1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

2: \def\n{\nu}

3: \def\nel{\nu^e_L}

4: \def\nml{\nu^\mu_L}

5: \def\ntl{\nu^\tau_L}

6: \def\ner{\nu^e_R}

7: \def\nmr{\nu^\mu_R}

8: \def\ntr{\nu^\tau_R}

9: \def\nsl{\nu^s_L}

10: \def\nsr{\nu^s_R}

11: \def\nlm{\nu^-_L}

12: \def\nlp{\nu^+_L}        

13: 

14: \def\nue{{\nu_e}}

15: \def\anue{{\overline{\nu_e}}}

16: \def\numu{{\nu_{\mu}}}

17: \def\anumu{\overline{\nu_{\mu}}}

18: \def\nutau{{\nu_{\tau}}}

19: \def\anutau{{\bar\nu_{\tau}}} 

20: 

21: \def\nrm{\nu^-_R}

22: \def\nrp{\nu^+_R}

23: \def\mp{M^\prime}

24: \def\mpp{M^{\prime \prime}}

25: \def\mppp{M^{\prime \prime \prime}}

26:  

27: \def\nep{\nu^\prime_e}

28: \def\nmp{\nu^\prime_\mu}    

29: 

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

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

32: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

33: \newcommand{\ee}{\begin{equation}}

34: 

35: \begin{document}

36: 

37: \parindent 0pt

38: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

39: 

40: \begin{flushright}

41: \texttt{hep-ph/0205268}\\

42: IC/2002/34\\

43: SINP/TNP/02-18\\

44: \end{flushright}

45: 

46: \vskip 30pt

47: 

48: 

49: \begin{center}

50: {\large \bf Gauge unification in 5-D $SU(5)$ model with orbifold breaking

51: of GUT symmetry}

52: \vspace{.5in}

53: 

54: 

55: {\bf Biswajoy Brahmachari$^{a,c}$

56: \footnote{e-mail: biswajoy@theory.saha.ernet.in} 

57: and 

58: Amitava Raychaudhuri$^{b,c}$

59: \footnote{e-mail: amitava@cubmb.ernet.in} 

60: }

61: 

62: \vskip 1cm

63: 

64: (a) Theoretical Physics Group, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics \\

65: AF/1 Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700064, India \\

66: \vskip .5cm

67: 

68: (b) Department of Physics, University of Calcutta \\

69: 92, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009, India

70: \vskip .5 cm

71: 

72: (c) Abdus Salam International Centre for

73: Theoretical Physics \\

74: Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\

75: \vskip 1cm

76: \underbar{ABSTRACT}

77: \end{center}

78: 

79: We consider a 5-dimensional $SU(5)$ model wherein the symmetry is broken

80: to the 4-dimensional Standard Model by compactification of the 5th

81: dimension on an $S^1/(Z_2 \times Z^\prime_2)$ orbifold. We identify the

82: members of all $SU(5)$ representations upto {\bf 75} which have zero modes. We

83: examine how these light scalars affect gauge coupling unification assuming

84: a single intermediate scale and present several acceptable solutions. 

85: The 5-D compactification scale coincides with the unification scale of 

86: gauge couplings and is determined via this renormalization group analysis.

87: When $SO(10)$ is considered as the GUT group there are only two solutions, so 

88: long as a few low dimensional scalar multiplets upto {\bf 126} are included.

89: 

90: 

91: \newpage

92: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

93: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

94: %\vfill

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: 

98: The $SU(5)$ model\cite{su5} unifies the strong, weak, and

99: electromagnetic interactions in the smallest simple group. It has many

100: other attractive features which are well recognized. But it suffers

101: from the following two major difficulties which are actually generic

102: to the idea of grand unification\cite{guts} itself.  (i) Because

103: quarks and leptons reside in unified multiplets and there are B- and

104: L-violating interactions, gauge boson exchanges can result in proton

105: decay\cite{pd}.  If these gauge bosons are appropriately heavy, the decay rate

106: will be very small. Their masses, in the usual formulation, are,

107: however, not arbitrary but rather determined by the scale where the

108: different gauge couplings unify.  The proton decay lifetime is

109: therefore a robust prediction of the model. No experimental signature

110: of proton decay\cite{pdexp} has been found yet and the model is

111: disfavoured. More complicated unification models involving several

112: intermediate mass-scales can evade this problem\cite{gaugeb}.  (ii) 

113: The low energy Higgs doublet, responsible for electroweak breaking, is 

114: embedded in a {\bf 5} representation of $SU(5)$.  The other members of this 

115: multiplet are color triplet scalars which must have a mass near the 

116: unification scale -- since no such scalars have been observed at the 

117: electroweak scale. This leads to an unnatural mass splitting among the 

118: members of the same $SU(5)$ multiplet.  This is termed the double-triplet

119: splitting problem\cite{dt}.

120: 

121: These two unwelcome features of the $SU(5)$ model can be tackled in an

122: elegant way if unified $SU(5)$ symmetry exists in a 5-D world. Low

123: energy 4-D $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ symmetry is

124: recovered when the extra dimension is compactified on a $S^1 / (Z_2

125: \times Z^\prime_2)$ orbifold\cite{szz}. This situation is realized

126: when space-time is considered to be factorized into a product of 4D

127: Minkowski space-time $M^4$ and the orbifold $S^1 / (Z_2 \times

128: Z^\prime_2)$. The coordinate system consists of

129: $x^\mu=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)$ and $y=x^5$. There are two distinct 4-D

130: branes; one at $y = 0$ and another at $y =\pi R/2$. On the $S^1$, $y$=0 is

131: identified with $y = \pi R$ ($Z^\prime_2$ symmetry) while

132: $y = \pm \pi R$/2 are identified with each other ($Z_2$

133: symmetry). 

134: 

135: 

136: As is common in models of this type, we assume that the fermions are

137: located in the 4-D brane at $y = 0$ while the gauge bosons and the

138: scalars are allowed to travel in the bulk. The discrete $Z_2$ and

139: $Z^\prime_2$ symmetries, which we refer to as $P$ and $P^\prime$,

140: permit the expansion of any 5-D field $\phi$ in the following mode

141: expansions according to whether they are even or odd under ($P,P^\prime$):

142: \[

143: \begin{array}{cccc}

144: \phi_{++}(y) &=& \sqrt{2 \over \pi R} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}

145: \phi^{(2n)}_{++}\cos{2 n y \over R}; & ~~~~M_n = \frac{2n}{R} \nonumber\\

146: \phi_{-+}(y) &=& \sqrt{2 \over \pi R} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}

147: \phi^{(2n+1)}_{-+}\sin{(2 n +1) y \over R}; & ~~~~M_n =

148: \frac{2n+1}{R}\nonumber\\

149: \phi_{+-}(y) &=& \sqrt{2 \over \pi R} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}

150: \phi^{(2n+1)}_{+-}\cos{(2 n +1) y \over R}; & ~~~~M_n = \frac{2n+1}{R}

151: \nonumber\\

152: \phi_{--}(y) &=& \sqrt{2 \over \pi R} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}

153: \phi^{(2n+2)}_{--}\sin{(2 n +2) y \over R}; & ~~~~M_n = \frac{2n+2}{R}

154: \nonumber 

155: \end{array}

156: \]

157: 

158: Here $n = 0,1,2, \ldots$ and we have suppressed the $x^\mu$

159: dependence.  The behaviour of the fields under $P$ and $P^\prime$ can

160: be read off from the subscripts in the left hand side above. For

161: example, $\phi_{-+}$ is odd under $P$ and even under $P^\prime$. We

162: have also listed the masses of the different modes. Notice that only

163: the $\phi_{++}$ field can have a massless mode. One of the prime

164: motivations of these higher dimensional $SU(5)$ models is to ensure

165: doublet-triplet splitting within the {\bf 5} scalar multiplet of

166: $SU(5)$ and to ensure that from within the adjoint representation

167: ({\bf 24}) of the gauge bosons only the $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times

168: U(1)_Y$ gauge bosons remain massless. Both can be achieved by

169: ascribing $P, P^\prime$ parities of $++$ to the (1,2,1/2) submultiplet

170: in the {\bf 5} while the remaining (3,1,--1/3) states carries $+-$

171: parity\footnote{Here we are using the decomposition of the $SU(5)$

172: multiplets under $ SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$.}. For the

173: sake of completeness, the decomposition of the $SU(5)$ representations

174: upto {\bf 75} are listed in Table (\ref{parity}) \cite{szz}.  Since

175: $P, P^\prime$ commute with the Standard Model (SM) gauge symmetry

176: $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$, the $Z_2 \times Z^\prime_2$

177: parities for the members of the higher $SU(5)$ multiplets can be built

178: up from this assignment for the scalars in the fundamental

179: representation\footnote{In principle, one can assign arbitrary $Z_2

180: \times Z^\prime_2$ parities to the submultiplets of the higher SU(5)

181: representations. However, to reduce adhocness, here we work with the

182: {\em ansatz} that once we assign the parities for the fundamental

183: representation, those for the submultiplets of higher $SU(5)$

184: representations are determined by group theoretic relationships.}.

185: These parities have been indicated in Table (\ref{parity}). In this

186: way we can also assure that the (1,1,1)+(1,3,0)+(8,1,0) multiplets of

187: ${ \bf 24}$ remain massless, breaking $SU(5)$ symmetry below the

188: compactification scale $1/R \equiv M_X$.

189: 

190: \begin{table}[ht]

191: \[

192: \begin{array}{|rcl|}

193: \hline 

194: SU(5) \supset && SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y  \nonumber \\

195: \hline

196: {\bf 5}    \supset && ( 1,2,1/2)_{\bf+~+} + (3,1,-1/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\  

197: {\bf \overline{5}}    \supset && ( 1,2,-1/2)_{\bf+~+} 

198: + (\overline{3},1, 1/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\  

199: {\bf 10}    \supset && ( 1,1,1)_{\bf+~+} + (\overline{3},1,-2/3)_{\bf+~+} 

200: +(3,2,1/6)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\

201: {\bf 15}    \supset && ( 1,3,1)_{\bf+~+} + (3,2,1/6)_{\bf+~-} 

202: +(6,1,-2/3)_{\bf+~+} \nonumber\\

203: {\bf 24}    \supset && ( 1,1,0)_{\bf+~+} + (1,3,0)_{\bf+~+} 

204: +(3,2,-5/6)_{\bf+~-} +(\overline{3},2,5/6)_{\bf+~-}+(8,1,0)_{\bf+~+} \nonumber\\  

205: {\bf 35} \supset && ( 1,4,-3/2)_{\bf+~+} + (\overline{3},3,-2/3)_{\bf+~-} 

206: +(\overline{6},2,1/6)_{\bf+~+} 

207: +(\overline{10},1,1)_{\bf+~-}\nonumber\\  

208: {\bf 40}    \supset && ( 1,2,-3/2)_{\bf+~+} + (3,2,1/6)_{\bf+~+} 

209: +(\overline{3},1,-2/3)_{\bf+~-}

210: +(\overline{3},3,-2/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\

211: && +(8,1,1)_{\bf+~-}+(\overline{6},2,1/6)_{\bf+~+}  

212: \nonumber\\

213: {\bf 45}    \supset && ( 1,2,1/2)_{\bf+~+} + (3,1,-1/3)_{\bf+~-} 

214: +(3,3,-1/3)_{\bf+~-}

215: +(\overline{3},1,4/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\

216: && +(\overline{3},2,-7/6)_{\bf+~+}

217: +(\overline{6},1,-1/3)_{\bf+~-}+(8,2,1/2)_{\bf+~+}  

218: \nonumber\\

219: {\bf 50}    \supset && ( 1,1,-2)_{\bf+~+} + (3,1,-1/3)_{\bf+~+} 

220: +(\overline{3},2,-7/6)_{\bf+~-}

221: +(\overline{6},3,-1/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\

222: && +(6,1,4/3)_{\bf+~+}

223: +(8,2,1/2)_{\bf+~-}  \nonumber\\

224: {\bf 70}    \supset && ( 1,2,1/2)_{\bf+~+} + (1,4,1/2)_{\bf+~+} 

225: +(3,1,-1/3)_{\bf+~-}

226: +(3,3,-1/3)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\

227: && +(\overline{3},3,4/3)_{\bf+~-}

228: +(6,2,-7/6)_{\bf+~+}  +(8,2,1/2)_{\bf+~+}  +(15,1,-1/3)_{\bf+~-}  

229: \nonumber\\

230: {\bf 70^\prime}    \supset && ( 1,5,-2)_{\bf+~+} 

231: + (\overline{3},4,-7/6)_{\bf+~-} 

232: +(\overline{6},3,-1/3)_{\bf+~+}

233: +(\overline{10},2,1/2)_{\bf+~-} \nonumber\\ 

234: && +(\overline{15},1,4/3)_{\bf+~+} 

235: \nonumber\\

236: {\bf 75} \supset && ( 1,1,0)_{\bf+~+} 

237: + (3,1,5/3)_{\bf+~+} 

238: +(3,2,-5/6)_{\bf+~-}

239: +(\overline{3},1,5/3)_{\bf+~+} \nonumber\\ 

240: && 

241: +(\overline{3},2,5/6)_{\bf+~-} 

242: +(\overline{6},2,-5/6)_{\bf+~-} 

243: +(6,2,5/6)_{\bf+~-} 

244: +(8,1,0)_{\bf+~+} \nonumber\\ 

245: && +(8,3,0)_{\bf+~+} 

246: \nonumber\\

247: \hline

248: \end{array}

249: \]

250: \caption{The $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ contents of the different

251: $SU(5)$ representations. Also shown are the $P$ and $P^\prime$

252: assignments.}

253: \label{parity}

254: \end{table}

255: 

256: Above $M_X$, the mass scale of the non-SM gauge bosons, $X,Y$, and

257: that of the colour triplet scalars in the {\bf 5} representation,

258: $SU(5)$ symmetry is unbroken. This scale is determined in our analysis

259: by the unification of the three SM gauge couplings. We assume one

260: intermediate scale, $M_I$, such that all scalars which are permitted

261: to have a zero mode, excepting the SM scalar doublet, pick up a mass at

262: this scale. We include their contributions to the beta functions of

263: the one loop renormalization group equations (RGE) and solve for both

264: the intermediate scale $M_I$ and the unification scale $M_X$. The beta

265: function coefficients are given by:

266: 

267: \bea

268: b_i &=&

269: \pmatrix{0 \cr -22/3 \cr -11 } 

270: + n_f \pmatrix{ 4/3 \cr 4/3 \cr 4/3 }

271: + T_s^i/3 \label{beta}

272: \eea

273: We take $n_f = 3$. The above expression assumes that the scalar fields

274: are complex. For real scalar fields one has to use $T_s^i/6$ in

275: Eqn. (\ref{beta}). The $T_s^i$ for the light scalar submultiplets of

276: the different $SU(5)$ representations upto {\bf 75} are listed in Table

277: (\ref{contrib}).

278: \begin{table}

279: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}

280: \hline 

281:  R  & light~scalar~multiplets  & $T^3_s$ & $T^2_s$ & $T^1_s$ \\

282: \hline 

283: {\bf 5}  & (1,2,1/2) & 0 & 1/2 & 3/10 \\

284: {\bf 10} & (1,1,1)+($\overline{3}$, 1,- 2/3) & 1/2 & 0 & 7/5 \\

285: {\bf 15} & (1,3,1)+(6,1,-2/3)&5/2 &2 & 17/5 \\

286: {\bf 24} & (1,3,0)+(8,1,0)&3 &2 &0 \\

287: {\bf 35} & (1,4,-3/2)+($\overline{6}$,2,1/6)&5  & 8 & 28/5 \\

288: {\bf 40} & (1,2,-3/2)+(3,2,1/6)+($\overline{6}$,2,1/6) & 6 & 5& 3 \\

289: {\bf 45} & (1,2,1/2)+($\overline{3}$,2,-7/6)+(8,2,1/2) & 7 & 6 & 38/5 \\

290: {\bf 50} & (1,1,-2)+(3,1,-1/3)+ ($\overline{6}$,3,-1/3)+(6,1,4/3) 

291: & 21/2 & 3  & 51/5 \\

292: {\bf 70} & (1,2,1/2)+(1,4,1/2)+(6,2,-7/6)+(8,2,1/2) & 11 & 25/2 & 131/10 \\

293: ${\bf 70^\prime }$& (1,5,-2)+($\overline{6}$,3,-1/3)+($\overline{15}$,1,4/3) 

294: & 25 & 22  & 146/5 \\

295: {\bf 75} & (3,1,5/3)+($\overline{3}$,1,-5/3)+(8,1,0)+(8,3,0) & 13 & 16 & 10\\

296: \hline

297: \end{tabular}  

298: \caption{The contributions to the $\beta$-functions from the

299: light members of the different $SU(5)$ representations upto {\bf 75}.}

300: \label{contrib}

301: \end{table}

302: Defining $m_{k,l}= \ln({m_k/m_l})$ and $b^i_{k,l}$ to be the

303: $\beta$ coefficients governing evolution in the range $m_k

304: \leftrightarrow m_l$, we get the following three solutions of the RGE.

305: \begin{equation} 

306: 2 \pi \alpha^{-1}_i(M_Z) = 2 \pi \alpha^{-1}_{X}

307: +b^i_{X,I} m_{X,I} + b^i_{I,Z} m_{I,Z} 

308: \label{eqns} 

309: \end{equation}

310: Using the values of couplings at the low energy scale $M_Z$

311: \begin{equation}

312: \alpha_1(M_Z)=0.01688,~~~\alpha_2(M_Z)=0.03322,

313: ~~~\alpha_3(M_Z)=0.117 \label{values}

314: \end{equation}

315: we solve the three equations in Eqn. (\ref{eqns}). First, we

316: present a simple illustrative example below.

317: \section{Simple example}

318: Because the GUT symmetry is broken via orbifolding, let us

319: consider the case where there are only {\bf 5}-plets of $SU(5)$ Higgs

320: scalars at the

321: unification scale and assume that there are $n_5$ of them. Then

322: compactification allows only doublets to be light and not their

323: triplet partners. In this case the $\beta$ coefficients are given by,

324: \bea 

325: b^i_{X,I}=\pmatrix{41/10 \cr -19/6 \cr

326: -7 } + {n_5 \over 3} \pmatrix{3/10 \cr 1/2 \cr 0} 

327: \label{case1} 

328: \eea

329: Solving Eqn. (\ref{eqns}) we obtain

330: \begin{equation}

331: \alpha^{-1}_{X}=38.53, m_{I,Z}=26.98-194.75/n_5,

332: m_{X,I}=194.75/n_5

333: \end{equation}

334: Because $m_{I,Z} \ge 0$ we obtain $n_5 \ge 8$.

335: For the case of $n_5=8$ we get,

336: \begin{equation}   

337: M_I = 1.39~ {\rm TeV}, M_{X} =5.0 \times 10^{10}~ {\rm TeV}.

338: \end{equation}

339: The GUT scale $M_X$ is rather low but it is consistent with proton

340: decay because of the existence of $Z_2 \times Z^\prime_2$ parity.

341: Note that the intermediate scale is in a very attractive region

342: phenomenologically. Eight Higgs doublets can be degenerate at this

343: scale of 1.3-1.4 TeV. They may play an important role in the fermion mass

344: puzzle. Further, the scale $M_X\simeq10^{10}$ TeV is interesting from the

345: point of view of the see-saw mechanism. The unification pattern is

346: shown in Fig. (\ref{fig1}).

347: 

348: \section{More general cases}

349: We now turn to the more general possibility where scalars in higher

350: representations of $SU(5)$ are present. The light scalars of all

351: $SU(5)$ multiplets upto {\bf 75} and their contributions to the beta

352: coefficients are listed in Table (\ref{contrib}).

353: \subsection{Small number of representations and low intermediate scales}

354: We consider upto the {\bf 75} dimensional representation of $SU(5)$

355: and demand that the threshold scale, $M_I$, be less than 10 TeV. For

356: the sake of economy, we also consider only those solutions where for

357: every representation $R$, the number $n_R$ is either 0 or 1.  If we do

358: not put any restriction on the number of representations, but maintain

359: that $n_R$ be zero or unity only, then we get 43 different solutions.

360: In Table (\ref{su5l}) we list those solutions for which not more than

361: two $n_R$ are non-zero.

362: \begin{table}[ht]

363: \begin{center}

364: \begin{tabular}{|ccc|}

365: \hline 

366:  Representations & $M_I$ & $M_X$ \\

367:  with $n_R=1$ & (TeV) & (TeV) \\

368: \hline

369:  {\bf 35} & 0.223 & 1.61 $\times 10^{11}$\\

370:  {\bf 5,35} & 5.70 & 1.38 $\times 10^{11}$\\

371:  {\bf 24,35} & 0.905 & 5.50 $\times 10^{11}$\\

372:  {\bf 35,40} & 3.61 & 1.84 $\times 10^{12}$\\

373:  {\bf 45,75} & 3.61 & 1.84 $\times 10^{11}$\\

374: \hline 

375: \end{tabular}

376: \end{center}

377: \caption{$SU(5)$ repesentations of scalars whose light members ensure

378: coupling constant unification. The unification scale, $M_X$,  and the

379: intermediate scale, $M_I$, are also given.}

380: \label{su5l}

381: \end{table}

382: 

383: Though the intermediate scales, $M_I$, and the unification scales,

384: $M_X$, in the last two cases are the same, the value of $\alpha_{X}$

385: turns out to be 0.037 and 0.710, respectively.

386: 

387: Let us explain one case in more detail. Let there be only 

388: {\bf 35}-plets of $SU(5)$ at the unification scale and assume that there 

389: are $n_{35}$ of them. Then compactification allows only (1,4,--3/2)

390: + ($\overline{6}$,2,1/6) fields at low energy. In this case the $\beta_i$ 

391: coefficients are given by,

392: \begin{equation}

393: b^i_{X,I}=\pmatrix{41/10 \cr -19/6 \cr

394: -7 } + {n_{35} \over 3} \pmatrix{28/5 \cr 8 \cr 5} 

395: \label{case2} 

396: \end{equation}

397: Solving the RGE we obtain

398: \begin{equation}

399: \alpha^{-1}_{X}=32.72, m_{I,Z}=28.20-27.3073/n_{35},

400: m_{X,I}=27.3073/n_{35}

401: \end{equation}

402: Because $m_{I,Z} \ge 0$ we obtain $n_{35} \ge 1$.

403: For the case of $n_{35}=1$ we get,

404: \begin{equation}   

405: M_I = 0.223~ {\rm TeV},M_{X} =1.6 \times 10^{11}~ {\rm TeV}.

406: \end{equation}

407: 

408: \subsection{Low dimensional representations only}

409: Another alternative which we examine is by restricting to $SU(5)$

410: representations upto {\bf 24} subject further to the requirements $n_5

411: < 8, n_{10} < 5, n_{15} < 5 , n_{24} < 5$. Then we get the results

412: given in Table (\ref{lowdim}) when we impose $M_I < 70$ TeV. The

413: unification patterns of the gauge couplings for a few sample cases are

414: shown in Fig. (1).

415: \begin{table}[ht]

416: \begin{center}

417: \begin{tabular}{|cccccc|}

418: \hline 

419: $n_5$& $n_{10}$ & $n_{15}$ & $n_{24}$ & $M_I~{\rm(TeV)}$ & $M_X~{\rm(TeV)}$ \\

420: \hline

421:  8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.678 & $4.66 \times 10^{10}$ \\

422:  7 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0.223 & $1.61 \times 10^{11}$ \\

423:  8 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 5.696 & $1.38 \times 10^{11}$ \\

424:  7 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0.905 & $5.49 \times 10^{11}$ \\

425:  8 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 19.08 & $4.05 \times 10^{11}$ \\

426:  7 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 3.607 & $1.84 \times 10^{12}$ \\

427:  8 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 63.08 & $1.17 \times 10^{12}$ \\

428:  6 & 0 & 0 & 4 & 0.407 & $1.33 \times 10^{13}$ \\

429:  7 & 0 & 0 & 4 & 14.12 & $6.08 \times 10^{12}$ \\

430:  6 & 0 & 0 & 5 & 0.199 & $5.22 \times 10^{13}$ \\

431:  7 & 0 & 0 & 5 & 54.36 & $1.97 \times 10^{13}$ \\

432:  8 & 1 & 0 & 5 & 0.407 & $1.33 \times 10^{13}$ \\

433:  8 & 0 & 1 & 5 & 0.407 & $1.33 \times 10^{13}$ \\

434: \hline 

435: \end{tabular}

436: \end{center}

437: \caption{Various $SU(5)$ scrnarios which gives low intermediate scales

438: upto 70 TeV}

439: \label{lowdim}

440: \end{table}

441: 

442: \section{Remarks about $SO(10)$}

443: 

444: It might be of interest to extend this analysis to grand unification

445: groups of higher rank. It is readily seen that the solutions will

446: become more difficult to come by. For example, we give in Table

447: (\ref{so10}) the $SU(5)$ contents of the $SO(10)$ representations upto

448: {\bf 126}. Notice, that the inclusion of a single {\bf 126} of

449: $SO(10)$ is equivalent to the simultaneous presence of {\bf

450: $\overline{\bf 5}$, 10, $\overline{\bf 15}$, 45, $\overline{\bf 50}$}

451: repesentations of $SU(5)$ and there is no flexibility of including the

452: $SU(5)$ representations individually.

453: 

454: \begin{center}

455: \begin{table}[ht]

456: \begin{tabular}{|ccccc|}

457: \hline 

458:  R  & SU(5)~components& $T^3_s$ & $T^2_s$ & $T^1_s$ \\

459: \hline 

460: {\bf 10} & ${\bf 5+ \overline{5}}$  & 0 & 1 & 3/5 \\

461: {\bf 16} & ${\bf 1+ \overline{5}+ 10}$ & 1/2 & 1/2 & 17/10 \\

462: {\bf 45} & ${\bf 1+10+ \overline{10} +24}$ & 4 & 2 & 14/5 \\

463: {\bf 120} & ${\bf 5+ \overline{5} + 10 +  \overline{10} 

464: + 45 + \overline{45}}$ &15 &13 &93/5 \\

465: {\bf 126} & ${\bf 1+ \overline{5} + 10 + \overline{15} + 45 

466: + \overline{50}}$ &41/2  & 23/2 & 229/10 \\

467: \hline

468: \end{tabular}  

469: \caption{The contributions to the $\beta$-functions from the

470: light members of the different SO(10) representations 

471: upto {\bf 126}.}

472: \label{so10}

473: \end{table}

474: \end{center}

475: 

476: 

477: If we permit all SO(10) representations upto {\bf 126} and consider no

478: more than upto 8 of any single representation then we find just two

479: allowed solutions:\\

480: 

481: 1) $n_{10} = 8$, other $n_i = 0 \Rightarrow M_I$ = 1.68 TeV, $M_X$ =

482:    4.67 $\times 10^{10}$ TeV\\

483: 

484: 2) $n_{10} = 6$, $n_{16} = 1$, other $n_i = 0 \Rightarrow M_I$ = 295

485:    TeV, $M_X$ = 7.99 $\times 10^{9}$ TeV\\

486:  

487: 

488: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}

489: 

490: In this work, we have examined the light scalar modes that survive

491: when a 5-dimensional $SU(5)$ model reduces to the 4-dimensional SM 

492: through the orbifold compactification route. The scalars which

493: are permitted to have zero modes are assumed to pick up a mass at some

494: scale $M_I$ intermediate between the electroweak and Planck

495: scales. They contribute to the beta coefficients in the $M_I < \mu <

496: M_X$ regime. The compactification scale, $M_X$, above which $SU(5)$ is

497: unbroken, is determined by the unification of the gauge

498: couplings. This analysis also determines $M_I$. We identify solutions

499: for which $M_I$ is in an interesting phenomenological range and can be

500: probed at the next generation colliders.  This analysis is somewhat

501: similar in spirit to the approach chosen for supersymmetric-GUTs where the

502: SUSY scale is fixed by gauge unification.

503: 

504: It is seen from Table (\ref{contrib}) that $P$ is (+)

505: for all the multiplets. Thus it does not play any role in the

506: present analysis. However, we would like to keep the option of

507: generalizing this method to the supersymmetric case where

508: $P$ has a non-trivial role. 

509: 

510: The scale of degenerate scalars, $M_I$, should be treated as an

511: approximate one in the sense that in reality some spread in the masses

512: around it can be expected. The standard model doublet has a mass at

513: the electroweak scale. This should not be viewed as an unnatural fine

514: tuning as some relevant Yukawa couplings can be of order

515: $10^{-2}-10^{-3}$.

516: 

517: When the unification symmetry is assumed to be of higher rank, then

518: the number of acceptable solutions reduces dramatically. For $SO(10)$

519: just two solutions can be obtained, so long as we stick to the low

520: dimensional representations of the symmetry group.

521: 

522: At first sight it might seem that we are introducing too many scalar

523: degrees of freedom. However, this appears  less dramatic 

524: when we compare it to the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard

525: Model  where too a large number of scalars are required.  \\

526: 

527: 

528: {\large{\bf Acknowledgements:}} This work was done while both authors

529: were visiting the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical

530: Physics, Italy. They are grateful to the High Energy Section and the

531: Associateship Office of the Centre for hospitality. The research of AR

532: is supported by CSIR, India.

533: 

534: \newpage

535: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

536: 

537: \bibitem{su5}

538: H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 32}438 (1974);

539: H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn, S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 33},

540: 451 (1974).

541: 

542: 

543: \bibitem{guts}

544: J. C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 275 (1974);

545: Jogesh C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8}, 1240 (1973);

546: R. N. Mohapatra, J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. {\bf D11}, 2558 (1975);

547: F. Gursey, P. Ramond, P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. {\bf B60}, 177 (1976)

548: 

549: \bibitem{pd}

550: A.J. Buras, J. R. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, D.V. Nanopoulos,

551: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B135}, 66 (1978); C. Jarlskog,

552: Phys. Lett. {\bf B82}, 401 (1979);

553: C. Jarlskog, F.J. Yndurain,

554: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B149}, 29 (1979); F. Wilczek, A. Zee, 

555: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 1571 (1979); M. Machacek,

556: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B159}, 37 (1979)

557: 

558: 

559: \bibitem{pdexp}

560: SuperKamiokande Collaboration (Y. Hayato et al.),

561: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} 1529 (1999); 

562: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (M. Shiozawa

563: et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} 3319 (1998);

564: W. Gajewski et al., Phys.Rev. {\bf D42}, 2974 (1990);

565: Soudan-2 Collaboration (W.W.M. Allison et al.), Phys. Lett. 

566: {\bf B427} 217 (1998).

567: 

568: 

569: \bibitem{gaugeb}P. H. Frampton, B. Hoon Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}

570: 619 (1990); P. H. Frampton, T. W. Kephart, Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 

571: 3892 (1990);  B. Brahmachari, U. Sarkar, R. B. Mann, T. G. Steele, 

572: Phys. Rev. {\bf D45}, 2467 (1992); 

573: B. Brahmachari, U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. {\bf B303}, 260 (1993);

574: P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D45}, 2566 (1992); B. Brahmachari, 

575: Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 1266 (1993)

576: 

577: \bibitem{dt}

578: H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. {\bf 108B}, 283 (1982); B. Grinstein,

579: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B206}, 387 (1982); A. Masiero, D.V.

580: Nanopoulos, K. Tamvakis, T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B115}

581: 380 (1982); S. Dimopoulos, F. Wilczek, NSF-ITP-82-07 (unpublished);

582: A. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 33 (1985);

583: 

584: \bibitem{szz}

585: Y. Kawamura, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 103}, 613 (2000);

586: Y. Kawamura, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 105}, 691 (2001);

587: G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, Phys. Lett. {\bf B511}, 257 (2001);

588: A. Hebecker, J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B613}, 3 (2001);

589: J. A. Bagger, F. Feruglio, F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}

590: 101601 (2002); Y. Nomura, D. R. Smith, N. Weiner,

591: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B613}, 147 (2001)

592: 

593: 

594: 

595: 

596: \end{thebibliography}

597: 

598: \newpage

599: \begin{figure}[htb] \begin{center} \epsfxsize=11cm \epsfysize=11cm

600: \mbox{\hskip 0in}\epsfbox{run.eps}

601: \caption{Gauge unification in various models. Labels of cases

602: are $(n_5,n_{10},n_{15},n_{24})$. As a first approximation we

603: have used one intermediate scale which is given by the mass scale of 

604: extra scalars allowed by $S^1/Z_2 \times Z^\prime_2$ compactifications.} 

605: \label{fig1} 

606: \end{center}

607: \end{figure}

608: 

609: 

610: 

611: 

612: 

613: 

614: \end{document}

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: 

619: 

620: 

621: