1: \documentclass[superscriptaddress,prl,twocolumn,nofootinbib,showpacs,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Gauge Coupling Unification in the Standard Model}
8:
9: \author{V. Barger}
10: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin,
11: Madison, WI 53706, USA}
12:
13: \author{Jing Jiang}
14: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon,
15: Eugene, OR 97403, USA}
16:
17: \author{Paul Langacker}
18: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
19: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396, USA}
20:
21:
22: \author{Tianjun Li}
23: \affiliation{School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study,
24: Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}
25:
26: %\date{\today}
27:
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31:
32: The string landscape suggests that the supersymmetry breaking scale
33: can be high, and then the simplest low energy effective theory is
34: the Standard Model (SM).
35: We show that gauge coupling unification can be
36: achieved at about $10^{16-17}$ GeV in the SM
37: with suitable normalizations of the $U(1)_Y$.
38: Assuming grand unification scale supersymmetry breaking,
39: we predict that the Higgs mass range is
40: 127 GeV to 165 GeV, with the precise value strongly correlated with
41: the top quark mass and $SU(3)_C$ gauge coupling. We also present 7-dimensional
42: orbifold grand unified theories in which such normalizations for the
43: $U(1)_Y$ and charge quantization can be realized.
44:
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \pacs{11.25.Mj, 12.10.Kt, 12.10.-g}
48:
49: \preprint{MADPH-05-1421, OITS-764, UPR-1112-T, hep-ph/0503226}
50:
51: \maketitle
52:
53: {\bf Introduction --}
54: There exists an enormous ``landscape'' for long-lived
55: metastable string/M theory vacua~\cite{String}. Applying
56: the ``weak anthropic principle''~\cite{Weinberg}, the
57: landscape proposal may
58: be the first concrete explanation of the very tiny value of the cosmological
59: constant, which can take only discrete values, and it may address the gauge
60: hierarchy problem. Notably, the supersymmetry breaking scale
61: can be high if there exist many supersymmetry breaking parameters or many hidden
62: sectors~\cite{HSUSY,NASD}. Although there is no definite conclusion that
63: the string landscape predicts high-scale or TeV-scale supersymmetry
64: breaking~\cite{HSUSY},
65: it is interesting to consider models with high-scale supersymmetry
66: breaking~\cite{NASD,Barger:2004sf}.
67:
68: If the supersymmetry breaking scale is around the grand unification
69: scale or the string scale, the minimal model at low energy
70: is the Standard Model (SM). The SM explains the existing experimental data very well,
71: including electroweak
72: precision tests, and it is easy to incorporate aspects of
73: physics beyond the SM through small
74: variations~\cite{NASD,Barger:2004sf,Davoudiasl:2004be}.
75: However, even if the gauge hierarchy problem can be solved by the string
76: landscape proposal, there are still some limitations of the SM,
77: for example, the lack of explanation of gauge coupling unification and charge
78: quantization.
79:
80: Charge quantization can be easily explained by
81: embedding the SM into a grand unified theory (GUT).
82: Should the Higgs particle be the only
83: new physics observed at the Large Hadron
84: Collider (LHC) and the SM is thus confirmed as a low energy effective theory,
85: an important
86: question will be: {\it can we achieve gauge coupling
87: unification in the SM without introducing any extra multiplets
88: between the weak and GUT scales \cite{Frampton:1983sh}
89: or having large threshold corrections \cite{Calmet:2004ck}?}
90: As is well known,
91: gauge coupling unification cannot be achieved in the SM if we
92: choose the canonical normalization for the $U(1)_Y$ hypercharge
93: interaction, {\it i.e.}, the Georgi-Glashow $SU(5)$
94: normalization \cite{Langacker:1991an}.
95: Also, to avoid proton decay induced by
96: dimension-6 operators via heavy gauge boson exchanges,
97: the gauge coupling unification scale is constrained to
98: be higher than about $5\times 10^{15}$ GeV.
99:
100: In this Letter we reconsider gauge coupling unification in the SM.
101: The gauge couplings for $SU(3)_C$ and $SU(2)_L$ are unified at
102: about $10^{16-17}$ GeV, and the gauge coupling for the $U(1)_Y$
103: at that scale depends on its normalization.
104: If we choose a suitable normalization
105: of the $U(1)_Y$, the gauge couplings for the $SU(3)_C$, $SU(2)_L$
106: and $U(1)_Y$ can in fact be unified at about $10^{16-17}$ GeV,
107: and there is no proton decay problem via dimension-6 operators.
108: Therefore, the real question is:
109: {\it is the canonical normalization for $U(1)_Y$ unique?}
110:
111: For a 4-dimensional (4D) GUT with a simple group,
112: the canonical normalization is the only possibility, assuming that
113: the SM fermions form complete multiplets
114: under the GUT group. However, the $U(1)_Y$
115: normalization need not be canonical in string model
116: building \cite{Dienes:1996du,Blumenhagen:2005mu},
117: orbifold GUTs \cite{Orbifold,Li:2001tx}
118: and their deconstruction \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}, and in 4D GUTs
119: with product gauge groups:
120:
121: (1) In weakly coupled heterotic string theory, the gauge and
122: gravitational couplings unify at tree
123: level to form one dimensionless string coupling
124: constant $g_{\rm string}$ \cite{Dienes:1996du}
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: k_Y g_Y^2 = k_2 g_2^2 = k_3 g_3^2 = 8 \pi {{G_N}\over {\alpha'}}
127: = g_{\rm string}^2 ~,
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: where $g_Y$, $g_2$, and $g_3$ are the gauge couplings for
130: the $U(1)_Y$, $SU(2)_L$, and $SU(3)_C$, respectively,
131: $G_N$ is the gravitational coupling
132: and $\alpha'$ is the string tension.
133: Here, $k_Y$, $k_2$ and $k_3$ are the levels of the corresponding
134: Kac-Moody algebras; $k_2$ and $k_3$ are positive integers while
135: $k_Y$ is a rational number in general \cite{Dienes:1996du}.
136:
137: (2) In intersecting D-brane model building on Type II orientifolds,
138: the normalization for the $U(1)_Y$ (and other gauge factors)
139: is not canonical in general \cite{Blumenhagen:2005mu}.
140:
141: (3) In orbifold GUTs \cite{Orbifold}, the SM fermions need not form
142: complete multiplets under the GUT group, so the $U(1)_Y$
143: normalization need not be canonical \cite{Li:2001tx}.
144: This statement is also valid for the deconstruction of the
145: orbifold GUTs \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca} and for
146: 4D GUTs with product gauge groups.
147:
148: We shall assume that at the GUT or string
149: scale, the gauge couplings in the SM satisfy
150: \begin{eqnarray}
151: g_1 = g_2= g_3 ~,
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: where $g_1^2 \equiv k_Y g_Y^2$, and $k_Y=5/3$ for
154: canonical normalization.
155: We show that gauge coupling unification in the SM can be
156: achieved at about $10^{16-17}$ GeV for $k_Y=4/3$, 5/4, 32/25.
157: Especially for $k_Y=4/3$, gauge coupling unification in the SM
158: is well satisfied at two loop order. Assuming GUT scale supersymmetry
159: breaking, we predict that the Higgs mass is in the range 127 GeV to 165 GeV.
160: In addition, we construct 7-dimensional (7D) orbifold
161: GUTs in which such normalizations for the
162: $U(1)_Y$ and charge quantization can be realized.
163: A more detailed discussion will be presented elsewhere \cite{BJLL}.
164:
165: {\bf Gauge Coupling Unification --}
166: We define $\alpha_i=g_i^2/(4\pi)$ and denote the $Z$ boson
167: mass by $M_Z$.
168: In the following, we choose a top quark pole mass
169: $m_t = 178.0\pm 4.3 $ GeV~\cite{Azzi:2004rc},
170: $\alpha_3(M_Z) = 0.1182 \pm 0.0027$~\cite{Bethke:2004uy}, and the
171: other gauge couplings, Yukawa couplings and the Higgs vacuum expectation
172: value at $M_Z$ from Ref.~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
173:
174: We first examine the one-loop running of the gauge couplings.
175: The one-loop renormalization group equations (RGEs) in the SM are
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: (4\pi)^2\frac{d}{dt}~ g_i &=& b_i g_i^3~,~\,
178: \label{SMgauge}
179: \end{eqnarray}
180: where $t=\ln \mu$, $ \mu$ is the renormalization scale, and
181: \begin{eqnarray}
182: b\equiv (b_1, b_2, b_3)=\left(\frac{41}{6 k_Y},-\frac{19}{6},-7\right)~.~\,
183: \label{SMbi}
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: We consider the SM with $k_Y=4/3$, 5/4, 32/25 and 5/3. In addition, we consider
186: the extension of the SM with two Higgs doublets (2HD) with $b=(7/k_Y, -3, -7)$
187: and $k_Y=4/3$, and the Minimal Supersymmetric
188: Standard Model (MSSM) with $b=(11/k_Y, 1, -3)$ and $k_Y=5/3$.
189: For the MSSM, we assume the supersymmetry breaking scale 300 GeV
190: for scenario I (MSSM I), and the effective
191: supersymmetry breaking scale 50 GeV to include the threshold corrections
192: due to the mass differences between the squarks and sleptons for
193: scenario II (MSSM II) \cite{Langacker:1992rq}.
194: We use $M_{U}$ to denote the unification scale where $\alpha_2$
195: and $\alpha_3$ intersect in the RGE evolutions. There is a sizable
196: error associated with the $\alpha_3(M_Z)$ measurement. To take into account this
197: uncertainty, we also consider $\alpha_3 - \delta \alpha_3$ and $\alpha_3 +
198: \delta \alpha_3$ as the initial values for the RGE evolutions, whose corresponding
199: unification scales are called $M_{U-}$ and $M_{U+}$, respectively.
200: The simple relative
201: differences for the gauge couplings at the unification scale
202: are defined as $\Delta = |\alpha_1(M_{U}) - \alpha_2(M_{U})|/\alpha_2(M_{U})$,
203: and $\Delta_{\pm} = |\alpha_1(M_{U\pm}) - \alpha_2(M_{U\pm})|/\alpha_2(M_{U\pm})$.
204:
205: In Table~\ref{tbl:a3} we compare the convergences of the gauge couplings in above
206: scenarios. We confirm that the SM with canonical normalization $k_Y=5/3$
207: is far from a good unification. Introducing supersymmetry
208: significantly improves the convergence.
209: Meanwhile, the same level of convergences can be achieved
210: in all the non-supersymmetric models.
211: In particular, the SM with $k_Y=32/25$ and the 2HD SM with $k_Y=4/3$
212: have very good gauge coupling unification.
213:
214: \begin{table}[htb]
215: \begin{center}
216: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|ccc|}
217: \hline
218: Model &$k_Y$ & $M_{U-}$ & $M_{U}$ & $M_{U+}$ & $\Delta_-$ & $\Delta$ & $\Delta_+$ \\
219: \hline
220: SM & 4/3 & 1.9 & 1.4 & 1.0 & 4.3 & 3.5 & 2.6 \\
221: SM & 5/4 & & & & 2.1 & 3.0 & 3.9 \\
222: SM & 32/25 & & & & 0.32 & 0.60 & 1.5 \\
223: SM & 5/3 & & & & 23.4 & 22.8 & 22.1 \\
224: 2HD SM & 4/3 & 0.45 & 0.33 & 0.24 & 0.25 & 1.1 & 2.0 \\
225: MSSM I & 5/3 & 0.47 & 0.35 & 0.26 & 3.4 & 2.3 & 1.2 \\
226: MSSM II & 5/3 & 0.44 & 0.32 & 0.24 & 1.3 & 0.17 & 1.0 \\
227: \hline
228: \end{tabular}
229: \end{center}
230: \caption{Convergences of the gauge couplings at one loop.
231: The $M_{U}$ scales are in
232: units of $10^{17}$ GeV, and the relative difference $\Delta$'s are
233: percentile. }
234: \label{tbl:a3}
235: \end{table}
236:
237: The two-loop running of the gauge couplings produces slightly different
238: results. We perform the two-loop running for the
239: SM with $k_Y=4/3$, as it has an excellent unification.
240: We use the two-loop RGE running for the gauge
241: couplings and one-loop for the Yukawa couplings \cite{mac}.
242: With the central value of $\alpha_3$, we show the gauge coupling
243: unification in Fig.~\ref{fig:2loop4o3}.
244: At the unification scale of $4.3 \times 10^{16}$
245: GeV, the value of $\alpha_1$ precisely agrees with those of $\alpha_2$
246: and $\alpha_3$.
247:
248: \begin{figure}[htb]
249: \centering
250: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{two4o3.ps}
251: \caption{Two-loop gauge coupling unification for the SM with $k_Y=4/3$.}
252: \label{fig:2loop4o3}
253: \end{figure}
254:
255: If the Higgs particle is the only new physics discovered at the LHC and the
256: SM is thus confirmed as a low energy effective theory,
257: the most interesting parameter is the Higgs mass.
258: To be consistent with string theory or quantum gravity, it is natural
259: to have supersymmetry in the fundamental theory.
260: In the supersymmetric models, there generically exist one pair
261: of the Higgs doublets $H_u$ and $H_d$. We define the SM Higgs
262: doublet $H$, which is fine-tuned to have a small mass term,
263: as $H \equiv -\cos\beta i \sigma_2 H_d^*+\sin\beta H_u$,
264: where $\sigma_2$ is the second
265: Pauli matrix and $\tan\beta $ is a mixing parameter~\cite{NASD,Barger:2004sf}.
266: For simplicity, we assume that supersymmetry is broken at the GUT scale,
267: {\it i.e.}, the gauginos,
268: squarks, sleptons, Higgsinos, and the other
269: combination of the scalar Higgs doublets
270: ($\sin\beta i \sigma_2 H_d^*+\cos\beta H_u $)
271: have a universal supersymmetry breaking soft mass around the GUT scale.
272: We can calculate the Higgs boson quartic coupling $\lambda$ at the GUT
273: scale \cite{NASD,Barger:2004sf}
274: \begin{equation}
275: \lambda({M_U}) = \frac{k_Y g_2^2(M_U) + g_1^2(M_U)}{4
276: k_Y} \cos^2 2\beta~,
277: \end{equation}
278: and then evolve it down to the weak scale.
279: Using the one-loop effective Higgs potential with top quark
280: radiative corrections, we calculate the Higgs boson mass by minimizing
281: the effective potential \cite{Barger:2004sf}. For the SM with $k_Y=4/3$, the
282: Higgs boson mass as a function of $\tan\beta$ for different $m_t$ and
283: $\alpha_3$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2loopm}. We see if we vary
284: $\alpha_3$ within its $1\sigma$ range, $m_t$ within its $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$
285: ranges and $\tan\beta$ from
286: $1.5$ to $50$, the predicted mass of the Higgs boson ranges from $127$
287: GeV to $165$ GeV. A large part of this uncertainty is due to the present
288: uncertainty in the top quark mass. The top quark mass can be measured
289: to about $1$ GeV accuracy at the LHC~\cite{Beneke:2000hk}.
290: Assuming this accuracy and the
291: central value of $178$ GeV, the Higgs boson mass is predicted to be
292: between $141$ GeV and $154$ GeV.
293: \begin{figure}[htb]
294: \centering
295: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{hm4o3.ps}
296: \caption{The predicted Higgs
297: mass for the SM with $k_Y=4/3$. The red (lower) curves are for
298: $\alpha_3 + \delta\alpha_3$, the blue (upper) $\alpha_3 - \delta\alpha_3$, and
299: the black $\alpha_3$. The dotted curves are for $m_t \pm \delta m_t$,
300: the dash ones for $m_t \pm 2 \delta m_t$, and the solid ones for $m_t$.}
301: \label{fig:2loopm}
302: \end{figure}
303:
304: Furthermore, for the SM with $k_Y=$ 5/4 and 32/25, the gauge coupling
305: unifications at two loop are quite similar to that of the SM with $k_Y=4/3$,
306: and the predicted Higgs mass ranges are almost the same \cite{BJLL}.
307:
308: {\bf Orbifold GUTs --}
309: In string model building, the orbifold GUTs and their deconstruction,
310: and 4D GUTs with product gauge groups,
311: the normalization for the $U(1)_Y$ need not be canonical. As an explicit example,
312: we show that $k_Y=4/3$ can be obtained in the 7D orbifold $SU(6)$ model on the
313: space-time $M^4\times T^2/Z_6 \times S^1/Z_2$ where
314: charge quantization can be realized simultaneously.
315: Here, $M^4$ is the 4D Minkowski space-time.
316: Similarly, $k_Y=5/4$ and $k_Y=32/25$ can be obtained in the 7D
317: orbifold $SU(7)$ models with charge quantization \cite{BJLL}.
318:
319: We consider the 7D space-time $M^4\times T^2 \times S^1$
320: with coordinates $x^{\mu}$, $z$ and $y$ where $z$ is the complex
321: coordinate for the torus $T^2$ and $y$ is the coordinate for the circle
322: $S^1$. The radii for $T^2$ and $S^1$ are $R$ and $R'$.
323: The $T^2/Z_6 \times S^1/Z_2$ orbifold is obtained from $T^2 \times S^1$
324: by moduloing the equivalent classes
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: \Gamma_T:~~z \sim \omega z~;~~~~~\Gamma_S:~~ y \sim -y~,~ \,
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: where $\omega =e^{{\rm i}\pi/3} $. $(z, y)=(0, 0) $ and $(0, \pi R')$ are
329: the fixed points under the $Z_6\times Z_2$ symmetry.
330:
331: ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry in 7 dimensions has 16 supercharges and
332: corresponds to ${\cal N}=4$ supersymmetry in 4 dimensions;
333: thus, only the gauge multiplet can be introduced in the bulk. This
334: multiplet can be decomposed under the 4D
335: ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry into a vector
336: multiplet $V$ and three chiral multiplets $\Sigma_1$, $\Sigma_2$, and
337: $\Sigma_3$ in the adjoint representation, where the fifth and sixth
338: components of the gauge
339: field ($A_5$ and $A_6$) are contained in the lowest component of $\Sigma_1$,
340: and the seventh component of the gauge
341: field ($A_7$) is contained in the lowest component of $\Sigma_2$.
342: The SM quarks, leptons and Higgs fields
343: can be localized on 3-branes at the $Z_6\times Z_2$ fixed points,
344: or on 4-branes at the $Z_6$ fixed points.
345:
346: Under the $Z_6\times Z_2$ discrete symmetry, the bulk vector multiplet
347: $V$ and the $\Sigma_i$ transform as \cite{BJLL}
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: \Phi(x^{\mu}, ~\omega z, ~\omega^{-1} {\bar z},~y) &=&
350: \eta_{\Phi}^T R_{\Gamma_T}
351: \Phi(x^{\mu}, ~z, ~{\bar z},~y) R_{\Gamma_T}^{-1},~~\\
352: \Phi(x^{\mu}, ~z, ~ {\bar z},~-y) &=& \eta_{\Phi}^S R_{\Gamma_S}
353: \Phi (x^{\mu}, ~z, ~{\bar z},~y) R_{\Gamma_S}^{-1},~~\,
354: \label{SVtrans}
355: \end{eqnarray}
356: where $\Phi$ can be $V$ or $\Sigma_i$, and
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: && \eta_{V}^T= \eta_{\Sigma_2}^T=1,~ \eta_{\Sigma_1}^T=\omega^{-1},~
359: \eta_{\Sigma_3}^T=\omega~,~\\ &&
360: \eta_{V}^S= \eta_{\Sigma_1}^S=1,~\eta_{\Sigma_2}^S=\eta_{\Sigma_3}^S=-1~.~\,
361: \label{Eta}
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: We also introduce non-trivial
364: $R_{\Gamma_T}$ and $R_{\Gamma_S}$ to break the bulk gauge group.
365:
366: Let us consider the $SU(6)$ model, which has $k_Y=4/3$.
367: We define the generator for the $U(1)_Y$ in $SU(6)$ as
368: \begin{eqnarray}
369: T_{U(1)_{Y}} &\equiv&
370: {\rm diag}\left( {1\over 3}, {1\over 3}, {1\over 3},
371: - {1\over 3}, - {1\over 3}, - {1\over 3} \right)~.~\,
372: \label{GU1Y}
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: Because ${\rm tr} [T_{U(1)_{Y}}^2]=2/3$, we obtain $k_Y=4/3$.
375:
376: To break the $SU(6)$ gauge symmetry, we choose
377: the following $6\times 6$ matrix representations for
378: $R_{\Gamma_T}$ and $R_{\Gamma_S}$
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: R_{\Gamma_T} &=& {\rm diag} \left(+1, +1, +1,
381: \omega^{2}, \omega^{2}, \omega^{5} \right)~,~ \\
382: R_{\Gamma_S} &=& {\rm diag} \left(+1, +1, +1, +1, +1, -1 \right)~.~\,
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: We obtain that, for the zero modes, the 7D
385: ${\cal N} = 1 $ supersymmetric $SU(6)$ gauge symmetry is broken
386: down to the 4D ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric
387: $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ \cite{BJLL}.
388: Also, we have only one zero mode from $\Sigma_i$ with
389: quantum number $\mathbf{(\bar 3, 1, -2/3)}$ under the SM gauge symmetry,
390: which can be considered as the right-handed top quark \cite{BJLL}.
391:
392: On the 3-brane at the $Z_6\times Z_2$ fixed point
393: $(z, y)= (0, 0)$, the preserved gauge symmetry
394: is $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ \cite{Li:2001tx}.
395: Thus, on the observable 3-brane at $(z, y)= (0, 0)$,
396: we can introduce one pair of Higgs doublets and
397: three families of SM quarks and leptons except
398: the right-handed top quark \cite{Li:2001tx}. Because the $U(1)_Y$ charge
399: for the right-handed top quark is determined from the construction,
400: charge quantization can be achieved from the anomaly free
401: conditions and the gauge invariance
402: of the Yukawa couplings on the observable 3-brane.
403: Moreover, the $U(1)'$ anomalies can be cancelled by
404: assigning suitable $U(1)'$ charges to the SM
405: quarks and leptons, and
406: the $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry can be broken at the GUT
407: scale by introducing
408: one pair of the SM singlets with $U(1)'$ charge $\pm1$
409: on the observable 3-brane.
410: Interestingly, this $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry may be considered
411: as a flavour symmetry, and then the fermion masses and
412: mixings may be explained naturally.
413: Furthermore, supersymmetry can be broken around the
414: compactification scale, which can be considered as the GUT scale,
415: for example, by Scherk--Schwarz mechanism \cite{Scherk:1978ta}.
416:
417: We briefly comment on the 7D orbifold $SU(7)$ models which
418: can have $k_Y=5/4$ and $k_Y=32/25$ \cite{BJLL}.
419: The discussion is similar to that for the above $SU(6)$ model.
420: The 7D ${\cal N} = 1 $ supersymmetric $SU(7)$ gauge symmetry is broken
421: down to the 4D ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric
422: $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'\times U(1)''$
423: by orbifold projections. There is only
424: one pair of zero modes from $\Sigma_i$ with
425: quantum numbers $\mathbf{(1, 2, +1/2)}$
426: and $\mathbf{(1, 2, -1/2)}$ under the SM gauge symmetry,
427: which can be considered as one pair of Higgs doublets.
428: Also, charge quantization can be realized \cite{BJLL}.
429:
430: {\bf Conclusions --}
431: The string landscape suggests that the supersymmetry breaking scale
432: can be high and then the simplest low energy effective theory is
433: just the SM.
434: We showed that gauge coupling unification in the SM
435: with $k_Y$=4/3, 5/4, and 32/25 can be
436: achieved at about $10^{16-17}$ GeV.
437: Assuming GUT scale supersymmetry breaking,
438: we predicted that the Higgs mass is
439: in the range 127 GeV to 165 GeV. We also presented the 7D
440: orbifold GUTs where such normalizations for the
441: $U(1)_Y$ and charge quantization can be realized.
442:
443:
444: {\bf Acknowledgments --}
445: This research was supported by the U.S.~Department of Energy
446: under Grants No.~DE-FG02-95ER40896, DE-FG02-96ER40969 and DOE-EY-76-02-3071,
447: by the National Science
448: Foundation under Grant No.~PHY-0070928, and by the University
449: of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin
450: Alumni Research Foundation.
451:
452:
453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
454:
455: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
456:
457:
458: \bibitem{String}
459: R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski,
460: %``Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the
461: %cosmological constant,''
462: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 006 (2000);
463: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004134;%%
464: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi,
465: %``De Sitter vacua in string theory,''
466: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 046005 (2003);
467: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301240;%%
468: L.~Susskind,
469: %``The anthropic landscape of string theory,''
470: arXiv:hep-th/0302219;
471: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302219;%%
472: F.~Denef and M.~R.~Douglas,
473: %``Distributions of flux vacua,''
474: arXiv:hep-th/0404116.
475: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404116;%%
476:
477:
478: \bibitem{Weinberg}
479: S.~Weinberg,
480: %``Anthropic Bound On The Cosmological Constant,''
481: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 59} (1987) 2607.
482: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,2607;%%
483:
484:
485: \bibitem{HSUSY}
486: A.~Giryavets, S.~Kachru and P.~K.~Tripathy,
487: %``On the taxonomy of flux vacua,''
488: JHEP {\bf 0408} (2004) 002;
489: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404243;%%
490: L.~Susskind,
491: %``Supersymmetry breaking in the anthropic landscape,''
492: arXiv:hep-th/0405189;
493: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405189;%%
494: M.~R.~Douglas,
495: %``Statistical analysis of the supersymmetry breaking scale,''
496: arXiv:hep-th/0405279; arXiv:hep-th/0409207;
497: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405279;%%
498: M.~Dine, E.~Gorbatov and S.~Thomas,
499: %``Low energy supersymmetry from the landscape,''
500: arXiv:hep-th/0407043.
501: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0407043;%%
502:
503:
504: \bibitem{NASD}
505: N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos,
506: %``Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures
507: %for fine-tuning at the LHC,''
508: arXiv:hep-th/0405159.
509: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%
510:
511:
512: %\cite{Barger:2004sf}
513: \bibitem{Barger:2004sf}
514: V.~Barger, C.~W.~Chiang, J.~Jiang and T.~Li,
515: %``Axion models with high-scale supersymmetry breaking,''
516: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 705}, 71 (2005).
517: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410252;%%
518:
519:
520: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2004be}
521: \bibitem{Davoudiasl:2004be}
522: H.~Davoudiasl, R.~Kitano, T.~Li and H.~Murayama,
523: %``The new minimal standard model,''
524: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609}, 117 (2005).
525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405097;%%
526:
527: %\cite{Frampton:1983sh}
528: \bibitem{Frampton:1983sh}
529: P.~H.~Frampton and S.~L.~Glashow,
530: %``Staying Alive With SU(5),''
531: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 131}, 340 (1983)
532: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 135}, 515 (1984)].
533: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B131,340;%%
534:
535: %\cite{Calmet:2004ck}
536: \bibitem{Calmet:2004ck}
537: X.~Calmet,
538: %``Minimal grand unification model in an anthropic landscape,''
539: arXiv:hep-ph/0406314.
540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406314;%%
541:
542:
543: %\cite{Langacker:1991an}
544: \bibitem{Langacker:1991an}
545: P.~Langacker and M.~X.~Luo,
546: %``Implications of precision electroweak experiments for M(t), rho(0),
547: %sin**2-Theta(W) and grand unification,''
548: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44}, 817 (1991);
549: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,817;%%
550: J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
551: %``Probing The Desert Using Gauge Coupling Unification,''
552: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260}, 131 (1991);
553: U.~Amaldi, W.~de Boer and H.~Furstenau,
554: %``Comparison of grand unified theories with electroweak and strong coupling
555: %constants measured at LEP,''
556: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260}, 447 (1991).
557:
558:
559: %\cite{Dienes:1996du}
560: \bibitem{Dienes:1996du}
561: K.~R.~Dienes,
562: %``String Theory and the Path to Unification: A Review of Recent
563: %Developments,''
564: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 287}, 447 (1997).
565: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602045;%%
566:
567:
568: %\cite{Blumenhagen:2005mu}
569: \bibitem{Blumenhagen:2005mu}
570: R.~Blumenhagen, M.~Cvetic, P.~Langacker and G.~Shiu,
571: %``Toward realistic intersecting D-brane models,''
572: arXiv:hep-th/0502005.
573: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502005;%%
574:
575:
576:
577: \bibitem{Orbifold}
578: Y.~Kawamura,
579: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 103}, 613 (2000);
580: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio,
581: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 257 (2001);
582: L. Hall and Y. Nomura, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 055003 (2001);
583: A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell,
584: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613}, 3 (2001);
585: T. Li, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520}, 377 (2001);
586: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619}, 75 (2001).
587:
588:
589: %\cite{Li:2001tx}
590: \bibitem{Li:2001tx}
591: T.~Li,
592: %``Gauge symmmetry and supersymmetry breaking by discrete symmetry,''
593: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 633}, 83 (2002).
594: % [arXiv:hep-th/0112255].
595: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112255;%%
596:
597:
598: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
599: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
600: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
601: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''
602: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001);
603: %[arXiv:hep-th/0104005].
604: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%
605: C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,
606: %``Gauge invariant effective Lagrangian for Kaluza-Klein modes,''
607: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 105005 (2001).
608: %[arXiv:hep-th/0104035].
609: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104035;%%
610:
611:
612: \bibitem{BJLL}
613: V.~Barger, J.~Jiang, P.~Langacker and T.~Li,
614: in preparation.
615:
616:
617: %\cite{Azzi:2004rc}
618: \bibitem{Azzi:2004rc}
619: P.~Azzi {\it et al.} [CDF and D0 Collaborations],
620: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''
621: arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.
622: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%
623:
624: %\cite{Bethke:2004uy}
625: \bibitem{Bethke:2004uy}
626: S.~Bethke,
627: %``alpha(s) at Zinnowitz 2004,''
628: arXiv:hep-ex/0407021.
629: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0407021;%%
630:
631:
632: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
633: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
634: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
635: %``Review of particle physics,''
636: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
637: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
638:
639:
640: %\cite{Langacker:1992rq}
641: \bibitem{Langacker:1992rq}
642: P.~Langacker and N.~Polonsky,
643: %``Uncertainties in coupling constant unification,''
644: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 4028 (1993);
645: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9210235].
646: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9210235;%%
647: %``The Strong coupling, unification, and recent data,''
648: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 3081 (1995);
649: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9503214].
650: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503214;%%
651: M.~Carena, S.~Pokorski and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
652: %``On the unification of couplings in the minimal supersymmetric Standard
653: %Model,''
654: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406}, 59 (1993).
655: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9303202].
656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303202;%%
657:
658:
659: \bibitem{mac}
660: M.~E.~Machacek and M.~T.~Vaughn,
661: %``Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations In A General Quantum Field Theory.
662: %1. Wave Function Renormalization,''
663: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 222}, 83 (1983);
664: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B222,83;%%
665: %``Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations In A General Quantum Field Theory.
666: %2. Yukawa Couplings,''
667: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 236}, 221 (1984);
668: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B236,221;%%
669: %``Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations In A General Quantum Field Theory.
670: %3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,''
671: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 249}, 70 (1985);
672: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B249,70;%%
673: V.~D.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger and P.~Ohmann,
674: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 1093 (1993);
675: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 4908 (1994).
676:
677: %\cite{Beneke:2000hk}
678: \bibitem{Beneke:2000hk}
679: M.~Beneke {\it et al.},
680: %``Top quark physics,''
681: arXiv:hep-ph/0003033.
682: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
683:
684: %\cite{Scherk:1978ta}
685: \bibitem{Scherk:1978ta}
686: J.~Scherk and J.~H.~Schwarz,
687: %``Spontaneous Breaking Of Supersymmetry Through Dimensional Reduction,''
688: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 82}, 60 (1979).
689: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B82,60;%%
690:
691:
692: \end{thebibliography}
693:
694:
695: \end{document}
696: