1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \preprint{BA-02-17}
9:
10: \title{Unifying flipped $SU(5)$ in five dimensions}
11:
12: \author{S.M. Barr}
13: \email{smbarr@bxclu.bartol.udel.edu}
14: \author{Ilja Dorsner}
15: \email{dorsner@physics.udel.edu}
16: \affiliation{
17: Bartol Research Institute\\
18: University of Delaware\\
19: Newark, DE 19716}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: It is shown that embedding a four-dimensional flipped $SU(5)$ model
23: in a five-dimensional $SO(10)$ model, preserves the best features of
24: both flipped $SU(5)$ and $SO(10)$. The missing
25: partner mechanism, which naturally achieves both doublet-triplet
26: splitting and suppression of $d=5$ proton decay operators, is
27: realized as in flipped $SU(5)$, while the gauge couplings are
28: unified as in $SO(10)$. The masses of down quarks and charged leptons,
29: which are independent in flipped $SU(5)$, are related by the $SO(10)$.
30: Distinctive patterns of quark and lepton masses can result.
31: The gaugino mass $M_1$ is independent of $M_3$ and $M_2$, which are
32: predicted to be equal.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \pacs{12.10.Dm,12.60.Jv}
36:
37: \maketitle
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40: A beautiful feature of flipped $SU(5)$ \cite{Barr:1981qv,Derendinger:1983aj,
41: Antoniadis:1987dx} is that it provides a natural setting for the missing partner mechanism.
42: This mechanism, when implemented in flipped
43: $SU(5)$, not only solves the doublet-triplet splitting problem but
44: also allows one to avoid entirely the Higgsino-mediated proton decay that
45: is such a difficulty for supersymmetric grand unified theories (SUSY GUTs). On the
46: other hand, flipped $SU(5)$ gives up one of the most attractive features of
47: grand unification, namely unification of gauge couplings, because it is
48: based on the group $SU(5) \times U(1)$. Another drawback of flipped $SU(5)$
49: models is that the masses of down quarks and charged leptons come from
50: different operators, so that one
51: does not obtain the relation $m_b(M_{GUT}) = m_{\tau}(M_{GUT})$.
52: The unification of gauge couplings and relations between down quark masses
53: and charged lepton masses could be recovered by embedding the group
54: $SU(5) \times U(1)$ in the simple group $SO(10)$. However, in that case,
55: the missing partner mechanism no longer works, since the partner that was
56: missing from the $SU(5)$ multiplets is present in the larger $SO(10)$
57: multiplets.
58:
59: One thus has somewhat of a quandary. The point of this paper is that
60: a way out of this quandary is provided by unification in five dimensions.
61: We show that if the group $SO(10)$ in five dimensions is broken
62: by orbifold compactification to the group $SU(5) \times U(1)$
63: in four dimensions it is possible to have at the same time the good
64: features of both flipped $SU(5)$ and of $SO(10)$. The essential reason is
65: that if $SO(10)$ is broken by the orbifold compactification then
66: the fields of the effective four-dimensional theory need not
67: be in complete $SO(10)$ multiplets. This means that at the four-dimensional
68: level the famous missing partners can still be missing and the doublet-triplet
69: splitting can be achieved without the dangerous Higgsino-mediated
70: proton decay. On the other hand, because there is $SO(10)$ at the
71: five-dimensional level, there is approximate unification of gauge couplings,
72: and there is also the possibility of getting $SO(10)$-like Yukawa
73: couplings for the quarks and leptons.
74:
75: By now there are many models that use orbifold compactification
76: of extra dimensions to break grand unified symmetries.
77: The first such models \cite{Kawamura:1999nj,Kawamura:2000ev,Kawamura:2000ir,
78: Altarelli:2001qj,Kobakhidze:2001yk,Hall:2001pg,Hebecker:2001wq}
79: showed that with one extra dimension
80: it is possible to construct $SU(5)$ models which have natural
81: doublet-triplet splitting and no problem with the $d=5$ proton decay
82: operators that plague four-dimensional SUSY GUTs.
83: The breaking of grand unified symmetries by orbifold
84: compactification of a single extra dimension does not reduce the
85: rank of the group \cite{Hebecker:2001jb}. Thus to break $SO(10)$ all
86: the way to the Standard Model by orbifold compactification requires
87: at least two extra dimensions. Interesting six-dimensional $SO(10)$
88: models have been constructed in several papers \cite{Asaka:2001eh,Hall:2001xr,Haba:2002ek}.
89: However, it is also possible that the breaking from the grand unified
90: group to the Standard Model is achieved by a combination of orbifold
91: compactification and the conventional four-dimensional Higgs
92: mechanism. That allows the construction of realistic $SO(10)$ models
93: with only a single extra dimension, as was shown by Derm\' \i \v sek and Mafi
94: \cite{Dermisek:2001hp}. In their model
95: the theory in the five-dimensional bulk has $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry
96: and gauge group $SO(10)$. Orbifolding breaks $SO(10)$
97: to the Pati-Salam \cite{Pati:1974yy} symmetry
98: $SU(4)_c \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$. The orbifold has two
99: inequivalent fixed points $O$ and $O'$. On $O$ there is a full
100: $SO(10)$ symmetry, but on $O'$ only the Pati-Salam group.
101: On the brane at $O$ the conventional Higgs mechanism breaks $SO(10)$
102: down to $SU(5)$. Thus the unbroken symmetry in the low-energy theory
103: in four dimensions is the intersection of $SU(5)$ and the Pati-Salam group,
104: i.e. the Standard Model group.
105:
106: The model we shall present is similar in
107: some ways to that of Derm\' \i \v sek and Mafi but differs from it in
108: several important respects. Whereas they use orbifold compactification to
109: break to the Pati-Salam group and Higgs fields on the brane $O$ to break to
110: $SU(5)$, we shall use orbifold compactification to break to
111: $SU(5) \times U(1)$ and Higgs fields in the bulk to break the rest of the way
112: to the Standard Model. They use orbifold breaking to split the doublets
113: from the triplets, whereas we use the four-dimensional flipped-$SU(5)$
114: missing partner
115: mechanism.
116:
117: \section{Missing partners in four dimensions}
118: Before we consider higher dimensional theories we shall briefly review
119: the missing partner mechanism in four-dimensional theories,
120: showing why it works in flipped $SU(5)$ but not in $SO(10)$.
121:
122: \subsection{Flipped SU(5)}
123: First recall what happens in ordinary (i.e. Georgi-Glashow) $SU(5)$ \cite{Georgi:sy}. In ordinary $SU(5)$
124: the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM, which we shall denote
125: ${\bf 2}$ and $\overline{{\bf 2}}$, have color-triplet
126: partners, which we shall denote ${\bf 3}$ and $\overline{{\bf 3}}$.
127: (We use this shorthand notation for Standard Model
128: representations: ${\bf 2} \equiv (1, 2, -\frac{1}{2})$, $\overline{{\bf 2}}
129: \equiv (1,2, \frac{1}{2})$, ${\bf 3} \equiv (3,1, \frac{1}{3})$,
130: $\overline{{\bf 3}} \equiv (\overline{3}, 1, -\frac{1}{3})$.)
131: These are contained in fundamental and anti-fundamental multiplets
132: of $SU(5)$: ${\bf 5} = {\bf 2} + {\bf 3}$ and
133: $\overline{{\bf 5}} = \overline{{\bf 2}} + \overline{{\bf 3}}$.
134: A combination of an $SU(5)$-singlet mass term and a Yukawa coupling to a Higgs
135: in the adjoint representation, can (with suitable fine-tuning) give
136: GUT-scale mass to the triplet partners while leaving the MSSM Higgs
137: doublets light. This can be represented schematically as
138:
139: \vspace{0.5cm}
140: \setlength{\unitlength}{1in}
141: \begin{picture}(6,1.4)
142: \thicklines
143: \put(2.8,1.165){\line(1,0){0.42}}
144: \parbox[b][1.4in][c]{6in}{
145: \begin{equation*}\begin{array}{cc}
146: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ {\bf 2}\end{array} \right) & \left(
147: \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ \overline{{\bf 2}}\end{array} \right) \\
148: \parallel & \parallel \\
149: {\bf 5} & \overline{{\bf 5}} \end{array}
150: \end{equation*}}
151: \end{picture}
152:
153: \noindent
154: where the solid horizontal line represents a large Dirac mass $M_3$
155: connecting the colored Higgsinos ${\bf 3}$ and $\overline{{\bf 3}}$.
156: It is well-known that the exchange of these colored Higgsinos gives a
157: dangerous $d=5$ proton-decay operator, as shown in Fig.~\ref{dimension5}. From the
158: figure one sees that this proton decay amplitude is proportional to
159: the mass connecting ${\bf 3}$ to $\overline{{\bf 3}}$. Suppressing
160: this proton decay therefore requires severing this connection. This can be
161: done by introducing an extra pair of Higgs multiplets ${\bf 5}'
162: + \overline{{\bf 5}}'$, so that the triplets in the unprimed multiplets
163: get mass not with each other but with the triplets in the
164: primed multiplets as shown in the following diagram
165:
166: \vspace{0.5cm}
167: \setlength{\unitlength}{1in}
168: \begin{picture}(6,1.4)
169: \thicklines
170: \put(2.20,1.165){\line(1,0){0.41}}
171: \put(3.35,1.165){\line(1,0){0.41}}
172: %\multiput(3,0.7)(0,0.2){4}{\line(0,1){0.1}}
173: \multiput(2.76,0.89)(0.09,0){5}{\line(1,0){0.04}}
174: \multiput(2.76,1.165)(0.09,0){5}{\line(1,0){0.04}}
175: \parbox[b][1.4in][c]{6in}{
176: \begin{equation*}\begin{array}{cccc}
177: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ {\bf 2}\end{array} \right) & \left(
178: \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}'\strut\\ \overline{{\bf 2}}'\end{array} \right) &
179: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}'\strut\\ {\bf 2}'\end{array} \right) &
180: \left( \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ \overline{{\bf 2}}\end{array}
181: \right)\strut\\
182: \parallel & \parallel & \parallel & \parallel\strut\\
183: {\bf 5} & \overline{{\bf 5}}' & {\bf 5}' & \overline{{\bf 5}}\end{array}
184: \end{equation*}}
185: \end{picture}
186:
187: \noindent
188: If the MSSM Higgs doublets are the
189: unprimed ones, then one sees that their colored partners are not
190: connected to each other by a mass term, so that the $d=5$ proton-decay
191: amplitude vanishes. Unfortunately, however, there
192: is an extra pair of doublets that remains light, namely the primed
193: ones. The effect of these on the renormalization group
194: equations would destroy gauge coupling unification.
195: To give the needed superheavy mass to these doublets one could introduce
196: a term $M \overline{{\bf 5}}' {\bf 5}'$; however, this would give mass terms
197: connecting not only ${\bf 2}'$ to ${\bf 2}$ but also
198: ${\bf 3}'$ to $\overline{{\bf 3}}'$ (indicated by dotted lines in the
199: previous diagram) and thus
200: indirectly (after the primed triplets were integrated out) reconnecting
201: ${\bf 3}$ to $\overline{{\bf 3}}$ and bringing back the dangerous
202: $d=5$ proton decay amplitude.
203:
204: Now let us turn to flipped $SU(5)$ and see how it avoids these problems
205: very elegantly \cite{Antoniadis:1987dx}.
206: In flipped $SU(5)$ models one has Higgs fields in
207: the following representations of $SU(5) \times U(1)$:
208: $h = {\bf 5}^{-2}$, $\overline{h} = \overline{{\bf 5}}^2$,
209: $H = {\bf 10}^1$, and $\overline{H} = \overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}$.
210: Under the Standard Model group these decompose as follows,
211: $h = \overline{{\bf 2}} + {\bf 3}$,
212: $\overline{h} = {\bf 2} + \overline{{\bf 3}}$,
213: $H = \overline{{\bf 3}} + (3,2, \frac{1}{6}) + (1,1, 0)$,
214: and $\overline{H} = {\bf 3} + (\overline{3}, 2, -\frac{1}{6})
215: + (1,1, 0)$. The Higgs superpotential contains the
216: terms $h \; H \; H + \overline{h} \; \overline{H} \; \overline{H}$.
217: When the Standard Model singlets $(1,1, 0)$ in
218: the $H$ and $\overline{H}$ acquire vacuum expectation
219: values (VEVs) they break $SU(5) \times U(1)$ down to the Standard Model group
220: and they also give mass to the triplet Higgs. Schematically,
221:
222: \vspace{0.5cm}
223: \setlength{\unitlength}{1in}
224: \begin{picture}(6,1.4)
225: \thicklines
226: \put(1.95,1.165){\line(1,0){0.55}}
227: \put(3.47,1.165){\line(1,0){0.55}}
228: \multiput(3,0.7)(0,0.2){4}{\line(0,1){0.1}}
229: \parbox[b][1.4in][c]{6in}{
230: \begin{equation*}\begin{array}{cccc}
231: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ \overline{{\bf 2}}\end{array} \right) & \left(
232: \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ {\rm other}\end{array} \right) &
233: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ \overline{{\rm other}}\end{array} \right) &
234: \left( \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ {\bf 2}\end{array}
235: \right)\strut\\
236: \parallel & \parallel & \parallel & \parallel\strut\\
237: h & H & \overline{H} & \overline{h}\end{array}
238: \end{equation*}}
239: \end{picture}
240:
241: \noindent
242: where, for simplicity, $(3,2, \frac{1}{6}) + (1,1, 0) \equiv {\rm other}$.
243: The triplets in $h$ and $\overline{h}$ get mass with those in
244: $H$ and $\overline{H}$. However the doublets in $h$ and $\overline{h}$ remain
245: massless because there are no doublets in $H$ and $\overline{H}$ for them
246: to mate with --- thus the name ``missing partner mechanism".
247:
248: At first glance one might worry that the same problem arises here as
249: in the ordinary $SU(5)$ case discussed previously. The multiplets
250: ${\bf 5}'$ and $\overline{{\bf 5}}'$ there played the same role as
251: the multiplets $H$ and $\overline{H}$ here. And we saw that one could
252: not give mass to the doublets in ${\bf 5}'$ and $\overline{{\bf 5}}'$
253: without reintroducing the dangerous proton decay amplitude. This leads
254: to the question whether there is not an analogous difficulty in giving mass
255: to some of the components of $H$ and $\overline{H}$, and specifically to the
256: $(3,2, \frac{1}{6}) + (1,1,0) + ( \overline{3}, 2, -\frac{1}{6}) +
257: (1,1,0)$, since here also an explicit mass term $M \overline{H} H$
258: would reintroduce the problem of proton decay. The beautiful
259: answer is that these ``other" components of $H$ and $\overline{H}$ do
260: not have to get mass. Indeed, they {\it must not} get mass, because they
261: are the goldstone modes that get eaten when $SU(5) \times U(1)$ breaks
262: to $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$. In other words, the fact that
263: $SU(5) \times U(1)$ breaks to the Standard Model group guarantees that
264: there is no mass connecting $H$ and $\overline{H}$ and therefore
265: guarantees the absence of the $d=5$ proton decay amplitude.
266:
267: \subsection{SO(10)}
268: Now let us see why embedding flipped $SU(5)$ in $SO(10)$ in four
269: dimensions destroys the beautiful missing partner solution to
270: the doublet-triplet splitting and proton decay problems that we have just
271: reviewed.
272:
273: In $SO(10)$ the simplest possibility is that the terms
274: $h \; H \; H + \overline{h} \; \overline{H} \; \overline{H}$ come from the
275: terms ${\bf 10} \;{\bf 16} \;{\bf 16} + {\bf 10} \; \overline{{\bf 16}}
276: \; \overline{{\bf 16}}$, where
277: ${\bf 10} = \overline{h} + h$, ${\bf 16} = H + \overline{h}' + {\bf 1}^5$,
278: and $\overline{{\bf 16}} = \overline{H} + h' + {\bf 1}^{-5}$.
279: Here $h' = {\bf 5}^3$ and $\overline{h}' = \overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3}$.
280: The problem is that the doublet partners that were missing from
281: $H$ and $\overline{H}$ are now present in $\overline{h}'$ and $h'$.
282:
283: The terms ${\bf 10} \;{\bf 16} \;{\bf 16} + {\bf 10} \;\overline{{\bf 16}}
284: \;\overline{{\bf 16}}$ contain not only
285: $h \; H \langle H \rangle + \overline{h} \; \overline{H} \langle
286: \overline{H} \rangle$ but also $\overline{h} \; \overline{h}' \langle H
287: \rangle + h \; h' \langle \overline{H} \rangle$. These latter terms mate
288: the doublet Higgs in $h$ and $\overline{h}$ with those in
289: $\overline{h}'$ and $h'$, destroying the solution of the doublet-triplet
290: splitting problem.
291:
292: A possible remedy to this difficulty suggests itself. One can
293: have $h$ and $\overline{h}$ come from different ${\bf 10}$s
294: of $SO(10)$. Let us examine what happens in this case, since it
295: will be directly relevant to what we shall do in five dimensions
296: later. Suppose there are two vector Higgs representations, denoted
297: ${\bf 10}_1$ and ${\bf 10}_2$, with couplings
298: ${\bf 10}_1 \; {\bf 16} \; {\bf 16} + {\bf 10}_2 \; \overline{{\bf 16}}
299: \; \overline{{\bf 16}}$. We write ${\bf 10}_1 = h_1 + \overline{h}_1$
300: and ${\bf 10}_2 = h_2 + \overline{h}_2$. Suppose that the two light
301: doublets of the MSSM lie in $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$; then the
302: triplet partners of these light doublets will obtain mass from the terms
303: $h_1 H \langle H \rangle + \overline{h}_2 \overline{H} \langle
304: \overline{H} \rangle$. The terms that give superlarge mass to doublets,
305: and which correspond to those we found troubling before, are
306: $\overline{h}_1 \overline{h}' \langle H \rangle +
307: h_2 h' \langle \overline{H} \rangle$. These do {\it not} give superlarge
308: mass to the MSSM doublets, but to the doublets in $\overline{h}_1$
309: and $h_2$. Thus, we would appear to have satisfactory doublet-triplet
310: splitting with no dangerous $d=5$ proton decay, just as in flipped
311: $SU(5)$.
312:
313: However, this is not so, for the question arises how the triplets in
314: $\overline{h}_1$ and $h_2$ are to acquire superheavy mass. It would
315: seem that the only way is through a mass term connecting them. But
316: that would have to come from a term $M \overline{h}_1 h_2$, which
317: in turn comes from $M {\bf 10}_1 {\bf 10}_2$, and this would also
318: give $M h_1 \overline{h}_2$ and thus superlarge mass to the MSSM doublets.
319:
320: We see, then, that the missing partner mechanism does not work in
321: four-dimensional $SO(10)$ theories. However, we shall see that it can work
322: in five-dimensional $SO(10)$ theories. The crucial difference will be that
323: orbifold breaking of $SO(10)$ can split the $SO(10)$ Higgs representations.
324: In particular, in the example we just looked at the troublesome triplets
325: in $\overline{h}_1$ and $h_2$ can be given Kaluza-Klein masses
326: by the orbifold compactification while leaving the MSSM doublets
327: in $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$ light.
328:
329: \section{An $SO(10)$ model in five dimensions}
330: We now present an $SO(10)$ supersymmetric model in five
331: dimensions compactified on an $S^1/(Z_2 \times Z'_2)$ orbifold
332: that yields a realistic supersymmetric flipped $SU(5)$ model in
333: four dimensions. The breaking of $SU(5) \times U(1)$ down to the
334: Standard Model gauge group, the doublet-triplet splitting, and
335: the solution to the problem of $d=5$ proton-decay operators will
336: all be as in conventional four-dimensional flipped $SU(5)$ models.
337: Moreover, there will be distinctive flipped $SU(5)$ relationships
338: among gaugino masses. However, the gauge couplings will be unified
339: (with some threshold corrections, that can be argued to be small
340: \cite{Hall:2001pg}) because of the underlying
341: five-dimensional $SO(10)$ symmetry. And the Yukawa couplings of the
342: quarks and leptons can have relationships that are similar to what is
343: found in ordinary $SU(5)$ and $SO(10)$ models rather than in flipped
344: $SU(5)$.
345:
346: As already elaborated in Refs.
347: \cite{Kawamura:1999nj,Kawamura:2000ev,Kawamura:2000ir,
348: Altarelli:2001qj,Hall:2001pg,Kobakhidze:2001yk,Hebecker:2001wq},
349: the fifth dimension, being the circle with coordinate $y$ and circumference
350: $2 \pi R$, is compactified
351: through the reflection $y \rightarrow -y$ under $Z_2$ and
352: $y' \rightarrow -y'$ under $Z'_2$ where $y'=y+\pi R/2$. This
353: identification procedure leaves two fixed points $O$
354: and $O'$ of $Z_2$ and $Z'_2$ respectively and reduces the physical region
355: to the interval $y \in [-\pi R/2,0]$. Point $O$ at $y=0$ is the ``visible
356: brane" while point $O'$ at $y'=0$ is the ``hidden brane".
357: The compactification scale $1/R \equiv M_C$
358: is assumed to be close to the scale at which the gauge couplings
359: unify, i.e. the GUT scale $M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV.
360:
361: The generic bulk field $\phi(x^\mu,y)$, where $\mu=0,1,2,3$, has definite
362: parity assignment under $Z_2 \times Z'_2$ symmetry. Taking $P=\pm 1$ to be
363: parity eigenvalue of the field $\phi(x^\mu,y)$ under $Z_2$ transformation
364: and $P'=\pm 1$ to be parity eigenvalue under the $Z'_2$ transformation,
365: a field with $(P,P')=(\pm,\pm)$ can be denoted
366: $\phi^{PP'}(x^\mu,y)=\phi^{\pm \pm}(x^\mu,y)$. The Fourier series
367: expansion of the fields $\phi^{\pm \pm}(x^\mu,y)$ yields
368: \begin{subequations}
369: \label{Fourier}
370: \begin{eqnarray}
371: \phi^{++}(x^\mu,y)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{\delta_{n0}}\pi R}}
372: \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}
373: \phi^{++(2n)}(x^\mu) \cos \frac{2ny}{R},\\
374: \phi^{+-}(x^\mu,y)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}
375: \phi^{+-(2n+1)}(x^\mu) \cos \frac{(2n+1)y}{R},\\
376: \phi^{-+}(x^\mu,y)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}
377: \phi^{-+(2n+1)}(x^\mu) \sin \frac{(2n+1)y}{R},\\
378: \phi^{--}(x^\mu,y)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}
379: \phi^{--(2n+2)}(x^\mu) \sin \frac{(2n+2)y}{R}.
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: \end{subequations}
382:
383: In the effective theory in four dimensions all the fields in
384: Eqs.~(\ref{Fourier}) have masses of order $M_C$
385: except the Kaluza-Klein zero
386: mode $\phi^{++(0)}$ of $\phi^{++}(x^\mu,y)$, which remains massless.
387: Moreover, fields $\phi^{-\pm}(x^\mu,y)$ vanish on the visible brane and
388: fields $\phi^{\pm-}(x^\mu,y)$ vanish on the hidden brane.
389:
390: In our model, we assume that gauge fields and gauge-non-singlet
391: Higgs fields exist in the five-dimensional bulk, while the quark
392: and lepton fields and certain gauge-singlet Higgs fields exist
393: only on the visible brane at $O$. The gauge fields in the bulk are
394: of course in a vector supermultiplet of 5d supersymmetry that is an
395: adjoint representation of $SO(10)$. We will denote it by ${\bf 45}_g$,
396: where the subscript `$g$' stands for `gauge'.
397: The gauge-non-singlet Higgs fields in the bulk are in hypermultiplets
398: of 5d supersymmetry and consist of two tens of $SO(10)$, denoted
399: ${\bf 10}_{1H}$ and ${\bf 10}_{2H}$, and a spinor-antispinor pair of
400: $SO(10)$ denoted ${\bf 16}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$.
401: The subscript `$H$' indicates a Higgs field.
402:
403: The vector supermultiplet ${\bf 45}_g$ decomposes
404: into a vector multiplet $V$ and a chiral multiplet $\Sigma$
405: of $\mathcal{N}= 1$ supersymmetry in four dimensions.
406: Each hypermultiplet splits into two left-handed chiral
407: multiplets $\Phi$ and $\Phi^c$, having opposite gauge quantum numbers.
408: Under the $SU(5) \times U(1)$ subgroup the $SO(10)$ representations
409: decompose as follows:
410: ${\bf 45} \rightarrow {\bf 24}^0+{\bf 10}^{-4}+\overline{{\bf 10}}^4+
411: {\bf 1}^0$; ${\bf 10} \rightarrow {\bf 5}^{-2}+\overline{{\bf 5}}^2$;
412: ${\bf 16} \rightarrow {\bf 10}^1 + \overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3} + {\bf 1}^5$;
413: and $\overline{{\bf 16}} \rightarrow \overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1} +
414: {\bf 5}^3 + {\bf 1}^{-5}$. With these facts in mind we shall now discuss the
415: transformation of the various fields under the $Z_2 \times Z'_2$ parity
416: transformations.
417:
418: The first $Z_2$ symmetry (the one we denote as unprimed)
419: is used to break supersymmetry to $\mathcal{N}=1$ in four-dimensions.
420: ($\mathcal{N}=1$ in five dimensions is equivalent to $\mathcal{N}=2$ in
421: four dimensions; so we are breaking half the supersymmetries.) To do this
422: we assume that under $Z_2$ the $V$ is even, $\Sigma$ is odd,
423: $\Phi$ are even, and $\Phi^c$ are odd. The $Z_2'$ is used to break
424: $SO(10)$ down to $SU(5) \times U(1)$. The ${\bf 24}^0$ and ${\bf 1}^0$ of
425: $V$ are taken to be even under $Z_2'$, while the ${\bf 10}^{-4}$
426: and $\overline{{\bf 10}}^4 $ are taken to be odd. In ${\bf 10}_{1H}$
427: the ${\bf 5}^{-2}$ are taken to be even and the
428: $\overline{{\bf 5}}^2$ odd, whereas in ${\bf 10}_{2H}$ the
429: parities are taken to be the reverse, ${\bf 5}^{-2}$ odd and
430: $\overline{{\bf 5}}^2$ even. All told we have
431: \begin{subequations}
432: \label{parity}
433: \begin{eqnarray}
434: {\bf 45}_g & = & V^{++}_{{\bf 24}^0} + V^{++}_{{\bf 1}^0} +
435: V^{+-}_{{\bf 10}^{-4}} + V^{+-}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^4} + \Sigma^{-+}_{{\bf 24}^0} + \Sigma^{-+}_{{\bf 1}^0} +
436: \Sigma^{--}_{{\bf 10}^{-4}} + \Sigma^{--}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^4} \\
437: {\bf 10}_{1H} & = & \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}} +
438: \Phi^{+-}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_1^2} + \Phi^{c --}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_1^2} + \Phi^{c-+}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}} \\
439: {\bf 10}_{2H} & = & \Phi^{+-}_{{\bf 5}_2^{-2}} +
440: \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2} + \Phi^{c -+}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2} + \Phi^{c--}_{{\bf 5}_2^{-2}} \\
441: {\bf 16}_H & = & \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 10}^1} + \Phi^{+-}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3}}
442: + \Phi^{+-}_{{\bf 1}^5} + \Phi^{c--}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}} + \Phi^{c-+}_{{\bf 5}^3}
443: + \Phi^{c-+}_{{\bf 1}^{-5}} \\
444: \overline{{\bf 16}}_H & = &
445: \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}} + \Phi^{+-}_{{\bf 5}^3}
446: + \Phi^{+-}_{{\bf 1}^{-5}} + \Phi^{c--}_{{\bf 10}^1} + \Phi^{c-+}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3}}
447: + \Phi^{c-+}_{{\bf 1}^5}
448: \end{eqnarray}
449: \end{subequations}
450: Massless zero modes of the Kaluza-Klein towers
451: exist only for fields with $Z_2 \times Z_2'$ parity $++$. This
452: includes $\Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}^{-2}_1}$, $\Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}^2_2}$,
453: $\Phi^{++}_{{\bf 10}^1}$, and $\Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}}$.
454: We will call the zero modes of these components $h_1$, $\overline{h}_2$,
455: $H$, and $\overline{H}$, respectively, using the same notation we
456: used in the last section. The $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$ contain
457: the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM and their colored partners.
458:
459: To understand these parity assignments, we observe the
460: invariance of the action for the bulk fields \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}
461: given by
462: \begin{eqnarray}
463: \label{action}
464: \nonumber
465: S_5&=&\int{{\rm d}^5x}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{4 k g^2}
466: {\rm Tr}\bigg[\int{{\rm d}^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha}+h.c.\bigg]
467: \qquad\qquad\qquad\\
468: \nonumber
469: &+&\frac{1}{k g^2} \int{{\rm d}^4\theta}{\rm Tr}\bigg[\Big((\sqrt{2}\partial_5+\overline{\Sigma})
470: {\rm e}^{-V}(-\sqrt{2}\partial_5+\Sigma){\rm e}^V+
471: \partial_5 {\rm e}^{-V}\partial_5 {\rm e}^V\Big)\bigg]\\
472: \nonumber
473: &+&\sum_{i=1}^4 \int{{\rm d}^4\theta}\bigg[\Phi_i^c {\rm e}^V \overline{\Phi}_i^c +
474: \overline{\Phi}_i {\rm e}^{-V}\Phi_i\bigg]\\
475: &+&\sum_{i=1}^4 \bigg[\int{{\rm d}^2\theta}\Phi_i^c(\partial_5-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
476: \Sigma)\Phi_i+{\rm h.c.}\bigg]\Bigg\}
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: under $y \rightarrow -y$ reflection with the superfields transforming as
479: \begin{subequations}
480: \label{fields}
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: V^a(x^\mu,-y) T^a & = & V^a(x^\mu,y) P T^a P\\
483: \Sigma^a(x^\mu,-y) T^a & = &- \Sigma^a(x^\mu,y) P T^a P\\
484: \Phi_i(x^\mu,-y) & = & \pm P \Phi_i(x^\mu,-y)\\
485: \Phi^c_i(x^\mu,-y) & = & \mp P^T \Phi^c_i(x^\mu,-y)
486: \end{eqnarray}
487: \end{subequations}
488: where $V=V^a T^a$, and $\Sigma=\Sigma^a T^a$. The $T^a$s are the generators of $SO(10)$
489: in the appropriate representation with normalization ${\rm Tr}[T^a T^b]=k \delta^{ab}$,
490: and $P=P^{-1}$ is the parity operator. The replacement $y \rightarrow y'$ and $P \rightarrow P'$ in Eqs.~(\ref{fields})
491: specifies the transformation of the superfields under
492: $y' \rightarrow -y'$ reflection. Finally, defining $P$ and $P'$ through their action on the ${\bf 10}$
493: of $SO(10)$, we associate $P=\sigma_0 \otimes I$ with the $Z_2$ and
494: $P'=\sigma_2 \otimes I$ with $Z'_2$, where $I$ and $\sigma_0$ are $5 \times 5$ and $ 2 \times 2$
495: identity matrices and $\sigma_2$ is the usual Pauli matrix.
496:
497: Having done with the parity assignment for the bulk fields we can turn our
498: attention towards the brane physics. On the brane at $O$ we put the
499: three families of quarks and leptons. Since the gauge symmetry on this
500: brane is $SO(10)$, these are contained in three chiral superfields
501: that are spinors of $SO(10)$, which we denote ${\bf 16}_i$,
502: where $i = 1,2,3$ is the family
503: index. Later for various reasons we shall introduce some gauge-singlet
504: superfields on the brane at $O$, but let us first discuss the
505: interactions of the fields introduced up to this point.
506:
507: The $Z_2$ parity of fields in the ${\bf 16}_i$ must
508: be positive. The $Z'_2$ parity, determined by the content of
509: Eqs.~(\ref{parity}), is ${\bf 16} \rightarrow
510: {\bf 10}^{1 \pm} + \overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3 \mp} +{\bf 1}^{5 \mp}$,
511: where ${\bf 10}_i=(Q,D,N)_i$, $\overline{{\bf 5}}_i=(U,L)_i$, and
512: ${\bf 1}_i=(E)_i$. The action for the coupling of the matter fields,
513: residing on the visible brane, with the Higgs fields, coming from the bulk,
514: is
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: \label{mattera}
517: \nonumber
518: S^{matter}_5 & = & \int{{\rm d}^5x} \, \frac{1}{2} \left[\delta(y)+\delta(y-\pi R)\right] \sqrt{2 \pi R}
519: \, \int{{\rm d}^2\theta} \, A_{ij} {\bf 16}_i {\bf 16}_j {\bf 10}_{1H} \\
520: & + & \int{{\rm d}^5x} \, \frac{1}{2} \left[\delta(y)-\delta(y-\pi R)\right] \sqrt{2 \pi R}
521: \, \int{{\rm d}^2\theta} \, B_{ij} {\bf 16}_i {\bf 16}_j {\bf 10}_{2H} + {\rm h.c.},
522: \end{eqnarray}
523: where $A_{ij}$ and $B_{ij}$ are Yukawa couplings. Integrating over the
524: fifth dimension $y$
525: using the Eqs.~(\ref{Fourier}), and keeping only the terms that involve the Yukawa couplings of
526: the MSSM Higgs doublets and their triplet partners
527: we obtain the following Lagrangian in four dimensions
528: \begin{eqnarray}
529: \label{matterb}
530: \nonumber
531: \mathcal{L}^{matter}_4 & = & \sum^{\infty}_{n=0}\int{{\rm d}^2\theta} \sqrt{\frac{2}{2^{\delta_{n0}}}}
532: \bigg\{ A_{ij}
533: \Big[ Q_i D_j \overline{d}^{(2n)}_{1H} + L_i E_j \overline{d}^{(2n)}_{1H} +
534: \frac{1}{2}Q_i Q_j t^{(2n)}_{1H} + U_i E_j t^{(2n)}_{1H} \Big] \\
535: &+&B_{ij} \Big[ Q_i U_j d^{(2n)}_{2H} + L_i N_j d^{(2n)}_{2H} +
536: Q_i L_j \overline{t}^{(2n)}_{2H} + U_i E_j \overline{t}^{(2n)}_{2H} \Big] \bigg\} +{\rm h.c.}
537: \end{eqnarray}
538: where $\overline{d}_{1H}^{(2n)}$ and $t_{1H}^{(2n)}$ are the doublet and
539: triplet contained in $\Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}^{-2}_1}$ (whose zero mode is $h_1$) and
540: $d_{2H}^{(2n)}$ and $\overline{t}_{2H}^{(2n)}$ are the doublet and
541: triplet contained in $\Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}^2_2}$
542: (whose zero mode is $\overline{h}_2$).
543: All the remaining terms coming from Eq.~(\ref{mattera}) are found by
544: the replacement $A_{ij} \leftrightarrow B_{ij}$, $(1H) \leftrightarrow (2H)$,
545: $(2n) \rightarrow (2n+1)$, and $\delta_{n0}
546: \rightarrow 1$ in Eq.~(\ref{matterb}).
547:
548: This represents a minimal set of Yukawa terms, and would lead to the
549: following relations among the quark and lepton mass matrices:
550: $M_L = M_D \propto A$ and $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U \propto B$, with
551: $A$ and $B$ being completely independent symmetric
552: matrices. This is different from the relations that arise
553: with a minimal set of Yukawa terms in four-dimensional models based on
554: $SO(10)$ or flipped $SU(5)$. In four-dimensional flipped $SU(5)$, the minimal
555: Yukawa terms give $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U^T$, where these matrices
556: are not predicted to be symmetric, and no relation for
557: $M_L$ and $M_D$. In four-dimensional $SO(10)$, the minimal
558: Yukawa terms give $M_L = M_D \propto M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U$, with
559: these matrices predicted to be symmetric.
560:
561: The Higgs fields, though defined in the bulk, will also couple to each
562: other on the branes. We assume that the Higgs
563: coupling on the visible brane is of the form
564: \begin{eqnarray}
565: \label{higgs}
566: \nonumber
567: S^{higgs}_5 & = & \int{{\rm d}^5x} \, \frac{1}{2} \left[\delta(y)+\delta(y-\pi R)\right] \sqrt{2 \pi R}
568: \, \int{{\rm d}^2\theta} \, {\bf 10}_{1H} {\bf 16}_H {\bf 16}_H\\
569: & + & \int{{\rm d}^5x} \, \frac{1}{2} \left[\delta(y)-\delta(y-\pi R)\right] \sqrt{2 \pi R}
570: \, \int{{\rm d}^2\theta} \, {\bf 10}_{2H} {\bf 16}_H {\bf 16}_H
571: + {\rm h.c.}.
572: \end{eqnarray}
573: There could also be terms of the form ${\bf 10}_{iH} {\bf 10}_{jH}$,
574: which would directly produce a GUT-scale $\mu$ term and destroy the gauge
575: hierarchy. These must be forbidden by a symmetry. This is not a novel
576: requirement introduced by the fact that there are extra dimensions. Terms that
577: would directly produce a GUT-scale $\mu$ term must also be forbidden in
578: four-dimensional unified theories.
579: For example, in four-dimensional $SU(5)$ theories as well as four-dimensional
580: flipped $SU(5)$ theories, there are Higgs
581: multiplets in $\overline{{\bf 5}}$ and ${\bf 5}$, and these must be prevented
582: from obtaining a superheavy mass term together. Similarly, in four-dimensional
583: $SO(10)$ theories the light Higgs doublets are typically in a ${\bf 10}$ of
584: Higgs, which must be prevented from acquiring a superheavy self-mass term
585: \cite{Babu:1993we}.
586: The same problem arises also in GUTs in higher dimensions. Generally, some
587: symmetry must be imposed to protect the gauge hierarchy from such dangerous
588: terms. We shall assume here that there is a $U(1)'$ of the Peccei-Quinn
589: type under which the quark and lepton spinors ${\bf 16}_i$ have charge
590: $+1$, the Higgs fields ${\bf 10}_{1H}$ and ${\bf 10}_{2H}$ have charge
591: $-2$, and the Higgs fields ${\bf 16}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$
592: have charge $+1$. This approach of using a vector-like symmetry to
593: prevent a large direct $\mu$ term is used in Ref.~\cite{Dermisek:2001hp}.
594: A drawback of using that method here, as will be seen later, is that
595: to generate large Majorana mass terms for the neutrinos without
596: too large a $\mu$ term being generated by higher-dimension operators,
597: it will be necessary to assume a hierarchy of $10^{-4}$ between the
598: $U(1)'$ breaking scale and $M_{GUT}$.
599:
600: Another way of suppressing direct GUT-scale $\mu$ terms is by means of
601: a continuous $U(1)_R$ symmetry as in Ref.~\cite{Hall:2001pg}.
602: In that paper it was found that
603: $\mu$ and $\mu B$ parameters of the order of the weak scale could be
604: generated, without any
605: fine-tuning, through the Giudice-Masiero mechanism \cite{Giudice:1988yz}.
606: We do not pursue other approaches such as that here.
607:
608: The most general effective action of our theory should also
609: include brane-localized kinetic terms for the modes of the bulk fields
610: that have non-vanishing wavefunction on the branes.
611: Since the symmetry that survives on the hidden brane differs
612: from the symmetry that governs the interactions on the visible
613: brane and in the bulk, one might worry that the hidden-brane kinetic
614: terms with the arbitrary coefficients for the gauge fields would spoil
615: the gauge coupling unification, and that the hidden-brane kinetic terms
616: for the Higgs fields could affect the mass matrix prediction that stems from
617: Eq.~(\ref{mattera}).
618:
619: As it turns out, the gauge kinetic terms on the hidden brane do not
620: spoil the gauge coupling unification if the volume of the extra dimension
621: is large enough \cite{Hall:2001pg}. In that case the arbitrary coefficients
622: of the gauge kinetic terms on the hidden and the visible brane get diluted
623: and their contribution to the gauge couplings of the Standard Model can
624: be neglected. The dominant contribution comes from the universal coefficient
625: that belongs to the gauge kinetic term in the bulk obeying the full symmetry
626: of the theory.
627:
628: The hidden brane kinetic terms for the Higgs fields do not affect
629: the mass relations $M_L = M_D \propto A$ and $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U \propto B$.
630: These hidden-brane terms violate $SO(10)$ but respect $SU(5) \times U(1)$, and
631: so will have the effect of changing the relative normalization of the
632: $\overline{{\bf 5}}$ and ${\bf 5}$ of Higgs that are inside the same ${\bf 10}$
633: of $SO(10)$.
634: However, the ${\bf 5}$ of Higgs and the $\overline{{\bf 5}}$ of Higgs that
635: contribute to quark and lepton masses in this model come from
636: different ${\bf 10}$'s of Higgs anyway. The former comes from ${\bf 10}_{1H}$,
637: while the latter comes from ${\bf 10}_{2H}$. While the matrices $A$ and $B$ will
638: be differently affected by the hidden-brane kinetic terms, the predictions that
639: $M_L = M_D \propto A$ and $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U \propto B$ are not affected
640: by that.
641: The essential point is that these predictions depend only on the $SU(5)$
642: that is
643: respected by the hidden-brane kinetic terms and not on the full $SO(10)$.
644:
645: As noted earlier, the only massless modes
646: of the Higgs fields are $h_1 \subset \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}^{-2}_1} \subset
647: {\bf 10}_{1H}$, $\overline{h}_2 \subset \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}^2_2}
648: \subset {\bf 10}_{2H}$, $H \subset \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 10}^1} \subset
649: {\bf 16}_H$, and $\overline{H} \subset \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}}
650: \subset \overline{{\bf 16}}_H$. Therefore, after integrating over the fifth
651: dimension, the terms in Eq.~(\ref{higgs}) yield in the superpotential
652: of the low-energy effective theory the terms
653: $h_1 \; H \; H + \overline{h}_2 \; \overline{H} \; \overline{H}$.
654: These are just the same terms that are present in conventional four-dimensional
655: flipped $SU(5)$ models to do the doublet-triplet splitting.
656:
657: We assume that the $H$ and $\overline{H}$ acquire superlarge vacuum
658: expectation values that break $SU(5) \times U(1)$ down to the Standard
659: Model group. The tree-level
660: scalar potential generated by the terms
661: $h_1 H H + \overline{h}_2 \overline{H} \overline{H}$
662: is flat in this direction. However, as noted in \cite{Antoniadis:1987dx},
663: this flatness can be lifted by radiative effects after supersymmetry
664: is broken. It is also possible that additional
665: terms in the Higgs superpotential on the visible brane can lead
666: to a tree-level superpotential that produces the required symmetry
667: breaking, as we shall see later.
668:
669: Besides breaking the gauge symmetry from $SU(5) \times U(1)$ down
670: to $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$, the vacuum expectation values of
671: the fields $H \subset {\bf 16}_H$ and $\overline{H} \subset
672: \overline{{\bf 16}}_H$ allow masses for the right-handed
673: neutrinos. Such masses come from effective operators of the form
674: ${\bf 16}_i {\bf 16}_j \overline{{\bf 16}}_H \overline{{\bf 16}}_H$.
675: However, this product of fields has charge $+4$ under the
676: symmetry $U(1)'$. Consequently, this symmetry must be spontaneously broken.
677: It must be broken in such a way as to permit sufficiently large
678: right-handed neutrino masses without at the same time allowing too large
679: a $\mu$ parameter (which is the coefficient of the term ${\bf 10}_{1H}
680: {\bf 10}_{2H}$). This can be done in the following way (which we do not
681: claim to be unique). Suppose that there are fields $S$ and $\overline{S}$
682: living on the brane at $O$ that are singlets under $SO(10)$
683: and that have $U(1)'$ charges $+1$ and $-1$ respectively. In the
684: superpotential on the brane at $O$ there can be terms of the form
685: $(\overline{S} S - M^2) X$, where $M = \epsilon M_{GUT}$, with
686: $\epsilon \ll 1$. These terms force $\langle S \rangle =
687: \langle \overline{S} \rangle = M$. Let us suppose that on the brane at $O$
688: there are, in addition to the quark and lepton families in ${\bf 16}_i$,
689: some leptons ${\bf 1}_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) that are $SO(10)$ singlets but have charge
690: $-1$ under $U(1)'$. Then the following terms in the superpotential at
691: $O$ are possible: $C_{ij} {\bf 16}_i {\bf 1}_j \overline{{\bf 16}}_H
692: \overline{S}/M_{*} + F_{ij} {\bf 1}_i {\bf 1}_j S^2/M_{*}$, where
693: the dimensionless coefficients $C_{ij}$ and $F_{ij}$ are assumed to be
694: of order one. The mass $M_{*}$ is an ultraviolet cutoff that specifies
695: the scale at which new physics (eg. other dimensions beyond five, strings)
696: become important. We take $M_{*}$ to be close to $M_{GUT}$ but, of
697: course, somewhat larger. These terms give a mass matrix for the neutrinos
698: that has the form
699: \begin{equation}
700: (\nu_i \quad N^c_i \quad {\bf 1}_i) \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
701: 0 & (M_{\nu}^{Dirac})_{ij} & 0 \\ (M_{\nu}^{Dirac})_{ji}
702: & 0 & C_{ij} \epsilon \overline{M} \\
703: 0 & C_{ji} \epsilon \overline{M} & F_{ij} \epsilon^2 \overline{M}
704: \end{array} \right)
705: \left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_j \\ N^c_j \\ {\bf 1}_j \end{array}
706: \right),
707: \end{equation}
708: where $\overline{M} \equiv M_{GUT}^2/M_{*}$.
709: (Note that we have taken $\langle {\bf 16}_H \rangle = M_{GUT}$.)
710: It is clear that the six superheavy neutrinos have masses of order
711: $\epsilon \overline{M}$, whereas the three light (left-handed)
712: neutrinos have masses of order $(M_{\nu}^{Dirac})^2/\overline{M}$. Taking
713: the largest neutrino mass $m_3$
714: to be about $6 \times 10^{-2}$ eV, as suggested
715: by the atmospheric neutrino data, and its Dirac mass to be $m_c
716: \cong 174$ GeV, as suggested by the relation $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U$
717: (which would hold in a minimal $SO(10)$ model), one has
718: that $\overline{M} \sim 10^{15}$ GeV. This accords well
719: with the assumption that $M_{*}$ is slightly larger than the GUT scale
720: $M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV.
721:
722: The reason that we have assumed that the parameter $\epsilon \equiv
723: \langle S \rangle/M_{GUT}$ is much smaller than one is that it
724: suppresses certain dangerous operators.
725: For example, $U(1)'$ allows the effective
726: operator ${\bf 16}_i {\bf 16}_j {\bf 16}_k {\bf 16}_{\ell}
727: \overline{S}^4/M_{*}^5$. This gives a $d=5$ proton decay
728: operator with coefficient of order $\epsilon^4 (1/M_{*})$.
729: Sufficient suppression of proton decay requires that
730: $\epsilon \sim 10^{-3}$ to $10^{-4}$. Similarly, $U(1)'$ allows
731: the operator ${\bf 10}_{1H} {\bf 10}_{2H} S^4/M_{*}^3$.
732: This gives a $\mu$ parameter for the MSSM doublet Higgs fields that
733: is of order $\epsilon^4 M_{*}$. Requiring that this be no larger
734: than the weak scale requires that $\epsilon$ be less than about
735: $3 \times 10^{-4}$. This corresponds to right-handed neutrino masses
736: of order $3 \times 10^{11}$ GeV. Such intermediate mass scales
737: for $M_R$ are good from the point of view of leptogenesis \cite{leptogenesis}.
738:
739: The same singlet Higgs field $S$ can play a role in generating the
740: vacuum expectation value for the spinor Higgs fields ${\bf 16}_H$ and
741: $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$. Such VEVs, as we have already noted, can arise
742: due to radiative effects after SUSY breaking. But they can also arise
743: at tree level from a term in the superpotential on the brane at $O$
744: of the form $(\lambda \overline{{\bf 16}}_H {\bf 16}_H - S^2) Y$,
745: where $Y$ is a singlet superfield with $U(1)'$ charge of $-2$, and
746: $\lambda \sim \epsilon^2$. Note that the $F$-terms of the
747: fields ${\bf 16}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$ force $\langle Y \rangle
748: = 0$, meaning
749: that there is no mass term linking $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$ to
750: ${\bf 16}_H$ and thus $\overline{H}$ to $H$.
751: The $U(1)'$ charge assignments allow the higher dimensional
752: term $\overline{S}^2 \overline{{\bf 16}}_H {\bf 16}_H/M_{*}$.
753: This will shift the VEV of $Y$, but the $F$-terms of the
754: fields ${\bf 16}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$ still enforce the
755: condition that there is no mass term linking
756: $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$ to ${\bf 16}_H$.
757:
758: Let us now examine the doublet-triplet splitting and proton decay
759: problems. The terms $h_1 H \langle H \rangle + \overline{h}_2
760: \overline{H} \langle \overline{H} \rangle$ will couple the
761: triplets in $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$ to those in
762: $H$ and $\overline{H}$. The doublets in $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$
763: remain light and are the two doublets of the MSSM.
764: There is no problem with $d=5$ proton decay, because the
765: triplet partners of the MSSM Higgs doublets are not connected to each other.
766: The triplets in $h_1$ and $H$ have no mass terms with
767: the triplets in $\overline{h}_2$ and $\overline{H}$.
768: Moreover, there are no unwanted light states contained in the Higgs
769: multiplets ${\bf 10}_{1H}$, ${\bf 10}_{2H}$, ${\bf 16}_H$,
770: $\overline{{\bf 16}}_H$. In the zero modes ($h_1$, $\overline{h}_2$,
771: $H$, and $\overline{H}$), the doublets remain light, the triplets become
772: superheavy by coupling to the VEVs of $H$ and $\overline{H}$, and the
773: other gauge-non-singlet fields get eaten by the Higgs mechanism when
774: $SU(5) \times U(1)$ breaks to the Standard Model group. All the non-zero
775: modes, of course, have superheavy Kaluza-Klein masses. This is the
776: crucial difference with four-dimensional theories in which flipped $SU(5)$
777: is embedded in $SO(10)$. In
778: four dimensions, as we saw in the last section, the $SO(10)$ Higgs multiplets
779: ${\bf 10}_{1H}$ and ${\bf 10}_{2H}$ when decomposed
780: under $SU(5) \times U(1)$ contain not only $h_1$ and $\overline{h}_2$ but also
781: $\overline{h}_1$ and $h_2$; and these multiplets have triplets that
782: cannot be given mass without destroying the gauge hierarchy. Here,
783: however, these extra pieces are all made heavy by the orbifold
784: compactification, since they do not have parity $++$. Thus it is the
785: fact that the unification of $SU(5) \times U(1)$ into $SO(10)$ occurs
786: only in higher dimensions that allows the missing partner mechanism
787: to be implemented.
788:
789: We have seen that with what may be called the minimal Yukawa
790: couplings ${\bf 16}_i {\bf 16}_j (A_{ij} {\bf 10}_{1H}
791: + B_{ij} {\bf 10}_{2H})$ this model gives distinctive relations among mass
792: matrices that are different from those that result in four
793: dimensional models with minimal Yukawa couplings in either $SO(10)$
794: or flipped $SU(5)$. In particular, $M_L = M_D$, and $M_{\nu}^{Dirac} =
795: M_U$, with all these matrices being symmetric. This does give
796: the desired relation $m_b = m_{\tau}$ at the unification scale,
797: a result of the fact that flipped $SU(5)$ is embedded in $SO(10)$.
798: However, this minimal set of Yukawa terms is clearly not enough
799: to give a realistic model of quark and lepton masses.
800:
801: Recently it has been found that realistic and simple models of
802: quark and lepton masses can be constructed using so-called
803: ``lopsided" mass matrices \cite{Babu:1995hr,Sato:1997hv,Albright:1998vf,Irges:1998ax}.
804: The essential feature of such models is
805: that the mass matrices of the down quarks and charged leptons
806: are highly asymmetric and that $M_L \sim M_D^T$. Such a relationship
807: between $M_L$ and $M_D^T$ is typical of models
808: with an ordinary $SU(5)$, not flipped
809: $SU(5)$. However, as we shall now see, because the flipped $SU(5)$
810: is here embedded in $SO(10)$ at the five-dimensional level, it
811: is possible to obtain such a lopsided structure.
812:
813: Suppose that one introduces on the visible brane not only spinors
814: of quarks and leptons, but $SO(10)$ vectors as well. And suppose that
815: there is in the bulk a spinor Higgs field ${\bf 16}'_H$ that has a weak-doublet
816: component that contributes to the breaking of the electroweak
817: symmetry. Then a diagram like that shown in Fig.~\ref{masses}(a) may be possible.
818: When decomposed under the $SU(5) \times U(1)$ subgroup, this diagram
819: contains the two diagrams shown in Figs.~\ref{masses}(b) and \ref{masses}(c). It is easy to
820: see that these give contributions to $M_L$ and $M_D$ that are
821: asymmetric and that are transposes of each other, just as needed
822: to build ``lopsided" models. The reason for this is that the diagram
823: in Fig.~\ref{masses}(a) directly depends only on the GUT-scale breaking done
824: by the ${\bf 16}_H$ and not on that coming from orbifold compactification.
825: The point is that the ${\bf 16}_H$ VEV by itself would only break
826: $SO(10)$ down to the Georgi-Glashow $SU(5)$. (It is the orbifold
827: compactification that breaks $SO(10)$ to the flipped
828: $SU(5) \times U(1)$ group.) That is why
829: this diagram leads to the kind of mass contributions that one expects
830: from ordinary Georgi-Glashow $SU(5)$. This reasoning also shows that
831: in order to introduce into the mass matrices contributions that break
832: Georgi-Glashow $SU(5)$ it is necessary that the mass-splittings produced by
833: the orbifold compactification be involved. For example, by mixing
834: quarks and leptons that are on the visible brane with quarks and leptons
835: in the bulk, it should be possible to break the (bad) minimal
836: $SU(5)$ relations $m_s = m_{\mu}$ and $m_d = m_e$.
837:
838: \section{Gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking}
839: In this section we address the issue of how to break $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry
840: of our model below the compactification scale $M_C$. As it turns out, the solution
841: allows the construction of viable SUSY breaking model that can easily satisfy present
842: experimental constraints.
843:
844: It is well known that the models with visible and hidden branes separated by extra
845: dimension(s) naturally accommodate breaking of supersymmetry via gaugino mediation
846: \cite{Kaplan:1999ac,Chacko:1999mi}. The basic idea behind gaugino mediation in the
847: models based on the orbifold compactification is as follows. The source of the SUSY
848: breaking is localized at the hidden brane. It couples directly to the gauginos at that
849: brane providing them with nonzero masses. If the gauge symmetry at the hidden brane
850: is reduced with respect to the bulk gauge symmetry this coupling induces non-universal
851: gaugino masses. For example, if the bulk symmetry is $SO(10)$ and hidden brane symmetry
852: is flipped $SU(5)$ one obtains $M_3=M_2\neq M_1$. Here, $M_1$, $M_2$, and $M_3$ represent
853: gaugino masses of the MSSM.
854:
855: Following in the footsteps of \cite{Dermisek:2001hp}, we take the source of the SUSY
856: breaking to be a flipped $SU(5)$ singlet chiral superfield $Z$ localized on the
857: hidden brane with the VEV
858: \begin{equation}
859: \langle Z \rangle=\theta^2 F_Z.
860: \end{equation}
861: The gaugino masses originate from the non-renormalizable operators at the hidden brane
862: of the form
863: \begin{equation}
864: \mathcal{L}^{Z}_5=\frac{1}{2}[\delta(y-\pi R/2)+\delta(y+\pi R/2)]
865: \int{{\rm d}^2\theta}\Big(\lambda_5^\prime\frac{Z}{M^2_*}W^{i\alpha}
866: W^i_\alpha+\lambda_1^\prime\frac{Z}{M^2_*}W^\alpha W_\alpha+{\rm h.c.}\Big),
867: \end{equation}
868: where the first and the second term under the integral represent the $SU(5)$ and $U(1)$
869: part of the gauge group respectively. Corresponding gaugino masses generated in this way
870: are
871: \begin{equation}
872: \label{gauginos}
873: M_{SU(5)}=\frac{\lambda_5^\prime F_Z M_c}{M^2_*}, \qquad M_{U(1)}=\frac{\lambda_1^\prime F_Z M_c}{M^2_*},
874: \end{equation}
875: which translates into the following MSSM gaugino masses (we normalize the generators of $SO(10)$
876: demanding that $k=1/2$)
877: \begin{equation}
878: \label{gauginos1}
879: \frac{M_1}{g_1^2}=\frac{1}{25} \frac{M_{SU(5)}}{g_{SU(5)}^2}+\frac{24}{25} \frac{M_{U(1)}}{g_{U(1)}^2},
880: \qquad M_2=M_{SU(5)},\qquad M_3=M_{SU(5)}.
881: \end{equation}
882: Here $g_{SU(5)}$, and $g_{U(1)}$ are gauge coupling constants of the $SU(5)$ and $U(1)$ gauge groups
883: respectively, while $g_1$ represents the $U(1)_Y$ gauge coupling constant of the Standard Model
884: (normalized as in GUTs). The
885: relations of Eq.~(\ref{gauginos1}), which is valid at the compactification scale $M_C$, show that
886: the gaugino mass $M_1$ can in general be completely different from the mass $M_2=M_3$ due to their
887: different origins. Namely, the mass $M_1$ is dominated by the $U(1)$ sector of the theory as oppose
888: to the masses $M_2$ and $M_3$ that have their origin in the $SU(5)$ part of the theory. We will later
889: see that this feature of non-universality of gaugino masses allows the construction of the
890: theory of SUSY breaking that leads to the realistic mass spectrum.
891:
892: At this point we note that the natural scale for $\sqrt{F_Z}$ is the cutoff scale $M_*$. (For the
893: reasons that have to do with gauge coupling unification we take $(M_C \sim 10^{16}$ GeV$) < (M_{GUT} = 1.2
894: \times 10^{16}$ GeV$) < (M_* \sim 10 M_C)$ \cite{Dermisek:2001hp}.) This
895: implies that masses in Eq.~(\ref{gauginos}) are close to the compactification scale $M_C$
896: if the dimensionless coefficients $\lambda_1^\prime$ and $\lambda_5^\prime$ are taken to be of
897: order one. To obtain SUSY breaking masses that are in the TeV range we need to decrease the value
898: of $F_Z$ in a way that does not involve any fine-tuning. To do that we propose to use the shining
899: mechanism \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998,Arkani-Hamed:1999pv} which can reduce the natural scale of $F_Z$
900: by an exponential factor.
901:
902: The shining mechanism requires the existance of a source $J$ that is localized on the visible
903: brane and a massive hypermultiplet in the bulk. The hypermultiplet of mass $m$ is taken to be a
904: gauge singlet and has couplings with both the source and the superfield $Z$. These couplings can
905: be arranged in a manner that leaves the superfield $Z$ with the nonzero F-term $F_Z \sim J {\rm exp}(-\pi m R/2)$
906: after the massive hypermultiplet is integrated out \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999pv}. If the mass $m$ is taken to be
907: of order $M_*$ the $\sqrt{F_Z}$ will be of order $10^{12}$ GeV which gives desired TeV scale masses for gauginos in
908: Eq.~(\ref{gauginos}).
909:
910: The matter fields in our model reside on the visible brane. Thus, due to the spatial separation between
911: the branes the soft SUSY breaking scalar masses and trilinear couplings are negligible at the compactification
912: scale. This is good because the number of the soft SUSY breaking parameters one has to consider is reduced
913: with respect to the usual set.
914:
915: There are two additional positive features of the gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking
916: models with the non-universal gaugino masses. Firstly, the
917: renormalization group running of scalar
918: masses and trilinear couplings between $M_C$ and electroweak scale is significantly
919: affected by gaugino masses but these contributions, being flavor blind, do not cause
920: any disastrous flavor violating effects. Secondly, non-universality opens up the
921: possibility for the deviation from the experimentally disfavored prediction of the
922: models with universal gaugino mass of stau being the lightest supersymmetric particle
923: (LSP). (The last statement holds for $M_C<M_{GUT}$ which is exactly the case we have.)
924:
925: The class of models with non-universal gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking has
926: been studied in more details by Baer et al. \cite{Baer:2002by}. Their numerical study
927: of the allowed region of SUSY parameter space shows that viable models with acceptable
928: mass spectrum and neutral LSP particle can be obtained. The study includes the case of
929: completely independent $M_3$, $M_2$, and $M_1$, as well as the case where
930: $M_1$ is a definite linear combination (determined by group theory)
931: of $M_2$ and $M_3$. (The former case can be seen as a consequence of
932: orbifold reduction of $SU(5)$ down to the Standard Model group on the hidden brane
933: as in Ref.~\cite{Hall:2001pg} and
934: the latter one follows from the reduction of $SO(10)$ down to the Pati-Salam group
935: as in Ref.~\cite{Dermisek:2001hp}.) We
936: have an intermediate scenario where $M_1$ is independent of $M_2$ and $M_3$ which are
937: made equal due to the $SU(5)$ part of the flipped $SU(5)$. (This possibility was
938: considered in Ref.~\cite{Hall:2001xr} in the context of a six dimensional $SO(10)$ model.)
939:
940: It is not difficult to adapt the analysis of Baer et al. to our model to conclude that for
941: large enough $M_1$ (i.e. $|M_1| >|M_2|,M_2=M_3)$ at the compactification scale $M_C$ a
942: viable region of parameter space opens up regardless of $\tan \beta $ value yielding realistic
943: mass spectrum with the LSP being wino-like or a mixture of higgsino and bino. An example of this
944: behavior is shown in Fig.~\ref{region}.
945:
946: At the end we observe that if we had the case of $SO(10)$ being reduced on the hidden
947: brane to the Georgi-Glashow $SU(5)$ with an extra $U(1)$ symmetry we would not only be
948: prevented from using the simple form of the missing partner mechanism but would also
949: obtain universal gaugino masses $M_1=M_2=M_3$.
950:
951: \section{Conclusions}
952: We have seen that by embedding a four-dimensional flipped $SU(5)$ model
953: into a five-dimensional $SO(10)$ model the advantages of
954: flipped $SU(5)$ can be maintained while avoiding its well-known
955: drawbacks. The two main drawbacks are the loss of unification of gauge
956: couplings and the loss of the possibility of relating down quark masses
957: to charged lepton masses, and therefore of obtaining desirable
958: predictions such as $m_b = m_{\tau}$ and realistic quark and lepton mass
959: schemes such as those based on ``lopsided" mass matrices.
960: By embedding $SU(5) \times U(1)$ in $SO(10)$, the unification of gauge
961: couplings is restored. There are corrections to this unification,
962: coming for example from gauge kinetic terms on the hidden brane;
963: however, these have been argued to be small \cite{Hall:2001pg}. The embedding
964: in $SO(10)$ also yields relationships between the charged lepton and down
965: quark mass matrices. We have also found that interesting patterns of
966: quark and lepton masses are possible that are different from
967: those encountered in four-dimensional grand unified theories, for
968: example $M_L = M_D \neq M_{\nu}^{Dirac} = M_U$.
969:
970: Embedding flipped $SU(5)$ in $SO(10)$ in four dimensions is well known
971: to destroy the missing partner mechanism for doublet-triplet splitting,
972: which is one of the most elegant features of flipped $SU(5)$.
973: However, when the unification in $SO(10)$ takes place in higher dimensions
974: and the breaking to $SU(5) \times U(1)$ is achieved through
975: orbifold compactification, then the missing partner mechanism can
976: still operate, as we have shown. One of the advantages of the
977: missing partner mechanism in flipped $SU(5)$ is that it kills the
978: dangerous $d=5$ proton decay operators that plague supersymmetric
979: grand unified theories.
980:
981: Thus in extra dimensions it is possible to have the best of both worlds,
982: the best of $SO(10)$ combined with the best of flipped $SU(5)$.
983: One of the distinctive predictions of the flipped $SU(5)$ scheme
984: that we have presented is that the gaugino masses will have the
985: pattern $M_3 = M_2 \neq M_1$. The fact that $M_1$ is independent
986: of $M_2$ and $M_3$ allows a much larger viable region of parameter
987: space for the MSSM.
988:
989: \section{Acknowledgments}
990: I.~D. thanks R. Derm\' \i \v sek for discussion.
991:
992: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
993:
994: %\cite{Barr:1981qv}
995: \bibitem{Barr:1981qv}
996: S.~M.~Barr,
997: %``A New Symmetry Breaking Pattern For SO(10) And Proton Decay,''
998: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 112}, 219 (1982).
999: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B112,219;%%
1000:
1001: %\cite{Derendinger:1983aj}
1002: \bibitem{Derendinger:1983aj}
1003: J.~P.~Derendinger, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1004: %``Anti - SU(5),''
1005: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 139}, 170 (1984).
1006: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B139,170;%%
1007:
1008: %\cite{Antoniadis:1987dx}
1009: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1987dx}
1010: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1011: %``Supersymmetric Flipped SU(5) Revitalized,''
1012: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194}, 231 (1987).
1013: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B194,231;%%
1014:
1015: %\cite{Kawamura:1999nj}
1016: \bibitem{Kawamura:1999nj}
1017: Y.~Kawamura,
1018: %``Gauge symmetry reduction from the extra space S(1)/Z(2),''
1019: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 103}, 613 (2000)
1020: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902423].
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902423;%%
1022:
1023: %\cite{Kawamura:2000ev}
1024: \bibitem{Kawamura:2000ev}
1025: Y.~Kawamura,
1026: %``Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,''
1027: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 105}, 999 (2001)
1028: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012125].
1029: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%
1030:
1031: %\cite{Kawamura:2000ir}
1032: \bibitem{Kawamura:2000ir}
1033: Y.~Kawamura,
1034: %``Split multiplets, coupling unification and extra dimension,''
1035: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 105}, 691 (2001)
1036: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012352].
1037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012352;%%
1038:
1039: %\cite{Altarelli:2001qj}
1040: \bibitem{Altarelli:2001qj}
1041: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
1042: %``SU(5) grand unification in extra dimensions and proton decay,''
1043: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 257 (2001)
1044: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102301].
1045: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102301;%%
1046:
1047: %\cite{Kobakhidze:2001yk}
1048: \bibitem{Kobakhidze:2001yk} A.~B.~Kobakhidze,
1049: %``Proton stability in TeV-scale GUTs,''
1050: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 131 (2001)
1051: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102323].
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102323;%%
1053:
1054: %\cite{Hall:2001pg}
1055: \bibitem{Hall:2001pg}
1056: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,
1057: %``Gauge unification in higher dimensions,''
1058: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 055003 (2001)
1059: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103125].
1060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%
1061:
1062: %\cite{Hebecker:2001wq}
1063: \bibitem{Hebecker:2001wq}
1064: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,
1065: %``A minimal S**1/(Z(2) x Z'(2)) orbifold GUT,''
1066: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613}, 3 (2001)
1067: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106166].
1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106166;%%
1069:
1070: %\cite{Hebecker:2001jb}
1071: \bibitem{Hebecker:2001jb}
1072: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,
1073: %``The structure of GUT breaking by orbifolding,''
1074: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625}, 128 (2002)
1075: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107039].
1076: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107039;%%
1077:
1078: %\cite{Asaka:2001eh}
1079: \bibitem{Asaka:2001eh}
1080: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchmuller and L.~Covi,
1081: %``Gauge unification in six dimensions,''
1082: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 523}, 199 (2001)
1083: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108021].
1084: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108021;%%
1085:
1086: %\cite{Hall:2001xr}
1087: \bibitem{Hall:2001xr}
1088: L.~J.~Hall, Y.~Nomura, T.~Okui and D.~R.~Smith,
1089: %``SO(10) unified theories in six dimensions,''
1090: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 035008 (2002)
1091: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108071].
1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108071;%%
1093:
1094: %\cite{Haba:2002ek}
1095: \bibitem{Haba:2002ek}
1096: N.~Haba, T.~Kondo and Y.~Shimizu,
1097: %``Fermion mass hierarchy in 6 dimensional SO(10) SUSY GUT,''
1098: arXiv:hep-ph/0202191.
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202191;%%
1100:
1101: %\cite{Dermisek:2001hp}
1102: \bibitem{Dermisek:2001hp}
1103: R.~Dermisek and A.~Mafi,
1104: %``SO(10) grand unification in five dimensions: Proton decay and the mu problem,''
1105: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055002 (2002)
1106: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108139].
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108139;%%
1108:
1109: %\cite{Pati:1974yy}
1110: \bibitem{Pati:1974yy}
1111: J.~C.~Pati and A.~Salam,
1112: %``Lepton Number As The Fourth Color,''
1113: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974).
1114: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,275;%%
1115:
1116: %\cite{Georgi:sy}
1117: \bibitem{Georgi:sy}
1118: H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,
1119: %``Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces,''
1120: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 32}, 438 (1974).
1121: %%CITATION = PRLTA,32,438;%%
1122:
1123: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}
1124: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}
1125: N.~Arkani-Hamed, T.~Gregoire and J.~Wacker,
1126: %``Higher dimensional supersymmetry in 4D superspace,''
1127: arXiv:hep-th/0101233.
1128: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101233;%%
1129:
1130: %\cite{Babu:1993we}
1131: \bibitem{Babu:1993we}
1132: K.~S.~Babu and S.~M.~Barr,
1133: %``Natural suppression of Higgsino mediated proton decay in supersymmetric SO(10),''
1134: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 5354 (1993)
1135: [arXiv:hep-ph/9306242].
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306242;%%
1137:
1138: %\cite{Giudice:1988yz}
1139: \bibitem{Giudice:1988yz} G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Masiero,
1140: %``A Natural Solution To The Mu Problem In Supergravity Theories,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 206}, 480 (1988).
1141: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B206,480;%%
1142:
1143: %\cite{leptogenesis}
1144: \bibitem{leptogenesis}
1145: For a recent review see: W.~Buchmuller,
1146: %``Neutrinos, grand unification and leptogenesis,''
1147: arXiv:hep-ph/0204288.
1148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204288;%%
1149:
1150: %\cite{Babu:1995hr}
1151: \bibitem{Babu:1995hr}
1152: K.~S.~Babu and S.~M.~Barr,
1153: %``Large neutrino mixing angles in unified theories,''
1154: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 381}, 202 (1996)
1155: [arXiv:hep-ph/9511446].
1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511446;%%
1157:
1158: %\cite{Sato:1997hv}
1159: \bibitem{Sato:1997hv}
1160: J.~Sato and T.~Yanagida,
1161: %``Large lepton mixing in a coset-space family unification on E(7)/SU(5) x U(1)**3,''
1162: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 430}, 127 (1998)
1163: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710516].
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710516;%%
1165:
1166: %\cite{Albright:1998vf}
1167: \bibitem{Albright:1998vf}
1168: C.~H.~Albright, K.~S.~Babu and S.~M.~Barr,
1169: %``A minimality condition and atmospheric neutrino oscillations,''
1170: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 1167 (1998)
1171: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802314].
1172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802314;%%
1173:
1174: %\cite{Irges:1998ax}
1175: \bibitem{Irges:1998ax}
1176: N.~Irges, S.~Lavignac and P.~Ramond,
1177: %``Predictions from an anomalous U(1) model of Yukawa hierarchies,''
1178: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 035003 (1998)
1179: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802334].
1180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802334;%%
1181:
1182: %\cite{Kaplan:1999ac}
1183: \bibitem{Kaplan:1999ac}
1184: D.~E.~Kaplan, G.~D.~Kribs and M.~Schmaltz,
1185: %``Supersymmetry breaking through transparent extra dimensions,''
1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 035010 (2000)
1187: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911293].
1188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911293;%%
1189:
1190: %\cite{Chacko:1999mi}
1191: \bibitem{Chacko:1999mi}
1192: Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty, A.~E.~Nelson and E.~Ponton,
1193: %``Gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking,''
1194: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 003 (2000)
1195: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911323].
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911323;%%
1197:
1198: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998}
1199: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998}
1200: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos,
1201: %``NEW ORIGIN FOR APPROXIMATE SYMMETRIES FROM DISTANT BREAKING IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS,''
1202: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 052003 (2002)
1203: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811353].
1204: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811353;%%
1205:
1206: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999pv}
1207: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1999pv}
1208: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
1209: %``Exponentially small supersymmetry breaking from extra dimensions,''
1210: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 056003 (2001)
1211: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911421].
1212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911421;%%
1213:
1214: %\cite{Baer:2002by}
1215: \bibitem{Baer:2002by}
1216: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, R.~Dermisek, A.~Mafi and A.~Mustafayev,
1217: %``Viable models with non-universal gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking,''
1218: arXiv:hep-ph/0204108.
1219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204108;%%
1220:
1221: \end{thebibliography}
1222:
1223: \begin{figure}
1224: \begin{center}
1225: \includegraphics[width=3in]{dimension5.eps}
1226: \end{center}
1227: \caption{\label{dimension5} The kind of graph that gives rise
1228: to $d=5$ proton decay operators.}
1229: \end{figure}
1230:
1231: \begin{figure}
1232: \begin{center}
1233: \includegraphics[width=3in]{massabc.eps}
1234: \end{center}
1235: \caption{\label{masses} (a) A diagram that can give operators producing
1236: ``lopsided" contributions to $M_D$ and $M_L$.
1237: (b) A term in its $SU(5) \times U(1)$ decomposition
1238: that contributes to $M_D$.
1239: (c) A term in its $SU(5) \times U(1)$ decomposition
1240: that contributes to $M_L$.}
1241: \end{figure}
1242:
1243: \begin{figure}
1244: \begin{center}
1245: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Untitled-2.eps}
1246: \end{center}
1247: \caption{\label{region} This diagram represents the results of numerical analysis of
1248: Baer et al. \cite{Baer:2002by} for the case of gaugino mediated SUSY breaking scenario in the
1249: flipped $SU(5)$ setting ($M_2=M_3 \neq M_1$) for $\tan \beta = 30$ and $\mu > 0 $. The allowed
1250: region in $M_1$ vs. $M_2=M_3$ plane is shown in dotted light gray. The excluded regions are white (due to
1251: presence of tachyonic particles in mass spectrum), light gray (due to lack of radiative breakdown of
1252: EW symmetry), gray (due to LEP constraint), dark gray (due to LEP2 constraint), and crossed gray
1253: (due to the fact that charged particle is LSP). Vertical black line is where $M_H=114$ GeV. For a full
1254: discussion of numerical methods and assumptions used in the analysis see Ref.~\cite{Baer:2002by}.}
1255: \end{figure}
1256:
1257: \end{document}
1258:
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262: