1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{epsf}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{here}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage{citesort}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: %
12: \textwidth15.0cm
13: \textheight22.0cm
14: %\special{papersize=8.26in,11.69in}
15: \setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}
16: \oddsidemargin .6cm
17: \evensidemargin .6cm
18: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
19: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
20: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
21: \pagestyle{plain}
22: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
23: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\ear}{\end{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}
27: \newcommand{\g}{\mbox{g}}
28: \newcommand{\GeV}{\mbox{GeV}}
29: \newcommand{\cL}{\cal L}
30: \newcommand{\cS}{\cal S}
31: \newcommand{\rw}{\rm w}
32: \newcommand{\rc}{\rm c}
33: \newcommand\eins{ 1\!{\rm l} }
34: \newcommand\DF{\bf F}
35: \newcommand\DK{\bf K}
36: \newcommand\DD{\bf D}
37: \newsavebox{\LSIM}
38: \sbox{\LSIM}{\raisebox{-1ex}{$\ \stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\ $}}
39: \newcommand{\lsim}{\usebox{\LSIM}}
40: \newsavebox{\GSIM}
41: \sbox{\GSIM}{\raisebox{-1ex}{$\ \stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\ $}}
42: \newcommand{\gsim}{\usebox{\GSIM}}
43:
44: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
45: \begin{document}
46: \begin{titlepage}
47: \begin{flushright}
48: DESY-03-037 \\
49: hep-ph/0303183
50: \end{flushright}
51: $\mbox{ }$
52: \vspace{.1cm}
53: \begin{center}
54: \vspace{.5cm}
55: {\bf\Large Flavor violation and warped geometry}\\[.5cm]
56: Stephan J. Huber\footnote{stephan.huber@desy.de}
57:
58:
59: \vspace{1cm} {\em
60: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany
61: }
62: \end{center}
63: \bigskip\noindent
64: \vspace{1.cm}
65: %
66: %
67: %
68: %
69: \begin{abstract}
70: Extra dimensions have interesting consequences for
71: flavor physics. We consider a setup where the standard model
72: fermions and gauge fields reside in the bulk of a warped
73: extra dimension. Fermion masses and mixings are explained
74: by flavor dependent fermion locations, without relying on hierarchical
75: Yukawa couplings. We discuss various flavor violating processes
76: induced by (Kaluza-Klein) gauge boson exchange and
77: non-renormalizable operators. Experimental constraints
78: are satisfied with a Kaluza-Klein scale of about 10 TeV.
79: Some processes, such as muon-electron conversion,
80: are within reach of next generation experiments.
81: \end{abstract}
82: \end{titlepage}
83: %
84: %
85: %
86: %
87: %\baselineskip=.3in
88: %
89: \section{Introduction}
90: Models with extra dimensions have attracted great attention in recent years
91: as they offer new perspectives
92: on challenging problems in modern physics. It was demonstrated
93: by Randall and Sundrum that a small but warped extra dimension
94: provides an elegant solution to the gauge hierarchy
95: problem \cite{RS} (see also \cite{G}). The fifth dimension
96: is an $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold with an AdS$_5$ geometry of curvature $k$,
97: bordered by two 3-branes with opposite tensions and separated
98: by distance $R$. The red shift induced by the
99: AdS warp factor $\Omega=e^{-\pi k R}$
100: generates an exponential hierarchy between the
101: energy scales on the two branes.
102: If the brane separation is $kR\simeq 11$, the scale on
103: the negative tension brane is of TeV-size, while the scale on
104: the other brane is of order $M_{\rm Pl}$. The
105: AdS curvature $k$ and the 5D Planck mass $M_5$
106: are assumed to be of order $M_{\rm Pl}$. Gravity is weak at the
107: TeV-brane because the zero mode corresponding to the 4D
108: graviton is localized at the positive tension brane (Planck-brane).
109:
110: In contrast to the original proposal \cite{RS} we take the standard
111: model (SM) fermions and gauge bosons as bulk fields. In
112: the non-supersymmetric framework we are studying, the Higgs field
113: has to be confined to the TeV-brane in order to preserve the solution to the
114: gauge hierarchy problem \cite{CHNOY,HS}. Our motivation is twofold.
115: With the SM fermions residing in the 5-dimensional bulk, the
116: hierarchy of quark and lepton masses can be related to a higher
117: dimensional geography \cite{GP,HS2}. Different fermion flavors are localized at
118: different positions in the extra dimension or, more precisely,
119: have different wave functions. The fermion masses are in direct
120: proportion to the overlap of their wave functions with the Higgs field \cite{AS}.
121: Also the CKM mixing can be explained along these lines.
122: A second point is that at the TeV-brane non-renormalizable
123: operators, now only TeV-scale suppressed, are known to induce
124: rapid proton decay, large neutrino masses and flavor violating
125: interactions. Because of the warp factor, the effective cut-off
126: scale varies along the extra dimension. If the quarks and leptons are
127: localized towards the Planck-brane in the extra dimension, the suppression
128: scales of dangerous operators can be significantly enhanced \cite{GP,HS2}.
129: Small Majorana neutrino masses can then arise from dimension-five
130: interactions, without introducing new degrees of freedom \cite{HS4}.
131: The atmospheric and solar neutrino anomalies can be satisfactorily resolved.
132: Alternatively, Dirac neutrino masses can be generated by a coupling to
133: right-handed neutrinos in the bulk \cite{GN,HS3}.
134:
135: Fields living in the 5D bulk can be expanded as a tower of Kaluza-Klein
136: (KK) states. Electroweak observables, in particular the weak
137: mixing angle and gauge boson masses, require the KK
138: excitations of SM particles to be heavier than about 10 TeV \cite{HS,HLS,HPR}.
139: A small hierarchy separates the weak and KK scales.
140: In the presence of brane-localized kinetic terms the bound on
141: the KK scale may be somewhat relaxed \cite{branekin}, but we are not
142: considering this possibility in the following.
143: For fermions confined to the TeV-brane, the electroweak constraints
144: have been analyzed in ref.~\cite{CET}.
145:
146: In this paper we address the issue of flavor violation in the warped
147: SM which is an immediate consequence of our approach to the fermion
148: mass problem. Some aspects of this topic have already been discussed in
149: the literature \cite{HPR,GP,HS2,K00,dAS,KKS02,B02}. The
150: crucial connection to the issue of fermion masses, however, has
151: not been thoroughly investigated so far. This connection allows us to
152: obtain more reliable predictions for the flavor violating rates.
153: Moreover, we are including lepton flavor violating processes which
154: have not yet been considered in context of the warped SM.
155: Some results have already been presented in ref.~\cite{H02}.
156:
157: In the next section we summarize some results on bulk fermions
158: and gauge bosons in a warped background. In section 3 we are
159: using the observed fermion masses and mixings to determine the
160: locations of the various fermion flavors in the extra dimension.
161: The fermion mass pattern can be accommodated without relying
162: on hierarchical Yukawa couplings. In section 4 we discuss how the
163: mixing between different KK levels leads to a non-unitary CKM
164: matrix. Flavor violation by (KK) gauge boson exchange, being a
165: natural consequence of our setup, is studied in section 5.
166: We find that with a KK scale of 10 TeV the model is consistent
167: with the experimental constraints, while some processes,
168: such as muon-electron conversion, are within reach of
169: next generation experiments. In section 6 we show that contributions
170: from non-renormalizable operators to flavor violating processes
171: are naturally within experimental bounds, while proton decay
172: cannot by adequately suppressed. Finally, in section 7 we conclude.
173:
174:
175: \section{Bulk fields in a warped background}
176: We assume that the standard model gauge bosons and
177: fermions reside in the bulk of the warped 5D space-time \cite{RS}
178: \begin{equation} \label{met}
179: ds^2=e^{-2\sigma(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+dy^2,
180: \end{equation}
181: where $\sigma(y)=k|y|$.
182: The 4-dimensional metric is $\eta_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1)$
183: and $y$ denotes the fifth coordinate.
184: The AdS curvature $k$ is related to the bulk cosmological constant
185: and the brane tensions.
186: To set the notation let us briefly review
187: some properties of gauge and fermion fields in a slice of AdS$_5$.
188:
189: A gauge field propagating in a curved background with metric $G^{MN}$
190: is described by the equation of motion
191: \begin{equation} \label{EL}
192: \frac{1}{\sqrt{-G}}\partial_M(\sqrt{-G}G^{MN}G^{RS}F_{NS})-M_A^2G^{RS}A_S=0.
193: \end{equation}
194: The mass term $M_A^2$ arises from spontaneous symmetry
195: breaking and is present only for the weak gauge bosons. Since
196: the Higgs field is localized at the TeV-brane, we have
197: \begin{equation}\label{a}
198: M_A^2=\frac{1}{2}(g^{(5)})^2 v_0^2\delta(y-\pi R),
199: \end{equation}
200: where $g^{(5)}$ is the 5D gauge coupling. The Higgs
201: vev $v_0$ is expected to be of order $M_{\rm Pl}$.
202: Imposing the gauge $A_5=0$, we decompose the 5D fields as
203: \begin{equation} \label{KKA}
204: A_\mu({x},y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=0} A_\mu^{(n)}({x})f_n^A(y).
205: \end{equation}
206:
207: Inserting the metric (\ref{met}) and the decomposition (\ref{KKA}) into the
208: equation of motion (\ref{EL}), the wave functions $f_n^A$
209: have to satisfy
210: \begin{equation}
211: (\partial _y^2-2\sigma'\partial_y-M_A^2+e^{2\sigma}m_n^2)f_n^A=0,
212: \end{equation}
213: where $\sigma'=d\sigma/dy$. This equation is solved by \cite{DHRP}
214: \begin{equation}
215: f_n^A(y)=\frac{e^{\sigma}}{N_n}\left[J_{1}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\sigma})+
216: b^A(m_n)Y_{1}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\sigma})\right].
217: \end{equation}
218: The spectrum of KK masses $m_n$ and the coefficients $b^A$
219: are determined by the boundary conditions of the wave functions at the
220: branes. The localized mass term $M_A^2$
221: only affects the boundary condition at the TeV-brane \cite{HS,HLS}.
222: The normalization constants are fixed by
223: \begin{equation}
224: \frac{1}{2\pi R}\int^{\pi R}_{-\pi R}dy~f_m^A(y)f_n^A(y)=\delta_{mn}.
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: In the case $M_A^2=0$ eq.~(\ref{EL}) admits a constant zero
228: mode solution \cite{DHRP}. The excited states are localized towards the TeV-brane
229: and have TeV-scale KK masses $m_n\sim n\pi ke^{-\pi kR}$.
230: In the presence of the mass term $M_A^2$, the zero mode
231: acquires a mass
232: \begin{equation}\label{mg0}
233: m_0^2=(g^{(5)})^2v_0^2e^{-2\pi kR}/(2\pi R)+
234: {\cal O}((g^{(5)})^4v_0^4e^{-4\pi kR}/M_{KK}^2),
235: \end{equation}
236: where $M_{KK}=m_1$ denotes the KK scale. The order $1/M_{KK}^2$
237: corrections are related to a dip in the zero mode wave function
238: caused by the boundary mass term \cite{HS}. Compared to the 4D standard model
239: they induce a tree-level shift of the W and Z boson mass ratio relative
240: to its 4D standard model value.
241: In refs.~\cite{HS,HLS,HPR} it was shown that the electroweak precision
242: data thus implies the constraint $M_{KK}\gsim 10$ TeV.
243: If the boundary mass term was not included
244: in the KK reduction, but evaluated with the $M_A^2=0$ wave functions,
245: the order $1/M_{KK}^2$ effects would show up
246: in the 4D effective action as mixings between the KK states.
247:
248: The equation of motion of a fermion in curved space-time reads
249: \begin{equation}
250: E_a^M\gamma^a(\partial_M+\omega_M)\Psi+m_{\Psi}\Psi=0,
251: \end{equation}
252: where $E_a^M$ is the f\"unfbein, $\gamma^a=(\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^5)$
253: are the Dirac matrices in flat space, and
254: \begin{equation}
255: \omega_M=\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{-\sigma}\sigma'\gamma_5\gamma_{\mu},0\right)
256: \end{equation}
257: is the spin connection induced by the metric (\ref{met}).
258: Fermions have two possible transformation properties
259: under the $Z_2$ orbifold symmetry,
260: $\Psi(-y)_{\pm}=\pm \gamma_5 \Psi(y)_{\pm}$. Thus, $\bar\Psi_{\pm}\Psi_{\pm}$
261: is odd under $Z_2$, and the Dirac mass term, which is odd as well,
262: can be parametrized as $m_{\Psi}=c\sigma'$. The Dirac mass should
263: therefore originate from the coupling to a $Z_2$ odd scalar field
264: which acquires a vev.
265: On the other hand, $\bar\Psi_{\pm}\Psi_{\mp}$ is even.
266: Using the metric (\ref{met}) one obtains for the left- and right-handed components
267: of the Dirac spinor \cite{GN,GP}
268: \begin{equation}
269: [e^{2\sigma}\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}+\partial_5^2-\sigma'\partial_5-M_f^2]e^{-2\sigma}\Psi_{L,R}=0,
270: \end{equation}
271: where $M_f^2=c(c\pm1)k^2\mp c\sigma''$ and $\Psi_{L,R}=\pm\gamma_5\Psi_{L,R}$.
272:
273: Decomposing the 5D fields as
274: \begin{equation}
275: \Psi(x^{\mu},y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Psi^{(n)}(x^{\mu})
276: e^{2\sigma}f_n(y),
277: \end{equation}
278: one ends up with a zero mode wave function \cite{GN,GP}
279: \begin{equation}
280: f_0(y)=\frac{e^{-c\sigma}}{N_0},
281: \end{equation}
282: and a tower of KK excited states
283: \begin{equation}
284: f_n(y)=\frac{e^{\sigma/2}}{N_n}\left[J_{\alpha}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\sigma})+
285: b_{\alpha}(m_n)Y_{\alpha}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\sigma})\right].
286: \end{equation}
287: The order of the Bessel functions is $\alpha=|c\pm 1/2|$ for $\Psi_{L,R}$.
288: The spectrum of KK masses $m_n$ and the coefficients $b_{\alpha}$
289: are determined by the boundary conditions at the
290: branes \cite{GN,GP}.
291: The normalization constants follow from
292: \begin{equation} \label{normferm}
293: \frac{1}{2\pi R}\int^{\pi R}_{-\pi R}dy~e^{\sigma}f_m(y)f_n(y)=\delta_{mn}.
294: \end{equation}
295:
296:
297: Because of the orbifold symmetry, the zero mode of
298: $\Psi_+$ $(\Psi_-)$ is a left-handed (right-handed) Weyl spinor.
299: For $c>1/2$ $(c<1/2)$ the fermion is localized near the boundary
300: at $y=0$ $(y=\pi R)$, i.e.~at the Planck- (TeV-) brane (see also fig.~\ref{f_1}).
301:
302: The zero modes of leptons and quarks acquire masses from their
303: coupling to the Higgs field
304: \begin{equation} \label{3.1}
305: \int d^4x\int dy \sqrt{-G}\lambda^{(5)}_{ij}H \bar\Psi_{i+}\Psi_{j-}
306: \equiv \int d^4x ~ m_{ij} \bar\Psi_{iL}^{(0)}\Psi_{jR}^{(0)} +\cdots,
307: \end{equation}
308: where $\lambda^{(5)}_{ij}$ are the 5D Yukawa couplings. The
309: 4D Dirac masses are given by
310: \begin{equation} \label{3.2}
311: m_{ij}=\int_{-\pi R}^{\pi R}\frac{dy}{2\pi R}\lambda^{(5)}_{ij}H(y) f_{0iL}(y)f_{0jR}(y)
312: =\frac{l_{ij}v_0}{\pi kR}f_{0iL}(\pi R)f_{0jR}(\pi R).
313: \end{equation}
314: In the second step we have used $H(y)=v_0\delta(y-\pi R)/k$
315: and introduced the dimensionless couplings $l_{ij}=\lambda^{(5)}_{ij}\sqrt{k}$.
316:
317: The gauge interaction between bulk gauge bosons and fermions,
318: $g^{(5)}\bar \Psi iE_a^M\gamma^a A_M \Psi$, induces the
319: effective 4D couplings \cite{GP}
320: \begin{equation} \label{gc}
321: g_{ijn}=\frac{g^{(5)}}{(2\pi R)^{3/2}}\int^{\pi R}_{-\pi R}
322: e^{\sigma}f_i(y)f_j(y)f_n^A(y)~dy
323: \end{equation}
324: between the different KK levels. In the case of a massless
325: gauge boson ($f^A_0(y)\equiv1$) this
326: integral reduces to the normalization condition of fermions
327: (\ref{normferm}), and one finds $g_{ij0}=\delta_{ij}g^{(5)}/\sqrt{2\pi R}$.
328: For a massive gauge field the gauge coupling of the zero mode
329: to TeV-brane fermions is somewhat reduced due to the dip in
330: its wave function \cite{HS}. In the SM this effect leads, for instance,
331: to smaller gauge couplings of W and Z bosons relative to that of
332: the photon. In order to keep these corrections within experimental
333: bounds we derived in ref.~\cite{HLS} the constraint $M_{KK}\gsim 60$ TeV
334: if the fermions reside on the TeV-brane. For fermions localized
335: towards the Planck-brane this constraint becomes weaker than
336: the 10 TeV bound from the gauge boson masses discussed before.
337:
338: Combining eqs.~(\ref{mg0}) and (\ref{gc}), we can determine the Higgs
339: vev required to provide the measured gauge boson masses. To keep the
340: electroweak corrections small enough, we take $M_{KK}=10$ TeV.
341: Assuming $k=M_{\rm Pl}$ we find $k R=10.83$ and $v_0=0.043M_{\rm Pl}$.
342: Thus, there is still a small hierarchy of about twenty between the
343: fundamental scale and the Higgs vev.
344:
345:
346:
347: \section{Quark and lepton masses}
348: The fermion masses crucially depend on the overlap of the fermion
349: wave functions and the Higgs profile. They are functions of the
350: 5D mass parameters of the left- and right-handed fermions,
351: $c_L$ and $c_R$ respectively, which enter eq.~(\ref{3.2}).
352: As the 5D Dirac mass, i.e.~$c$ parameter increases,
353: the fermion gets localized closer towards the Planck-brane.
354: Its overlap with the Higgs profile at the TeV-brane is reduced,
355: which is reflected in a smaller 4D fermion mass from
356: electroweak symmetry breaking. Since the fermionic zero modes
357: depend exponentially on the 5D mass parameters, the large hierarchy of
358: charged fermion masses can be generated from $c$ parameters
359: of order unity \cite{GP,HS2}. If right-handed neutrinos are introduced in
360: the bulk, sub-eV neutrino masses can be explained in the same
361: manner \cite{GN,HS3}.
362:
363: Building up the fermion mass matrices from eq.~(\ref{3.2}) requires
364: also the specification of the 5D Yukawa couplings. Thus there are
365: considerably more independent parameters in the model than there
366: are observable fermion masses and mixings. Relating the measured
367: fermion properties to their locations in the extra dimension needs therefore
368: additional assumptions. In ref.~\cite{HS2} it was assumed
369: that the 5D Yukawa couplings are of order unity, and the fermion mass
370: pattern is solely due to the different locations.
371: Additionally, the fermions were localized as closely as possible
372: towards the Planck-brane in order to maximally suppress the impact of
373: non-renormalizable operators on rare processes.
374:
375: In the following we are using a somewhat different approach.
376: While still assuming the 5D Yukawa couplings to be of order unity,
377: we are looking for a set of $c$ parameters which ``most
378: naturally'' accounts for the observed fermion masses and mixings.
379: More precisely, we are taking random 5D Yukawa couplings and
380: require the averaged fermion properties to fit the experimental data.
381: Similar methods have been used to study models where the
382: fermion mass pattern is due to (approximately) conserved charges \cite{NT02}.
383: There the role of the fermion locations is taken by a set of Higgs
384: fields.
385:
386:
387: Let us first focus on the quark sector. At the scale of 10 TeV, where we
388: are matching our model to the observational data, the (running)
389: quark masses are
390: \begin{eqnarray}\label{qmasses}
391: &m_u=0.7-2.3~{\rm MeV},\quad & m_c=420-540~{\rm MeV},\quad m_t=140-148~{\rm GeV}
392: \nonumber \\
393: &m_d=1.4-4.2~{\rm MeV},\quad & m_s=28-80~{\rm MeV},\quad m_b=2.1-2.3~{\rm GeV}.
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: We have used one loop renormalization group equations \cite{FK98}
396: to run the quark masses given in ref.~\cite{FX00} from the scale $M_Z$ to
397: 10 TeV. The running reduces the quark masses by about 20 percent.
398: The moduli of the CKM matrix are given by \cite{PDG}
399: \begin{equation}\label{CKM}
400: |V_{\rm CKM}|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
401: 0.9741-0.9756 & 0.219-0.226 & 0.0025-0048 \\
402: 0.219-0.226 & 0.9732-0.9748 & 0.038-0.044 \\
403: 0.004-0.014 & 0.037-0.044 & 0.9990-0.9993
404: \end{array}\right).
405: \end{equation}
406: A convention independent measure of CP violation is the
407: Jarlskog invariant which experimentally is found to be \cite{PDG}
408: \begin{equation}\label{J}
409: J=(3\pm0.3)\times 10^{-5}.
410: \end{equation}
411:
412: Assuming non-hierarchical 5D Yukawa couplings,
413: the fermion mass matrix (\ref{3.2}) leads to
414: a product-like structure
415: \begin{equation} \label{product}
416: M\sim\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
417: a_1b_1 &a_1b_2 & a_1b_3 \\
418: a_2b_1 &a_2b_2 & a_2b_3 \\
419: a_3b_1 &a_3b_2 & a_3b_3 \\
420: \end{array}\right)
421: \end{equation}
422: where $a_i$ and $b_i$ are given by the fermion wave
423: functions $f_{0iL,R}(\pi R)$. As a function of the fermion location
424: there is a slow increase $f_0(\pi R)\propto \sqrt{1/2-c}$
425: for $c<1/2$, and an exponential suppression
426: $f_0(\pi R)\propto \exp(-c\pi kR)$ for $c>1/2$.
427: Note that some non-equal Yukawa couplings are needed
428: to render the mass matrix (\ref{product}) non-singular.
429: If the mass matrix is diagonalized by $U_LMU_R^{\dagger}$,
430: the left- and right-handed mixings are typically of order $U_{L,ij}\sim a_i/a_j$
431: and $U_{R,ij}\sim b_i/b_j$, respectively. Fermions which have
432: similar positions ($c$ parameters) have large mixings. The mass matrix
433: (\ref{product}) predicts the approximate relation $U_{13}\sim U_{12}U_{23}$
434: between the mixing angles, which for the observed CKM matrix (\ref{CKM})
435: is satisfied up to a factor of about two.
436:
437: \begin{figure}[t]
438: \begin{picture}(100,160)
439: \put(95,-10){\epsfxsize7cm \epsffile{wf.eps}}
440: \put(45,100){{\large $\e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma}f_n\uparrow$}}
441: \put(120,95){{$q_1^{(0)}$}}
442: \put(170,40){{$q_2^{(0)}$}}
443: \put(250,55){{$q_3^{(0)}$}}
444: \put(270,135){{$q_1^{(1)}$}}
445: \put(300,-5){$yk\rightarrow$}
446: \put(270,165){{TeV-brane}}
447: \put(70,165){{Planck-brane}}
448: \end{picture}
449: \caption{The wave functions of the left-handed quark zero modes $q_i^{(0)}$
450: and the first KK state, $q_1^{(1)}$, of $Q_1$
451: for the parameters of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}).
452: }
453: \label{f_1}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: In our numerical analysis we generate $N=25000$ random sets of up
457: and down-type
458: Yukawa couplings and diagonalize the emerging mass matrices (\ref{3.2}).
459: We require the averaged fermion masses and mixings to fit the experimental
460: data, using the logarithmic average of a quantity $X$
461: \begin{equation}
462: \langle X\rangle =\exp\left(\sum_i^N \frac{\ln(X_i)}{N}\right).
463: \end{equation}
464: Taking $2/3<|l_{ij}|<4/3$ and random phases
465: from 0 to $2 \pi$, we find the ``most natural'' locations
466: \begin{eqnarray} \label{qlocations}
467: c_{Q1}=0.643, \quad &c_{D1}=0.643, \quad &c_{U1}=0.671, \quad \nonumber \\
468: c_{Q2}=0.583, \quad &c_{D2}=0.601, \quad &c_{U2}=0.528, \quad\nonumber \\
469: c_{Q3}=0.317, \quad &c_{D3}=0.601, \quad &c_{U3}=-0.460. \quad \label{ps}
470: \end{eqnarray}
471: The wave functions of the left-handed quark zero modes and the first
472: excited state of $Q_1$ are shown in fig.~\ref{f_1}.
473: We fix the relative positions of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ by fitting $|V_{us}|$,
474: while $|V_{cb}|$ determines the relative positions of $Q_2$ and $Q_3$.
475: The Jarlskog invariant $J={\rm Im}(V_{cs}V_{us}^*V_{ud}V_{cd}^*)$ \cite{J}
476: and $|V_{ub}|$ are then fixed as well. Note that the the CKM mixings
477: are determined by the locations of the left-handed quarks. We then use
478: the locations of the right-handed quarks to fit the quark masses. Taking
479: the quark locations (\ref{qlocations}), we find for the averages
480: \begin{eqnarray}
481: \begin{array}{lll}
482: m_u=2.0~{\rm MeV},~~ & m_c=506~{\rm MeV},~~& m_t=144~{\rm GeV},\\[.1cm]
483: m_d=4.0~{\rm MeV},~~ & m_s=58~{\rm MeV},~~& m_b=2.2~{\rm GeV},\\[.1cm]
484: |V_{us}|=0.222, & |V_{cb}|=0.040, & |V_{ub}|=0.0088, \\[.1cm]
485: J=3.1\times10^{-5}.& &
486: \end{array}
487: \end{eqnarray}
488: While the prediction of $J$ agrees well with the experimental value (\ref{J}),
489: $|V_{ub}|$ is found to be about two times too large (\ref{CKM}).
490: As discussed above this discrepancy is a consequence of the mass pattern
491: (\ref{product}).
492:
493: The quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) are not a unique solution. Moving
494: all the left-handed quarks in such a way that the related factors $a_i$ in
495: (\ref{product}) are changed by a common factor, can be compensated
496: by an appropriate change in the locations of the right-handed quarks.
497: So in fact there is a one parameter family of solutions, labeled, for instance,
498: by $\delta c_{Q1}$. However, if some of
499: the light quarks are localized towards the TeV-brane ($c<1/2$), large deviations
500: from electroweak precision variables drive the KK scale far above
501: 10 TeV \cite{HLS}. In section 5 we will see that in this case flavor
502: violation is greatly enhanced. Since $c_{U2}$ is already close to
503: 1/2, we cannot move the right-handed quarks much closer to the TeV-brane.
504: This would also require to localize the right-handed top quark extremely
505: close towards the TeV-brane by $c_{U3}\lsim-2$.
506: On the other hand, the $Q_i$ cannot be localized much closer
507: towards the TeV-brane without getting too large modifications of
508: the left-handed bottom couplings. Thus we end up with the quite
509: constrained range of $-0.01\lsim \delta c_{Q1}\lsim 0.02$. The quarks
510: can be localized closer towards the Planck-brane if the 5D Yukawa
511: couplings are increased by a common factor. Increasing them by
512: a factor of 10, for instance, corresponds to $\delta c_{Q1}=0.037$.
513: However, very large Yukawa couplings $l\gg1$ introduce a new and
514: unexplained hierarchy in the model. Taking Yukawa couplings $l\ll1$
515: would mean to move the quarks closer towards the TeV-brane which
516: worsens the electroweak fit. The quark locations also depend
517: on $k/M_{\rm Pl}$ which we take to be one.
518:
519: The experimental errors (\ref{qmasses}) and (\ref{CKM}) translate
520: into uncertainties in the fermion locations. For instance, from $|V_{cb}|$
521: we can fix the position of $Q_3$ relative to $Q_2$ only
522: up to an error of $-0.02\lsim \Delta c\lsim 0.03$. The position
523: of $Q_1$ relative to $Q_2$ is determined quite accurately up to about
524: $-6\times10^{-4}\lsim \Delta c\lsim 5\times10^{-4}$ by $|V_{us}|$. For the
525: right-handed quarks the errors induced by the quark masses
526: range from $\Delta c\approx\pm 8\times10^{-4}$
527: for $D_3$ to $\Delta c\approx\pm 0.03$ for $U_3$.
528: More precisely, these are errors on the relative positions of left- and
529: right-handed quarks, for instance, $c_{Q3}-c_{U3}$ in the case of the top.
530: Note that positions $c<1/2$ have larger errors since in this range
531: the fermion mass does not depend exponentially but as $\sqrt{1/2-c}$
532: on the fermion location.
533:
534: \begin{figure}[t]
535: \begin{picture}(100,160)
536: \put(0,0){\epsfxsize7cm \epsffile{log_m_u.eps}}
537: \put(220,0){\epsfxsize7cm \epsffile{log_CKM_13A.eps}}
538: \put(205,115){\#{\large $\uparrow$}}
539: \put(130,-10){$\ln(m_u[{\rm MeV}])\rightarrow$}
540: \put(350,-10){$\ln(|V_{ub}|)\rightarrow$}
541: \put(20,147){{(a)}}
542: \put(390,147){{(b)}}
543: \end{picture}
544: \caption{Logarithmic distributions of $m_u$ (a) and $|V_{ub}|$ (b) for Yukawa
545: coupling distributions $2/3<|l_{ij}|<4/3$ (solid lines), $0<|l_{ij}|<2$ (dashed dotted lines)
546: and $|l_{ij}|=1$ (solid lines). The vertical dashed lines indicate the experimental
547: uncertainties.
548: }
549: \label{f_2}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: The statistical approach provides us with distributions of fermion
553: properties rather than with their precise values. This adds further
554: uncertainties to the fermion locations. In fig.~\ref{f_2}a we
555: present the distribution of $\ln(m_u)$ which shows a half width of about 1.1.
556: Requiring that, with a different location, the average value of $\ln(m_u)$
557: still lies within this half width range translates into an uncertainty of
558: $-0.017\lsim \Delta c_{U1}\lsim 0.019$. In table \ref{t_error} we have
559: summarized the statistical and experimental uncertainties in the quark
560: locations. Fig.~\ref{f_2}b shows the distribution of $\ln(|V_{ub}|)$ which
561: overlaps considerably with the experimentally favored range.
562: Despite the factor of two deviation in the average $\langle|V_{ub}|\rangle$,
563: there is an acceptably good fit to the data once the statistical
564: variations are taken into account.
565:
566: Our results depend only weakly on the range taken for the
567: moduli of the 5D couplings $l_{ij}$. In fig.~\ref{f_2} we
568: present the distributions of $m_u$ and
569: $|V_{ub}|$ additionally for the case $0<|l_{ij}|<2$ and for pure phase Yukawa
570: couplings $|l_{ij}|=1$. In the context of flat extra dimensions
571: pure phase Yukawa couplings have recently been investigated in
572: ref.~\cite{HS01}. We find that a wider range of $|l_{ij}|$ leads only
573: to a slight broadening in the distributions of fermion properties. The
574: induced shift in the average values is always much smaller than
575: the width of the distributions. For instance, we find an average
576: $m_u=2.3~(2.0)$ MeV in the case $0<|l_{ij}|<2~(|l_{ij}|=1)$. This
577: behavior stresses that the fermion mass pattern is indeed determined
578: by the fermion locations, not by accidental properties of the
579: 5D Yukawa matrices.
580: Note that the robustness of our results concerning different
581: ranges of $|l_{ij}|$ is due to the complex phases in the 5D Yukawa
582: couplings. For real values of $l_{ij}$ there is a high probability of cancellations
583: in the mass matrices. This leads to multiple peaks in the distributions
584: of fermion masses and mixings for a narrow range of $|l_{ij}|$.
585:
586: \begin{table}[b] \centering
587: {\small
588: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
589: & ${Q_1} $ & ${Q_2} $ & ${Q_3}$ & $D_1$ & $D_2$ & $D_3$& $U_1$ & $U_2$ & $U_3$ \\ \hline
590: $c$&0.643 &0.583 &0.317 &0.643 & 0.601 & 0.601 & 0.671& 0.528&--0.460 \\ \hline
591: exp.& +0.0004 & +0.002 & +0.03 &+0.017& +0.012 &+0.0008 & +0.017 & +0.004& +0.03\\
592: & --0.0006& --0.003& --0.02& --0.008 &--0.006& --0.0008 & --0.002& --0.002& --0.03\\ \hline
593: stat.& +0.022& +0.029 & +0.13&+0.016&+0.006& +0.004 & +0.019& +0.006 &+0.50 \\
594: &--0.027 & --0.024 & --0.21& --0.023 &--0.017&--0.006 & --0.017& --0.023&--0.76\\ \hline
595: \end{tabular}
596: }
597: \caption{Experimental and statistical errors on the fermion locations
598: of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}).
599: }
600: \label{t_error}
601: \end{table}
602:
603: Let us close this section with a brief discussion of the lepton sector.
604: To determine the lepton locations we have to take into account neutrino
605: masses and mixings. Neutrino masses can arise from different
606: sources in the context of warped geometry. In one scenario sub-eV
607: Dirac masses are generated by a coupling to right-handed neutrinos
608: in the bulk \cite{GN,HS3}. The necessary tiny Yukawa couplings
609: can naturally be generated if the right-handed neutrinos are localized
610: closely towards the Planck-brane by taking $1.2\lsim c\lsim 1.5$.
611: Neutrino and charged fermion masses are then treated on the same
612: footing. Alternatively, the dimension five interaction $(1/Q)HHLL$
613: can induce small Majorana neutrino masses \cite{HS4}. The suppression scale
614: $Q$ of the non-renormalizable interaction depends on the position
615: of the left-handed leptons $L$ in the extra dimension. This mechanism
616: is minimal in the sense that it does not require to extend the standard
617: model particle content.
618:
619: As in the case of quarks, the locations of the left-handed states determine
620: the observed fermion mixings. Large neutrino mixings require the
621: neutrinos and thus the SU(2) lepton doublets to have similar positions $c_{Li}$
622: \begin{eqnarray} \label{llocations1}
623: c_{L1}=0.565, \quad &c_{L2}=0.565, \quad &c_{L3}=0.565, \quad \nonumber \\
624: c_{E1}=0.764, \quad &c_{E2}=0.609, \quad &c_{E3}=0.509. \label{psl}
625: \end{eqnarray}
626: The right-handed positions $c_{Ei}$ we fixed by requiring that
627: with random Yukawa couplings the average charged lepton masses
628: fit their observed values.
629:
630: To suppress the matrix element $U_{e3}$ in the neutrino mixing matrix
631: it is favorable to separate the
632: electron doublet somewhat from the muon and tau doublets \cite{HS4}
633: \begin{eqnarray} \label{llocations2}
634: c_{L1}=0.631, \quad &c_{L2}=0.565, \quad &c_{L3}=0.565, \quad \nonumber \\
635: c_{E1}=0.725, \quad &c_{E2}=0.594, \quad &c_{E3}=0.497.
636: \end{eqnarray}
637: Like in the case of quarks there is a one parameter family of degenerate locations
638: if the left- and right-handed states are shifted against each other. The widths
639: of the distributions allow to fix the locations only up to $\Delta c\approx \pm 0.01$.
640: Taking the 5D Yukawa couplings larger than one, we could shift
641: the leptons closer towards the Planck-brane, as was done in ref. \cite{HS4}.
642:
643:
644: \section{Mixings of KK states and the unitarity of the CKM matrix}
645: So far we have only dealt with the zero modes of quarks and leptons. But
646: the Yukawa interaction (\ref{3.1}) also induces mixings between the zero modes
647: and the vector-like excited states. In the following we show that this effect
648: hardly modifies the conclusions we have reached above.
649:
650: From the KK reduction of an SU(2) doublet quark $Q_L$
651: we obtain a left-handed zero mode $q_L^{(0)}$, corresponding to
652: the SM quark, and an infinite
653: tower of left- and right-handed KK excited states $q_L^{(n)}$ and
654: $q_R^{(n)}$, where we omit flavor indices. The SU(2) singlet up
655: quarks decompose into the right-handed zero mode
656: $u_R^{c(0)}$ and the
657: KK excited states $u_L^{c(n)}$ and $u_R^{c(n)}$. After electroweak
658: symmetry breaking the up quark mass matrix takes the form
659: \begin{equation} \label{KK_mass}
660: M_{U}= (\bar u_L^{(0)},\bar u_L^{(1)},\bar u_L^{c(1)},\dots) \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
661: m^{(0,0)} & 0 &m^{(0,1)} & \cdots \\[.1cm]
662: m^{(1,0)} & m_{Q,1} & m^{(1,1)}& \cdots \\[.1cm]
663: 0 & 0 & m_{U,1} & \cdots \\
664: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots
665: \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_R^{c(0)} \\[.1cm] u_R^{(1)} \\[.1cm]
666: u_R^{c(1)} \\ \vdots \end{array}\right)
667: \end{equation}
668: where we again suppress flavor indices, i.e.~every entry represents
669: a $3\times 3$ matrix in flavor space. The masses $m^{(m,n)}$ arise from
670: electroweak symmetry breaking. They
671: are obtained by inserting the relevant wave functions
672: into eq.~(\ref{3.2}). The $m_{Q,m}$ and $m_{U,m}$ denote the KK masses
673: of the excited quark states. The zeros in (\ref{KK_mass}) follow
674: from the $Z_2$ orbifold properties of the wave functions.
675: Analogous mass matrices arise for the down quarks and charged
676: leptons. The wave functions of the the KK fermions are localized
677: at the TeV-brane (see fig.~\ref{f_1}). Their overlap with the Higgs is large and
678: almost independent of the location of the zero mode. We obtain
679: \begin{eqnarray}
680: m^{(0,n)}&=&\frac{lv_0}{\pi kR}f_{0L}(\pi R)f_{nR}(\pi R)\nonumber \\[.2cm]
681: m^{(m,n)}&=&\frac{lv_0}{\pi kR}f_{mL}(\pi R)f_{nR}(\pi R)\approx (-1)^{m+n}
682: \cdot l\cdot 349{\rm ~GeV},~~m,n\geq1.
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: These masses are large compared to the corresponding zero mode
685: masses.
686:
687: The mass matrix (\ref{KK_mass}) induces a mixing
688: between SU(2) singlet and doublet states. This effect diminishes
689: the weak charge of the left-handed quarks \cite{dAS}. In the context of
690: neutrinos this behavior was discussed in refs.~\cite{GN,HS3}.
691: Ignoring flavor mixing for a moment, the singlet admixture in
692: the left-handed zero mode is
693: \begin{equation}
694: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{m^{(0,n)}}{m_{U,n}}\right)^2
695: \approx \left(\frac{m^{(0,1)}}{m_{U,1}}\right)^2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^2}
696: =\left(\frac{m^{(0,1)}}{m_{U,1}}\right)^2 \frac{\pi^2}{6}.
697: \nonumber
698: \end{equation}
699: In the second step we approximated the KK spectrum by $m_n\approx nm_1$.
700: Taking the quark positions of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) we obtain
701: for the top quark a singlet admixture of $1.5\times 10^{-4}$.
702: For the other quark flavors the admixture is smaller than $10^{-6}$.
703: The mixing between the SU(2) doublet zero mode and its KK excitations is
704: even more suppressed and on the order of $(m^{(0,1)}m^{(1,1)})^2/m_{Q,1}^4$.
705: Our neglect of the KK states in the discussion
706: of quark and lepton masses in the previous section is therefore
707: well justified.
708:
709: The gauge couplings of fermions (\ref{gc}) are modified by KK mixing
710: in the weak gauge boson sector \cite{HS,HLS}. The W and Z bosons
711: couple somewhat weaker to fermions at the TeV-brane, while their
712: KK states couple stronger \cite{DHRP,GP}, as we show in fig.~\ref{f_3}.
713: For $c>1/2$ the gauge coupling is almost independent of the precise
714: location, and the coupling of the KK states is small, $g_1/g_{SM}\approx0.19$.
715:
716: The charged current interaction of the KK fermions is described
717: by an infinitely dimensional version of the CKM matrix
718: \begin{equation} \label{4.30}
719: {\cal V}={\cal U}_{L,U} {\cal G}{\cal U}_{L,D}^{\dagger}
720: \end{equation}
721: where ${\cal U}_{L}$ and ${\cal U}_{R}$ diagonalize the full
722: fermion mass matrices (\ref{KK_mass}). The flavor diagonal matrix
723: ${\cal G}$ contains the gauge couplings of the various KK
724: states to the W boson. We normalize ${\cal G}$ to the weak coupling
725: of the muon as obtained from eq.~(\ref{gc}) with the muon location
726: of eq.~(\ref{llocations1}).
727: Since the weak gauge bosons are massive, they induce
728: couplings between different KK levels. These couplings are
729: suppressed by $M_Z/M_{KK}$ and numerically small. Note that
730: in general even the full CKM matrix $\cal V$ is not unitary. Its truncation to
731: the zero mode sector, $V$, governs the low energy charged
732: current interaction. Three sources contribute to the non-unitarity of $V$:
733: the mixing of SU(2) doublet and singlet states, the truncation to the zero
734: mode sector and the modification of the fermion gauge couplings.
735: The last contribution is dominant, except for the third generation
736: quarks. Defining $\Delta V_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^3|V_{ij}|^2-1$, we find
737: with the quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations})
738: $\Delta{V}_1\approx1\cdot10^{-5}$,
739: $\Delta{V}_2\approx2\cdot10^{-7}$ and
740: $\Delta{V}_3\approx-3\cdot10^{-3}$.
741: Again we have averaged over random sets of Yukawa couplings.
742: The deviation from unitarity in the first generation is two orders
743: of magnitude below the current experimental sensitivity \cite{PDG}.
744: Also the expectation of $\Delta{V}_3$ is small compared to the
745: few percent precision in the weak charge of the top quark to be
746: reached at the LHC \cite{beneke}.
747:
748: Charged current interactions are also mediated by the KK states of
749: the W boson. These corrections are suppressed by
750: $(g_1^2/\delta g_0^2)(M_W^2/M_{KK}^2)\lsim 0.1$ and therefore
751: subleading.
752: The inequality becomes satisfied for the top quark which is localized
753: closest towards the TeV-brane. Only for fermions localized very closely
754: to the TeV-brane these corrections become important.
755:
756:
757: \begin{figure}[t]
758: \begin{picture}(100,160)
759: \put(0,5){\epsfxsize7cm \epsffile{gcp0.eps}}
760: \put(220,5){\epsfxsize6.8cm \epsffile{gcp1.eps}}
761: \put(50,60){{$\frac{g_0}{g_{SM}}$}}
762: \put(260,110){{$\frac{g_1}{g_{SM}}$}}
763: \put(130,-7){$c\rightarrow$}
764: \put(350,-7){$c\rightarrow$}
765: \put(25,147){{(a)}}
766: \put(390,147){{(b)}}
767: \end{picture}
768: \caption{Gauge couplings of the Z boson (a) and its first KK
769: state relative to the SM value as a function of the fermion
770: location.
771: }
772: \label{f_3}
773: \end{figure}
774:
775: \section{Flavor violation}
776: The mechanisms we have discussed in the previous section in the
777: context of charged current sector modify the neutral current
778: interactions in a similar way. In analogy to eq.~(\ref{4.30}) we define
779: the neutral current gauge couplings in the basis of mass eigenstates as
780: \begin{equation} \label{nc}
781: {\cal X}_{L,R}^{\psi (n)}={\cal U}_{L,R}^{\psi} {\cal G}_{L,R}^{\psi (n)}
782: {\cal U}_{L,R}^{\psi\dagger}
783: \end{equation}
784: where the unitary matrices ${\cal U}_{L,R}^{\psi}$ diagonalize the full
785: mass matrices, including the KK states of the fermion species
786: $\psi=q_L, u_R,l_L,$ etc. In ref.~\cite{H02} we had not yet included
787: KK mixing in the fermion sector.
788: With ${\cal G}_{L,R}^{\psi n}$ we denote
789: the coupling to the $n$th KK state of the Z boson as obtained from
790: eq.~(\ref{gc}). If the fermion families are localized at different positions
791: in the extra dimension, the gauge couplings ${\cal G}_{L,R}^{\psi n}$
792: are non-universal in flavor space. These deviations in the fermion
793: gauge couplings are too small to directly show up in flavor conserving
794: processes at present accelerator experiments if the KK scale is about
795: 10 TeV \cite{HLS}. However, the transformation to the mass eigenstates (\ref{nc})
796: induces flavor violating couplings which lead to interesting new
797: phenomena. These flavor violating interactions are an immediate
798: consequence of our approach to the problem of fermion masses. The phenomenology
799: is similar to what happens in models with family non-universal Z' bosons,
800: so we can adopt the formalism described, for instance, in ref.~\cite{LP}
801: with the complication of the KK mixing of fermions. In the gauge boson
802: sector we work with mass eigenstates from the very beginning. There
803: is no mixing of the Z boson and its KK states, instead the
804: zero mode has flavor violating couplings as well.
805:
806: Flavor violation as induced by the couplings (\ref{nc}) is driven by the
807: non-universality $\delta g_{ij}$ in the couplings of different flavor states
808: which are mixed by an angle $\theta _{ij}$
809: \begin{equation}
810: {\cal X}_{ij}\approx \delta g_{ij} \sin\theta_{ij}.
811: \end{equation}
812: Very different fermion locations on the one hand increase
813: non-universality, on the other hand they lead to small mixing
814: angles. Non-universality is larger for fermions localized towards
815: the TeV-brane, $c<1/2$, as is shown in fig.~\ref{f_3}, and
816: for the Z zero mode depends on the KK scale as $1/M_{KK}^2$.
817: Note that, different from the standard model, the
818: right-handed mixings become physically relevant.
819: The left-handed mixings of quarks and leptons are naturally
820: comparable to the observed CKM and neutrino mixing angles,
821: respectively. This requirement fixed the left-handed fermion locations
822: in section 3. The locations of right-handed fermions we have used to fit
823: the fermion masses. For the locations (\ref{qlocations}) and
824: (\ref{llocations2}) the right-handed mixings are then
825: predicted as
826: \begin{equation}\label{rightmxings}
827: \begin{array}{lll}
828: \langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,2}^u|\rangle=0.017, &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,2,3}^u|\rangle=0.073,
829: &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,3}^u|\rangle=0.0012, \\[.2cm]
830: \langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,2}^d|\rangle=0.23, &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,2,3}^d|\rangle=0.60,
831: &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,3}^d|\rangle=0.23, \\[.2cm]
832: \langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,2}^e|\rangle=0.016, &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,2,3}^e|\rangle=0.057,
833: &\langle |{\cal U}_{R,1,3}^e|\rangle=0.0016.
834: \end{array}
835: \end{equation}
836: Again we have averaged over random sets of Yukawa couplings.
837: The right-handed down quarks mix strongly with each other, while
838: the mixings of up quarks and leptons are found to be small. For the
839: alternative other set of lepton locations (\ref{llocations1}) the right-handed
840: mixings are similarly small.
841:
842: In the following we are using a KK scale of 10 TeV which might be
843: somewhat lowered by introducing brane-kinetic
844: terms \cite{branekin}. Note that the rates of flavor violating processes
845: which we present below cannot be translated to that case by simple
846: scaling with the appropriate powers of $M_{KK}$. Brane-kinetic terms
847: modify the KK wave functions and thus possible non-universalities even
848: if the KK scale is not changed.
849:
850: \subsection{Lepton flavor violation}
851: Let us start the discussion of flavor violation with the lepton sector.
852: In addition to the lepton locations (A) (\ref{llocations1}) and (B) (\ref{llocations2})
853: we are considering two modified settings
854: \begin{eqnarray} \label{llocations3}
855: {\rm (A'):}~~c_{L1}=0.585, \quad &c_{L2}=0.565, \quad &c_{L3}=0.545, \quad
856: \nonumber \\
857: {\rm (B'):}~~c_{L1}=0.520, \quad &c_{L2}=0.200, \quad &c_{L3}=0.150 \quad
858: \end{eqnarray}
859: to explore the dependence on the fermion locations.
860: The right-handed positions are taken as in (A) and (B), respectively.
861: In the set (A') we have shifted the left-handed leptons by a small
862: amount to induce some non-universality in the left-handed sector.
863: The changes in the lepton
864: masses and mixings remain within the widths of the statistical
865: distributions. In (B') we have reduced the Yukawa couplings by
866: a common factor of twenty, which is compensated by moving
867: the left-handed leptons closer towards the TeV-brane where
868: non-universality is especially large. We also separated somewhat
869: the left-handed muon and tau states. Using these locations we
870: find the following lepton flavor violation Z couplings
871: \begin{equation} \label{lfvc}
872: \begin{array}{ccccc}
873: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
874: \langle |{\cal X}_{L,1,2}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
875: 2.3\times10^{-7} & 6.5\times10^{-7} & 3.7\times10^{-7} & 8.4\times10^{-5}
876: \\[.2cm]
877: \langle |{\cal X}_{L,2,3}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
878: 5.1\times10^{-7} & 1.2\times10^{-6} & 3.5\times10^{-7} & 3.2\times10^{-5}
879: \\[.2cm]
880: \langle |{\cal X}_{L,1,3}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
881: 2.3\times10^{-7} & 8.5\times10^{-7} & 2.2\times10^{-7} & 4.9\times10^{-5}
882: \\[.2cm]
883: \langle |{\cal X}_{R,1,2}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
884: 7.1\times10^{-9} & 9.7\times10^{-9} & 1.0\times10^{-8} & 7.7\times10^{-9}
885: \\[.2cm]
886: \langle |{\cal X}_{R,2,3}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
887: 7.6\times10^{-7} & 1.1\times10^{-6} & 2.3\times10^{-6} & 1.7\times10^{-6}
888: \\[.2cm]
889: \langle |{\cal X}_{R,1,3}^{e(0)}|\rangle: &
890: 7.3\times10^{-9} & 8.5\times10^{-9} & 6.5\times10^{-8} & 4.6\times10^{-8}
891: \end{array}
892: \end{equation}
893: where we have included the zero modes and the first KK states of the leptons.
894: Note that in the case (B') there is a large increase in the left-handed
895: couplings compared to the cases with $c\gsim 1/2$. For (A) the flavor
896: violating left-handed couplings completely stem from fermion KK mixing
897: since there is no non-universality among the left-handed states. In the other
898: cases fermion KK mixing is a subleading effect.
899:
900: The couplings (\ref{lfvc}) induce lepton flavor violating decays of the Z boson
901: with a branching ratio ${\rm Br}(Z\rightarrow l_i\bar l_j)\approx0.29\cdot (|{\cal X}_{L,i,j}^{e(0)}|^2+|{\cal X}_{R,i,j}^{e(0)}|^2)$. The largest rate
902: occurs in scenario (B') with $(Z\rightarrow e\bar \mu)\approx 2\times 10^{-9}$
903: which is still three orders of magnitude below the experimental bound
904: of $ 1.7\times 10^{-6}$ \cite{PDG}. The other decay modes are even stronger
905: suppressed. Thus there are no constraints on the model from lepton flavor violating
906: Z decays.
907:
908: The off-diagonal elements of ${\cal X}$ also lead to flavor violating decays
909: of charged leptons. Tree-level exchange of a Z boson and its
910: KK states induces the processes $l_i\rightarrow 3l_j$ at a rate
911: \begin{equation} \label{mu3e}
912: \begin{array}{rcccc}
913: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
914: {\rm Br}(\mu\rightarrow eee): &
915: 5.2\times10^{-14} & 4.7\times10^{-13} & 1.0\times10^{-13} & 5.3\times10^{-9}
916: \\[.2cm]
917: {\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\mu\mu): &
918: 1.1\times10^{-13} & 2.1\times10^{-12} & 7.3\times10^{-13} & 1.7\times10^{-10}
919: \\[.2cm]
920: {\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow eee): &
921: 7.5\times10^{-15} & 3.2\times10^{-13} & 7.8\times10^{-15} & 3.9\times10^{-10}.
922: \\[.2cm]
923: \end{array}
924: \end{equation}
925: Again we have averaged over random lepton Yukawa couplings
926: in the four different scenarios. In the result (\ref{mu3e}) we have
927: only included the contribution of the Z boson exchange. The amplitude
928: contributed by its first KK state is already suppressed by a factor of about twenty.
929: We have included the first KK level of lepton states which is important
930: in scenario (A) where the left-handed lepton positions are degenerate.
931: The branching ratios depend on the KK scale as $1/M_{KK}^4$.
932: The experimental bound ${\rm Br}(\mu\rightarrow eee)<1.0\times10^{-12}$
933: \cite{mu3e} is satisfied for leptons localized towards
934: the Planck-brane and the rates can come close to the experimental
935: sensitivity. It would be very interesting if a slow muon facility could
936: test this process at the precision of $10^{-16}$ \cite{SMF}.
937: The scenario (B'), where the leptons are moved
938: towards the TeV-brane, leads to strong flavor violation. The rate could
939: only be brought down to the experimental bound if the KK scale is increased
940: by an order of magnitude to about 100 TeV. The expected rates for tau decays
941: are in all cases well below the latest Belle results
942: ${\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\mu\mu)<3.8\times10^{-7}$ and
943: ${\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow eee)<2.7\times10^{-7}$ \cite{tau3e}.
944:
945: Severe experimental bounds have been put on $\mu e$-conversion
946: in muonic atoms. The best exclusion limit
947: ${\rm Br}(\mu N\rightarrow e N)\equiv \Gamma(\mu N\rightarrow e N)/\Gamma(\mu N\rightarrow \nu_{\mu} N')<6.1\times10^{-13}$ comes from the Sindrum-II collaboration
948: \cite{SindrumII}. We expect a branching ratio of
949: \begin{equation} \label{mue}
950: \begin{array}{ccccc}
951: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
952: {\rm Br}(\mu N\rightarrow e N): &
953: 5.0\times10^{-16} & 5.2\times10^{-15} & 1.0\times10^{-15} & 5.8\times10^{-11}.
954: \end{array}
955: \end{equation}
956: While the scenario (B') is again excluded for a KK scale of 10 TeV,
957: leptons close towards the Planck-brane easily avoid the experimental
958: limit. The forthcoming MECO experiment (E940 at BNL) plans to
959: increase the sensitivity to about $5\times 10^{-17}$ \cite{bachmann}.
960: It would completely cover the predicted interaction rates, even for
961: leptons close to the Planck-brane.
962:
963: At the one-loop level radiative decays that violate lepton flavor are
964: induced at a rate
965: \begin{equation} \label{muegamma}
966: \begin{array}{ccccc}
967: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
968: {\rm Br}(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma): &
969: 2.1\times10^{-16} & 1.9\times10^{-15} & 4.1\times10^{-16} & 2.1\times10^{-11}
970: \\[.2cm]
971: {\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma): &
972: 6.7\times10^{-16} & 9.5\times10^{-15} & 4.2\times10^{-15} & 6.6\times10^{-13}
973: \\[.2cm]
974: {\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow e\gamma): &
975: 2.8\times10^{-17} & 1.3\times10^{-15} & 3.3\times10^{-17} & 1.5\times10^{-12}.
976: \\[.2cm]
977: \end{array}
978: \end{equation}
979: Except for the scenario (B') the expected branching ratios are far below
980: the experimental bounds ${\rm Br}(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma)<1.2\times 10^{-11}$,
981: ${\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma)<1.1\times10^{-6}$ and
982: ${\rm Br}(\tau\rightarrow e\gamma)<2.7\times10^{-6}$. The MEG collaboration
983: at PSI plans to increase the sensitivity with respect to $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ to about
984: $10^{-13}-10^{-14}$ within the next years \cite{MEG}. This will not be sufficient
985: to test the model for leptons localized towards the Planck-brane.
986: Note that our model leads to predictions quite different from supersymmetric models,
987: where radiative decays occur at much larger rates than the decays of
988: eqs.~(\ref{mu3e}) and (\ref{mue}) \cite{CIHN}. In the warped SM
989: radiative decays occur only
990: at the loop level, while the latter are tree-level processes.
991: In the scenario of Dirac neutrino masses radiative decays
992: are also mediated by the KK states of the sterile neutrinos.
993: If the SM neutrinos are confined to the TeV-brane,
994: a too large branching ratio for $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$
995: pushes the KK scale up to 25 TeV and thus imposes a
996: stringent constraint on the model \cite{K00}.
997: However, the rate for $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ is
998: sensitive to the mixing between light and heavy neutrino states.
999: With bulk neutrinos the mixing with heavy states is considerably
1000: reduced. In ref.~\cite{HS3} a branching ratio
1001: Br$(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma)\approx 10^{-15}$ was found
1002: for leptons localized towards the Planck-brane ($c>1/2$).
1003: While this value is still well below the experimental sensitivity,
1004: it is larger than the contribution from gauge
1005: boson exchange (\ref{muegamma}).
1006: Other lepton flavor violating processes, such as muonium-antimuonium
1007: oscillations \cite{willmann98}, do not lead to new constraints.
1008:
1009: \subsection{Meson mass splittings and CP violation}
1010: The flavor violating gauge couplings (\ref{nc}) also contribute to the
1011: mass splittings in neutral pseudo-scalar meson systems. The mass
1012: splitting between the flavor eigenstates of a meson, $P^0$ and $\bar P^0$,
1013: is given by
1014: \begin{equation} \label{delta_m}
1015: \Delta m_P=\frac{{\rm Re}\langle P^0|-{\cal L}_{\rm FCNC}|\bar P^0\rangle}{m_K}
1016: \end{equation}
1017: where ${\cal L}_{\rm FCNC}$ contains the flavor violating couplings (\ref{nc}).
1018: Phases in the flavor violation couplings are constrained by the indirect
1019: CP-violation in the kaon system
1020: \begin{equation}\label{epsilon_K}
1021: \epsilon_K=\frac{{\rm Im}\langle P^0|-{\cal L}_{\rm FCNC}|\bar P^0\rangle}
1022: {2\sqrt{2}m_K\Delta m_H}.
1023: \end{equation}
1024: These expressions can be evaluated using the vacuum insertion
1025: approximation (see for instance \cite{VIA}). The largest contributions
1026: to (\ref{delta_m}) and (\ref{epsilon_K}) come from the exchange of KK
1027: gluons \cite{DPQ99}. Excited gluons have flavor non-universal couplings
1028: to fermions like the KK states of the weak gauge bosons and induce
1029: flavor violating couplings analogous to those of eq.~(\ref{nc}). The gluon zero
1030: modes couple universally and therefore do not mediate flavor changing
1031: interactions.
1032:
1033: For the quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) we obtain the following
1034: contributions of first level of KK gluons and the Z boson zero mode
1035: \begin{equation} \label{meson}
1036: \begin{array}{rccc}
1037: &{\rm gluon} & {\rm Z} & {\rm exp.} \\[.2cm]
1038: \Delta m_K: & 1.5\times10^{-14} & 1.2\times10^{-17} & 3.5\times10^{-12} \\[.2cm]
1039: \Delta m_B: & 5.1\times10^{-11} & 3.0\times10^{-14} & 3.2\times10^{-10} \\[.2cm]
1040: \Delta m_D: & 3.8\times10^{-13} & 5.2\times10^{-15} & 4.6\times10^{-11} \\[.2cm]
1041: \epsilon_K: & 1.1\times10^{-3} & 1.1\times10^{-6} & 2.3\times10^{-3}.
1042: \end{array}
1043: \end{equation}
1044: The meson mass splittings are given in units of MeV. In eq.~(\ref{meson})
1045: we give results averaged over random sets of Yukawa couplings
1046: $2/3<|l_{ij}|<4/3$.
1047: As in the case of flat extra dimensions \cite{DPQ99} the dominating contributions
1048: come from the exchange of KK gluons. KK states of the Z boson give only
1049: an about ten percent correction to the zero mode exchange.
1050: In the computation of the
1051: fermion mass eigenstates we have included the first level of KK states. Compared
1052: to using only fermion zero modes the gluon contribution to $\epsilon_K$
1053: is enhanced by a factor of two. The meson mass splittings are less sensitive
1054: to whether or not KK fermions are included. The neglect of higher KK levels
1055: amounts to an uncertainty of order unity in our results.
1056:
1057: The contributions to meson mass splittings we find are much smaller than
1058: the experimental values \cite{PDG} listed in the last column of eq.~(\ref{meson}).
1059: The KK gluon contribution to $\epsilon_K$ comes rather close to the
1060: observed value. About one third of the random sets of Yukawa
1061: couplings we tested gave $\epsilon_K>2.3\times10^{-3}$, which is still
1062: acceptable.
1063: In ref.~\cite{KKS02} KK contributions to $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ were
1064: considered. For the quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) a bound
1065: on the KK scale of about 5 TeV was found. From the the process
1066: $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ the limit on the Z coupling
1067: $|{\cal X}_{L,1,2}^{d(0)}|<5.1\times10^{-6}$ was obtained in ref.~\cite{B02}.
1068: We find a considerably lower value of
1069: $\langle|{\cal X}_{L,1,2}^{d(0)}|\rangle=2.2\times10^{-7}$.
1070: Our approach to fermion masses and mixings is therefore
1071: nicely compatible with experimental constraints on flavor violation.
1072:
1073: We stress that our results are very different from models where
1074: the fermions mass pattern is explained by flavor-dependent fermion
1075: locations in one or more universal {\em flat} extra dimensions. There
1076: flavor violation, in particular kaon mixing, leads to very
1077: restrictive bounds on the KK scale,
1078: $M_{KK}\gsim10^3$ TeV \cite{DPQ99}, disfavoring these models
1079: as a solution to the the gauge hierarchy problem. Recently it was shown
1080: that models constructed from intersecting D-branes suffer from
1081: a similar problem \cite{AMS03}.
1082: The crucial difference lies in the wave functions of the KK gauge bosons.
1083: With a warped extra dimension the gauge boson wave functions are
1084: almost constant away from the TeV-brane. Therefore the gauge couplings
1085: of KK gauge bosons are nearly universal for fermions localized somewhat
1086: towards the Planck-brane ($c>1/2)$ as we show in fig.~\ref{f_3}. Flavor
1087: violation is thus automatically suppressed for the light fermion species
1088: which are expected to reside closely towards the Planck-brane to
1089: explain their small masses.
1090:
1091: \section{Non-renormalizable operators and rare processes}
1092: In models where the weak scale is identified with the fundamental
1093: scale of gravity, the low cut-off scale dramatically amplifies the impact of
1094: non-renormalizable operators in weak scale interactions.
1095: As a consequence, large rates for rare processes, such as flavor
1096: violation and proton decay, are a challenge for model building.
1097: With bulk fermions localized towards the Planck-brane the corresponding
1098: suppression scales can be significantly enhanced without relying
1099: on ad-hoc symmetries \cite{GP,HS2}.
1100: However, there are limits because the SM fermions need
1101: to have sufficient overlap with the Higgs field at the TeV-brane
1102: to acquire their observed masses, as discussed in section 3.
1103: We consider the following generic four-fermion operators
1104: which are relevant for flavor violation as well as for proton decay
1105: \begin{equation}
1106: \int d^4x \int dy \sqrt{-g}\frac{1}{M_5^3}\bar \Psi_i\Psi_j\bar\Psi_k\Psi_l
1107: \equiv \int d^4x \frac{1}{Q^2}\bar \Psi_i^{(0)}\Psi_j^{(0)}\bar\Psi_k^{(0)}\Psi_l^{(0)}.
1108: \end{equation}
1109: Integrating over the extra dimension, the effective 4D suppression
1110: scales $Q$ associated with these
1111: operators depend on where the relevant fermion states are localized
1112: in the extra dimension.
1113:
1114: Let us focus on some examples.
1115: The lepton flavor violating decay $\mu\rightarrow eee$
1116: is induced by the operator $\mu eee$ at a rate $\Gamma\sim m_{\mu}^5/Q^4$.
1117: The experimental constraint on the corresponding branching ratio translates into
1118: $Q>5\times 10^{5}$ GeV. For the lepton locations considered in the previous
1119: section we obtain the suppression scales
1120: \begin{equation} \label{nrmueee}
1121: \begin{array}{ccccc}
1122: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
1123: Q(\mu eee)[{\rm GeV}]: &
1124: 4.8\times10^{6} & 1.1\times10^{7} & 7.9\times10^{7} & 2.4\times10^{5},
1125: \end{array}
1126: \end{equation}
1127: where we have taken all the leptons to be left-handed. Except for the
1128: case (B') where the leptons are localized towards the TeV-brane, the
1129: operator $\mu eee$ is safely suppressed. The same holds for similar lepton
1130: flavor violating operators such as $\tau \mu\mu\mu$ and $\tau eee$.
1131: The operator $\mu e q_1q_1$ contributing to muon electron conversion is
1132: constrained by $Q>1\times 10^{5}$ GeV while we are finding
1133: \begin{equation} \label{nrmu}
1134: \begin{array}{ccccc}
1135: &{\rm (A)} & {\rm (A')} & {\rm (B)} & {\rm (B')} \\[.2cm]
1136: Q(\mu eq_1q_1)[{\rm GeV}]: &
1137: 4.4\times10^{7} & 3.5\times10^{7} & 1.1\times10^{8} & 6.6\times10^{6}.
1138: \end{array}
1139: \end{equation}
1140: These suppressions scales even exceed $Q>1\times 10^{6}$ GeV,
1141: a bound which could be set by the upcoming MECO experiment. Thus
1142: non-renormalizable operators are not expected to induce lepton flavor
1143: violation at an observable rate, unless the leptons would be localized
1144: closely towards the TeV-brane.
1145:
1146: Constraints on the $K-\bar K$ mass splitting require the dimension-six
1147: operator $(ds)^2$ to be suppressed by $Q>5\times 10^{6}$ GeV. If it
1148: contributes to CP violation, an even stronger suppression of
1149: $Q>5\times 10^{7}$ GeV is required. Using the quark locations of
1150: eq.~(\ref{qlocations}), we obtain $Q>7.2\times 10^{7}$ GeV for left-handed
1151: and $Q>1.2\times 10^{8}$ GeV for right-handed states. For the operator
1152: $(db)^2$ we find $Q>3.3\times 10^{6}$ GeV, which is above the corresponding
1153: experimental bound of $2\times 10^{6}$ GeV. Other flavor violating operators like
1154: $(cu)^2$ are also within their experimental bounds. The quark locations
1155: of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) which we obtained from the fermion mass pattern
1156: automatically lead to the required suppression of flavor violating
1157: non-renormalizable operators. This conforms the conclusions reached
1158: in refs.~\cite{GP,HS2}.
1159:
1160: Dimension-six operators contributing to proton decay are highly constrained
1161: by experimental searches. For instance the operator $q_1q_1q_2l_3$ has
1162: to be suppressed by $Q>10^{15}$ GeV \cite{BD}. Taking again the
1163: quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) and the lepton locations of
1164: eq.~(\ref{llocations1}) we obtain $Q>5.6\times 10^7$ GeV. So some small
1165: coupling of order $10^{-14}$ should multiply the non-renormalizable
1166: operator to be consistent with experimental limits on proton decay.
1167: This might point to an additional symmetry, such as baryon or lepton
1168: number. A tiny coupling might also originate from non-perturbative effects
1169: of gravity, especially if there is an extra dimension somewhat larger
1170: than $M_{\rm PL}$ \cite{KKLLS}. If the proton is stabilized by imposing
1171: lepton number (or lepton parity in the case of Majorana neutrino masses),
1172: baryon number violating processes like neutron-antineutron oscillations
1173: could still occur \cite{CC01}. With the quark locations of eq.~(\ref{qlocations}) the
1174: rate is, however, far below the experimental bound.
1175:
1176: In ref.~\cite{HS2}
1177: somewhat different quark locations where used in order to maximally
1178: suppress proton decay by non-renormalizable interactions. Similar
1179: conclusions were reached, even though the suppression scale $Q$
1180: could be enhanced by an order of magnitude. Non-renormalizable
1181: interactions can be further suppressed if the fermions are shifted
1182: closer towards the Planck-brane by allowing for larger 5D Yukawa
1183: couplings. A smaller AdS curvature compared to the fundamental
1184: Planck mass has the same effect. However, using these means to
1185: stabilize the proton would necessarily introduce new hierarchies in
1186: the model parameters.
1187:
1188:
1189:
1190: \section{Conclusions}
1191: In this paper we have studied aspects of flavor physics in the warped
1192: SM. Gauge bosons and fermions are bulk fields, while the Higgs field
1193: is confined to the TeV-brane. We have shown in detail how the fermion
1194: mass hierarchies and mixings can naturally be explained in a
1195: geometrical way, without relying on hierarchical Yukawa couplings.
1196: The observed fermion masses and mixings fix the relative positions
1197: of the fermion fields in the extra dimension. Large mixings are
1198: attributed to similar locations, and masses become small for
1199: fermions localized towards the Planck-brane.
1200: Small neutrino masses can arise from a coupling to right-handed
1201: neutrinos in the bulk or from dimension-five interactions.
1202:
1203: Mixings between different KK levels induces deviations from the SM.
1204: Electroweak fits require the KK scale to be at least 10 TeV.
1205: KK mixings in the quark and weak gauge boson sectors lead to a
1206: non-unitary CKM matrix. However, deviations from unitarity are
1207: safely within the experimental bounds.
1208:
1209: Flavor violation by (KK) gauge boson exchange is an immediate
1210: consequence of our approach to the fermion mass problem.
1211: After transformation to fermion mass eigenstates, non-universal
1212: gauge couplings generate flavor changing neutral currents. Fixing
1213: the fermion locations by the fermion masses and mixings,
1214: we can predict the rates of flavor violations processes. Since
1215: the light fermion flavors are localized towards the Planck-brane,
1216: where non-universality is small, flavor violation is within experimental
1217: bounds even for a KK scale of 10 TeV. Some processes, such as
1218: muon-electron conversion, are in the reach of next generation experiments
1219: and can provide valuable hints to the higher dimensional theory.
1220: This result is quite different from models with flat extra dimensions,
1221: where constraints on kaon mixing require the KK scale to be in the
1222: $10^3$ TeV range. Flavor violation in radiative decays is suppressed
1223: which is an important distinction to supersymmetric models.
1224:
1225: Bulk fermions also help to reduce the impact of non-renormalizable
1226: operators. We have demonstrated that their contribution to flavor
1227: violating processes is naturally below the experimental sensitivity,
1228: even for order unity couplings. Dimension-six operators leading
1229: to proton decay, however, cannot be sufficiently suppressed.
1230: The required tiny couplings might point to some additional symmetry.
1231:
1232: Thus, the warped SM allows to generate the
1233: fermion mass pattern from flavor-dependent locations without giving up the
1234: solution to the gauge hierarchy problem or inducing
1235: unacceptable rates for flavor violating processes.
1236:
1237: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1238: The author thanks David E.~Costa and Qaisar Shafi for valuable
1239: discussions.
1240:
1241:
1242: \begin{thebibliography}{12}
1243: \bibitem{RS} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1244: {\bf 83} (1999) 3370.
1245:
1246: \bibitem{G} M.~Gogberashvili, hep-ph/9812296.
1247:
1248: \bibitem{CHNOY} S.~Chang, J.~Hisano, H.~Nakano, N.~Okada and Yamaguchi,
1249: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 084025 [hep-ph/9912498].
1250:
1251: \bibitem{HS}S.J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 045010
1252: [hep-ph/0005286].
1253:
1254: \bibitem{GP} T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol,
1255: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B586} (2000) 141 [hep-ph/0003129].
1256:
1257: \bibitem{HS2} S.J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B498} (2001) 256
1258: [hep-ph/0010196].
1259:
1260: \bibitem{AS} N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,
1261: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\em D61} (2000) 033005 [hep-ph/9903417];
1262: G.R.~Dvali and M.A.~Shifman, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B475} (2000)
1263: 295 [hep-ph/0001072].
1264:
1265: \bibitem{HS4}S.J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B544} (2002) 295
1266: [hep-ph/0205327].
1267:
1268: \bibitem{GN} Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert,
1269: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B474} (2000) 361 [hep-ph/9912408].
1270:
1271: \bibitem{HS3} S.J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B512} (2001) 365
1272: [hep-ph/0104293].
1273:
1274: \bibitem{HLS}S.J.~Huber, C.-A.~Lee and Q.~Shafi, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B531}
1275: (2002) 112 [hep-ph/0111465].
1276:
1277: \bibitem{HPR} J.L.~Hewett, F.J.~Petriello and T.G.~Rizzo, {\em JHEP} {\bf 0209}
1278: (2002) 030 [hep-ph/0203091].
1279:
1280: \bibitem{branekin}H.~Davoudiasl, J.L.~Hewett and T.G.~Rizzo, hep-ph/0212279;
1281: M.~Carena, E.~Ponton, T.M.P.~Tait and C.E.M.~Wagner, hep-ph/0212307.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{CET} C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich and J.~Terning {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66}
1284: (2002) 064021 [hep-ph/0203034].
1285:
1286: \bibitem{K00}R.~Kitano, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B481} (2000) 39 [hep-ph/0002279].
1287:
1288: \bibitem{dAS} F.~del Aguila and J.~Santiago, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B493} (2000) 175
1289: [hep-ph/0008143].
1290:
1291: \bibitem{KKS02}C.S.~Kim, J.D.~Kim and J.~Song, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D67} (2003)
1292: 015001 [hep-ph/0204002].
1293:
1294: \bibitem{B02} G.~Burdman, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} (2002) 076003
1295: [hep-ph/0205329].
1296:
1297: \bibitem{H02}S.J.~Huber, to appear in the Proceedings of SUSY 2002, hep-ph/0211056.
1298:
1299: \bibitem{DHRP} H.~Davoudiasl, J.L.~Hewett and T.G.~Rizzo,
1300: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B473} (2000) 43;
1301: A.~Pomarol, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B486} (2000) 153.
1302:
1303: \bibitem{NT02}H.B.~Nielsen and Y.~Takanishi, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B543} (2002) 249
1304: [hep-ph/0205180]; C.D.~Froggatt, H.B.~Nielsen and Y.~Takanishi,
1305: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B631} (2002) 285 [hep-ph/0201152].
1306:
1307: \bibitem{FK98}H.~Fusaoka and Y.~Koide, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D57} (1998) 3986-4001
1308: [hep-ph/9712201].
1309:
1310: \bibitem{FX00}H.~Fritzsch and Z.~Xing, {\em Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 45} (2000) 1
1311: [hep-ph/9912358].
1312:
1313: \bibitem{PDG} K.~Hagiwara {\em et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1314: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} (2002) 010001.
1315:
1316: \bibitem{J} C.~Jarlskog, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 55} (1985) 1039.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{HS01}P.Q.~Hung and M.~Seco, hep-ph/0111013.
1319:
1320: \bibitem{beneke}M.~Beneke {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0003033.
1321:
1322: \bibitem{LP} P.~Langacker and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1323: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 013006 [hep-ph/0001204].
1324:
1325: \bibitem{mu3e}U.~Bellgardt {\em et al.} [SINDRUM Collaboration]
1326: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B299} (1988) 1.
1327:
1328: \bibitem{SMF} J.~Aysto {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0109217.
1329:
1330: \bibitem{tau3e}Y.~Yusa {\em et al.}, [BELLE Collaboration], hep-ex/0211017.
1331:
1332: \bibitem{SindrumII}P.~Wintz, in {\em Proceedings of the first International
1333: Symposium on Lepton and Baryon Number Violation}, p.~534 (1998).
1334:
1335: \bibitem{bachmann}M.~Bachmann {\em er al.}, [MECO Collaboration], Research Proposal
1336: E940 for an experiment at BNL (1997).
1337:
1338: \bibitem{MEG}L.M.~Barkov, {\em et al.}, [MEGA Collaboration], Research Proposal for
1339: an experiment at PSI (1999).
1340:
1341: \bibitem{CIHN}J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 116005
1342: [hep-ph/9810479];
1343: J.A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B618} (2001) 171-204
1344: [hep-ph/0103065].
1345:
1346: \bibitem{willmann98}L.~Willmann {\em et al.}, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}
1347: (1999) 49 [hep-ex/9807011].
1348:
1349: \bibitem{VIA}F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L. Silvestrini {\em Nucl. Phys.}
1350: {\bf B477} (1996) 321 [hep-ph/9604387];
1351: T.~Moroi, {\em JHEP} {\bf 0003} (2000) 019 [hep-ph/0002208].
1352:
1353: \bibitem{DPQ99}A.~Delgado, A.~Pomarol and M.~Quiros {\em JHEP} {\bf 0001}
1354: (2000) 030 [hep-ph/9911252].
1355:
1356: \bibitem{AMS03}S.~Abel, M. Masip and J. Santiago, hep-ph/0303087.
1357:
1358: \bibitem{BD}K.~Benakli and S.~Davidson,
1359: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 025004 [hep-ph/9810280].
1360:
1361: \bibitem{KKLLS}A.B.~Kobakhidze, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B514} (2001) 131-138
1362: [hep-ph/0102323];
1363: R.~Kallosh, A.D.~Linde, D.A.~Linde and L.~Susskind,
1364: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D52} (1995) 912.
1365:
1366: \bibitem{CC01}C.E.~Carlson and C.D.~Carone, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B512}
1367: (2001) 121 [hep-ph/0103180].
1368:
1369:
1370: \end{thebibliography}
1371:
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375: \end{document}
1376: