings may be adjusted to stabilize 

699: (\ref{scm}) against higher corrections from the expansion 

700: (\ref{effexp2}), i.e. render all higher powers of logs in 

701: higher loop contributions smaller.\footnote{A well-known    

702: example of this arises in the minimization of the 

703: Coleman-Weinberg potential.}  

704: 

705: It is useful to contrast this to 

706: mass generation driven only by four-fermion 

707: interactions, as in top condensation models. In that case one 

708: considers only the last diagram on the r.h.s. of (\ref{sc1})-(\ref{sc2}).  

709: Correspondingly one has to balance the $(m_q^2/M^2)\,

710: \ln({M^2/m_q^2})$ piece of the term   

711: proportional to the $G_i$'s on the l.h.s. of (\ref{scconds}) against 

712: a constant. A solution then requires extreme 

713: fine-tuning of the couplings $G_i$ (above a critical (strong) value) 

714: in order to obtain a small mass $m_q$ relative to the 

715: cutoff $M$.\footnote{This is again the usual fine-tuning 

716: due to quadratic divergences with a fundamental Higgs in a 

717: different guise.}  

718: In the present case, we need  not take the four-fermion couplings 

719: in (\ref{4f}) to be above critical to drive mass generation, and 

720: $m_q^2\ln m_q^2$ terms are 

721: unimportant as they can produce only 

722: tiny corrections to the leading behavior (\ref{scm}). The 

723: constant piece contributions in (\ref{scconds}) coming from (\ref{4f}) 

724: can then have the important 

725: effects pointed out above without any excessive fine-tuning. 

726: 

727:  

728:  

729: We explored the possibility of the above nonperturbative 

730: mechanism for fermion mass generation within the familiar context of 

731: the standard minimal electroweak model. 

732: The mechanism, however, 

733: is quite general, and may be realized in a wider context and at 

734: different scales. Not all contributions to all the 

735: quark and lepton masses need of course arise at a single scale.   

736: A natural application for the proposed mechanism is in models where 

737: the electroweak gauge bosons are replaced by a system of 

738: gauge bosons with some nondegenerate masses (cp. remarks preceding 

739: (\ref{scconds})) of a much higher, perhaps 

740: unification, scale. The analog of (\ref{scm}) then  

741: produces very large natural hierarchies.    

742: One such simple model will be treated elsewhere. 

743: 

744: \vspace{.5cm}

745: I would like to thank Z. Bern and A. Grant for discussions. 

746: \begin{thebibliography}{99}   

747: 

748: 

749: \bibitem{C}  R.S. Chivukula, {\it An introduction to dynamical 

750: electroweak symmetry breaking}, hep-ph/9701322 (1997); 

751: E. Farhi and R. Jackiw, eds., {\it Dynamical gauge symmetry breaking},  

752: World Scientific (1982).

753:  

754: \bibitem{MTY} V.A. Miransky, M. Tanabashi and K. Yamawaki, 

755: Mod. Phys. Lett. A4, 1043 (1989). 

756: 

757: \bibitem{dR} E. de Rafael, {\it Chiral Lagrangians}, 1994 TASI Lectures, 

758: hep-ph/9502254 (1995). 

759: 

760: \bibitem{CJT} J.M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E.T. Tomboulis, 

761: Phys. Rev. D10, 2428 (1974); C. De Dominicis and P.C. Martin, 

762: Journal of Math. Phys. 5, 31 (1964). 

763: 

764: \bibitem{dBV} J. van der Bij and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B231, 

765: 205 (1984); G. Passarino and M. Vetman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979). 

766: 

767: 

768: \end{thebibliography}

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: \end{document}