1: % Vector limit and little Higgs
2: %
3: % M. Piai, J. Wacker, A. Pierce
4: %
5: % 05.20.04
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
8: \usepackage{graphics,graphicx,epsfig}
9: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,amsfonts}
10: \usepackage{ifthen}
11: \providecommand*{\ler}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle <}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
12: \providecommand*{\ger}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle >}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
13:
14: \def\draftnote#1{{\bf #1}}
15: \def\eq#1{{eq.~(\ref{#1})}}
16: \def\eqs#1#2{{eqs.~(\ref{#1})--(\ref{#2})}}
17: \def\fig#1{{fig.~(\ref{#1})}}
18: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}
19: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
20: \def\mod#1{\abs{#1}}
21: \def\Im{\mbox{Im}\,}
22: \def\Re{\mbox{Re}\,}
23: \def\Tr{\mbox{Tr}\,}
24: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
25: \def\ie{{\it i.e. }}
26: \def\di{\mbox{d}}
27: \def\ltap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\ }
28: \def\al{\alpha^{\prime}}
29: \def\a{& \hspace{-7pt}}
30: \def\susy{\raisebox{0pt}{${\mbox susy}$}\hspace{-15pt} \slash\hspace{7pt}}
31: \def\dslash{\raisebox{1pt}{$\slash$} \hspace{-7pt} \partial}
32: \def\hbar{\hspace{0pt}\raisebox{1pt}{$-$} \hspace{-7pt} h}
33: \def\Aslash{\hspace{3pt}\raisebox{1pt}{$\slash$} \hspace{-9pt} A}
34: \def\Dslash{\hspace{3pt}\raisebox{1pt}{$\slash$} \hspace{-9pt} D}
35: \def\c{\hspace{-5pt}}
36: \def\Z{{\bb Z}}
37: \def\5{\overline 5}
38: \def\S{{\cal{S}}}
39: \def\oo{$\hat{{\mbox{o}}}$\hspace{-0pt}}
40:
41: %
42: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
43: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
44: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
45: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
46: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
47: \newcommand{\spav}[1]{\parbox{1mmhe}{\vspace*{#1}}}
48: \newcommand{\spao}[1]{\mbox{\hspace{#1}}}
49: \newcommand{\diag}{\text{diag}}
50: \newcommand{\nlsm}{\text{nl$\sigma$m}}
51: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
52: \newcommand{\inv}{{-1}}
53: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}
54: \newcommand{\hc}{\text{ h.c. }}
55: \newcommand{\identity}{{\rlap{1} \hskip 1.6pt \hbox{1}}}
56: \newcommand{\lsim}{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
57: \newcommand{\gsim}{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
58: \newcommand{\DD}{\mathcal{D}}
59: \newcommand{\GG}{\mathcal{G}}
60: \newcommand{\HH}{\mathcal{H}}
61: \newcommand{\JJ}{\mathcal{J}}
62: \newcommand{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}
63: \newcommand{\NN}{\mathcal{N}}
64: \newcommand{\MM}{\mathcal{M}}
65: \newcommand{\OO}{\mathcal{O}}
66: \newcommand{\PP}{\mathcal{P}}
67: \newcommand{\TeV}{\text{ TeV }}
68: \newcommand{\GeV}{\text{ GeV}}
69: \newcommand{\MeV}{\text{ MeV}}
70: \newcommand{\eff}{{\text{eff}}}
71: \newcommand{\spartial}{\!\!\not\!\partial}
72:
73:
74: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.45 in}
75: \setlength{\textheight}{8.75in}
76: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.7in}
77: \setlength{\parindent}{25 pt}
78: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.1in}
79: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.1in}
80: %
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: \begin{document}
83: \begin{titlepage}
84: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
85: \begin{flushright}
86: SLAC--PUB--10457\\
87: May 2004\\
88: %SU--ITP--XX--XX\\
89: hep-ph/0405242\\
90: \end{flushright}
91: \vskip 2cm
92: \begin{center}
93: {\large\bf Composite Vector Mesons from QCD to the Little Higgs}
94: \vskip 1cm
95: {\normalsize
96: %%
97: Maurizio Piai$^{1}$\footnote{The work of MP is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-92ER-4074.}, Aaron Pierce$^{2,3}$\footnote{The work of AP is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
98: under contract number DE-AC03-76SF00515.}, Jay G. Wacker$^{3}$\footnote{JGW is supported by National Science Foundation Grant PHY-9870115 and by the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.}\\
99: %%
100: \vskip 0.5cm
101: %%
102: 1. Department of Physics\\
103: Yale University\\
104: New Haven, CT 06520\\
105: %%
106: \vskip .1in
107: %%
108: 2. Theory Group \\
109: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\\
110: Menlo Park, CA 94025\\
111: %%
112: \vskip .1in
113: %%
114: 3. Institute for Theoretical Physics\\
115: Stanford University\\
116: Stanford, CA 94305\\
117: %%
118: \vskip .1in
119: }
120: \end{center}
121: \vskip .5cm
122:
123: \begin{abstract}
124: We review how the $\rho$ meson can be modeled in an effective theory
125: and discuss the implications of applying this approach to heavier
126: spin-one resonances. Georgi's vector limit is explored, and its
127: relationship to locality in a deconstructed extra-dimension
128: is discussed. We then apply the formalism for $\rho$'s
129: to strongly coupled theories of electroweak symmetry breaking, studying
130: the lightest spin-one techni-$\rho$ resonances. Understanding these
131: new particles in Little Higgs models can shed light on previously
132: incalculable, ultraviolet sensitive physics, including the mass of
133: the Higgs boson.
134: \end{abstract}
135: \vskip .5cm
136: \end{titlepage}
137:
138: %\tableofcontents
139: %
140: %\newpage
141: \section{Introduction}
142: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
143: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
144: \setcounter{equation}{0}
145: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
146:
147: Little Higgs models have recently rekindled interest in theories where the
148: Higgs is a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson
149: (PNGB)\cite{PGBHiggs,LH,littlest,sp6}.
150: These models can naturally be ultraviolet-completed into theories of
151: strong dynamics, although linear sigma model UV completions are possible.
152: If completed into a theory of strong dynamics, the PNGBs arise when the gauge
153: dynamics at a scale $\Lambda \sim$ 10 TeV breaks global chiral
154: symmetries of the theory. These PNGBs are not the only states associated
155: with the strong dynamics -- a host of resonances are expected near the scale
156: of strong coupling.
157: The energy at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be
158: insufficient to directly explore
159: the constituents of the strong dynamics; therefore, the question of more
160: immediate interest is how to describe the low-lying states of the strong
161: dynamics. It is challenging to study the phenomenology of the
162: theory in this regime because the dynamics are strongly coupled.
163:
164: The same situation exists in QCD: the chiral Lagrangian accurately
165: models the interactions of the pions at the lowest energies; perturbation
166: theory is a powerful tool at high energies, but it
167: is difficult to discuss the interactions of the QCD resonances near the strong
168: coupling scale, such as the $\rho$.
169: Historically, a variety of techniques have been
170: employed to investigate these resonances, including current algebra,
171: QCD sum rules, dispersion relations, and hidden local symmetry.
172: In this paper, we first discuss the $\rho$ mesons of QCD; the lessons learned
173: are used in the subsequent treatment of techni-$\rho$ mesons in Little Higgs
174: theories.
175:
176: We use hidden local symmetry because this technique is valid at low
177: energies and small
178: $Q^2$, precisely the regime in which we are interested.
179: %and the central results are model independent and hidden local symmetry.
180: In the hidden local symmetry approach,
181: one writes an effective Lagrangian including the $\rho$ mesons,
182: analogous to the traditional chiral Lagrangian written for the pions
183: \cite{HiddenLocal}. Gauge symmetries are useful for describing light vector
184: mesons and can be used to constrain the interactions of the $\rho$ \cite{Georgi:1989xy}.
185: The lightness of the $\rho$ (relative to $4 \pi f_{\pi} \equiv \Lambda$)
186: is crucial to success in this program. While the separation between
187: $m_{\rho}$ and $\Lambda$ is not incredibly large, it is enough to be predictive.
188: These predictions are qualitatively correct and, perhaps surprisingly,
189: quantitatively not far from the experimentally measured values.
190:
191: Another asset of the language of hidden local symmetry is that it clearly
192: illuminates the possibility of an enhanced symmetry for QCD,
193: reflected in a particular value of the $\rho$-pion coupling.
194: This symmetry point is essentially the ``vector limit'' discussed in \cite{Georgi:1989xy},
195: and reviewed in our Sec.~\ref{Sec:QCDVector}. As we will discuss,
196: QCD is not too far from realizing this enhanced symmetry.
197: Reference~\cite{deconstruction} showed that a theory comprised
198: of gauge groups and bi-fundamental fields can be mapped directly on
199: to a description of a physical extra dimension. In particular, notions
200: that are traditionally associated with a physical dimension, such as
201: locality, can be preserved in the theory space description. We find that
202: the vector limit is closely related to locality in theory space.
203:
204: Including the lightest spin-one resonances in the effective theory
205: allows us to address questions of how high energy physics affects
206: the PNGBs. In particular, we can examine the
207: unitarization of the PNGB scattering. We also find
208: that the incorporating the techni-$\rho$'s into the effective field
209: theory associated with electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) can shed light on previously
210: incalculable quantities in Little Higgs models.
211:
212: The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \ref{Sec:QCDrho}
213: we review the couplings of the $\rho$ in the QCD chiral Lagrangian.
214: This gives a well-understood example for the hidden local
215: symmetry approach and motivates our discussion of techni-$\rho$'s
216: and their properties in
217: more general theories of strong dynamics. For our discussion of
218: $\rho$'s in QCD, we draw heavily upon the paper \cite{Georgi:1989xy}.
219: In our discussion of the weak-scale strong dynamics, we will emphasize
220: the potential utility of (techni-)$\rho$'s in regulating quadratic
221: divergences. To motivate this point, we again
222: turn towards QCD. In Sec.~\ref{Sec:QCDVector}, we introduce
223: the {\it vector limit} of QCD. In this limit, the $\rho$'s regulate
224: the quadratic divergence in the charged pion mass that
225: arises from QED loops \cite{Harada}.
226: Having laid a foundation with our discussion of the QCD $\rho$ meson,
227: we then turn towards a discussion of the techni-$\rho$ and its couplings.
228: We explain how techni-$\rho$ mesons can
229: analogously soften quadratic divergences in Little Higgs models in
230: Sec.~\ref{Sec:TR}. This allows us to calculate previously UV-sensitive quantities, including the Higgs boson mass in the Littlest Higgs model. We also
231: note that the inclusion of techni-$\rho$'s
232: can have important consequences for studying vacuum alignment: in the vector
233: limit, the vacuum of the $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ theory is unstable.
234: In Sec.~\ref{Sec:unitarity}, we discuss how unitarity is
235: modified by incorporating light resonances.
236: We argue that the low scale of unitarity violation
237: in theories with many PNGBs is likely a signal of light
238: scalar resonances rather than vector modes.
239:
240: \section{ The Hidden Locality of Vector Mesons In QCD}
241: \setcounter{equation}{0}
242: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
243: \label{Sec:QCDrho}
244:
245: We first review the coupling of vector mesons
246: in two flavor QCD in the limit of vanishing quark masses\cite{Georgi:1989xy}.
247: %This will provide a template of how to
248: %incorporate techni-$\rho$s in the electroweak chiral Lagrangian.
249: The chiral Lagrangian that describes the
250: coupling of the $\rho$ to the light pions will only
251: depend on a handful of parameters. Among these is a parameter that
252: vanishes in Georgi's vector limit. In this limit, the leading
253: cut-off sensitivity to $m_{\pi^\pm}^2 - m_{\pi^0}^2$ also
254: vanishes, leaving a residual piece that is not sensitive to
255: cut-off uncertainties. We spend this section exploring this example
256: before moving to TeV scale physics in the next section.
257:
258: In QCD with two flavors, $\psi_L^i$ and $\psi_R{}_j$ ($i,j$ = 1,2), there
259: is a global $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ flavor symmetry
260: that rotates two quarks amongst themselves:
261: %%
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \psi_L \rightarrow g_L \psi_L, \hspace{0.5in} \psi_R \rightarrow g_R \psi_R .
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: %%
266: After the QCD gauge coupling goes strong, this chiral symmetry is
267: broken, and the quarks form a condensate
268: %%
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: \langle \psi^i_L \psi_R{}_j\rangle \sim 4 \pi f^3 \Sigma^i_j .
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: %%
273: Here $\Sigma$ parameterizes the QCD pions, which are Goldstone bosons
274: of the broken global symmetry
275: %%
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: SU(2)_{L}\,\times\,SU(2)_{R}\,\longrightarrow\,SU(2)_{V} \, ,
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: %%
280: where $SU(2)_V$ is the unbroken isospin symmetry. Under this symmetry,
281: the transformation of the Goldstone boson field is
282: %%
283: \begin{equation}
284: \Sigma \rightarrow g_{L} \Sigma g_{R}^{\dagger}.
285: \end{equation}
286: The linearized fluctuations of $\Sigma$ and global symmetry
287: transformations are given by
288: %%
289: \begin{eqnarray}
290: \Sigma\,\equiv\,e^{2 i\pi/f} \hspace{0.6in}
291: g_L \equiv e^{i \alpha_L}, \hspace{0.4in} g_R \equiv e^{i \alpha_R}.
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: %%
294: The linearized $\pi$ field transforms under the global symmetries
295: as:
296: %%
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: \delta \pi = \frac{f}{2} ( \alpha_L - \alpha_R ) +\cdots .
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: %%
301: The vector and axial--vector transformations are distinguished by the
302: relationship between $\alpha_L$ and $\alpha_R$.
303: For the axial--vector transformation,
304: we have $\alpha_L=-\alpha_R \equiv \alpha_{A}$, while for the vector
305: transformation,
306: we have $\alpha_L=\alpha_R \equiv \alpha_{V}$.
307: Then $\delta \pi = f \alpha_A$.
308: The quarks are also charged under a weakly gauged group, $U(1)_{EM}$.
309: $U(1)_{EM}$ is contained within
310: $SU(2)_V$, and is gauged in the $\tau^3$ direction. The symmetry structure
311: of the theory, both global and local, is illustrated in Fig. 1.
312: To leading order, the chiral Lagrangian describing the pions is:
313: %%
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: \label{Eq: QCD1}
316: \LL_\eff \,=\,- \frac{1}{4} F_\munu^2 +
317: \frac{f^2}{4}\,\Tr|D_\mu\Sigma|^2 +\cdots ,
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: %%
320: where the covariant derivative is given by
321: %%
322: \begin{eqnarray}
323: D_\mu \Sigma = \partial_\mu \Sigma +i e A_\mu[\tau^3,\Sigma]
324: \hspace{0.3in} \text{ with } \Tr \tau^a \tau^b = \half \delta^{ab}.
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: %%
327: $\Sigma$ transforms like $(2,\bar{2})$ under $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$.
328: Parity interchanges $SU(2)_L\leftrightarrow SU(2)_R$ and
329: takes $\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma^\dagger$.
330: Note that the $f$ in Eq.~\ref{Eq: QCD1} can be identified with the pion
331: decay constant, $f_\pi= 93$ MeV.
332:
333: \subsection{Incorporating the $\rho$}
334: \label{Sec: QCD Rho}
335: %%
336: \begin{figure}
337: \begin{center}
338: \epsfig{file=QCD1.eps, width=4.3in}
339: \caption{
340: \label{Fig: QCD1}
341: QCD with two flavors has a global $SU(2)_{L} \times SU(2)_{R}$ chiral
342: symmetry, which is broken down to the diagonal $SU(2)_V$ (isospin)
343: when the quarks condense. As shown above, the $U(1)_{EM}$ gauge
344: symmetry is contained within $SU(2)_V$. We have also shown
345: these symmetries in a ``sites and links'' theory space representation.
346: The top diagram shows that the quark condensate transforms as a
347: bi-fundamental under $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$,
348: and breaks this symmetry down to the diagonal. The bottom diagram
349: shows that the quark condensate is an adjoint of the gauged $ U(1)_{EM}$.
350: }
351: \end{center}
352: \end{figure}
353: %%
354: Now we include the $\rho$ meson in our low energy theory.
355: The lightness of the $\rho$ mesons also motivates a
356: description utilizing a gauge invariance, $SU(2)_\rho$. The
357: longitudinal components of the $\rho$ are kept
358: explicit, and the gauge invariance can be used to determine the
359: natural sizes of operators in the effective Lagrangian. Of course
360: this gauge symmetry has no physics in it, and going to the unitary
361: gauge makes this clear. A lucid discussion of this point was given
362: in \cite{Georgi:1989xy,Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}. We emphasize that it is
363: the lightness of the $\rho$ that constrains its properties--
364: we expect additional operators in the effective Lagrangian
365: proportional to $m_{\rho}/\Lambda$.
366: For example, there are higher derivative operators that can sum
367: into a form-factor that reveals the composite nature of the $\rho$.
368: Upon including the $\rho$ in the chiral Lagrangian, the symmetry
369: structure is enlarged to become:
370: %%
371: \bea
372: SU(2)_{L}\,\times\,SU(2)_{R}\,\times\,SU(2)_{\rho}\,
373: \longrightarrow\,SU(2)_{V},
374: \eea
375: %%
376: where the $SU(2)_\rho$ symmetry is strongly gauged. This structure is
377: displayed in Fig. 2.
378: %%
379: \begin{figure}
380: \label{Fig: QCD2}
381: \begin{center}
382: \epsfig{file=QCD2.eps, width=5.5in}
383: \caption{
384: The global (including $g_\rho \rightarrow 0$) and gauge symmetry
385: structure of the QCD pions and a typical $\rho$ vector meson.
386: This figure is the analogue of Fig. 1, now with
387: the $\rho$'s included. The ``sites and links'' diagrams show
388: the global and gauge symmetries under which the $\Sigma_{L}$
389: and $\Sigma_{R}$ fields transform as bi-fundamentals.
390: }
391: \end{center}
392: \end{figure}
393: %%
394:
395: The effective theory, now incorporating both $\pi$'s and $\rho$'s, is
396: %%
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \label{Eq: effLrhopi}
399: \nonumber
400: \LL_\eff\,&=&\,
401: -\frac{1}{4} F_\munu^2 - \half \Tr \rho_\munu^2
402: - \tilde{\kappa} F_\munu(\Tr \tau^3 \Sigma_L \rho^\munu \Sigma_L^\dagger
403: +\Tr \tau^3 \Sigma_R^\dagger \rho^\munu \Sigma_R)\\
404: &&
405: +\frac{f^2}{4}\,\left( \Tr|D^\mu\Sigma_L|^2
406: +\Tr|D^\mu \Sigma_R|^2
407: +\,\frac{\kappa}{2}\,\Tr|D^\mu(\Sigma_L\Sigma_R)|^2\right)\, +\cdots ,
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: %%
410: where $\tilde{\kappa}$ sets the size of the $\rho-\gamma$ kinetic mixing.
411: This effective action is the result of integrating out all heavier
412: resonances. We refer to
413: the operators multiplied by $\kappa$ and $\tilde{\kappa}$ as
414: ``non-local'': in the theory-space description of Fig. 2, these
415: operators involve more than one site, and so are indeed non-local in
416: theory space. For simplicity, we will set $\tilde{\kappa}$ to zero
417: throughout; however, retaining
418: it would be important if our goal were to try to match this theory to
419: experimental QCD.
420: Parity acts on the theory by taking $SU(2)_L \leftrightarrow SU(2)_R$,
421: leaving $SU(2)_\rho$ unchanged, and taking the Goldstone bosons from
422: $\Sigma_L\leftrightarrow \Sigma_R^\dagger .$
423: We have imposed parity on the Lagrangian in Eq. \ref{Eq: effLrhopi}.
424: The transformations under the $SU(2)_{L} \times SU(2)_{R} \times SU(2)_\rho$
425: symmetry are:
426: %%
427: \begin{eqnarray}
428: \nonumber
429: \Sigma_{L} \equiv \exp(2 i \pi_L/f)
430: \sim (2,\bar{2},1); && \Sigma_L \rightarrow g_L\Sigma_L g_\rho^\dagger,\\
431: \nonumber
432: \Sigma_{R} \equiv \exp(2 i \pi_R/f)
433: \sim\,(1,2,\bar{2}); && \Sigma_R \rightarrow g_\rho\Sigma_R g_R^\dagger,\\
434: \Sigma_{L}\Sigma_{R} \equiv \exp( 2 i (\pi_L+\pi_R)/f)
435: \sim\,(2,1,\bar{2}); && \Sigma_L \Sigma_R
436: \rightarrow g_L\Sigma_L\Sigma_R g_R^\dagger,
437: \end{eqnarray}
438: %%
439: where $g_L$, $g_R$ and $g_\rho$ are independent $SU(2)$ transformations.
440: The covariant derivatives that appear in Eq.~\ref{Eq: effLrhopi} are
441: %%
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: \nonumber
444: D_\mu \Sigma_L &=& \partial_\mu \Sigma_L
445: + i e_0 A_\mu \tau^3\, \Sigma_L
446: - i g_\rho \Sigma_L\, \vec{\tau}\cdot \vec{\rho}_\mu,\\
447: \nonumber
448: D_\mu \Sigma_R &=& \partial_\mu\Sigma_R
449: + i g_\rho \vec{\tau}\cdot \vec{\rho}_\mu \,\Sigma_R
450: -i e_0 \Sigma_R\, A_\mu \tau^3,\\
451: D_\mu \Sigma_L \Sigma_R &=& \partial_\mu\Sigma_L \Sigma_R
452: + i e_0 A_\mu [\tau^3 ,\Sigma_L\Sigma_R].
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: %%
455: Here, $A_\mu$ is the vector field that mixes with the $\rho^3$.
456: Proceeding to the mass eigenbasis, we find a zero eigenvalue (the
457: photon) and a massive eigenvalue (the physical $\rho$).
458:
459: It is possible to go to the unitary gauge where
460: the new degrees of freedom become the longitudinal components of the
461: $\rho$. This gauge is convenient because the physical couplings of
462: the $\rho$ are manifest; however, their natural sizes are
463: more difficult to infer. We can determine this gauge
464: by examining the Goldstone-$\rho$ mixing.
465: Ignoring the weakly gauged $U(1)_{EM}$, the mixing is given by
466: %%
467: \begin{eqnarray}
468: \LL_{\rho \pi} = g_\rho f\,
469: \Tr \rho_\mu \left(\partial^\mu\pi_L - \partial^\mu \pi_R\right) .
470: \end{eqnarray}
471: %%
472: Thus, the physical pion, $\pi$, and the Goldstone
473: eaten by the $\rho$, denoted by $\xi$, are related to the gauge
474: eigenstates by
475: %%
476: \begin{eqnarray}
477: \pi = N_\pi^{-1}( \pi_L + \pi_R),
478: \hspace{0.5in}
479: \xi = N_\xi^{-1} (\pi_L - \pi_R),
480: \end{eqnarray}
481: %%
482: where $N_\pi$ and $N_\xi$ are constants determined by the requirement that
483: the fields be canonically normalized. Unitary gauge is defined by $\xi =0$.
484:
485: The gauge and global transformations are
486: %%
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: g_L = e^{i \alpha_L},
489: \hspace{0.5in}
490: g_\rho = e^{i \alpha_\rho},
491: \hspace{0.5in}
492: g_R = e^{i \alpha_R},
493: \end{eqnarray}
494: %%
495: and act upon the linearized fields as
496: %%
497: \begin{eqnarray}
498: \delta \pi_L = \frac{f}{2} \Big( \alpha_L - \alpha_\rho\Big),
499: \hspace{0.5in}
500: \delta \pi_R = \frac{f}{2} \Big( \alpha_\rho - \alpha_R\Big).
501: \end{eqnarray}
502: %%
503: The vector and axial vector transformations should preserve
504: unitary gauge\footnote{
505: This is a different definition of these global transformation
506: than \cite{Son:2003et} used where both the vector and axial--vector
507: transformations nominally took the theory out of unitary gauge.}.
508: Therefore, we can parameterize the transformations
509: by the two global ones and the orthogonal one, which can be used to go to
510: unitary gauge:
511: %%
512: \begin{eqnarray}
513: \rm{Vector:}\hspace{0.1in} \alpha_L = \alpha_\rho = \alpha_R \equiv \alpha_V;
514: \hspace{0.5in}
515: \rm{Axial:} \hspace{0.1in}\alpha_L = -\alpha_R \equiv \alpha_A, \hspace{0.2in} \alpha_\rho =0.
516: \end{eqnarray}
517: %%
518: The leading kinetic term for the pions is given by
519: %%
520: \begin{eqnarray}
521: \nonumber
522: \label{Eq: rho dpi2}
523: \LL_{(\partial\pi)^2} &=&
524: \Tr (\partial \pi_L)^2
525: +\Tr (\partial \pi_L)^2
526: +\kappa\Tr (\partial (\pi_L + \pi_R))^2;\\
527: &=& \half N_\pi^2(1 +\kappa)\Tr (\partial \pi)^2 + \half N_\xi^2\Tr (\partial \xi)^2
528: = \Tr (\partial \pi)^2 + \Tr (\partial \xi)^2,
529: \end{eqnarray}
530: %%
531: meaning that the normalization constants are given by
532: %%
533: \begin{eqnarray}
534: N_\pi^{-2} = \frac{1 +\kappa}{2},
535: \hspace{0.5in}
536: N_\xi^{-2} = \frac{1}{2}.
537: \end{eqnarray}
538: %%
539: Under an axial transformation
540: %%
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: \delta \pi = N^{-1}_\pi f \alpha_A, \hspace{0.5in} \delta \xi =0.
543: \end{eqnarray}
544: %%
545: Acting on Eq.~(\ref{Eq: rho dpi2}), we find:
546: %%
547: \begin{eqnarray}
548: \delta \LL_{(\partial \pi)^2}
549: = 2 N^{-1}_\pi f \Tr \partial \pi \partial \alpha_A = 2 f_\pi \Tr \partial \pi \partial\alpha_A.
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: %%
552: This allows us to identify
553: %%
554: \begin{eqnarray}
555: f_\pi = \sqrt{\frac{1+\kappa}{2}} f .
556: \end{eqnarray}
557: %%
558: The only \begin{it}a priori\end{it}
559: constraint on $\kappa$ is that $\kappa > -1$, so that the physical $\pi$
560: has a positive kinetic term.
561: At this point we can diagonalize the mass mixing with an orthogonal
562: transformation
563: %%
564: \begin{eqnarray}
565: A_{\text{Phys}} &=& \cos \theta \hat{A} + \sin \theta \rho^3,
566: \hspace{0.5in}
567: \rho^3_{\text{Phys}} = - \sin\theta \hat{A} + \cos \theta \rho^3.
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: %%
570: where the angles and electro-magnetic gauge coupling are given by
571: %%
572: \begin{eqnarray}
573: e^{-2}= e_0^{-2} + g_\rho^{-2},
574: \hspace{0.3in}
575: \sin \theta \equiv \frac{e}{g_\rho} .
576: \end{eqnarray}
577: %%
578: So the couplings of the physical $\rho$ and photon to the
579: electro-magnetic current, $j_{EM}$, are given by
580: %%
581: \begin{eqnarray}
582: \label{Eq: Rho EM3}
583: \LL_{j\,\gamma} = e\, j_{\mu\;EM}\Big[ A^\mu_{\text{Phys}}
584: - \tan\theta \rho^{3\,\mu}_{\text{Phys}}\Big],
585: \end{eqnarray}
586: %%
587: while the masses of the $\rho$ mesons are
588: %%
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: \label{Eq: Rhomasses}
591: m^2_{\rho^\pm} = \frac{ g^2_\rho f^2_\pi}{1+\kappa},
592: \hspace{0.2in}
593: m^2_{\rho^0} = \frac{ m^2_{\rho^\pm} }{\cos^2\theta}.
594: \hspace{0.3in}
595: \end{eqnarray}
596: %%
597: For large $g_\rho$, the difference between the masses of the
598: charged and neutral $\rho$ mesons can be expanded as
599: %%
600: \begin{eqnarray}
601: \frac{m^2_{\rho^0}}{m^2_{\rho^\pm}} \approx
602: \Big(1 + \frac{e^2}{g_\rho^2} \Big).
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: %%
605: The experimental limits on the mass splittings are bounded to be
606: %%
607: \begin{eqnarray}
608: m_{\rho^0}-m_{\rho^\pm}\lsim 1 \MeV \Rightarrow 1- \frac{m_{\rho^0}}{m_{\rho^\pm}} \le 3\times10^{-3}.\end{eqnarray}
609: %%
610: For small $\tilde{\kappa}$, the mass splittings place a limit
611: on $g_\rho \simeq 4\pi/\sqrt{3}$.
612: Then, using $f_\pi \simeq 93 \MeV$ and
613: $m_\rho \simeq 770\MeV$, we find $\kappa \simeq \frac{1}{3}$ in QCD.
614: There are other determinations of $\kappa$ that give roughly the
615: same answer, e.g. using the KSFR relation for the $\rho\rightarrow \pi\pi$
616: decay width \cite{KSFR}.
617:
618: For future reference we calculate the $\rho$'s coupling to the isospin current of the $\pi$'s
619: %%
620: \begin{eqnarray}
621: \label{Eq: rho Current Int}
622: \LL_{\text{int}} = g j^a_\mu \rho_a^\pm \hspace{0.5in}
623: j^a_\mu = \Tr \tau^a [\partial_\mu \pi,\pi]
624: \hspace{0.3in} g = \frac{g_\rho}{1+\kappa}.
625: \end{eqnarray}
626: %%
627:
628: \subsection{Georgi's Vector Limit}
629:
630: \label{Sec:QCDVector}
631:
632: In this section, we discuss an enhanced symmetry of the strong dynamics
633: known as the vector limit. When this symmetry
634: is exact, the $\rho$ meson acts to cut off the one loop gauge (QED)
635: quadratic divergence of the charged pion mass.
636: As we will discuss, a similar enhanced symmetry is possible in general
637: theories of strong dynamics, including theories at the weak scale.
638:
639: Starting from Eq.~\ref{Eq: effLrhopi}, one can compute the contribution
640: of the photon to the mass of the charged pion with the Coleman-Weinberg potential
641: \cite{ColemanWeinberg}. At one loop one finds:
642: %%
643: \begin{eqnarray}
644: \delta m^2_{\pi^\pm} = \frac{3e^2}{16\pi^2 (1 + \kappa)}\Big(
645: \frac{\kappa\Lambda^2}{\cos^2 \theta} + m^2_{\rho^0}
646: \log\Lambda^2 + \cdots \Big).
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: %%
649: The term ``$\cdots$'' includes a logarithmically divergent
650: piece that is proportional to $\kappa \tan^{2} \theta$, which
651: is numerically very small.
652: For the special case of $\kappa$=0, the one loop quadratic divergence is
653: absent, and the counter-term from high energy physics is only necessary to
654: cancel two loop quadratic divergences. The degree to which
655: the one-loop logarithmic divergence is larger than the two-loop
656: quadratic divergence is the degree to which
657: the $\delta m_{\pi^\pm}^2$ is calculable. When $\kappa\ne 0$, a
658: one loop quadratic divergence remains.
659:
660: This can be explained by studying the symmetry structure of the Lagrangian.
661: For the QCD Lagrangian of Eq.~\ref{Eq: effLrhopi},
662: in the limit that $g_\rho$ and $e_{0}$ vanish, the global
663: symmetry of the theory is as shown in Fig. 3. Note
664: if $\kappa=0$, this Lagrangian would allow independent transformations of the
665: form $\Sigma_L \rightarrow \Sigma_L U_L$ and $\Sigma_R \rightarrow U_{R} \Sigma_R$.
666: A non-zero $\kappa$ forces $U_L = U_R$.
667: We refer to this limit of enhanced symmetry as the
668: vector limit\footnote{
669: This is a slightly different definition of the vector limit taken in
670: \cite{Georgi:1989xy} where $\kappa$ \begin{it}and\end{it} $g_\rho$
671: were taken to vanish simultaneously.}.
672:
673: The global symmetry of the vector limit is
674: %%
675: \begin{eqnarray}
676: SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times SU(2)_{\rho_L} \times SU(2)_{\rho_R},
677: \end{eqnarray}
678: %%
679: as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig: QCD3}. The symmetry
680: structure translates into a constraint on the coupling of the $\rho$ to
681: the pions.
682:
683: With $\kappa =0$, this theory has become a two site, two link,
684: ``theory space'' model. The $\rho$ cuts off the quadratic divergence to the
685: charged pion mass, just as in traditional Little Higgs theories, where
686: vector bosons come in to cut off the gauge quadratic divergences to the
687: Higgs boson mass.
688: %\footnote{ For explicit diagrammatic discussions of this cancellation in the context
689: %of Little Higgs models, see~\cite{Explicit}.}
690: %
691: The possibility that $\rho$'s could cut-off quadratic divergences to
692: pseudo-Goldstone bosons was previously noted, see \cite{PionMass}.
693:
694: \begin{figure}
695: \begin{center}
696: \epsfig{file=QCD3.eps, width=5in}
697: \caption{
698: \label{Fig: QCD3}
699: The global (including $g_\rho \rightarrow 0$) and gauge symmetry
700: structure of the QCD pions
701: and $\rho$ vector meson in the vector limit ($\kappa \rightarrow 0$).
702: While the vector limit does not change the gauge symmetry structure of
703: the theory, it does change the global symmetry. This
704: translates into a relation between $m_\rho$, $g_\rho$ and $f_\pi$.
705: }
706: \end{center}
707: \end{figure}
708:
709:
710:
711: \subsection{Higher Modes}
712: \label{Sec: Higher Modes}
713:
714: So far we have limited discussion to the $\rho$ meson, the lightest
715: vector resonance. It is natural
716: to attempt to extend the methods employed above to more massive spin-one
717: resonances, such as the $a_1$. However, our technology crucially relies
718: on the lightness of the modes relative to the scale of strong
719: coupling. As the resonances become heavier,
720: the constraint of gauge invariance on their interactions is weakened,
721: and the validity of the effective Lagrangian becomes more precarious.
722:
723: In QCD the $a_1$ might already be too massive to be
724: well-described by hidden local symmetry, other theories with strong
725: dynamics may have a wider range of states to which hidden local symmetry
726: can be applied. For instance, the number of light
727: resonances (those with mass $\lsim 4 \pi f_{\pi}$) scales with the number
728: of colors of the confining theory, $N_c$;
729: so for large $N_c$ QCD, there are many light vector resonances
730: and therefore more modes can be faithfully studied.
731: Likewise, in applications to EWSB, the $N_c$ of the UV completion may be
732: larger than three, allowing for more light copies of the $\rho$ and
733: $a_1$ to be described within an effective theory.
734:
735:
736: In \cite{Son:2003et,Chivukula}, an infinite number of sites was
737: considered to model QCD. However, as the number of sites increases, to keep
738: the interactions of the $\rho$'s from becoming weak, the
739: gauge coupling at each individual site must increase.
740: The result, as shown in \cite{Locality}, is that if too many sites
741: are used in the effective theory, the radiative corrections to operators
742: non-local in the deconstructed dimensions grow exponentially large except
743: in special supersymmetric examples.
744: Since locality is crucial to interpreting the theory as extra-dimensional,
745: the large non-local radiative corrections to the effective action calls into
746: question the whole extra-dimensional interpretation. In QCD, the physical
747: coupling of the $\rho$ is strong. At best a few sites can be included
748: while avoiding this pitfall. If the
749: physical coupling of the $\rho$ were weaker, more sites could be consistently
750: included without encountering this difficulty.
751:
752:
753:
754: Despite the caveats enumerated here, we will first study the theory space
755: representation of the $a_{1}$ in QCD. Our ultimate goal is studying
756: light resonances in a more
757: general setting, but the $a_1$ in QCD gives a familiar example.
758:
759: \subsubsection{The $a_{1}$ in QCD and the Generalized Vector Limit}
760:
761: \begin{figure}
762: \begin{center}
763: \epsfig{file=QCDA1.eps, width=2.0in}
764: \caption{
765: \label{Fig: QCDA1}
766: Chiral Lagrangian with the lightest $a_1$ modeled.
767: }
768: \end{center}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: In QCD the heavier spin-one resonances can be modeled by
772: incorporating new gauge symmetries in the middle of the
773: theory space. This construction is equivalent to the construction in
774: \cite{HiddenLocal} and is much as \cite{Son:2003et} attempted in a more ambitious manner.
775:
776: With an additional strongly gauged field, we can model the interactions of
777: the $a_{1}$ (See Fig.~\ref{Fig: QCDA1}). The Lagrangian becomes
778: %%
779: \begin{eqnarray}
780: \LL &=& -\half \Tr \rho_{1\,\mu\nu}^2 -\half \Tr \rho_{2\,\mu\nu}^2+
781: \frac{f^2}{4}
782: \Big(
783: |\Tr D_\mu \Sigma_L|^2 + c^2 |\Tr D_\mu \Sigma_0|^2
784: + |\Tr D_\mu \Sigma_R|^2 \nonumber \\
785: && +\kappa |\Tr D_{\mu} \Sigma_L \Sigma_0|^2
786: + \kappa |\Tr D_{\mu} \Sigma_0 \Sigma_R|^2
787: +\kappa' |\Tr \partial_{\mu} \Sigma_L\Sigma_0 \Sigma_R|^2
788: \Big),
789: \end{eqnarray}
790: %%
791: where we are neglecting $U(1)_{EM}$ and also the various
792: % $\tilde{\kappa}$-like
793: kinetic mixings for simplicity.
794: Both $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ have the same gauge coupling, $\tilde{g}_\rho$.
795: There is another parameter, $c$, that is {\it a priori} undetermined.
796: The linearized fluctuations of the fields are given by
797: %%
798: \begin{eqnarray}
799: \Sigma_L = \exp\Big(\frac{2i}{f} \pi_L\Big),
800: \hspace{0.5in}
801: \Sigma_0 = \exp\Big(\frac{2i}{cf} \pi_0\Big),
802: \hspace{0.5in}
803: \Sigma_R = \exp\Big(\frac{2i}{f} \pi_R\Big).
804: \end{eqnarray}
805: %%
806: When modeling the $\rho$, we had to introduce a single non-locality
807: parameter, $\kappa$. Here we have a pair: $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{\prime}$.
808: A parity transformation interchanges $SU(2)_L \leftrightarrow SU(2)_R$.
809: Under this parity, there is an even field, the $\rho$, and and odd field,
810: the $a_1$. Note that the two terms with
811: coefficient $\kappa$ are set equal by this parity.
812:
813: The masses of the vector mesons are
814: %%
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: \label{Eqn:VecMasses}
817: m^2_\rho = \frac{1 +\kappa}{4} g^2_\rho f^2,
818: \hspace{0.5in}
819: m^2_{a_1} = \frac{1 +2 c^2 +\kappa}{4} g^2_\rho f^2.
820: \end{eqnarray}
821: %%
822: Note that the $a_1$ is always heavier than the $\rho$.
823: Setting $c=1$ and $\kappa=\kappa'=0$,
824: the spectrum in the vector limit is
825: $m_\rho^2 = g_\rho^2 f_\pi^2$ and $m_{a_1} = \sqrt{3} m_\rho$.
826: While this prediction does differ from the value predicted by QCD sum rules,
827: $m_{a_1} = \sqrt{2} m_\rho$, it is not that far from the the
828: experimental relation $m_{a_1}/m_{\rho} \simeq 1.65$.
829:
830: In the limit where all of the gauge couplings, $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$
831: vanish, there are enhanced symmetries much like those
832: in Georgi's vector limit. When the generalized vector limit holds,
833: the global symmetry of the theory is
834: %%
835: \begin{eqnarray}
836: SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_{\rho_1} \times SU(2)_{\rho_2}\times SU(2)_R \rightarrow SU(2)_L^3\times SU(2)_R^3.
837: \end{eqnarray}
838: %%
839: Restoring the gauge couplings while keeping $\kappa$ set to zero
840: gives a {\it finite} Coleman-Weinberg potential because it requires
841: $e_0$, $g_{\rho_1}$, {\it and} $g_{\rho_2}$ couplings to
842: communicate sufficient chiral symmetry breaking to the effective
843: Lagrangian:
844: %%
845: \begin{eqnarray}
846: \delta m^2_{\pi^\pm} \sim
847: \frac{3 e^2}{16 \pi^2} m_\rho^2\log \frac{m_{a_1}^2}{m_\rho^2}.
848: \end{eqnarray}
849: %%
850: In this limit, the $\rho$ and the $a_{1}$ cut off both the
851: quadratic and logarithmic divergences from gauge interactions.
852:
853:
854: \subsection{Effects of Higher Modes on the Vector Limit}
855: \label{Sec: HigherModesKappa}
856:
857: We have argued that the $\kappa \rightarrow 0$ limit is of particular interest,
858: partly because the quadratic divergences vanish in this limit. We would like
859: to understand how likely this limit is to obtain.
860: To do this, we must understand how higher modes can affect the low-energy
861: Lagrangian. We will see that even if a theory is fundamentally local,
862: integrating out the heavy modes can make the effective theory for the
863: lightest mode appear non-local.
864:
865: \begin{figure}
866: \begin{center}
867: \epsfig{file=InducedKappa.eps, width=2.5in}
868: \caption{
869: \label{Fig: InducedKappa}
870: The effect of the $a_1$ on the $\pi-\rho$ Lagrangian.
871: The $\pi-\rho-a_1$ theory is in the generalized vector
872: limit where all non-local couplings are set to zero.
873: The radiatively induced mass for $\pi^\pm$ is finite
874: at one loop.
875: Integrating out the $a_1$ at tree level induces a $\kappa$ term,
876: at loop level a compensating
877: counter-term is induced for the $\pi^\pm$ mass.
878: }
879: \end{center}
880: \end{figure}
881:
882: This is not too surprising. For example, a similar phenomenon occurs in a 5D gauge theory on a circle.
883: We can Kaluza-Klein (KK) decompose the vector boson into its ladder
884: spectrum, and form an effective theory by classically integrating out
885: all but the lightest vector boson.
886: In this truncated theory, a computation of the mass for the Wilson loop
887: operator yields an answer quadratically sensitive to the cut-off -- an answer
888: far larger than the finite one found by a calculation in the
889: original 5D theory. Locality in the fifth dimension prohibits
890: ultraviolet contributions to the Wilson line operator. Truncating the
891: theory corresponds to placing a hard momentum cut-off in the fifth
892: dimension; when Fourier transformed back to position space, this
893: cut-off induces $x_5^{-1}$ correlation functions.
894: Truncating the theory induces non-locality in the fifth dimension;
895: the result is the Wilson loop operator no longer has exponentially small
896: sensitivity to the cutoff. Properly integrating out the
897: tower of KK modes (at the quantum level) induces a counter-term for
898: the Wilson line operator that cancels against the quadratic
899: divergence induced by the interactions of the lightest mode.
900:
901: To demonstrate how this phenomena occurs in QCD we can return to the
902: formulae of the previous section and classically integrate out
903: the $a_1$ resonance. Even when starting in the
904: in the vector limit, a significant deviation
905: from $\kappa=0$ is induced. The Lagrangian of a local
906: $\rho -a_1- \pi$ theory is given by
907: %%
908: \begin{eqnarray}
909: L_{\rho\,a_1}
910: = \frac{f^2}{4} \Big(
911: |D_{\mu} \Sigma_L|^2 + c^2 |D_{\mu} \Sigma_0|^2 + |D_{\mu} \Sigma_R|^2\Big),
912: \end{eqnarray}
913: %%
914: with gauge couplings $\tilde{g}_\rho$ for both of the vector bosons.
915: We start by normalizing $f_\pi$ through a calculation similar to the one in
916: Sec. \ref{Sec: QCD Rho}, which gives \cite{Son:2003et}
917: %%
918: \begin{eqnarray}
919: f_\pi =\frac{f}{\sqrt{2 + c^{-2}}}.
920: \end{eqnarray}
921: %%
922: The two mass eigenvalues are
923: %%
924: \begin{eqnarray}
925: m^2_\rho = \frac{\tilde{g}_\rho^2 f^2}{4} = (2+c^{-2})\frac{\tilde{g}_\rho^2 f_\pi^2}{4}
926: \hspace{0.4in}
927: m^2_{a_1} = \frac{(1+2c^2) \tilde{g}_\rho^2 f^2}{4}= (2+c^{-2}) \frac{(1+ 2c^2) \tilde{g}_\rho^2 f_\pi^2}{4}.
928: \end{eqnarray}
929: %%
930: To relate $\tilde{g}_\rho$ to $g_{\rho}$ we consider the coupling of the
931: $\rho$ to the $\pi$ isospin current. We find
932: %%
933: \begin{eqnarray}
934: g = \frac{1+ c^{-2}}{2+ c^{-2}} \sqrt{2} \tilde{g}_\rho .
935: \end{eqnarray}
936: %%
937: In the non-vector-limit theory with just the $\rho$, the mass of the $\rho$ in terms
938: of the isospin current coupling in Eq. \ref{Eq: Rhomasses} and Eq. \ref{Eq: rho Current Int}
939: %%
940: \begin{eqnarray}
941: m_\rho^2 = (1+\kappa) g^2 f^2_\pi
942: \end{eqnarray}
943: %%
944: where as in the vector-limit theory with the $a_1$ the mass of the $\rho$ is given by
945: %%
946: \begin{eqnarray}
947: m_\rho^2 = \frac{(1+ \half c^{-2})^3}{(1+ c^{-2})^2} g^2 f_\pi^2
948: \end{eqnarray}
949: %%
950: keeping the physical quantities $f_\pi$ and $g$ fixed, we can vary $c$ and observe
951: how $\kappa$ changes
952: %%
953: \begin{eqnarray}
954: \kappa= \frac{(1+ \half c^{-2})^3}{(1+ c^{-2})^2} -1 = -\left(\frac{c^{-2}}{2}\right)\left(\frac{ 1+ \half c^{-2} - \frac{1}{4}c^{-4}}{(1+ c^{-2})^2} \right)
955: \end{eqnarray}
956: %%
957: There are two places where the non-locality becomes small, at $c^{-2}=0$ or
958: at $c^{-2}= 1+\sqrt{5}$. At the prior, it is obvious that the theory is local because
959: the middle link has been contracted away and $m_{a_1}\rightarrow \infty$, while in the later,
960: it is just a cancellation.
961: The ratio $m_{a_1}/m_\rho$ suggests that $c^{-2}=0.85$ or $\kappa=-0.15$.
962:
963: Summarizing, we started with a local theory including the
964: $a_{1}$ resonance, but
965: after integrating out the $a_1$, the effective theory that contains only the $\rho$ is apparently
966: non-local (see Fig. \ref{Fig: InducedKappa}). This deviation from $\kappa =0$ occurs because
967: the $\rho$ and $\pi$ mix with the $a_{1}$. This deforms the low energy effective
968: action of the $\rho$--$\pi$ system away from a local/nearest neighbor interacting one.
969: After truncating the theory, the counter-term to the $\pi$ mass can be computed in this
970: reduced theory. The counter-term in this case turns out not to violate isospin because
971: the $a_1$ does not mix with the photon. The induced counter-term violates
972: does violate $SU(2)$ axial because the longitudinal components of the $a_1$ mix
973: with $\pi$. If a $\rho'$ was included, then an isospin violating $\kappa$ parameter would be induced.
974:
975: \subsection{Vector Limit Moral}
976: \label{Sec: VL}
977:
978: In this section, we explore the meaning of
979: Georgi's vector limit for QCD, and speculate on the implications for other
980: theories with strong dynamics. It is always possible to use an effective Lagrangian
981: for those modes that are much lighter than the scale of strong coupling. For QCD, this
982: means a Lagrangian for the $\pi$'s and the $\rho$ meson. Keeping the longitudinal
983: components of the $\rho$ explicitly in the
984: effective Lagrangian is useful for constraining their interactions when
985: the mass of the $\rho$ is light compared with the scale of strong coupling.
986: In this gauge, there is a term that breaks more chiral symmetries than the
987: others because it contains more fields. In the vector limit this term
988: vanishes. In Naive Dimensional Analysis (NDA) \cite{NDA}, adding
989: non-linear sigma model
990: fields to any operator does not result in a suppression.
991: Nevertheless, these $\Sigma$-laden
992: terms seem to be small experimentally. So, NDA does not give any
993: reason for the $\kappa$ parameter to
994: be small; insight into the vector limit is beyond the scope of NDA. The
995: suppressed operators with
996: additional $\Sigma$ fields are non-local in theory space. One possible reason for this
997: suppression is that such terms break more chiral symmetries than operators
998: with fewer $\Sigma$ fields; if there is a ``cost'' associated with the
999: breaking a chiral symmetries, then it would be natural to expect a suppression
1000: of these terms.
1001:
1002: As shown in the previous section, if there are additional spin-one resonances
1003: that mix with the $\rho$ such as the $a_{1}$
1004: then the vector limit is typically spoiled.
1005: So if Georgi's vector limit is to hold, mixing with all heavier modes
1006: should be small. A theory space model with many sites incorporates mixing
1007: with many spin-one modes ($a_{1}$, $\rho^{\prime}$, $\rho^{\prime \prime}$),
1008: even if the spectrum is truncated.
1009: To reproduce a model close to the vector limit, we must minimize this mixing.
1010: To do this, we write a model with sites and links for only those modes
1011: well-constrained by gauge invariance. For QCD, this is probably only the $\rho$. For the vector limit to hold, we must posit that these particles do
1012: not have large mixing with the particles whose interactions
1013: are unconstrained by gauge invariance.
1014:
1015: In the next section we will generalize these statements to other
1016: strong coupling theories,
1017: such as UV completions of Little Higgs theories. Before doing so, it is
1018: useful to recall how several quantities scale with $N_{c}$ \cite{LargeN}.
1019: We will use slightly non-standard scalings: we keep
1020: $f_\pi$ fixed as we vary $N_c$. This is useful because $f_\pi$ will be an
1021: easily measurable quantity and in Little Higgs theories the
1022: ratio of $f$ and $v$ will be kept fixed.
1023:
1024: The coupling of the $\rho$ scales as
1025: %%
1026: \begin{equation}
1027: g_\rho \sim 4\pi/N_c^\half.
1028: \end{equation}
1029: %%
1030: With our results from before, we see that
1031: %%
1032: \begin{eqnarray}
1033: m_\rho \propto g_\rho f_\pi \sim \frac{ 4\pi f_\pi}{N_c^\half}.
1034: \end{eqnarray}
1035: %%
1036: If use $m_\rho$ as the cut-off of the low energy theory,
1037: then we recover the standard large $N_c$ relation that
1038: %%
1039: \begin{eqnarray}
1040: \frac{\Lambda}{f_\pi} \simeq \frac{ 4\pi}{N_c^\half}.
1041: \end{eqnarray}
1042: %%
1043: In general, we will be interested in cases where the $g_{\rho}$, remains
1044: large, i.e. the number of colors is not too big.
1045:
1046: With these large $N_{c}$ scalings in hand, we can now speculate on how
1047: Georgi's vector limit might extend to other theories. As before, we
1048: should write down an effective gauge-invariant Lagrangian for the
1049: PNGBs and the light
1050: vector resonances. Because the mass of the $\rho$ scales as
1051: $1/\sqrt{N_{c}}$, we expect that this Lagrangian will probably
1052: contain more than just a single $\rho$ for non-QCD cases. According to
1053: NDA, there would be many non-local operators with unsuppressed
1054: coefficients. On the other hand, if Georgi's vector
1055: limit is somehow fundamental, and indeed there is a cost for breaking
1056: chiral symmetries, we expect that these non-local operators will be
1057: suppressed. This dictates that mixing with the higher
1058: modes (those not well described in the effective theory) is small.
1059:
1060: The fundamental importance of the vector limit can in principle be
1061: tested experimentally. If, for example,
1062: a EWSB involves a theory at strong coupling, one could check whether or not
1063: it was close to the vector limit by exploring the relationship between the
1064: $\rho-\pi$ couplings, $m_{\rho}$, and $f_{\pi}$.
1065:
1066: \section{The Techni-Vector Limit, Vacuum Alignment and Little Higgs Models}
1067: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1068: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
1069: \label{Sec:TR}
1070: Suppose that techni-$\rho$s (henceforth referred to as $\rho$s) are the
1071: lightest hadronic states of a multi-TeV confining gauge theory associated with EWSB.
1072: How do they couple to the Goldstone bosons?
1073: In this section, we show how to include techni-$\rho$'s in the
1074: low energy effective theory for composite Higgs models. We also discuss how
1075: to define the analog of the vector limit. As a first showcase for this
1076: formalism, we investigate the problem of vacuum alignment in these theories.
1077: Assuming that the vector limit does obtain, we test some of
1078: the results previously obtained using QCD sum rules and essentially reproduce
1079: the major results.
1080:
1081: We then study the implications of the vector limit for specific Little Higgs models.
1082: Assuming there is underlying strong dynamics (at $\sim$10 TeV) which
1083: favors the realization of the near-vector limit, it is possible to
1084: construct an effective theory in which some of the divergences are softened
1085: by these vector bosons. This phenomenon is analogous to the way in which
1086: the photon contributions to the charged-pion masses were cut-off by
1087: interactions with the $\rho$.\footnote{One might hope that
1088: the contribution to the Higgs boson mass from Standard Model
1089: gauge interactions could be cut-off by the techni-$\rho$ \cite{Harada}.
1090: This softening of divergences would take place without extending the
1091: fundamental gauge symmetry; only the existence
1092: of light composite vector bosons near the vector limit is required.}
1093: In Secs.~\ref{Sec:Littlest} and~\ref{Sec:SU6}, we
1094: give two examples of Little Higgs models where inclusion of
1095: techni-$\rho$'s can render previously UV sensitive quantities calculable.
1096: First, in the $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ Little Higgs model\cite{sp6}, there
1097: is a quadratic divergence in the Coleman-Weinberg potential. The naive
1098: sign suggests that the potential is unstable. However, the signs of
1099: quadratically divergent quantities are not necessarily to be
1100: trusted -- with the methods in this paper it is possible to state
1101: what features of the ultraviolet completion are necessary to stabilize
1102: the effective potential. This is the focus of Sec.~\ref{Sec:SU6}.
1103: Second, in the Littlest Higgs model\cite{littlest},
1104: the vacuum expectation value (vev) of a electroweak triplet was
1105: sensitive to ultraviolet physics. We devote Sec.~\ref{Sec:Littlest}
1106: to addressing when the vev of the triplet may be smaller than
1107: naively expected, as desired by electroweak precision measurements.
1108: We are also able to discuss the size of the quartic coupling in this
1109: model.
1110:
1111: \subsection{Coupling Techni-$\rho$'s and Vacuum Alignment}
1112:
1113: Before proceeding to our specific examples, we discuss how to include
1114: techni-$\rho$'s in coset theories of electroweak symmetry breaking.
1115: We are particularly interested in models that have the global symmetry
1116: structure $SU(N)/SO(N)$ or $SU(N)/Sp(N)$. These symmetry breaking
1117: patterns deviate from the QCD-like structure of
1118: $[SU(N)\times SU(N)]/SU(N)$ discussed in
1119: Section~\ref{Sec:QCDrho}, so it is not obvious how to
1120: incorporate light vector resonances into the theory.
1121: The primary guide is that the vectors should be in a representation
1122: of the unbroken global symmetry of the strong dynamics -- i.e.
1123: $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$. We find it convenient to introduce the techni-$\rho$'s
1124: in the context of a particular problem: vacuum
1125: alignment \cite{VacuumAlignment}.
1126:
1127: In theories of strong dynamics, such as the ones we are considering,
1128: vacuum alignment represents an important issue. Consider a strongly
1129: gauged group $\GG$, with some weakly gauged subgroups $\GG_w$. As
1130: we have discussed, when $\GG$ reaches strong coupling, it generically
1131: breaks some global symmetries, and may also break
1132: some of $\GG_w$. The issue of vacuum alignment may be succinctly
1133: stated as: What subgroup $\HH_w$ of $\GG_w$ is left unbroken by the
1134: strong dynamics?
1135:
1136: Solving the vacuum alignment problem requires the minimization of an
1137: effective potential. Unfortunately, this minimization cannot be performed
1138: without a knowledge of the bound states of the strongly coupled theory.
1139: Reference~\cite{PeskinPreskill} utilized sum
1140: rules~\cite{SumRules} to provide a window on this
1141: non-perturbative physics. To make
1142: progress, they assumed that the signs of spectral integrals could be
1143: determined by the lowest lying resonances. In QCD, it is known that this
1144: approximation holds: the $\rho$ and the $a_{1}$ largely saturate
1145: the vector and axial currents.
1146:
1147: Incorporating the techni-$\rho$'s into our effective theory, we too can
1148: address vacuum alignment. We simply choose different candidates
1149: for $\HH_w$, and calculate the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential arising
1150: from gauge boson and techni-$\rho$ exchange in each case. An instability
1151: in the potential means that we have chosen the wrong $\HH_w$.
1152:
1153: At energies beneath $m_\rho$, the PNGBs are parameterized as
1154: %%
1155: \begin{eqnarray}
1156: \label{Eq: Goldstones I}
1157: \Sigma = \exp(i \pi/f)\, \Sigma_0\, \exp(i \pi^T/f),
1158: \end{eqnarray}
1159: %%
1160: where $\Sigma_0$ is the symmetric (anti-symmetric) fermion condensate that
1161: breaks $SU(N)$ to $SO(N)$ ($Sp(N)$).
1162: The leading action for this theory of Goldstone bosons is
1163: %%
1164: \begin{eqnarray}
1165: \LL = \frac{f^2}{4} \Tr |D_\mu \Sigma|^2,
1166: \end{eqnarray}
1167: %%
1168: where the covariant derivative $D_\mu$ is given by
1169: %%
1170: \begin{eqnarray}
1171: D_\mu \Sigma = \partial_\mu \Sigma + i g_I W^I_\mu( T_I \Sigma + \Sigma T_I^T).
1172: \end{eqnarray}
1173: %%
1174: Here, the $W^I$ are the weakly gauged vector bosons of $\GG_{w}$ embedded
1175: inside the global $SU(N)$ symmetry. We can study the question of vacuum
1176: alignment by examining the effective Coleman-Weinberg potential for the
1177: Goldstone bosons. The gauge sector gives rise to quadratic
1178: divergences in the potential for the Goldstone bosons:
1179: %%
1180: \begin{eqnarray}
1181: \label{Eq:VeffGold}
1182: V_\eff (\Sigma) \ni \frac{3\Lambda^2 }{16 \pi^2} \sum_{I=J} \OO_{IJ}
1183: \end{eqnarray}
1184: %%
1185: with
1186: %%
1187: \begin{eqnarray}
1188: \OO_{IJ}(\Sigma) = \frac{f^2}{4} \Tr\Big[( g_I T_I \Sigma + g_I \Sigma T_I^T) (g_J \Sigma^\dagger T_J + g_J T^T \Sigma^\dagger)\Big] .
1189: \end{eqnarray}
1190: %%
1191: At this point, we cannot say anything definitive about the stability
1192: of the effective potential. The quadratic divergence indicates sensitivity
1193: to the ultraviolet, and its sign, central to the question of stability, is not
1194: to be trusted.
1195:
1196: Now we add the techni-$\rho$'s. By taking these vector mesons
1197: to be in the adjoint representation of the unbroken chiral symmetry,
1198: we can incorporate them into the theory by defining a new multiplet of
1199: Goldstone bosons:
1200: %%
1201: \begin{eqnarray}
1202: S \equiv \exp( i \Pi/f) \mbox{ with } \Sigma = S \Sigma_0 S^T.
1203: \end{eqnarray}
1204: %%
1205: Now $\Pi$ is an adjoint of $SU(N)^2/SU(N)$ Goldstone bosons,
1206: instead of the $SU(N)/SO(N)$ or $SU(N)/Sp(N)$ Goldstone multiplet we had
1207: previously. The longitudinal components of the techni-$\rho$'s have
1208: filled out the remainder of the multiplet. $\Sigma$ contains the
1209: same set of Goldstone bosons from Eq.~\ref{Eq: Goldstones I} because the
1210: additional Goldstone bosons commute through $\Sigma_0$ and cancel. Note that
1211: the $SU(N)^{2}$ symmetry of the Lagrangian is broken by the vacuum
1212: expectation value $\Sigma_{0}$.
1213:
1214: The Lagrangian incorporating the $\rho$'s is given by
1215: %%
1216: \begin{eqnarray}
1217: \label{eqn:newL}
1218: \LL_{T\rho} = f^2 (
1219: \Tr |D_\mu S|^2 + \frac{\kappa}{4} \Tr|D_\mu \Sigma|^2 ).
1220: \end{eqnarray}
1221: %%
1222: The covariant derivatives are given by
1223: %%
1224: \begin{eqnarray}
1225: \nonumber
1226: \label{eqn:cosetDs}
1227: D_\mu S &=& \partial_\mu S + i g^0_I W^I_\mu T_I S + i g_\rho S T_A \rho_\mu^A, \\
1228: D_\mu \Sigma &=& \partial_\mu \Sigma + i g^0_I W^I_\mu( T_I \Sigma + \Sigma T_I^T),
1229: \end{eqnarray}
1230: %%
1231: where $\rho^A$ are the techni-$\rho$'s and $A$ runs over the adjoint of
1232: $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$, depending on the unbroken global symmetry group.
1233:
1234: We can now compute the Coleman-Weinberg potential for the theory
1235: with the techni-$\rho$ mesons. The techni-$\rho$'s mix with
1236: the vector bosons of the weakly gauged symmetries and produce a
1237: logarithmic divergence.
1238: If $\kappa =0$, then there would be no $\pi^2 W^2$ coupling
1239: or $\pi^2 \rho^2$ coupling, only a $\pi^2 W \rho$ coupling. This interaction
1240: cannot produce a one-loop quadratic divergence.
1241: The resulting Coleman-Weinberg potential is
1242: %%
1243: \begin{eqnarray}
1244: \label{Eq:EffPotwithRho}
1245: V_\eff(\Sigma) = \frac{3}{16\pi^2} \left(
1246: \frac{\kappa \Lambda^2}{ \cos^{2} \theta}
1247: + 2 m_\rho^2 \log{\Lambda^2} \right) \sum_{I=J}\OO_{IJ}(\Sigma) + \cdots \, ,
1248: \end{eqnarray}
1249: %%
1250: where we have written the result in terms of the low-energy gauge coupling,
1251: $g_{I} \equiv g_{I}^{0} \cos \theta$ and $m_\rho$. The ``$\cdots$'' includes a
1252: logarithmically divergent term, but is proportional to $\kappa$.
1253: The $\OO_{I}$ are the same operators as in
1254: Eq.~\ref{Eq:VeffGold},
1255: there is no explicit dependence on $S$ alone. This should not be
1256: surprising -- the additional
1257: modes present in $S$ not contained in $\Sigma$ are eaten (exact) Goldstone
1258: bosons and, as such, cannot have a potential.
1259: To put the potential in this form, we
1260: have performed the sum over the $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$ adjoint,
1261: and the fields arrange themselves in the form $\Sigma = S \Sigma_0 S^T$.
1262:
1263: Before discussing the implications of Eq.~\ref{Eq:EffPotwithRho} for vacuum
1264: alignment, we first discuss the symmetry structure of the techni-vector limit.
1265: As in the two-flavor QCD example, the quadratic divergence vanishes
1266: due to an enhanced symmetry of the
1267: vector limit when $\kappa=0$. In this limit, when the weak gauge couplings,
1268: $g_I$, and the $\rho$ gauge couplings, $g_\rho$, vanish,
1269: it is possible to perform {\it independent} $SU(N)\times SU(N)_\rho$
1270: transformations on $S$:
1271: %%
1272: \begin{eqnarray}
1273: S \rightarrow G S G_\rho.
1274: \end{eqnarray}
1275: %%
1276: The term proportional to $\kappa$ forces $G_\rho$ to be a
1277: $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$ global transformation.
1278:
1279: %Note that the $\rho$ mesons
1280: %make up an adjoint of $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$ instead of the full $SU(N)$.
1281:
1282: In the $\kappa=0$ limit, the sole vestige of the breaking of the global
1283: $SU(N)$ symmetry by the strong dynamics is the representation of the
1284: techni-$\rho$s. They make up a multiplet of $SO(N)$ or $Sp(N)$
1285: (rather than the full $SU(N)$).
1286: Having the lightest vector resonance communicate symmetry breaking
1287: offers an interesting view on how global symmetries
1288: are dynamically broken by fermion condensates.
1289:
1290: Now we can return to the implications of Eq.~\ref{Eq:EffPotwithRho} for vacuum
1291: alignment. Since the quadratic divergence vanishes, the potential is
1292: dominated by the logarithmically divergent piece. To determine the
1293: stability of a given the vacuum alignment, one would in principle expand out
1294: the operators, $\OO (\Sigma)$ and see whether all PNGB's receive a
1295: positive (mass)$^2$. However, we can take a shortcut to the result by
1296: simply noting that the operators of Eq.~\ref{Eq:EffPotwithRho}
1297: operators are identical to those produced in the
1298: traditional \cite{PeskinPreskill} vacuum alignment studies.
1299:
1300: Our agreement with the QCD sum rules results from the $\rho$'s
1301: regulating the quadratic divergences. To reverse the quadratic divergence,
1302: an $a_1$-like resonance should be dominant over
1303: the $\rho$. At this stage, we have not even incorporated such a
1304: mode. In Sec. \ref{Sec: TechniHigher Modes}
1305: we discuss the incorporation of higher modes in strong coupling theories,
1306: and whether being very far from the vector limit can change this result.
1307:
1308: \subsection{Little Higgs Examples}
1309: Little Higgs models often contain ultraviolet-sensitive
1310: quantities whose values are crucial for determining the viability
1311: of the theory. Because the ultraviolet completions of these
1312: models are unspecified, it seems impossible to comment definitively
1313: on the viability of these models. If we suppose the vector
1314: limit obtains, these quantities can be computed within an effective theory.
1315: This allows us to discuss the viability of the models in the vector limit.
1316: We will give examples of how to apply our technology to specific
1317: Little Higgs models.
1318:
1319: \subsubsection{The Littlest Higgs: $SU(5)/SO(5)$}
1320: \label{Sec:Littlest}
1321:
1322: The Littlest Higgs is the best known Little Higgs model and
1323: has been studied in some depth\cite{PrecisionEWLittlest,ColliderTests}.
1324: It is closely related to the Georgi-Kaplan composite Higgs
1325: model, which has the same coset structure\cite{PGBHiggs}. This coset
1326: was originally chosen to preserve custodial $SU(2)$, thereby protecting
1327: the $T$ parameter. The primary difference between the Littlest Higgs and the
1328: Georgi-Kaplan model is in the weakly gauged part of $SU(5)$.
1329: The Littlest Higgs model we consider gauges
1330: $SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2\times U(1)_Y$ in $SU(5)$; because only a single $U(1)$ is gauged, there is an additional axion--like field beyond the Goldstone bosons
1331: discussed in \cite{littlest}. The gauge symmetry is
1332: broken to $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ by the
1333: condensation. In the Georgi-Kaplan composite Higgs model,
1334: only the standard model $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ is gauged. Gauging the
1335: additional $SU(2)$ breaks custodial $SU(2)$. This results in a
1336: $SU(2)_L$ triplet, hypercharge one scalar
1337: acquiring a phenomenologically problematic vev -- however, it is
1338: also the reason that the Higgs doublet acquires a large quartic potential,
1339: leading to viable EWSB.
1340:
1341: To see how the triplet acquires a vev, consider the gauge quadratic
1342: divergence in the Coleman-Weinberg potential:
1343: %%
1344: \begin{eqnarray}
1345: V_\eff = \frac{3 \Lambda^2}{16 \pi^2}\Big(
1346: \OO_{1} + \OO_2 + \OO_Y \Big),
1347: \end{eqnarray}
1348: %%
1349: with
1350: %%
1351: \begin{eqnarray}
1352: \nonumber
1353: &&\OO_1 = \frac{g_1^2}{4}\left(\Tr \left| \phi - \frac{i\,hh^T}{2 \sqrt{2} f}\right|^2 +\cdots\right),
1354: \hspace{0.45in}
1355: \OO_2 = \frac{g_2^2}{4} \left(\Tr \left|\phi + \frac{i\,hh^T}{2 \sqrt{2} f}\right|^2 +\cdots\right),
1356: \\
1357: &&\hspace{1.4in} \OO_Y = g'{}^2\left(|\phi|^2+ \frac{1}{4}|h|^2 - \frac{1}{24f^2} |h|^4\cdots\right),
1358: \end{eqnarray}
1359: %%
1360: where we have neglected the interactions of the axion-like $\eta$.
1361:
1362: The triplet vev arises from the term $h^T\phi^\dagger h$ in the expansion
1363: of these operators.
1364:
1365: Integrating out the massive $\phi$ field induces both a Higgs quartic coupling
1366: and a dimension six operator that contributes to a $T$ parameter.
1367: %%
1368: \begin{eqnarray}
1369: \label{eqn:dim6T}
1370: \LL_\eff = \lambda |h|^4 +\frac{c_T}{f^2} |h^\dagger D_\mu h|^2,
1371: \end{eqnarray}
1372: %%
1373: with
1374: %%
1375: \begin{eqnarray}
1376: \lambda= \frac{1}{16\pi^2 f^2} \frac{ g_1^2 \Lambda_1^2 g_2^2\Lambda_2^2}{g_1^2 \Lambda_1^2 + g_2^2\Lambda_2^2} ,
1377: \hspace{0.3in}
1378: c_T= \frac{(g_1^2 \Lambda_1^2/f - g_2^2\Lambda_2^2/f)^2}{ 8(g_1^2\Lambda_1^2 + g_2^2\Lambda_2^2 + 4g'{}^2\Lambda_Y^2)} ,
1379: \end{eqnarray}
1380: %%
1381: where we have allowed for the possibility of different cut-offs for the operators
1382: $\OO_1$ and $\OO_2$.
1383: Because the coefficients of the operators are quadratically
1384: divergent, it is not clear how to interpret this result -- for example,
1385: one could imagine physics in the ultraviolet cutting off the divergences
1386: differently. For instance, one might have $\Lambda_{1,2} \propto g_{1,2}^{-1}$
1387: that would cancel the induced $T$ parameter in the above formula.
1388:
1389: We now suppose that the vector limit obtains, and repeat the calculation.
1390: First, we have to incorporate the $\rho$ mesons.
1391: The $\rho$'s form an adjoint of $SO(5)$ and decompose under
1392: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ and $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ as
1393: %%
1394: \begin{eqnarray}
1395: \mathbf{10}\rightarrow
1396: (\mathbf{3},\mathbf{1})\oplus (\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})\oplus (\mathbf{1},\mathbf{3})\rightarrow
1397: \mathbf{3_0}\oplus\mathbf{1_0}\oplus \mathbf{1_1}
1398: \oplus\mathbf{2_\half}.
1399: \end{eqnarray}
1400: %%
1401: The $\mathbf{1_0}$ and $\mathbf{1_1}$ form an $SU(2)_R$ triplet.
1402: Although the weakly gauged sector does not respect
1403: custodial $SU(2)$, the strong resonances do, and the strong dynamics
1404: is identical to that of the Georgi-Kaplan composite Higgs model.
1405: The additional spin-one resonances do not
1406: mediate large effects to the $T$ parameter precisely because of the custodial
1407: $SU(2)$ An analysis similar to the one used for the gauge sector of a Little
1408: Higgs model in Ref.~\cite{ChangWacker} explicitly shows this is the case.
1409:
1410: \begin{figure}
1411: \begin{center}
1412: \epsfig{file=LH1.eps, width=2.25in}
1413: \caption{
1414: \label{Fig: LH1}
1415: The global and gauge symmetry structure of the $SU(5)/SO(5)$
1416: composite Higgs model. The electroweak $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$
1417: gauge sector is embedded within the global $SO(5)$.
1418: }
1419:
1420: \end{center}
1421: \end{figure}
1422: \begin{figure}
1423: \begin{center}
1424: \epsfig{file=LH2.eps, width=3.1in}\hspace{0.45in}\epsfig{file=LH3.eps, width=3.1in}
1425: \caption{
1426: \label{Fig: LH2}
1427: The global and gauge symmetry structure of the $SU(5)/SO(5)$ model with a
1428: light techni-$\rho$. The left diagram shows the symmetry structure of such a theory,
1429: while the right shows the light techni-$\rho$ in the vector limit.
1430: }
1431: \end{center}
1432: \end{figure}
1433:
1434: %\begin{figure}
1435: %\begin{center}
1436: %\epsfig{file=LH3.eps, width=4.0in}
1437: %\caption{
1438: %\label{Fig: LH3}
1439: %The global and gauge symmetry structure of the model with a light techni-$\rho$ in the vector limit.
1440: %}
1441: %\end{center}
1442: %\end{figure}
1443:
1444: As in the previous section, in the vector limit the
1445: techni-$\rho$s cut off the gauge quadratic divergence:
1446: %%
1447: \begin{eqnarray}
1448: \label{eqn:VLLittlest}
1449: V_\eff = \frac{3 m_\rho^2}{8 \pi^2} \log \Lambda^2 \Big(
1450: \OO_{1} + \OO_2 + \OO_Y \Big).
1451: \end{eqnarray}
1452: %%
1453: Note that this does not alter the naive prediction for the
1454: triplet vev because it provides the same cut-off for the quadratic
1455: divergences to $\OO_1$ and $\OO_2$. The induced dimension six operator
1456: is identical to that of Eq.~\ref{eqn:dim6T}, but with
1457: $\Lambda^2 \rightarrow m^2_{\rho}\log \Lambda^2$.
1458:
1459: The two $SU(2)$ gauge couplings are related to the Standard Model $SU(2)$ coupling
1460: by $g^{-2}= g_1^{-2}+g_2^{-2}$. We define the mixing angle $\tan \theta \equiv g_1/g_2$
1461: as the new low energy parameter.
1462: In the vector limit, the triplet mass is
1463: %%
1464: \begin{eqnarray}
1465: m^2_\phi =\frac{ m_\rho^2}{8\pi^2} \frac{3 g^2}{\sin^2 2 \theta}
1466: (1+ \tan^2\theta_{\text{w}} \sin^22\theta)
1467: = 6 m^2_{W'} (1 + \tan^2\theta_{\text{w}} \sin^22 \theta)\frac{ m_\rho^2}{\Lambda^2}.
1468: \end{eqnarray}
1469: %%
1470: where $m_{W'}$ is the mass of the TeV scale $W'$ vector boson.
1471: Then the triplet vev is given by
1472: %%
1473: \begin{eqnarray}
1474: \label{Eq:TripVev}
1475: \langle \phi\rangle = \frac{ v^2 \cos 2 \theta}{4\sqrt{2}f (1 + \tan^2\theta_{\text{w}} \sin^2 2 \theta)}.
1476: \end{eqnarray}
1477: %%
1478: This vacuum expectation value is independent of the
1479: $N_c$ in the ultraviolet completion. It only depends on the
1480: ratio of the two $SU(2)$ gauge couplings; the vev vanishes when the
1481: two couplings are equal. For reference, barring cancellations, the
1482: experimental limit on a triplet vev is 3 GeV. Thus, Eq.~\ref{Eq:TripVev}
1483: implies strong constraints for $f \lsim 2.5 \TeV$ unless there are
1484: cancellations.
1485:
1486: The Higgs quartic coupling results from
1487: integrating out the triplet field. In the vector limit, it is given by
1488: %%
1489: \begin{eqnarray}
1490: \label{Eqn: summaryquartic}
1491: \lambda = \frac{ 3 g^2m_\rho^2 }{4 \Lambda^2}\frac{1+ \frac{2}{3}\tan^2\theta_{\text{w}} - \frac{1}{3} \tan^4\theta_{\text{w}} \sin^2 2\theta}{1 + \tan^2\theta_{\text{w}} \sin^2 2\theta}
1492: \hspace{0.2in}
1493: \Rightarrow
1494: \hspace{0.2in}
1495: m_h \simeq \sqrt{6} m_W(1 + \frac{1}{3} \tan^2\theta_{\text{w}})\frac{m_\rho}{\Lambda}
1496: \end{eqnarray}
1497: %%
1498: where we have dropped terms proportional to $\sin^22\theta$ in the expression for $m_h$
1499: because $\theta$ needs to be small from precision electroweak constraints \cite{PrecisionEWLittlest, ChangWacker,PrecisionEWSp6}.
1500: If the Littlest Higgs theory is to
1501: produce an adequately heavy Higgs, this points to a UV completion
1502: with heavy techni-$\rho$s.
1503: This prediction for the Higgs boson mass is subject to large corrections from the top quark Yukawa
1504: coupling.
1505:
1506: Summarizing, the triplet vev is independent of the any details about the
1507: $\rho$s as they only provide a universal cut-off for the gauge quadratic divergences.
1508: The Higgs mass and triplet mass are proportional to the mass of the lightest $\rho$.
1509: As discussed in Sec. \ref{Sec: VL}, the $\rho$ mass scales the number of colors in the
1510: confining theory, $m_\rho \simeq 4 \pi f/N_c^\half$. Thus, a heavy $\rho$ points to a
1511: small $N_{c}$ UV completion.
1512: As a side note, the $\rho$ can mediate an $S$ parameter
1513: %%
1514: \begin{eqnarray}
1515: \delta S \propto \frac{ v^2}{m_\rho^2} \sim N_c \frac{ v^2}{\Lambda} .
1516: \end{eqnarray}
1517: %%
1518: where $\Lambda = 4\pi f$. This indicates heavy techni-$\rho$s, roughly
1519: corresponding to a small $N_c$ UV completion.
1520:
1521: \subsubsection{The Vacuum of $SU(6)/Sp(6)$}
1522: \label{Sec:SU6}
1523:
1524: The Little Higgs model $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ \cite{sp6} has garnered
1525: attention\cite{PrecisionEWSp6} because it possesses many of the
1526: requisite properties to be a minimal Little Higgs model\footnote{
1527: Note that our definition of $f^2$ is a factor of 2 greater than in \cite{PrecisionEWSp6}.
1528: }. However,
1529: there is one potential problem with the model -- the Coleman-Weinberg
1530: potential is unbounded if one takes the naive sign. This is worrisome,
1531: but not necessarily fatal; the Coleman-Weinberg potential is dominated
1532: by cut-off scale contributions which could potentially reverse the
1533: naive sign.
1534: In this section we assume that the lightest $\rho$ is in the vector limit.
1535: Then the quadratic divergence vanishes, and the effective potential
1536: becomes calculable. Under these assumptions, we find that the potential
1537: remains unstable.
1538:
1539: The $SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2\times U(1)_Y$ quadratically divergent
1540: contribution to the scalar potential is
1541: %%
1542: \begin{eqnarray}
1543: V_\eff = \frac{ 3 \Lambda^2}{16\pi^2} \Big(
1544: \OO_{1} + \OO_2 + \OO_Y \Big)
1545: \end{eqnarray}
1546: %%
1547: with
1548: %%
1549: \begin{eqnarray}
1550: \nonumber
1551: &&\OO_1 = - \frac{g_1^2}{4}\left(\left|\eta + \frac{i\,h_1^\dagger h_2}{2\sqrt{2}f}\right|^2 + \cdots\right)
1552: \hspace{0.5in}
1553: \OO_2 = - \frac{g_2^2}{4}\left(\left|\eta - \frac{i\,h_1^\dagger h_2}{2\sqrt{2}f}\right|^2 + \cdots\right)\\
1554: &&
1555: \hspace{1.5in}
1556: \OO_Y = \frac{g'{}^2}{4}\left(\left(|h_1|^2 +|h_2|^2\right) + \cdots \right).
1557: \end{eqnarray}
1558: %%
1559: In the vector limit, the techni-$\rho$'s
1560: cut-off the gauge quadratic divergence and {\it do not reverse the naive sign}:
1561: %%
1562: \begin{eqnarray}
1563: V_\eff = \frac{3 m_\rho^2}{16 \pi^2}\log \Lambda^2 \left(
1564: \OO_{1} + \OO_2 + \OO_Y \right)\propto - (g_1^2+g_2^2) m_\rho^2|\eta|^2+\cdots.
1565: \end{eqnarray}
1566: %%
1567: This indicates that the vacuum, $\Sigma_0$ is unstable in the vector limit.
1568: In the vector limit, the gauge sector destabilizes the vacuum. Unless there are other contributions
1569: to these operators, this theory is unstable. The vacuum preferred by the gauge sector is the one that preserves
1570: %%
1571: \begin{eqnarray}
1572: SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2\times U(1)_Y \subset Sp(6).
1573: \end{eqnarray}
1574: %%
1575: One possibility is that the theory could be far away from the vector limit with $\kappa<0$
1576: and reverses the naive sign of the quadratic divergence. Of course the sign can not be trusted
1577: and the theory should be matched on to one that includes a new techni-$\rho$' that regulates this
1578: quadratic divergence. We briefly discuss this in Sec. \ref{Sec: TechniHigher Modes}, where we discuss the incorporation of higher resonances.
1579:
1580: \subsection{Higher Modes in Coset Models}
1581: \label{Sec: TechniHigher Modes}
1582:
1583: Given the discussion on QCD, we expect that the inclusion of an
1584: additional gauge
1585: field should allow us to model ``techni-$a_{1}$'s.'' After adding this gauge
1586: group, the first issue is how to distinguish between the $a_1$ and $\rho$.
1587: This is easily solved in the coset models we have considered because they
1588: possess a parity that reverses the broken generators, $X$, while leaving
1589: invariant the unbroken ones, $T$. We identify the techni-$\rho$ with the
1590: state of even parity.
1591: The typical theory space diagram after the inclusion of the $a_{1}$
1592: is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig: TechniA1}.
1593: The way to incorporate higher modes into coset theories is the natural
1594: extension of the way one would do it QCD. In this section
1595: we will use $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ as an example; the extension to
1596: other coset models is straight-forward.
1597:
1598: \begin{figure}
1599: \begin{center}
1600: \epsfig{file=TechniA1.eps, width=3.5in}
1601: \caption{
1602: \label{Fig: TechniA1}
1603: To extend $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ beyond the lightest $\rho$ to include the
1604: $a_1$ one must enlarge the gauge structure. To include the additional
1605: $a_1$, promote the gauged $Sp(6)_\rho$ to $SU(6)_\rho$, as depicted
1606: in the left figure. The following $\rho'$ can be included by adding another
1607: $Sp(6)_\rho$, as shown in the right figure.
1608: }
1609: \end{center}
1610: \end{figure}
1611:
1612: To model resonances beyond the $\rho$ in these non-QCD-like theories
1613: it is necessary to enlarge the gauge structure. To include the $a_1$
1614: we promote the strongly gauged $Sp(6)_\rho$ to $SU(6)_\rho$
1615: and include two non-linear sigma model fields: one a bi-fundamental
1616: under $SU(6)_w$ and $SU(6)_\rho$, $S$,and
1617: an anti-symmetric tensor under $SU(6)_\rho$, $\Sigma$. This action
1618: contains a single non-local operator:
1619: %%
1620: \begin{eqnarray}
1621: \LL &=& -\half \Tr P_\munu^2
1622: + f^2\Big( \Tr |D S|^2 + c^2 \Tr |D \Sigma|^2
1623: + \kappa \Tr| D S\Sigma|^2
1624: \Big)
1625: \label{Eq: SU6 a1}\,.
1626: \end{eqnarray}
1627: %%
1628: As in the case with only the $\rho$ incorporated, $\kappa$ alone determines
1629: the one-loop quadratically divergent counter-term for the effective potential.
1630: For $\kappa \neq 0$, there is a quadratic divergence, and we cannot
1631: reliably calculate the vacuum alignment using our techniques. For
1632: $\kappa = 0$, the vector limit, the contribution to the effective potential
1633: from the $\rho$'s dominate over the contribution from the $a_{1}$, and
1634: we have the naive vacuum alignment. Thus, we need to introduce resonances
1635: beyond the $\rho$ and the $a_1$ if we wish to study possible modifications of
1636: vacuum alignment.
1637:
1638: The next simplest theory includes the $\rho$, $a_1$ and the $\rho'$.
1639: This theory has a strongly gauged $SU(6)_\rho$ and $Sp(6)_\rho$ and
1640: is depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig: TechniA1}. There are several
1641: non-local interactions. The Lagrangian is given by
1642: %%
1643: \begin{eqnarray}
1644: \nonumber
1645: \LL &=& -\half \Tr W_\munu^{2} -\half \Tr P_\munu^2 - \half \rho_\munu^2
1646: + f^2\Big( \Tr |D S_1|^2 + c^2 \Tr |D S_2|^2 \\
1647: && \hspace{0.5in}
1648: + \kappa_1 \Tr| D S_1 S_2|^2 + \frac{\kappa_2}{4} \Tr| D S_2 \Sigma_0 S_2^T|^2
1649: + \frac{\kappa'}{4} \Tr| D S_1 S_2 \Sigma_0 S_2^TS_1^T|^2
1650: \Big)\label{su6}\,,
1651: \end{eqnarray}
1652: %%
1653: where we define $S_j=e^{i\,\pi_j/f}$.
1654:
1655: \subsubsection{Salvaging $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ Away from the Vector Limit?}
1656: \label{Sec: Saving SU6}
1657:
1658: In Sec. \ref{Sec:SU6} we showed that the vector limit gave the
1659: wrong vacuum for the $SU(6)/Sp(6)$ to be a Little Higgs theory. However, the vector
1660: limit can be altered by mixing with heavier modes as we saw
1661: in Sec. \ref{Sec: HigherModesKappa}. Given this, can we construct
1662: a theory incorporating higher modes, sufficiently far
1663: away from the single $\rho$ vector limit of Sec. \ref{Sec:SU6},
1664: so that the theory has the vacuum required to be a Little
1665: Higgs model? At the same time, we wish to maintain a good description
1666: in terms of an effective Lagrangian of PNGB's and light resonances
1667: without quadratic divergences in the Coleman-Weinberg potential.
1668: In the traditional sum rule picture, it is assumed
1669: that the vacuum is largely determined by the lowest resonances, which
1670: saturate spectral functions. We would like to understand the robustness of
1671: this result.
1672:
1673: By modeling the $a_1$ resonances in the way we discussed here, it is possible to provide
1674: some more explicit understanding of how the
1675: vacuum could be modified from its naive alignment.
1676: Since the effective potential for the PNGB's of the theory
1677: is produced by non-trivial mixing between spin-1 states
1678: after the inclusion of spontaneous and explicit symmetry breaking terms,
1679: it depends not only on the actual masses of the $a_1$ and $\rho$ fields, but also
1680: on the mixing with the low energy states.
1681: Most importantly, $a_1$'s and $\rho$'s contribute to such potential with
1682: opposite sign, so that it is in principle possible to reverse the naive
1683: sign of the Coleman-Weinberg potential by increasing the realtive importance of the
1684: $a_{1}$'s.
1685:
1686: We performed extensive studies trying to reverse vacuum alignment,
1687: focusing in particular on cases in which only local operators are
1688: allowed at the effective Lagrangian level, in such a way as to
1689: soften, or even remove, UV cut-off dependences in the Coleman-Weinberg
1690: potential.
1691: We found that, indeed, thanks to the complicated form of mixing
1692: terms in the spin-1 field mass matrices,
1693: it appears possible to stabilize the vacuum, but only at the price of
1694: using negative values for the $\kappa$ factors, and somewhat large ratios
1695: between the gauge couplings. This implies that the
1696: vacuum can be stabilized only in the parameter space region where the
1697: theory starts to become strongly coupled: some of the states have masses
1698: close to the natural cut-off
1699: of the theory, and the validity of the effective field theory description
1700: becomes questionable. While not conclusive, this study does indicate that
1701: vacuum alignment seems to be more robust than what one might have
1702: naively expected.
1703:
1704: \section{Unitarity and Strong Coupling}
1705: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1706: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
1707: \label{Sec:unitarity}
1708:
1709: Little Higgs models are non-renormalizable non-linear sigma models and
1710: so must become strongly coupled. At some scale, $\Lambda$, the
1711: low energy description of the theory becomes inadequate, and new physics
1712: (or strong coupling) sets in. Naive dimensional analysis (NDA) \cite{NDA}
1713: gives a cut-off of $\Lambda \sim 4 \pi f$. There are many simple
1714: refinements of the NDA estimate. One of the most common is the large
1715: $N_c$ refinement, which estimates $\Lambda \sim 4 \pi f/N_c^\half$.
1716: A similar result applies
1717: for a large number of fermions, $N_f$: $\Lambda \sim 4 \pi/N_f^\half$.
1718:
1719: An alternate approach is to do a partial-wave unitarity
1720: analysis, as done for Little Higgs models in \cite{Chang:2003vs}.
1721: One examines the amplitudes of the
1722: Goldstone bosons scattering, and finds
1723: that the scattering becomes strong at
1724: %%
1725: \begin{equation}
1726: \Lambda_U \sim \sqrt{4\pi} f/\NN^{\frac{1}{4}},
1727: \end{equation}
1728: %%
1729: where $\NN$ is the number of Goldstone bosons. $\NN$
1730: roughly scales as $N_f^2$, so this result for $\Lambda$ roughly matches
1731: the large $N_f$ refinement of NDA, up to a difference of $\sqrt{2\pi}$.
1732: In this large $N_{f}$ limit, the difference is due to
1733: conservatism -- the partial wave analysis is more conservative than NDA.
1734: Note, chiral symmetry breaking cannot produce an arbitrarily large number of
1735: PNGBs for a fixed $N_c$: the number of PNGBs roughly scales as
1736: $\NN\sim N_f^2$, and at sufficiently large $N_f$ the confining
1737: theory becomes asymptotically non-free.
1738:
1739: Both the NDA and the partial wave analyses attempt to give an indication of
1740: where new physics modifies the scattering behavior of the Goldstone bosons.
1741: It is natural to inquire what form this new physics takes.
1742: There are some arguments that vector mesons are responsible
1743: for the unitarization of $\pi^2\rightarrow \pi^2$ scattering at intermediate
1744: energies, i.e. $\rho$ mesons soften the $\pi$ scattering. In this section we
1745: explore whether this possibility obtains. In fact, we find that
1746: incorporating the $\rho$ mesons does {\it not} result
1747: in a parametric rise in scale where perturbative unitarity is lost.
1748: There are special values of $\kappa$ where the leading $\pi^4$ interactions
1749: vanish but the $\xi^2\pi^2$ and $\xi^4$ interactions do not disappear.
1750:
1751: While the $\rho$ does not provide a
1752: panacea, it can conceivably give a temporary postponement of the
1753: scale of perturbative unitarity violation.
1754: Recall that the coupling of the $\rho$
1755: scales as $g_\rho \sim 4\pi/N_c^\half$, so the mass of the $\rho$ scales
1756: as
1757: %%
1758: \begin{eqnarray}
1759: m_\rho \sim \frac{4\pi f}{N_c^\half}.
1760: \end{eqnarray}
1761: %%
1762: Note, this coincides with the large $N_c$ cut-off. In this large $N_{c}$
1763: case, one might visualize a series of vector resonances, starting with the
1764: lowest $\rho$ states, serving
1765: to postpone unitarity violation. This is not
1766: dissimilar to the ``Higgs''-less theories \cite{Higgsless}
1767: or Randall-Sundrum I models
1768: that provide a window of unitarization mediated by Kaluza-Klein modes.
1769: For small $N_c$, where the vector resonances are
1770: heavy, it seems clear that the techni-$\rho$s are not responsible for
1771: unitarizing the scattering. In this case, incorporating a
1772: broad $\sigma$-like resonances seems more reasonable. We discuss this
1773: in more detail in
1774: Sec. \ref{Sec: Sigma Resonance}. In this case, we interpret the partial wave
1775: unitarity scale as where the broad $\sigma$ resonance appears.
1776:
1777: \subsection{$\rho$'s and Unitarization}
1778:
1779: We now address the onset of strong coupling in the presence of the
1780: $\rho$'s.
1781: Therefore, we expect that the scale of strong pion scattering is
1782: modified by the addition of the $\rho$ mesons to the chiral Lagrangian.
1783: Unfortunately, the energy region where the $\rho$ is important for
1784: scattering is not in the equivalence region where $E\gg m_\rho$, meaning
1785: that the transverse components of the $\rho$ matter for scattering.
1786: This
1787: complicates the results. For simplicity
1788: we ignore this technicality and only consider the
1789: longitudinal component--our results will be most accurate in theories
1790: where the $\rho$'s are light.
1791:
1792: To explore strong coupling, we first expand the original $\pi$
1793: Lagrangian in
1794: Eq.~\ref{Eq: QCD1} to quartic order in the fields to find how the
1795: interactions behave without the influence of the $\rho$:
1796: %%
1797: \begin{eqnarray}
1798: \label{Eq: QCD1 Quartic}
1799: \LL_\eff \supset
1800: \frac{2}{3 f_\pi^2} \Gamma^{(4)}(\pi, D\pi)
1801: = \frac{2}{3 f_\pi^2} \Gamma^{(4)}_{abcd} \pi^a\pi^b D\pi^c D\pi^d,
1802: \end{eqnarray}
1803: %%
1804: where
1805: %%
1806: \begin{eqnarray}
1807: \Gamma^{(4)}_{abcd} = \Tr
1808: \tau_a \tau_b \tau_c \tau_d
1809: - \Tr \tau_a \tau_c \tau_b \tau_d = \frac{1}{4} \Big( \delta_{ab}
1810: \delta_{cd} - \delta_{ac}\delta_{bd}\Big).
1811: \end{eqnarray}
1812: Similarly, the chiral Lagrangian containing the $\rho$ can also be
1813: expanded to
1814: quartic order. One must take care to canonically normalize
1815: $\xi$, the longitudinal component of the $\rho$. In this case, the
1816: quartic interactions are
1817: %%
1818: \begin{eqnarray}
1819: \nonumber
1820: \LL &\supset&
1821: \frac{2 N_\pi^2}{3 f_\pi^2}\Big[
1822: \Gamma^{(4)}\left((N_\pi^\inv \pi+N_\xi^\inv \xi),D(N_\pi^\inv \pi
1823: +N_\xi^\inv \xi)\right)\\
1824: \nonumber
1825: &&\hspace{0.4in}
1826: +\Gamma^{(4)}\left((N_\pi^\inv \pi-N_\xi^\inv \xi),D(N_\pi^\inv \pi
1827: -N_\xi^\inv \xi)\right)\\
1828: &&\hspace{0.4in}
1829: +\frac{\kappa}{2}\Gamma^{(4)}(2N_\pi^\inv\pi,2N_\pi^\inv D\pi)\Big].
1830: \end{eqnarray}
1831: %%
1832: This effective Lagrangian will break down due to strong coupling at energies
1833: not drastically different from $4 \pi f_{\pi}$, even with the incorporation
1834: of the $\rho$'s into the Lagrangian.
1835:
1836: In the vector limit the scattering simplifies significantly: the final term
1837: in the Lagrangian is absent and $N_{\pi} = N_{\xi}$. In the vector limit,
1838: the lowest scale of unitarity violation involves the scattering of the state
1839: %%
1840: \begin{eqnarray}
1841: |\phi\rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |\pi\rangle \pm |\xi\rangle).
1842: \end{eqnarray}
1843: %%
1844: This corresponds to a state localized in $\pi_L$ or $\pi_R$.
1845: This is clear from the geometric picture where the states with
1846: lowest scale of strong coupling are localized wave packets,
1847: rather than mass eigenstate. As localized object, they probe short distances,
1848: and thus the highest energies. As we move away from the
1849: vector limit, the most strongly coupled state
1850: is more $\pi$-like when $\kappa>0$ and more $\xi$-like when $\kappa<0$.
1851:
1852: The scale of unitarity violation for a localized states is related to the $f$ of the
1853: adjacent link. As more modes are incorporated, the $f$ associated with
1854: each link increases relative to $f_\pi$:
1855: %%
1856: \begin{eqnarray}
1857: f = n_S^\half f_\pi,
1858: \end{eqnarray}
1859: %%
1860: where $n_{S}$ is the number of sites. This increases the separation
1861: between $f_{\pi}$ and $f$, showing an improvement in the scattering behavior.
1862: The introduction of each vector resonance allows the temporary postponement
1863: of the scale of unitarity violation, similar to Higgsless theories of EWSB
1864: \cite{Higgsless}, where the new KK modes postpone the breakdown of
1865: unitarity in longitudinal $W W$ scattering.
1866:
1867: In the generalized vector limit with $n_S$ sites, the scale of
1868: unitarity violation simply scales as
1869: %%
1870: \begin{eqnarray}
1871: \Lambda_U \propto n_S^\half f_\pi
1872: \end{eqnarray}
1873: %%
1874: because the $\Gamma^{(4)}$ tensors are block diagonal and different
1875: sets of pions don't interact at leading order.
1876: On the other hand, if the theory is significantly away from the vector
1877: limit, the number of PNGBs in the final state increases as $n_S$, thus
1878: {\it lowering} the scale where unitarity violation would occur. The
1879: scale
1880: of unitarity violation scales as
1881: %%
1882: \begin{eqnarray}
1883: \Lambda_U \propto n_S^{\frac{1}{4}} f_\pi .
1884: \end{eqnarray}
1885: %%
1886: Thus the vector limit appears to help stave off unitarity violation making the
1887: theory healthy over a larger energy regime.
1888:
1889: \subsection{The $\sigma$ Resonance}
1890: \label{Sec: Sigma Resonance}
1891:
1892: There are several broad light isospin singlet scalar resonances in QCD,
1893: typically called $f_0$ resonances.
1894: The first $f_0$ lies in the 500 MeV range with a width
1895: roughly as big as its mass. These states are capable of unitarizing
1896: $\pi\pi$ scattering exactly as the Higgs boson does -- by being the
1897: fluctuation of the vacuum expectation value.
1898:
1899: In QCD $N_c$ and $N_f$ are the same, and the $\rho$ and $f_0$ are
1900: roughly degenerate. In this section we argue that in the limit where
1901: there are a large number of pions (corresponding to a
1902: large $N_{f}$), the $f_0$
1903: resonance becomes light and is responsible for
1904: unitarizing the Nambu-Goldstone boson scattering.
1905: Typically several scalar resonances are necessary
1906: to completely unitarize $\pi\pi$ scattering up to high
1907: energies\footnote{
1908: However, in the case of the Standard Model a single $\sigma$ suffices.}.
1909: We will explore the quantum numbers of these resonances.
1910:
1911: We now consider the scattering of the Goldstone bosons in the
1912: Littlest Higgs ($SU(5)/SO(5)$) model in some detail, and show the
1913: role a $\sigma$ resonance could play in unitarizing the theory.
1914: Here we discuss the $\sigma$'s in the theory that does not
1915: incorporate the techni-$\rho$s; it is possible to extend this
1916: analysis to theories that model these states.
1917:
1918: It is useful to decompose the $\pi\pi$ scattering amplitude into
1919: representations of the unbroken symmetry group. In the
1920: Littlest Higgs model the $\pi\pi\rightarrow \pi\pi$ scattering can be
1921: decomposed into various $SO(5)$ channels:
1922: %%
1923: \begin{eqnarray}
1924: \mathbf{14}\otimes\mathbf{14} \rightarrow
1925: \mathbf{1} \oplus\mathbf{10}\oplus \mathbf{14} \oplus \cdots \, .
1926: \end{eqnarray}
1927: %%
1928: Each of the partial wave amplitudes has a different scale of
1929: unitarity violation. It is the fluctuation in
1930: the singlet channel (the direction of the vev)
1931: that has the lowest scale of unitarity violation. This is because
1932: the other channels have smaller Clebsch-Gordon coefficients in the
1933: decomposition. A single, broad scalar should be expected
1934: for the lightest $\sigma$ resonance, unitarizing this singlet channel.
1935: Other representations are important for
1936: staving off unitarity violation in the other channels.
1937:
1938: We can find the relevant $\sigma$ model by considering a
1939: linear $\sigma$ model for the breaking of $SU(5) \rightarrow SO(5)$.
1940: To accomplish this breaking, a symmetric tensor of $SU(5)$
1941: acquires a vev. The symmetric tensor decomposes under $SO(5)$
1942: as:
1943: %%
1944: \begin{eqnarray}
1945: 30 \rightarrow \mathbf{14}^- \oplus \mathbf{14}^+ \oplus
1946: \mathbf{1}^+ \oplus \mathbf{1}^-.
1947: \end{eqnarray}
1948: %%
1949: We have introduced a ``charge conjugation'' $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry
1950: under which the $\rho$'s are even, but the $a_{1}$ is odd. The
1951: $\mathbf{1}^+$ is the state responsible for unitarizing the most
1952: strongly
1953: coupled singlet channel. The $\mathbf{14}^-$ are the pions of the
1954: Little Higgs theory. As $N_f$ grows large, we believe that
1955: the $\sigma$ becomes light and is responsible for unitarity violation.
1956: This is very closely related the restoration of chiral symmetry at
1957: large $N_f$ where one still has confinement but no chiral symmetry
1958: breaking.
1959: A possible theory for the linear sigma model that displays this
1960: behavior is:
1961: %%
1962: \begin{eqnarray}
1963: \LL_\eff \sim |\partial \Phi |^2 - V(\Phi),
1964: \hspace{0.5in}
1965: V(\Phi) = \lambda ( N_{f_c}- N_f ) ( |\Phi|^2 - f^2)^2.
1966: \end{eqnarray}
1967: %%
1968: As $N_f$ approaches $N_{f_c}$ the $\sigma$ resonance becomes
1969: light, after $N_{f_c}$ chiral symmetry is restored.
1970: The dynamics is a continuous in $N_f$, and as $N_f$ approaches
1971: the critical number of flavors to restore chiral symmetry
1972: the $\sigma$ resonances become light and degenerate with the
1973: $\pi$, filling out an entire chiral multiplet. Therefore, in
1974: the large $N_{f}$ limit, the scale of unitarity violation seems
1975: closely tied to the presence of additional strongly coupled, broad
1976: scalar resonances rather than new vector mesons. New vector resonances
1977: could cut-off gauge quadratic divergences.
1978: If they are mandated to be light to unitarize the theory, then quadratic
1979: divergences may be cut-off well beneath the NDA scale. On the other hand,
1980: if the $\sigma$ is unitarizing the theory, the vector resonances can
1981: be heavy, and the divergences will be cut-off closer to the NDA scale.
1982:
1983: \subsection{Unitarity Moral}
1984:
1985: Regardless of whether we place our faith in the NDA
1986: analysis or, alternately, the partial wave unitarity analysis,
1987: it is clear that new modes are expected to appear beneath $4\pi f$.
1988:
1989: In the previous sections we illustrated the effect of
1990: the introduction of $\rho$-type resonances, showing that
1991: they can soften the cut-off dependence of the theory, thus making
1992: previously incalculable quantities calculable. In this section
1993: we analyzed the role of these $\rho$'s in unitarizing $\pi-\pi$
1994: scattering amplitude, as compared to that of $\sigma$-type states.
1995:
1996:
1997: \begin{figure}
1998: \begin{center}
1999: \epsfig{file=NewStatesNf.eps, width=3.0in}
2000: \hspace{0.1in}
2001: \epsfig{file=NewStatesNc.eps, width=3.0in}
2002: \caption{
2003: \label{Fig: NewStates}
2004: The left figure illustrates how the mass of the lightest $\sigma$
2005: and $\rho$ and scale of unitarity violation in $\pi\pi$ scattering scale
2006: with $N_f$. The $\sigma$ resonances become light and unitarize the
2007: scattering in a Higgs-like manner.
2008: The right figure show how they vary with $N_c$.
2009: The $\rho$ resonances become light (and simultaneously weakly
2010: interacting) in the large $N_c$ limit
2011: and can stave off unitarity violation as in Randall-Sundrum models
2012: or Higgsless models.
2013: }
2014: \end{center}
2015: \end{figure}
2016:
2017:
2018: Our results are well illustrated by Fig~\ref{Fig: NewStates}.
2019: It is clear that, as suggested by the intuition,
2020: the scale of unitarization is strongly correlated
2021: with the mass of the $\sigma$ fields.
2022: A partial unitarization can be achieved with the introduction
2023: of a tower of vector resonances. If these resonances are present, the Goldstone boson
2024: scattering may remain well-behaved up to higher energies, even without the introduction
2025: of a $\sigma$ resonance. For the vector resonances to be important for unitarizing
2026: scattering, they should light; however, from discussion about little Higgs models, this
2027: possibility seems phenomenologically disastrous: they contribute to a light Higgs and a
2028: large $S$ parameter. Thus we expect broad $\sigma$ resonances for these models
2029: to unitarize the scattering if Little Higgs models are to be phenomenologically viable.
2030: So while $\sigma$ resonances might be crucial for understanding unitarity, they are
2031: essentially invisible and do not affect the low energy phenomenology.
2032:
2033: \section{Conclusions}
2034: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2035: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
2036: \label{Sec: Conclusion}
2037:
2038: Using effective field theory techniques, we have studied vector resonances,
2039: moderately light relative to the scale of strong dynamics. This approach
2040: allows the exploration of the vector limit, a point of enhanced symmetry.
2041: Georgi's vector limit corresponds to a theory that is local in its theory
2042: space description.
2043: In the vector limit, the lightest $\rho$ regulates
2044: the leading cut-off sensitive operators in the chiral Lagrangian. In QCD,
2045: this corresponds to a softening of the divergence in the $\pi^{\pm}-\pi^{0}$
2046: mass difference.
2047:
2048: It is not clear that Georgi's vector limit is in any way fundamental, and
2049: whether we expect it to hold in a generic (non-QCD) theory of strong
2050: coupling. However, if it does apply, then it can have important
2051: phenomenological consequences. We considered these implications
2052: by extrapolating this approach to the structure of techni-$\rho$s in Little Higgs
2053: theories. By including techni-$\rho$s in these theories and assuming
2054: the analogue of the vector limit, we were able to discuss previously
2055: ultraviolet sensitive, phenomenologically relevant quantities.
2056: For example, by using large $N_c$ arguments, we argued that the mass
2057: of the Higgs boson in the Littlest Higgs theory is roughly the mass
2058: of $m_W$ and decreases as the techni-$\rho$s become light. It should
2059: be noted that there are large radiative corrections from the top quark that
2060: we did not estimate.
2061:
2062: Finally, we briefly explored unitarity violation in Little Higgs models.
2063: We argued that the scale of unitarity break-down likely points to
2064: broad $\sigma$-like
2065: resonances. If, instead of $\sigma$-like fields, this scale pointed to
2066: the presence of techni-$\rho$'s, then gauge quadratic divergences would be
2067: cut off at this scale. The result would be a too-light Higgs boson.
2068:
2069: We close with a few directions for further work.
2070: In principle, the techni-$\rho$ vector resonances can have masses
2071: similar to those of the additional gauge bosons of Little Higgs models. This
2072: could change the collider phenomenology predictions, and conceivably
2073: modify precision electroweak predictions. Using the formalism
2074: introduced here, it should be possible to pursue this question further.
2075: Also, there is a UV completion for the Littlest Higgs that uses a
2076: strongly coupled supersymmetric $SO(7)$ gauge theory
2077: \cite{UVCompletion}.
2078: Using the ideas in this note detailed predictions of the
2079: semi-perturbative regime could be analyzed.
2080:
2081:
2082: \begin{figure}
2083: \begin{center}
2084: \epsfig{file=UVIR.eps, width=3.0in}
2085: \caption{
2086: \label{Fig: UVIR}
2087: A schematic depiction of how the techni-$\rho$ resonances turn into
2088: deconstructed space maps into a holographic extra dimension. The weakly gauged
2089: group is on the left. The additional sites represent strongly gauged
2090: techni-$\rho$s. In the IR, chiral symmetry is broken
2091: by a non-linear sigma model field.
2092: }
2093: \end{center}
2094: \end{figure}
2095:
2096: These ideas of modeling the the techni-$\rho$ resonances are closely
2097: related to deconstructing AdS \cite{AdS,DCAdS}. As the number of sites grows large,
2098: theory space reconstructs an extra-dimension as in Fig \ref{Fig: UVIR}. It would be
2099: interesting to explore this structure to see if deconstructing AdS
2100: leads to some insight into the generalized vector limit.
2101:
2102: \section*{Acknowledgments}
2103:
2104: We would like to thank S. Chang, N. Arkani-Hamed, E. Katz,
2105: M. Luty, and M. Peskin for useful discussions.
2106: We would also like to acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics where
2107: this work began.
2108:
2109: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2110:
2111: \bibitem{PGBHiggs}
2112: %\cite{Georgi:1975tz}
2113: %\bibitem{Georgi:1975tz}
2114: H.~Georgi and A.~Pais,
2115: %``Vacuum Symmetry And The Pseudogoldstone Phenomenon,''
2116: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12}, 508 (1975).
2117: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D12,508;%%
2118: %
2119: %\bibitem{Kaplan:1983fs}
2120: D.~B.~Kaplan and H.~Georgi,
2121: %``SU(2) X U(1) Breaking By Vacuum Misalignment,''
2122: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 136}, 183 (1984).
2123: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,183;%%
2124: %
2125: %\bibitem{Kaplan:1983sm}
2126: D.~B.~Kaplan, H.~Georgi and S.~Dimopoulos,
2127: %``Composite Higgs Scalars,''
2128: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 136}, 187 (1984).
2129: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B136,187;%%
2130: %
2131: %\bibitem{Georgi:ef}
2132: H.~Georgi, D.~B.~Kaplan and P.~Galison,
2133: %``Calculation Of The Composite Higgs Mass,''
2134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 143}, 152 (1984).
2135: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B143,152;%%
2136: %
2137: %\bibitem{Georgi:1984af}
2138: H.~Georgi and D.~B.~Kaplan,
2139: %``Composite Higgs And Custodial SU(2),''
2140: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 145}, 216 (1984).
2141: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,216;%%
2142: %
2143: %\bibitem{Dugan:1984hq}
2144: M.~J.~Dugan, H.~Georgi and D.~B.~Kaplan,
2145: %``Anatomy Of A Composite Higgs Model,''
2146: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 254}, 299 (1985).
2147: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B254,299;%%
2148:
2149: \bibitem{LH}
2150: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
2151: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction,''
2152: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513}, 232 (2001), [arXiv:hep-ph/0105239].
2153: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105239;%%
2154: %
2155: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}
2156: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002pa}
2157: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
2158: %``Phenomenology of electroweak symmetry breaking from theory space,''
2159: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 020 (2002)
2160: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202089].
2161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202089;%%
2162: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002qx}
2163: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz, A.~E.~Nelson, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
2164: %``The minimal moose for a Little Higgs,''
2165: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 021 (2002)
2166: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206020].
2167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206020;%%
2168: %\bibitem{Gregoire:2002ra}
2169: T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
2170: %``Mooses, topology and Higgs,''
2171: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 019 (2002)
2172: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206023].
2173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206023;%%
2174: %
2175: %\bibitem{Kaplan:2003uc}
2176: D.~E.~Kaplan and M.~Schmaltz,
2177: %``The Little Higgs from a simple group,''
2178: JHEP {\bf 0310}, 039 (2003)
2179: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302049].
2180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302049;%%
2181: %
2182: %\bibitem{Wacker:2002ar}
2183: J.~G.~Wacker,
2184: %``Little Higgs models: New approaches to the hierarchy problem,''
2185: arXiv:hep-ph/0208235;
2186: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208235;%%
2187: %
2188: %\bibitem{Skiba:2003yf}
2189: W.~Skiba and J.~Terning,
2190: %``A simple model of two Little Higgses,''
2191: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 075001 (2003)
2192: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305302].
2193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305302;%%
2194: %
2195: %\bibitem{Chang:2003zn}
2196: S.~Chang,
2197: %``A 'littlest Higgs' model with custodial SU(2) symmetry,''
2198: JHEP {\bf 0312}, 057 (2003)
2199: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306034];
2200: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306034;%%
2201: %
2202: M.~Schmaltz,
2203: %``Physics beyond the standard model (Theory): Introducing the Little Higgs,''
2204: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 117}, 40 (2003)
2205: [arXiv:hep-ph/0210415];
2206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210415;%%
2207: %\bibitem{Cheng:2003ju}
2208: H.~C.~Cheng and I.~Low,
2209: %``TeV symmetry and the little hierarchy problem,''
2210: JHEP {\bf 0309}, 051 (2003)
2211: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308199].
2212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308199;%%
2213:
2214: \bibitem{littlest}
2215: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~E.~Nelson,
2216: %``The littlest Higgs,''
2217: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 034 (2002)
2218: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/0206021].
2219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206021;%%
2220:
2221: \bibitem{sp6}
2222: %\bibitem{Low:2002ws}
2223: I.~Low, W.~Skiba and D.~Smith,
2224: %``Little Higgses from an antisymmetric condensate,''
2225: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 072001 (2002)
2226: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207243].
2227: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207243;%%
2228:
2229: \bibitem{HiddenLocal}
2230: %\bibitem{Bando:1984ej}
2231: M.~Bando, T.~Kugo, S.~Uehara, K.~Yamawaki and T.~Yanagida,
2232: %``Is Rho Meson A Dynamical Gauge Boson Of Hidden Local Symmetry?,''
2233: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 54}, 1215 (1985).
2234: %%CITATION = PRLTA,54,1215;%%
2235: %
2236: %\bibitem{Bando:ym}
2237: M.~Bando, T.~Fujiwara and K.~Yamawaki,
2238: %``Generalized Hidden Local Symmetry And The A1 Meson,''
2239: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 79}, 1140 (1988).
2240: %%CITATION = PTPKA,79,1140;%%
2241: %
2242: %\bibitem{Bando:1987br}
2243: M.~Bando, T.~Kugo and K.~Yamawaki,
2244: %``Nonlinear Realization And Hidden Local Symmetries,''
2245: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 164}, 217 (1988).
2246: %%CITATION = PRPLC,164,217;%%
2247:
2248: \bibitem{Georgi:1989xy}
2249: H.~Georgi,
2250: %``Vector Realization Of Chiral Symmetry,''
2251: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 331}, 311 (1990).
2252: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B331,311;%%
2253:
2254: \bibitem{deconstruction}
2255: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
2256: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
2257: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''
2258: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001)
2259: [arXiv:hep-th/0104005];
2260: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%
2261: %
2262: %\bibitem{Hill:2000mu}
2263: C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,
2264: %``Gauge invariant effective Lagrangian for Kaluza-Klein modes,''
2265: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 105005 (2001)
2266: [arXiv:hep-th/0104035].
2267: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104035;%%
2268:
2269: %\cite{Harada:2003xa}
2270: \bibitem{Harada}
2271: M.~Harada, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,
2272: %``pi+ pi0 mass difference in the hidden local symmetry: A dynamical origin of
2273: %Little Higgs,''
2274: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 568}, 103 (2003)
2275: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303193].
2276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303193;%%
2277:
2278: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}
2279: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~Georgi and M.~D.~Schwartz,
2280: %``Effective field theory for massive gravitons and gravity in theory space,''
2281: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 305}, 96 (2003)
2282: [arXiv:hep-th/0210184].
2283: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210184;%%
2284:
2285: \bibitem{Son:2003et}
2286: %\bibitem{Son:2003et}
2287: D.~T.~Son and M.~A.~Stephanov,
2288: %``QCD and dimensional deconstruction,''
2289: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 065020 (2004)
2290: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304182].
2291: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304182;%%
2292:
2293: \bibitem{KSFR}
2294: %\bibitem{Kawarabayashi:1966kd}
2295: K.~Kawarabayashi and M.~Suzuki,
2296: %``Partially Conserved Axial Vector Current And The Decays Of Vector Mesons,''
2297: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 16}, 255 (1966).
2298: %%CITATION = PRLTA,16,255;%%
2299: %
2300: %\bibitem{Riazuddin:sw}
2301: Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin,
2302: %``Algebra Of Current Components And Decay Widths Of Rho And K* Mesons,''
2303: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 147}, 1071 (1966).
2304: %%CITATION = PHRVA,147,1071;%%
2305:
2306: \bibitem{ColemanWeinberg}
2307: S.~R.~Coleman and E.~Weinberg,
2308: %``Radiative Corrections As The Origin Of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,''
2309: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 7}, 1888 (1973).
2310: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D7,1888;%%
2311:
2312: \bibitem{PionMass}
2313: %\bibitem{Das:it}
2314: T.~Das, G.~S.~Guralnik, V.~S.~Mathur, F.~E.~Low and J.~E.~Young,
2315: %``Electromagnetic Mass Difference Of Pions,''
2316: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 18}, 759 (1967);
2317: %%CITATION = PRLTA,18,759;%%
2318: %
2319: %\bibitem{Bars:xk}
2320: I.~Bars, M.~B.~Halpern and K.~D.~Lane,
2321: %``Hadronic Origin Of The Pion Mass,''
2322: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 65}, 518 (1973);
2323: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B65,518;%%
2324: %
2325: %\bibitem{Chadha:1981yt}
2326: S.~Chadha and M.~E.~Peskin,
2327: %``Implications Of Chiral Dynamics In Theories Of Technicolor. 2. The Mass Of
2328: %The P+,''
2329: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 187}, 541 (1981);
2330: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B187,541;%%
2331: %
2332: %\bibitem{Chadha:1981rw}
2333: S.~Chadha and M.~E.~Peskin,
2334: %``Implications Of Chiral Dynamics In Theories Of Technicolor. 1. Elementary
2335: %Couplings,''
2336: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 185}, 61 (1981).
2337: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B185,61;%%
2338: %
2339:
2340: \bibitem{Chivukula}
2341: R.~S.~Chivukula, M.~Kurachi and M.~Tanabashi,
2342: %``Generalized Weinberg Sum Rules in Deconstructed QCD,''
2343: arXiv:hep-ph/0403112.
2344: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403112;%%
2345:
2346: \bibitem{Locality}
2347: %\bibitem{Gregoire:2002aj}
2348: T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
2349: %``Deconstructing six dimensional gauge theories with strongly coupled moose
2350: %meshes,''
2351: arXiv:hep-ph/0207164.
2352: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207164;%%
2353: %
2354: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ie}
2355: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan, A.~Karch and L.~Motl,
2356: %``Deconstructing (2,0) and little string theories,''
2357: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 083 (2003)
2358: [arXiv:hep-th/0110146];
2359: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110146;%%
2360: %
2361: A.~Iqbal and V.~S.~Kaplunovsky,
2362: %``Quantum deconstruction of a 5D SYM and its moduli space,''
2363: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 013 (2004)
2364: [arXiv:hep-th/0212098].
2365: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212098;%%
2366:
2367: \bibitem{NDA}
2368: A.~Manohar and H.~Georgi,
2369: %``Chiral Quarks And The Nonrelativistic Quark Model,''
2370: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 234}, 189 (1984);
2371: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B234,189;%%
2372: %
2373: H.~Georgi and L.~Randall,
2374: %``Flavor Conserving CP Violation In Invisible Axion Models,''
2375: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 276}, 241 (1986).
2376: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B276,241;%%
2377:
2378: \bibitem{LargeN}
2379: %\cite{'tHooft:1973jz}
2380: %\bibitem{'tHooft:1973jz}
2381: G.~'t Hooft,
2382: %``A Planar Diagram Theory For Strong Interactions,''
2383: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 72}, 461 (1974).
2384: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B72,461;%%
2385:
2386: \bibitem{VacuumAlignment}
2387: %\bibitem{Dashen:eg}
2388: R.~F.~Dashen,
2389: %``Chiral SU(3) X SU(3) As A Symmetry Of The Strong Interactions,''
2390: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 183}, 1245 (1969).
2391: %%CITATION = PHRVA,183,1245;%%
2392: %
2393: %\bibitem{Weinberg:gm}
2394: S.~Weinberg,
2395: %``Implications Of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking,''
2396: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13}, 974 (1976).
2397: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,974;%%
2398: %
2399: %\bibitem{Weinberg:bn}
2400: S.~Weinberg,
2401: %``Implications Of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking: An Addendum,''
2402: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 19} (1979) 1277.
2403: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D19,1277;%%
2404:
2405: \bibitem{PeskinPreskill}
2406: %\bibitem{Peskin:1980gc}
2407: M.~E.~Peskin,
2408: %``The Alignment Of The Vacuum In Theories Of Technicolor,''
2409: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 175}, 197 (1980);
2410: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B175,197;%%
2411: %\bibitem{Preskill:1980mz}
2412: J.~Preskill,
2413: %``Subgroup Alignment In Hypercolor Theories,''
2414: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 177}, 21 (1981);
2415: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B177,21;%%
2416: %
2417: %\bibitem{Peskin:1982mu}
2418: M.~E.~Peskin,
2419: %``Chiral Symmetry And Chiral Symmetry Breaking,''
2420: SLAC-PUB-3021
2421: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=slac-pub-3021}{SPIRES entry}
2422: {\it Lectures presented at the Summer School on Recent Developments
2423: in Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Mechanics, Les Houches, France, Aug 2
2424: - Sep 10, 1982}.
2425:
2426: \bibitem{SumRules}
2427: %\bibitem{Weinberg:1967kj}
2428: S.~Weinberg,
2429: %``Precise Relations Between The Spectra Of Vector And Axial Vector Mesons,''
2430: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 18}, 507 (1967);
2431: %%CITATION = PRLTA,18,507;%%
2432: %
2433: %\bibitem{Bernard:cd}
2434: C.~W.~Bernard, A.~Duncan, J.~LoSecco and S.~Weinberg,
2435: %``Exact Spectral Function Sum Rules,''
2436: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12}, 792 (1975).
2437: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D12,792;%%
2438:
2439: \bibitem{PrecisionEWLittlest}
2440: %\bibitem{Hewett:2002px}
2441: J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,
2442: %``Constraining the littlest Higgs. ((U)),''
2443: JHEP {\bf 0310}, 062 (2003)
2444: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211218].
2445: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211218;%%
2446: %
2447: %\bibitem{Csaki:2002qg}
2448: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,
2449: %``Big corrections from a Little Higgs,''
2450: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 115002 (2003)
2451: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211124].
2452: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211124;%%
2453: %
2454: W.~Kilian and J.~Reuter,
2455: %``The low-energy structure of Little Higgs models,''
2456: arXiv:hep-ph/0311095.
2457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311095;%%
2458:
2459: \bibitem{ColliderTests}
2460: G.~Burdman, M.~Perelstein and A.~Pierce,
2461: %``Collider tests of the Little Higgs model,''
2462: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 241802 (2003)
2463: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 92}, 049903 (2004)]
2464: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212228].
2465: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212228;%%
2466: %
2467: %\bibitem{Han:2003wu}
2468: T.~Han, H.~E.~Logan, B.~McElrath and L.~T.~Wang,
2469: %``Phenomenology of the Little Higgs model. ((U)),''
2470: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 095004 (2003)
2471: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301040].
2472: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301040;%%
2473: %
2474: %\bibitem{Perelstein:2003wd}
2475: M.~Perelstein, M.~E.~Peskin and A.~Pierce,
2476: %``Top quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking in Little Higgs models,''
2477: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 075002 (2004)
2478: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310039].
2479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310039;%%
2480:
2481: \bibitem{ChangWacker}
2482: S.~Chang and J.~G.~Wacker,
2483: %``Little Higgs and custodial SU(2),''
2484: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 035002 (2004)
2485: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303001].
2486: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303001;%%
2487: %
2488: \bibitem{PrecisionEWSp6}
2489: %\bibitem{Gregoire:2003kr}
2490: T.~Gregoire, D.~R.~Smith and J.~G.~Wacker,
2491: %``What precision electroweak physics says about the SU(6)/Sp(6) little Higgs,''
2492: arXiv:hep-ph/0305275.
2493: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305275;%%
2494: %
2495: %\cite{Csaki:2003si}
2496: %\bibitem{Csaki:2003si}
2497: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,
2498: %``Variations of Little Higgs models and their electroweak constraints,''
2499: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 035009 (2003)
2500: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303236].
2501: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303236;%%
2502: %
2503:
2504: \bibitem{Chang:2003vs}
2505: S.~Chang and H.~J.~He,
2506: %``Unitarity of Little Higgs models signals new physics of UV completion,''
2507: arXiv:hep-ph/0311177.
2508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311177;%%
2509:
2510: \bibitem{Higgsless}
2511: %\bibitem{Csaki:2003dt}
2512: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, H.~Murayama, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,
2513: %``Gauge theories on an interval: Unitarity without a Higgs,''
2514: arXiv:hep-ph/0305237.
2515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305237;%%
2516: %
2517: %\bibitem{Csaki:2003zu}
2518: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,
2519: %``Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,''
2520: arXiv:hep-ph/0308038.
2521: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308038;%%
2522: %
2523: %\bibitem{Nomura:2003du}
2524: Y.~Nomura,
2525: %``Higgsless theory of electroweak symmetry breaking from warped space,''
2526: JHEP {\bf 0311}, 050 (2003)
2527: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309189].
2528: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309189;%%
2529: %
2530: %\bibitem{Barbieri:2003pr}
2531: R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol and R.~Rattazzi,
2532: %``Weakly coupled Higgsless theories and precision electroweak tests,''
2533: arXiv:hep-ph/0310285.
2534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310285;%%
2535:
2536: \bibitem{UVCompletion}
2537: %
2538: %\bibitem{Nelson:2003aj}
2539: A.~E.~Nelson,
2540: %``Dynamical electroweak superconductivity from a composite Little Higgs,''
2541: arXiv:hep-ph/0304036.
2542: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304036;%%
2543: %\bibitem{Katz:2003sn}
2544: E.~Katz, J.~y.~Lee, A.~E.~Nelson and D.~G.~E.~Walker,
2545: %``A composite Little Higgs model,''
2546: arXiv:hep-ph/0312287.
2547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312287;%%
2548:
2549: \bibitem{AdS}
2550: %%\bibitem{Maldacena:1997re}
2551: J.~M.~Maldacena,
2552: %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''
2553: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 231 (1998)
2554: [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]
2555: [arXiv:hep-th/9711200].
2556: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%
2557: %
2558: %\bibitem{Randall:1999ee}
2559: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
2560: %%``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
2561: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
2562: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].
2563: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
2564:
2565: \bibitem{DCAdS}
2566: %%\bibitem{Cheng:2001nh}
2567: H.~C.~Cheng, C.~T.~Hill and J.~Wang,
2568: %%``Dynamical electroweak breaking and latticized extra dimensions,''
2569: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 095003 (2001)
2570: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105323].
2571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105323;%%
2572: %
2573: %\bibitem{Abe:2002rj}
2574: H.~Abe, T.~Kobayashi, N.~Maru and K.~Yoshioka,
2575: %%``Field localization in warped gauge theories,''
2576: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 045019 (2003)
2577: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205344].
2578: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205344;%%
2579: %%
2580: %\bibitem{Falkowski:2002cm}
2581: A.~Falkowski and H.~D.~Kim,
2582: %%``Running of gauge couplings in AdS(5) via deconstruction,''
2583: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 52 (2002)
2584: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208058].
2585: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208058;%%
2586: %%
2587: %%\bibitem{Randall:2002qr}
2588: L.~Randall, Y.~Shadmi and N.~Weiner,
2589: %``Deconstruction and gauge theories in AdS(5),''
2590: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 055 (2003)
2591: [arXiv:hep-th/0208120].
2592: %%%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208120;%%
2593: \end{thebibliography}
2594:
2595: \end{document}
2596:
2597: % LocalWords: EWSB
2598: