1:
2:
3: \title{Flavor and Little Higgs\\[.2in]
4: }
5: \author{ Otto C. W. Kong}
6: %\email
7: \affiliation
8: {%$^1 \!\!$ National Center for Theoretical Sciences, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.\\ %, R.O.C. \\
9: %$^2 \!\!$
10: Department of Physics, National Central University, Chung-li, Taiwan 32054\\
11: %Email: { otto@phy.ncu.edu.tw}
12: }
13: %\date{\today}
14:
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We discuss the proper starting point to look into flavor physics under the
18: perspective of solving the hierarchy problem with the little Higgs mechanism
19: --- the construction of anomaly free fermionic spectra of the effective theory of
20: extended electroweak gauge symmetry around the TeV scale. Anomaly
21: cancellations among the three SM families, plus extra fermions, are typically
22: needed, giving family non-universal flavor structures.
23: Such a completed and consistent fermionic spectrum supplements
24: a scalar sector little Higgs model, turning the latter into a
25: realistic model the phenomenological viability of which can
26: then be investigated. The implications for flavor physics are
27: specially interesting. We give more elaborated discussion here on our
28: basic perspective, trying to clarify on issues that are in our opinion
29: under-appreciated. We also add a brief comment of little Higgs versus
30: supersymmetry.
31: \end{abstract}
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \section{Introduction}
35: This is second talk on little Higgs in the conference program. We will take
36: advantage of the first talk from T.Han\cite{han}, in which the little Higgs idea
37: has been reviewed. Instead of repeating what has been said there, we would
38: rather focus on our main concern --- the construction of an anomaly free
39: fermionic spectrum as a necessary completion of a little Higgs model and
40: the proper starting point to think about flavor physics under the model. To set
41: a clear perspective, however, we supplement a brief comment of the apparent
42: difference between the main physics of the first talk and that to be addressed
43: here.
44:
45: The simplest way to look at the question is to say that we are talking about
46: different (kinds of) little Higgs models, namely, we focus on models from
47: Kaplan and Schmaltz\cite{KS} with $SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X$ ($N=3$
48: and 4) extended electroweak (gauge) symmetries. For instance, for the $N=3$ case,
49: we have actually a scalar (Higgs) sector of a $[SU(3)]^2/[SU(2)]^2$ nonlinear
50: sigma model, as versus that of the $SU(5)/SO(5)$, model\cite{ltH} on which the first
51: talk is mainly based. In our opinion, the models discussed here actually have
52: structures that are more carefully worked out, especially after our effort on
53: which the current talk is mainly based\cite{009,010}. However, we certainly
54: believe that the issues addressed here have relevance for generic little Higgs
55: model building as well as little Higgs flavor physics. Such issues have not
56: been well addressed by earlier authors on the subject, who might be focusing
57: more on establishing and illustrating the little Higgs mechanism rather
58: than furnishing complete particle physics models. For example, the full fermionic
59: content of all the multiplets under the global as well as extended gauge
60: symmetries of the $SU(5)/SO(5)$ model has not been presented. To elaborate more,
61: only one extra fermion, the heavy top quark $T$ needed to cancel the quadratic
62: divergence (of the contribution to Higgs mass) from the SM $t$ quark at 1-loop
63: is discussed. It is taken to be vectorlike under the SM gauge symmetry. But
64: there should be a lot more to the story. The $T$ quark, or rather its chiral
65: components, has to join the SM chiral components to form multiplet(s) under
66: the extended symmetries. There would then be other extra fermions from the
67: full multiplet(s). It is also very unlikely there one can arrange the little Higgs
68: mechanism with the $T$ quark, as well as all the other extra fermions, vectorlike
69: under the full gauge symmetry of the model. Neither is that exactly a
70: desirable feature. If the extra states are fully vectorlike, instead of forming
71: vectorlike pairs only after the gauge symmetry is broken to that of the SM, there
72: is no reason for such states, including the $T$, to have masses below the
73: 10-50 TeV cutoff scale. For the kind of models we discussed here below, we will
74: spell out the complete multiplets necessary to house all the fermions --- SM ones
75: plus $T$ as a minimal list. For each particular model, the list is chiral to begin with
76: while yielding the SM chiral list plus vectorlike states including the $T$ as SM gauge
77: symmetry becomes the only surviving gauge symmetry. The latter is exactly what is
78: required to be a consistent extended symmetry model embedding the SM. Furthermore,
79: we will see that such a list is essentially dictated by the particular realization
80: of the little Higgs mechanism and the condition that chiral fermionic spectrum be
81: gauge anomaly free. The gauge anomaly cancellation conditions constitute what
82: we believe to be the best understanding we have on the question of {\it why there is
83: what there is}. And, in our opinion, it is apparently much under-appreciated by
84: many physicists.
85:
86: Han and collaborators has performed some interesting phenomenological studies of
87: the $SU(5)/SO(5)$ little Higgs model\cite{han}. Most parts of those results are
88: valid, as they are independent of the complete fermionic spectrum, {\it i.e.} when
89: one assumes that such a consistent spectrum can be obtained, and any extra fermion
90: to be included has a mass very close to the cutoff and/or has no significant coupling
91: to the SM spectrum. However, looking at the little Higgs models from a model-building
92: point of view, one should wonder if we can do a more complete job. On the other hand,
93: if our concern is flavor physics, the detailed representation assignment of the SM fermions
94: themselves under the extended symmetries would have strong implications on the
95: flavor structure of a model. Hence, it becomes an unavoidable subject. Not to say that
96: the extra fermions may also play some role. What we are doing here is only a small
97: starting step in the direction --- a direction that certainly deserves more attention if
98: we want to consider any little Higgs model as a realistic particle physics model though.
99:
100: \section{The \boldmath $SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ little Higgs model}
101: Let us first give a summary of the particular realization of little Higgs mechanism our
102: discussion explicitly based on, the model(s) from Kaplan and Schmaltz\cite{KS}. The
103: latter paper, as well as Ref.\cite{S}, presents a simple group theoretical approach
104: to little Higgs model building, which might look more transparent and easier to
105: follow for beginners. The construction focuses only on the TeV scale effective field
106: theory, independent of its strong couplings parent theory or so-called UV-completion. It
107: is the same bottom-up model building perspective that we adopted here, only pushing
108: it all the way to the end. We are looking into the structure of the little Higgs model
109: as a {\it complete} particle physics model --- effective field theory, living between
110: the electroweak scale and the scale of the yet unknown UV-completion. We ask
111: for a consistent and comprehensive description of its physics content. The
112: phenomenological viability of the model may then be carefully studied and
113: tested experimentally.
114:
115: Kaplan and Schmaltz considered a scalar sector with two (anti)triplets
116: $\Phi_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}$ and $\Phi_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}$
117: each taken as carrying its own $SU(3)$ symmetry. The two (anti)triplets are assigned
118: VEVs aligned within a combination of the two $SU(3)$'s that is gauged together
119: with an extra $U(1)_X$. The two sets of five Goldstone states from the two
120: $SU(3) \to SU(2)$ symmetry-breakings then consists of an unphysical set to be
121: eaten by the extra ``electroweak" gauge bosons in the $SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$
122: beyond their SM electroweak cousins. The orthogonal set contains
123: pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (PNGBs) under the remaining part of the symmetries
124: which are global and really (can be) only approximate in the full Lagrangian.
125: The PNGBs include the SM Higgs doublet and an extra singlet scalar.
126: Explicitly, there is the following nonlinear sigma model description :
127: \beq
128: \Phi_1=e^{i \theta/f}
129: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
130: 0 & 0 & f \end{array} \right)\! \qquad\qquad
131: \Phi_2=e^{-i \theta/ f}
132: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
133: 0 & 0 & f \end{array} \right)\! \;,
134: \eeq
135: \beq
136: \theta={1 \over \sqrt{2}}
137: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
138: \!\!\begin{array}{ll} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
139: & \!\!h^\dagger \\ h & \!\!0 \end{array} \right)
140: +{\eta \over 4}
141: \left( \begin{array}{rrr} 1&0 &0 \\0 &1&0\\ 0& 0&\!\!\!-2 \end{array}
142: \right) \;.
143: \eeq
144:
145: To take care of the top sector contribution to Higgs mass correction at 1-loop,
146: the extra $T$ quark is introduced with a chiral component living inside a
147: triplet of the extended electroweak gauge symmetry. This is exactly the
148: triplet that contains the $(t,b)$ SM doublet, hence linking $T$ to $t$. We
149: have Yukawa terms involving the two top-like quarks given as
150: \beqa
151: {\mathcal L}_{top} &=& y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}\,\bar{t}'_a\,
152: {\Phi_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1} \, Q^a} + y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}\,\bar{T}'_a\,
153: {\Phi_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2} \, Q^a}
154: \nonumber \\ &=& \label{tY}
155: f\,(y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}\,\bar{t}'+ y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}\,\bar{T}')\, T
156: + \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} \, (y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 1}\,\bar{t}'- y_{\!\scriptscriptstyle 2}\,\bar{T}')\,
157: {h\left( \begin{array}{c} t \\ b \end{array} \right)} + \cdots \;,
158: \eeqa
159: where $Q^a=(T^a, t^a, b^a)^{\!\scriptscriptstyle T}$, and
160: $\bar{t}'_a$, and $\bar{T}'_a$ denote colored singlet states. For details on the
161: functioning of the little Higgs mechanism, we refer readers to the original paper\cite{KS}.
162: From our discussion at the beginning, we are led to the question of how to complete
163: the group theoretical description of the full fermion spectrum. All SM doublets would
164: have to come from nontrivial representations of the $SU(3)_L$. The first point to note
165: here is that simply repeating the structure here with quarks for the lighter two
166: families does not work. The simple embedding produces $SU(3)_L$ gauge
167: anomaly rendering the model inconsistent. Nor is such an embedding desirable,
168: as we will show below.
169:
170: \section{Gauge anomaly Vs Flavor structure --- a detour}
171: To set a good reference background for the problem at hand, we take a detour here
172: to re-examine the SM spectrum and the questions of flavor structure. The spectrum
173: of SM fermion in one family is like perfection, essentially dictated by gauge
174: anomaly cancellation conditions. And there is the million-dollar question, or
175: fundamental question of flavor physics --- Why three families ? To illustrate the point
176: of view, we recall our earlier argument\cite{unc67}. Assuming that there
177: exist a minimal multiplet carrying nontrivial quantum numbers of each of the
178: component gauge groups, one can obtain the one-family SM spectrum as the
179: unique solution by asking for the minimal consistent set of chiral states. A vectorlike
180: set is trivial but not as interesting. Only chiral states are protected from heavy
181: gauge invariant masses.
182:
183: The above suggested derivation of the one-family SM spectrum goes as follow.
184: We are essentially starting with a quark doublet, with arbitrary hypercharge
185: normalization. The two $SU(3)_C$ triplets require two antitriplets to cancel
186: the anomaly. Insisting on the chiral spectrum means taking two quark singlets
187: here, with hypercharges still to be specified. Now, $SU(2)_L$ is real, but has
188: a global anomaly. Cancellation requires an even number of doublet, so at least
189: one more beyond the three colored components in the quark doublet. There
190: are still four anomaly cancellation conditions to take care of. They are the
191: $[SU(3)_C]^2 U(1)_Y$, $[SU(2)_L]^2 U(1)_Y$, $[grav]^2 U(1)_Y$, and
192: $[U(1)_Y]^3$. We are however left with three relative hypercharges to fit the
193: four equations actually without a possible solution. A rescue comes from simply
194: adding a $U(1)_Y$-charged singlet. But the four equation for four unknown
195: setting is misleading. The $[U(1)_Y]^3$ anomaly cancellation equation is cubic
196: in all the charges, with no rational solution guaranteed. The SM solution may
197: actually be considered a beautiful surprise.
198:
199: We would also like to take the opportunity here to briefly sketch the next step taken
200: in Ref.\cite{unc67}, to further illustrate our perspective. The results there also may
201: be considered a worthy comparison with our little Higgs motivated flavor/family
202: spectrum presented below, from the point of view of the origin of the three families.
203: The major goal of Ref.\cite{unc67} is to use a similar structure with an extended
204: symmetry to obtain the three families. For example, one can start with some
205: $SU(4)\times SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge symmetry and try to obtain
206: the minimal chiral spectrum contain a $(4,3,2)$ multiplet --- the simplest one
207: with nontrivial quantum number under all component groups. Having a consistent
208: solution is not enough though. In order for the spectrum be of interest, we ask the
209: spectrum to yield the chiral spectrum of three SM families plus a set of vectorlike
210: states under a feasible spontaneous symmetry breaking scenario, {\it i.e.} when
211: the gauge symmetry is broken to that of the SM. Ref.\cite{unc67} has only
212: partial success. A consistent group theoretical SM embedding could be obtained
213: with a slight addition to the minimal chiral spectrum obtained from anomaly
214: cancellation considerations alone. We give an example in Table I.
215:
216: To conclude the section, we emphasize that anomaly cancellation conditions
217: play a role of paramount importance in constraining the fermionic spectrum.
218: Having a complete model with an extended gauge symmetry above the electroweak
219: scale successfully, even though only group theoretically speaking, embedding
220: the SM states is not at all trivial. Types of consistent models of the kind in the
221: literature are quite limited. However, such exercises might, and have been,
222: used as a way to probe the most fundamental question of flavor physics --- why
223: 3 families? We return to the little Higgs model(s) below, to get
224: exactly such a job finished. We will then see how the requirement for an
225: anomaly free chiral fermion spectrum dictates a specific flavor structure to
226: a particular model. Readers are invited to consider if the model, or its
227: fermion spectrum, obtained is as esthetically appealing as the (one-family) SM
228: or the models obtained in Ref.\cite{unc67}. We do believe that such
229: esthetic concerns may have some relevance in fundamental physics. After all,
230: it cannot be emphasized enough that the anomaly cancellation requirement is
231: the best, and might be only, theoretical tool we have up to the moment to address
232: the question of why there is what there is in terms of the fermionic sector.
233:
234: %\newpage
235:
236: \begin{center}
237: \small\noindent
238: Table I. A $SU(4)_A\otimes SU(3)_C\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_X$
239: anomaly free chiral fermion spectrum with three SM families.\\[.05in]
240: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|r|r|r|r|cc|}
241: \hline\hline
242: multiplets & $X$ &
243: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Gauge anomalies} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$U(1)_Y$ states } \\
244: \hline
245: & & $U(1)$-grav. & $[SU(4)]^2U(1)$ & $[SU(3)]^2U(1)$ & $[SU(2)]^2U(1)$ & $[U(1)]^3$ & & \\
246: \hline
247: ${\bf (4,3,2)}$ & {\bf 1} & 24 & 6 & 8 & 12 & 24 & 3\ {\bf 1}($Q$) & {\bf -5}($Q^{'}$) \\
248: ${\bf (\bar{4},\bar{3},1)}$ & {\bf 5} & 60 & 15 & 20 & & 1500 & 3\ {\bf -4}($\bar{u}$) & {\bf 2}($\bar{d}$) \\
249: ${\bf (\bar{4},1,2)}$ & {\bf 3} & 24 & 6 & & 12 & 216 & 3\ {\bf -3}($L$) & {\bf 3}($\bar{L}$) \\
250: ${\bf (\bar{4},1,1)}$ & {\bf 9} & 36 & 9 & & & 2916 & 3\ {\bf -6}($\bar{E}$) & {\bf 0}($N$) \\
251: ${\bf (6,1,1)}$ & {\bf -18} & -108 & -36 & & & -34992 & 3\ {\bf 6}($E$) & 3\ {\bf 12}($S$) \\ \hline
252: ${\bf (1,\bar{3},2)}$ & {\bf -10} & -60 & & -20 & -30 & -6000 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\bf 5}($\bar{Q}^{'}$)} \\
253: ${\bf (1,\bar{3},1)}$ & {\bf -4} & -12 & & -4 & & -192 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\bf 2}($\bar{d}$)} \\
254: ${\bf (1,\bar{3},1)}$ & {\bf -4} & -12 & & -4 & & -192 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\bf 2}($\bar{d}$)} \\ \hline
255: ${\bf (1,1,2)}$ & {\bf 6} & 12 & & & 6 & 432 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\bf -3}($L$)} \\
256: $3\ {\bf (1,1,1)}$ & {\bf 24} & 72 & & & & 41472 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{3\ {\bf -12}($\bar{S}$)} \\
257: $3\ {\bf (1,1,1)}$ & {\bf -12} & -36 & & & & -5184 & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{3\ {\bf 6}($E$)} \\ \hline
258: \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{\it Total} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & \\
259: \hline\hline
260: \end{tabular}
261: \end{center}
262: \normalsize
263:
264:
265: \section{Anomaly free \boldmath $SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X$ spectra}
266: In our recent papers\cite{009,010}, we have illustrated that an anomaly free fermionic spectrum
267: with consistent embedding of the three family SM fermions can be obtained. In fact, we have given
268: a recipe for an infinite number of similar fermionic spectra of with an $SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X$
269: extended electroweak symmetry for any $N>2$. The basic feature of such a spectrum is to have
270: $t$-$b$ quark SM doublet embedded into a fundamental representation of $SU(N)_L$ while
271: the lighter two quark doublets embedded into anti-fundamental, as inspired by Ref.\cite{PF}.
272: It exploits the fact that
273: \[
274: N_c = N_f \;;
275: \]
276: namely, the number of SM families (of fermions) $N_f$ happens to coincide with the number
277: of colors. Indeed such a spectrum may be considered rather as the reason behind the number
278: of SM family. We emphasize, again, that the need for gauge anomaly cancellation, for the SM
279: or otherwise, is the best we have in addressing the question if why there is what there is ---
280: a perspective we try to illustrate in the last section. The $1+2$ quark family embedding has
281: net $SU(N)_L$ anomaly to be canceled exactly by embedding the three leptonic doublets into
282: fundamentals. The simplest way to complete the spectrum with consistent SM embedding
283: is to put anything else in singlets, with just enough of them to produce vector-like pairs for
284: all single fermion states at the QED and QCD level. Neutrinos may be sort of exceptions to the
285: last statement. Carrying no conserved gauge quantum number, they can be considered
286: self-conjugate. When checking the other gauge anomalies of such a spectrum, it looks like a
287: miracle upon a first glance. There are prefect cancellations for all, as illustrated by the
288: $N=3$ example given in Table II. Two other example spectra given in Table III below,
289: in which we skip the explicit presentation of the gauge anomalies. Readers can easily
290: checked that the cancellations do work. In fact, a careful checking of the algebra\cite{010}
291: would show that the recipe as outlined here always works for any $N$. Looking at the
292: possible ways of obtaining the hypercharge $U(1)$ out of the $N-1$ $U(1)$s inside the
293: $SU(N)_L$ and the still extra $U(1)$ of $U(1)_X$, one will see that there is exactly a $N-2$
294: parameter degree of freedom and choosing such a model spectrum. That can be taken as
295: the freedom for choosing the electric charges of the $N-2$ extra quark states within the
296: same $SU(N)_L$ multiplet as the $t$-$b$ doublet.
297:
298: \noindent\begin{center}
299: \small
300: Table II : The $SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ spectrum with
301: little Higgs. Electroweak doublets are put in [.]'s. \\[.05in]
302: \begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|r|r|cc|}
303: \hline\hline
304: {fermion multiplets} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Gauge anomalies} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$U(1)_Y$ states } \\
305: \hline
306: & $U(1)$-grav. & $[SU(3)_L]^3$ & $[SU(3)_L]^2U(1)$ & $[SU(3)_C]^2U(1)$ & $[U(1)]^3$ & & \\
307: \hline
308: ${\bf (3_{\scriptscriptstyle C},3_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{3})}$
309: & $\frac{1}{3}\times 9\times 1$ & $3\times 1$ & $\frac{1}{3}\times 3\times 1$ & $\frac{1}{3}\times 3\times 1$ & $\frac{1}{27}\times 9\times 1$ & ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[$Q$] & ${\bf \frac{2}{3}}$($T$) \\
310: 2\ ${\bf ({3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,0)}$
311: & 0 & $-3\times 2$ & $0$ & 0 & 0 & 2\ ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[$Q$] & 2\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{3}}$($D,S$) \\
312: $3\ {\bf (l_{\scriptscriptstyle C} ,3_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-1}{3})}$
313: & $\frac{-1}{3}\times 3\times 3$& $1\times 3$ & $\frac{-1}{3}\times 3$ & & $\frac{-1}{27}\times 3\times 3$ & 3\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{2}}$[$L$] & 3\ {\bf 0}($N$) \\
314: $4\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-2}{3})}$
315: & $\frac{-2}{3}\times 3\times 4$& & & $\frac{-2}{3}\times 4$ & $\frac{-8}{27}\times 3\times 4$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{4\ ${\bf \frac{-2}{3}}$ ($\bar{u}, \bar{c}, \bar{t}, \bar{T}$)} \\
316: $5\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{3})}$
317: & $\frac{1}{3}\times 3\times 5$& & & $\frac{1}{3}\times 5$ & $\frac{1}{27}\times 3\times 5$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{5\ ${\bf \frac{1}{3}}$ ($\bar{d}, \bar{s}, \bar{b}, \bar{D}, \bar{S}$)}\\
318: $3\ {\bf (1_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,1)}$
319: & $1\times 3$ & & & & $1\times 3$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{3\ ${\bf 1}$ ($e^+, \mu^+, \tau^+$) } \\
320: \hline
321: \multicolumn{1}{|r|}{ Total} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & \\
322: \hline\hline
323: \end{tabular}
324: \end{center}
325: \normalsize
326:
327: We have summarized in the last paragraph the possible anomaly free fermionic spectra with
328: $SU(N)_L\times U(1)_X$ extended electroweak gauge symmetries. We would
329: certainly love to arrive at a conclusion of only one or two of such spectra are possible, instead
330: of having infinitely many candidates at hand. However, not all of such spectra
331: would be relevant to little Higgs, which is the major motivation of our study here.
332: The first obvious criterion for such a fermionic spectrum to fit into a little Higgs model is
333: the existence of the $T$ quark --- a heavy top quark that couples to the SM Higgs in such a
334: way as to allow the cancellation of quadratic divergence. Following what is illustrated in
335: Ref.\cite{KS} [{\it cf.} Eq.(\ref{tY})], we simply ask for a $T$ quark within the $Q^a$
336: multiplet --- the $SU(N)_L$ multiplet containing the $t$-$b$ doublet. (Note also that in the
337: Tables, $Q$ stands for a SM quark doublet instead.) For the case of $N=3$, that fix the
338: spectrum as given in Table II as the only option.
339:
340: Naively, one would prefer to stay with a smaller $N$. The unique $N=3$ case fitted with
341: the Higgs sector structure introduced in Ref.\cite{KS}, however, has some problem with getting
342: the Higgs quartic coupling, as noted by the authors. Interesting enough, another group
343: published a different little Higgs model with again the $SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ extended
344: electroweak symmetry\cite{ST}. In the latter case, the gauge symmetry is embedded into a
345: global $SU(9)$. It certainly looks like the fermionic spectrum could play a role in the
346: $SU(9)$ model too, though we are not really ready to comment of that here.
347:
348:
349: \section{ \boldmath $SU(3)_C\times SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X$ models}
350: To surmount the quartic coupling barrier of the $N=3$ case, Ref.\cite{KS}
351: turns to the construction of a $N=4$, with simply two $T$ quark instead of one. Our
352: analysis of the fermionic sector suggests the first spectrum given in Table III works as
353: a completion of the model. Another interesting question that arises is on the exact
354: identity of the fourth quark in the multiplet of $t$-$b$ and the single $T$ always required.
355: While we have not investigated all options in any detail, we believe the second spectrum
356: given in Table III would be a feasible and interesting alternative, with a heavy bottom $B$
357: quark instead of a second $T$. At the electroweak level, the type of $N=4$ little Higgs
358: model has two SM Higgs doublet. The modified Higgs sector we introduced in Ref.\cite{010}
359: to accompany the second $N=4$ fermionic spectrum looks more like a two Higgs doublet
360: model with natural flavor conservation and a naturally large $\tan\!\zb$. The latter
361: are phenomenologically desirable\cite{2hdm}.
362:
363: \begin{center}
364: %\noindent
365: \small
366: Table III : Fermion spectra for two $SU(3)_C\times SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X$ little Higgs models.
367: \\
368: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc||c|ccc|}
369: \hline\hline
370: \multicolumn{4}{|c||}{First model spectrum} & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Second model spectrum} \\ \hline
371:
372: & \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$U(1)_Y$-states} & & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$U(1)_Y$-states} \\ \hline
373: ${\bf (3_{\scriptscriptstyle C},4_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{5}{12})}$ & ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[$Q$] &2\ ${\bf \frac{2}{3}}$($T,T'$) & &
374: ${\bf (3_{\scriptscriptstyle C},4_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{6})}$ & ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[$Q$] & ${\bf \frac{2}{3}}$($T$) & ${\bf \frac{-1}{3}}$($B$) \\
375: 2\ ${\bf ({3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},\bar{4}_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-1}{12})}$ & 2\ ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[2\ $Q$] & 4\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{3}}$($D,D',S,S'$) & &
376: 2\ ${\bf ({3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},\bar{4}_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{6})}$ & 2\ ${\bf \frac{1}{6}}$[2\ $Q$] & 2\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{3}}$($D,S$) & 2\ ${\bf \frac{2}{3}}$($U,C$) \\
377: $3\ {\bf (l_{\scriptscriptstyle C} ,4_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-1}{4})}$ & 3\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{2}}$[3\ $L$] & 6\ {\bf 0}(6\ $N$) & &
378: $3\ {\bf (l_{\scriptscriptstyle C} ,4_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-1}{2})}$ & 3\ ${\bf \frac{-1}{2}}$[3\ $L$] & 3\ {\bf 0}(3\ $N$) & 3\ {\bf -1}(3\ $E^-$) \\
379: $5\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-2}{3})}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{5\ ${\bf \frac{-2}{3}}$ ($\bar{u}, \bar{c}, \bar{t}, \bar{T}, \bar{T'}$)} & &
380: $6\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{-2}{3})}$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{6\ ${\bf \frac{-2}{3}}$ ($\bar{u}, \bar{c}, \bar{t}, \bar{U}, \bar{C}, \bar{T}$)} \\
381: $7\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{3})}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{7\ ${\bf \frac{1}{3}}$ ($\bar{d}, \bar{s}, \bar{b}, \bar{D}, \bar{D'}, \bar{S}, \bar{S'}$)} & &
382: $6\ {\bf (\bar{3}_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,\frac{1}{3})}$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{6\ ${\bf \frac{1}{3}}$ ($\bar{d}, \bar{s}, \bar{b}, \bar{D}, \bar{S},\bar{B}$)} \\
383: $3\ {\bf (1_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,1)}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{3\ ${\bf 1}$ ($e^+, \mu^+, \tau^+$) } & &
384: $3\ {\bf (1_{\scriptscriptstyle C},1_{\scriptscriptstyle L} ,1)}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{3\ ${\bf 1}$ ($e^+, \mu^+, \tau^+$) } & 3\ {\bf 1}(3\ $E^+$) \\
385: \hline\hline
386: \end{tabular}
387: \end{center}
388: \normalsize
389:
390: \section{Little Higgs Vs Supersymmetry}
391: From the pure theoretical side, such models seem to hold great promise.
392: Like supersymmetry (SUSY), we have consistent complete model(s) of TeV scale physics
393: successful handling the notorious hierarchy problem. While the question of family
394: triplication of SM fermions is not at all touch by supersymmetrizing the SM, the bosonic
395: symmetry scheme of little Higgs adds fermions instead of sfermions, complicating
396: the issues of gauge anomaly cancellation. We see here that solving the latter problem
397: sheds some light on the number of family problem, at least for the class of little Higgs
398: models we focus on here. A similar construction of anomaly
399: free spectra does not work for the number of family being not three (as the number of
400: color). While the supersymmetric SM is quite unique, there are already many little Higgs
401: models on the market. Some models may not share much common structure with
402: the ones discussed here, though the basic anomaly cancellation concern is always
403: relevant. SUSY adds to the phenomenological flavor problems. Flavor changing
404: neutral current (FCNC) constraints impose stringent conditions on the soft SUSY
405: breaking parameters. FCNC constraints are certainly no less demanding on little Higgs
406: models. Precision electroweak constraints are generally more difficult for the latter\cite{han}.
407: However, it is only with completed models as those exhibited here that one can launch
408: a careful study of such constraints and hence the phenomenological viability of the
409: models concerned. The minimal SUSY model keeps the SM neutrinos massless.
410: Incorporating R-parity violation is arguably natural, at the expense of introducing
411: many, many new couplings\cite{0045}. Our little Higgs fermionic spectra above all
412: contain extra (singlet) neutrino states and hence the possibility of fixing the
413: experimentally required neutrino properties at the TeV scale too.
414:
415: \section{Some Implications to flavor physics}
416: First of all, the full quantum numbers characterizing a fermion multiplet will dictate
417: what couplings it can have within the model. The gauge quantum numbers dictate the
418: admissible gauge invariant couplings in the model Lagrangian. The latter is of course
419: the very starting point to look into the phenomenology of the fermionic states involved,
420: including those of the SM. The only other important issue here is the quantum numbers
421: under the global symmetries. However, as the latter are only approximate symmetries and
422: have no constraints like anomaly cancellations, there are more ambiguities and rooms to
423: play around with. Let us illustrate some possible features with the models discussed.
424:
425: Let us first restrict ourselves to the $SU(3)_L\times U(1)_X$ model originally introduced
426: in Ref.\cite{KS}. We have the full list of fermion gauge quantum numbers as given in Table II.
427: Next, we have scalar multiplets with gauge and global quantum numbers fixed by the
428: requirement of the little Higgs mechanism itself [{\it cf.} discussion on Eq.(\ref{tY})].
429: The minimal, and certainly safe, strategy is to consider no other scalar multiplets.
430: Gauge quantum numbers alone say that only the following direct Yukawa couplings
431: are admissible :
432: \[
433: 1_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \, \Phi_i \, {3}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}
434: \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
435: 1_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \, \Phi_i^\dag \, \bar{3}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \;.
436: \]
437: Only the $t$ and $T$ quarks come from representations of the right $X$-charges to
438: have a coupling of the first from; while for the second, only the $d$ and $s$ quarks fit in.
439: At the next level, we have
440: \[
441: 1_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \, \Phi_i^\dag \, \Phi_j^\dag \, {3}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}
442: \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
443: 1_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \, \Phi_i \, \Phi_j \,\bar{3}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L} \;.
444: \]
445: The first admits $b$ and $B$ Yukawas, as well as those for the charged leptons; the
446: second admits those for $u$ and $c$. The global symmetry requirement for the `top' Yukawa
447: naturally admits the above `bottom' Yukawa, the higher dimensionality of which might be
448: a source of the smaller numerical coupling of the latter case. The
449: $\bar{3}_{\!\scriptscriptstyle L}$s containing the $d$ and $s$ quark would have to bare
450: extra global quantum number constraints to push for high dimensional Yukawa couplings.
451: Such coupling suppressions have effects also on the extra $D$ and $S$ quarks, which
452: are likely to have strong implications to $b$ physics then.
453:
454: Finally, we comment on the $SU(4)_L\times U(1)_X$ model with the second spectrum
455: given in Table III. The model doubles the list of SM fermions, in much the same way as SUSY
456: double the particle spectrum (with different spin though). The modified little Higgs part
457: has two pairs of aligned-VEV $\Phi$'s with different $X$-charges to couple to the top
458: and bottom sector separately. The quadratic divergence cancellation then works for the
459: $t$-$T$ pair as well as for the $b$-$B$ pair in similar fashion. Large bottom Yukawa is
460: naturally admitted. Without further global symmetry constraints, the 'top-Higgs' couples
461: directly to $d$- and $s$-sectors while 'bottom-Higgs' to $u$-and $c$-sectors. Flavor physics
462: would be very different from that of the $SU(3)_L$ model above or that of the other $SU(4)_L$
463: model also given in Table III. The latter is expected to be quite similar to the $SU(3)_L$
464: case. More detailed analysis of such models have to start with feasible complete global
465: quantum number assignment to all multiplets.
466:
467: The bottom line here is that sensible discussion of flavor physics of a little Higgs model
468: is not possible before the full fermion spectrum is spelt out. The latter is constrained
469: by gauge anomaly cancellation. We exhibit some completed models here on which
470: detailed flavor physics still have to be studied. Building models of the kind, and studying
471: their phenomenology in details should be a worthy endeavor.
472:
473: Our work is partially supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan, under
474: grant number NSC 91-2112-M-008-044.
475:
476:
477: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
478: \bibitem{han}
479: T. Han, talk at ICFP 2003, {\it this proceedings}, and references therein.
480: \bibitem{KS}
481: D.E. Kaplan and M. Schmaltz, hep-ph/0302049.
482: \bibitem{ltH}
483: N. Arkani-Hamed {\it et al}, JHEP {\bf 07}, 034 (2002).
484: \bibitem{009}
485: O.C.W. Kong, NCU-HEP-k009, hep-ph/0307250.
486: \bibitem{010}
487: O.C.W. Kong, NCU-HEP-k010, hep-ph/0308148.
488: \bibitem{S}
489: M. Schmaltz, hep-ph/0210415.
490: \bibitem{unc67}
491: O.C.W. Kong, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A11}, 2547 (1996);
492: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 383 (1997).
493: \bibitem{PF}
494: P.H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 2889 (1992).
495: See also M.~Singer {\it et al}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 738 (1980);
496: F.~Pisano and V.~Pleitez, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 410 (1992);
497: R.~Foot {\it et al}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, R34 (1994).
498: \bibitem{ST}
499: W. Skiba and J. Terning, hep-ph/0305302.
500: \bibitem{2hdm}
501: See, for example,
502: K. Cheung {\it et al}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, {\it 111301(R)}, (2001) ;
503: K.~Cheung and O.C.W.~Kong,
504: Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, {\it 053003} (2003).
505: \bibitem{0045}
506: See, for example, O.C.W. Kong, hep-ph/0205205, { Int. J. Mod. Phys. A} (2003) {\it to be published},
507: and S.K.~Kang and O.C.W.~Kong, hep-ph/0206009, Phys. Rev. D {\it to be published}.
508:
509: \end{thebibliography}
510:
511:
512: \end{document}
513:
514:
515:
516: