1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
4: \textwidth 15.0 true cm
5: \textheight 22.0 true cm
6: \headheight 0 cm
7: \headsep 0 cm
8: \topmargin 0.4 true in
9: \oddsidemargin 0.25 true in
10:
11: \def\beq{\begin{equation}} \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
12: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower3pt\hbox{\hskip0pt$\sim$}}
13: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
14: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
15: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} %greater than or approx. symbol
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: %\documentstyle[12pt,preprint,aps,floats,epsfig]{revtex}
18: \begin{document}
19: %\tighten
20: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
21: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
22: %\preprint{
23: %\noindent
24: %\hfill
25: %\begin{minipage}[t]{3in}
26: \begin{flushright}
27: TPI--MINN--01/56\\
28: UMN--TH--2037/01
29: \end{flushright}
30: %\end{minipage}
31:
32:
33: \begin{center}
34: \baselineskip25pt
35:
36: \vspace{1cm}
37:
38: {\Large\bf
39: Flavordynamics with Conformal Matter and Gauge Theories on Compact
40: Hyperbolic Manifolds in Extra Dimensions}
41:
42: \vspace{1cm}
43:
44: {\bf
45: D. A. Demir and M. Shifman}
46:
47: \vspace{0.3cm}
48:
49: Theoretical Physics Institute,
50: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
51:
52: \vspace{1cm}
53:
54: Abstract
55:
56: \end{center}
57:
58: We outline a toy model in which a unique mechanism may trigger a dynamical chain
59: resulting in key low-energy
60: regularities. The starting points are a negative cosmological term in the bulk
61: and conformally invariant nongravity sector. These elements
62: ensure compactification of the extra dimensional space
63: on a compact hyperbolic manifold (with the negative and constant scalar curvature).
64: The overall geometry is then ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$.
65: The negative curvature on ${\bf B}_{n}$ triggers the formation of the four--dimensional
66: defect which provides in turn a dynamical localization of ordinary particles.
67: It also leads, simultaneously, to a spontaneous breaking of gauge symmetry
68: through a Higgs mechanism. Masses of the fermions, gauge bosons and scalars
69: all derive from the curvature of the internal manifold such that the Higgs
70: boson is generally heavier than the gauge bosons. The factorizable geometry
71: ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$ and flatness of ${\bf M}_{4}$ require fine-tuning.
72:
73: %\vspace*{-.4in}
74: %\end{abstract}
75:
76: %\pacs{PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 11.30.Er, 12.60.Jv, 11.30.Pb}
77:
78: \newpage
79:
80: %{\bf Introduction: $\:\:\:$}
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83:
84: Theories with large extra spatial dimensions
85: have allowed one to reformulate the hierarchy problem
86: in a geometric paradigm \cite{add,ant,add1}.
87: If space-time is in fact $(4+n)$-dimensional
88: the Planck scale of gravity in four dimensions, $M_{\rm Pl}$,
89: is determined by the fundamental ($4+n$)-dimensional scale, $M_{\star}$, and
90: geometry of the extra space. In the simplest case, when the
91: space-time is a product of the four-dimensional
92: Minkowskian space-time ${\bf M}_{4}$ and an $n$-dimensional compact space
93: ${\bf B}_{n}$, the two gravitational scales are related as follows:
94: \begin{equation}
95: M_{\rm {Pl}}^{2} = {\cal{V}}_{n} M_{\star}^{n+2}
96: \label{one}
97: \end{equation}
98: where ${\cal{V}}_{n}$ is the volume
99: of ${\bf B}_{n}$. If it is large enough, the fundamental gravity scale
100: $M_{\star}$ may be as low as $\sim 1$ TeV \cite{add,add1}.
101:
102: A key element of such higher-dimensional scenarios is the localization of
103: matter on stable topological defects (branes \cite{polchinski},
104: domain walls \cite{local1,local2} or vortices \cite{add}; see also a recent
105: discussion \cite{DR}) embedded in
106: ($4+n$)-dimensional bulk, with thickness $\lsim M_{\star}^{-1}$ and
107: surface tension $T\gsim M_{\star}^{4}$.
108:
109: This paradigm offers a wealth of novel explanations
110: for the observed phenomenology --- patterns of supersymmetry and electroweak
111: symmetry breaking \cite{susygaugebreak}, three--genera\-tional structure \cite{gene},
112: ultra-light neutrinos \cite{neut}, proton stability \cite{proton}, etc.
113: It turns out that each particular basic aspect of phenomenology
114: explored so far is compatible with the brane--world ideas. Such a strategy ---
115: confronting established phenomenology with the brane--world ideas one by one ---
116: seems reasonable at the present, exploratory stage.
117: The aspect which we address in this paper is a proliferation of distinct scales and
118: mechanisms in the current brane-world scenarios.
119: As simple brane-world ideas, that had been put forward several years ago,
120: were progressing and developing, they incorporated
121: contrived ``sub--mechanisms" and substructures, so that now there is an apparent
122: menace of producing a ``personal" model for each particular phenomenon.
123: We pose a question whether it is possible to
124: find economic ways by combining several seemingly distinct mechanisms into one.
125: More concretely, we assume that at the primary stage
126: the matter sector of the theory has no mass parameters
127: whatsoever (i.e. purely conformal); the only mass parameters enters through gravity.
128: It then triggers a domain wall formation (determining its size and tension),
129: and electroweak symmetry breaking.
130:
131: Conformal invariance --- the invariance of the physical laws under
132: rescalings of all lengths and durations by a common factor
133: (see e.g. \cite{conf1,conf2}) --- is
134: broken in nature by particles' masses. If one starts from conformal matter, as we do,
135: it is concievable that mass parameters can penetrate
136: from gravity in two distinct ways.
137: First, gravity loops generate, generally speaking,
138: dimensionful constants in operators appearing in the Lagrangian for the
139: matter sector. This effect is not the one we are interested in.
140: We will ignore gravity loop corrections altogether.
141: This is a rather arbitrary assumption since we cannot indicate a dynamical pattern
142: ensuring the required suppression of the gravity loops.
143: Being aware that this is a weak point we will, nevertheless,
144: accept this assumption (quantum gravity is not a complete theory, anyway),
145: and will concentrate on another option. Treating gravity at the classical level,
146: we will ask the question:
147:
148: \noindent
149: --- Is it possible that the explicit breaking of conformal symmetry
150: in the gravity sector (due to
151: the bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and other possible
152: sources) induces the
153: spontaneous breakdown of the conformal, gauge and other symmetries
154: in the matter sector
155: in an empirically viable way?
156:
157: Certainly, such a scenario does not make any sense in
158: the context of the four-dimensional theories,
159: since in this case the fundamental gravity scale is given by $M_{\rm Pl} \sim 10^{19}$
160: GeV, while, say, the electroweak scale is $ \sim 10^{2}$ GeV.
161: However, in the context of the brane world scenarios, with
162: low gravitational scales in the ballpark of $M_{\star} \sim 10^{3}$ GeV,
163: the question above does not seem absurd. One may suspect that
164: the mass scales generated in the matter sector will
165: be of the same order of magnitude
166: as the higher-dimensional fundamental scale $M_{\star}$.
167:
168: We will consider $n$ codimensions
169: and discuss dynamics of a conformally-invariant gauge
170: theory on a factorizable manifold ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$,
171: where the first factor represents our four-dimensional space-time,
172: while ${\bf B}_{n}$ represents extra dimensions and is compact. It will be
173: arranged that the curvature scalar on ${\bf B}_{n}$ will eventually
174: trigger the spontaneous breakdown of all symmetries in the matter sector. There are
175: three obvious requirements to be met. We must take care of: (i)
176: the cosmological constant on ${\bf M}_{4}$; (ii)
177: the apparent gravitational scale on ${\bf M}_{4}$, i.e. $M_{\rm Pl}$;
178: (iii) the scale of the electroweak symmetry breaking, i.e.
179: the weak gauge boson masses. These requirements
180: determine the size and curvature of
181: the internal manifold, as well as the bulk cosmological constant, in a correlated way.
182:
183: Our construction bears an illustrative nature. As a reference point,
184: we will keep in
185: mind something like the Standard Model (SM).
186: However, we will focus mainly on general aspects believing
187: that developing particular details would be premature at this stage.
188:
189: The basic elements are as follows.
190: To study the electroweak symmetry breaking we will
191: need to deal with a Higgs field.
192: To ensure that the matter sector is
193: described by an effective Lagrangian which is conformally invariant
194: we will need to introduce a universal dilaton field which replaces all dimensionful
195: SM parameters. Finally, we will need a ``defect builder" $\phi(x)$ (responsible for
196: the formation of the topological
197: defect), on top of bulk gauge and fermion fields \cite{conf1,conf2}.
198:
199: There is a certain conceptual similarity between the model we suggest and the
200: warped-compactification scenario of Randall and Sundrum \cite{rs1}.
201: In both cases the driving force is gravity.
202: This similarity does not go beyond the conceptual level, however.
203: In particular, the Randall-Sundrum model implies a single codimension,
204: which is not the case in our model. The hierarcy of scales is totally different too.
205:
206: The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2
207: we consider a conformally-invariant gauge theory in
208: the factorizable geometry ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$.
209: After
210: specifiying the properties of ${\bf B}_{n}$ required in order to get
211: appropriate
212: phenomenology, we discuss the emergence of $M_{\rm Pl}$ form $M_{\star}$,
213: the formation of the topologically stable defect and matter localization on the defect.
214: In Sec. 3 we discuss stability of the factorizable
215: geometry. In particular, we check the consistency of the static
216: background by tuning the long-distance cosmological constant to zero
217: while keeping the tension of order of $M_{\star}^4$. In Sec. 4 we summarize our
218: conclusions and comment on similarities/distinctions with other popular brane-world
219: scenarios.
220:
221: \section{ Conformal gauge theories on compact hyperbolic manifolds}
222:
223: The framework of our discussions is a ($4+n$) dimensional static factorizable
224: geometry ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$ where ${\bf B}_{n}$ is a
225: compact manifold and ${\bf M}_{4}$ is the ordinary (empirically flat)
226: space-time. In the static limit, generically,
227: the compact manifold can have positive
228: (e.g. an $n$-sphere ${\bf S}_{n}$), vanishing (e.g. an $n$-torus ${\bf T}_{n}$),
229: or negative (e.g. an $n$-dimensional compact hyperbolic space) curvature
230: scalar, depending on its geometry and topology \cite{kaloper,cancel}.
231: Compact negative scalar curvature manifolds can be obtained from a noncompact one
232: by applying a known procedure, see below. It is also necessary to verify the
233: stability of the chosen background geometry. This issue will be discussed in Sec. 3.
234:
235: As was already mentioned, we will require the nongravity part of the theory
236: of the SM type to be
237: conformal in the $(4+n)$--dimensional space. The conformal invariance is achieved
238: through the dilaton coupling. Then, the matter part of the stress tensor
239: is strictly traceless \footnote{Here we
240: neglect possible conformal anomalies which are not expected to play
241: a role; moreover, for odd $n$ (the case $n=3$ may be preferrable for our purposes)
242: they are absent.}.
243: The traceless nature
244: of the stress tensor is particularly important for us since it implies that the curvature
245: scalar, ${\cal{R}}$, is entirely determined from the
246: classical gravity equations by the bulk cosmological term and
247: the background geometry, independently of the matter sector dynamics.
248:
249: In general, the conformal invariance
250: puts severe restrictions on possible couplings of the matter fields \cite{conf1,conf2}.
251: One key aspect is that the matter sector can contain no mass parameters ---
252: they can be
253: generated only via gravitational interactions. At tree level, the
254: matter sector couples to gravity via the minimal coupling to
255: the metric field, and via the conformal coupling ${\cal{R}} \sigma^{2}$
256: of a scalar field $\sigma$. It is this latter coupling that is particularly important as it
257: induces mass terms for scalars in the constant-curvature background. Neglecting the
258: curvature of ${\bf M}_{4}$ (as it will eventually be tuned to zero) one concludes that
259: a conformal scalar is either massive (${\cal{R}}>0$), masless (${\cal{R}}=0$),
260: or tachyonic (${\cal{R}}<0$) depending on the structure of ${\bf B}_{n}$.
261:
262: Our goal is generation of the observed particle spectrum from a conformal
263: higher-dimensional gauge theory. It is clear then that the induced breaking of the
264: conformal invariance in the matter sector must generate an instability in the vacuum state.
265: Obviously, for this to happen, it is necessary to have a negative
266: curvature scalar (this may not be sufficient, as will be discussed below).
267:
268: In general, a smooth compact manifold ${\bf B}_{n}$ of constant negative curvature is
269: obtained from the covering space ${\bf H}_n$ of $n$-dimensional hyperbolic spaces by
270: modding out by a freely and discontinuously acting (with no fixed points) subgroup
271: $\Gamma$ of its isometry group. Therefore, hereon we take the internal
272: manifold to be ${\bf B}_{n}={\bf H}_n/\Gamma$,
273: with the constant negative curvature
274: ${\cal{R}}_{0}$. This is a highly curved negative-curvature manifold with a
275: global anistropy and rigidity (no massless shape moduli) \cite{kaloper,others}. The
276: volume of such manifolds grows exponentially with their linear size, and it is the
277: largest linear extension $L$ that dominates
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: {\cal{V}}_n = |{\cal{R}}_{0}|^{-n/2} e^{(n-1) \sqrt{|{\cal{R}}_{0}|} L}
280: \label{two}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: in $n\geq 2$ codimensions. Here it is assumed that $|{\cal{R}}_{0}|^{1/2} L\gg 1$ and
283: we neglected irrelevant
284: angular factors in Eq. (\ref{two}).
285:
286: The graviton zero mode on such
287: manifolds is a constant
288: \cite{kaloper}, and, therefore, the hierarchy problem is solved by virtue
289: of their large volume. Combining Eqs. (\ref{one}) and (\ref{two})
290: we get
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: \label{hier}
293: \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^{2}}{M_{\star}^{2}}=e^{(n-1) \sqrt{|{\cal{R}}_{0}|} L}
294: \left(\frac{M_{\star}^{2}}{|{\cal{R}}_{0}|}\right)^{n/2}\,.
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: A huge hierarchy between $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm Pl}$ is generated by the
297: topological invariant $\exp{[(n-1) \sqrt{|{\cal{R}}_{0}|} L]}$ in ${\cal{V}}_{n}$.
298: Since the dependence on $L$ is exponential,
299: unlike in the original proposal \cite{add,add1},
300: one can settle for a microscopic size of the compact manifold in the
301: extra dimensions.
302: Clearly,
303: the fundamental scale of gravity $M_{\star}$ does not need to exactly coincide with the
304: scale of $|{\cal{R}}_{0}|$ (and also with the bulk cosmological constant $\Lambda$, see
305: below). In fact, one can choose $|{\cal{R}}_{0}|
306: \simlt M_{\star}^{2}\sim ({\rm TeV})^{2}$ by adjusting $\sqrt{|{\cal{R}}_{0}|} L$ appropriately. For instance,
307: if $$n=3\,, \quad M_{\star}\sim 1\ {\rm TeV}\,,\quad {\rm and}
308: \quad |{\cal{R}}_{0}|\sim (0.5\
309: {\rm TeV})^{2}\,,$$
310: the maximal linear extension of the manifold turns out to be
311: $$L\approx 34\ |{\cal{R}}_{0}|^{-1/2}\approx 1.4 \times 10^{-15}\ {\rm cm}\,.$$
312: Unlike the Arkani-Hamed--Dimopoulos--Dvali
313: (ADD) scenario \cite{add} where the size of the extra dimensions is
314: macroscopic (and is at the border of what is allowed by the current
315: gravity experiments \cite{exp}, $\sim 0.1\ {\rm mm}$)
316: in the case at hand $L$ is microscopic.
317:
318: \subsection{Relation between the scalar curvature and the bulk cosmological term}
319:
320:
321: In a higher-dimensional theory whose nongravity part is strictly conformal,
322: the Einstein equations imply that the curvature scalar is determined solely
323: by the vacuum energy densities (the bulk cosmological constant
324: plus other possible sources). For a factorizable geometry ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$,
325: assuming that ${\bf M}_{4}$ is already flattened thanks to appropriate source terms,
326: the compact space possesses the curvature scalar ${\cal{R}}= 2 n \Lambda/(n-2)$
327: where $\Lambda$ is the bulk cosmological term. For grasping the importance of the
328: static character of the internal manifold, one notices that the curvature
329: scalar has the form $${\cal{R}}={\cal{R}}(d^2r/dt^2, (dr/dt)^{2}, r^2)\,,$$
330: $r$ being the curvature radius of the internal manifold \cite{cancel}.
331: Clearly, for ensuring a static compact space, the intrinsic curvature
332: contribution (the only piece independent of the time derivatives) to
333: ${\cal{R}}$ must be balanced by the bulk cosmological term in the field
334: equtions: ${\cal{R}}\propto \Lambda$.
335:
336: In analyzing the matter sector, we take the factorizable static background geometry
337: as the basic {\em ansatz}. The consistency of this assumption as well as the relation
338: between the curvature scalar and the bulk cosmological term are best understood
339: after reducing the bulk field theory to ${\bf M}_{4}$, and requiring the
340: stability and vanishing of the long-distance (four-dimensional)
341: cosmological term. Such
342: details are deferred till Sec. 3.
343:
344: \subsection{ Destabilization of scalar fields}
345: It is convenient to discuss first the destabilization of
346: the scalar potential of a typical scalar field. For instance, a dilaton $\sigma$
347: may be described by the Lagrangian
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: \label{dilat}
350: {\cal{L}}[{\cal{R}},\sigma] &=& (1/2)\left[G^{A B} \partial_{A} \sigma \partial_{B} \sigma
351: -\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0 \sigma^{2} - \lambda_{\sigma} \sigma^{2 \gamma}\right]
352: \end{eqnarray}
353: where $\sigma$ is a real field,
354: $$
355: \zeta_c=\frac{n+2}{4 (n+3)} \quad {\rm and}\quad \gamma= \frac{n+4}{n+2}\,,
356: $$
357: as required by the conformal invariance \cite{conf1,conf2}. The potential of $\sigma$,
358: \begin{equation}
359: V(\sigma)=\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0 \sigma^{2} + \lambda_{\sigma}
360: \sigma^{2 \gamma}\,,
361: \end{equation}
362: has two\footnote{A minimum at negative $\sigma$ is irrelevant
363: for our purposes.} critical points $\sigma_{\rm max}=0$ with
364: $V(\sigma_{\rm max})=0$, and
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: \sigma_{\rm min}&=&\left(-\frac{\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0}{\gamma
367: \lambda_{\sigma}}\right)^{1/2(\gamma-1)}\,,\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
368: V(\sigma_{\rm min})&=&\left(\frac{1-\gamma}{2 \gamma}\right) \left(\gamma
369: \lambda_{\sigma}\right)^{-1/(\gamma-1)}
370: |\zeta_c{\cal{R}}_0|^{\gamma/(\gamma-1)}\,,
371: \end{eqnarray}
372: which correspond to local maximum and minimum, respectively. The small
373: perturbations $\overline{\sigma}$ around
374: these critical points have masses $m_{\sigma}^{2}({\rm max})=\zeta_c {\cal{R}}$ and
375: $m_{\sigma}^{2}({\rm min})=2 (1-\gamma)
376: \zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0$.
377: Remember that the quantities ${\cal{R}}_0$ and $1-\gamma$ are negative.
378:
379: The $\sigma$ quanta evolve in time as $\overline{\sigma}\sim e^{i m_{\sigma} t}$
380: which implies that small perturbations around $\sigma_{max}=0$ are
381: unstable.
382: Since ${\bf B}_{n}$ is a compact manifold, one always has a zero mode solution
383: $\overline{\sigma}(x,y)={\rm const}\ \overline{\sigma}_{0}(x)$ where $y$ stands for extra
384: coordinates, and $\overline{\sigma}_{0}(x)$
385: obeys the equation
386: $$\Box_{4} \overline{\sigma}_{0}(x)+ \zeta\ {\cal{R}}_0\ \overline{\sigma}_{0}(x) =0$$
387: whose solution is
388: always destabilized. Note that a perturbative stability analysis of Ref.
389: \cite{ads} referring to noncompact anti-de Sitter spaces
390: is inapplicable in the case at hand due to the
391: compactness of
392: ${\bf B}_{n}$. The vacuum expectation value of $\sigma$ is necessarily
393: nonvanishing for a negatively-curved internal manifold. This is a spontaneous breaking
394: effect which will
395: communicate the explicit conformal symmetry
396: breaking of the gravity sector to
397: the matter sector.
398:
399: \subsection{``Defect builder" and the Higgs fields}
400:
401: Having discussed the destabilization of a typical scalar field via
402: constant negative curvature scalar, we now turn
403: to the issue of localization of matter at distances $\lsim M_{\star}^{-1}$
404: on (empirically flat) submanifold ${\bf M}_{4}$. (The bulk theory also
405: possesses gauge and other
406: symmetries, to be spontaneously broken; this will be discussed later).
407: There are various field-theoretic
408: and stringy mechanisms for
409: localizing matter on ${\bf M}_{4}$. For our illustrative
410: purposes we will utilize a field-theoretic framework put forward and
411: developed in \cite{local1,local2} in which the ordinary four-dimensional
412: space-time is a topologically stable defect. This is by no means a unique option.
413: One could consider other known mechanisms leading to matter localization.
414:
415: In general, the
416: formation of the stable defect requires a spontaneously broken global symmetry.
417: Moreover, the
418: type of the defect depends on the number of extra dimensions: a domain wall in one codimension,
419: a vortex line in two codimensions, and so on.
420:
421: Unlike the spherical or toroidal structures \cite{add}, the
422: manifold ${\bf B}_{n}$ under consideration is globally anistropic \cite{others}; for solving the
423: hierarchy problem only the largest linear size $L$ is relevant \cite{kaloper}.
424: Therefore, as an
425: approximate but physical picture, one can imagine ${\bf B}_{n}$ extending along a particular direction,
426: say $y$, like a stick
427: \footnote{ The shape and size of the manifold depends on what subgroup of the isometry group of ${\bf
428: H}_{n}$ is acting. For a detailed numerical study of ${\bf B}_{4}$ see \cite{others}.}
429: of
430: length $L$ and thickness $\delta\ll L$,
431: $$
432: \delta \sim |{\cal R}_{0}|^{-1/2}\,,\quad L/\delta \gg 1\,.
433: $$
434: In other words, out of all $n$ dimensions, one is significantly
435: larger than the remaining $n-1$. The latter, though needed to keep the
436: curvature scalar negative and constant, are much smaller. Clearly,
437: within such a picture, the dependence of matter fields on these
438: $n-1$ dimensions can be neglected (as well as the corresponding components of, say, vector fields).
439: The problem
440: becomes effectively one-dimensional. In such quasi one-dimensional
441: setting, the defect builder field
442: $\phi$ can form a domain wall and dynamically localize the matter \footnote{ The topological
443: stability of the domain wall requires an infinite extension for $y$, and therefore, the
444: picture discussed here is approximate; the wall
445: will be approximately stable. Its decay rate will be suppressed
446: exponentially as $\exp (-{\rm const} L |{\cal{R}}_0|^{-1/2})$. }.
447: Consequently, the scalar sector, composed of the defect builder $\phi$, dilaton
448: $\sigma$ and the Higgs field $H$, may be described by the Lagrangian
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: \label{scal}
451: {\cal{L}}[{\cal{R}}, \phi, \sigma, H] &&=(1/2)\left[
452: G^{A B} \partial_{A} \phi \partial_{B}\phi-\zeta_c {\cal{R}} \phi^{2} - \lambda_{\phi} \phi^{4} \sigma^{2
453: (\gamma-2)}\right]+\nonumber\\[0.2cm]
454: && G^{A B} ({\cal{D}}_{A} H)^{\dagger} {\cal{D}}_B H
455: -\left(\zeta_c {\cal{R}} + \lambda_{0} \phi^{2}\sigma^{2 (\gamma-2)}\right) H^{\dagger} H
456: - \lambda_{h} \left(H^{\dagger}H\right)^{\gamma}
457: \end{eqnarray}
458: to which (\ref{dilat}) is to be added. Here we take $\lambda_{\phi}$ to be sufficiently
459: small compared to $\lambda_{\sigma}$ so that the change in $\sigma_{min}$ is small. For
460: simplicity one can assume $\phi$ to be real. The interactions of the scalars are such that
461: there is a manifest ${\cal{Z}}_{2}$ invariance under which $\phi\rightarrow -\phi$,
462: $\sigma\rightarrow \sigma$, and $H\rightarrow H$.
463:
464: In Eq. (\ref{scal}) we dropped several terms allowed by symmetries as such
465: terms are not essential
466: for the mechanism discussed here. For instance, in the Higgs interaction one can add
467: terms $\phi^{4} \sigma^{2 (\gamma-3)} H^{\dagger} H$ and $\sigma^{2 (\gamma-1)} H^{\dagger} H$, whose main effect
468: would be to split the
469: scalar masses. In any case, as we are not aiming at reproducing the exact electroweak spectrum, such
470: details are not essential.
471:
472: In the $\sigma=\sigma_{\rm min}$ background, the potential of $\phi$ is destabilized, leading to a
473: spontaneous breakdown of the ${\cal{Z}}_2$ symmetry with two possible VEVs,
474: \begin{eqnarray}
475: \phi_0=\pm \varphi_{0}\,,\qquad
476: \varphi_{0} = \left(\frac{ |\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|}{2 \lambda_{\phi} \sigma_{min}^{2(\gamma-2)}}
477: \right)^{1/2}\,.
478: \end{eqnarray}
479: This allows one to build a wall
480: with the profile
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: \phi(y)=\varphi_{0} \tanh \left( m_{\phi} y\right)
483: \end{eqnarray}
484: interpolating between $- \varphi_{0}$ and $+ \varphi_{0}$ as $y$ changes from
485: $-L/2$ to $L/2$.
486: Here $m_{\phi}^{2}=|\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|$ is the mass of the $\phi$ quantum.
487: Needless to say that $m_\phi$ is assumed to be large, $m_{\phi} L \gg 1$.
488: Then the wall thickness is much less than $L$. The inverse thickness of the
489: wall as well as its tension ($T\sim |\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|^{2}$) are in the
490: ballpark of $M_{\star}$ to the appropriate power (see Fig. 1).
491:
492: We now turn to the discussion of the Higgs field in the domain wall background.
493: With $\lambda_{0}>0$ the term $\phi^{2} \sigma^{2(\gamma-2)} H^{\dagger} H$
494: induces a positive potential for $H$ in the bulk, while
495: in the core of the defect the potential vanishes. Then the Higgs field is stable
496: outside the wall,
497: while
498: a tachyonic mass develops inside the wall, and, hence,
499: a nonvanishing VEV of the Higgs field develops inside the wall \footnote{The impact of
500: the gauge interactions of the Higgs field on stabilization/destabilization
501: of the Higgs potential will be discussed
502: in Sect. 2.4. It does not change the overall picture.}. More concretely, away from the
503: wall, in the bulk, the wall builder attains one of its two vacuum values, and the effective
504: (mass)$^{2}$ of the Higgs field is
505: \begin{eqnarray}
506: \widetilde{m}_{H}^{2}= \{- 1 + \lambda_{0}/(2 \lambda_{\phi})\}
507: |\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|\,.
508: \label{f20}
509: \end{eqnarray}
510: The mass term (\ref{f20}) is
511: positive provided $\lambda_{0}>2
512: \lambda_{\phi}$, and, consequently, the gauge symmetry remains unbroken in the bulk.
513: In the core of the wall
514: \begin{eqnarray}
515: \widetilde{m}_{H}^{2}\approx -
516: |\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|\,,
517: \label{f21}
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: and the gauge symmetry is broken provided
520: $\lambda_{0}>2
521: \lambda_{\phi}$.
522: The constraint $\lambda_{0}>2
523: \lambda_{\phi}$ is a mild tuning, and such a choice does not produce any harm on the
524: mechanism of the wall formation.
525:
526: In the core of the domain wall, however, $\phi(y)\sim 0$, and thus, the Higgs field
527: necessarily develops a
528: nonvanishing VEV
529: \begin{eqnarray}
530: \left|H\right|_{0}=\left(\frac{\zeta_c |{\cal{R}}_0|}
531: {\gamma\lambda_h}\right)^{1/2(\gamma-1)} \,,
532: \end{eqnarray}
533: which
534: leads, in turn, to a spontaneous breakdown of the gauge symmetry. In this
535: minimum, the mass of the
536: Higgs quantum is given by $m_{h}^{2}= 4 (\gamma -1) |\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0|$.
537: As mentioned above, had
538: we included terms like $\phi^{4} \sigma^{2 (\gamma-3)}$ and
539: $\sigma^{2 (\gamma-1)}$ the
540: appearent degeneracy between $\sigma$ and $H$ quanta would be lifted,
541: and the condition on
542: $\lambda_0$ to avoid breaking of the gauge symmetry in the bulk would be
543: also modified accordingly.
544:
545: \subsection{Gauge fields}
546:
547: To outline the gauge field dynamics let us consider an SU(2) gauge theory in the
548: bulk with
549: $${\cal{D}}_A H = \left(\partial_A +i (g_2/2)
550: \widetilde{\sigma}\vec{\sigma}\cdot \vec{W}_{A}\right)H$$
551: where $\vec{W}_{A}$ are the three gluon fields with $4+n$ components,
552: and $\widetilde{\sigma}$ is a dilaton with mass dimension $-n/2$,
553: \begin{eqnarray}
554: \widetilde{\sigma} = -\left( 1+\frac{2}{n}\right)\,\sigma^{-n/(n+2)}\,.
555: \label{f22}
556: \end{eqnarray}
557: For the stick-like manifold configuration under consideration, $\vec{W}_{A}$ is
558: effectively a five-dimensional gauge field. Then, in the core of the wall,
559: the SU(2) symmetry is completely broken giving three massive vector bosons,
560: \begin{eqnarray}
561: M_{W}^{2} = \left(\frac{g_2}{\gamma -2}\right)^{2}
562: \left(\frac{\lambda_{\sigma}}{\lambda_{h}}\right)^{1/(\gamma -1)}
563: \frac{\left|\zeta_c {\cal{R}}_0\right|}
564: {\gamma \lambda_{\sigma}}
565: \end{eqnarray}
566: whose degeneracy can be lifted by additional group factors (e.g. the hypercharge group
567: U(1)$_{Y}$). Outside the core of the wall the Higgs field does not condense, and the gauge
568: theory remains in the non-Abelian phase. One can try to exploit this fact
569: in order to use
570: the mechanism
571: for the gauge field localization on the wall suggested in Ref. \cite{local2}.
572:
573: The mechanism \cite{local2}
574: requires that in the bulk we have an unbroken non-Abelian gauge theory,
575: which develops string-like flux tubes with
576: a nonvanishing string tension. Then,
577: just like in the Meissner effect (where a perfect superconductor repels
578: the magnetic field), the ``superconducting" bulk (where the wall--builder
579: condenses keeping the gauge invariance exact) will repel the flux tubes
580: of the electric field confining them to the core of the topological defect.
581:
582: The question whether or not the flux tubes are formed
583: and the non-Abelian theories confine in $4+n$
584: dimensions is not completely clear. We do know that they confine in two, three and four
585: dimensions. Moreover, at sufficiently strong coupling confinement persists
586: in higher dimensions, as follows from lattices and from ADS/CFT-based arguments
587: \cite{PS} (see also \cite{add} for similar field-theoretic arguments). In the D-brane/string theory it is explicit.
588: Thus, it is likely that in a certain range of the coupling constants $\lambda$
589: the effective
590: coupling constant
591: $\widetilde{\sigma} g$ is such that gauge-nonsinglet objects are confined
592: in the bulk at $n>0$. Then the mechanism of Ref. \cite{local2}
593: applies. A particular model of how this mechanism localizes gluons was considered in
594: Ref. \cite{DR} in detail. The problem is whether or not one can
595: get a sufficiently small gauge coupling (compatible with phenomenology)
596: inside the wall, where the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken, and we
597: are in the Higgs
598: phase. To this end one can try to play with the variations of $\widetilde{\sigma}$
599: inside and outside the wall. This task would require a numerical analysis, which we
600: postpone for the future.
601:
602: In Sect. 2.3 we have discussed the bulk stabilization (core destabilization) of the
603: Higgs potential with the gauge interactions switched off (see Eqs. (\ref{f20}) and
604: (\ref{f21})). Here we will argue that the phenomenon remains valid with the gauge
605: interactions switched on. The gauge interactions induce a contribution to the Higgs mass
606: term of the form
607: \begin{eqnarray}
608: \langle H^\dagger (-D^2_{\rm Euclid})H\rangle \to C M_*^2 H^\dagger H\,,
609: \end{eqnarray}
610: where $D^2_{\rm Euclid}$ is the Euclidean covariant Lapacian,
611: and $C$ is a dimensioneless constant which depends on various other dimensionless
612: constants in the theory, such as $\lambda_\sigma$.
613: It is important that because of positivity of
614: $-(D^2_{\rm Euclid})$, the constant $C$ is positive. It adds to the stabilizing term in the
615: Higgs potential. If $C$ is adjusted to be not too large,
616: the previous conclusion of the bulk stabilization and core destabilization
617: remains intact.
618:
619: The above dynamical trapping is not special to gauge fields. In fact, the bulk
620: fermions will be localized on the wall too due to the confining gauge
621: dynamics outside. For the purpose of localization, they may or may not be directly coupled to
622: the wall builder as in \cite{local1,DS}).
623: As a simple example, consider an SU(2)
624: doublet $\psi$ and an SU(2)
625: singlet $\psi^{\prime}$ with the Yukawa interaction
626: \begin{equation}
627: \label{ferm}
628: {\cal{L}}_{Y}= y_{\psi} \widetilde{\sigma} \overline{\psi} H
629: \psi^{\prime} + \mbox{h. c.}
630: \label{wed}
631: \end{equation}
632: Then in the core of the wall, where the SU(2) symmetry is spontaneously
633: broken, there arises a massive fermion with mass
634: $m_{\psi}=y_{\psi} M_{W}/\sqrt{g_2}$.
635: To see how realistic this mass spectrum is, we take
636: $n=3$, $\lambda_{\sigma}\sim \lambda_{h}\sim 1/\gamma
637: \ll 1$ and $|{\cal{R}}_0|\sim (350\ {\rm GeV})^{2}$.
638: This then gives $M_{W}\sim 100\ {\rm GeV}$,
639: $m_{\psi}\sim y_{\psi} M_{W}$, and $m_{h}=200 \ {\rm GeV}$
640: where one particularly notices that
641: the Higgs boson is always heavier than the gauge bosons.
642:
643: An important point to be addressed here is the chirality of the localized
644: fermions. In general, fermions localized via the confining bulk gauge
645: dynamics are not chiral. Moreover, in odd dimensions ($n$ is odd) there is no chirality.
646: In general \cite{local1,local2}, a way out
647: is provided by the defect--builder itself: if the bulk fermions are
648: directly coupled to $\phi$, the zero modes are chiral, and
649: their chirality is correlated with the topological charge of the
650: wall. Explicitly, the bulk fermions $f$
651: and
652: $f_c$ can be coupled as $y \widetilde{\sigma} \phi \overline{f} f + y_c \widetilde{\sigma} \phi
653: \overline{f_{c}} f_{c}$ which deposit the chiral zero modes $f + \overline{f}^{\dagger}$
654: and $f_c^{\dagger} + \overline{f_c}$ whose couplings to the Higgs field
655: as in (\ref{ferm}) produces acceptable fermion masses in the
656: core of the defect \cite{add}.
657:
658: Concerning the gauge symmetry in the bulk, one should take care of gauge
659: singlets, as $\psi'$ in Eq. (\ref{wed}). To this end one may embed the SM
660: gauge group in a larger non-Abelian one, $e.g.$ the Pati-Salam group SU(4)$\times$ SU(2)$_L\times$ SU(2)$_R$.
661: Then using appropriate (in number and representation) Higgs fields one can
662: obtain the SM spectrum below $M_{\star}$. In fact a realistic model with
663: Pati--Salam group in $n=2$ codimensions have already been discussed in
664: \cite{add} where the defect builder forms a vortex line the throat of which
665: consistently localizes the matter on ${\bf M}_{4}$. One notices that once the
666: scalar sector is destabilized, the hierarchy needed among VEVs
667: of various Higgs fields can be generated via their interactions by mild tuning of
668: the parameters (e.g. couplings of the form $\phi^{4} \sigma^{2 (\gamma-3)} H^{\dagger} H$).
669:
670:
671: \section{Stabilization of the factorizable geometry and flatness of ${\bf M}_{4}$}
672:
673: The discussion in Sec. 2 was based on the factorizable background geometry
674: ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$ where ${\bf B}_{n}$ is a static compact
675: negative-curvature manifold. Here our primary concern
676: is the stabilization of the extra dimensions. Let us recall, for instance,
677: that in spherical or toroidal geometries \cite{add,cancel,cancelp} one has
678: to stabilize the large extra dimensions against
679: expansion, which requires the bulk cosmological constant be balanced with the curvature
680: of the manifold, and against contraction, which requires, generally speaking, either
681: brane-lattice crystallization or a topological invariant, $e.g.$ Ramond-Ramond gauge field
682: on ${\bf S}^{2}$ topology.
683:
684: For the manifold structure under consideration, the main problem is to prevent the
685: expansion of the internal manifold as its size is already required to be around the
686: fundamental scale of gravity. As in positive- or zero-curvature spaces
687: \cite{cancel,cancelp} the stabilization against the expansion requires fine-tuning the bulk
688: cosmological constant against the curvature term. Indeed, the analysis of \cite{kaloper}
689: shows that a factorizable geometry of the form ${\bf M}_{4}\times {\bf B}_{n}$ almost
690: automatically arises once the bulk cosmological constant is appropriately tuned.
691:
692: The compact hyperbolic manifolds possess the important property of rigidity ---
693: their volume in units of $|{\cal{R}}|$ cannot be changed while maintaining the
694: homogeneity of the space. Therefore, stabilization of the static factorizable background
695: reduces to the stabilization of the curvature length $|{\cal{R}}|^{-1/2}$ of ${\bf B}_{n}$.
696: The relevant part of the reduced bulk action in the far infrared is nothing but
697: the long-distance (four-dimensional) cosmological constant,
698: \begin{eqnarray}
699: \label{4cc}
700: \Lambda_{4}({\cal{R}}) = {\cal{V}}_{n}\left(-M_{\star}^{n+2}({\cal{R}} - 2 \Lambda) +
701: V(\sigma_{min})\right) + {\cal{K}}({\cal{R}}) + T
702: \end{eqnarray}
703: where $T>0$ is the wall tension (including the contribution of the Higgs potential). Here
704: ${\cal{K}}({\cal{R}})$ collectively denotes the contribution of the kinetic
705: terms of the bulk scalar and vector fields \cite{cancel,cancelp}, and can be expanded as
706: $\sum_{a>0} C_{a} |{\cal{R}}|^{a/2} M_{\star}^{4-a}$ \cite{kaloper}. The stability
707: of the factorizable configuration requires that
708: $$\Lambda_{4}^{\prime} \left({\cal{R}}={\cal{R}}_{0}\right) = 0 \quad{\rm and}
709: \quad \Lambda_{4}^{\prime\prime}
710: \left({\cal{R}}={\cal{R}}_{0}\right) > 0\,,$$
711: together with the empirical requirement of $\Lambda_{4}\left({\cal{R}}={\cal{R}}_{0}\right) = 0$.
712: A straightforward calculation, which is particularly simple for large $n$, suggests that
713: $\Lambda<0$ and ${\cal{R}}\equiv {\cal{R}}_{0}\sim 2 \Lambda$. Moreover, $\Lambda_{4}^{\prime\prime}
714: \left({\cal{R}}_{0}\right)$ determines the masses of small fluctuations around
715: ${\cal{R}}={\cal{R}}_{0}$ to be ${\cal{O}}(M_{\star})$ which is large enough to
716: evade cosmological problems \cite{kaloper} with a light radion occuring in spherical
717: and toroidal geometries \cite{cancel}. One notices that the bulk cosmological
718: constant prevents the internal manifold from expanding indefinitely.
719:
720: An important issue in the far infrared is the vanishing of the long-distance cosmological
721: constant. Empirically, it is known that such a cancellation can be achieved by tuning the
722: coefficients $C_a$ against the first and third terms in (\ref{4cc}) which involves
723: an extreme fine-tuning of the parameters --- the cosmological constant problem.
724: Clearly, one should excercise care in fine-tuning $\Lambda_{4}({\cal{R}})$ to zero
725: in order to make ${\bf M}_{4}$ flat, as it can result in a
726: solution with $T\sim {\cal{V}}_{n} M_{\star}^{n+4} \gg M_{\star}^{4}=
727: M_{\rm Pl}^{2} M_{\star}^{2}$
728: which is completely unnatural given the characteristic scale of the SM. Moreover, such
729: a huge wall tension will destroy the initial ansatz on the background geometry.
730: On the contrary, if $T\sim M_{\star}^4$, the back reaction on the wall
731: on the solution under consideration is negligible,
732: and our step-by-step strategy is justified.
733:
734: One can estimate the back reaction of the wall by examining the
735: Einstein equations. In the presence of the wall a new term in the right-hand side
736: appears, proportional to $T\delta^n(\vec y)$. In a rough approximation we will
737: replace $T\delta^n(\vec y)$ by $T / {\cal V}_n$, smearing the delta function homogeneously
738: over the extra space. This will presumably lead to an overestimate of the back reaction.
739: Neglecting irrelevant numerical factors, we get
740: \begin{eqnarray}
741: \Delta {\cal{R}} \sim \frac{T}{M_{\rm Pl}^{2}}\,.
742: \end{eqnarray}
743: Let us remind the reader that this is a purely classical estimate, with
744: all quantum corrections discarded. Moreover, $\Delta {\cal{R}}$
745: need not be constant, it depends on the profile of the wall
746: solution in $\vec y$. It is clear that
747: when $T\sim {\cal{V}}_{n} M_{\star}^{n+4}=M_{\rm Pl}^{2} M_{\star}^{2}$
748: the change in ${\cal{R}}_{0}$ is ${\cal{O}}(1)$, that is, the original
749: ansatz on the curvature of the space is completely
750: destroyed, and our construction collapses. Therefore,
751: to prevent the ambient geometry from being significantly modified by
752: the back reaction of the wall, one must require $T\simlt M_{\star}^{4}$.
753: This constraint represents a nontrivial aspect of the
754: long-distance cosmological constant problem \cite{cancel,cancelp,kaloper}.
755:
756: \section{Summary and Discussion}
757:
758: \begin{figure}[t]
759: \begin{center}
760: \vspace{9pt}
761: \epsfig{file=pap.eps,height=2.5in}
762: \caption{\label{scales}
763: {\it List of scales in the problem together
764: with the VEVs of fundamental scalars in
765: the bulk and the wall.}}
766: \end{center}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: Our basic starting point is the assumption that large compact
770: extra dimensions exist and, as a result, the fundamental
771: gravity scale $M_{\star}\sim {\rm TeV}$. Unlike the original suggestion
772: \cite{add} where most attention is paid to flat extra dimension,
773: a (constant) negative curvature of the extra space is absolutely essential for the
774: mechanism that we discuss. It is maintained, in turn, by a bulk negative cosmological term.
775:
776: In this paper we outline a single-origin step-by-step mechanism
777: which might be relevant for the low-energy phenomenology.
778: Initially, the mass parameters are separated --- the nongravity sector is
779: assumed to be conformal. A (negative) cosmological term in the bulk
780: ensures the existence of the negative curvature internal compact manifold.
781: Its scalar curvature is related to the bulk cosmological term.
782: It triggers then the formation of a topological defect, which, in turn,
783: captures the SM matter fields. Simultaneously, it destabilizes the
784: Higgs potential and triggers the spontaneous breaking of the gauge symmetry on the the defect
785: (but not in the bulk). The scales of the problem and VEVs of the
786: fundamental scalars are summarized in Fig 1. Clearly, all
787: mass and length scales are fixed by the curvature scalar ${\cal{R}}_0$.
788:
789: The stability of the background
790: geometry is consistent and self-sustaining
791: provided that the bulk cosmological constant
792: $\sim - M_{\star}^{2}$. The scale of gravity $M_{\star}$, the curvature scalar
793: ${\cal{R}}_{0}$, bulk cosmological term $\Lambda$, and the largest linear extension of the
794: compact manifold $L$ are the mass parameters of the model. These mass scales are
795: interrelated via the requirements of (i) generating the correct electroweak spectrum
796: ($|{\cal{R}}_{0}|^{1/2}\sim$ Higgs mass); (ii) explaining enormity of $M_{\rm Pl}$ with
797: respect to electroweak scale, and (iii) cancellation of the four-dimensional cosmological
798: constant. A modest hierarchy is required between
799: $L$ and $|{\cal R}_0|^{-1/2}$,
800: $$L |{\cal{R}}_{0}|^{1/2}\gsim 30\,,$$
801: which may be purely numerical.
802:
803: Recent studies of the cosmology of compact hyperbolic manifolds \cite{cosmo} suggest
804: that the topology of extra space implies a very large entropy, and statistical
805: averaging during collapse can account for the large scale flatness. However, in
806: both publications \cite{cosmo} and \cite{kaloper} nongeometric degrees of freedom (in the
807: bulk and on the defect) have not been included in the discussion. Analysis of
808: several problems, $e.g.$ CP violation, baryogenesis, inflation, structure formation $etc.$,
809: would be in order along the lines we have outlined in the present paper.
810:
811: A toy SU(2) gauge model illustrates that the existence of a
812: negatively-curved compact internal manifold alone is sufficient for breaking the
813: symmetries of the matter sector so as to generate a flat topological defect trapping the
814: massive as well as massless particle spectrum on it.
815: Supersymmetry may or may not be needed. One can consider
816: models with supersymmetry broken by the bulk cosmological term along these lines.
817:
818: To conclude, it would be in order to compare the pattern suggested here
819: with other popular brane-world scenarios \cite{add,rs1}.
820: The compactness of the extra space is the basic feature of the ADD scenario.
821: However, the characteristic size of
822: the extra dimensions for compact hyperbolic structures is far below
823: those obtained in spherical or toroidal
824: geometries \cite{add} (and orders of magnitude below the existing experimental bounds
825: \cite{exp}). Small extra dimensions occur in the warped compactification scenario
826: of Randall and Sundrum
827: \cite{rs1}. The two approaches have similarities and distinctions.
828: The basic conceptual similarity is the fact
829: that in the both schemes gravity in the bulk plays a crucial role.
830: The distinctions are technical but conspicuous.
831: To name a few one
832: notes that: ($i$) the warped compactification scenarios work for a single extra dimension
833: whereas the scenario discussed here requires at least two extra dimensions; ($ii$) In the
834: warped compactification scenarios
835: five-- and four--dimensional Planck scales essentially coincide while
836: they are drastically different in
837: the case of compact hyperbolic structures; ($iii$) In both
838: scenarios the bulk cosmological constant is required to be negative,
839: but its scale is different. As is seen from Fig. 1,
840: the basic and practically the only scale in our model is $M_*\sim |{\cal R}|^{-1/2}$.
841: In the Randal-Sundrum approach one starts from the $M_{\rm Pl}$ brane;
842: ($iv$) The gravity-driven trigerring of the Higgs mechanism on the TeV brane
843: is not a part of the Randal-Sundrum model {\em per se}, while in our model
844: the core of the wall tends to destabilize the Higgs potential.
845:
846: \section*{Acknowledgments}
847:
848: We thank Gregory Gabadadze, A. Losev and Mikhail Voloshin for fruitful discussions on several aspects of this
849: work. We also thank Elena Caceres and Nemanja Kaloper for useful communications. The work is
850: supported in part by the US Department of Energy under the grant number DE-FG-02-94-ER-40823.
851:
852:
853:
854: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
855:
856: \bibitem{add}
857: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
858: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
859: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
860: [hep-ph/9803315].
861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
862:
863: \bibitem{ant}
864: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
865: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
866: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)
867: [hep-ph/9804398].
868: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
869:
870: \bibitem{add1}
871: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
872: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories
873: %with sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''
874: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999)
875: [hep-ph/9807344].
876: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%
877:
878: \bibitem{polchinski}
879: J.~Polchinski,
880: %``Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges,''
881: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75}, 4724 (1995)
882: [hep-th/9510017].
883: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510017;%%
884:
885: \bibitem{local1}
886: V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
887: %``Do We Live Inside A Domain Wall?,''
888: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 125}, 136 (1983).
889: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B125,136;%%
890:
891: \bibitem{local2}
892: G.~R.~Dvali and M.~A.~Shifman,
893: %``Domain walls in strongly coupled theories,''
894: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 396}, 64 (1997)
895: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 407}, 452 (1997)]
896: [hep-th/9612128].
897: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612128;%%
898:
899: \bibitem{DR}
900: S.~L.~Dubovsky and V.~A.~Rubakov,
901: %``On models of gauge field localization on a brane,''
902: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16}, 4331 (2001)
903: [hep-th/0105243].
904: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105243;%%
905:
906: \bibitem{susygaugebreak}
907: See $e.g.$ the recent discussion:
908: R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,
909: %``A constrained standard model from a compact extra dimension,''
910: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 105007 (2001)
911: [hep-ph/0011311].
912: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011311;%%
913:
914: \bibitem{gene}
915: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,
916: %``Hierarchies without symmetries from extra dimensions,''
917: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 033005 (2000)
918: [hep-ph/9903417];
919: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903417;%%
920: G.~R.~Dvali and M.~A.~Shifman,
921: %``Families as neighbors in extra dimension,''
922: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475}, 295 (2000)
923: [hep-ph/0001072];
924: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001072;%%
925: D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~Tait,
926: %``Supersymmetry breaking, fermion masses and a small extra dimension,''
927: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 020 (2000)
928: [hep-ph/0004200];
929: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004200;%%
930: B.~A.~Dobrescu and E.~Poppitz,
931: %``Number of fermion generations derived from anomaly cancellation,''
932: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 031801 (2001)
933: [hep-ph/0102010];
934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102010;%%
935: N.~Borghini, Y.~Gouverneur and M.~H.~Tytgat,
936: %``Anomalies and fermion content of grand unified theories in extra dimensions,''
937: hep-ph/0108094.
938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108094;%%
939:
940:
941: \bibitem{neut}
942: G.~R.~Dvali and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
943: %``Probing large extra dimensions with neutrinos,''
944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 563}, 63 (1999)
945: [hep-ph/9904211];
946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904211;%%
947: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~R.~Dvali and J.~March-Russell,
948: %``Neutrino masses from large extra dimensions,''
949: hep-ph/9811448.
950: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811448;%%
951:
952: \bibitem{proton}
953: See $e.g.$
954: A.~Aranda and C.~D.~Carone,
955: %``Orthogonal U(1)'s, proton stability and extra dimensions,''
956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 075012 (2001)
957: [hep-ph/0012092].
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012092;%%
959:
960: \bibitem{conf1}
961: H. Weyl, {\it Space--Time--Matter} (Dover, New York, 1952);
962: R.~H.~Dicke,
963: %``Mach's Principle And Invariance Under Transformation Of Units,''
964: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 125}, 2163 (1962).
965:
966: \bibitem{conf2}
967: %%CITATION = PHRVA,125,2163;%%
968: J.~D.~Bekenstein and A.~Meisels,
969: %``Conformal Invariance, Microscopic Physics, And The Nature Of Gravitation,''
970: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22}, 1313 (1980).
971: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,1313;%%
972:
973: \bibitem{rs1}
974: L.~J.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
975: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
976: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
977: [hep-ph/9905221].
978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
979:
980:
981: \bibitem{kaloper}
982: N.~Kaloper, J.~March-Russell, G.~D.~Starkman and M.~Trodden,
983: %``Compact hyperbolic extra dimensions: Branes, Kaluza-Klein modes and cosmology,''
984: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 928 (2000)
985: [hep-ph/0002001].
986: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002001;%%
987:
988: \bibitem{cancel}
989: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and J.~March-Russell,
990: %``Stabilization of sub-millimeter dimensions: The new guise of the hierarchy problem,''
991: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 064020 (2001)
992: [hep-th/9809124].
993: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809124;%%
994:
995: \bibitem{exp}
996: C.~D.~Hoyle, U.~Schmidt, B.~R.~Heckel, E.~G.~Adelberger, J.~H.~Gundlach, D.~J.~Kapner
997: and H.~E.~Swanson,
998: %``Sub-millimeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law:
999: %A search for 'large' extra dimensions,''
1000: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 1418 (2001)
1001: [hep-ph/0011014].
1002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011014;%%
1003:
1004: \bibitem{ads}
1005: P.~Breitenlohner and D.~Z.~Freedman,
1006: %``Positive Energy In Anti-De Sitter Backgrounds And Gauged Extended Supergravity,''
1007: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 115}, 197 (1982);
1008: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,197;%%
1009: %``Stability In Gauged Extended Supergravity,''
1010: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 144}, 249 (1982);
1011: %%CITATION = APNYA,144,249;%%
1012: L.~Mezincescu and P.~K.~Townsend,
1013: %``Stability At A Local Maximum In Higher Dimensional
1014: %Anti-De Sitter Space And Applications To Supergravity,''
1015: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 160}, 406 (1985).
1016: %%CITATION = APNYA,160,406;%%
1017:
1018: \bibitem{others}
1019: N.~ Cornish and D.~Spergel, math.DG/9906017;
1020: M.~Trodden,
1021: %``Diluting gravity with compact hyperboloids,''
1022: hep-th/0010032;
1023: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010032;%%
1024: G.~D.~Starkman,
1025: %``Topology And Cosmology,''
1026: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 15}, 2529 (1998).
1027: %%CITATION = CQGRD,15,2529;%%
1028:
1029: \bibitem{PS}
1030: J.~Polchinski and M.~J.~Strassler,
1031: %``Hard scattering and gauge/string duality,''
1032: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 031601 (2002)
1033: [hep-th/0109174].
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109174;%%
1035:
1036: \bibitem{DS}
1037: G.~R.~Dvali and M.~A.~Shifman,
1038: %``Dynamical compactification as a mechanism of spontaneous
1039: %supersymmetry breaking,''
1040: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 504}, 127 (1997)
1041: [hep-th/9611213].
1042: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9611213;%%
1043:
1044:
1045: \bibitem{cancelp}
1046: R.~Sundrum,
1047: %``Compactification for a three-brane universe,''
1048: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 085010 (1999)
1049: [hep-ph/9807348];
1050: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807348;%
1051: %``Effective field theory for a three-brane universe,''
1052: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 085009 (1999)
1053: [hep-ph/9805471].
1054: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805471;%%
1055:
1056: \bibitem{cosmo}
1057: G.~D.~Starkman, D.~Stojkovic and M.~Trodden,
1058: %``Homogeneity, flatness and 'large' extra dimensions,''
1059: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 231303 (2001)
1060: [hep-th/0106143];
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106143;%%
1062: %``Large extra dimensions and cosmological problems,''
1063: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 103511 (2001)
1064: [hep-th/0012226].
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012226;%%
1066:
1067:
1068: \end{thebibliography}
1069: \end{document}
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075:
1076: