1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \input epsf.tex
3: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
5: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
6: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: %\def\bq{\begin{quote}}
9: %\def\eq{\end{quote}}
10: \def\lessim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq<}}
11: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq>}}
12: \newcommand{\gsim}{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}
13: \newcommand{\lsim}{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}
14: \newcommand{\drawsquare}[2]{\hbox{%
15: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}\hskip-#2pt% left vertical
16: \rule{#1pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#1pt% lower horizontal
17: \rule[#1pt]{#1pt}{#2pt}}\rule[#1pt]{#2pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#2pt% upper horizontal
18: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}}% right vertical
19: \newcommand{\fund}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}% fund
20: \def\ginomsb{\~{g}MSB}
21: \def\dsl{\not\!\partial}
22: \def\CS{{\cal S}}
23: \def\CL{{\cal L}}
24: %\def\bn{\left|L\,n\right\rangle}
25: %\def\fn{\left|R\,n\right\rang le}
26: %\def\bnd{\left\langle L\,n\right|}
27: %\def\fnd{\left\langle R\,n\right|}
28: %\def\bra#1{\left\langle#1\right|}
29: %\def\ket#1{\left|#1\right\rangle}
30: %\def\tbar{\overline \theta}
31: %\def\Imtr#1{{\rm Im\: tr}\left[#1\right]}
32: %\makeatletter
33: %\def\vereq#1#2{\lower3pt\vbox{\baselineskip1.5pt \lineskip1.5pt
34: %\ialign{$\m@th#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
35: %\makeatother
36:
37:
38: \title{The Little Higgs from a Simple Group}
39:
40: \author{
41: D.E. Kaplan\,$^{a}$\thanks{\tt dkaplan@pha.jhu.edu}\ \
42: and M. Schmaltz\,$^b$\thanks{\tt schmaltz@bu.edu} \ \ \\ \\
43: \small \sl $^a$\ Department of Physics and Astronomy, \\
44: \small \sl Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218\\
45: \small \sl $^b$\ Physics Department, Boston University,
46: Boston, MA 02215\\ \\
47: }
48:
49:
50: \begin{document}
51: \baselineskip=17pt
52: \pagestyle{plain}
53:
54:
55: \begin{titlepage}
56: \vskip-.4in
57: \maketitle
58: \begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
59: \put(308,350){BUHEP-03-03}
60: \end{picture}
61:
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: \leftskip-.6in
65: \rightskip-.6in
66: \vskip.4in
67:
68: We present a model of electroweak symmetry breaking in which the Higgs boson is
69: a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson. By embedding the standard models
70: $SU(2)\times U(1)$ into an $SU(4)\times U(1)$ gauge group, one-loop
71: quadratic divergences to the Higgs mass from gauge and top loops are
72: canceled automatically with the minimal particle content.
73: The potential contains a Higgs quartic coupling which does not introduce
74: one-loop quadratic divergences.
75: Our theory is weakly coupled at the electroweak scale, it has new
76: weakly coupled particles at the TeV scale and a cutoff above 10 TeV,
77: all without fine tuning. We discuss the spectrum of the model and
78: estimate the constraints from electroweak precision measurements.
79:
80: \end{abstract}
81: \thispagestyle{empty}
82: \setcounter{page}{0}
83: \end{titlepage}
84:
85: {\it ``He who hath clean hands and a good heart is okay in my
86: book, but he who fools around with barnyard animals has
87: got to be watched''}\\
88: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx} - W. Allen
89: \vspace{.5cm}
90:
91: {\it ``The littler the Higgs the bigger the group''}\\
92: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx} - S. Glashow
93: \vspace{1.0cm}
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: The Standard Model (SM) is well supported by all high
98: energy data \cite{PDG}. Precision tests match predictions
99: including one-loop quantum corrections. This suggest
100: the SM is a valid description of Nature up to energies in
101: the multi-TeV range with a Higgs mass which is less than
102: about 200 GeV \cite{LEPSLC}.
103:
104: This picture is not satisfying because the Higgs gets one-loop quadratically
105: divergent corrections to its squared mass. The most significant corrections
106: come from loops of top quarks, $W$-bosons and the Higgs (Figure 1).
107: The top loop is the most severe - demanding a contribution to the Higgs
108: mass of 200 GeV or less requires a momentum cutoff
109: $\Lambda_{top} \lsim 700$ GeV.
110: If one allows fine tuning of order 10\% between this correction and a
111: counter term, one still needs $\Lambda_{top} \lsim 2$ TeV.
112:
113: \begin{figure}[htb]
114: \vskip 0.0truein
115: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.6in
116: {\epsffile{smloop.eps}}}
117: \vskip 0.0truein
118: \caption[]{\it Quadratically divergent contributions to the Higgs mass
119: in the Standard model: top loop, $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge boson loops
120: and Higgs loop. }
121: \label{fig:loop}
122: \end{figure}
123:
124: The need to cancel quadratic divergences along with the consistency of
125: electroweak precision measurements with the SM suggests new
126: {\it weakly coupled} physics at $\sim$ 1 TeV.
127:
128: Supersymmetry softly broken around 1 TeV is an example of new physics that
129: meets these criteria. Loops of superpartners cancel all quadratic divergences
130: in the SM. The minimal supersymmetric standard model's most
131: compelling feature is its suggestive unification of couplings.
132: Its least compelling feature is the fact that it has
133: over 100 new parameters and yet the current bound on the Higgs mass
134: requires fine-tuning of parameters for successful electroweak symmetry
135: breaking. Models that improve this situation exist, and thus weakly
136: coupled superpartners at the weak scale remains an interesting option.
137: However, as we close in on the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric
138: standard model, it is of great interest to find alternative weakly coupled
139: theories of electroweak symmetry breaking.
140:
141: A new class of models, called ``Little Higgs'' theories [3-8],
142: produce a light Higgs boson with weakly coupled physics up to
143: 10s of TeV. As in composite Higgs models \cite{GK}, the Higgs
144: is a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (PNGB) and is massless at tree-level.
145: Its mass is protected by a global symmetry which is spontaneously broken.
146: The symmetry is explicitly broken by weakly coupled operators in
147: the theory which become the normal SM couplings below 1 TeV. The
148: Little Higgs trick is that no one operator alone explicitly breaks the
149: global symmetry protecting the Higgs mass, and therefore
150: no quadratically divergent contribution exists at one loop. The purpose
151: of this article is to present a new model of this type with the simplest
152: gauge group to date.
153:
154: In the next section, we show that simply extending the electroweak gauge
155: group to $SU(3)\times U(1)$ {\it automatically}
156: removes one-loop quadratic divergences from the gauge and top loops. We'll
157: show that if two scalar triplets have vacuum expectation values (VEVs) in
158: the same direction, breaking the gauge group to $SU(2)\times U(1)$,
159: there exists an $SU(2)$ doublet whose mass is protected from
160: quadratic divergences at one loop.
161: Adding the minimum (weakly coupled) top sector to generate
162: a Yukawa coupling automatically protects the Higgs mass at one loop.
163: The key is that by having both triplets get VEVs, both produce a set of
164: NGBs (including doublets), either of which could have been eaten by the
165: massive gauge fields. It is the fact that no one operator in the tree-level
166: Lagrangian contains both triplets which protects the doublet mass.
167: The symmetry protecting the Higgs mass in this model is an approximate
168: $[SU(3)/SU(2)]^2$. We discuss the non-linear sigma model version of this
169: theory and show how to get there from the linear sigma model.
170:
171: In Section \ref{su4} we present a complete model,
172: including a quartic Higgs coupling,
173: which has no quadratic divergences at one loop. Extending
174: the gauge group to $SU(4)\times U(1)$ allows one to
175: generate a quartic coupling through a vacuum misalignment
176: mechanism. The non-linear sigma model is $[SU(4)/SU(3)]^4$. The result
177: is a two Higgs doublet model with heavy $SU(4)/SU(2)$ gauge bosons and new
178: scalars at a TeV.
179:
180: In Section 4 we discuss the spectrum of the $SU(4)$ model and indicate
181: some of the phenomenological constraints [10-14].
182: Because our model has no more gauge couplings than the SM, all couplings
183: and masses in the gauge sector are a function of the breaking scale $f$
184: and measured gauge couplings. We also comment on flavor issues in these
185: models.
186:
187: In the last section we discuss
188: %our model in relation to existing Little Higgs models and
189: possibilities for future directions.
190:
191:
192: \section{Little Higgs from a simple gauge group}
193: \label{su3}
194:
195:
196: In this section we describe a very simple extension of the
197: SM which keeps the Higgs naturally light by employing the
198: little Higgs mechanism. The model contains new particles and
199: couplings which cancel the quadratic divergences from the
200: top quark loop and from the SM gauge interactions. This is
201: accomplished by enlarging the $SU(2)$ weak gauge
202: interactions to $SU(3)$. The cancellation of the divergences from
203: the Higgs self-coupling is more difficult and is described in
204: Section 4.
205:
206: Our mechanism for eliminating the
207: one-loop divergence from gauge interactions (Figure 1.b) can
208: be understood as follows:
209: an $SU(3)$ gauge group is spontaneously broken near 1 TeV by a
210: vacuum expectation value (VEV) of two $SU(3)$ triplet scalars.
211: The triplet expectation
212: values are aligned so that both vevs leave
213: the same $SU(2)$ unbroken. Ignoring their coupling trough the
214: gauge interactions each scalar breaks a global $SU(3)\rightarrow SU(2)$,
215: each yielding 5 Nambu-Goldstone bosons (NGBs).
216: With the $SU(3)$ gauge interactions turned on, the diagonal linear
217: combination of NGBs is eaten, but the
218: orthogonal linear combination remains massless at tree level.
219: The masslessness of these modes is easily understood by noticing
220: that in absence of a direct coupling between the two scalar triplets
221: each of them ``thinks'' that it is the only field which breaks the
222: gauge group and therefore contains exact NGBs.
223: Quantum corrections from loops involving the gauge bosons generate
224: couplings between the two triplets and therefore a mass for the
225: pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (PNGB). However, there is no
226: quadratically divergent one-loop diagram involving both scalar triplets.
227: Finite and log-divergent diagrams contribute small scalar masses
228: of order $g/4\pi \ f \sim 100$ GeV.
229:
230: More concretely, consider an $SU(3)$ gauge theory with two scalar
231: fields transforming as (complex) triplets
232: ${\bf \Phi}_i,\ i=1,2,$ of the gauge group with a potential
233: \beq
234: \frac{\lambda^2}2 ({\bf \Phi}_1^\dagger {\bf \Phi}_1 -f^2)^2\ +
235: \ \frac{\lambda^2}2 ({\bf \Phi}_2^\dagger {\bf \Phi}_2 -f^2)^2
236: \label{eq:phipot}
237: \eeq
238: which generates VEVs for the ${\bf \Phi}$\,s.
239: For simplicity, we assume equal couplings and VEVs for both triplets.
240: This defines a linear sigma model with two global $SU(3)$
241: symmetries acting on the two triplets.
242: The spontaneous breaking $[SU(3)]^2 \rightarrow [SU(2)]^2$
243: yields five NGBs from each scalar. We now weakly gauge
244: an $SU(3)$ such that both scalars are triplets under the gauge symmetry.
245: This explicitly breaks the $[SU(3)]^2$ global symmetry to
246: diagonal $SU(3)$.
247: After spontaneous symmetry breaking the five ``diagonal''
248: NGBs are eaten by the Higgs mechanism and
249: the five orthogonal linear combinations are PNGBs.
250: The symmetry which they correspond to -- ``axial'' $SU(3)$ -- is
251: explicitly broken by the gauge couplings. But since the tree level
252: scalar potential respects both $SU(3)$'s the PNGBs
253: remain massless at tree level.
254:
255: We parametrize the scalars as
256: \bea
257: {\bf \Phi}_1 = e^{i \Theta_1/f}
258: \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \!f\!+\!\rho_1\! \end{array} \right)
259: = e^{i \Theta_{eaten}/f}\ e^{i \Theta/f}
260: \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \!f\!+\!\rho_1\! \end{array} \right)
261: \nonumber \\
262: {\bf \Phi}_2=e^{i \Theta_2/f}
263: \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \!f\!+\!\rho_2\! \end{array} \right)
264: = e^{i {\Theta_{eaten}/ f}} e^{-i \Theta/f}
265: \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \!f\!+\!\rho_2\! \end{array} \right)
266: \eea
267: where the first parametrization is the most obvious, but the
268: second is more convenient because it separates the eaten modes
269: $\Theta_{eaten}$ from the PNGBs $\Theta$. Note
270: that $\Theta_{eaten}$ shifts under diagonal (vector) $SU(3)$
271: transformations whereas $\Theta$ shifts under ``axial'' $SU(3)$.
272: The $\rho_i$ are radial modes which obtain masses
273: $m_\rho=\lambda f$ from the potential. Since we are
274: interested in the physics of the PNGBs we
275: will suppress the eaten fields $\Theta_{eaten}$.
276: Furthermore we will take the limit $\lambda \rightarrow 4 \pi$
277: in which the radial modes decouple and our linear sigma
278: model turns into the corresponding non-linear sigma model.
279: The non-linear sigma model obtained by integrating
280: out the $\rho_i$ includes non-renormalizable interactions
281: which become strongly coupled at
282: $\Lambda = 4\pi f$; at this scale the non-linear sigma
283: model description breaks down. For most of this paper we will
284: use the non-linear sigma model description because it is
285: more general. It focuses on the physics of the PNGBs.
286: Details of the UV theory which lead to the $[SU(3)]^2$ symmetry breaking
287: are encoded in higher dimensional operators and decouple
288: from the relevant physics.
289: The non-linear sigma model field are then parameterized as \cite{CCWZ}
290: \bea
291: \Phi_1= e^{i \Theta/f}
292: \left( \begin{array}{l}
293: 0 \\ 0 \\ f \end{array} \right)\ , \quad
294: \Phi_2= e^{-i \Theta/f}
295: \left( \begin{array}{l}
296: 0 \\ 0 \\ f\end{array} \right)
297: \eea
298: where we suppressed the eaten fields and removed the bold type
299: to distinguish non-linear from linear sigma model fields.
300:
301: Expanded out in components, the five PNGBs in
302: $\Theta$ are
303: %
304: \bea
305: \Theta= \Theta^a T^a =
306: {1 \over \sqrt{2}}
307: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
308: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
309: & \!\!h \\ h^\dagger & \!\!0 \end{array} \right)
310: +{\eta \over 4}
311: \left( \begin{array}{rrr} 1&0 &0 \\0 &1&0\\ 0& 0&\!\!\!-2 \end{array}
312: \right) \ .
313: \eea
314: The $T^a$ are the usual $SU(3)$ generators, $a$ runs
315: from $4 \dots 8$, and normalizations were chosen such that $h$ and $\eta$
316: have canonical kinetic terms. Under the unbroken $SU(2)$ gauge
317: symmetry $h$ transforms like the SM Higgs, i.e. it is a complex doublet,
318: and $\eta$ is a neutral scalar.
319:
320: Lets return to the linear sigma model.
321: Since the gauge interactions explicitly break the axial $SU(3)$ symmetry
322: which protects the PNGBs we expect that quantum
323: corrections from gauge interactions will generate a mass for them.
324: In the linear sigma model the $SU(3)$ gauge interactions are
325: \beq
326: \left|(\partial_\mu+i g A_\mu){\bf \Phi}_1\right|^2+
327: \left|(\partial_\mu+i g A_\mu){\bf \Phi}_2\right|^2 \ .
328: \label{eq:lineargauge}
329: \eeq
330: \begin{figure}[htb]
331: \vskip 0.0truein
332: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.4in
333: {\epsffile{lhgauge.eps}}}
334: \vskip 0.0truein
335: \caption[]{\it $SU(3)$ gauge boson loop corrections to the
336: ${\bf \Phi}$ mass. }
337: \label{fig:loop2}
338: \end{figure}
339: %
340: At one loop, there are two quadratically divergent diagrams which contribute
341: to scalar masses (Figure 2). For the following arguments we
342: choose $\partial_\mu A^\mu=0$ gauge. This is convenient because
343: diagrams involving the trilinear gauge couplings cannot contribute
344: to the scalar potential (no derivatives) in this gauge. Thus the second
345: diagram vanishes.
346:
347: Diagrams contributing to the
348: scalar potential are shown in Figure 3.
349: The first diagram is quadratically divergent, the
350: second one is log-divergent, and diagrams with even more ${\bf \Phi}$
351: insertions would be finite.
352: %
353: \begin{figure}[htb]
354: \vskip 0.0truein
355: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.6in
356: {\epsffile{lhCW.eps}}}
357: \vskip 0.0truein
358: \caption[]{\it Gauge boson contributions to the ${\bf \Phi}$
359: potential in $\partial_\mu A^\mu =0$ gauge. }
360: \label{fig:loop3}
361: \end{figure}
362: %
363: The first diagram gives
364: \beq
365: \triangle {\cal L} \sim -{g^2\, \Lambda^2 \over 16 \pi^2}
366: ( {\bf \Phi}_1^\dagger {\bf \Phi}_1 + {\bf \Phi}_2^\dagger {\bf \Phi}_2) \ ,
367: \eeq
368: which preserves both $SU(3)$ symmetries and renormalizes
369: the ${\bf \Phi}_i$ potentials, eq.~(\ref{eq:phipot}).
370: Again, taking $\Lambda=4 \pi f$
371: this contribution is not larger than the tree level terms
372: already present in the potential and does not destabilize the
373: desired vacuum.
374: Thus at the level of quadratically divergent diagrams, the
375: PNGBs remain massless.
376:
377: Log-divergent and finite diagrams do contribute to
378: PNGB masses. For example, the second diagram in Figure 3
379: generates
380: \bea
381: \triangle {\cal L} \sim {g^4 \over 16 \pi^2 }
382: |{\bf \Phi}_2^\dagger {\bf \Phi}_1|^2\,
383: {\rm log}(\Lambda^2/f^2)
384: \ \sim \ -{f^2 \over 16 \pi^2 } \ h^\dagger h \ .
385: \eea
386: This operator explicitly violates axial $SU(3)$
387: and contains a mass for the PNGBs.
388: However,
389: the mass is of order $f/4\pi$ which is sufficiently small.
390: Note that the mass-squared generated is positive, which means
391: that this term stabilizes the vacuum with aligned expectation
392: values for ${\bf \Phi}_1$ and ${\bf \Phi}_2$. The top
393: quark loop which we discuss in the next section generates
394: a negative mass-squared and thereby triggers electroweak
395: symmetry breaking.
396:
397: This analysis could have also been performed in the
398: non-linear sigma model. The expression
399: for the gauge couplings is identical to eq.~(\ref{eq:lineargauge})
400: except that the ${\bf \Phi}_i$ are replaced by $\Phi_i$.
401: Loops like Figure 3.a generate
402: $|\Phi_i^\dagger \Phi_i|=f^2$, a quadratically divergent
403: contribution to the cosmological constant but no mass.
404: Finite and log-divergent diagrams generate
405: $|\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1|^2$ which does contain a
406: Higgs mass of order 100 GeV if $f\sim$ 1 TeV.
407:
408: The absence of quadratic divergences can also be understood
409: by noting that the diagram in Figure 3.a only involves
410: one of the non-linear sigma model fields.
411: Thus it is identical to the corresponding diagram in a theory
412: with only one $\Phi$. But in this theory $\Theta$ would be
413: eaten by the Higgs mechanism, thus it cannot
414: have any non-derivative couplings in the Lagrangian.
415: Therefore, only diagrams which involve both $\Phi$'s (Figure 3.b)
416: can contribute
417: to the Higgs mass but they necessarily involve more internal
418: propagators and are not quadratically divergent.
419:
420: \subsection{Top Yukawa coupling}
421:
422: We now show that it is straightforward to add fermions and a top Yukawa
423: coupling which does not upset the radiative stability of
424: the Higgs mass. This can be done for both the linear and non-linear
425: sigma models but we will only present the analysis of the non-linear
426: model.
427:
428: Since $SU(2)$-weak is embedded into an $SU(3)$ gauge group,
429: the top-bottom $SU(2)$-doublet is enlarged to a
430: triplet $Q^T=(t,b,\chi)$. A mass of order $f$ for the extra fermion
431: $\chi$ in the triplet and Yukawa couplings for the top quark
432: are generated from couplings to the $\Phi$'s
433: \bea
434: {\cal L}_{top} =
435: \lambda_1 \chi_{1}^c \Phi_1^\dagger Q +
436: \lambda_2 \chi_{2}^c \Phi_2^\dagger Q \ ,
437: \label{eq:topyuk}
438: \eea
439: where $\chi_{i}^c$ are Weyl fermions with the quantum numbers
440: of the $SU(2)$-singlet component of the top quark.%
441: \footnote{Note that despite superficial similarities between
442: eq.~(\ref{eq:topyuk}) and the top-color see-saw \cite{topseesaw}
443: there is an important difference. Unlike the top-$\chi$ Higgs couplings
444: in \cite{topseesaw}, the couplings in eq.~(\ref{eq:topyuk})
445: ``collectively'' break an $SU(3)$ symmetry protecting the Higgs mass.
446: This is necessary for the cancelation of quadratic divergences
447: to occur, and this is why we obtain a top Yukawa coupling which does
448: not require fine tuning of the Higgs mass.}
449: The Yukawa couplings $\lambda_i$ can be chosen real by redefining
450: the phases of the $\chi^c$. Expanding to first order in the Higgs $h$
451: \bea
452: {\cal L}_{top} &=&
453: f (\lambda_1 \chi_{1}^c + \lambda_2 \chi_{2}^c) \chi
454: + {i \over \sqrt{2}}
455: (\lambda_1 \chi_{1}^c - \lambda_2 \chi_{2}^c) h
456: \left( \begin{array}{l} t \\ b \end{array} \right) + \cdots \\
457: &=& m_\chi \ \chi^c \chi
458: - i \lambda_t \ t^c\, h
459: \left( \begin{array}{l} t \\ b \end{array} \right)
460: + \cdots \ ,
461: \eea
462: where in the last step we diagonalized the mass matrix by finding the
463: heavy and light linear combinations of the $\chi^c$. We find
464: a $\chi$ mass
465: $m_\chi = \sqrt{\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2}\, f$, and
466: a top Yukawa coupling, $\lambda_t=\sqrt{2}\, \lambda_1 \lambda_2 /
467: \sqrt{\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2}$.
468: To obtain a sufficiently large top mass
469: both couplings $\lambda_i$ must be of order one.
470:
471: The absence of quadratic divergences to the Higgs mass at
472: one loop from these interactions is again most easily understood
473: by examining Feynman diagrams with external $\Phi$'s. The
474: diagram in Figure 4.a is quadratically divergent but
475: preserves both $SU(3)$ symmetries. Thus it does not contribute to
476: PNGB masses. The diagram 4.b does contribute to
477: the Higgs mass, but it is only log divergent, contributing to the
478: operator
479: $\lambda_1^2 \lambda_2^2/16\pi^2 |\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1|^2$
480: which contains a Higgs mass of order $f \lambda /4\pi$.
481: \begin{figure}[htb]
482: \vskip 0.2truein
483: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.8in
484: {\epsffile{lhPhitop.eps}}}
485: \vskip 0.2truein
486: \caption[]{\it The top loop contribution to the Higgs mass in
487: sigma model formalism. }
488: \label{fig:topphi2}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491:
492: Alternatively, one can perform this computation after
493: expanding the $\Phi$'s. In ``component form'' the vanishing
494: of the quadratic divergence involves ``miraculous'' cancellations
495: between loops of top quarks and loops of $\chi$'s. We demonstrate this
496: calculation for the simplifying choice of
497: $\lambda_1=\lambda_2\equiv\lambda_t$.
498: Expanded out to the relevant order, the Lagrangian contains
499: \beq
500: \lambda_t
501: (\sqrt{2}f - \frac1{\sqrt{2}f} h^\dagger h ) \chi^c \chi
502: + \lambda_t t^c h
503: \left( \begin{array}{l} t \\ b \end{array} \right)\ .
504: \eeq
505: In addition to the usual top loop there is also a quadratically divergent
506: $\chi$ loop (Figure 5).
507: In the diagram the $\lambda_t \sqrt{2}f$ mass insertion on the
508: $\chi$ line combines with the $-\lambda_t/ \sqrt{2}f$ from the vertex
509: to exactly cancel the quadratic divergence from the top loop.
510: %
511: \begin{figure}[htb]
512: \vskip 0.2truein
513: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.8in
514: {\epsffile{lhtop.eps}}}
515: \vskip 0.2truein
516: \caption[]{\it The canceling top and $\chi$-loops in component form. }
517: \label{fig:chiloop}
518: \end{figure}
519: %
520: Note that although the cancellation involves a higher dimensional operator,
521: its coefficient is related to the Yukawa coupling by the
522: non-linearly realized axial $SU(3)$ symmetry.
523:
524: \subsection{$[SU(3)/SU(2)]^2$ symmetry}
525:
526: Here we give an elegant way of understanding the absence of
527: quadratic divergences in our theory which relies on the structure
528: of the explicit breaking of the $[SU(3)]^2$ symmetry acting on the
529: $\Phi$ fields. The $[SU(3)]^2$ symmetry not only protects both sets
530: of NGBs ($\Theta_{eaten}$ and $\Theta$) from obtaining
531: a mass, it also forbids any non-derivative couplings of the
532: NGBs. Therefore, in order to generate gauge- and Yukawa couplings
533: for the Higgs, these symmetries must be explicitly broken. The
534: trick is to do this breaking ``non-locally in theory space''
535: \cite{lh} or ``collectively''. By collective breaking
536: we mean that no single coupling in the Lagrangian breaks the symmetry
537: by itself. Always at least two couplings are required
538: to break any of the two $SU(3)$'s.
539:
540: To see this explicitly, consider the gauge interactions
541: \beq
542: \left|(\partial_\mu+i g_1 A_\mu)\Phi_1\right|^2+
543: \left|(\partial_\mu+i g_2 A_\mu)\Phi_2\right|^2 \ ,
544: \eeq
545: where for clarity we have labeled the gauge couplings of
546: $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ differently. Of course, gauge invariance requires
547: them to have the same value, but as spurions they break
548: different symmetries, and it is useful to keep
549: track of them independently.
550:
551: The key is to note that if either of the two couplings $g_1$ and $g_2$
552: is set to zero the Lagrangian has an exact $[SU(3)]^2$ symmetry, and
553: therefore two sets of exact NGBs ($\Theta_{eaten}$ and $\Theta$)
554: result from the spontaneous symmetry breaking.
555: Only with both $g$'s non-vanishing are the symmetries
556: explicitly broken to the diagonal gauged $SU(3)$.
557: For $g_2=0$ we have the two independent
558: symmetries
559: \bea
560: \Phi_1\rightarrow U_1 \Phi_1 , \quad
561: A_\mu \rightarrow U_1 A_\mu U_1^\dagger , \quad
562: \Phi_2\rightarrow U_2 \Phi_2 \ ,
563: \eea
564: while for $g_1=0$ we have the symmetries
565: \bea
566: \Phi_1\rightarrow U_1 \Phi_1 , \quad
567: A_\mu \rightarrow U_2 A_\mu U_2^\dagger , \quad
568: \Phi_2\rightarrow U_2 \Phi_2 \ .
569: \eea
570: Thus when either of the $g_i$ is set to zero $\Theta$ is an
571: exact NGB. Any loop correction
572: to its mass must be proportional to both $g_1$ and
573: $g_2$. But, there are no quadratically divergent one loop diagrams
574: involving both $g_1$ and $g_2$.
575:
576: The argument for the Yukawa couplings is very similar. In absence
577: of either $\lambda_1$ or $\lambda_2$ the Yukawa couplings
578: in eq.~(\ref{eq:topyuk}) preserve two $SU(3)$ symmetries.
579: For example, when $\lambda_2=0$ we have
580: \bea
581: \Phi_1\rightarrow U_1 \Phi_1 , \quad
582: Q \rightarrow U_1 Q , \quad
583: \Phi_2\rightarrow U_2 \Phi_2 \ ,
584: \eea
585: where $Q$ denotes the quark triplet. Thus
586: any $\Theta$ mass which is generated from Yukawa loops must be
587: proportional to both $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. In fact, it must be
588: proportional to $|\lambda_1|^2|\lambda_2|^2$. This follows from the
589: two spurious $U(1)_i$ symmetries under which
590: only $\lambda_i$ and $\chi_{i}^c$ are charged such that
591: $\lambda_i \chi_{i}^c$ are neutral. Any operator which
592: is generated by loops must also respect these spurious symmetries,
593: and if it doesn't contain $\chi$\,s it can only depend on the
594: invariant combinations $|\lambda_1|^2$ and $|\lambda_2|^2$.
595: Again, there is no quadratically divergent one-loop diagram proportional
596: to $|\lambda_1|^2|\lambda_2|^2$.
597:
598:
599: \subsection{Lets make the Standard Model}
600:
601: Three ingredients are still missing to turn the above model
602: into a fully realistic extension of the Standard Model. We
603: need {\it i.} hypercharge and color, {\it ii.} Yukawa couplings
604: for the other fermions, and {\it iii.} a quartic self coupling for
605: the Higgs in order to stabilize its VEV.
606:
607: \noindent {\it i. Hypercharge and color:} Adding color is trivial.
608: To one loop the only relevance of color for the
609: Higgs mass is a color factor of three
610: in the top quark loop. Adding hypercharge is also straightforward.
611: We introduce it by gauging a $U(1)_X$ symmetry which
612: commutes with the $SU(3)$ and under which the
613: $\Phi_i$ have charge $-1/3$. In the non-linear sigma model $U(1)_X$ is
614: non-linearly realized but the linear combination corresponding to
615: hypercharge
616: \bea
617: Y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\, T_8\, +\, \frac13 X
618: \eea
619: is unbroken.
620: Here $T_8=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,diag(-\frac12,-\frac12,1)$
621: is one of the broken $SU(3)$ generators. The $U(1)_X$ charges of the fermions
622: are uniquely determined from their hypercharges. For example,
623: $\chi_i^c$ has charge $-\frac23$ and $Q$ has charge $\frac13$.
624:
625: Gauging $U(1)_X$ does not introduce new
626: quadratic divergences for the Higgs mass. This is because
627: $U(1)_X$ commutes with all the spurious global $SU(3)$ symmetries
628: which we used to argue for the absence of divergences. Thus
629: these arguments go through unchanged.
630:
631: \noindent{\it ii. Yukawa couplings for light fermions:} Since the Yukawa
632: couplings of the other fermions are small, no care needs to
633: be taken in their coupling to the Higgs in order to avoid
634: large Higgs mass corrections. One possibility is to enlarge all
635: left-handed fermion doublets into triplets and then write
636: Yukawa couplings for up-type quarks and neutrinos just as
637: we did for the top quark. For the bottom quark
638: we can write
639: \bea
640: {\lambda_b\over \Lambda}\ b^c
641: \epsilon_{ijk} \Phi_1^i \Phi_2^j\, Q^k + h.c. \ ,
642: \eea
643: and analogous
644: terms for all down-type quarks and charged leptons.
645: We postpone a more detailed discussion of flavor until Section 4.
646:
647: {\it iii. Higgs quartic coupling:}
648: One possibility for the quartic coupling is to ignore the numerically
649: not very significant one-loop divergence from the Higgs loop and
650: add a quartic coupling without canceling its divergence. A
651: more satisfying model in which this divergence is also canceled
652: requires more work.
653: It is easy to appreciate the difficulty
654: by looking at possible terms which one might add to the Lagrangian to
655: generate the quartic coupling. This would-be Higgs potential is an
656: arbitrary gauge invariant polynomial in $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$.
657: The only non-trivial gauge invariant contraction at our disposal is
658: $\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2$.
659: The others either vanish ($\epsilon_{ijk} \Phi_1^i \Phi_1^j \Phi_2^k=0$)
660: or are constant ($\Phi_i^\dagger \Phi_i=f^2$). Thus the
661: potential is a function of
662: \bea
663: \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 = f^2 +i f \eta - h^\dagger h -\frac12 \eta^2
664: + \cdots + \frac1{6 f^2} (h^\dagger h)^2 + \cdots
665: \label{eq:phi1phi2}
666: \eea
667: and it's hermitian conjugate. Focusing on the $h$-dependence, we see that
668: the quartic coupling always comes accompanied by a mass term when
669: expanding out a term like $(\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2)^n$. Setting the
670: coefficient of the quartic to one, the mass is of order $f$ which is
671: much too large. Note that if the constant term in the expansion
672: of $\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2$ were not there, one could generate
673: a quartic by simply squaring eq.~(\ref{eq:phi1phi2}). This observation
674: will be the key to constructing a quartic in Section 4.
675: Of course, it is possible to fine tune the mass
676: term away. For example the potential $|\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2-f^2|^2$
677: does not contain a mass term. But this is no better than
678: the tuning of the Higgs mass in the Standard Model as the
679: relative size of coefficients in $|\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2-f^2|^2$
680: is not stable under quantum corrections.
681:
682: \section{A Complete Model: SU(4)}
683: \label{su4}
684:
685: Now we present a complete model of electroweak symmetry breaking with
686: no fine-tuning required to separate the Higgs mass from the cutoff.
687: The main distinction from the previous model is the extension of the
688: gauge group (and therefore the approximate global symmetries) from
689: $SU(3)$ to $SU(4)$. The expansion of the group allows one to use a new
690: mechanism to generate a quartic coupling.
691:
692: Take $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ as fields in the non-linear sigma model
693: $[SU(4)/SU(3)]^2$ with the diagonal $SU(4)$ gauged. The important distinction
694: from the previous model is that the $SU(4)$-breaking is {\it not} aligned,
695:
696: \bea
697: \Phi= e^{i \varphi /f}
698: \left( \begin{array}{l}
699: 0 \\ 0 \\ f \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \\
700: \Psi=e^{i {\psi /f}}
701: \left( \begin{array}{l}
702: 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ f \end{array} \right)
703: \eea
704: and only the gauged $SU(2)$ is linearly realized. Note that the product
705: $\Phi^{\dagger} \Psi$ contains no constant term!
706: This is exactly the success we were attempting to achieve in the $SU(3)$ model.
707: Raised to the appropriate power, it could potentially contain a term
708: quartic in Higgses without a quadratic term.
709:
710: This (mis-)alignment is stabilized when one adds the interaction
711: $|\Phi^{\dagger} \Psi |^2$ to the potential with a positive
712: coefficient. As we will see, this interaction becomes a positive
713: squared mass for a charged scalar field -- the only uneaten (complex)
714: scalar in this example. The two $SU(2)$ doublets which live in
715: $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ remain exact NGBs (they are in fact eaten)
716: and thus this term does not induce a quartic term.
717:
718: To reproduce the successes of the $SU(3)$ model (and produce uneaten Higgs
719: doublets), we break the gauged $SU(4)\rightarrow SU(2)$ twice.
720: Our model has four sets of sigma model fields, ($\Phi_i, \Psi_i,\ i=1,2$).
721: Each contains one complex $SU(2)$ doublet. Of the four doublets, two
722: are eaten by the heavy $SU(4)$ gauge bosons, leaving a two-Higgs-doublet
723: model.
724:
725: The complete counting goes as follows: the $[SU(4)/SU(3)]^4$
726: represents $(15 - 8) \times 4 = 28$ real components,
727: 12 of which are eaten when the $SU(4)$ gauge group is broken to $SU(2)$.
728: The remaining 16 consist of two complex doublets $h_u$ and $h_d$,
729: three complex $SU(2)$ singlets $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$
730: and $\sigma_3$, and two real scalars $\eta_u$ and $\eta_d$.
731: One possible parameterization is as follows:
732: \bea
733: \Phi_1=e^{+i {\cal H}/f} e^{+i \Sigma_1 /f} e^{+i \Sigma_2/f} e^{+i \Sigma_3/f}
734: e^{+ i \eta_u / f}
735: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ f \\0 \end{array} \right) \\
736: \Phi_2=e^{- i {\cal H}/f} e^{+i \Sigma_1 /f} e^{-i \Sigma_2/f} e^{- i \Sigma_3/f}
737: e^{ - i \eta_u / f}
738: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ f \\0 \end{array} \right) \\
739: \Psi_1=e^{+i {\cal H}/f} e^{- i \Sigma_1 /f} e^{+i \Sigma_2/f} e^{- i \Sigma_3/f}
740: e^{ + i \eta_d / f}
741: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\f \end{array} \right) \\
742: \Psi_2=e^{- i {\cal H}/f} e^{- i \Sigma_1 /f} e^{-i \Sigma_2/f} e^{+i \Sigma_3/f}
743: e^{ - i \eta_d / f}
744: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\f \end{array} \right)
745: \eea
746: with
747: \bea
748: {\cal H} =
749: {1 \over \sqrt{2}}
750: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
751: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
752: & \!\!h_u & \!\! h_d \\
753: h_u^\dagger & \!\!0 & \!\! 0 \\
754: h_d^\dagger & \!\! 0 & \!\!0 \\
755: \end{array} \right) &&
756: \Sigma_1 =
757: {1 \over 2}
758: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
759: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \sigma_1 \\
760: 0 & 0 & \sigma_1^\dagger & 0 \\
761: \end{array} \right)\nonumber\\
762: \nonumber\\
763: \Sigma_2 =
764: {1 \over 2}
765: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
766: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \sigma_2 \\
767: 0 & 0 & \sigma_2^\dagger & 0 \\
768: \end{array} \right) &&
769: \Sigma_3 =
770: {1 \over 2}
771: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
772: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \sigma_3 \\
773: 0 & 0 & \sigma_3^\dagger & 0 \\
774: \end{array} \right) \\
775: \nonumber\\
776: {\bf\rm \eta}_u =
777: {\eta_u \over 6}
778: \left( \begin{array}{rrrr} 1&0 &0 &0 \\0 &1&0&0\\0 &0&\!\!\! -3&0\\
779: 0& 0& 0&\!\!\!1
780: \end{array} \right) &&
781: {\cal \eta}_d =
782: {\eta_d \over 6}
783: \left( \begin{array}{rrrr} 1&0 &0 &0 \\0 &1&0&0\\0 &0&\!\!\! 1&0\\
784: 0& 0& 0&\!\!\! -3
785: \end{array} \right) \nonumber\ .
786: \eea
787: A quartic term for this model will come from the four couplings
788: \bea
789: \kappa_{11} |\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Psi_1 |^2
790: + \kappa_{22} |\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Psi_2 |^2
791: + \kappa_{12} |\Phi_1^{\dagger} \Psi_2 |^2
792: + \kappa_{21} |\Phi_2^{\dagger} \Psi_1 |^2 \ .
793: \eea
794: To leading order in each field, these operators produce the potential:
795: \bea
796: \kappa_{11} f^2 | \sigma_1 + \sigma_3|^2
797: &+& \kappa_{22} f^2 | \sigma_1 - \sigma_3|^2 \nonumber\\
798: + \kappa_{12} f^2 | \sigma_1 + \sigma_2 - i h_u^{\dagger} h_d/f|^2 \nonumber
799: &+& \kappa_{21} f^2 | \sigma_1 - \sigma_2 - i h_u^{\dagger} h_d/f|^2 \ .
800: \eea
801: Any one coupling does not produce a potential for the Higgses.
802: In fact, removing any of the couplings above removes the quartic Higgs term.
803: To see this, note that there are other parameterizations in which the
804: $h_u^{\dagger} h_d$ appear in different operators.
805:
806: These couplings generate masses of order $\sqrt{\kappa} f$
807: for the complex scalars $\sigma_i$ as well as trilinear
808: terms marrying these scalars to $h_u^\dagger h_d$.
809: Integrating out the singlets produces a quartic coupling:
810: \beq
811: \lambda = \frac{4}{\kappa_{11}^{-1}
812: + \kappa_{22}^{-1} + \kappa_{12}^{-1} + \kappa_{21}^{-1}}
813: \eeq
814: which vanishes as any one $\kappa_{ij}\rightarrow 0$, thus all four
815: terms are required to produce a tree-level quartic term.
816:
817: From symmetry arguments we see why this works. The non-linearly
818: realized global symmetry of the model is approximately
819: $[SU(4)/SU(3)]^4$ and contains, among other things, four
820: Higgs-like doublets which are NGBs. Two of the doublets are
821: eaten. A single operator, {\it e.g.}, $|\Phi_1^\dagger \Psi_1|^2$,
822: explicitly breaks the symmetry down to $[SU(4)/SU(3)]^2
823: \times [SU(4)/SU(2)]$, but this symmetry {\it also} contains four
824: doublet NGBs. Adding $|\Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_2|^2$ leaves
825: $[SU(4)/SU(2)]^2$ again producing four doublets. The existence
826: of three of the four operators breaks enough symmetry to allow
827: a quartic term, but only a small one is induced at loop level.
828:
829: This structure also suppresses one-loop contributions to the Higgs
830: mass. The symmetry arguments above show that more than one spurion
831: is required to generate a Higgs potential, and therefore a Higgs mass.
832: Thus, at one loop there are no quadratically divergent diagrams.
833:
834: The gauge and top loops work similarly to those in the $SU(3)$ model.
835: The gauge loop is canceled for each Higgs doublet by the massive
836: gauge bosons and the calculation goes through as in Section \ref{su3}.
837: Gauging an additional $U(1)$ symmetry results in the existence of
838: hypercharge at the weak scale and does not contribute to the Higgs
839: potential. The top Yukawa coupling could, for example, come from:
840: \bea
841: {\cal L}_{top} =
842: (\lambda_1 \chi_1^c \Phi_1^\dagger + \lambda_2 \chi_2^c \Phi_2^\dagger
843: +\lambda_3 \chi_3^c \Psi_1^\dagger)\ Q
844: \eea
845: where $Q^T=(t, b, \chi_1, \chi_2)$.
846: The $\chi_3^c$ field is there to cancel the hypercharge anomaly
847: and to marry and give a mass to $\chi_2$. The $\lambda_3$ term
848: does not play a role in generating a top Yukawa coupling and thus
849: the coupling can be taken to the cutoff ({\it i.e.},
850: $\lambda_3 \rightarrow 4 \pi$) thus decoupling these extra fields
851: and making the physics the same as the $SU(3)$ case of the previous
852: section. The bottom Yukawa coupling can be written as
853: \bea
854: {\cal L}_{bottom} =
855: \lambda_b b^c \; \epsilon_{ijkl} \; \Phi_1^i \Psi_1^j \Psi_2^k Q^l \ .
856: \eea
857: This single coupling generates a quadratic divergence to the down-type
858: Higgs mass of the form $|\Psi_1^\dagger \Psi_2|^2$. For a small bottom
859: Yukawa coupling ($\lambda_b \lsim 0.1$), the contribution remains
860: at or below the weak scale.
861:
862: \subsection{Electroweak Symmetry Breaking}
863: The purpose of the quartic term in the Higgs potential is to stabilize
864: the Higgs VEV . The $SU(4)$ model above has a quartic potential of the form
865: \beq
866: {\cal L}_{quartic} = - \lambda |h_u^\dagger h_d |^2
867: \eeq
868: where $h_u$ and $h_d$ are $SU(2)$ doublets with hypercharge $Y=-1/2$.
869: Successful electroweak symmetry breaking requires the existence of a
870: mass term of the form
871: $B h_u^\dagger h_d$ where $B$ is of order $M_W^2$.
872: Such a term comes from operators
873: $B_{11} \Phi_1^\dagger \Psi_1$,
874: $B_{22} \Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_2$,
875: $B_{12} \Phi_1^\dagger \Psi_2$,
876: and $B_{21} \Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_1$,
877: and can be written with the quartics as
878: $\kappa_{11} | b_{11} + \Phi_1^\dagger \Psi_1|^2 +
879: \kappa_{22} | b_{22} + \Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_2|^2 + \dots$.
880: These new operators contain
881: linear terms for the uncharged scalar fields $\sigma_i$ causing them to
882: obtain VEVs. When the $\sigma$'s are shifted to their minima, a mass term
883: of the form $B h_u^\dagger h_d$ is produced with
884: \beq
885: B= {1\over 2} \lambda \sum_{ij} b_{ij} \ .
886: \eeq
887: Here -- for simplicity -- we have taken the $b_i$ to be real, though in
888: general their phases may have interesting implications for CP violation.
889: These $B$ terms are themselves spurions
890: which explicitly break more symmetries than the quartic couplings. To
891: see this, note that they are the only terms so far which produce a potential
892: for the $\eta$ fields. Thus their size, which needs to be
893: of order $f^2/16 \pi^2$ is technically natural, but undetermined
894: from dynamics in the effective theory below $\Lambda$.
895:
896: In addition, operators of the form $|\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2|^2$ and
897: $|\Psi_1^\dagger \Psi_2|^2$ are generated by two-loop quadratic-divergent and
898: one-loop log-divergent diagrams. They produce the mass terms
899: \beq
900: {\cal L}_{mass} = m_2^2 |h_u |^2 + m_1^2 |h_d |^2
901: \eeq
902: with a natural size of order $f^2/16\pi^2$. We require $m_2^2 , m_1^2 > 0$
903: (or else the Higgs vev could run away to $\sim f$). Electroweak symmetry
904: breaking occurs if
905: \begin{equation}
906: B > \sqrt{m_2^2 m_1^2}\ .
907: \end{equation}
908: This Higgs potential is of the same form as the one in the
909: $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ little Higgs model \cite{Low}, and we repeat
910: some of the phenomenology here. Formulas for the scalar masses in
911: general two Higgs doublet models are conveniently collected
912: in \cite{howie}. Minimizing the
913: potential under these conditions gives $\tan{\beta} = v_u/v_d \equiv
914: \langle h_u \rangle / \langle h_d \rangle = \sqrt{m_1^2/m_2^2}$ and
915: \beq
916: \frac{2 B}{\sin{2\beta}} = m_2^2 + m_1^2 + 2 \lambda v^2
917: \eeq
918: where $v = 174$ GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale.
919:
920: The masses of the two CP-even Higgs bosons are
921: \beq
922: M_{h^0}^2 , M_{H^0}^2 =
923: \frac{B}{\sin{2\beta}}
924: \pm \sqrt{\frac{B^2}{\sin^2{2\beta}}
925: + \lambda v^2
926: \left(\lambda v^2 - \frac{2 B}{\sin{2\beta}}\right)
927: \sin^2{2\beta}
928: } \ .
929: \eeq
930: The lightest CP-even Higgs boson is bounded from above by
931: $M_{h^0}^2 \leq \lambda v^2$. This bound is saturated for
932: $m_1^2 = m_2^2 \rightarrow \sin{2\beta}=1$. The CP-odd and charged
933: Higgses have masses
934: \bea
935: M_{A^0}^2 &=& \frac{2 B}{\sin{2\beta}} \\
936: M_{H^{\pm}}^2 &=& M_{A^0}^2 - \lambda v^2
937: \eea
938:
939:
940: \subsection{The Standard Model Embedding}
941: Now we can construct a complete standard model based on the $SU(4)$ theory.
942: Collecting the pieces together, the Lagrangian of the theory is
943: \beq
944: {\cal L} = {\cal L}_{kinetic} + {\cal L}_{quarks} + {\cal L}_{leptons} + {\cal L}_{Higgs}
945: \eeq
946: with
947: \beq
948: {\cal L}_{kinetic} = |{\cal D}_{\mu} \Phi_i |^2 +
949: |{\cal D}_{\mu} \Psi_i|^2 + \left[{\rm fermion\: and\:
950: gauge\: kinetic\: terms}\right] \ .
951: \eeq
952: Here ${\cal D}_{\mu}= (\partial_{\mu} + i g_4 A_{\mu}^a T^a - i {g_X\over 4}
953: A_{\mu}^X)$ and the $\frac14$ in the coupling of $A_\mu^X$
954: represents the $U(1)_X$ charge of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$.
955: $A_{\mu}$ and $A^X_{\mu}$ are the $SU(4)$ and $U(1)_X$
956: gauge fields respectively.
957: The Yukawa couplings for quarks appear as
958: \beq
959: {\cal L}_{quarks} = (\lambda_{1}^u\, \chi_{u1}^{c}\, \Phi_1^\dagger
960: + \lambda_2^{u}\; \chi_{u2}^{c}\, \Phi_2^\dagger
961: + \lambda_3^{u}\, \chi_{u3}^{c}\, \Psi_1^\dagger) Q
962: +\: \lambda^d\; d^c \, \Phi_1 \Psi_1 \Psi_2 Q
963: \label{eq:quarkyuks}
964: \eeq
965: with $Q = (q, \chi_{u1}, \chi_{u2})^T$.
966: We have suppressed flavor and $SU(4)$ indices for
967: clarity. The $\lambda$ couplings are $3\times 3$ matrices
968: in flavor space -- the combination
969: of the first three produces the standard Yukawa matrix
970: while $\lambda^d$ is simply the
971: Yukawa matrix for down-type quarks. Similarly, for the charged leptons:
972: \beq
973: {\cal L}_{leptons} = (\lambda_{1}^\nu\, \chi_{\nu1}^{c}\, \Phi_1^\dagger
974: + \lambda_2^{\nu}\; \chi_{\nu2}^{c}\, \Psi_1^\dagger ) Q
975: +\lambda^e\; e^c \, \Phi_1 \Psi_1 \Psi_2 L
976: \eeq
977: where $L = (\ell, \chi_{\nu 1}, \chi_{\nu 2})^T$, we will discuss neutrino masses
978: in the next section. Finally, the tree level scalar potential is
979: \bea
980: {\cal L}_{\!scalar}\! =
981: %\delta_u | \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 |^2
982: % + \delta_d | \Psi_1^\dagger \Psi_2 |^2 + \\
983: \sum_{ij} \kappa_{ij}\, | b_{ij} + \Phi_i^\dagger \Psi_j |^2
984: % \kappa_2 | b_{2}\! +\! \Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_2 |^2 +
985: % \kappa_3 | b_{3}\! +\! \Phi_1^\dagger \Psi_2 |^2 +
986: % \kappa_4 | b_{4}\! +\! \Phi_2^\dagger \Psi_1 |^2
987: \eea
988: as discussed in the previous subsection.
989:
990: Hypercharge is a linear combination of the $SU(4)$ generator
991: \beq
992: T^{15} = \sqrt{2}\, diag(-1/4,-1/4,+1/4,+1/4)
993: \eeq
994: and the external $U(1)_X$. Thus the
995: $X$ charges of the $SU(4)$-singlet fermions
996: are just their respective
997: hypercharges while the $X$ charges of $SU(4)$ vectors are the hypercharges
998: of the $SU(2)$ doublets they contain plus $1/4$.
999: Explicitly, $(\Phi_i,\Psi_i,L,Q)$ have $X$ charges
1000: $(-1/4,-1/4,-1/4,+5/12)$.
1001:
1002:
1003: \section{Spectrum and Constraints}
1004: \label{pheno}
1005:
1006: A complete analysis of the phenomenology is
1007: beyond the scope of this paper but we would like to report on
1008: our initial explorations in this direction. The results are encouraging:
1009: we find significant constraints but there are large regions of
1010: parameter space which are in agreement with experiment
1011: while at the same time solving the hierarchy problem.
1012: Interestingly, the preferred region or parameter space will be
1013: directly explored at the Tevatron and LHC.
1014: More specifically, we will discuss {\it i.} precision electroweak
1015: constraints {\it ii.} the spectrum and direct
1016: searches {\it iii.} flavor physics.
1017:
1018: \noindent {\it i. precision constraints:}
1019: One of the most stringent constraints on models of new physics at
1020: the TeV scale comes from isospin violating couplings
1021: of the light fermions to the $W$ and $Z$ bosons.
1022: One source of isospin violation is the different treatment of the
1023: Yukawa couplings for up and down-type quarks in eq.~(\ref{eq:quarkyuks}).
1024: Through the Higgs vev up-type quarks mix with the heavy $\chi$
1025: fermions whereas down-type quarks don't. As we will now show,
1026: this mixing prefers different scales $f_i$ for the
1027: different $\Phi_i$.
1028:
1029: For simplicity, we revert to our $SU(3)$ model where the same
1030: mixing occurs. The up-type Yukawa couplings are
1031: \beq
1032: (\lambda_1 u^c_1 \Phi^\dagger _1 +
1033: \lambda_2 u^c_2 \Phi^\dagger _2 )\;
1034: \left( \begin{array}{l}
1035: u \\ d \\ \chi\end{array} \right) \ ,
1036: \eeq
1037: where $\lambda_i$ are $3\times3$ matrices in flavor space. In order
1038: to avoid large flavor changing effects (see FCNC discussion below)
1039: we take $\lambda_2$ proportional to the unit matrix
1040: and of order one whereas $\lambda_1$ is approximately equal to the
1041: usual Yukawa couplings of the up-type quarks in the Standard Model.
1042: Furthermore, we allow different scales $f_1$ and $f_2$ for the
1043: non-linear sigma models. The heavy $SU(3)$
1044: gauge bosons eat a linear combination of the NGBs
1045: which resides mostly in the sigma model with the larger scale,
1046: and the little Higgs lives mostly in the sigma model
1047: with the smaller scale:
1048: \bea
1049: \Phi_1= e^{i\Theta {f_2\over f_1} }
1050: \left( \begin{array}{l}
1051: 0 \\ 0 \\ f_1 \end{array} \right) , \quad
1052: \Phi_2= e^{-i \Theta {f_1\over f_2}}
1053: \left( \begin{array}{l}
1054: 0 \\ 0 \\ f_2\end{array} \right)
1055: \eea
1056: where
1057: \bea
1058: \Theta =
1059: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1060: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
1061: & \!\!h \\ h^\dagger & \!\!0 \end{array} \right)
1062: / f_{12}\quad {\rm and}\quad f_{12}^2 = f_1^2+f_2^2 \ .
1063: \eea
1064: Substituting the Higgs by its expectation value $h^T=(v,0)$ we obtain
1065: the mass matrix
1066: \bea
1067: \left(\, u_1^c \ u^c_2 \right)
1068: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1069: \lambda_1 v \, \frac{f_2}{f_{12}} & \lambda_1 f_1 \\
1070: -\lambda_2 v \, \frac{f_1}{f_{12}} & \lambda_2 f_2 \end{array} \right)
1071: \left( \begin{array}{l}
1072: \!\!u\!\! \\ \!\!\chi\!\! \end{array} \right)
1073: \label{eq:fermass}
1074: \eea
1075: Since $\lambda_2 >> \lambda_1$ for the light quarks we see that
1076: the heavy quarks are approximately $u^c_2,\chi$ with masses
1077: $\lambda_2 f_2\sim 1$ TeV, and the light (SM) quarks are $u^c_1, u$
1078: with masses $\lambda_1 v f_2/ f_{12}$. In addition, there
1079: is small mixing between light and heavy quarks. The mixing
1080: between the $u^c$ fields is not physical and can be removed by
1081: a change of basis. However, mixing
1082: between the $SU(2)$ doublet component $u$ and the
1083: singlet $\chi$ is significant because it alters the
1084: couplings of up-type quarks to the $W$ and $Z$. The mixing angle is
1085: $ \sim v f_1 /(f_2 f_{12})$, which reduces the
1086: coupling of an up-type quark by
1087: \bea
1088: \delta g= -\frac12 \left({f_1 v \over f_2 f_{12}}\right)^2 \ .
1089: \eea
1090: For $f_1 \sim f_2 \sim 1$ TeV and $v=175$ GeV the shift in
1091: the coupling is 1\%. A similar shift also occurs in the couplings
1092: of neutrinos from their mixing with heavy partners.
1093: This is problematic because
1094: precision measurements at LEP and SLC have determined the gauge
1095: couplings of light fermions to a precision of
1096: $\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$ \cite{LEPSLC}.
1097: However, we also see that it is easy to strongly suppress the mixing
1098: by taking $f_2>f_1$. For example, taking $f_2 = 2$ TeV and
1099: $f_1 = 1$ TeV we have
1100: $\delta\, g \sim 10^{-3}$.
1101: We see that the part of parameter space with $f_2>f_1$ is preferred.
1102:
1103: We should check that taking unequal $f_i$ allows a large enough
1104: top Yukawa coupling and does not destabilize the Higgs mass.
1105: Diagonalizing eq.~(\ref{eq:fermass}) to leading order
1106: in $v^2/f^2$ for the third generation we
1107: obtain the mass of the heavy partner of the top and the
1108: top Yukawa coupling
1109: \bea
1110: m_\chi = \sqrt{\lambda_1^2 f_1^2 + \lambda_2^2 f_2^2}\ , \quad
1111: \lambda_t = \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \sqrt{{f_1^2 + f_2^2 \over \lambda_1^2 f_1^2 +
1112: \lambda_2^2 f_2^2}}
1113: \eea
1114: Happily, a wide range of $f_i$ and $\lambda_i$ can give
1115: a heavy top quark without fine tuning of the Higgs mass.
1116: For example, taking $f_1=.5 $ TeV, $f_2=2$ TeV,
1117: $\lambda_1 = \sqrt{2}$ and $\lambda_2=1/3$ we obtain the correct top
1118: Yukawa.
1119: To estimate the degree of fine-tuning recall that the top loop
1120: contribution to the Higgs mass is cut off by $m_\chi$.
1121: Thus $\delta m_h^2 \sim m_\chi^2\ \lambda_t^2 / 16 \pi^2$ which requires
1122: no fine tuning for
1123: $m_\chi \simeq 1$ TeV.
1124:
1125: We now turn to computing the masses and mixings of the gauge bosons
1126: in the full $SU(4)\times U(1)_X$ model. Transitions mediated by
1127: the heavy $SU(4)$ gauge bosons contribute to precision electroweak
1128: measurements leading to constraints on the $f_i$.
1129: A useful parametrization of the non-linear sigma model fields $\Phi_i$
1130: and $\Psi_i$ with general $f_i$ is
1131: \bea
1132: \Phi_1=e^{+i {\cal H}_u {f_2 \over f_1}}
1133: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ f_1 \\0 \end{array} \right) \qquad
1134: \Phi_2=e^{- i {\cal H}_u {f_1 \over f_2}}
1135: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ f_2 \\0 \end{array} \right)
1136: \nonumber \\
1137: \Psi_1=e^{+i {\cal H}_d {f_4 \over f_3}}
1138: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\f_3 \end{array} \right) \qquad
1139: \Psi_2=e^{- i {\cal H}_d {f_3 \over f_4}}
1140: \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\f_4 \end{array} \right)
1141: \eea
1142: where
1143: \bea
1144: {\cal H}_u =
1145: \left( \begin{array}{ccl}
1146: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
1147: & \!\!h_u & \!\! \begin{array}{l}\!\! 0 \\ \!\! 0 \end{array} \\
1148: h_u^\dagger & \!\!0 & \!\! 0 \\
1149: \!\! \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \end{array} &\!\!0 & \!\!0 \\
1150: \end{array} \right)/f_{12}& \qquad
1151: {\cal H}_d =
1152: \left( \begin{array}{ccl}
1153: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
1154: & \!\! \begin{array}{l}\!\! 0 \\ \!\! 0 \end{array} & \!\!\! h_d \\
1155: \!\! \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \end{array} & \!\!0 & \!\! 0 \\
1156: h_d^\dagger & \!\! 0 & \!\!0 \\
1157: \end{array} \right)/ f_{34}
1158: \eea
1159: %
1160: Here we ignore the small contributions to masses from
1161: small vevs for the fields $\sigma_i$.
1162: The photon and the $Z$ are linear combinations of four
1163: neutral gauge bosons: three gauge bosons which correspond to the
1164: diagonal $SU(4)$ generators
1165: $T^3=\frac{1}{2}\, diag(1,-1,0,0)$, $T^{12}=\frac{1}{2}\, diag(0,0,1,-1)$, and
1166: $T^{15}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\, diag(-1,-1,1,1)$,
1167: and the $U(1)_X$ gauge field $B_\mu^x$.
1168: Two linear combinations obtain masses of order $f$
1169: from the kinetic terms of the $\Phi_i$ and $\Psi_i$
1170: %
1171: %
1172: \begin{eqnarray}
1173: \left| \frac{g}{2} A_{\mu}^{12} + \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}} A_{\mu}^{15}
1174: - \frac{g_x}{4} B_{\mu}^x \right|^2 f_{12}^2 \nonumber\\
1175: \left| - \frac{g}{2} A_{\mu}^{12} + \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}} A_{\mu}^{15}
1176: - \frac{g_x}{4} B_{\mu}^x \right|^2 f_{34}^2
1177: \end{eqnarray}
1178: where $g, g_x$ are the $SU(4)$ and $U(1)$ gauge couplings
1179: and $f_{ij}^2=f_i^2+f_j^2$.
1180: In the following we specialize to $f\equiv f_{12}=f_{34}$ for which the
1181: heavy gauge boson mass matrix simplifies.
1182: Then the two heavy eigenstates are
1183: \begin{eqnarray}
1184: Z''_{\mu} &=& A_{\mu}^{12}
1185: \nonumber\\
1186: Z'_{\mu} &=& {\sqrt{2}g A_{\mu}^{15} - g_x B_{\mu}^x \over
1187: \sqrt{2g^2 + g_x^2}}\ ,
1188: \nonumber
1189: \end{eqnarray}
1190: with masses $m_{Z''}=g f$ and $m_{Z'}=\frac{g f}{2} \sqrt{2+g_x^2/g^2} $.
1191: The two eigenstates which remain massless at this order are
1192: \begin{eqnarray}
1193: W^3_\mu &=& A^3_\mu
1194: \nonumber\\
1195: B_{\mu} &=& {g_x A_{\mu}^{15} + \sqrt{2}g B_{\mu}^x \over
1196: \sqrt{2g^2 + g_x^2}}
1197: \ .
1198: \end{eqnarray}
1199: The $Z$ obtains its mass from the Higgs vevs $v = \sqrt{v_u^2 + v_d^2}$.
1200: Ignoring mixing with the $Z'$ the mass term is
1201: \begin{eqnarray}
1202: v^2 \left| \frac{g}{2} W_{\mu}^3 -
1203: \frac{g_x}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + g_x^2/2g^2}} B_{\mu}
1204: \right|^2 \ .
1205: \end{eqnarray}
1206: From this expression we can read off the standard model gauge couplings.
1207: We see that the $SU(2)$ coupling of the standard model is equal to the
1208: $SU(4)$ coupling $g$ and -- setting the coefficient of $B_\mu$ equal to
1209: $g'/2$ -- we have
1210: \beq
1211: g'=g_x / \sqrt{1+\frac{g_x^2}{2g^2}} \ .
1212: \eeq
1213:
1214: Deviations from the standard model arise in this model at
1215: order $v^2/f^2$ from mixing of the $Z$ with the $Z'$.
1216: Explicitly, the mixing is determined by diagonalizing
1217: the $Z$--$Z'$ mass matrix
1218: \beq
1219: \frac{g^2}{2} \left(\! \begin{array}{cc}
1220: v^2 (1+t^2) &
1221: \!-v^2 {(1-t^2)\sqrt{1+t^2} / \sqrt{2-t^2}} \\
1222: \!-v^2 {(1-t^2)\sqrt{1+t^2} / \sqrt{2-t^2}} &
1223: 2 f^2 / (2-t^2) \end{array} \!\right)
1224: \eeq
1225: where $t=g'/g=\tan{\theta_W}$ and $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle.
1226: Diagonalizing, we find a contribution to $\delta \rho$ from the
1227: shift in the $Z$ mass
1228: \beq
1229: \delta\rho \equiv {\delta m_W^2 \over m_W^2} - {\delta m_Z^2 \over m_Z^2}
1230: = {v^2\over 2 f^2} (1-t^2)^2 \approx + 1.5 \cdot 10^{-3}
1231: \left({{\rm 2.2 TeV}\over f}\right)^2 \ .
1232: \eeq
1233: Given that a standard model fit predicts a $W$-mass which is lower
1234: than the experimental value by about $1.6 \sigma$ \cite{LEPSLC},
1235: this correction actually improves the precision electroweak
1236: fit for $f\sim 2.2$ TeV.
1237: Alternatively, demanding a fit that is at least as good as the standard
1238: model implies a bound of $f\gsim 1.5$ TeV.
1239:
1240:
1241: Another observable affected by the new gauge bosons are four-fermion
1242: operators. The bound on new contributions to the four-electron
1243: operator, for example, is quite severe. The exchange of the $Z'$
1244: produces an operator of the size:
1245: \begin{equation}
1246: \frac{(1-t^2)^2}{8 f^2} {\bar e} \gamma^{\mu} e {\bar e} \gamma_{\mu} e
1247: \end{equation}
1248: for left-left currents. Using current bounds on this operator
1249: we find the requirement that $f\gsim 1.5$ TeV.
1250:
1251: \noindent {\it ii. the spectrum and direct searches:}
1252: In the UV the standard model $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge group is
1253: enlarged to $SU(4)\times U(1)$. Thus there are 12 new massive gauge
1254: bosons with masses near a TeV. Two of them are the $Z'$ and $Z''$
1255: discussed above. For the parameter choice
1256: $f_1^2+f_2^2=f_3^2+f_4^2\equiv f^2$ the $Z''$ has mass $g f$ and does
1257: not couple to standard model fermions. The $Z'$ has mass $.77 g f$
1258: and couples to quarks and leptons.
1259: At the Tevatron it would appear as an s-channel resonance which
1260: decays to pairs of leptons. The limit on the mass
1261: of such a $Z'$ from CDF \cite{CDFzprime}
1262: is in the 700-800 GeV range, implying a bound $f \gsim$ 1 TeV.
1263: The off-diagonal $SU(4)$ gauge bosons and their masses are
1264: \bea
1265: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1266: & & Y^0 & Y'^0 \\
1267: & & X^- & X'^- \\
1268: \bar Y^0 & X^+ & & Y''^0 \\
1269: \bar Y'^{0} & X'^+ & \bar Y''^0 & \\
1270: \end{array} \right) =
1271: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1272: & & .5 & .5 \\
1273: & & .5 & .5 \\
1274: .5 & .5 & & 1 \\
1275: .5 & .5 & 1 & \\
1276: \end{array} \right) \ g f
1277: \eea
1278: The $Y''^0$ only couples to the heavy fermions and is therefore
1279: extremely difficult to detect. All others couple to one light and
1280: one heavy fermion. They can be produced in association
1281: with a heavy fermion or else appear in t-channel diagrams.
1282:
1283:
1284: There are two vector-like heavy quarks of charge $2/3$
1285: for each generation. As we discussed above, one of them mixes
1286: with up-type quarks and can be produced singly in t-channel
1287: $W$ exchange. The LHC reach in this channel can be as large as
1288: several TeV \cite{taohan}. The masses of these quarks are not
1289: completely determined because they depend on unknown
1290: Yukawa couplings. But flavor constraints suggest that their
1291: masses are generation independent and since naturalness requires
1292: a partner for the top quark below $\sim$ 2 TeV we expect
1293: at least one set of these quarks to be visible at the LHC.
1294: In terms of model parameters, the new quark masses are
1295: $\sqrt{\lambda_1^2 f_1^2 + \lambda_2^2 f_2^2}$ and $\lambda_3 f_3$.
1296:
1297: In addition, there are also vector-like heavy leptons which
1298: mix with the neutrinos. These fermions are impossible to
1299: discover directly but their existence might be inferred by
1300: missing energy signals or through their mixing with the light neutrinos
1301: in precision data.
1302: Note also that this mixing reduces neutral
1303: currents of neutrinos more than charged currents
1304: which might help to explain the NuTeV anomaly \cite{takeuchi}
1305: and the slightly reduced invisible width of the $Z$.
1306:
1307:
1308: The scalar spectrum consists of the two Higgs doublets with
1309: masses near the weak scale, three complex neutral fields
1310: $\sigma_i$ with masses $\sim \kappa f$, and two real scalar fields
1311: $\eta_i$ with masses of order the weak scale. The $\eta_i$ only couple
1312: to heavy fields and in the $b$-terms of the Higgs potential, thus
1313: they are very difficult to detect despite their relatively low masses.
1314:
1315: \noindent {\it iii. flavor:}
1316: The $SU(4)$ model has more Yukawa matrices than the
1317: standard model. In general these additional sources of flavor violation
1318: lead to flavor changing neutral currents. The easiest way to
1319: suppress the flavor violation is to assume that the new Yukawa
1320: matrices are proportional to the unit matrix. This assumption
1321: imposes constraints on the UV completion of the theory,
1322: but it is ``technically natural'' in the effective theory (loops
1323: in the effective theory only generate small corrections).
1324: Note that this is similar to the assumption of universal soft
1325: masses in supersymmetry.
1326:
1327: For example, the quark Yukawa couplings are then
1328: \beq
1329: {\cal L}_{quarks} = (\lambda^{u}\, u_1^{c}\, \Phi_1^\dagger
1330: + I_1\; u_2^{c}\, \Phi_2^\dagger
1331: + I_2\, u_3^{c}\, \Psi_1^\dagger) Q
1332: +\: \lambda^d\; d^c \, \Phi_1 \Psi_1 \Psi_2 Q
1333: \label{eq:quarkyukagain}
1334: \eeq
1335: where $\lambda^{u}$ and $\lambda^{d}$ are similar to the usual
1336: standard model Yukawa couplings and $I_1$ and $I_2$ are approximately
1337: proportional to the unit matrix (in flavor space). To see that
1338: these couplings do not contain dangerous flavor violation, we
1339: go to a new basis in which $\lambda^{u}$ is diagonal.
1340: It is convenient to rotate all four components of $Q$ in the same way.
1341: $I_1$ and $I_2$ remain unit matrices if $u_2^{c}$ and
1342: $u_3^{c}$ are rotated appropriately. Finally, we also diagonalize
1343: $\lambda^{d}$ with a bi-unitary transformation, but this time
1344: we transform only the down-type quarks in $Q$.
1345: In the new basis all Yukawa couplings are diagonal; flavor violation
1346: resides only in the gauge couplings of $W$, $X$, $Y$
1347: to quarks and in couplings of multiple Higgses to quarks which arise
1348: from expanding out the down Yukawa operator. The latter
1349: couplings are small and only appear in loops. The former are also
1350: easily shown to be harmless. There are the usual $W$ couplings proportional
1351: to the CKM matrix in addition to new couplings between one down-type quark,
1352: one heavy vector-like up-type quark and the heavy gauge bosons
1353: $X$ and $Y$. These couplings allow box diagrams and penguins which
1354: are similar to corresponding standard model diagrams with $W$s replaced
1355: by $X$s or $Y$s. The resulting flavor changing neutral currents are
1356: suppressed relative to the standard model ones by the large masses
1357: of the heavy gauge bosons $m_W^2/m_X^2$ and can be ignored.
1358:
1359: A similar analysis of the lepton sector shows that there is also
1360: no dangerous lepton flavor violation in the low energy theory.
1361: Of course, the theory may also contain direct flavor violating
1362: four Fermi operators suppressed by the cut-off $\Lambda$. Such
1363: operators are constrained by $K-\overline{K}$ mixing and CP
1364: violation. The experimental bounds on such operators therefore
1365: imply constraints on the unknown UV-theory above 10 TeV.
1366:
1367: Small neutrino masses can be obtained by including a higher
1368: dimensional lepton number violating operator $(\Phi^\dagger L)^2$
1369: with a small coefficient in the effective theory. This operator
1370: might arise from a generalization of the see-saw mechanism in
1371: the UV completion: supermassive right handed neutrinos coupled
1372: to the operator which interpolates $(\Phi^\dagger L)$ in
1373: the UV theory.
1374:
1375:
1376: \section{Discussion}
1377: \label{disc}
1378:
1379: We have seen that, in a little Higgs model,
1380: embedding $SU(2)_{weak}$ into a simple group
1381: (such as $SU(3)$) is enough to cancel one-loop
1382: quadratic divergences from gauge and
1383: (perturbatively coupled) fermion loops.
1384: The $SU(3)$ model only lacks a quartic.
1385: One possibility is to
1386: simply ignore the relatively insignificant fine-tuning from
1387: the Higgs couplings and add the quartic by hand in ``component''
1388: fields ({\it i.e.}, not the full $\Phi$). This coupling need not be very
1389: large as an additional contribution to the quartic would come from
1390: the log-divergent and finite contributions to the effective potential
1391: from the top sector below the scale $f$. At worst, this introduces
1392: of order 10\% fine-tuning.
1393:
1394: There are at least three different possibilities for ultra-violet completions
1395: to our models. One is a linear sigma model with supersymmetry protecting
1396: the scalar masses above the multi-TeV scale. The $SU(3)$ model would work
1397: well in this case as the quartic would be provided by the $D$-term and the
1398: Higgs would remain massless at tree-level as long as there are more than
1399: two triplets. In addition, the group is simple enough to embed
1400: in a unifying theory:
1401: $SU(3+n)_{color} \times SU(2+n)_{weak} \times U(1)$ gives
1402: coupling constant predictions extremely close to those of the MSSM, when
1403: charges are normalized to embed into $SU(5+2n)$, and matter is in complete
1404: representations except for a split fundamental and
1405: anti-fundamental \cite{ann}.
1406:
1407: If one wishes to complete the theory above $4\pi f$ with a strongly coupled
1408: theory, the coset space we've used would require something different than
1409: a QCD-like model. For example, a gauged $SU(7)$
1410: with four fundamentals, one anti-fundamental and one anti-symmetric tensor
1411: produces the symmetry-breaking pattern $SU(4)\rightarrow SU(3)$ assuming the
1412: fundamentals condense with the anti-fundamental.
1413: Fermion and quartic interactions
1414: would require additional dynamics
1415: as in extended-technicolor \cite{etc}.
1416:
1417: A more interesting possibility would be a linear sigma model completing
1418: into another little Higgs theory at a higher scale, $F\sim 10 TeV$.
1419: This may be possible in the $SU(3)$ theory if the ``fundamental'' quartic
1420: added need not be too large. One example would be
1421: $[SU(7)/SO(7)]^2$ with $SU(3)$ subgroups gauged similar to
1422: the ``littlest Higgs'' \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}.
1423: This could produce two light
1424: $SU(3)$ triplets with fermion couplings causing vacuum misalignment
1425: and $SU(3)$-breaking at a scale $f \equiv F/4\pi$. If a model of this type
1426: works, it would provide a weakly coupled theory of electroweak symmetry
1427: breaking valid up to $>$100 TeV.
1428:
1429: \section{Acknowledgements}
1430:
1431: We thank Nima Arkani-Hamed, Andy Cohen and Sekhar Chivukula
1432: for numerous helpful discussions.
1433: DK thanks the visitor program of the particle theory group at the
1434: Boston University Physics Department for their hospitality,
1435: and we thank the Aspen Center for Physics for providing a stimulating
1436: environment during the early phase of this work.
1437: MS is supported by the DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and the
1438: Outstanding Junior Investigator Award DE-FG02-91ER40676.
1439:
1440:
1441: \newpage
1442:
1443: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1444:
1445: %\cite{Hagiwara:fs}
1446: \bibitem{PDG}
1447: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1448: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1449: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
1450: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1451:
1452: \bibitem{LEPSLC}
1453: The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and the LEP
1454: Electroweak Working Group and the SLD Heavy Flavor Group,
1455: ``A combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,''
1456: arXiv:hep-ex/0212036.
1457: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212036;%%
1458:
1459: \bibitem{lh}
1460: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
1461: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction,''
1462: hep-ph/0105239.
1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105239;%%
1464:
1465: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qx}
1466: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002qx}
1467: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz, A.~E.~Nelson, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
1468: %``The minimal moose for a little Higgs,''
1469: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 021 (2002)
1470: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206020].
1471: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206020;%%
1472:
1473: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}
1474: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}
1475: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~E.~Nelson,
1476: %``The littlest Higgs,''
1477: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 034 (2002)
1478: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021].
1479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206021;%%
1480:
1481: %\cite{Gregoire:2002ra}
1482: \bibitem{Gregoire:2002ra}
1483: T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
1484: %``Mooses, topology and Higgs,''
1485: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 019 (2002)
1486: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206023].
1487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206023;%%
1488:
1489: %\cite{Low:2002ws}
1490: \bibitem{Low}
1491: I.~Low, W.~Skiba and D.~Smith,
1492: %``Little Higgses from an antisymmetric condensate,''
1493: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 072001 (2002)
1494: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207243].
1495: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207243;%%
1496:
1497: %\cite{Schmaltz:2002wx}
1498: \bibitem{amsterdam}
1499: M.~Schmaltz,
1500: %``Physics beyond the standard model (Theory): Introducing the little Higgs,''
1501: arXiv:hep-ph/0210415.
1502: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210415;%%
1503:
1504:
1505: %\cite{Kaplan:1983fs}
1506: \bibitem{GK}
1507: D.~B.~Kaplan and H.~Georgi,
1508: %``SU(2) X U(1) Breaking By Vacuum Misalignment,''
1509: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 136}, 183 (1984).
1510: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,183;%%
1511:
1512:
1513: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}
1514: \bibitem{ACGW}
1515: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
1516: %``Phenomenology of electroweak symmetry breaking from theory space,''
1517: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 020 (2002)
1518: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202089].
1519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202089;%%
1520:
1521: %\cite{Chivukula:2002ww}
1522: \bibitem{lhflavor}
1523: R.~S.~Chivukula, N.~Evans and E.~H.~Simmons,
1524: %``Flavor physics and fine-tuning in theory space,''
1525: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 035008 (2002)
1526: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204193].
1527: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204193;%%
1528:
1529: %\cite{Csaki:2002qg}
1530: \bibitem{Csaki:2002qg}
1531: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,
1532: %``Big corrections from a little Higgs,''
1533: arXiv:hep-ph/0211124.
1534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211124;%%
1535:
1536: %\cite{Hewett:2002px}
1537: \bibitem{Hewett:2002px}
1538: J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,
1539: %``Constraining the littlest Higgs,''
1540: arXiv:hep-ph/0211218.
1541: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211218;%%
1542:
1543: %\cite{Burdman:2002ns}\bibitem{Burdman:2002ns}
1544: G.~Burdman, M.~Perelstein and A.~Pierce,
1545: %``Collider tests of the little Higgs model,''
1546: arXiv:hep-ph/0212228.
1547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212228;%%
1548:
1549: \bibitem{taohan}
1550: T.~Han, H.~E.~Logan, B.~McElrath and L.~T.~Wang,
1551: %``Phenomenology of the little Higgs model,''
1552: arXiv:hep-ph/0301040.
1553: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301040;%%
1554:
1555: %\cite{Callan:sn}
1556: \bibitem{CCWZ}
1557: C.~G.~Callan, S.~R.~Coleman, J.~Wess and B.~Zumino,
1558: %``Structure Of Phenomenological Lagrangians. 2,''
1559: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 177}, 2247 (1969).
1560: %%CITATION = PHRVA,177,2247;%%
1561:
1562: \bibitem{topseesaw}
1563: B.~A.~Dobrescu and C.~T.~Hill,
1564: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 2634 (1998)
1565: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712319].
1566:
1567: %\cite{Gunion:2002zf}
1568: \bibitem{howie}
1569: J.~F.~Gunion and H.~E.~Haber,
1570: %``The CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model: The approach to the decoupling limit,''
1571: arXiv:hep-ph/0207010.
1572: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207010;%%
1573:
1574: \bibitem{CDFzprime} F. Abe {\it et al.}, CDF Collaboration,
1575: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 2191 (1997).
1576:
1577: %\cite{Loinaz:2002ep}
1578: \bibitem{takeuchi}
1579: W.~Loinaz, N.~Okamura, T.~Takeuchi and L.~C.~Wijewardhana,
1580: %``The NuTeV anomaly, neutrino mixing, and a heavy Higgs,''
1581: arXiv:hep-ph/0210193.
1582: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210193;%%
1583:
1584: \bibitem{ann}
1585: A. Nelson, private communication.
1586:
1587: \bibitem{etc}
1588: S.~Dimopoulos and L.~Susskind,
1589: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 155}, 237 (1979);
1590: E.~Eichten and K.~D.~Lane,
1591: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90}, 125 (1980).
1592:
1593:
1594:
1595: \end{thebibliography}
1596:
1597:
1598: \end{document}
1599:
1600: