1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb,graphics}
3: \newcommand{\spartial}{\!\!\not\!\partial}
4: \newcommand{\sdel}{\!\!\not\!\!D}
5: \newcommand{\slh}{\not\!\!}
6: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
7: \newcommand{\smhalf}{\text{\small{$\frac{1}{2}$}}}
8: \newcommand{\hc}{\text{ h.c.}}
9: \newcommand{\quarter}{\frac{1}{4}}
10: \newcommand{\third}{\frac{1}{3}}
11: \newcommand{\twothirds}{\frac{2}{3}}
12: \newcommand{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}
13: \newcommand{\Tr}{\text{ Tr }}
14: \newcommand{\im}{\text{ Im }}
15: \newcommand{\re}{\text{ Re }}
16: \newcommand{\HH}{\mathcal{H}}
17: \newcommand{\Diag}{\text{ diag }}
18: \newcommand{\diag}{\text{ diag }}
19: \newcommand{\eff}{{\text{eff}}}
20: \newcommand{\identity}{{\rlap{1} \hskip 1.6pt \hbox{1}}}
21:
22:
23: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5 in}
24: \setlength{\textheight}{8.5 in}
25: \setlength{\headheight}{0 in}
26: \setlength{\parindent}{20 pt}
27: \setlength{\headsep}{0 in}
28: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.0 in}
29: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.00 in}
30: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.00 in}
31:
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \begin{titlepage}
36: \begin{flushright}
37: HUTP-02/A015\\
38: hep-ph/0206023\\
39: \end{flushright}
40: \vskip 2cm
41: \begin{center}
42: {\large\bf Mooses, Topology, and Higgs}
43: \vskip 1cm
44: {\normalsize
45: \mbox{
46: \hspace{-0.3in}
47: Thomas Gregoire and Jay G. Wacker}\\
48: \vskip 0.5cm
49:
50: Department of Physics, University of California\\
51: Berkeley, CA~~94720, USA\\
52: and \\
53: Theory Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\
54: Berkeley, CA~~94720, USA
55: \vskip .3cm
56:
57: Jefferson Physical Laboratory\\
58: Harvard University\\
59: Cambridge, MA 02138\\
60: \vskip .3cm
61:
62:
63: }
64: \end{center}
65:
66:
67: \vskip .5cm
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70: New theories of electroweak symmetry breaking have recently been
71: constructed that stabilize the weak scale and do not rely upon
72: supersymmetry. In these theories the Higgs boson is a weakly coupled
73: pseudo-Goldstone boson.
74: In this note we study the class of theories that can be described
75: by theory spaces and show that the fundamental group of theory
76: space describes all the relevant classical physics in the
77: low energy theory.
78: The relationship between the low energy physics and the topological properties
79: of theory space allow a systematic method for constructing
80: theory spaces that give any desired low energy particle content and potential.
81: This provides us with tools for analyzing and constructing new theories of
82: electroweak symmetry breaking.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: \end{titlepage}
86:
87:
88:
89: \section{Introduction}
90:
91: The description of electroweak symmetry breaking in the Standard
92: Model, in terms of a fundamental scalar Higgs field, suffers from a
93: stability crisis.
94: The quadratically divergent radiative corrections
95: to the Higgs mass suggest that the description of TeV scale
96: physics in the Standard Model is incomplete.
97: New physics at the TeV scale must emerge to stabilize the weak scale.
98: Recently, a qualitatively new category of realistic theories of electroweak
99: symmetry breaking has been introduced \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc}.
100: These models, based on deconstruction
101: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca,Hill:2000mu,Cheng:2001vd} and the physics of ``theory
102: space''\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr,Arkani-Hamed:2001ed,Cheng:2001nh,Arkani-Hamed:2001ie} offer a new mechanism for
103: softening the quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass. Electroweak
104: symmetry breaking is accomplished with naturally light Higgs bosons
105: that descend from non-linear sigma model fields whose mass is
106: protected by ``chiral'' symmetries of the sigma model. The first
107: attempts at models of this kind were the ``composite Higgs'' theories
108: \cite{Kaplan:1983fs,Kaplan:1983sm,Georgi:1984af} that required
109: fine tuning to keep the Higgs light. More
110: recently, models similar in spirit to the theory space models and using the
111: same group theory structure as the composite Higgs model
112: have been developed \cite{Coset}.
113: In all of these theories, the physics is perturbative at
114: energies parametrically above the TeV scale, ultimately requiring an
115: ultraviolet
116: completion near \mbox{$\sim 10$ TeV} where the non-linear sigma model
117: fields become strongly coupled. However, the physics of electroweak
118: symmetry breaking and the new physics at the TeV scale are weakly
119: coupled and do not depend on the ultraviolet completion. These models are fully realistic, incorporating fermion
120: masses without producing dangerous flavour-changing neutral currents
121: in the low energy theory.
122:
123: The general structure of these models is characterized by a ``theory
124: space'', consisting of sites, lines and faces. Each site represents a gauge
125: group, each line represents a non-linear sigma model link field
126: transforming under the gauge groups at the ends of the line, and each
127: face corresponds to ``plaquette'' operators involving a trace of
128: products of the link fields bounding the face. The little Higgs
129: descend from the link fields, while their quartic coupling arise
130: from the plaquette interactions. Based on deconstructing extra dimensional intuitions, the
131: models used in
132: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa} were $N \times N$
133: deconstructed torus. The basic
134: ingredients that make this class of models successful theory of electroweak
135: symmetry breaking are the absence of one loop quadratic divergences in the
136: Higgs mass, guaranteed by the approximate chiral symmetries, and the
137: presence of large quartic self interaction for the Higgs.
138:
139: In this paper, we seek a way of extracting the low energy physics of general
140: theory spaces in order to decide which spaces can be used for electroweak
141: symmetry breaking. We also develop a method for building theory spaces with
142: a given low energy particle content and potential. The spectrum of electroweak symmetry breaking
143: theories based on theory space is characterized by two or more Higgs doublets at
144: roughly \mbox{100 GeV} and at least one TeV scale particle for each quadratic
145: divergence of the low energy theory. In contrast with supersymmetric
146: theories, quadratic divergences are canceled by `partners' of the same spin.
147:
148: In Sec. \ref{Sec: Homotopy},
149: we review the structure of theory space and present a
150: systematic procedure to calculate the moduli space of general theory space,
151: allowing us to obtain the low energy potential of the theory. We illustrate
152: this procedure with several examples.
153: We then reverse the logic and show how to build theory spaces that possess arbitrary low energy physics.
154:
155: In Sec. \ref{Sec: Radiative Corrections}, we analyze the structure
156: of radiative corrections
157: in little Higgs model, and present two simple rules that ensure that a theory
158: space is free of quadratic divergences at one loop.
159: In Sec. \ref{Sec: Fermions} we discuss how to
160: include Yukawa couplings so that they do not reintroduce one loop
161: quadratic divergences. We also show that it is possible for fermions
162: to generate the plaquette potential.
163:
164: Finally, in Sec. \ref{Sec: Lifting} we discuss how to lift unnecessary
165: states out of the low energy theory and into the \mbox{1 TeV} range.
166: When the gauge symmetry is reduced at one site new plaquette potentials
167: are allowed that can differentiate between the adjoint states and
168: Higgs ( these are the $\mathbf{T_8}$ plaquettes of
169: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}). This allows us to build
170: models free of light triplet and singlet scalars that were present in other
171: little Higgs models constructed from theory space
172: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa,2sites}. In particular we
173: present an extension of the two sites model of \cite{2sites} where the $\sim 100$ GeV
174: triplet and singlet scalars of \cite{2sites} are pushed to the TeV scale.
175:
176: \section{Topology and Theory Space}
177: \label{Sec: Homotopy}
178:
179: There are general statements we
180: can make about the existence of little Higgs and their
181: potentials from the structure of theory space alone.
182: Understanding the general structure of theory
183: space and its relation to the low energy dynamics will
184: allow us to classify the little Higgs theories and determine
185: if they are viable models of electroweak symmetry breaking.
186:
187: The physics of little Higgs models is specified by the gauge structure,
188: the link variables and the scalar potential, these define theory space
189: by points, lines, and faces, respectively.
190: Gauge groups are labeled by points: $G_{\mathbf{a}}$.
191: Link variables are labeled by line segments,
192: $\Sigma_{\mathbf{l}} = \exp(i \pi_{\mathbf{l}})$ that transform
193: as bifundamentals under the endpoints of the line
194: $l=(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})$
195: %%
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \Sigma_l \rightarrow g_{\mathbf{a}} \Sigma_{\mathbf{l}} g^\dagger_{\mathbf{b}}.
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: %%
200: Finally the plaquette potentials are interpreted
201: as shaded in faces and are the product of the link fields that bound
202: the faces:
203: $W_{\omega} = \Sigma_{\mathbf{l_1}} \cdots \Sigma_{\mathbf{l_N}}$.
204: The Lagrangian for a theory space is given by:
205: %%
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: \LL = \sum_\mathbf{a} \frac{-1}{2 g_\mathbf{a}^2} \Tr F^2_\mathbf{a}
208: + \sum_\mathbf{l} \frac{f^2_\mathbf{l}}{4} \Tr
209: \big|D^\mu \Sigma_\mathbf{l}\big| ^2
210: + \sum_\omega \lambda_\omega f^4 \Tr W_\omega +\hc.
211: \end{eqnarray}
212:
213: \begin{figure}[ht]
214: \centering\epsfig{figure=TheorySpace1.eps, height = 4cm}
215: \hspace{0.3in}
216: \centering\epsfig{figure=TheorySpace2.eps, height = 4.4cm}
217: \hspace{0.3in}
218: \centering\epsfig{figure=TheorySpace3.eps, height = 4.1 cm}
219: \caption{
220: \label{Fig: TheorySpace}
221: The geometry of theory space being built up from points, lines,
222: and faces. These geometrical objects are identified as
223: gauge groups, fields, potentials in the action.
224: }
225: \end{figure}
226:
227: The full gauge group of a theory space is given by the product of the gauge
228: groups associated with each sites: $G_{\text{total}} = \prod_{\mathbf{a}}
229: G_{\mathbf{a}}$. However, only a small subgroup of this gauge symmetry is
230: realized linearly on the $\pi_l$. This is the low energy unbroken subgroup
231: under which:
232: %%
233: \begin{equation}
234: \Sigma_l \rightarrow g \Sigma_l g^{\dagger}
235: \end{equation}
236: %%
237: So long as all the link fields connect two sites, for
238: each disconnected component of theory space there is an unbroken gauge
239: symmetry corresponding to the diagonal subgroup of the product of all the
240: gauge groups associated with the sites in the given component.
241:
242: To build realistic models of electroweak symmetry breaking, the Higgs
243: must transform as $\mathbf{2_\half}$ under $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$.
244: However, if all the gauge groups of a
245: theory space are the same and the link fields transform as bifundamentals,
246: the scalars of the theory will be adjoints under the unbroken
247: gauge group. One way of solving this problem is
248: to reduce the gauge symmetry at one of the sites. We will in general take
249: all the sites to be $SU(3)$ gauge group except one where we will gauge only
250: $SU(2) \times U(1)$. The link fields are $3\times 3$ matrices and a
251: link that touch the site of reduced gauge symmetry transform as:
252: %%
253: \begin{equation}
254: \Sigma_l \rightarrow h_{SU(2)}
255: e^{\frac{i}{6} \theta \mathbf{T_8}} \Sigma_l g_{SU(3)}^{\dagger}
256: \end{equation}
257: %%
258: where $\mathbf{T_8}= \diag(1,1,-2)$\footnote{
259: The normalization of the $U(1)$ is to have the Higgs doublet have
260: hypercharge $\half$.
261: }
262: and where $h_{SU(2)}$ commutes with $\mathbf{T_8}$. The unbroken diagonal
263: subgroup is the electroweak $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$
264: and the scalars of the theory
265: will decompose into triplets, doublets and singlet of the unbroken
266: $SU(2)$. The site of reduced symmetry allows for interesting possibilities
267: that will be discuss in Sec. \ref{Sec: Lifting}, but for the discussion
268: of the present section, it is irrelevant.
269:
270: We want to study the low energy physics of these models
271: at scales beneath the modes that have tree-level masses.
272: This can be done by integrating out the massive modes,
273: but this is a cumbersome procedure. To integrate out the
274: heavy modes and have the low energy theory, it is necessary
275: to find the full spectrum of the theory and to find all trilinear interactions
276: involving two light scalars and a heavy scalar and all quartic interactions with only light scalars. When heavy
277: scalars are integrated out, trilinear interactions
278: involving two light scalars and a heavy scalar can exactly cancel
279: a quartic interaction with only light scalars. Verifying which
280: light scalars have a tree-level quartic interaction is therefore rather
281: intricate and avoiding this procedure is desirable.
282: The moduli space captures much of the relevant low energy physics
283: in the scalar sector and calculating this space will
284: be the primary goal of this section. We first explain the procedure for
285: calculating the moduli space of a general theory space and then illustrate
286: it with several examples.
287:
288: The moduli space is gauge invariant, meaning that we can
289: gauge fix in any convenient manner. If theory space is arc-wise
290: connected, then it is possible to draw a simply connected line through
291: theory space that touches every point only once. All the links
292: along this line can be gauged away and this procedure completely
293: fixes the gauge. When theory space is not arc-wise connected, there is no
294: simple rule and we must gauge fix by hand.
295: To find the physical spectrum it is more convenient to go to
296: unitary gauge which is a more
297: difficult task.
298:
299: After gauge fixing, we minimize the plaquette potential by setting
300: the products of
301: link fields corresponding to faces to the identity matrix. This
302: minimization will fix most of the link fields. The interesting part of the
303: moduli space is then specified by relations between the remaining link
304: fields. The flat directions of this moduli space are the little Higgs
305: of the theory.
306: To reproduce this moduli space in the low energy
307: effective action, we include the relations as a
308: potential so that as we go off the moduli space there is an
309: energy cost. Theories that have no relations must have
310: potentials generated radiatively and therefore have the
311: same generic problems that typical pseudo-Goldstone bosons
312: suffer from -- that it is not possible to have a parametric separation
313: between the cut-off and the vacuum expectation value.
314: Identifying interesting little Higgs theories reduces to finding
315: theory spaces with interesting relations.
316:
317: The procedure of gauge fixing then minimizing the potential is precisely
318: equivalent to calculating the fundamental group of theory space
319: (or first homotopy group),
320: see chapter four of \cite{Nakahara:th} for
321: more details. In the equivalence, little Higgs are
322: non-contractible cycles on theory space and the low energy potential
323: is the relation in the homotopy group. This links all the relevant
324: low energy physics to topological properties and is independent of the
325: tiling of theory space chosen. When the tilings are taken to be large,
326: the physics of theory space is identical to the physics of an extra
327: dimension. In the extra dimensional picture, the little Higgs are
328: flat gauge connections and are classified by the fundamental group.
329: In the extra dimensional limit the physics of theory space and of
330: extra dimensions are identical, however, this equivalence is valid
331: for any theory space, including ones that bear no resemblance to
332: an extra dimension.
333: The relation between the low energy physics and the fundamental group
334: provides a practical way for both analyzing models as well as
335: constructing new models.
336:
337: \subsection*{Circles and Disks}
338:
339: A theory space that is topologically a circle is
340: an example of a theory with a little Higgs.
341: This theory was analyzed in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc} and
342: in more depth in \cite{Hill:2002me}.
343: The link fields transform as
344: $\Sigma_a \sim \overline{\square}_a\times \square_{a+1}$ and can be written
345: as exponential: $\Sigma_a = \exp i \pi_a$.
346: The Lagrangian is given by:
347: %%
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: \label{Eq: Lagrangian_circle}
350: \LL_{S^1} = \sum_a -\frac{1}{2g_a^2} \Tr F^2_a
351: + \sum_a \frac{f^2_a}{4} \Tr D^\mu \Sigma_a D_\mu \Sigma_a^\dagger +\cdots
352: \end{eqnarray}
353: %%
354: The ellipses represent higher dimension operators that are
355: irrelevant at low energies.
356: The residual gauge symmetry indicates that there
357: is a massless gauge boson and $N-1$ massive vector bosons. Of the
358: $N$ non-linear sigma model fields, $N-1$ are eaten by the massive vector
359: bosons and one physical massless scalar is left over. Furthermore, from
360: Eq. \ref{Eq: Lagrangian_circle}, we see that this scalar does not
361: have a tree-level potential because there are no plaquettes.
362:
363: We will choose to gauge fix in a manner that
364: eliminates as many of the link fields as possible.
365: Starting with $\Sigma_1$, we can choose gauge transformations
366: $g_1$ and $g_2$ so that $\Sigma_1 = \identity$. Similarly it is possible
367: to gauge away $\Sigma_2$ with $g_3$.
368: It is possible to gauge away all but one of the links.
369: It is not possible to gauge away the last field because
370: the last link closes the circle and the gauge freedom
371: for $g_1$ had already been used to fix $\Sigma_1$.
372: In this gauge the physical scalar, $\Sigma= \exp(i \sigma)$,
373: mixes with the gauge fields, therefore this gauge is inconvenient for
374: calculating the physical spectrum of gauge bosons.
375: Unitary gauge is more convenient for computing the spectrum
376: because there is no vector-scalar mixing.
377: We can interpret $\Sigma$ as a classical modulus of the theory.
378: This classically massless mode is a pseudo-Goldstone boson
379: called a little Higgs. The low energy effective action is just:
380: %%
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: \LL_{\text{LE}} = -\frac{1}{2 g_D^2} \Tr F^2
383: + \frac{f^2_{\text{LE}}}{4} \Tr\big| D_\mu \Sigma\big|^2 + \cdots
384: \end{eqnarray}
385: %%
386: where $\sigma$ is an adjoint under the unbroken gauge symmetry.
387: A potential for $\sigma$ that lift the moduli space will be generated at
388: one loop, however, the only gauge invariant operators are of the
389: form $\Tr \Sigma \sim \cos( \sigma)$.
390: The pseudo-Goldstone boson, $\sigma$, can not have significant self-interaction
391: without having a significant mass.
392: This form of the low energy potential is too constrained to be used for
393: electroweak symmetry breaking as it does not allow for a parametric
394: separation between the vacuum expectation value of the little Higgs
395: and the cutoff of the theory.
396:
397: Next, consider a theory space with the topology of a disk by adding the
398: plaquette $\Tr \Sigma_1 \cdots \Sigma_N$.
399: This space has no non-contractible cycles and therefore has no little Higgs.
400: After filling in theory space with more sites, links and plaquettes,
401: we can make ``holes'' in a disk by omitting plaquettes. This
402: creates non-contractible cycles in theory space. A theory
403: space with the topology of a disk with two holes is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:
404: Disc2Holes}. We can gauge fix by drawing a line through theory space that
405: goes through every points. Upon minimizing the potential, there are
406: two moduli corresponding to the two non-contractible cycles. These moduli
407: are arbitrary non-linear sigma model fields because there is no relation for
408: the homotopy group. This means that there is no tree-level potential in
409: the low energy theory and any deconstruction of this space will be unsuitable
410: for electroweak symmetry breaking. The existence of two little Higgs
411: does not guarantee a tree level potential.
412: Because of the homotopy arguments, a disk with $h$ holes will have
413: $h$ little Higgs, but none of these scalars will ever have
414: a tree-level potential because the fundamental group of theory space
415: is (in the notation of \cite{Nakahara:th})
416: $\pi_1 = \{C_1, \cdots, C_h: -\}$, where $C_i$ are the non-contractible
417: cycles on theory space and ``$-$'' represents that there is no
418: relation between the cycles.
419:
420: \begin{figure}[ht]
421: \centering\epsfig{figure=Disc2Holes.eps, width = 8cm}
422: \caption{
423: \label{Fig: Disc2Holes}
424: A deconstruction of a disk with two holes.
425: }
426: \end{figure}
427:
428:
429: \subsection*{Torus}
430: \label{Sec: Torus}
431:
432: A theory space that is topologically a torus has
433: two little Higgs.
434: The primary new feature with this theory space is the
435: appearance of a relation in the definition of the fundamental
436: group:
437: %%
438: \begin{eqnarray}
439: \label{eq: Homotopy_torus}
440: \pi_1( T^2) = \{ U, V : U V U^{-1} V^{-1}\}.
441: \end{eqnarray}
442: %%
443: This will lead to a tree-level potential for the little Higgs
444: associated with the cycles $U$ and $V$.
445: Consider an $N\times N$ sites deconstruction
446: of a torus with the sites labeled $(a,b)$. We will
447: take our fields to be
448: $U_{(a,b)} \sim \overline{\square}_{(a,b)}\times \square_{(a+1,b)}$
449: and
450: $V_{(a,b)} \sim \overline{\square}_{(a,b)}\times \square_{(a,b+1)}$.
451: To make this space topologically a torus, we periodically
452: identify $(a,b) \equiv (a+N, b) \equiv (a,b+N)$.
453: This theory breaks the $G^{N^2}$ gauge symmetry down
454: to the diagonal subgroup $G_D$. There are $N^2-1$
455: Nambu-Goldstone bosons that are eaten by the massive
456: vectors. From the continuum limit, we suspect that
457: the potential gives mass to $N^2-1$ of the physical
458: modes leaving two modes massless. The Lagrangian for theory space is given by:
459: %%
460: \begin{eqnarray}
461: \nonumber
462: \LL_{T^2} &=& \sum_{a,b} -\frac{1}{g_{(a,b)}^2} \Tr F_{(a,b)}^2
463: + \sum_{a,b}
464: \frac{f^2_{U (a,b)} }{4} \Tr \big| D_\mu U_{(a,b)}\big|^2
465: + \frac{f^2_{V (a,b)} }{4} \Tr \big| D_\mu V_{(a,b)}\big|^2\\
466: &&
467: + \sum_{a,b} \lambda_{(a,b)} f^4 \Tr W_{(a,b)} + \hc
468: \end{eqnarray}
469: %%
470: where
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: W_{(a,b)} = U_{(a,b)} V_{(a+1,b)} U^\dagger_{(a,b+1)} V^\dagger_{(a,b)} .
473: \end{eqnarray}
474: We can see that there are two massless modes in this theory from the fact that
475: the $N^2$ plaquettes terms $W_{(a,b)}$ give masses to $N^2-1$ of the scalars.
476: \begin{figure}[ht]
477: \centering\epsfig{figure=Torus.eps, width = 8cm}
478: \caption{
479: \label{Fig: Torus}
480: Gauge fixing of the torus where crossed lines are gauged to
481: the identity. The plaquettes are then minimized.
482: Plaquette $W_{3,3}$ forces $U V U^{-1} V^{-1} = 1$.
483: }
484: \end{figure}
485:
486: To analyze the model in more details, we first gauge fix to
487: eliminate as many fields as possible. We then minimize
488: the potentials by requiring that $W_{(a,b)} = \identity$. This procedure is
489: illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig: Torus}. We find that the vacuum is given by:
490: %%
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: U V U^{-1} V^{-1} = \identity.
493: \end{eqnarray}
494: %%
495: This is the classical moduli space: two unitary matrices that commute.
496: To enforce this in the low energy effective action we
497: include this relation as a potential so that there is
498: an energy cost for going off the moduli space:
499: %%
500: \begin{eqnarray}
501: \LL_\eff = - \frac{1}{2 g_D^2} \Tr F^2
502: + \frac{f^2_U}{4} \Tr \big| D_\mu U\big|^2
503: + \frac{f^2_V}{4} \Tr \big| D_\mu V\big|^2
504: + \lambda_\eff f^4 \Tr U V U^\dagger V^\dagger + \hc .
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: %%
507: There is now a tree-level quartic potential, and masses are induced
508: radiatively. This allows a hierarchy between the cut-off and the vacuum
509: expectation value of little Higgs that will allow
510: stabilization of the electroweak scale.
511:
512:
513:
514: If one of the plaquette couplings of the torus is taken to vanish,
515: the topology of theory space has changed. In Fig. \ref{Fig: TorusHole}
516: we compute the fundamental group and find that there
517: is no relation between the cycles and therefore no low
518: energy potential for the little Higgs. We can calculate the
519: coefficient of the potential for a general torus through a linearized analysis
520: by diagonalizing the scalar mass matrix and then integrating
521: out the massive modes. We find that the coefficient of
522: the potential $\lambda_\eff$ is given by:
523: %%
524: \begin{eqnarray}
525: \lambda_\eff^{-1} = \sum_{(a,b)} \lambda_{(a,b)}^{-1}.
526: \end{eqnarray}
527: %%
528: We see that if any coefficient vanishes, then the low
529: energy potential vanishes precisely matching the topological
530: argument.
531:
532: \begin{figure}[ht]
533: \centering\epsfig{figure=TorusHole.eps, width = 8cm}
534: \caption{
535: \label{Fig: TorusHole}
536: Gauge fixing of the torus where crossed lines are gauged to
537: the identity. The plaquettes are then minimized.
538: Since plaquette $W_{3,3}$ is absent, there is no relation and the
539: moduli space is arbitrary $U$ and $V$ and there is
540: no low energy potential for the little Higgs.
541: }
542: \end{figure}
543:
544:
545: Toroidal theory spaces of the type shown in
546: Fig. \ref{Fig: Torus} are not the simplest theory space having the
547: fundamental group of the torus (Eq. \ref{eq: Homotopy_torus}). Consider a theory space with two sites, four bi-fundamental links
548: $X_i$ and two plaquettes:
549: %%
550: \begin{eqnarray}
551: \label{Eq: Nelson-Katz}
552: V(X) = - \lambda_1 f^4 \Tr X_1 X_2^\dagger X_3 X_4^\dagger
553: - \lambda_2 f^4 \Tr X_2 X_3^\dagger X_4 X_1^\dagger.
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: %%
556: This theory was first analyzed in \cite{2sites}.
557: It can be easily analyzed by first
558: gauge fixing $X_1$ to $\identity$ and then
559: solving for $X_4 = X_2^\dagger X_3$. We are
560: left with the relation
561: %%
562: \begin{eqnarray}
563: X_2 X_3^\dagger X_2^\dagger X_3 = \identity
564: \end{eqnarray}
565: %%
566: which is the commutator potential of a torus.
567: One can show that this theory space is related
568: to the $2\times 2$ torus by orbifolding by a translational symmetry
569: that sends all points $(i,j) \rightarrow (i+1, j+1)$.
570: This symmetry acts freely and does not change the homotopy of the
571: space and therefore does not change the
572: little Higgs or their self-interaction. The physics of this theory space
573: is studied in more details in \cite{2sites}.
574:
575: \subsection{Reverse Engineering}
576: \label{subsec: Reverse}
577:
578: Finding the low energy physics from a theory space is a straight-forward
579: procedure of gauge fixing then minimizing the potential. There is also
580: an intuitive procedure for taking a low energy potential in the form of a
581: product of nonlinear sigma model fields and finding a high energy theory
582: that produces it at low energy.
583: This construction is reverse engineering the theory space from the
584: low energy potential.
585: The most interesting theories to consider are the minimal ones.
586: It is not difficult to conclude that the simplest potential that
587: is viable for electroweak symmetry breaking is
588: $\Tr U V U^\dagger V^\dagger$. This means that the theory
589: space that produces this potential is homotopically equivalent
590: to the torus. The
591: simplest such theory with more than one site is the two sites four links model of the previous
592: section. To illustrate this construction we will use non-minimal
593: models that are still viable models of electroweak symmetry breaking.
594:
595: Given a set of non-linear sigma model light fields $X_i$ and a potential
596: $V(X_i)$ that is a product of the fields and their
597: inverses, we draw out the potential as a polygon
598: with each side being the corresponding link field.
599: Each link begins and ends at the same site, $a$.
600: For instance consider three light fields $X$, $Y$, $Z$
601: and a potential $V = \Tr X Y Z X^{-1} Y^{-1}Z^{-1}$.
602: In Fig. \ref{Fig: XYZSkel}, we draw out the unfolded
603: and folded versions of this theory space.
604: \begin{figure}[ht]
605: \centering\epsfig{figure=XYZ.Skel.eps, width = 8cm}
606: \caption{
607: \label{Fig: XYZSkel}
608: The minimal theory space with three cycles, $X$, $Y$,
609: $Z$ and the potential $V = \Tr X Y Z X^{-1} Y^{-1}Z^{-1}$.
610: The arrows along the links indicate whether the fields are
611: $X_i$ or $X_i^{-1}$.
612: }
613: \end{figure}
614: Any theory space that tiles this minimal
615: version of theory space will have the same low
616: energy potential. Dividing
617: the plaquettes and links by placing new points and
618: links in theory space will not change the low energy
619: potential.
620: For instance we can divide
621: the theory space in Fig. \ref{Fig: XYZSkel}
622: up in Fig. \ref{Fig: XYZModel}. We can also build different theory
623: spaces that have the same low energy physics as the torus.
624: Figure \ref{Fig: Torus2} shows three such theory spaces.
625: They are obtained by requiring a low
626: energy potential of the form $X Y X^{-1} Y^{-1}$ and tiling the original
627: construction in different manners.
628:
629: \begin{figure}[ht]
630: \centering\epsfig{figure=XYZ.Model.eps, width = 9cm}
631: \caption{
632: \label{Fig: XYZModel}
633: A larger deconstruction of the $XYZX^{-1} Y^{-1}Z^{-1}$
634: three cycle model where we have introduced
635: four new gauge groups ($x$, $y$, $z$, $w$).
636: The plaquette structure in the unfolded deconstruction
637: is obvious, but the field content is harder to visualize
638: because of the identifications. In the folded version,
639: the gauge and field content is clear, but the plaquettes structure is obscured.
640: }
641: \end{figure}
642:
643:
644: \begin{figure}[ht]
645: \centering\epsfig{figure=Torus_original.eps, width = 6.5cm} \\
646: \centering\epsfig{figure=Torus2.eps, width = 7cm}\\
647: \centering\epsfig{figure=Torus3.eps, width = 6.5cm}\\
648: \centering\epsfig{figure=Torus4.eps, width = 7.5cm}
649: \caption{
650: \label{Fig: Torus2}
651: Alternative deconstructions of a torus. The last figure is the $2\times 2$
652: torus of \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}.
653: }
654: \end{figure}
655: %%
656: Finally, some spaces have fundamental groups with more than one relation.
657: To construct theory spaces that are homotopically equivalent
658: to these spaces we draw the multiple relations as disjoint diagrams
659: although theory space is connected.
660: In Fig. \ref{Fig: Two Relations} a theory space with a fundamental
661: group
662: %%
663: \begin{eqnarray}
664: \pi_1 = \{ X, Y, Z : X Y X^{-1} Y^{-1} , X Z X^{-1} Z^{-1}\}
665: \end{eqnarray}
666: %%
667: is constructed.
668: %%
669: \begin{figure}[ht]
670: \centering\epsfig{figure=2Relations.eps, width = 9cm}
671: \caption{
672: \label{Fig: Two Relations}
673: Construction of a theory space with relations $X Y X^{-1} Y^{-1}$
674: \emph{and} $ X Z X^{-1} Z^{-1}$. Note that the two squares must be
675: tiled with different links.}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: We have shown how to analyze and build theory spaces with classically
679: massless Higgs and order one quartic interactions. This is not
680: sufficient to ensure that a theory space can be used for electroweak
681: symmetry breaking, as radiative
682: corrections might make the Higgs too heavy. We will show in the next
683: section that in order for that not to be the case, theory spaces must
684: satisfy mild constraints but there is still an arbitrariness to the
685: theory spaces that produce a given low energy physics.
686:
687:
688: \section{Radiative Corrections}
689: \label{Sec: Radiative Corrections}
690:
691: Without gauge couplings and plaquette interactions, a theory
692: space with $M$ link fields has a $G^{2 M}$ global chiral symmetry, under
693: which each link field transform as bifundamental under
694: independent global symmetries:
695: %%
696: \begin{equation}
697: \Sigma_l \rightarrow L_l\Sigma_l R_l^\dagger
698: \end{equation}
699: %%
700: Without couplings,
701: the link fields are exact Goldstone bosons with only derivative
702: interactions. Once gauge and plaquette couplings are
703: included, some set of the chiral symmetries are broken.
704: The coupling constants may be viewed as spurions that
705: give rise to masses and non-derivative interactions.
706: The essential feature of little Higgs theories that guarantees
707: ultraviolet insensitivity is that generation of operators
708: containing mass terms for the little Higgs requires
709: many spurions.
710: Consequently, since ultraviolet physics is analytic in the
711: parameters, quadratically divergent contributions to
712: the little Higgs mass are suppressed by many loop factors.
713:
714: When building theory spaces there must be enough
715: spurions so that there are no one loop quadratic divergences.
716: However, even if the one loop quadratic divergences are absent,
717: generically there will be a one loop finite contribution to the little
718: Higgs mass so long as the little Higgs is not an exact Goldstone boson.
719: Infrared physics is not analytic in the parameters and
720: the finite contribution is of the order of:
721: %%
722: \begin{eqnarray}
723: m_{\text{LH}}^2 \sim \frac{g^2}{(4 \pi)^2} M_{\text{H}}^2
724: \end{eqnarray}
725: %%
726: where $M_H$ is the mass of lightest new state which generically
727: is of order $M_H\sim g f$. Using this relation we find:
728: %%
729: \begin{eqnarray}
730: m_{\text{LH}}^2 \sim \frac{g^2}{(4 \pi)^2} g^2 f^2 \sim
731: \frac{g^4}{(4 \pi)^4} \Lambda^2
732: \end{eqnarray}
733: %%
734: where $\Lambda \sim 4 \pi f$ is the ultraviolet cut-off of the
735: theory. The infrared contributions are of the same
736: order of magnitude as a two loop quadratic divergence.
737: Therefore, it is unnecessary to eliminate anything but the one loop
738: quadratic divergence. The only benefit of eliminating
739: divergent contribution of higher loop order would
740: be that the little Higgs mass would be calculable because the mass
741: would be dominated by infrared physics, as opposed to having ultraviolet
742: and infrared physics providing parametrically the same contribution.
743: Another possible reason for eliminating more than one loop
744: quadratic divergences would be if a coupling was so strong
745: so that loops involving this coupling were not suppressed.
746:
747: Having to only eliminate the one loop quadratic divergences,
748: the constraints on theory space are very mild and can be stated
749: simply:
750: %%
751: \begin{description}
752: \item[Gauge Sector:] Every link must connect two different sites.
753: \item[Scalar Sector:] No plaquette can contain the same link twice.
754: \end{description}
755: %%
756: We can prove these rules by computing the quadratically
757: divergent part of the one loop Coleman-Weinberg potential.
758: We turn on a little Higgs
759: background fields and calculate $\Tr M^{\dagger}M$ where $M$
760: is the mass matrix of the theory in the presence of the background.
761:
762: We first consider the gauge sector and show that gauge interactions never
763: produce one loop quadratic divergences so long as all the link connect
764: two different sites or equivalently all link fields are in bifundamentals
765: as opposed to adjoint representations.
766: Consider a link field between two different sites $i$ and $j$. The gauge
767: boson mass matrix comes from the covariant derivative,
768: $A_i^a M^2{}^{ij}_{ab}[\tilde{U}] A_j^b$, where $a,b$ are gauge indices and
769: %%
770: \begin{eqnarray*}
771: M^2_{ab}[\tilde{U}] = \frac{f^2}{4}
772: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
773: \half g_i^2 \delta_{ab}& -g_i g_j m_{ab}[\tilde{U}] \\
774: -g_i g_j m_{ab}^\dagger[\tilde{U}]
775: & \half g_j^2 \delta_{ab}
776: \end{array}\right) \hspace{0.6in}
777: m_{ab}[\tilde{U}]=\Tr \mathbf{T}_a \tilde{U} \mathbf{T}_b \tilde{U}^\dagger
778: \end{eqnarray*}
779: %%
780: The important point is that $\diag M^2$ is always independent of
781: the background field, $\tilde{U}$,
782: and therefore will never produce a one loop quadratic divergence
783: for any link field mass. If a field is in the adjoint, then
784: this argument will break down and a one loop quadratic divergence
785: will appear.
786:
787: We now turn to the scalar sector. Consider an arbitrary plaquette:
788: %%
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: V(U_i) = - \lambda f^4 \Tr M_1 U_1 \cdots M_N U_N + \hc
791: \end{eqnarray}
792: %%
793: where $M_i$ are arbitrary matrices.
794: We rewrite the link fields
795: as a linearized fluctuations, $u_i$, and a background fields, $\tilde{U}_i$:
796: \mbox{$U_i = \exp(i u_i) \tilde{U}_i$.} By dividing $U_i$ in this way, the
797: background field drops off the kinetic term and we can extract the mass of
798: $u_i$ directly from the potential without having to worry about putting
799: the kinetic term in canonical form. We expand
800: out the plaquette to quadratic order in the
801: fluctuations and find the mass matrix,
802: $u_i^a M^2{}_{ab}^{ij} u_j^b$. The diagonal of the
803: mass matrix is
804: %%
805: \begin{eqnarray}
806: \diag M^2{}_{ab}^{ij}
807: \sim \lambda f^2 \Tr M_1 \tilde{U}_1 \cdots M_i \mathbf{T}_a \mathbf{T}_a
808: \tilde{U}_i
809: M_{i+1} \tilde{U}_{i+1} \cdots M_{N} \tilde{U}_{N}
810: \end{eqnarray}
811: %%
812: where $\mathbf{T}_a$ are gauge group generators.
813: Then summing over the diagonal
814: entries of the mass matrix and using $\sum_a \mathbf{T}_a ^2 \sim
815: \identity$, we find $
816: \Tr M^2 \propto M_1 \tilde{U}_1 \cdots M_i \tilde{U}_i M_{i+1}
817: \tilde{U}_{i+1} \cdots M_{N}\tilde{U}_{N}$ which is just the plaquette
818: operator. Since, by definition, the plaquettes do no contain mass term for
819: the little Higgs, this shows that plaquettes never produce one loop quadratic divergences
820: to the little Higgs mass unless fields appear in plaquettes
821: more than once.
822: If a field appears in a plaquette more than once, than this argument
823: will break down because the mass matrix will have a more
824: complicated form with $\tilde{U}$ dependent diagonal entries.
825:
826: We are left with two requirements for a theory space to
827: have no one loop quadratic divergences: that
828: no link begins and ends on the same point -- that
829: no link field is in an adjoint representation,
830: and that no plaquette contains a link twice.
831: These constraints can be easily satisfied, even with small
832: theory spaces.
833: These requirements place restrictions on the minimal field content
834: at the TeV scale. For instance, there must be at least a second
835: $SU(2)\times U(1)$ (or $SU(3)$) gauge symmetry broken
836: around the TeV scale with massive gauge bosons $W'$ and $B'$.
837: There must also be a massive multiplet of triplet, doublet and singlet
838: scalars $\phi$, $h$, and $\eta$
839: at the TeV scale to ensure that the scalar potential does not induce
840: a one loop quadratic divergence.
841:
842: \section{Fermions}
843: \label{Sec: Fermions}
844:
845: The Standard Model Higgs is a pseudo Goldstone boson in little
846: Higgs models and has
847: the same quantum numbers as the kaon. The Higgs mass is
848: only protected from one loop quadratic divergences
849: if we preserve some of the global $SU(3)$ chiral symmetry.
850: In the gauge and scalar sectors of these theories this was
851: automatic at one loop, however, in the fermion sector
852: one loop quadratic divergences are possible
853: if all the $SU(3)$ chiral symmetry that is protecting the Higgs
854: mass is broken by one coupling.
855:
856: It is useful to write the Standard Model fermions as incomplete $SU(3)$
857: triplets at the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ site $\mathbf{0}$ in order to
858: make manifest the $SU(3)$ symmetries we want to preserve in
859: the Yukawa couplings.
860: %%
861: \begin{eqnarray}
862: Q = \left( \begin{array}{c} q\\0\end{array} \right)
863: \hspace{0.2in}
864: U^c = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0\\0\\u^c\end{array} \right)
865: \hspace{0.2in}
866: D^c = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0\\0\\d^c\end{array} \right)
867: \hspace{0.2in}
868: L = \left( \begin{array}{c} l\\0\end{array} \right)
869: \hspace{0.2in}
870: E^c = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0\\0\\e^c\end{array} \right)
871: \end{eqnarray}
872: %%
873: Under a $U(1)_{\mathbf{0}}$ transformation, $\theta$, these fields
874: transform as:
875: %%
876: \begin{eqnarray}
877: Q \rightarrow e^{ \frac{i}{6} \theta} Q
878: \hspace{0.2in}
879: U^c \rightarrow e^{\!-\frac{2i}{3} \theta} U^c
880: \hspace{0.2in}
881: D^c \rightarrow e^{\frac{i}{3} \theta} D^c
882: \hspace{0.2in}
883: L \rightarrow e^{\!-\frac{i}{2} \theta} L
884: \hspace{0.2in}
885: E^c \rightarrow e^{i \theta} E^c
886: \end{eqnarray}
887: %%
888: At low energies, the effective coupling to the little Higgs is
889: just through a Wilson line operator $W$ that stretches
890: from site $\mathbf{0}$ back to site $\mathbf{0}$.
891: Under a $U(1)_{\mathbf{0}}$ transformation, $W$ transforms
892: as:
893: %%
894: \begin{eqnarray}
895: W \rightarrow
896: \exp\Big( \frac{i}{6} \mathbf{T_8} \theta \Big)
897: \;W \;
898: \exp\Big(\!-\!\frac{i}{6} \mathbf{T_8} \theta\Big)
899: \end{eqnarray}
900: %%
901: with $\mathbf{T_8} = \diag (1,1,-2)$. Let us introduce
902: projections matrices $P_1 = \diag (1,1,0)$ and $P_2 = \diag(0,0,1)$.
903: The gauge invariant Yukawa couplings\footnote{
904: The low energy $ll hh$ dimension five Yukawa coupling that gives a neutrino
905: mass is written in this language as $L^T P_1 W^T P_2 W P_1 L$.}
906: are given by:
907: %%
908: \begin{eqnarray}
909: y_u f Q^T P_1 W P_2 U^c
910: \hspace{0.6in}
911: y_d f Q^T P_1 W^* P_2 D^c
912: \hspace{0.6in}
913: y_e f L^T P_1 W^* P_2 E^c .
914: \end{eqnarray}
915: %%
916: These couplings arise from an ultraviolet completion in the $\sim 10$ TeV
917: range. Having particles that carry flavour at this scale can produce
918: unacceptably large flavour changing neutral currents
919: \cite{Chivukula:2002ww}. Flavour physics places constraints
920: on possible completions. A simple solution is to complete these theories
921: into supersymmetric linear sigma models at this scale.
922: These couplings introduce quadratic divergences of the form:
923: %%
924: \begin{eqnarray}
925: \LL_{\eff} = \frac{y_f^2}{16 \pi^2} f^2 \Lambda^2 \Tr P_1 W P_2 W^\dagger .
926: \end{eqnarray}
927: %%
928: This is just the usual quadratic divergence to the Higgs mass coming from
929: Yukawa couplings.
930: For everything, but the top quark, the Yukawa couplings are small enough
931: so that the quadratic divergences are small enough to be ignored.
932: For the top quark, removing the one-loop quadratic divergence is of
933: paramount importance. A solution was discussed in
934: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc, Arkani-Hamed:2002pa} where additional
935: Dirac fermions were introduced on intermediate $SU(3)$ sites.
936: The key ingredient was preserving at least one of the $SU(3)$ global
937: symmetries protecting the Higgs mass.
938: In this note we will consider an alternative mechanism.
939: We can imagine introducing an Dirac $SU(2)$ doublet $S$, $S^c$
940: such that we complete $U^c$ into an $SU(3)$ triplet:
941: %%
942: \begin{eqnarray}
943: U^c = \left( \begin{array}{c} S^c\\u^c\end{array} \right).
944: \end{eqnarray}
945: %%
946: With the Lagrangian:
947: \begin{eqnarray}
948: \label{Eq: Top Div}
949: \LL_{\text{top}} = y_u f Q^T P_1 W U^c + m_S S S^c +\hc
950: \end{eqnarray}
951: %%
952: the one-loop quadratic divergence is $\Tr P_1 W W^\dagger$, where
953: there is not a second projection matrix because of the global
954: $SU(3)$ symmetry of $U^c$. If $W$ is unitary, i.e. a product
955: of link fields, then this removes the one loop quadratic divergence.
956: The chiral symmetry protects the little Higgs' mass.
957: Similarly to the gauge and scalar sectors, we now have a rule for avoiding
958: quadratic divergence in the fermionic sector:
959: \begin{description}
960: \item[Fermion Sector:] The top Yukawa couplings must preserve either
961: a left ($W \rightarrow L W$) or right ($W\rightarrow W R^\dagger$)
962: chiral symmetry.
963: \end{description}
964: %%
965: The effective top quark Yukawa coupling is
966: \begin{eqnarray}
967: y_\eff^{-2} = (y_u)^{-2} + (m_S/f)^{-2}
968: \end{eqnarray}
969: meaning that $m_S/f$ and $y_u$ should both be at least order unity
970: to have an adequately large top Yukawa coupling.
971:
972:
973: \subsection{Plaquettes from Yukawa Interactions}
974: \label{Sec: Yuk2Plaq}
975:
976: We now restrict ourselves to the model of \cite{2sites}
977: involving two sites and four links. If we consider
978: an alternate Wilson line: $W_1 = X_1 X_2^\dagger + X_4 X_3^\dagger$,
979: for the top quark then we find a quadratic divergence in
980: Eq. \ref{Eq: Top Div}. However, this divergence is to
981: the operator $\Tr P_1 X_1 X_2^\dagger X_3 X_4^\dagger$ --
982: one of the requisite plaquettes. This indicates that
983: with this choice of Yukawa coupling, it is \begin{it} unnatural\end{it}
984: for the coefficient of this plaquette to be \begin{it}small\end{it}.
985: In other words, if we choose to set the tree-level coefficient of
986: the operator to zero, it will be generated at one-loop with an
987: order $f^4$ coefficient, precisely the value we want.
988: This is only one of the plaquettes in the model of \cite{2sites},
989: but with a slightly more elaborate fermion sector it is
990: possible to generate both plaquettes from the top sector alone.
991: The emphasis is that plaquette operators
992: are naturally generated with a sizeable coefficients from
993: physics below 10 TeV.
994:
995: A simple realization of top physics inducing the entire
996: Higgs potential uses an additional colored weak
997: doublet Dirac fermion $\tilde{q}$, $\tilde{q}^c$.
998: Introducing two Wilson lines $W_1 = c_1 X_1 X_2^\dagger + c_1' X_4 X_3^\dagger$
999: and $W_2 = c_2 X_4 X_1^\dagger + c_2' X_3 X_2^\dagger$, we couple one
1000: Wilson line to each two quark doublet
1001: in the Yukawa interactions:
1002: %%
1003: \begin{eqnarray}
1004: \LL_{\text{top}} = y_u f Q W_1 U^c + \tilde{y}_u f \tilde{Q} W_2 M U^c
1005: + m_{\tilde{q}} \tilde{q} \tilde{q}^c + m_S S S^c .
1006: \end{eqnarray}
1007: %%
1008: where $M = \diag(1,1,i)$ is a unitary matrix of phases and
1009: $\tilde{Q}= (\tilde{q},0)$.
1010: The one loop quadratic divergence gives each plaquette:
1011: %%
1012: \begin{eqnarray}
1013: \LL_\eff =
1014: \frac{y_u^2}{16 \pi^2} f^2 \Lambda^2 \Tr P_1 |W_1|^2
1015: + \frac{\tilde{y}_u^2}{16 \pi^2} f^2 \Lambda^2 \Tr P_1 |W_2|^2.
1016: \end{eqnarray}
1017: %%
1018: The one loop Coleman-Weinberg analysis gives a negative contribution
1019: to the Higgs mass driving it negative and breaking electroweak symmetry.
1020:
1021: \section{Lifting States}
1022: \label{Sec: Lifting}
1023:
1024: As mentioned in Sec. \ref{Sec: Homotopy}, the theory spaces we are
1025: considering for realistic models have mostly $SU(3)$ sites, one
1026: $SU(2) \times U(1)$ site, and $3 \times 3$ matrix link fields transforming
1027: as bifundamentals under the $SU(3)$ chiral symmetries. Scalars
1028: decompose into triplets, doublets and singlets under the unbroken $SU(2)$.
1029: In all the models presented in the previous sections,
1030: the triplets, doublets and singlets were classically degenerate.
1031: To construct realistic theories we need light doublets, but
1032: the triplets and singlets appear as extra adjoint matter that
1033: appears to make the doublets into a full $SU(3)$ adjoint multiplets.
1034: Finding the minimal $100 \text{ GeV}$ field content is an interesting
1035: question for phenomenological signatures of the model.
1036: The natural question is whether it is possible to remove the light
1037: triplets and singlets from the $100 \text{ GeV}$ spectrum.
1038: Until now we have considered plaquettes that were $SU(3)$ symmetric,
1039: and treated triplets, doublets and singlets on equal footing.
1040: In this section we generalize plaquette operators to include
1041: matrices that are invariant under the $SU(2) \times U(1)$ gauge symmetry,
1042: but break the $SU(3)$ chiral
1043: symmetry. This will allow lifting the extra adjoint matter up
1044: to the TeV scale while leaving the doublets at the $100 \text{ GeV}$ scale.
1045:
1046: The new types of operators that we will consider are of the form:
1047: %%
1048: \begin{equation}
1049: \Tr M \Sigma_{\mathbf{0},\mathbf{n}} \Sigma_{\mathbf{n},\mathbf{m}} \cdots
1050: \end{equation}
1051: %%
1052: with $\mathbf{0}$ being the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ site and
1053: $M= \text{diag}(a,a,b).$
1054: The analysis of the low energy physics of theory spaces that contain these
1055: generalized plaquettes proceeds as before, by first gauge fixing and then
1056: minimizing the potential plaquette by plaquette. However, the plaquette
1057: might not be minimized when the product of link fields is the identity as
1058: before. For a plaquette of the form:
1059: %%
1060: \begin{eqnarray}
1061: \label{Eq: Phases Potential}
1062: - \lambda \Tr M \Sigma +\hc
1063: \end{eqnarray}
1064: %%
1065: with $\lambda$ real and positive, there are three
1066: different phases for the minimum, depending on the choice of $a$ and $b$.
1067: %%
1068: \begin{figure}[ht]
1069: \centering\epsfig{figure=Phases2.eps, width = 4cm}
1070: \caption{
1071: \label{Fig: Phases}
1072: Minima of the potential in Eq. \ref{Eq: Phases Potential}
1073: labeled in Eq. \ref{Eq: Phases}.
1074: }
1075: \end{figure}
1076: %%
1077: \begin{eqnarray}
1078: \label{Eq: Phases}
1079: \begin{array}{ccc}
1080: a>0 & b >-\half |a| &
1081: \langle \Sigma \rangle = \identity\\
1082: a<0 & b>- \half |a| &
1083: \langle \Sigma \rangle = \Omega \\
1084: &b < - \half|a|&
1085: \langle \Sigma \rangle = \Sigma_0
1086: \end{array}
1087: \end{eqnarray}
1088: %%
1089: with
1090: $\Sigma_0 = \exp\big( i \mathbf{T_8} \eta_0\big)$,
1091: $\eta_0 = \cos^{-1}( -2b/a)$,
1092: and
1093: $\Omega = \diag( -1 -1,1)$,
1094: $\mathbf{T_8} = \diag( 1,1,-2)$.
1095: Typically the $\Sigma_0$ vacuum is uninteresting because
1096: it produces tree level masses for all the fields and we will not consider
1097: it any further.
1098:
1099: The resulting moduli space might not be $SU(3)$ symmetric, and when the
1100: link fields are expanded around the appropriate vacuum, the number of
1101: triplet and singlet zero modes might be different than the number of
1102: doublet zero modes. To see how this happens, consider a general $3\times 3$ special unitary matrix:
1103: %%
1104: \begin{equation}
1105: Z = \exp (i z) = \exp i \begin{pmatrix} \phi+\eta&
1106: h\\h^{\dagger}&-2 \eta \end{pmatrix}
1107: \end{equation}
1108: %%
1109: then
1110: \begin{eqnarray}
1111: \label{Eq: Omega}
1112: \Omega Z \Omega = \exp(i \Omega z \Omega)= \exp i\begin{pmatrix}
1113: \phi + \eta & -h \\ -h^{\dagger} & -2 \eta \end{pmatrix}
1114: \end{eqnarray}
1115: %%
1116: and a relation of the form
1117: \begin{eqnarray}
1118: \Omega Z \Omega Z = \identity
1119: \hspace{0.35in}
1120: \Rightarrow
1121: \hspace{0.35in}
1122: V = - \lambda f^4 \Tr Z \Omega Z \Omega \sim
1123: \lambda f^2 \Tr\big( \phi^2 + \eta^2\big) + \cdots
1124: \end{eqnarray}
1125: %%
1126: indicates that around $Z=\identity$, the triplet and singlet, $\phi$ and
1127: $\eta$ are massive while the doublet $h$ is massless. We can now use this tool to lift the triplet and singlet zero modes
1128: that were present in the models considered until now. The most obvious set
1129: of relations that would produce this result is given by:
1130: %%
1131: \begin{eqnarray}
1132: \label{Eq: Relations}
1133: UVU^{-1}V^{-1} = \identity
1134: \hspace{0.3in}
1135: U\Omega U \Omega = \identity
1136: \hspace{0.3in}
1137: V \Omega V \Omega = \identity
1138: \end{eqnarray}
1139: %%
1140: The first relation guarantees the presence of a commutator quartic
1141: potential as in the torus, and the last two relations, when expanded around
1142: $U,V = \identity$ lift the singlet and triplet zero modes.
1143:
1144: We now need to build a theory space which yield those relations. We use a
1145: very similar procedure to the one described in Sec. \ref{subsec: Reverse}.
1146: As before, we first draw the relations using only one site but we now
1147: insert $\Omega$ as they appear in the relations. We then tile this
1148: construction in a way that satisfies the rules mentioned earlier.
1149: The insertion of $\Omega$ represents a plaquette that is minimized at
1150: $\Omega$. Fig. \ref{Fig: moose} shows the building of the theory space in
1151: question.
1152:
1153: \begin{figure}
1154: \centering\epsfig{figure=Moose_original.eps, width = 6cm}
1155: \hspace{0.5in}
1156: \centering\epsfig{figure=Moose_2.eps, width = 10cm}
1157: \caption{
1158: Construction of a theory space with relation in Eq. \ref{Eq: Relations}
1159: that lift triplet and singlet Higgs. The starting point is the first
1160: picture where the three relations are drawn with the $\Omega$ inserted. The
1161: second picture shows a tiling that has no one loop quadratic
1162: divergences.
1163: \label{Fig: moose}
1164: }
1165: \end{figure}
1166:
1167: \subsection{Minimal model}
1168:
1169: \begin{figure}[ht]
1170: \centering\epsfig{figure=Minimal.eps, width = 4.5cm}
1171: \caption{
1172: \label{Fig: Minimal}
1173: A minimal model for electroweak symmetry breaking
1174: by little Higgs.
1175: }
1176: \end{figure}
1177:
1178: We can also build simpler theory spaces with the same relations. Consider the two sites model presented in
1179: Sec. \ref{Sec: Torus}. In addition to the plaquettes in
1180: Eq. \ref{Eq: Nelson-Katz} we add two new plaquettes containing
1181: $\Omega$. The total
1182: potential is given by:
1183: %%
1184: \begin{eqnarray}
1185: \nonumber
1186: V &=& -\lambda_1 X_1 X_2^\dagger X_3 X_4^\dagger
1187: -\lambda_2 \Tr X_1^\dagger X_2 X_3^\dagger X_4\\
1188: &&-\lambda_3 \Tr \Omega X_1 X_2^\dagger \Omega X_4 X_3^\dagger
1189: -\lambda_4 \Tr \Omega X_1 X_4^\dagger \Omega X_2 X_3^\dagger
1190: \end{eqnarray}
1191: %%
1192: The analysis of this model is straight forward.
1193: We can gauge fix by setting $X_1 = \identity$. We then minimize the first
1194: plaquette which gives $X_3 = X_2 X_4$. Minimization of the second plaquette
1195: gives $X_2 X_4^\dagger X_2^\dagger X_4=\identity$. The third plaquette then
1196: requires $\Omega X_2^{\dagger} \Omega X_2^{\dagger}=\identity$. Finally the
1197: fourth plaquette yields $\Omega X_4^{\dagger}\Omega X_4^{\dagger} =
1198: \identity$. Therefore we see that this theory space has the same relations
1199: and consequently the same low energy physics as the theory space of
1200: Fig. \ref{Fig: moose}. The spectrum of this theory can also be understood
1201: by expanding the plaquettes around the vacuum which we choose to be at $X_i
1202: = \identity$. Using Eq. \ref{Eq: Omega},
1203: we can see the plaquettes give mass to three combinations of triplets and
1204: singlets and to one combination of doublets. One triplet, one singlet and one doublet
1205: scalar are eaten by the $SU(3)$ gauge field multiplet that pick up a mass
1206: and we are left at low energy with two doublet zero modes.
1207: These are the little Higgs of
1208: our theory and they pick up a negative mass squared through top Yukawa
1209: interaction which can be implemented as in Sec. \ref{Sec: Fermions}.
1210: There is a large stabilizing quartic interaction which is guaranteed by the
1211: potential and can be tied to the top quark Yukawa coupling in the
1212: manner described in Sec. \ref{Sec: Yuk2Plaq}. At the TeV
1213: scale, the theory contains one doublet, three triplet and three
1214: singlet scalars
1215: and one multiplet of $SU(3)$ vector bosons. It also
1216: contains heavy fermions that were introduced in order to cancel the
1217: quadratic divergence associated with the top Yukawa coupling. Because the
1218: top Yukawa is in general larger than the gauge couplings and quartic
1219: interactions, these heavy fermions will
1220: typically be the lightest of the new TeV scale particles.
1221:
1222:
1223: \section{Conclusion}
1224:
1225: The stability of the weak scale requires new physics at the TeV
1226: scale. This physics could be strongly coupled as in technicolor models or
1227: weakly coupled as in supersymmetry. There is now a new class of models that
1228: stabilize the weak scale with weakly coupled new physics qualitatively
1229: different than supersymmetry \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Coset}. Higgs bosons in
1230: these theories are pseudo-Goldstone bosons and therefore naturally light. We
1231: studied models of this kind that can be described by general theory
1232: spaces. This generalize the analysis of
1233: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa} which used toroidal theory
1234: spaces. The physics however remains the same: the Higgs are
1235: pseudo-Goldstone bosons and have their mass protected by approximate chiral
1236: symmetries. The quadratic divergences caused by couplings of the Higgs to
1237: particles of the low energy theory are softened at the TeV scale by ``partners''
1238: of the same spin. The theory remains perturbative up to scales of
1239: $\sim 10$ TeV where an ultraviolet completion is needed.
1240:
1241: The main result of this paper is the development of systematic procedures
1242: for extracting the low energy particle content and potential form arbitrary
1243: theory spaces and for building theory spaces that produce arbitrary low
1244: energy field content and potential. The former consists in calculating the
1245: classical moduli space of the theory by first gauge fixing and then minimizing
1246: each plaquette, and is equivalent to calculating the fundamental group of
1247: the theory space. We thus learn that the low energy physics of a theory space is
1248: determined by its topology, and different theory spaces with
1249: the same first homotopy group will have the same low energy physics. They
1250: will differ only in their TeV scale spectrum.
1251:
1252: We also derived two simple properties that a theory space must satisfy in
1253: order to be free of quadratic divergences at one loop.
1254: This put some mild constraints
1255: on the shape of admissible theory spaces. We also showed a simple way of
1256: introducing the top Yukawa coupling without reintroducing quadratic divergences.
1257: The one loop constraints make for minimal TeV scale physics predictions.
1258: To solve the one loop gauge quadratic divergence there must be a $W'$
1259: and $B'$ massive vectors in the \mbox{1 -- 2 TeV} range. To remove the one
1260: loop quadratic divergences from the tree level scalar potential,
1261: there must be at least pair of triplets and a pair of singlets
1262: in the \mbox{100 GeV -- 1 TeV} range and an additional set of triplet, doublet
1263: of singlet scalars in the \mbox{1 -- 2 TeV} range. Finally, for the top quark
1264: coupling, a coloured Dirac fermion in the \mbox{700 GeV -- 1 TeV} range is
1265: necessary. The lack of striking experimental signatures in the
1266: \mbox{100 -- 500 GeV} range is the surprising feature of this class of models.
1267: In particular, distinguishing this set of models from supersymmetric
1268: models from the two light doublets would be a challenging task at the
1269: Tevatron or LHC.
1270:
1271: Finally, we made use of the presence of a site of reduced gauge symmetry
1272: and introduced generalized plaquettes that are gauge invariant but break the
1273: chiral symmetries (the ``$\mathbf{T_8}$ plaquette'' of
1274: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}). This allowed us to push to
1275: the TeV scale the
1276: light singlet and triplet scalars that were present before
1277: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc,Arkani-Hamed:2002pa,2sites} and were the
1278: ``$SU(3)$ companions'' of the Higgs doublets. Using these
1279: generalized plaquette we built a minimal model of electroweak symmetry
1280: breaking from theory
1281: space. It is very similar to the model of \cite{2sites} but with the light
1282: triplet and singlet scalar lifted to the TeV scale. In the 100 GeV
1283: region the model has only two Higgs doublets and in the TeV
1284: range has three singlet and triplet scalars, one doublet scalar, one
1285: $SU(3)$ vector boson multiplet and one coloured fermion.
1286:
1287: Little Higgs theories are still largely unexplored and there are a lot of model
1288: building and phenomenological studies to be done. Interesting
1289: possibilities include combining the ideas of \cite{Dimopoulos:2002mv} with
1290: little Higgs, pushing the cutoff to higher energies by using a ``cascade''
1291: of theory spaces, detailed studies of collider signatures, and cosmological implications.
1292:
1293:
1294: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1295: We wish to thank Nima Arkani-Hamed and Andrew Cohen for very valuable
1296: insights . We also thank Martijn Wijnholt and Andrew Neitzke for helpful
1297: discussions. This work is supported in part by the Department of Energy
1298: under Contracts DE-AC03-76SF00098 and the
1299: National Science Foundation under grant PHY-95-14797. T. Gregoire is also
1300: supported by an NSERC fellowship.
1301:
1302:
1303: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright
1304:
1305: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
1306:
1307: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc}
1308: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001nc}
1309: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
1310: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction,''
1311: hep-ph/0105239.
1312: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105239;%%
1313:
1314: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
1315: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
1316: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
1317: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''
1318: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001)
1319: [hep-th/0104005].
1320: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%
1321:
1322: %\cite{Hill:2000mu}
1323: \bibitem{Hill:2000mu}
1324: C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,
1325: %``Gauge invariant effective Lagrangian for Kaluza-Klein modes,''
1326: hep-th/0104035.
1327: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104035;%%
1328:
1329: %\cite{Cheng:2001vd}
1330: \bibitem{Cheng:2001vd}
1331: H.~Cheng, C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,
1332: %``The standard model in the latticized bulk,''
1333: hep-th/0104179.
1334: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104179;%%
1335:
1336: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}
1337: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}
1338: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
1339: %``Accelerated unification,''
1340: arXiv:hep-th/0108089.
1341: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108089;%%
1342:
1343: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed}
1344: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed}
1345: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
1346: %``Twisted supersymmetry and the topology of theory space,''
1347: arXiv:hep-th/0109082.
1348: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109082;%%
1349:
1350: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ie}
1351: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ie}
1352: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan, A.~Karch and L.~Motl,
1353: %``Deconstructing (2,0) and little string theories,''
1354: arXiv:hep-th/0110146.
1355: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110146;%%
1356:
1357:
1358:
1359: %\cite{Cheng:2001nh}
1360: \bibitem{Cheng:2001nh}
1361: H.~C.~Cheng, C.~T.~Hill and J.~Wang,
1362: %``Dynamical electroweak breaking and latticized extra dimensions,''
1363: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 095003 (2001)
1364: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105323].
1365: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105323;%%
1366:
1367:
1368: %\cite{Kaplan:1983fs}
1369: \bibitem{Kaplan:1983fs}
1370: D.~B.~Kaplan and H.~Georgi,
1371: %``SU(2) X U(1) Breaking By Vacuum Misalignment,''
1372: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 136}, 183 (1984).
1373: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,183;%%
1374:
1375: %\cite{Kaplan:1983sm}
1376: \bibitem{Kaplan:1983sm}
1377: D.~B.~Kaplan, H.~Georgi and S.~Dimopoulos,
1378: %``Composite Higgs Scalars,''
1379: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 136}, 187 (1984).
1380: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,187;%%
1381:
1382: %\cite{Georgi:1984af}
1383: \bibitem{Georgi:1984af}
1384: H.~Georgi and D.~B.~Kaplan,
1385: %``Composite Higgs And Custodial SU(2),''
1386: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 145} (1984) 216.
1387: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,216;%%
1388:
1389: %\cite{2sites}
1390: \bibitem{Coset}
1391: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~Nelson, arXiv:hep-ph/0206021
1392: %''The littlest Higgs'''
1393:
1394: %\cite{Chivukula:2002ww}
1395: \bibitem{Chivukula:2002ww}
1396: R.~S.~Chivukula, N.~Evans and E.~H.~Simmons,
1397: %``Flavor physics and fine-tuning in theory space,''
1398: arXiv:hep-ph/0204193.
1399: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204193;%%
1400:
1401:
1402: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}
1403: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}
1404: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
1405: %``Phenomenology of Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Theory Space,''
1406: arXiv:hep-ph/0202089.
1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202089;%%
1408:
1409: %\cite{2sites}
1410: \bibitem{2sites}
1411: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, T.~Gregoire, E.~Katz, A.~Nelson and
1412: J.~G.~Wacker, arXiv:hep-ph/0206020
1413: %''The Minimal moose for a little Higgs''
1414:
1415:
1416:
1417:
1418: %\cite{Dimopoulos:2002mv}
1419: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:2002mv}
1420: S.~Dimopoulos and D.~E.~Kaplan,
1421: %``The weak mixing angle from an SU(3) symmetry at a TeV,''
1422: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531}, 127 (2002)
1423: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201148].
1424: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201148;%%
1425:
1426: %\cite{Lane:2002pe}
1427: \bibitem{Lane:2002pe}
1428: K.~Lane,
1429: %``A case study in dimensional deconstruction,''
1430: arXiv:hep-ph/0202093.
1431: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202093;%%
1432:
1433:
1434:
1435:
1436: %\cite{Hill:2002me}
1437: \bibitem{Hill:2002me}
1438: C.~T.~Hill and A.~K.~Leibovich,
1439: %``Deconstructing 5-D QED,''
1440: arXiv:hep-ph/0205057.
1441: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205057;%%
1442:
1443:
1444:
1445: %\cite{Nakahara:th}
1446: \bibitem{Nakahara:th}
1447: M.~Nakahara,
1448: %``Geometry, Topology And Physics,''
1449: {\it Bristol, UK: Hilger (1990) 505 p. (Graduate student series in physics)}.
1450: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup
1451: \end{document}
1452: