1: \documentclass[]{JHEP3}

2: \usepackage{psfrag,epsfig,epsf,citesort}

3: \newcommand{\lsim}{\buildrel < \over {\hspace{-.1em} {}_{\sim}} }

4: \newcommand{\gsim}{\buildrel > \over {\hspace{-.1em} {}_{\sim}} }

5: \newcommand{\tr}{{\mathrm{tr}}}

6: \newcommand{\dett}{{\mathrm{det}}}

7: %%\newcommand{\one}{\! \hbox{ 1\kern-.8mm l}}

8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\de}{\partial}

13: \newcommand{\bear}{\begin{array}{l}}

14: \newcommand{\eear}{\end{array}}

15: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

16: \newcommand{\inte}{\! \int \!\!}

17: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}\ }

18: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}\ }

19: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}\ }

20: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}\ }

21: \newcommand{\aka}{{\it a.k.a.}\ }

22: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.}\ }

23: \newcommand{\viz}{{\it viz.}\ }

24: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

25: \newcommand{\nn}{{\rm I}\hspace{-.18em}{\rm N}}

26: 

27: \def\eq#1{(\ref{#1})}

28: \def\eqs#1#2{(\ref{#1},\ref{#2})}

29: \def\sec#1{sec.\ \ref{#1}}

30: \def\fig#1{fig.\ \ref{#1}}

31: \def\ins#1#2#3{\hskip #1cm \hbox{#3}\hskip #2cm}

32: 

33: \def\TeV{\,\mathrm{TeV}}

34: \def\GeV{\,\mathrm{GeV}}

35: \newcommand{\A}{ {\cal A}}

36: \newcommand{\F}{ {\cal F}}

37: \newcommand{\LL}{ {\cal L}}

38: \newcommand{\Z}{ {\cal Z}}

39: \newcommand{\ha}{ {\hat{a}}}

40: \newcommand{\bp}{ {\bar{p}}}

41: \newcommand{\bq}{ {\bar{q}}}

42: \newcommand{\bk}{ {\bar{k}}}

43: \newcommand{\ta}{ {\tilde{\alpha}}}

44: \newcommand{\tW}{ {\tilde{W}}}

45: \newcommand{\tB}{ {\tilde{B}}}

46: \newcommand{\tH}{ {\tilde{H}}}

47: \newcommand{\tv}{ {\tilde{v}}}

48: \newcommand{\tb}{ {\tilde\beta} }

49: \newcommand{\tl}{ {\tilde\lambda} }

50: \newcommand{\tg}{ {\tilde{g}}}

51: 

52: 

53: \title{Renormalizable extra-dimensional models}

54: 

55: \author{Tim R. Morris\\

56: Department of Physics, CERN, Theory Division, 1211 Geneva 23,

57: Switzerland, and School of Physics and Astronomy, University of

58: Southampton,

59: %\hspace{0.4em}

60: Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, U.K.\\ E-mail:

61: \email{T.R.Morris@soton.ac.uk}}

62: 

63: \maketitle

64: 

65: \preprint{CERN-PH-TH/2004-120\\ SHEP 0420}

66: 

67: \abstract{Non-Abelian gauge theories may have continuum limits in

68: more than four dimensions, supported by non-trivial ultra-violet

69: fixed points. Moreover, such theories can be expected to be

70: accessible to Wilson's epsilon expansion. We investigate this

71: series for $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills, in particular for the fixed point

72: coupling and exponent $\nu$, up to four loops. From the

73: model-building point of view, such theories would be effectively

74: perturbatively renormalizable in the normal way. A particularly

75: attractive possibility is the construction of renormalizable

76: extra-dimensional models of the weak interactions, which have the

77: potential to address the full hierarchy problem. The simplest such

78: gauge-Higgs unification model is however ruled out by a

79: combination of theoretical and phenomenological constraints.}

80: 

81: 

82: \begin{document}

83: \section{Introduction}

84: \label{INT}

85: 

86: There has been considerable interest in the last few years in

87: constructing field theories of particle physics in more than four

88: dimensions. On the one hand, these ideas are inspired by similar

89: features in string theory, on the other hand, elegant new

90: approaches to the persistent mysteries of theoretical particle

91: physics are now possible \cite{Anton,Feruglio:2004zf}. These aim

92: variously to solve the famous hierarchy problem (\ie the fact that

93: the Higgs mass is quadratically sensitive to higher scales), the

94: little hierarchy problem (the fact that precision measurements

95: seem to favour a scenario with a low Higgs mass $\sim$ 115 GeV and

96: no new physics until $\sim$ 10 TeV \cite{Barbieri:1999tm}), the

97: pattern of fermion masses and mixing angles, and problems with

98: grand unified theories such as doublet-triplet splitting, proton

99: lifetime and mass relations. The new approaches to solving these

100: issues include theories with so-called universal extra dimensions

101: which e.g. result in calculable SUSY breaking and Higgs masses

102: \cite{Barbieri:2002uk}, gauge-Higgs unification in which the Higgs

103: field is a component of a higher dimensional gauge field whose

104: mass is thus protected by gauge invariance

105: \cite{Manton:1979kb,MasieroS3,AntoniadisBQ,HallNS,N1,BurdmanNomuraSUSY,GIQResidualGaugeSym,GIQ6D,S3},

106: Higgsless models where the symmetry is broken by the boundary

107: conditions \cite{Csaki}, grand unified models in which colour

108: triplet Higgs are given a Kaluza-Klein mass whilst the doublet

109: remains massless at the compactification scale \cite{kawaDTsplit}

110: (see also \cite{so10E6}), and approaches to the flavour problem

111: using the freedom to place fermions at different points (branes)

112: in the extra dimensions and to couple them non-locally through

113: other fields or Wilson lines \cite{EDnu,Larry,halln,ark2,N1,S3}.

114: 

115: However all of these new approaches suffer from a severe drawback:

116: quantum field theory as conventionally envisaged is not

117: renormalizable in more than four space-time dimensions. Thus these

118: theories must be viewed as effective field theories, only

119: applicable over a limited energy range. For energies much lower

120: than the defining scale $E$ in the theory (e.g. $E\sim1/R$ where

121: $R$ is the compactification scale) experimental constraints

122: require that it reduce to the Standard Model plus very small

123: corrections. On the other hand there is a maximum energy

124: $\Lambda$, usually taken to be the energy where some coupling

125: becomes strong and estimated by so-called naive dimensional

126: analysis (NDA) \cite{NDA}, above which something other than

127: quantum field theory must take over (for example some conjectural

128: string theory). This maximum energy depends on the couplings, with

129: larger $\Lambda/E$ for smaller couplings, but typically

130: $\Lambda\sim 10E $ to $100E$ is possible. With the ultraviolet

131: completion unknown, we can only bound the symmetry-preserving

132: higher dimensional vertices in the effective theory, under the

133: assumption that they naturally have order one coefficients at the

134: cutoff scale. This sets an irreducible limit on the expected

135: predictivity of these models controlled by $E/\Lambda$, again

136: dependent on the details, but typically authors aim for $\sim1\%$.

137: 

138: This limitation is less of a problem for theories that attempt to

139: describe the energy range between the GUT scale $10^{15}\GeV$ and

140: the Planck mass $10^{19}\GeV$, and for which the irreducible

141: uncertainty of $\sim1\%$ comes on top of already (better be) small

142: corrections to Standard Model quantities.

143: 

144: It is a much more drastic issue for higher dimensional theories

145: that directly address the hierarchy problem. These models tackle

146: the problem by introducing new physics at $E\sim1\TeV$ in such a

147: way that the Higgs mass becomes insensitive to higher scales. Here

148: attempts to bring such a model into agreement with the impressive

149: precision LEPI/II data can in turn force it into regions of

150: parameter space where the need for large ratios in couplings then

151: result by NDA in significant reductions in $\Lambda$, cutting off

152: its domain of applicability and thus severely limiting its

153: predictability (e.g. see \cite{S3,Rattazzi}). Since an as yet

154: unknown ultraviolet completion at some intermediate scale

155: $\Lambda$ is required, these models can actually only address the

156: little hierarchy problem, because any insensitivity of the Higgs

157: mass to scales higher than $\Lambda$ has to be explained in the

158: unknown theory. It is in any case a rather drastic step to address

159: the little hierarchy problem by abandoning quantum field theory

160: altogether at say $\sim100\TeV$ for a largely conjectural

161: ultraviolet non-field theory.

162: 

163: It might be possible however, to rest certain restricted classes

164: of such models on a more secure foundation. In the 1970s it seems

165: to have been commonly understood that non-Abelian Yang-Mills

166: theory may exist as a non-perturbative quantum field theory, \aka

167: continuum limit, in more than four space-time dimensions

168: \cite{Peskin}. With few exceptions since then

169: \cite{Gies,Creutz,Kawai,Nishimura,Ejiri,Hashimoto,Dimi,Farakos}

170: this possibility seems to have been ignored or forgotten.

171: Independently in string theory, probably related supersymmetric

172: versions have been discovered \cite{Seiberg}.\footnote{A

173: Kaluza-Klein treatment appears in ref. \cite{Dienes}.}

174: 

175: We briefly review the little evidence that has collected, for and

176: against such theories, in \sec{RED}. We also investigate the

177: series for the fixed point coupling $\ta_*$, and the critical

178: exponent $\nu$, using the $\epsilon$ expansion up to four loops.

179: Together, the evidence suggests that these fixed points exist in

180: $D=5$ dimensions, possibly in $D=6$ dimensions and probably not

181: for $D\ge7$ dimensions.

182: 

183: At any rate such theories formally do exist within an expansion in

184: $\epsilon$ of a $4+\epsilon$ dimensional theory. As we review in

185: \sec{RED}, this means that quantum corrections can be computed

186: perturbatively and renormalized in {\sl four} dimensions. From the

187: model building point of view, the theory is perturbatively

188: renormalizable; one only needs to bear in mind that at high

189: energies the appropriate dimensionless ratio $\ta$, involving the

190: Yang-Mills coupling $\alpha$, runs to a computable finite value

191: rather than zero.

192: 

193: For the continuum limit to exist within the $\epsilon$ expansion

194: when other fields are included, one requires that in four

195: dimensions, all couplings are relevant (effectively masses and

196: couplings of positive mass dimension) or marginally relevant

197: (equivalently asymptotically free). We outline the restrictions

198: this imposes in \sec{MBC}. We then extend this understanding of

199: renormalizability to models with branes, and discuss the

200: constraints that arise, concentrating on the bosonic sector, as

201: well as making some further comments on the applicability of this

202: idea to Grand Unified Theories.

203: 

204: A particularly attractive application is to extra dimensional

205: models of the weak interactions: in this case the insensitivity of

206: the Higgs mass to scales up to $\Lambda$, become solutions to the

207: hierarchy problem, since by the definition of renormalizability,

208: $\Lambda$ can be taken to infinity. We explore this in \sec{MBC}

209: and \sec{GHU}. We are led to consider models of the weak

210: interactions based on the Hosotani mechanism

211: \cite{Hosotani,Kubo:2001zc,Haba:2002py}.

212: 

213: We show however in \sec{GHU}, where the Hosotani mechanism, and

214: the fermionic sector are considered in detail, that the simplest

215: such model, based on a bulk $SU(3)$ gauge theory, is ruled out. In

216: particular we show that in order to get the right Yukawa

217: interactions, we are forced to add sufficiently many bulk matter

218: fields that the $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills is no longer asymptotically

219: free in four dimensions and thus has no continuum limit within the

220: $\epsilon$ expansion of $4+\epsilon$ dimensions. As we note in our

221: conclusions (\sec{CON}) this only means that one should try to

222: construct more involved models, for example with a larger gauge

223: group, and in addition introduce the bulk fields more

224: economically.

225: 

226: We start in \sec{RED} with a short explanation of the $\epsilon$

227: expansion, comparing to its use in its more traditional context.

228: We then review the evidence such as it is for higher dimensional

229: fixed points. After this we use the known four-loop

230: four-dimensional beta function \cite{upto3,Vermaseren} to

231: investigate the $\epsilon$ expansion for these fixed points. (It

232: seems that this is the first time the early two-loop investigation

233: \cite{Peskin} has been extended.)

234: 

235: \section{Renormalizability in extra dimensions}

236: \label{RED}

237: 

238: Scalar field theory in three dimensions has a Wilson-Fisher fixed

239: point \cite{Wil}. In the case of an  $N$-component scalar field

240: theory with $O(N)$ invariance, tuning the couplings so that the

241: theory lies close to this fixed point results in universal

242: behaviour in a universality class determined only by $N$ (see \eg

243: ref. \cite{ZJ}). The `distance' from the fixed point sets a

244: mass-scale $m$ (the inverse correlation length) which is in fact

245: the only parameter left in the universal physics.\footnote{There

246: is one relevant coupling, which can be parametrized by $m$, and

247: there are no marginal couplings.} Exactly at the fixed point, one

248: obtains an interacting conformal field theory. The properties of

249: the conformal field theory determine everything that is universal

250: about this fixed point, for example the scaling dimensions of its

251: operators determine the various critical exponents $\nu, \omega,

252: \eta$ \etc, pure numbers that are amongst the simplest quantities

253: to calculate and/or measure, while the effective potential for

254: $\phi$ yields the universal equation of state. Viewed in this way,

255: this conformal field theory and its leading relevant deformation

256: constitute a concrete example of non-trivial quantum field theory,

257: \ie a non-trivial continuum limit, about a fixed point other than

258: the Gaussian fixed point.

259: 

260: As we will see, in a closely analogous way, non-trivial continuum

261: limits may well exist for Yang-Mills theory in higher than four

262: dimensions. In order to gain a complete appreciation of these

263: phenomenona one needs to use the language of the Wilsonian

264: renormalization group \cite{Wil}. For clarity we remind the reader

265: of the basic elements. One works within an infinite dimensional

266: space of bare actions that include all possible local interactions

267: allowed by the symmetries of the theory. In this space, there is

268: the so-called critical manifold, which consists of all bare

269: actions yielding a given conformally invariant continuum limit

270: (for example the $O(N)$ conformal field theories above or the

271: non-perturbative gauge theory cases we are about to discuss). Any

272: point on this manifold -- \ie any such bare action -- flows under

273: a given Wilsonian renormalization group towards its fixed point;

274: local to the fixed point, the critical manifold is spanned by an

275: infinite\footnote{this is strictly an assumption on our part for

276: the gauge theory cases of interest} set of irrelevant operators.

277: The other directions emanating out of the critical manifold at the

278: fixed point, are spanned by relevant and marginally relevant

279: perturbations (couplings with positive and vanishing scaling

280: dimensions respectively, but where the latter grow as we move to

281: lower energies, \ie are asymptotically free). Next, we choose a

282: bare action with sufficiently many operators of the right type to

283: intersect the critical surface, for some choices of couplings.

284: Note that in general we have no way of knowing what type of bare

285: action will do: for a non-perturbative fixed point we cannot rely

286: on na\"\i ve dimensional analysis to classify which operators are

287: (marginally) relevant. Instead we simply need to search the full

288: space.

289: 

290: Now in the bare action, we shift a coupling a little bit away from

291: the critical manifold. The trajectory of the Wilsonian

292: renormalization group will to begin with, move towards the fixed

293: point, but then shoot away along one of the relevant directions

294: towards the so-called high temperature fixed point which

295: represents a theory with only infinite mass scales.

296: 

297: To obtain the continuum limit, and thus a finite mass scale, one

298: must then tune the bare action towards the critical manifold and

299: at the same time, reexpress physical quantities in renormalized

300: terms appropriate for the diverging correlation length.

301: 

302: To {\sl confirm} the existence of such a continuum limit, one

303: really has no choice but to follow through the above procedure for

304: example within the framework of a lattice gauge theory computation

305: in higher than four dimensions.

306: 

307: Unfortunately, to date all such investigations have been limited,

308: with ambiguous conclusions. Thus in ref. \cite{Gies}, an exact

309: renormalization group treatment was used, which taken at face

310: value implies that the non-trivial fixed point exists for $SU(N)$

311: Yang-Mills in $D=5$ dimensions for $N\le5$. The author computed

312: the critical dimension $D_{cr}$ above which the fixed point

313: disappears, finding $5<D_{cr}<6$ in all these cases. Actually, in

314: ref. \cite{Gies} $N=4$ is not reported but the results for

315: $N=2,3,5$ do suggest that the critical dimension $D_{cr}$ behaves

316: smoothly with $N$ as expected. The problem with such a treatment

317: is primarily that there is no control of uncertainties due to

318: truncation of the flow equations. There are a small number of

319: lattice studies \cite{Creutz,Kawai,Nishimura,Ejiri}. These are

320: subject of course to limitations from systematic and statistical

321: errors, which rapidly become more severe with increasing dimension

322: (and increasing $N$). The general conclusion seems to be that a

323: non-trivial continuum limit does not exist in $D>4$ dimensions for

324: the simple Wilson plaquette action (at least for $N=2$ and

325: $D=5,6$). However as we have already emphasised, there is no

326: reason to expect that this simplest action is the correct one in

327: this case.\footnote{See also ref. \cite{Gies}. This is independent

328: of a possible multicriticality of the fixed point however.} Ref.

329: \cite{Ejiri} displayed evidence for a non-trivial continuum limit

330: even with the simple Wilson plaquette action, providing the extra

331: dimensions are small enough, but it is reasonable to assume that

332: this arises from lattice artifacts \cite{Farakos,Gies}. Ref.

333: \cite{Kawai} reported on the addition of an adjoint representation

334: Wilson plaquette but the results were inconclusive. Only in ref.

335: \cite{Nishimura} were negative conclusions drawn from more general

336: actions than the simple Wilson plaquette action, but this was in

337: the special case of $D=6$ dimensions with large $N$ (=27 and 64)

338: after reduction to a twisted Eguchi-Kawai model.

339: 

340: If these non-trivial fixed points exist, one of the most powerful

341: ways of deriving the physics resulting from these fixed point

342: behaviours is by computing perturbative quantum field theory in

343: four dimensions and using the so-called $\epsilon$ expansion

344: \cite{ZJ}.

345: 

346: The idea is as follows. In four dimensions we know that the

347: perturbative Yang-Mills theory is based around the Gaussian fixed

348: point, and parametrized by a small marginally relevant coupling

349: $g$ (just as perturbative scalar field theory is parametrized by a

350: small marginally irrelevant coupling $\lambda$ and a relevant mass

351: term). All the independent higher point interactions (field

352: strength cubed \etc, in the scalar case $\phi^6$ \etc) are

353: irrelevant; their effect just amounts to a finite renormalization

354: of the low energy couplings. Because the theory is free at the

355: associated fixed point, the scaling dimensions of the irrelevant

356: operators are equal to their engineering dimensions, and thus are

357: 6 or greater. Now, providing that the scaling dimensions of these

358: operators are continuous functions of the dimension $D$, it must

359: be that they are still irrelevant in $D=4+\epsilon$ dimensions,

360: for small enough $\epsilon$. Thus for small enough $\epsilon$, the

361: usual bare action and renormalized effective Lagrangian must still

362: yield the right description.

363: 

364: In the scalar case, this results in the classic argument for

365: understanding the existence of the Wilson-Fisher fixed point: the

366: beta function takes the form

367: \be

368: \label{lamb}

369: \mu \partial_\mu\tl = \epsilon\tl + \beta(\tl),

370: \ee

371: where the first term is classical and arises simply because we use

372: the Wilsonian coupling, namely the dimensionless combination $\tl

373: = \lambda\mu^\epsilon$, while the second --quantum-- term can

374: coincide with the beta function in four dimensions (as we will see

375: explicitly later). Since below four dimensions the classical term

376: is negative while the quantum term starts at higher powers than

377: $\tl$ and is positive (reflecting triviality of four dimensional

378: scalar field theory), we get a zero at some point $\tl=\tl_*$, at

379: least for sufficiently small $\epsilon$, corresponding to an

380: infrared attractive fixed point for $\tl$.

381: 

382: In the gauge theory case, we have qualitatively the same situation

383: but with the signs reversed. The quantum term can be chosen to be

384: the four-dimensional beta function and is now negative

385: (corresponding to asymptotic freedom) and this can be balanced by

386: going above four dimensions, where the classical term is positive

387: (corresponding to a negative dimension coupling $g$). Again, we

388: get a fixed point $\tg = \tg_*$, for sufficiently small

389: $\epsilon$, but this time it corresponds to the desired

390: ultraviolet attractive fixed point. Indeed we can now compute this

391: fixed point and its universal consequences by the $\epsilon$

392: expansion, \ie simply by solving for $\tg_*$ order by order in

393: $\epsilon$.

394: 

395: In fact for the gauge theory, $\epsilon$ expansion of non-linear

396: sigma models is even more closely analogous

397: \cite{ZJ,Wegner,Brezin}. $O(N)$ invariant non-linear sigma models

398: in two dimensions are also renormalizable and asymptotically free.

399: By the same logic, we expect that in $D=2+\epsilon$ dimensions,

400: there is still a continuum limit for these sigma models but now

401: based around a non-trivial ultraviolet attractive fixed point.

402: This fixed point indeed exists and is nothing but the infrared

403: description of the $O(N)$ Wilson-Fisher fixed points already

404: discussed (as may be confirmed for example by noting that the

405: large $N$ expansion of this fixed point coincides with the large

406: $N$ expansion of the one obtained in $D$ dimensional scalar field

407: theory) \cite{ZJ}.

408: 

409: (There is some controversy over the reasons for the poor accuracy

410: in practice of the $\epsilon$ expansion for these non-linear sigma

411: models \cite{Wegner,Brezin}; some crucial non-perturbative effect

412: is perhaps missing. At any rate the qualitative conclusion is

413: correct, namely that ultra-violet fixed points exist above the

414: upper-critical dimension where these theories cease to be

415: perturbatively renormalizable. It remains to be understood whether

416: the issues of accuracy have any bearing on the case of Yang-Mills

417: we discuss here.)

418: 

419: With respect to the use of the $\epsilon$ expansion in all these

420: examples, a word of caution is in order about taking the

421: description too literally. Although the $\epsilon$ expansion can

422: furnish impressively accurate answers for universal quantities

423: \cite{ZJ} (the renormalized quantities, which are all we are

424: interested in), of course the four dimensional field theory has

425: very different properties in general from the $D\ne4$ theory

426: (which latter needs to be understood from a Wilsonian

427: renormalization group perspective, as already emphasised). Thus,

428: for example for the $O(N)$ scalar field theory in three

429: dimensions, perturbation theory about the Gaussian fixed point

430: generically includes the now marginal $\phi^6$ interaction. More

431: importantly, perturbative three dimensional $\phi^4$ field theory

432: is superrenormalizable. Its ultraviolet divergences do not give

433: rise to the four dimensional $\beta$ function in \eq{lamb}. Indeed

434: $\lambda$ suffers no ultraviolet divergences at all; only $m^2$

435: receives divergent corrections at one and two loops. Instead, its

436: massless limit is plagued with infrared divergences, a signal that

437: we are working about the wrong fixed point. In $4+\epsilon$

438: dimensions, with $-1<\epsilon<0$, even for arbitrarily small

439: $\epsilon$, $\phi^4$ scalar field theory is still

440: superrenormalizable and its massless limit suffers infrared

441: divergences, first arising at $\sim-2/\epsilon$ loops (as follows

442: simply from power counting) \cite{ZJ}. In gauge theory in five

443: dimensions we cannot {\it a priori} exclude any of the full

444: infinity of higher dimensional gauge invariant operators from a

445: valid bare action. The theory in five dimensions is perturbatively

446: non-renormalizable; it is plagued with infinitely many new types

447: of ultraviolet divergence. In particular, its ultraviolet

448: divergences do not give rise to the four dimensional $\beta$

449: function in \eq{be}. Even in $4+\epsilon$ dimensions, with

450: arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$, Yang-Mills theory has

451: non-renormalizable divergences that appear first at

452: $\sim2/\epsilon$ loops (again simply by power counting).

453: 

454: However, the $\epsilon$ expansion allows us to exchange the limits

455: ($\epsilon\to0$ and $g\to0$) and follow perturbatively the

456: relevant fixed point, and thus in this way access the required

457: continuum limit (\ie the renormalized quantities) directly.

458: 

459: We now turn to the details. We write the gauge field in $D$

460: dimensions as $\A_M=\A^a_MT^a$, where the $T^a$ are generators of

461: some simple gauge group $G$, with standard normalisation $\tr\,

462: T^aT^b= \delta^{ab}/2$. (We use a metric of signature

463: $+{}-{}-{}\cdots$.) Writing the covariant derivative as $\nabla_M

464: = \partial_M - i \A_M$, the field strength is $\F_{MN} =

465: i[\nabla_M,\nabla_N]$. In $D=4$ dimensions the Lagrangian density

466: takes the usual form

467: \be

468: \label{bulk}

469: \LL = -{1\over 2g^2}\,\tr\,\F^{MN}\F_{MN}.

470: \ee

471: As we have already stated, we expect that the situation is

472: continuous in $\epsilon$ and thus in $D=4+\epsilon$ dimensions,

473: \eq{bulk} is still the right description for small enough

474: $\epsilon$. At this point it is helpful to recall a textbook

475: argument. In dimensional regularisation and minimal subtraction,

476: we replace the coupling in \eq{bulk} by $g_0$, and use the

477: dimensionless renormalized $\tg = \mu^{\epsilon/2} g$ to derive

478: \be

479: \label{g0}

480: g_0 = \mu^{-\epsilon/2}\left(\tg+\sum_1^\infty

481: {Z_n(\tg)\over\epsilon^n}\right)\ ,

482: \ee

483: where the $Z_n(\tg) = O(\tg^{2n+1})$ are the usual power series in

484: $\tg$ with numerical coefficients chosen to cancel all the poles

485: that arise order by order in perturbation theory as

486: $\epsilon\to0$. Now we differentiate \eq{g0} with respect to

487: $\mu$. Since the theory is finite when expressed in terms of

488: $\tg$, and using the fact that $g_0$ does not depend on $\mu$, we

489: can invert the result to obtain

490: \be

491: \label{be}

492: \mu\partial_\mu\tg = {\epsilon\over2} \tg + \beta(\tg),

493: \ee

494: where $\beta(\tg) = Z_1(\tg)/2-\tg Z'_1(\tg)/2$, and all the $Z_i$

495: with $i>1$ are determined in terms of $Z_1$ by the requirement

496: that all the $1/\epsilon$ poles cancel in \eq{be}.

497: 

498: As promised, we see that in a little more than four dimensions

499: ($\epsilon>0$) we can balance the first positive term against the

500: negative power series $\beta(\tg)$ to get a fixed point $\tg_*$,

501: whose properties we can now compute order by order in $\epsilon$.

502: 

503: For what ensues, it is especially important to note that even

504: though \eq{be} expresses the flow of $\tg$ in more than four

505: dimensions, $\beta(\tg)$ is {\sl precisely the usual four

506: dimensional beta function}. Thus to deduce the properties of the

507: model in greater than four dimensions, we only need renormalize

508: the model in the normal way in four dimensions and then use

509: \eq{be} and similar equations as a formal device to analytically

510: continue to $\epsilon>0$.

511: 

512: As we will now show, the $\epsilon$ expansion for these

513: ultraviolet fixed points is in fact surprisingly well behaved. We

514: can illustrate this using the known four-loop $\beta$ function

515: \cite{upto3,Vermaseren} for $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills.

516: 

517: At this point we note a convenient point of detail: the

518: four-dimensional $\beta$ function is the same in the MS and

519: ${\overline {\rm MS}}$ schemes \cite{Vermaseren}. This can be

520: understood from the definition of ${\overline {\rm MS}}$ namely

521: that, instead of subtracting via counterterms, powers of

522: $2\tg^2/(4\pi)^2$ times poles in $\epsilon$, one substracts powers

523: of

524: $$

525: {2\tg^2\over(4\pi)^2}\{ 1 + \ln(4\pi)\epsilon - \gamma_E\epsilon\}

526: $$

527: ($\gamma_E$ being Euler's constant), the corrections arising from

528: $$

529: \Omega_D = {2\over(4\pi)^{D/2}\Gamma(D/2)},

530: $$

531: the $D$ dimensional solid angle divided by $(2\pi)^D$ that

532: accompanies each loop integral. Therefore for the $Z_n$ in

533: \eq{g0}, ${\overline {\rm MS}}$ amounts to an $\epsilon$ dependent

534: rescaling of $\tg$. When working at finite $\epsilon$, the results

535: can be expected to be better behaved if we instead absorb the full

536: dependence coming from $\Omega_D$ \cite{ZJ}. This amounts to

537: replacing $2\tg^2/(4\pi)^2$ in the MS scheme, with

538: $\tg^2\Omega_D$. Clearly this modified MS also yields the same

539: four-dimensional $\beta(\tg)$. Finally for convenience in the

540: ensuing analysis, we also absorb a factor of $N$ and write

541: \be

542: \label{ta}

543: \ta :=  N\Omega_D\,\tg^2 = N\Omega_D\,\mu^\epsilon g^2

544: \ee

545: 

546: In terms of $\ta$, \eq{be} becomes

547: \be

548: \label{beta}

549: \mu\partial_\mu\ta = \epsilon \ta + \beta(\ta),

550: \ee

551: where

552: \be

553: \beta(\ta) =

554: -\beta_0\ta^2-\beta_1\ta^3-\beta_2\ta^4-\beta_3\ta^5+O(\ta^6);

555: \ee

556: these $\beta_n$ are the coefficients quoted in ref.

557: \cite{Vermaseren} but divided by $2^nN^{n+1}$.

558: 

559: We compute $\ta_*$, although this is not universal, but we also

560: compute the index $\nu$ via \cite{Peskin}

561: \be

562: \label{nu}

563: {1\over\nu} := - {d\beta\over d\tg}(\tg_*) = - {d\beta\over

564: d\ta}(\ta_*),

565: \ee

566: which is the universal power relating the analogous QCD-like scale

567: $\Lambda_{YM}$ to the distance from the fixed point at any high

568: scale $\mu$ where the coupling is $\ta(\mu)$ is sufficiently close

569: to $\ta_*$:

570: \be

571: \Lambda_{YM} \propto \mu|\ta-\ta_*|^\nu.

572: \ee

573: Solving \eq{beta} for $\ta_*$,

574: \be

575: \label{fpta}

576: \ta_* = {\epsilon\over\beta_0}-{\beta_1\epsilon^2\over\beta_0^3}

577: +\left(2{\beta_1^2\over\beta_0^5}-{\beta_2\over\beta_0^4}\right)\epsilon^3

578: +\left(5{\beta_2\beta_1\over\beta_0^6}-{\beta_3\over\beta_0^5}-5{\beta_1^3\over\beta_0^7}\right)\epsilon^4

579: +O(\epsilon^5),

580: \ee

581: and substituting the values for $\beta_n$, we find a surprise.

582: Whereas the coefficients $\beta_n$ show the expected dramatic

583: increase in $n$, consistent with \eq{beta} being asymptotic (even

584: at $N=\infty$):

585: \be

586: \beta_0 = 3.667,\quad\beta_1= 5.667,\quad\beta_2=13.23,\quad\beta_3=39.43+51.22/N^2,

587: \ee

588: the series for $\ta_*$

589: \be

590: \label{fptan}

591: \ta_* = .2727\epsilon -.1150\epsilon^2+.02372\epsilon^3

592: -(.007395+.07729/N^2)\epsilon^4,

593: \ee

594: is considerably better behaved, and at $N=\infty$ it is not at

595: first clear that this series is asymptotic. Substituting \eq{fpta}

596: in \eq{nu}, we obtain

597: \be

598: \label{fpnun}

599: {1\over\nu}=\epsilon+.4215\epsilon^2+.1813\epsilon^3+(.1242+.8502/N^2)\epsilon^4.

600: \ee

601: Again, at $N=\infty$, this series looks very well behaved.

602: 

603: We start by investigating this limit in more detail. Writing the

604: coefficients of $\epsilon^n$ in \eq{fptan} and \eq{fpnun} as $a_n$

605: and $\nu_n$ respectively, successive ratios $|a_n/a_{n+1}|$  give

606: 2.37,\,4.84,\,3.21 for $n=1,2,3$. And similarly successive ratios

607: $|\nu_n/\nu_{n+1}|$ give 2.37,\,2.32,\,1.45. If we did not know

608: better, we might even be tempted to conclude that these ratios

609: have a limit $r>0$, corresponding to a finite radius of

610: convergence $r$. However, we see from \eq{fptan}, that $\ta_*$ has

611: negative values for all $\epsilon<0$, as expected, since the four

612: dimensional beta function analytically continued to $\alpha<0$

613: behaves like that of a trivial theory and thus allows us to

614: balance the two terms in \eq{beta} and find a fixed point in $D<4$

615: dimensions. Since the theory is non-perturbatively sick for

616: $\alpha<0$ \cite{Dyson}, the above series in $\epsilon$ must have

617: zero radius of convergence.

618: 

619: If the series are already displaying their limiting asymptotic

620: behaviour (\viz $a_n\sim cs^n \Gamma(n+\zeta)/R^n$, for $s=-1$ and

621: some constants $c$, $\zeta$ and $R$, and similarly for $\nu_n$,

622: with $s=1$)\footnote{equivalently $a_n\sim c(-)^n n^\zeta n!/R^n$}

623: then we can estimate them by taking the sum to the point where the

624: terms stop getting smaller (including the smallest term) and using

625: the next term to estimate the error. In this case we ought to see

626: $|a_n/a_{n+1}|\sim R/(n+\zeta)$, and thus

627: $\lim_{n\to\infty}n|a_n/a_{n+1}|=R$. Forming this combination for

628: $n=1,2,3$, we get for the $a_n$s: 2.37,\,9.69,\,9.62, and for the

629: $\nu_n$s: 2.37,\,4.65,\,4.38.

630: 

631: We can already draw a number of important conclusions. Firstly,

632: there is clear evidence that the series do approximate their

633: limiting behaviour already after the first term. Secondly, the

634: fact that the last two combinations are so close to each other,

635: for both series, indicates that the corresponding $\zeta$ must be

636: small in these cases; of course the series are not long enough to

637: reliably estimate it however. Thirdly, we expect the $\sim R^{\rm

638: th}$ coefficient to be the smallest one, thus for $1/\nu$ in

639: \eq{fpnun}, we expect the next (5-loop) term to have a larger

640: coefficient than the four-loop term, while for $\ta_*$, we expect

641: to have to go to 10 loops in \eq{fptan} to see the coefficients

642: start growing with $n$.

643: 

644: Fourthly, we can use the series to estimate $\nu$ and $\ta_*$ for

645: positive integer $\epsilon$, as follows. For $\nu$ we simply

646: estimate it as described above, from the asymptotic series for

647: $1/\nu$; for $\epsilon=1$ we have a special case in that we are

648: missing the 5-loop term that would provide an estimate of the

649: error. This is why there is no error for the appropriate entry in

650: table \ref{table:n}.

651: 

652: For $\ta_*$ at $\epsilon=1$ we have an alternating series in which

653: we expect the terms to keep getting smaller until the $(R-1)^{\rm

654: th}$ term with the slightly larger $R^{\rm th}$ term providing the

655: error, where $R\approx10$. Clearly in this case $\ta_*$ should lie

656: between the sum of the first three and the sum of the first four

657: terms.\footnote{If the coefficients kept getting smaller this

658: would be a theorem.} This gives us the $D=5$, $N=\infty$ estimate

659: in table \ref{table:a}. In general the point where the terms stop

660: getting smaller can be expected to be at $n=R/\epsilon$. Comparing

661: with \eq{fptan}, we see that for integer $\epsilon>1$ we should

662: use the above method for summing asymptotic series, except that

663: for $\epsilon=2$ and 3, we are missing the term that would provide

664: the error. This is why we do not display an error when $D=6$ and

665: $N=\infty$.

666: 

667: Finally, at finite $N$, the series are clearly asymptotic, the

668: $1/N^2$ terms in \eqs{fptan}{fpnun} (the result of the first

669: divergent non-planar contribution - which appears at four loops

670: \cite{Vermaseren}) having a much larger coefficient (and of the

671: same sign). Without further information (see below), we can

672: estimate the sums only in the cases where this last term is not

673: the smallest term. We find that the last term is smallest in

674: \eq{fpnun} only when $D=5$ and $N\ge4$, and in \eq{fptan} when

675: $D=5$ and $N\ge3$, and when $D=6$ and $N\ge5$. This is why we the

676: leave the corresponding entries blank in the tables.

677: 

678: 

679: \TABLE{

680: 

681: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

682: \hline

683:  $D\backslash N$ &   2    &    3    &    4    & 5 & $\infty$ \\

684: \hline

685:    5   & .18(3) &        &        &   & .178(4)  \\

686: \hline

687:    6   & .28(43)& .28(26) & .28(20) &  & .157  \\

688: \hline

689: \end{tabular}

690: 

691: \label{table:a}

692: \caption{Estimates for $\ta_*$ for varying $N$ and $D$.} }

693: 

694: 

695: In addition, we find that for $1/\nu$, the terms in the series

696: only increase once $D\ge7$ (for any $N$). For $\ta_*$ when $D=7$,

697: the error is larger than the estimate for $2\le N \le 12$, after

698: which the last term is the smallest so that we cannot provide an

699: estimate. At $N=\infty$, we saw above that we cannot estimate the

700: error, and the series sums to $\ta_*=-0.175$, which cannot make

701: sense physically. For $D=8$, the error is much larger than the

702: estimate for $\ta_*$ for all $N$. For $D\ge9$, the terms only

703: increase in magnitude with $n$. We take all this as evidence from

704: the $\epsilon$ expansion that the fixed points do not exist in

705: $D\ge7$.

706: 

707: 

708: \TABLE{

709: 

710: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

711: \hline

712:  $D\backslash N$ &    2    &    3    &    4    & $\infty$ \\

713: \hline

714:    5   & .62(13) & .62(9)  &        & .579  \\

715: \hline

716:    6   & .19(20) & .19(13) & .19(11) &  .19(8)  \\

717: \hline

718: \end{tabular}

719: 

720: \label{table:n}

721: \caption{Estimates for $\nu$ for varying $N$ and $D$.} }

722: 

723: 

724: In $D=6$ the evidence is somewhat marginal. At $N=2$ the error is

725: larger than the estimate, both for $\nu$ and $\ta_*$. Perhaps this

726: indicates that the fixed point does not exist. For $\nu$ the

727: errors are large but gradually decreasing for $N\ge3$ and $N$

728: increasing, but even at $N=\infty$ the error is 40\%. For $\ta_*$

729: the errors remain large where they can be estimated at all.

730: 

731: On the other hand, for $D=5$ we appear to have clear evidence for

732: a fixed point: the errors are small where they can be estimated.

733: There are missing entries only because the series are too short in

734: these cases. Given the other values it is reasonable to assume

735: that $\ta_*\sim.18$ and $\nu\sim.6$ for all $N\ge2$.

736: 

737: These conclusions are in broad agreement with the earlier

738: alternative approaches already discussed

739: \cite{Gies,Creutz,Kawai,Nishimura,Ejiri}, given the limitations

740: with all these studies.

741: 

742: We have only performed the simplest estimates. It should be

743: possible to do much better. In the lower dimensional scalar field

744: theories, powerful techniques have been developed to cope with

745: their divergent $\epsilon$ expansions.  One first transforms the

746: series to the Borel plane. Relying on no other knowledge the

747: series can be resummed by Pad\'e approximants. However, if one

748: assumes the $\epsilon$ expansion inherits the large order

749: behaviour of $\lambda\phi^4$ theory in three dimensions one knows

750: about the closest singularity in the Borel plane (from studying

751: Lipatov instantons) \cite{ZJ}. By conformal mapping the Borel

752: plane, this information can be taken into account. The results are

753: impressive: for better known quantities \eg $\tl_*$ and $\nu$ (and

754: using also information from the exactly soluble two-dimensional

755: Ising model) the theoretical error has been reduced to a few per

756: mille \cite{ZJ}.

757: 

758: In the gauge theory case, one can also transform the series to the

759: Borel plane and use Pad\'e approximants. However, one also has

760: similar knowledge about the large order behaviour of perturbation

761: theory coming from the closest singularities in the Borel plane,

762: in this case due to infrared renormalons and instantons, which can

763: also be taken into account.

764: 

765: 

766: \section{Renormalizability with matter and branes}

767: \label{MBC}

768: 

769: We pursue theories which have non-perturbative continuum limits in

770: more than four space-time dimensions, in the sense of having

771: ultraviolet fixed points within the $\epsilon$ expansion. We have

772: seen that this requires that when $\epsilon=0$, the model must be

773: renormalizable and in addition all couplings in the bulk are

774: relevant (effectively masses and couplings of positive mass

775: dimension) or marginally relevant (equivalently asymptotically

776: free).\footnote{Note that these are the same conditions that are

777: believed to be required to ensure the non-perturbative existence

778: of the quantum field theory in four dimensions.}

779: 

780: Thus we can readily incorporate non-Abelian gauge fields in the

781: bulk of the higher dimensions.  We can then add fermions to the

782: bulk of the higher dimensions, providing there are not too many or

783: that their representations are too large, such as would destroy

784: the coupling's asymptotic freedom. It is harder to include scalars

785: in the bulk (because the scalar self-coupling must also be

786: asymptotically free), but possible for a careful choice of

787: couplings. On the other hand, we cannot at the same time as

788: keeping asymptotic freedom, use the scalars to give a mass to all

789: the gauge fields via the Higgs mechanism \cite{ColemanGross}.

790: Inclusion of both fermions and scalars allows asymptotic freedom

791: only for a fine tuning of the Yukawa couplings which is natural

792: only in supersymmetric theories \cite{ColemanGross}. Finally,

793: Abelian gauge fields can be included only on four dimensional

794: branes if at all.

795: 

796: As is already clear, these models are highly restricted. We will

797: however meet yet other constraints renormalizability puts on the

798: couplings. We will concentrate on the case of five dimensional

799: theories, \ie where one should set $\epsilon=1$ eventually. This

800: is because, as we have seen, the evidence for non-trivial fixed

801: points is strongest in five dimensions. However, most of our

802: comments obviously extend to other dimensions. Our conventions are

803: to write five dimensional indices in Latin capitals with

804: components $M=0,1,2,3,5$; coordinates we will write as $x^M =

805: (x^\mu,y)$, while we write momenta $p_M = (\bp_\mu,p_5)$, the bar

806: being an extra flag for four-dimensional parts. We write the

807: Lagrangian density of the non-Abelian gauge field as in eqn.

808: \eq{bulk}.

809: 

810: We do not consider gravity since we do not know how to describe it

811: as a renormalizable theory. We thus take the conservative view

812: that there is a flat classical gravitational background, to be set

813: and not questioned. Phenomenologically therefore, these models

814: have to have the fifth dimension compactified, which we can take

815: to be a circle radius $R$: $y$ is identified with $y+2\pi R$.

816: Although the models we consider, are valid as quantum field

817: theories up to infinite energies, in practice we have to set the

818: cutoff at the natural five-dimensional Planck mass since quantum

819: gravitational effects cannot be ignored above this. (This means

820: that $\Lambda\sim a^{1/3}\times 10^{13}\GeV$, where we have taken

821: the radius of compactification to be $1/R = a$~TeV

822: \cite{Arkani-Hamed}.)

823: 

824: At first sight it is attractive when computing such a model in the

825: $\epsilon$ expansion, to regard the extra $\epsilon$ dimensions as

826: the ones that are compactified. This is not consistent however. In

827: the $\epsilon$ expansion the extra dimensions only enter by the

828: change in the scaling of the classical coupling constant. The

829: calculation is thus not sensitive to topological or geometric

830: features of the $\epsilon$ extra dimensions. This is reasonable:

831: the approach to the fixed point ${\tilde g}_*$, is a property of

832: the theory in the far ultraviolet, \ie at very small length

833: scales, where space-time should look flat. Where a more precise

834: matching is required between renormalized couplings above and

835: below a compactification scale, the result from $\epsilon$

836: expansion with one of the {\sl original} dimensions compactified,

837: should clearly be used to compute threshold corrections.

838: 

839: If parts of the five dimensional gauge fields $\A_M$ are to

840: represent some Standard Model gauge fields, then we need to go

841: beyond trivial compactifications.  (We do not observe the adjoint

842: massless scalars $\A_5$ that would arise from such compactified

843: Yang-Mills fields, and we cannot use extra-dimensional Higgs

844: fields to give masses to all parts of $\A_5$.) There are two

845: overlapping possibilities that have been suggested in the

846: literature, the extra dimensional space can be an orbifold or more

847: generally can have a boundary on which non-trivial boundary

848: conditions are imposed \cite{Csaki}.

849: 

850: Either way, once we take the model seriously as describing a

851: renormalizable continuum limit,  we have to introduce boundaries,

852: \aka branes, and boundary couplings which we cannot ignore, as we

853: now explain.

854: 

855: In the general case \cite{Csaki}, boundary conditions on the gauge

856: fields are imposed that explicitly break the gauge group $G$ down

857: to some smaller (\eg Standard Model) group $H$. Of course an

858: explicitly broken gauge theory is not renormalizable. This is the

859: only problem, and is not in fact a problem {\it per se}, for the

860: little hierarchy solution envisaged by these authors, as can be

861: understood by viewing the boundary conditions as imposed by

862: boundary Higgs fields in the non-linear sigma model limit

863: \cite{Bhiggs}. The effective cutoff for the sigma model can be

864: identified with the effective cutoff the theory already

865: necessarily has. However these problems do rule out general

866: breaking by boundary conditions as an option here, because the

867: non-linear sigma model is not renormalizable.

868: 

869: The orbifold alternative consists in dividing out the extra

870: dimension by a discrete symmetry which is not freely acting. For

871: illustration we consider only the simplest case of $Z_2$ parity $y

872: \mapsto -y$.\footnote{Most of our comments apply equally well to

873: more involved cases, the most general case in this situation being

874: $Z_2\times Z'_2$.} We are interested in the case where the parity

875: does not commute with the gauge group (otherwise all of $\A_5$

876: will be odd, thus gain Kaluza-Klein (KK) masses %$m^2$

877: of order the compactification scale, %\viz $1/(2\pi R)$;

878: and just return us at low energies to a four dimensional world of

879: Yang-Mills with gauge group $G$). The gauge fields satisfy

880: $\A_M(x,y) = P\A_M(x,-y)P$. (It is to be understood that $P$ also

881: maps any 5th Lorentz component to minus itself.) Providing $P$

882: generates an automorphism of the Lie algebra of $G$, such an

883: action is consistent, but the result is that the gauge symmetry is

884: typically restricted to a smaller semi-simple group $H$ at the

885: orbifold points $y=0,\pi R$. Indeed, we can always choose a basis

886: for the Lie algebra so that the action of $P$ is diagonal. The

887: even generators, $PT^{\ha}P=T^{\ha}$, generate the subgroup $H$,

888: whilst all the other generators $T^{a'}$ are odd. Although from

889: the low energy four-dimensional point of view, the gauge group $G$

890: appears to have been broken to $H$, this is not really true. Gauge

891: transformations $\delta \A_M = \nabla_M\Omega$ are only restricted

892: in the sense that $\Omega$ must also satisfy $\Omega(x,y) =

893: P\Omega(x,-y)P$, and thus the components $\Omega^{a'}$ vanish at

894: the boundaries $y=0,\pi R$.

895: 

896: As noted in ref. \cite{Georgi}, the orbifolding of the 5th

897: dimension results in divergent quantum corrections which are

898: localised at the orbifold points. We are thus forced to introduce

899: brane Lagrangians at these points even if we did not start out

900: with them, with couplings of the same form as the divergences (so

901: that renormalizing the couplings absorbs the divergences). By the

902: symmetry at the branes, we need four times as many couplings

903: $1/g^2_i$ as there are semi-simple factors in $H$, to multiply

904: separately the generated terms $(\F^\ha_{\mu\nu})^2$ and

905: $(\F^\ha_{\mu5})^2$ on each boundary (see \sec{GHU} for an

906: example). Using the Lagrangian in the form \eq{bulk}, and for

907: example working in background field gauge \cite{Abbott} \cf

908: \fig{fig:selfE}, it is easy to see that the couplings then run

909: according to $\mu\partial_\mu(1/g^2_i)=b_i/(8\pi^2)$ where these

910: $b_i$ are combinations of group theory factors, yielding numbers

911: say, in the range $O(1)$ to $O(10)$, but whose value depends on

912: the details (in particular the orbifolding and the fermions we are

913: about to introduce).

914: 

915: 

916: 

917: \FIGURE{

918: \epsfig{file=selfE.eps,scale=.25}%width=5cm}

919: \caption{One-loop contribution to the $\beta$ function in

920: background field gauge. The internal line stands for all

921: components, including ghosts.} \label{fig:selfE} }

922: 

923: 

924: Note that in computing these effects we work in 5 dimensions: the

925: localised divergences only arise from integrating over the

926: four-dimensional loop momentum $\bk^\mu$, whilst the 5th component

927: only participates in the Umklapp process $\sim \delta_{2k_5,p_5\pm

928: p'_5}$ which in position space leads to the brane localised delta

929: functions $\delta(y)+\delta(y-\pi R)$ \cite{Georgi}.\footnote{The

930: loss/gain of KK momentum together with possible reflection of the

931: momenta is analogous to Umklapp interactions with lattices in

932: condensed matter. Indeed in reality the branes absorb the change

933: in momentum.} We would get the wrong answer if we worked in

934: $4+\epsilon$ dimensions, thus expanding the $\bk$ momentum

935: integral around three dimensions. Indeed in this case the diagrams

936: would all be ultraviolet finite, and all infrared finite, except

937: for the $k_5=0$ term which is linearly IR divergent for vanishing

938: $p$. Whether we work in 5 dimensions or expand around 4 dimensions

939: has to be determined by the effect being calculated: we need to

940: choose to expand about 4, if and only if it is the critical

941: dimension for the effect in question, \ie the dimension at which

942: logarithmic divergences appear. At one loop, this clearly decides

943: the issue. Perhaps at two loops and higher, there can be an effect

944: that can only be properly understood by considering its

945: divergences both in 5 and around 4 dimensions? We leave this

946: question for the future.

947: 

948: Note that it is not possible to argue that the $1/g^2_i$ are much

949: less than $b_i/(8\pi^2)$, because the result would then be

950: strongly $\mu$ dependent. Indeed in this case, changing the value

951: of $\mu$ by a factor of two, would return the couplings to

952: $1/g^2_i(\mu)\sim b_i/(8\pi^2)$. We thus conclude that the brane

953: couplings are $O(10^{-1})$ or greater.

954: 

955: Even if we were to limit the appearance of these brane kinetic

956: terms by arranging the $b_i$ to be very small or cancel (at one

957: loop or to any number of loops), it is not possible to set

958: $1/g^2_i$ to zero if there are other non-vanishing brane

959: interactions involving $\A$, without generating further

960: divergences, as we explain below.

961: 

962: Since these couplings $1/g^2_i$ do not respect the full gauge

963: symmetry $G$, Grand Unification in a single gauge group is not

964: really possible in these scenarios (even if some of its features

965: such as charge quantization can be preserved \cite{Larry}). For

966: this reason, and the fact that lack of renormalizability is less

967: of a problem in any case at Grand Unified scales (\cf \sec{INT}),

968: we do not pursue the possibility of renormalizable extra

969: dimensional Grand Unified Theories further here.

970: 

971: \FIGURE{

972: \epsfig{file=seagullOL.eps,scale=.25}%width=5cm}

973: \caption{Contribution to brane-localised $\phi^4$ interaction. The

974: dashed lines are external $\phi$s. The dotted lines are insertions

975: of external $y$-momentum from \eq{branefn}.} \label{fig:seagull} }

976: 

977: 

978: To see that it is not possible to switch off brane kinetic terms

979: for $\A$ in the presence of other non-vanishing brane interactions

980: for $\A$, consider adding an $H$ invariant scalar field $\phi(x)$

981: to the brane(s). This will generate from the kinetic term in

982: particular a brane interaction of the standard ``seagull'' type

983: \be

984: \label{seagull}

985: \delta(y)\A\A\phi\phi

986: \ee

987: to be added to the overall Lagrangian density \eq{bulk}. The

988: effect we are about to describe happens for any field propagating

989: in the bulk and any interaction, so for the moment we will ignore

990: the Lorentz and colour indices, treating $\A$ as though it were a

991: scalar field. Since this is a small-distance effect, it occurs

992: just as well in infinite flat bulk dimensions with a single brane

993: at $y=0$.

994: 

995: Now the one-loop diagram indicated in \fig{fig:seagull} generates

996: a local divergent correction to the brane $\phi^4(x)$ interaction.

997: The delta function in \eq{seagull} is easily taken into account if

998: we regard it as a background field \be \label{branefn} \phi_b(x,y)

999: = \delta(y) \ee in a five-point interaction, as indicated in

1000: \fig{fig:seagull}. We see that the local interaction generated is

1001: actually \be \label{dsquared} \phi_b^2\phi^4 \ee which is not well

1002: defined with the identification \eq{branefn}.

1003: 

1004: 

1005: Part of the problem of course lies in our assumption that the

1006: brane is infinitely thin and infinitely heavy. In a fully

1007: realistic situation, the brane would have a finite mass which we

1008: identify with the scale of quantum gravity $\Lambda$, and a form

1009: factor

1010: \be

1011: \label{formfactor}

1012: \phi_b(x,y) = f_b(y),

1013: \ee

1014: where $f_b$ becomes a delta function only in the limit

1015: $\Lambda\to\infty$. If $\A$ were not a gauge field, we could

1016: indeed replace $\delta(y)$ by \eq{formfactor}. Since for functions

1017: smooth at distances $1/\Lambda$,

1018: \be

1019: \label{ident}

1020: \phi_b^2 \equiv c \Lambda\phi_b,

1021: \ee

1022: (where $c$ is some constant of order 1) this extra divergence

1023: could be absorbed into the couplings. However, in our gauge

1024: theory, the replacement of $\delta(y)$ by a form factor would be

1025: fatal: in order for \eq{seagull} to remain gauge invariant, $\phi$

1026: has to be extended so that it depends on the bulk dimensions. This

1027: would mean we would not have the option to have brane-localised

1028: fields, severely limiting not only the model-building

1029: possibilities but also the possibility to keep the bulk theory

1030: asymptotically free in four dimensions and thus supportable by an

1031: ultraviolet fixed point in $4+\epsilon$ dimensions. An alternative

1032: way to proceed might be to use \eq{branefn} and promote relations

1033: such as \eq{ident} to identities. At this stage it is not clear if

1034: the model can then be made fully renormalizable.

1035: 

1036: Fortunately we do not have to pursue these directions further,

1037: since the divergence does not appear if we keep a brane kinetic

1038: term for $\A$. To see this, again for simplicity we treat $\A$ as

1039: a single component real scalar field. After a rescaling the

1040: kinetic terms yield the inverse propagator \be \label{invprop}

1041: \Delta^{-1} = -\,\partial^M\partial_M-{2\over m}

1042: \,\delta(y)\,\partial^\mu\partial_\mu, \ee where $m\equiv

1043: 2g_i^2/g^2$ is the ratio of couplings and has dimensions of mass.

1044: The corresponding propagator has already been derived in the

1045: literature (see \eg \cite{0005016}). However, to discuss

1046: divergences it is helpful to write it completely in momentum

1047: space. This is easily found directly as follows. In Euclidean

1048: momentum space, \be \Delta^{-1}(\bp,p_5;\bq,q_5) = p^2\delta(p-q)

1049: + 2\,{\bp^2\over m} \,\delta(\bp-\bq), \ee where $\delta(k)$

1050: ($\delta(\bk)$) means the $D=5 (4)$ dimensional delta function

1051: multiplied by $(2\pi)^{D}$. Substituting the ansatz, \be

1052: \Delta(\bp,p_5;\bq,q_5) =

1053: a(p)\delta(p-q)+b(\bp,p_5,q_5)\delta(\bp-\bq), \ee where $a(p)$

1054: and $b(\bp,p_5,q_5)=b(\bp,q_5,p_5)$ are functions to be determined

1055: one finds \be \Delta(\bp,p_5;\bq,q_5) = {\delta(p-q)\over p^2} -

1056: \,{2\bp^2\delta(\bp-\bq)\over p^2(\bp^2+q_5^2)(m+|\bp|)}\,. \ee

1057: (The modulus term $|\bp| = \sqrt{\bp^2}$ arises from integration

1058: over $q_5$.)

1059: 

1060: Taking account of momentum conservation in the usual way, one

1061: finds the contribution \fig{fig:seagull} is proportional to

1062: \be

1063: \int d^4x\, d^4x'\, \phi^2(x,0)\,\phi^2(x',0) \int\!\!

1064: {d^4\bp\over(2\pi)^4}\,\, {\rm e}^{i\bp.(x-x')}\int\!

1065: {d^4\bq\over(2\pi)^4}\, \Delta(\bq) \Delta(\bq+\bp)\,,

1066: \ee

1067: where the effective four-dimensional propagator

1068: \be

1069: \label{effprop}

1070: \Delta(\bp) = {1\over\bp^2+m|\bp|}

1071: \ee

1072: comes from integrating over the injection of $r_5$ ($r'_5$) with

1073: coefficient 1, that arises at each vertex from \eq{branefn}.

1074: 

1075: Note that the effective propagator results in no worse ultraviolet

1076: divergences than a four dimensional theory completely confined to

1077: the brane. It is clear that all one-loop diagrams of this sort

1078: will be regulated in the same way and thus no terms of the form

1079: \eq{dsquared} are generated. Intuitively one can understand what

1080: is happening as follows. For very small distances on the brane,

1081: the $\delta(y)$ term in \eq{invprop} dominates. In this regime

1082: everything is confined to the brane and we have just a four

1083: dimensional theory. The five dimensional coupling constant $g$,

1084: through $m$, provides a cross-over scale in the effective

1085: propagator \eq{effprop}, so that only for distances larger than

1086: $1/m$ do we feel the effects of the full 5 dimensions. In fact

1087: what we have is the gauge theory analogue of the ``DGP'' model

1088: \cite{0005016}, where these effects are discussed in a

1089: gravitational context, a neat derivation of precisely \eq{effprop}

1090: appearing in ref. \cite{0303116}. This intuition gives us

1091: confidence that this ultraviolet regularisation effect works to

1092: all loop orders.

1093: 

1094: Finally, note that the above considerations imply that all the

1095: $\beta$ functions of the brane-localised fields (here that of a

1096: brane scalar field) must be singular in the limit $1/g^2_i\to0$,

1097: in which the brane kinetic terms are turned off.

1098: 

1099: Note that the gauge field components $\A^{a'}_5$ are even under

1100: $P$. Their lowest KK modes thus behave like scalars as far as the

1101: low energy four-dimensional theory is concerned. There is nothing

1102: in the four-dimensional theory that prevents them from gaining a

1103: mass. From the five dimensional point of view this is not allowed

1104: by gauge invariance. However, an effective action can and will

1105: appear for the non-local operator \be \label{Polyakov} \Phi_P(x)=

1106: \Phi(x,2\pi R), \ee the Wilson line that winds around the compact

1107: dimension, where \be \Phi(x,y) = {\cal P} \exp\, -i \int_0^y\!\!\!

1108: d{\tilde y}\, \A_5(x,{\tilde y}) \ee is the Wilson line from

1109: ${\tilde y}=0$ to ${\tilde y}=y$, located at $x$ (and ${\cal P}$

1110: stands for path ordering). Since under gauge transformations, \be

1111: \label{Phigauged} \delta\Phi(x,y) =

1112: i\,\Omega(x,0)\,\Phi(x,y)-i\,\Phi(x,y)\,\Omega(x,y), \ee

1113: $\Phi_P(x)$ transforms homogeneously as an adjoint scalar at

1114: $(x,0)$.

1115: 

1116: Since $\Phi_P$ contains a power series in $\A^{a'}_5$, the gauge

1117: invariant effective potential $\tr V_{eff}(\Phi_P)$ not only

1118: generically results in masses for the lowest KK mode of the

1119: components $\A^{a'}_5$, but can also result in spontaneous

1120: symmetry breaking: $<\!\A^{a'}_5\!>\,\ne0$. This is the Hosotani

1121: mechanism \cite{Hosotani}. In the spontaneously broken phase,

1122: although we can by a gauge transformation set $\A_5=0$, this is at

1123: the expense of a non-trivial Scherk-Schwarz twist in periodicity

1124: conditions for $\A$ \cite{13} (as we review in \sec{GHU}) which

1125: also breaks the gauge group. Meanwhile, $V_{eff}$ and the low

1126: energy physics as described through it, are completely unaffected

1127: by this gauge transformation. Note that the mass and more

1128: generally the effective potential is protected from divergent

1129: corrections: the effect is non-local in the full five-dimensional

1130: space and thus quantum corrections are cutoff by the

1131: compactification scale $1/(2\pi R)$.

1132: 

1133: Clearly an extremely attractive possibility now arises, namely to

1134: regard the Higgs scalar field as the components $\A^{a'}_5$

1135: \cite{Hosotani,Kubo:2001zc,Haba:2002py,MasieroS3,AntoniadisBQ,HallNS,N1,BurdmanNomuraSUSY,GIQResidualGaugeSym,GIQ6D,S3},

1136: for if we can bring such a model into accord with phenomenological

1137: constraints, whilst keeping it renormalizable, we will have solved

1138: the hierarchy problem. This is the possibility we will consider in

1139: more detail in \sec{GHU}. We will use the framework developed

1140: there to make general comments on model building constraints that

1141: arise when we consider couplings to fermions.

1142: 

1143: \section{The simplest gauge-Higgs unification model}

1144: \label{GHU}

1145: 

1146: The simplest possibility for the unified gauge group is $G=SU(3)$

1147: \cite{SU3}.\footnote{This is really $SU(3)\times SU(3)$. The

1148: second $SU(3)$ is for strong interactions and is readily

1149: incorporated in the bulk. Since the real problems lie with the

1150: weak interactions we will not discuss colour further.} With the

1151: generators $T^a=\lambda^a/2$, where the $\lambda^a$ are the

1152: Gell-Mann matrices, we can decompose $\A_M$ as

1153: \be

1154: \label{decomposeA}

1155: \A_M = \pmatrix{W_M & H_M/\sqrt{2}\cr H^\dagger_M/\sqrt{2} &0}+B_M

1156: T^8.

1157: \ee

1158: Here, $(W_M)^i_j$, with $i,j=1,2$, contracted into $T^\ha$

1159: ($\ha=1,2,3$), are the gauge bosons associated to the top left

1160: $SU(2)$ subgroup. This will be identified with the $SU(2)_W$ part

1161: of the Standard Model gauge group. Similarly $B_\mu$ will be

1162: identified with the $U(1)_Y$ gauge boson, while $H^i \equiv H^i_5

1163: = \sqrt{2} (\A_5)^i_3$ is to be identified with the $SU(2)_W$

1164: doublet Higgs. We implement the restriction of $SU(3)$ to

1165: $SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y$, by identifying the parity operator $P$ as

1166: mapping the third component of the $SU(3)$ fundamental

1167: representation to minus itself, whilst leaving components $i=1,2$

1168: alone. Under this map indeed, $W_\mu$, $B_\mu$ and $H$ are even

1169: and thus at this stage will have massless KK modes, whilst $W_5$,

1170: $B_5$ and $H_\mu$ are odd and thus only have KK masses of order

1171: the compactification scale or greater.

1172: 

1173: The radiatively generated potential for $\Phi_P$, will then

1174: spontaneously break the model, effectively giving $H$ a vacuum

1175: expectation value, via the Hosotani mechanism as outlined in the

1176: previous section. Using the remaining global symmetry we can

1177: ensure the vacuum expectation value takes the form $<\!H\!>=

1178: (0,v)/\sqrt{2}$ for some real $v$. Thus $SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y$

1179: will be broken down to electromagnetism, just as happens in the

1180: Standard Model.

1181: 

1182: Since

1183: \be

1184: \label{t8h}

1185: [T^8,H] = {\sqrt{3}\over2} H,

1186: \ee

1187: we already have a problem however. If we were to put the coupling

1188: $g$ back in its normal place in the covariant derivative, we would

1189: want to identify $g T^8$ with $g' Y/2$ where $Y$ is the

1190: hypercharge and $g'$ the associated coupling. Comparing to the

1191: Standard Model Higgs for which $Y=1$, we get from \eq{t8h}, that

1192: $g'=\sqrt{3}g$ and thus we `predict'

1193: $\sin^2\theta_W=g'^2/(g^2+g'^2)=3/4$, a phenomenological disaster.

1194: 

1195: However, we now recall that we necessarily have the following

1196: couplings on the branes: \be \Delta\LL = \delta(y)\, \LL_1 +

1197: \delta(y-\pi R)\,\LL_2, \ee where, writing out the non-vanishing

1198: parts of $\F_{\mu5}^2$ and similarly the semi-simple components of

1199: $\F_{\mu\nu}^2$, \be \label{brane} \LL_\alpha =

1200: -{1\over2w^2_\alpha}\,\tr\,W_{\mu\nu}^2

1201: -{1\over4b^2_\alpha}\,B^2_{\mu\nu} +{1\over

1202: h^2_\alpha}\,|\nabla_\mu H-H'_\mu|^2. \ee Here we have defined

1203: $H'_\mu = \partial_5 H_\mu$, the brane couplings $w_\alpha$,

1204: $b_\alpha$ and $h_\alpha$, and the field strengths $B_{\mu\nu} =

1205: \partial_\mu B_\nu - \partial_\nu B_\mu$ and $W_{\mu\nu} = i[D_\mu,D_\nu]$,

1206: where $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i W_\mu$. Note that \be \label{covH}

1207: \nabla_\mu H = \partial_\mu H - iW_\mu H -i {\sqrt{3}\over2}B_\mu

1208: H, \ee as a consequence of \eq{t8h} and the restriction to the

1209: branes.

1210: 

1211: 

1212: Recall that the couplings $1/w^2$, $1/b^2$ and $1/h^2$ are

1213: $O(1/10)$ or larger. (The symmetric point where they have the same

1214: value on each brane will typically be broken when fermions are

1215: included.) In the presence of such couplings \eq{brane},

1216: spontaneous symmetry breaking deforms the lowest mass modes for

1217: the weak vector bosons $W^\pm_\mu$ and $Z_\mu$ so that they are no

1218: longer simply constants in the $y$ direction (in any gauge)

1219: \cite{S3}.

1220: 

1221: However, this effect is controlled by the ratio of scales

1222: $\theta/2\pi = Rv/2$ \cite{S3}, vanishing as $\theta\to0$. This

1223: ratio appears in

1224: \be

1225: \label{Wiloop}

1226: <\!\Phi_P\!\!>\ =

1227: \pmatrix{1&0&0\cr0&\cos\theta&-i\sin\theta\cr

1228: 0&-i\sin\theta&\cos\theta}.

1229: \ee

1230: The physics is invariant under

1231: $\theta\mapsto\theta+2\pi$. Defining $\theta$ to be in the

1232: fundamental domain $[0,2\pi)$, the natural theoretical expectation

1233: is that $\theta/2\pi\sim 0.5$ if spontaneous symmetry breaking

1234: takes place. However, indirect limits require the compactification

1235: scale $1/R = a\TeV$ where $a\gsim 2 - 5$ or greater \cite{18}.

1236: Identifying $v$ for the moment with the Standard Model Higgs'

1237: vacuum expectation value, we require $\theta/2\pi\lsim0.06$. In

1238: this case we can ignore the deformations in the first

1239: approximation and take the lowest mass modes for $W^\pm_\mu$,

1240: $Z_\mu$ and $H$ to be constant in the $y$ direction.

1241: 

1242: The form of the effective Lagrangian for these modes is then

1243: \bea

1244: &&2\pi

1245: R\left[-{1\over2g^2}\tr\,W_{\mu\nu}^2-{1\over4g^2}B_{\mu\nu}^2

1246: %+{v^2\over8g^2}\{{W^1_\mu}^2 +{W^2_\mu}^2+(\sqrt{3}B_\mu-W^3_\mu)^2\}

1247: +{1\over g^2}|\nabla_\mu H|^2\right]\cr

1248: &&-{1\over2}\tr\,W_{\mu\nu}^2\sum_\alpha{1\over w^2_\alpha}

1249: -{1\over4}B_{\mu\nu}^2\sum_\alpha{1\over b^2_\alpha} + |\nabla_\mu

1250: H|^2\sum_\alpha{1\over h^2_\alpha}\,,

1251: \eea

1252: where \eq{covH} holds but now with $y$-constant modes. Thus

1253: clearly if we define

1254: \bea

1255: \label{r1}

1256: {1\over g^2_2} &=& {1\over2\pi^2\ta} +{1\over w_1^2} + {1\over

1257: w_2^2}\\

1258: \label{r2}

1259: {3\over g^2_1} &=& {1\over2\pi^2\ta} +{1\over b_1^2} + {1\over

1260: b_2^2}

1261: \eea

1262: where we have used the Wilsonian dimensionless bulk coupling

1263: \eq{ta} evaluated at $\mu=1/R$ (and $D=5$, $N=3$), \viz $\ta=

1264: g^2/4\pi^3 R$, and redefine

1265: \be

1266: \label{Smredef}

1267: W_\mu = g_2\, \tW_\mu,\qquad B_\mu=

1268: {g_1\over\sqrt{3}}\,\tB_\mu,\qquad H= \tH \left( {1\over2\pi^2\ta}

1269: +{1\over h_1^2} + {1\over h_2^2} \right)^{-1/2}\ ,

1270: \ee

1271: to put couplings back in their usual places, we get back precisely

1272: the relevant part of the Standard Model Lagrangian

1273: \be

1274: \label{SM}

1275: -{1\over2}\tr\,\tW_{\mu\nu}^2-{1\over4}\tB_{\mu\nu}^2+|\nabla_\mu

1276: \tH|^2

1277: \ee

1278: where in particular $\tW_{\mu\nu}$ is now defined as expected in

1279: terms of $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ig_2\tW_\mu$, and the full

1280: covariant derivative

1281: \be

1282: \label{rcov}

1283: \nabla_\mu  = \partial_\mu  - ig_2\tW_\mu  -i g_1{Y\over2}\tB_\mu

1284: \ee

1285: defines a hypercharge

1286: \be

1287: \label{Y}

1288: Y= {\rm diag}(1,1,-2)/3

1289: \ee

1290: which gives the Higgs $Y=1$ as expected.

1291: 

1292: Taking into account the rescaling to $\tH$, we see that $v$ is

1293: actually defined in terms of the Standard Model Higgs' expectation

1294: value $\tv$ by

1295: \be

1296: \label{r3}

1297: R\ \tv = {\theta\over\pi}\sqrt{ {1\over2\pi^2\ta} +{1\over h_1^2}

1298: + {1\over h_2^2} }.

1299: \ee

1300: 

1301: These equations allow us to make several straightforward but

1302: important conclusions. Firstly, in the limit that $\theta$ is

1303: sufficiently small to neglect deformations of the lowest KK

1304: wavefunctions, we regain from \eq{SM}, the custodial symmetry of

1305: the Standard Model and thus determine the $\rho$ parameter to be

1306: one at tree level, as required. Secondly, using the experimentally

1307: determined numbers \cite{Hagiwara}, the bound $1/R = a$ TeV and

1308: the fact that $1/w^2$, $1/b^2$ and $1/h^2$ are $\gsim1/10$ we can

1309: place further bounds on the values of the parameters.

1310: 

1311: Thus from \eq{r1}, $1/2\pi^2\ta<2.3$, and with natural values for

1312: $w_\alpha$, we have $\ta\gsim0.02$. This is clearly perturbative

1313: and an order of magnitude smaller than the typical fixed point

1314: value (\cf \sec{RED}). At energies higher than $1/R$, $\ta$ will

1315: run according to \eq{beta}, reaching the non-perturbative physics

1316: associated with the fixed point at energy scales $\sim 10/R$.

1317: 

1318: On the other hand we clearly have an upper bound on

1319: $1/w^2_1+1/w^2_2$ of $2.3$. From \eq{r2} the strict upper bound on

1320: $1/2\pi^2\ta$ implies a {\sl lower} bound on $1/b^2_1+1/b^2_2>21$.

1321: We therefore require very large $U(1)_Y$ kinetic terms on the

1322: boundary. Perhaps these arise naturally from non-perturbative

1323: physics close to the ultraviolet fixed point $\ta_*$, bearing in

1324: mind that Abelian gauge fields would be separately

1325: non-renormalizable in the bulk. Of course phenomenologically, the

1326: origin of the large values is the discrepancy between the `bulk'

1327: $\sin^2\theta_W=3/4$ and the experimental one.

1328: 

1329: The Lagrangian given by \eq{bulk} and \eq{brane} is very similar

1330: to the bosonic sector of the Lagrangian considered in ref.

1331: \cite{S3}, except that Scrucca \etal introduce an extra bulk

1332: $U(1)$ gauge field to allow $\sin^2\theta_W$ to be set to its

1333: experimental value (and do not introduce the $h_\alpha$ terms). We

1334: do not have the option of including a bulk $U(1)$ gauge field

1335: since it is not renormalizable within the $\epsilon$ expansion.

1336: 

1337: Finally, \eq{r3} implies that $\theta/2\pi>0.08/a$ with natural

1338: values for $1/h^2_\alpha$. Therefore phenomenologically preferred

1339: values of $\theta$ are consistent with our approximation.

1340: 

1341: To allow for larger $\theta$, we have to increase $\ta$. Thus

1342: $\ta\sim0.1$ (implying $1/w^2\sim1$) allows for

1343: $\theta/2\pi\sim0.18/a$, but to get the theoretically natural

1344: values of $\theta/2\pi\sim0.3$ \cite{S3} requires $\ta\sim1.2$.

1345: Such a large value would probably (depending on matter content)

1346: imply that the fixed point $\ta$ is being approached from the

1347: right (\ie from the region $\ta>\ta_*$). There is no problem of

1348: principle with this happening but in particular, large higher

1349: order corrections in the $\epsilon$ expansion mean that we could

1350: then no longer trust these simple formulae. However, in any case

1351: we are back in a regime where significant distortions from

1352: Standard Model relations will be found. We should note that there

1353: are not enough parameters in the model in this regime to tune away

1354: the resulting anomalous triple gauge couplings \cite{S3,tgbs},

1355: tune $\rho$, $\sin^2\theta_W$ and $m_Z$ and the effective brane

1356: couplings to matter fields \cite{S3} to their correct values. Even

1357: if we could manage this, it would be an unsatisfactory accident

1358: since custodial symmetry has been badly broken.

1359: 

1360: In summary, for the bosonic sector of the model to be

1361: phenomenologically acceptable we must have large values of

1362: $1/b^2\sim10$, and a much smaller $\theta$ than we would find

1363: without some special mechanism. Indeed we can choose a small

1364: $\ta>0.02$ and natural values of $1/w^2 \sim 1/h^2 \sim 1/10$, in

1365: which case we have to arrange the model to dynamically determine

1366: $\theta/2\pi\sim0.04-0.09$.

1367: 

1368: Before turning to the introduction of fermions we discuss briefly

1369: the peculiar remnants of gauge invariance operating on the brane.

1370: Decomposing a gauge transformation similarly to \eq{decomposeA},

1371: as

1372: \be

1373: \Omega = \pmatrix{\omega & \phi\cr\phi^\dagger &0} + \beta T^8,

1374: \ee

1375: we have that $\omega$ and $\beta$ are $P$ even, while $\phi$ is

1376: $P$ odd. Thus $\omega$, $\beta$ and $\phi'=\partial_5\phi$ survive

1377: on the branes whilst $\partial_5\omega$, $\partial_5\beta$ and

1378: $\phi$ vanish on each brane. It follows that the brane Lagrangians

1379: \eq{brane} are invariant under the surviving, or ``remnant''

1380: \cite{GIQResidualGaugeSym}, gauge symmetries:

1381: \bea

1382: \label{remnants}

1383: \delta W_\mu &=& [D_\mu,\omega] \cr

1384: %

1385: \delta B_\mu &=& \partial_\mu\beta \cr

1386: %

1387: \delta H &=& \phi' + i\omega H + i{\sqrt{3}\over2}\beta H \cr

1388: %

1389: \delta H'_\mu &=& i\omega H'_\mu + i{\sqrt{3}\over2}\beta H'_\mu +

1390: \nabla_\mu\phi',

1391: \eea

1392: where $\nabla_\mu\phi'$ is \eq{covH} with $H$ replaced by $\phi'$.

1393: 

1394: As noted in ref. \cite{GIQResidualGaugeSym}, the shift symmetry

1395: $\phi'$ protects against brane mass terms appearing for the Higgs.

1396: It is interesting also to note that if it were not for the bulk

1397: Lagrangian \eq{bulk}, the brane Higgs kinetic term in \eq{brane}

1398: would be trivial since it could be gauged away by a finite

1399: $\phi'=H$ transformation in \eq{remnants}, $H'_\mu$ playing the

1400: r\^ole of an auxiliary field. However, this term becomes

1401: non-trivial when considered as part of the full Lagrangian:

1402: although we can still gauge the brane Higgs kinetic terms away,

1403: this is a gauge choice which in general conflicts with the need to

1404: make other gauge choices (for example the background Feynman gauge

1405: used typically to compute the radiative potential). Furthermore,

1406: $H'_\mu$ is of course no longer an auxiliary field but part of the

1407: bulk degrees of freedom evaluated at the orbifold points.

1408: 

1409: In order to complete a realistic description we need to introduce

1410: quarks, and leptons. For example consider initially, the top and

1411: bottom quarks. We write their $SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y$ ${\bf

1412: 2}_{1/6}$, ${\bf 1}_{2/3}$, ${\bf 1}_{-1/3}$ representations as

1413: $Q_L = (t_L,b_L)$, $t_R$ and $b_R$. As usual in gauge-Higgs

1414: unification models, we cannot introduce these as bulk fermions

1415: because the interactions would be flavour-symmetric and have the

1416: wrong hypercharges, following from \eq{Y}. If we introduce them as

1417: fields that live only in the brane(s), then we can simply assign

1418: them the correct hypercharges as according to \eq{rcov}, since

1419: only the restricted symmetry \eq{remnants} is active there.

1420: However, \eq{remnants} as well as including the standard

1421: $SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y$ gauge transformations (after use of

1422: \eq{Smredef} and defining ${\tilde\beta} = \sqrt{3}\beta$)

1423: includes the shift symmetry generated by $\phi'$ which forbids the

1424: Yukawa interactions, for example under the shift symmetry we have

1425: $\delta({\bar Q}_LHb_R) = {\bar Q}_L\phi'b_R$.

1426: 

1427: (We can cancel this by postulating heavy mirror fields, \eg a

1428: ${\bf 2}_{1/6}$ $Q_R$, adding appropriate mass terms $M{\bar

1429: Q}_LQ_R$ (plus c.c.), and defining $\delta Q_R \sim\phi'b_R$, and

1430: so on, resulting in a see-saw mechanism with the lightest states

1431: to be identified with the quarks. However we then need kinetic

1432: terms for the $Q_R$. The terms generated by the shift

1433: transformations acting on this can be cancelled by introducing an

1434: appropriate interaction with $H'_\mu$ and appropriate

1435: transformations into heavy partners for $b_R$ and $t_R$.

1436: Unfortunately then more fields are needed to in order to cancel

1437: new violations of the shift symmetry and so on. It appears that it

1438: is not possible to find a closure of the symmetry which is

1439: non-trivial, linear and finite dimensional. However, since we are

1440: already introducing an infinite number of fields through the KK

1441: excitations, it could be worthwhile to pursue the possibility of

1442: infinite dimensional representations of the shift symmetry. Note

1443: that if these could be constructed, the shift symmetry would still

1444: protect the Higgs from gaining a brane potential, but allow

1445: standard Yukawa interactions for the real quarks and leptons.)

1446: 

1447: This problem has been circumvented in the literature by taking

1448: instead the Wilson line $\Phi$, using $\Phi_P$ for coupling

1449: doublets and singlets on the brane at $y=0$ (analogously a Wilson

1450: line that wraps once round the compact dimension but starting at

1451: $y=\pi R$, for coupling both representations at $y=\pi R$), or

1452: $\Phi(\pi R)$ for coupling fermions on one brane to fermions on

1453: the other \cite{N1}. This can be done because from \eq{Phigauged},

1454: \be

1455: \label{homohiggs}

1456: \delta\,\Phi^i_{\ 3}(x,y)= i \omega(x,0)\Phi^i_{\ 3}(x,y) +

1457: \left[{i\over6}\tb(x,0)+{i\over3}\tb(x,y)\right]\Phi^i_{\ 3}(x,y)

1458: \quad {\rm for} \quad y=0,\pi R.

1459: \ee

1460: Therefore $\Phi^i_{\ 3}(x,y)$ transforms homogeneously like the

1461: Higgs in \eq{remnants} but without the shift symmetry. From the

1462: above we see we can actually provide Yukawa couplings between

1463: different branes as ${\bar Q}_{Li}(x,0)\Phi^i_{\ 3}(x,\pi

1464: R)b_R(x,\pi R)$, but $U(1)_Y$ invariance requires the standard

1465: coupling for the charge conjugates $Q_R^c$ and $t^c_L$ to be on

1466: the same brane. We may similarly provide couplings for the other

1467: quark families, and also for the leptons, where we just use the

1468: fact that for $\Phi_P$,  \eq{homohiggs} with $y=0$ is the usual

1469: Higgs transformation.

1470: 

1471: Such Wilson line interactions can arise from integrating out heavy

1472: bulk fields \cite{N1,S3,HallNS} and also arise in String

1473: compactifications \cite{ibanez,N1}. There is no problem here and

1474: later with brane localised anomalies since they may be cancelled

1475: by an appropriate bulk Chern-Simons action \cite{anomaly}. However

1476: as noted by ref. \cite{N1} such Yukawa interactions produce new

1477: brane-localised divergences. In particular they will give

1478: quadratically divergent contributions to the Higgs mass

1479: \be

1480: \label{yuk}

1481: \sim \Lambda^2\Phi^i_{\ 3}\Phi^{\dagger3}_{\ \ i}

1482: \ee

1483: just as in the Standard Model. Of course this destroys the purpose

1484: of the model as a solution to the hierarchy problem.

1485: 

1486: The reason is immediately clear because the $y$ degree of freedom

1487: plays no r\^ole here for the brane localised fermions. As far as

1488: they are concerned $\Phi^i_{\ 3}$ looks just like the Standard

1489: Model Higgs. Indeed we would also have to add brane kinetic terms

1490: and a brane-localised quartic potential for $\Phi^i_{\ 3}$ to

1491: absorb logarithmic divergences and make the model

1492: renormalizable.\footnote{It is not clear to us whether the

1493: resulting framework is renormalizable in 5 dimensions, however if

1494: it is not, then the right approach is to consider these effects

1495: expanded around 4 dimensions, where it is renormalizable - see our

1496: comments below \eq{effprop}.}

1497: 

1498: In ref. \cite{N1}, the authors are interested only in the little

1499: hierarchy problem, and circumvent the further difficulty \eq{yuk}

1500: for the top by adding a new colour triplet fermion  (for us this

1501: would be a ${\bf 1}_{-1/3}$) so as to complete the representation

1502: $Q_L$ to a representation of $SU(3)_W$. Then the summation over

1503: $i$ in \eq{yuk} in fact runs over the complete representation

1504: ($i=1,2,3$) becoming just a contribution to the vacuum energy

1505: ($\Phi\Phi^\dagger=1$). The divergences from the other fermions

1506: are small enough to ignore in this scenario since the model anyway

1507: has a low effective cutoff $\Lambda$ and the corresponding Yukawa

1508: couplings are much smaller. With a Planck mass cutoff, we do not

1509: have this option, even for neutrinos and their very low masses,

1510: and clearly it is phenomenologically unacceptable to add

1511: hypercharged but $SU(2)_W$ singlets to fill out representations of

1512: $SU(3)_W$ for the other quark families and the leptons.

1513: 

1514: The appearance of divergences from such non-local operators seems

1515: to go against the standard lore that divergences arise from local

1516: interactions only. There is no contradiction however. These Wilson

1517: line interactions are local in space-time ($x$ space). This is an

1518: approximation which is valid only in the limit of infinite string

1519: tension (in the case of String Theory compactifications) or

1520: infinite mass (in the case of massive bulk fields). In truth one

1521: should integrate over different locations $x$ and $x'$ where the

1522: ends of the Wilson line meet the fermions, with the displacement

1523: $x-x'$ being weighted by a form factor of width $1/M$, where $M$

1524: is the heavy scale. These Wilson line interactions are then indeed

1525: ultraviolet finite, quantum corrections being naturally cutoff at

1526: $M$.

1527: 

1528: Since our model is supposed to be valid up to the Planck mass

1529: $\Lambda$ however, we are forced to describe the dynamics that

1530: results in such smeared Wilson line interactions (unless

1531: $M\gsim\Lambda$ in which case we are back at square one). We are

1532: left with the remaining concrete alternative in the literature

1533: which is indeed to generate the Yukawa interactions through

1534: couplings of bulk and boundary fields \cite{S3,BurdmanNomuraSUSY}.

1535: 

1536: We follow closely the ideas of ref. \cite{S3}. Thus we introduce a

1537: pair of bulk fermions $\Psi_1(x,y)$ and $\Psi_2(x,y)$ (necessarily

1538: Dirac fermions since they are in 5 dimensions) with opposite

1539: $y$-parity so that a parity invariant mass term

1540: $M{\bar\Psi_1}\Psi_2$ (plus c.c.) can be built. Using \eq{Y}, we

1541: choose a set of representations of $SU(3)$ so that the Standard

1542: Model fermions, which exist only on the branes, can all couple to

1543: them and thus all the Standard Model fermions (including the

1544: neutrinos) can get masses from the effective Wilson line

1545: interactions that will be generated. Thus we can use a

1546: $\Psi_\alpha$ pair in the fundamental (${\bf3}$) representation so

1547: that $\Psi^i$ couples to $Q_L$ while $\Psi^3$ couples to $b_R$.

1548: This is the minimal representation that will do the job. The

1549: minimal representation that yields components with the right

1550: hypercharge to couple to $t_R$ is the {\bf 6}, where we use the

1551: $33$ component to couple to $t^c_L$. (The {\bf 6} will also couple

1552: to $Q^c_R$.) We deal with the other quark families in precisely

1553: the same way. Charged conjugated lepton doublets can couple first

1554: to the adjoint ({\bf 8}) representation; the charge conjugated

1555: right handed electron, muon and tau couple to the $333$ component

1556: of a {\bf 10}, and finally the right handed neutrinos can couple

1557: to the ${\bf 1}_0$ in the {\bf 8} representation $\Psi_\alpha$s

1558: already introduced.

1559: 

1560: As we have already discussed, something special is needed to get a

1561: low value $\theta/2\pi \sim0.04-0.09$. In ref. \cite{0401183} it

1562: was shown that this is possible by adding of order 10 bulk fields

1563: in a mixture of fundamental and adjoint representations. They used

1564: scalars as well as fermions. Although scalars are problematic for

1565: us, they do not appear to be especially required. These authors

1566: assume that the correct value of $\sin^2\theta_W$ can be realised

1567: by wall localised kinetic terms. As we have shown, this can indeed

1568: be achieved. Somewhat similarly, the authors of ref. \cite{S3}

1569: manage to reduce the minimum to $\theta/2\pi\sim0.096$ by adding

1570: bulk fermions in large (rank 8) symmetric representations. They

1571: note however that this will lead to electroweak corrections

1572: enhanced by large group theoretical factors resulting in the scale

1573: at which the bulk weak coupling becomes non-perturbative being

1574: lowered (their cutoff by application of NDA). Here we do not have

1575: this problem.

1576: 

1577: For quite separate reasons we have also introduced a large number

1578: of bulk fermions. It would be very interesting to see if the

1579: menagerie of representations we have had to introduce to induce

1580: Yukawa matrices for the Standard Model fermions, also turned out

1581: to give values of $\theta$ in the right range. However, we now hit

1582: a severe problem if we want to preserve the renormalizability of

1583: the model. The contributions of the bulk fermions to the bulk

1584: $\beta$ function is\footnote{The factor 8 comes from the usual

1585: $4/3$, the two bulk fermions and the three families. Note that

1586: boundary fields and couplings make no contribution to the bulk

1587: $\beta$ function.}

1588: \be

1589: 3\beta_0 = - 8 \sum_R T_R = -4\, (1+5+6+15) = -108

1590: \ee

1591: completely overwhelming the contribution of $+11$ from $\A_M$.

1592: Thus the bulk theory is no longer asymptotically free in four

1593: dimensions and cannot be supported by an ultraviolet fixed point

1594: in $4+\epsilon$ dimensions.

1595: 

1596: This constraint would appear to rule out renormalizable models

1597: based on a bulk $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills theory. The obvious route to

1598: try to make further progress would be to consider larger gauge

1599: groups, thus increasing the gauge-field contribution to $\beta_0$,

1600: while also allowing more Standard Model fermion representations to

1601: couple to the same bulk fermion representations. (For example

1602: above, the {\bf3} is shared by $Q_L$ and $b_R$, while the right

1603: handed neutrinos couple to the same representation as the lepton

1604: doublets.) This results in considering a kind of grand unification

1605: of a quite different sort from the standard four dimensional

1606: cases, but with some similar properties, for example charge

1607: quantization and mass relations. However, we also clearly need to

1608: consider more complex orbifolds, and/or deal with multiple Higgs

1609: vacuum expectation values arising from the Hosotani mechanism (see

1610: ref. \cite{0401185} for such a study).

1611: 

1612: \section{Summary and conclusions}

1613: \label{CON}

1614: 

1615: Extra dimensional field theories have the potential to solve many

1616: of the enduring mysteries of theoretical particle physics. However

1617: approaches that directly address weak-scale physics and in

1618: particular the hierarchy problem, suffer from a severe drawback in

1619: that they are not renormalizable, at least as conventionally

1620: envisaged. This results in an irreducible uncertainty of typically

1621: $\sim$ 1\% in any predictions following from these models, and

1622: also implies the existence of a scale much smaller than the Planck

1623: mass ($\sim$ 100 TeV) where something other than field theory has

1624: to take over.

1625: 

1626: It seems possible that a restricted class of such theories may

1627: however be made renormalizable by basing their continuum limit

1628: around a non-perturbative fixed point (rather than the

1629: perturbative Gaussian fixed point that supports the Standard

1630: Model).

1631: 

1632: Although it has been recognized since the 1970s \cite{Peskin} that

1633: non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory  might have such extra dimensional

1634: ultraviolet fixed points, only a few studies have been made to

1635: search for these. From the lattice studies it seems clear that the

1636: simplest Wilson plaquette bare action does not allow these fixed

1637: points for $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills in $D=5$ or 6 dimensions. However,

1638: as we emphasised, there is no reason to expect the simplest action

1639: to be the correct bare action in this case.\footnote{Actions with

1640: more derivatives than \eq{bulk} would generically have problems

1641: with locality at energies of the overall cutoff, but this cutoff

1642: can be taken to infinity.} The lattice study in ref.

1643: \cite{Nishimura} suggests that even with some more general actions

1644: the fixed points do not exist in $D=6$ dimensions and large $N$.

1645: On the other hand, the exact renormalization group study by Gies

1646: \cite{Gies} suggests that these fixed points do exist in $D=5$

1647: dimensions for $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills at least for $N\le5$.

1648: 

1649: Somewhat surprisingly, no-one seems to have carried the initial

1650: Wilson epsilon expansion investigation beyond the early two-loop

1651: computation of Peskin \cite{Peskin}, so in this paper we do that

1652: by extending the investigation to the four loops now available. We

1653: find that the $\epsilon$ expansions are very well behaved

1654: asymptotic series, for example we predict that the coefficients in

1655: the large $N$ limit of the expansion for the fixed point coupling

1656: $\ta_*$ do not start to diverge until $\sim$ 10 loops. We give

1657: values for both the fixed point coupling and the critical exponent

1658: $\nu$, together with estimates of the error, by following --where

1659: justified-- the simplest methods possible. In broad terms, it

1660: seems clear that the $D=5$ dimensional fixed points do exist, for

1661: all $N\ge2$. The evidence for fixed points in $D=6$ dimensions, is

1662: marginal, while we find strong evidence that the fixed points do

1663: not exist in any dimension $D\ge7$. As we sought to emphasise, on

1664: the one hand $\epsilon$ expansions above the critical dimension

1665: such as this, are justified from studies in other models, and on

1666: the other hand there is considerable room for improvement on the

1667: present study by using more sophisticated methods.

1668: 

1669: More generally, within an expansion in $\epsilon$ of the

1670: $D=4+\epsilon$ dimensional theory, these ultraviolet fixed points

1671: exist if and only if the four dimensional theory has only

1672: asymptotically free couplings. By using a dimensional

1673: regularisation and a minimal subtraction type scheme, we can

1674: renormalize the theory perturbatively in the normal way in four

1675: dimensions. Where we need to investigate renormalization group

1676: properties in the higher dimensions, we can use equations such as

1677: \eq{beta} to analytically continue the results to $\epsilon>0$.

1678: These observations open the door to constructing renormalizable

1679: extra dimensional models.

1680: 

1681: In \sec{MBC}, we extended this generalisation of renormalizability

1682: to include matter and branes. We can add fermions to the bulk

1683: providing there are not too many to destroy the $D=4$ dimensional

1684: asymptotic freedom. It is possible to include bulk scalar fields

1685: but only for careful choices of couplings. The inclusion of both

1686: bulk fermions and scalars is only natural in supersymmetric

1687: theories (where such fixed points have been independently

1688: discovered \cite{Seiberg}). Abelian gauge fields cannot however be

1689: added to the bulk.

1690: 

1691: Several ideas in the literature such as Higgsless theories, or the

1692: inclusion of Wilson lines directly in the bare action to generate

1693: Yukawa terms, do not extend to renormalizable theories in this

1694: way, at least without further development (see secs. \ref{MBC} and

1695: \ref{GHU}).

1696: 

1697: When including branes, care has to be taken to work in the correct

1698: critical dimension for the divergences being studied. Thus in the

1699: case of $D=5$ dimensions compactified on an orbifold $S^1/Z_2$,

1700: brane kinetic terms are required from renormalization in $D=5$

1701: dimensions \cite{Georgi} (and not $D=4$ analytically continued to

1702: 5). Furthermore, we showed that even if these bulk-generated

1703: divergences were eliminated in a particular model, brane-bulk

1704: interactions would lead to a non-renormalizable theory if the

1705: brane kinetic terms were set to zero. The fact that these are

1706: avoided for non-zero brane kinetic terms is a gauge theory

1707: analogue of the DGP effect \cite{0005016}, and incidentally

1708: implies that the beta functions of the brane-localised fields must

1709: diverge in the limit that the brane kinetic terms are turned off.

1710: These observations have relevance for all such extra dimensional

1711: models, not only the renormalizable ones being proposed here.

1712: 

1713: We further pursue the phenomenological and theoretical constraints

1714: placed on renormalizable extra dimensional models in \sec{GHU}. We

1715: concentrate on the weak interactions and gauge-Higgs unification

1716: via the Hosotani mechanism \cite{Hosotani}: if such models can be

1717: made renormalizable, they become solutions to the hierarchy

1718: problem. We focus only on the simplest model of gauge-Higgs

1719: unification based on $D=5$ dimensional $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills theory

1720: compactified on $S^1/Z_2$. For the model to be phenomenologically

1721: acceptable, and perturbatively renormalizable in the manner we

1722: have described, we must have large values of $1/b^2\sim10$ for the

1723: $U(1)_Y$ brane kinetic terms, and a much smaller Hosotani vacuum

1724: angle $\theta$ than we would find without some special mechanism.

1725: Indeed we can choose a small $\ta>0.02$ (implying that the effects

1726: of the fixed point will be felt only at energies 10 times higher

1727: than the compactification scale, \ie at energies $\sim 20$ -

1728: 50TeV) and choose natural values for the other brane kinetic

1729: terms, in which case we have to arrange the model to dynamically

1730: determine $\theta/2\pi\sim0.04-0.09$. Such values would however

1731: ensure that at low energies the distortions of the Standard Model

1732: are sufficiently small not to come into conflict with precision

1733: measurements.

1734: 

1735: The known fermions must live only on the brane and do not make a

1736: contribution to the bulk $\beta$ functions (at least at one loop).

1737: The real problem arises when we consider how to generate effective

1738: Yukawa couplings. We seem to be forced to add bulk fermions in

1739: representations and number that are too large to maintain

1740: asymptotic freedom in $D=4$ dimensions, thus destroying the

1741: non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point in $4+\epsilon$ dimensions.

1742: Note that there is no direct relation between this consequence and

1743: the fact that in four dimensions one cannot maintain asymptotic

1744: freedom and add sufficiently many scalars to spontaneously break

1745: all directions in the gauge group \cite{ColemanGross}: the group

1746: in higher dimensions can be much larger and broken in the first

1747: place by the orbifold boundary conditions.

1748: 

1749: Indeed, in order to make progress, one should consider a larger

1750: group and more involved compactifications. As we noted in

1751: \sec{GHU}, the Standard Model fermions can be encouraged to share

1752: their interactions with the bulk fermions, again reducing the

1753: problem, and leading to a new type of unification, the

1754: possibilities and consequences of which deserve further

1755: exploration.

1756: 

1757: 

1758: 

1759: \bigskip

1760: \acknowledgments

1761: 

1762: It is a pleasure to thank the following people for useful

1763: discussions: Luis Alvarez-Gaum\'e, Laura Covi, Gian Guidice, Tim

1764: Jones, Riccardo Rattazzi, Douglas Ross, Kari Rummukainen and

1765: Claudio Scrucca.

1766: 

1767: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1768: 

1769: 

1770: \bibitem{Anton}

1771: I.~Antoniadis,

1772: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''

1773: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246} (1990) 377.

1774: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%

1775: 

1776: 

1777: 

1778: \bibitem{Feruglio:2004zf}

1779: For a recent review see F.~Feruglio,

1780: %``Extra dimensions in particle physics,''

1781: arXiv:hep-ph/0401033.

1782: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401033;%%

1783: 

1784: 

1785: \bibitem{Barbieri:1999tm}

1786: R.~Barbieri and A.~Strumia,

1787: %``What is the limit on the Higgs mass?,''

1788: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 462} (1999) 144

1789: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905281];

1790: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905281;%%

1791: R.~Barbieri,

1792: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking as of 2003, on the way to the Large Hadron

1793: %Collider,''

1794: arXiv:hep-ph/0312253.

1795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312253;%%

1796: 

1797: 

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{Barbieri:2002uk}

1800: R.~Barbieri, G.~Marandella and M.~Papucci,

1801: %``Breaking the electroweak symmetry and supersymmetry by a compact extra

1802: %dimension,''

1803: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 095003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205280].

1804: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205280;%%

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{Manton:1979kb}

1807: N.~S.~Manton,

1808: %``A New Six-Dimensional Approach To The Weinberg-Salam Model,''

1809: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 158} (1979) 141.

1810: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B158,141;%%

1811: D.~B.~Fairlie,

1812: %``Higgs' Fields And The Determination Of The Weinberg Angle,''

1813: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 82} (1979) 97;

1814: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B82,97;%%

1815: P.~Forgacs and N.~S.~Manton,

1816: %``Space-Time Symmetries In Gauge Theories,''

1817: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 72} (1980) 15.

1818: %%CITATION = CMPHA,72,15;%%

1819: 

1820: 

1821: \bibitem{MasieroS3}

1822: A.~Masiero, C.~A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone and L.~Silvestrini,

1823: %``Non-local symmetry breaking in Kaluza-Klein theories,''

1824: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 251601

1825: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107201].

1826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107201;%%

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{AntoniadisBQ}

1829: I.~Antoniadis, K.~Benakli and M.~Quiros,

1830: %``Finite Higgs mass without supersymmetry,''

1831: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 3} (2001) 20 [arXiv:hep-th/0108005].

1832: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108005;%%

1833: 

1834: \bibitem{HallNS}

1835: L.~J.~Hall, Y.~Nomura and D.~R.~Smith,

1836: %``Gauge-Higgs unification in higher dimensions,''

1837: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 639} (2002) 307 [arXiv:hep-ph/0107331];

1838: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107331;%%

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{N1}

1841: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean and H.~Murayama,

1842: %``Standard model Higgs from higher dimensional gauge fields,''

1843: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 085012 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210133].

1844: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210133;%%

1845: 

1846: \bibitem{BurdmanNomuraSUSY}

1847: G.~Burdman and Y.~Nomura,

1848: %``Unification of Higgs and gauge fields in five dimensions,''

1849: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 656} (2003) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210257].

1850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210257;%%

1851: 

1852: \bibitem{GIQResidualGaugeSym}

1853: G.~von Gersdorff, N.~Irges and M.~Quiros,

1854: %``Finite mass corrections in orbifold gauge theories,''

1855: arXiv:hep-ph/0206029.

1856: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206029;%%

1857: 

1858: \bibitem{GIQ6D}

1859: G.~von Gersdorff, N.~Irges and M.~Quiros,

1860: %``Radiative brane-mass terms in D > 5 orbifold gauge theories,''

1861: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 351 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210134].

1862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210134;%%

1863: 

1864: \bibitem{S3}

1865: C.~A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone and L.~Silvestrini,

1866: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking and fermion masses from extra dimensions,''

1867: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 669} (2003) 128 [arXiv:hep-ph/0304220].

1868: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304220;%%

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{Csaki}

1871: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, H.~Murayama, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,

1872: %``Gauge theories on an interval: Unitarity without a Higgs,''

1873: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 055006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305237];

1874: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305237;%%

1875: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,

1876: %``Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,''

1877: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92} (2004) 101802

1878: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308038].

1879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308038;%%

1880: 

1881: 

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{kawaDTsplit}

1884: Y.~Kawamura,

1885: %``Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,''

1886: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 105} (2001) 999

1887: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012125].

1888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{so10E6}

1891: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchmuller and L.~Covi,

1892: %``Gauge unification in six dimensions,''

1893: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 523} (2001) 199 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108021].

1894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108021;%%

1895: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchmuller and L.~Covi,

1896: %``Exceptional coset spaces and unification in six dimensions,''

1897: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 540} (2002) 295 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204358].

1898: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204358;%%

1899: L.~J.~Hall, Y.~Nomura, T.~Okui and D.~R.~Smith,

1900: %``SO(10) unified theories in six dimensions,''

1901: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 035008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108071].

1902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108071;%%

1903: R.~Dermisek and A.~Mafi,

1904: %``SO(10) grand unification in five dimensions: Proton decay and the mu  problem,''

1905: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 055002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108139].

1906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108139;%%

1907: T.~Watari and T.~Yanagida,

1908: %``Supersymmetric grand unification model with the orbifold symmetry  breaking in the six dimensional supergravity,''

1909: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519} (2001) 164 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108152].

1910: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108152;%%

1911: C.~S.~Huang, J.~Jiang, T.~j.~Li and W.~Liao,

1912: %``N = 2 6-dimensional supersymmetric E(6) breaking,''

1913: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530} (2002) 218 [arXiv:hep-th/0112046].

1914: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112046;%%

1915: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1916: %``SO(10) and SU(6) unified theories on an elongated rectangle,''

1917: arXiv:hep-ph/0207079.

1918: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207079;%%

1919: 

1920: \bibitem{EDnu}

1921: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,

1922: %``Light neutrinos without heavy mass scales: A higher-dimensional seesaw  mechanism,''

1923: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557} (1999) 25 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811428];

1924: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811428;%%

1925: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~R.~Dvali and J.~March-Russell,

1926: %``Neutrino masses from large extra dimensions,''

1927: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 024032 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811448];

1928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811448;%%

1929: G.~R.~Dvali and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1930: %``Probing large extra dimensions with neutrinos,''

1931: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 563} (1999) 63 [arXiv:hep-ph/9904211].

1932: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904211;%%

1933: 

1934: \bibitem{Larry}

1935: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1936: %``Gauge unification in higher dimensions,''

1937: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 055003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103125];

1938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%

1939: \bibitem{halln}

1940: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1941: %``A complete theory of grand unification in five dimensions,''

1942: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 075004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205067];

1943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205067;%%

1944: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1945: %``Grand unification in higher dimensions,''

1946: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 306} (2003) 132 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212134].

1947: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212134;%%

1948: L.~Hall, J.~March-Russell, T.~Okui and D.~R.~Smith,

1949: %``Towards a theory of flavor from orbifold GUTs,''

1950: arXiv:hep-ph/0108161.

1951: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108161;%%

1952: 

1953: \bibitem{ark2}

1954: E.~A.~Mirabelli and M.~Schmaltz,

1955: %``Yukawa hierarchies from split fermions in extra dimensions,''

1956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 113011 [arXiv:hep-ph/9912265];

1957: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912265;%%

1958: G.~R.~Dvali and M.~A.~Shifman,

1959: %``Families as neighbors in extra dimension,''

1960: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475} (2000) 295 [arXiv:hep-ph/0001072];

1961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001072;%%

1962: D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~Tait,

1963: %``Supersymmetry breaking, fermion masses and a small extra dimension,''

1964: JHEP {\bf 0006} (2000) 020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004200];

1965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004200;%%

1966: S.~J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi,

1967: %``Fermion masses, mixings and proton decay in a Randall-Sundrum model,''

1968: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498} (2001) 256 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010195];

1969: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010195;%%

1970: G.~C.~Branco, A.~de Gouvea and M.~N.~Rebelo,

1971: %``Split fermions in extra dimensions and CP violation,''

1972: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506} (2001) 115 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012289];

1973: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012289;%%

1974: T.~G.~Rizzo,

1975: %``Cartography with accelerators: Locating fermions in extra dimensions at  future lepton colliders,''

1976: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 015003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101278];

1977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101278;%%

1978: S.~Nussinov and R.~Shrock,

1979: %``Effects of gauge interactions on fermion masses in models with fermion  wavefunctions separated in higher dimensions,''

1980: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 526} (2002) 137 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101340];

1981: G.~Barenboim, G.~C.~Branco, A.~de Gouvea and M.~N.~Rebelo,

1982: %``Neutrino masses and lepton flavor violation in thick brane scenarios,''

1983: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 073005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104312];

1984: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104312;%%

1985: A.~Neronov,

1986: %``Fermion masses and quantum numbers from extra dimensions,''

1987: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 044004 [arXiv:gr-qc/0106092];

1988: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0106092;%%

1989: D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~Tait,

1990: %``New tools for fermion masses from extra dimensions,''

1991: JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 051 [arXiv:hep-ph/0110126];

1992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110126;%%

1993: F.~Del Aguila and J.~Santiago,

1994: %``Signals from extra dimensions decoupled from the compactification  scale,''

1995: JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 010 [arXiv:hep-ph/0111047];

1996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111047;%%

1997: N.~Haba and N.~Maru,

1998: %``(S)fermion masses in fat brane scenario,''

1999: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 055005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204069];

2000: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204069;%%

2001: J.~Maalampi, V.~Sipilainen and I.~Vilja,

2002: %``A scheme with two large extra dimensions confronted with neutrino  physics,''

2003: arXiv:hep-ph/0208211;

2004: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208211;%%

2005: Y.~Grossman and G.~Perez,

2006: %``Realistic construction of split fermion models,''

2007: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 015011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210053];

2008: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210053;%%

2009: S.~J.~Huber,

2010: %``Flavor physics and warped extra dimensions,''

2011: arXiv:hep-ph/0211056 and

2012: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211056;%%

2013: %S.~J.~Huber,

2014: %``Flavor violation and warped geometry,''

2015: arXiv:hep-ph/0303183.

2016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303183;%%

2017: 

2018: \bibitem{NDA}

2019: S.~Weinberg,

2020: %``Phenomenological Lagrangians,''

2021: Physica A {\bf 96} (1979) 327;

2022: %%CITATION = PHYSA,A96,327;%%

2023: A.~Manohar and H.~Georgi,

2024: %``Chiral Quarks And The Nonrelativistic Quark Model,''

2025: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 234} (1984) 189;

2026: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B234,189;%%

2027: Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,

2028: %``Massive higher-dimensional gauge fields as messengers of supersymmetry

2029: %breaking,''

2030: JHEP {\bf 0007} (2000) 036 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909248].

2031: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909248;%%

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{Rattazzi}

2034: R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol, R.~Rattazzi and A.~Strumia,

2035: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP1 and LEP2,''

2036: arXiv:hep-ph/0405040.

2037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405040;%%

2038: 

2039: \bibitem{Peskin}

2040: M.~E.~Peskin,

2041: %``Critical Point Behavior Of The Wilson Loop,''

2042: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 94} (1980) 161.

2043: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,161;%%

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Gies}

2046: H.~Gies,

2047: %``Renormalizability of gauge theories in extra dimensions,''

2048: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 085015 [arXiv:hep-th/0305208].

2049: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305208;%%

2050: 

2051: \bibitem{Creutz}

2052: M.~Creutz,

2053: %``Confinement And The Critical Dimensionality Of Space-Time,''

2054: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 43} (1979) 553 [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 43}

2055: (1979) 890].

2056: %%CITATION = PRLTA,43,553;%%

2057: 

2058: \bibitem{Kawai}

2059: H.~Kawai, M.~Nio and Y.~Okamoto,

2060: %``On existence of nonrenormalizable field theory: Pure SU(2) lattice gauge

2061: %theory in five-dimensions,''

2062: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 88} (1992) 341.

2063: %%CITATION = PTPKA,88,341;%%

2064: 

2065: \bibitem{Nishimura}

2066: J.~Nishimura,

2067: %``On existence of nontrivial fixed points in large N gauge theory in more  than

2068: %four dimensions,''

2069: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 11} (1996) 3049

2070: [arXiv:hep-lat/9608119].

2071: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9608119;%%

2072: 

2073: \bibitem{Ejiri}

2074: S.~Ejiri, J.~Kubo and M.~Murata,

2075: %``A study on the nonperturbative existence of Yang-Mills theories with  large

2076: %extra dimensions,''

2077: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 105025 [arXiv:hep-ph/0006217];

2078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006217;%%

2079: S.~Ejiri, S.~Fujimoto and J.~Kubo,

2080: %``Scaling laws and effective dimension in lattice SU(2) Yang-Mills theory  with

2081: %a compactified extra dimension,''

2082: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 036002 [arXiv:hep-lat/0204022].

2083: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0204022;%%

2084: 

2085: \bibitem{Hashimoto}

2086: M.~Hashimoto, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,

2087: %``Top mode standard model with extra dimensions,''

2088: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 056003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010260];

2089: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010260;%%

2090: V.~Gusynin, M.~Hashimoto, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,

2091: %``Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in gauge theories with extra

2092: %dimensions,''

2093: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 116008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201106];

2094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201106;%%

2095: V.~P.~Gusynin, M.~Hashimoto, M.~Tanabashi and K.~Yamawaki,

2096: %``Gauged Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with extra dimensions,''

2097: arXiv:hep-ph/0406194.

2098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406194;%%

2099: 

2100: \bibitem{Dimi}

2101: D.~I.~Kazakov,

2102: %``Ultraviolet fixed points in gauge and SUSY field theories in extra

2103: %dimensions,''

2104: JHEP {\bf 0303} (2003) 020 [arXiv:hep-th/0209100].

2105: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209100;%%

2106: 

2107: 

2108: \bibitem{Farakos}

2109: K.~Farakos, P.~de Forcrand, C.~P.~Korthals Altes, M.~Laine and

2110: M.~Vettorazzo,

2111: %``Finite temperature Z(N) phase transition with Kaluza-Klein gauge  fields,''

2112: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 655} (2003) 170 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207343].

2113: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207343;%%

2114: 

2115: \bibitem{Seiberg}

2116: %\cite{Seiberg:1996bd}

2117: N.~Seiberg,

2118: %``Five dimensional SUSY field theories, non-trivial fixed points and  string

2119: %dynamics,''

2120: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388} (1996) 753 [arXiv:hep-th/9608111],

2121: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9608111;%%

2122: %``Non-trivial fixed points of the renormalization group in six  dimensions,''

2123: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 390} (1997) 169 [arXiv:hep-th/9609161];

2124: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9609161;%%

2125: K.~A.~Intriligator, D.~R.~Morrison and N.~Seiberg,

2126: %``Five-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories and degenerations of

2127: %Calabi-Yau spaces,''

2128: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 497} (1997) 56 [arXiv:hep-th/9702198];

2129: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9702198;%%

2130: 

2131: \bibitem{Dienes}

2132: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,

2133: %``GUT precursors and non-trivial fixed points in higher-dimensional gauge

2134: %theories,''

2135: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 061601

2136: [arXiv:hep-th/0210294];

2137: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210294;%%

2138: F.~Paccetti Correia, M.~G.~Schmidt and Z.~Tavartkiladze,

2139: %``Precursors from S(1)/Z(2) x Z(2)' orbifold GUTs,''

2140: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 566} (2003) 226 [Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 567}

2141: (2003) 93] [arXiv:hep-ph/0302038].

2142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302038;%%

2143: 

2144: 

2145: 

2146: \bibitem{Hosotani}

2147: Y.~Hosotani,

2148: %``Dynamical Mass Generation By Compact Extra Dimensions,''

2149: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 126} (1983) 309,

2150: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B126,309;%%

2151: %``Dynamical Gauge Symmetry Breaking As The Casimir Effect,''

2152: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 129} (1983) 193,

2153: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B129,193;%%

2154: %``Dynamics Of Nonintegrable Phases And Gauge Symmetry Breaking,''

2155: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 190} (1989) 233,

2156: %%CITATION = APNYA,190,233;%%

2157: %``Dynamical gauge-Higgs unification,''

2158: arXiv:hep-ph/0408012.

2159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408012;%%

2160: 

2161: \bibitem{Kubo:2001zc}

2162: M.~Kubo, C.~S.~Lim and H.~Yamashita,

2163: %``The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge theories with an orbifold extra  space

2164: %S(1)/Z(2),''

2165: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17} (2002) 2249 [arXiv:hep-ph/0111327].

2166: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111327;%%

2167: 

2168: \bibitem{Haba:2002py}

2169: N.~Haba, M.~Harada, Y.~Hosotani and Y.~Kawamura,

2170: %``Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S(1)/Z(2),''

2171: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 657} (2003) 169 [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 669}

2172: (2003) 381] [arXiv:hep-ph/0212035].

2173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212035;%%

2174: 

2175: 

2176: \bibitem{upto3}

2177: D.~J.~Gross and F.~Wilczek,

2178: %``Ultraviolet Behavior Of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,''

2179: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 30} (1973) 1343;

2180: %%CITATION = PRLTA,30,1343;%%

2181: H.~D.~Politzer,

2182: %``Reliable Perturbative Results For Strong Interactions?,''

2183: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 30} (1973) 1346;

2184: %%CITATION = PRLTA,30,1346;%%

2185: G. 't Hooft, report at the Marseille Conference on Yang-Mills

2186: Fields, 1972; W.~E.~Caswell,

2187: %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Nonabelian Gauge Theories To Two Loop Order,''

2188: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 33} (1974) 244;

2189: %%CITATION = PRLTA,33,244;%%

2190: D.~R.~T.~Jones,

2191: %``Two Loop Diagrams In Yang-Mills Theory,''

2192: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 75} (1974) 531;

2193: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B75,531;%%

2194: E.~Egorian and O.~V.~Tarasov,

2195: %``Two Loop Renormalization Of The QCD In An Arbitrary Gauge,''

2196: Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 41} (1979) 863 [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\

2197: {\bf 41} (1979) 26];

2198: %%CITATION = TMPHA,41,863;%%

2199: O.~V.~Tarasov, A.~A.~Vladimirov and A.~Y.~Zharkov,

2200: %``The Gell-Mann-Low Function Of QCD In The Three Loop Approximation,''

2201: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 93} (1980) 429;

2202: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B93,429;%%

2203: S.~A.~Larin and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren,

2204: %``The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions,''

2205: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 303} (1993) 334 [arXiv:hep-ph/9302208].

2206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302208;%%

2207: 

2208: 

2209: 

2210: 

2211: \bibitem{Vermaseren}

2212: T.~van Ritbergen, J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren and S.~A.~Larin,

2213: %``The four-loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,''

2214: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 400} (1997) 379 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701390].

2215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701390;%%

2216: 

2217: \bibitem{Wil} K.~G.~Wilson, \prd{10}{1974}{2445};

2218: F.J. Wegner and A. Houghton, \pra{8}{1973}{401}; K.~G.~Wilson in

2219: {\em New Phenomena in Subnuclear Physics} (Erice '75), ed. A.

2220: Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1977); K.~G.~Wilson in {\em

2221: Recent Developments in Gauge Theories} (Cargese '79), ed. G. 't

2222: Hooft (Plenum Press, New York, 1980).

2223: 

2224: 

2225: \bibitem{ZJ}

2226: J.~Zinn-Justin, ``Quantum field theory and critical phenomena,''

2227: Int.\ Ser.\ Monogr.\ Phys.\  {\bf 113} (2002) 1.

2228: %%CITATION = IMPHA,113,1;%%

2229: 

2230: \bibitem{Wegner} F.~Wegner, Z. Phys. {\bf B78} (1990) 36;

2231: G.~E.~Castilla and S.~Chakravarty,

2232: %``Is the phase transition in the Heisenberg model described by the  (2+epsilon)

2233: %expansion of the non-linear sigma-model?,''

2234: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 485} (1997) 613 [arXiv:cond-mat/9605088].

2235: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 9605088;%%

2236: 

2237: \bibitem{Brezin}

2238: E.~Brezin and S.~Hikami,

2239: %``Fancy and facts in the (d-2) expansion of non-linear sigma models,''

2240: arXiv:cond-mat/9612016.

2241: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 9612016;%%

2242: 

2243: \bibitem{Dyson}

2244: See \eg F.~J.~Dyson,

2245: %``Divergence Of Perturbation Theory In Quantum Electrodynamics,''

2246: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 85} (1952) 631.

2247: %%CITATION = PHRVA,85,631;%%

2248: 

2249: 

2250: \bibitem{ColemanGross}

2251: S.~Coleman and D.~J.~Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 31} (1973) 851.

2252: 

2253: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed}

2254: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

2255: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

2256: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429} (1998) 263 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315];

2257: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

2258: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

2259: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''

2260: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436} (1998) 257 [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].

2261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%

2262: 

2263: 

2264: \bibitem{Bhiggs} Rattazzi private comments.

2265: 

2266: \bibitem{Georgi}

2267: H.~Georgi, A.~K.~Grant and G.~Hailu,

2268: %``Brane couplings from bulk loops,''

2269: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506} (2001) 207 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012379];

2270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012379;%%

2271: M.~Carena, T.~M.~P.~Tait and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

2272: %``Branes and orbifolds are opaque,''

2273: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33} (2002) 2355 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207056];

2274: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207056;%%

2275: F.~del Aguila, M.~Perez-Victoria and J.~Santiago,

2276: %``Some consequences of brane kinetic terms for bulk fermions,''

2277: arXiv:hep-ph/0305119.

2278: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305119;%%

2279: 

2280: \bibitem{Abbott}

2281: L.~F.~Abbott,

2282: %``The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop,''

2283: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 185} (1981) 189.

2284: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B185,189;%%

2285: 

2286: 

2287: 

2288: \bibitem{0005016}

2289: G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and M.~Porrati,

2290: %``4D gravity on a brane in 5D Minkowski space,''

2291: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 485} (2000) 208 [arXiv:hep-th/0005016].

2292: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005016;%%

2293: 

2294: \bibitem{0303116}

2295: M.~A.~Luty, M.~Porrati and R.~Rattazzi,

2296: %``Strong interactions and stability in the DGP model,''

2297: JHEP {\bf 0309} (2003) 029 [arXiv:hep-th/0303116].

2298: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303116;%%

2299: 

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{13}

2302: J.~Scherk, J.~H.~Schwarz,

2303: %``Spontaneous Breaking Of Supersymmetry Through Dimensional Reduction,''

2304: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 82} (1979) 60;

2305: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B82,60;%%

2306: %``How To Get Masses From Extra Dimensions,''

2307: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153} (1979) 61.

2308: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,61;%%

2309: 

2310: \bibitem{SU3}

2311: I.~Antoniadis and K.~Benakli,

2312: %``Limits on extra dimensions in orbifold compactifications of superstrings,''

2313: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 326} (1994) 69 [arXiv:hep-th/9310151].

2314: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9310151;%%

2315: 

2316: \bibitem{18}

2317: A.~Delgado, A.~Pomarol, M.~Quiros,

2318: %``Electroweak and flavour physics in extensions of the standard model

2319: %with  large extra dimensions,''

2320: JHEP {\bf 0001} (2000) 030 [hep-ph/9911252].

2321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911252;%%

2322: 

2323: \bibitem{Hagiwara}

2324: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

2325: %``Review of particle physics,''

2326: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

2327: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

2328: 

2329: \bibitem{tgbs}

2330: G.~Gounaris {\it et al.},

2331: %``Triple Gauge Boson Couplings,''

2332: arXiv:hep-ph/9601233.

2333: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601233;%%

2334: 

2335: \bibitem{ibanez}

2336: See \eg L.~E.~Ibanez,

2337: %``Hierarchy Of Quark - Lepton Masses In Orbifold Superstring

2338: %Compactification,''

2339: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 181} (1986) 269.

2340: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B181,269;%%

2341: 

2342: \bibitem{anomaly}

2343: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, H.~Georgi,

2344: %``Anomalies on orbifolds,''

2345: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516} (2001) 395 [hep-th/0103135];

2346: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103135;%%

2347: C.~A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone, L.~Silvestrini, F.~Zwirner,

2348: %``Anomalies in orbifold field theories,''

2349: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525} (2002) 169 [hep-th/0110073];

2350: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110073;%%

2351: R.~Barbieri, R.~Contino, P.~Creminelli, R.~Rattazzi,

2352: C.~A.~Scrucca,

2353: %``Anomalies, Fayet-Iliopoulos terms and the consistency of orbifold field  theories,''

2354: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 024025 [hep-th/0203039];

2355: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203039;%%

2356: L.~Pilo, A.~Riotto,

2357: %``On anomalies in orbifold theories,''

2358: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546} (2002) 135 [hep-th/0202144];

2359: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202144;%%

2360: H.~D.~Kim, J.~E.~Kim, H.~M.~Lee,

2361: %``TeV scale 5D SU(3)W unification and the fixed point anomaly  cancellation with

2362: %chiral split multiplets,''

2363: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 048 [hep-th/0204132].

2364: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204132;%%

2365: 

2366: \bibitem{0401183}

2367: N.~Haba, Y.~Hosotani, Y.~Kawamura and T.~Yamashita,

2368: %``Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge-Higgs unification on orbifold,''

2369: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 015010 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401183].

2370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401183;%%

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{0401185}

2373: N.~Haba and T.~Yamashita,

2374: %``The general formula of the effective potential in 5D SU(N) gauge theory on

2375: %orbifold,''

2376: JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 059 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401185].

2377: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401185;%%

2378: 

2379: 

2380: 

2381: 

2382: 

2383: \end{thebibliography}

2384: \end{document}

2385: