1: \section{The Cosmological Constant, Gauge Hierarchy, and the Structure Principle}\label{sec:structure}
2: In this section, we discuss some of the implications of the ``structure principle'' as defined in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv}. For our purposes,
3: this principle requires that large-scale structure develop in the universe as it cools. In the context of landscape scenarios, this principle is
4: justified by the weak anthropic argument that biological creatures will not develop in a universe that cannot support the development of stars
5: and other large-scale stable structure. We review how this principle was first applied by Weinberg to explain the smallness of the cosmological
6: constant and discuss an application suggested in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv} to a possible resolution to the gauge hierarchy problem in the
7: vector lepton model.
8:
9: \subsection{Predicting the cosmological constant.}\label{subsec:lambda}
10: Weinberg's argument predicting a cosmological constant that is very small if nonzero begins with the observation that gravitational collapse via
11: Jeans instabilities can occur only after the universe becomes matter dominated. Moreover, linear sub-horizon perturbations to the energy density
12: can only grow when the energy density in the form of a cosmological constant is smaller than the energy density of matter, so the universe must
13: be in this regime when non-linear structures such as galaxies start to form. After matter-radiation equality, initial perturbations
14: $\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho}$ scale as the acceleration parameter $a$, so non-linear structures begin to form after the universe has expanded by an
15: amount $(\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho})^{-1}$ after matter-radiation equality, and we require for structure formation $\Lambda\lesssim
16: \rho_{MR}(\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho})^{3}$, where $\rho_{MR}$ is the energy density at matter-radiation equality.
17:
18: As was pointed out in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv}, if the dark matter is dominated by cold relics a standard perturbative freeze-out calculation
19: gives
20: \begin{equation}
21: \rho_{MR}\approx \frac{1}{3g_{*}}\left(\frac{10^2}{M_{PL}\langle\sigma v\rangle}\right)^4 ,
22: \end{equation}
23: %
24: where $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ is the thermal average of the annihilation rate and $g_{*}$ is the number of effective
25: degrees of freedom. Weinberg's argument then bounds $\Lambda^{\frac{1}{4}}$ as,
26: \begin{equation}
27: \Lambda^{1/4}\lesssim \frac{(\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho})^{3/4}}{(3g_{*})^{1/4}}\frac{10^2}{M_{PL}\langle\sigma v\rangle}
28: .
29: \end{equation}
30: %
31: Without any additional reason for $\Lambda^{\frac{1}{4}}$ to be small, this bound should be roughly saturated, so it is a generic prediction of
32: the structure principle.
33:
34: For heavy (i.e. more massive than $M_Z$) weakly interacting CDM particles, the annihilation cross section $\sigma v\approx
35: \frac{\alpha^2}{m_{DM}^2}$. The above argument then implies
36: \begin{equation}
37: \Lambda^{1/4}\lesssim \frac{(\frac{\delta \rho}{\rho})^{3/4}}{\alpha^2}\frac{m_{DM}^2}{M_{PL}} ,
38: \end{equation}
39: %
40: as pointed out in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv}. Empirically, heavy WIMP scenarios lead to $\Omega h^2\approx .1(\frac{m_{DM}}{TeV})^{-2}$, thereby
41: implying that $m_{DM}$ is of order a TeV and that $\Lambda^{1/4}\sim \frac{v^2}{M_{PL}}$.
42:
43: Although weakly interacting TeV-scale dark matter seems to be empirically consistent, there is no \emph{a priori} reason why $m_{DM}$ is so much
44: smaller than $M_{PL}$ or so close to $v$. One simple possibility is that weak scale supersymmetry implies that $m_{DM}\approx v$ as would also
45: be the case for any other solution to the hierarchy problem that also contains a dark matter candidate. If we give up the assumption that the
46: solution to the gauge hierarchy problem also explains dark matter, a simpler possibility emerges: {\it If the dark matter particle gets mass
47: only via electroweak symmetry breaking, then $m_{DM}$ will naturally be close to $v$, and $\Lambda^{1/4}\sim \frac{v^2}{M_{PL}}$ is predicted!}
48:
49: \subsection{Generating the gauge hierarchy with the structure principle}
50: \label{subsec:gaugehierarchy} In addition to providing an explanation for the smallness of the cosmological constant, the structure principle
51: also suggests a possible explanation of the gauge hierarchy in any model with a Standard Model Higgs and a dark matter candidate that gets mass
52: only via electro-weak symmetry breaking, such as the vector lepton model discussed here. As we will show, electroweak symmetry breaking via a
53: negative $m_H^2$ much below $M_{PL}$ now becomes essential for structure formation. If the Higgs mass parameter $m_H^2$ can be scanned in a
54: landscape scenario and electroweak symmetry breaking can only happen in a very small window about its current value, then we will have found a
55: possible explanation for the hierarchy.
56:
57: To see how this might work, we consider a suggestion first made in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv}. In the SM with a large top Yukawa coupling to the
58: Higgs, the quartic coupling $\lambda$ has a negative UV fixed point $\lambda_{UV}\approx -y_t^2$ and an IR fixed point $\lambda_{IR}\approx
59: +y_t^2$. If the Higgs is sufficiently light (i.e. $\lambda$ is small), then for energies beyond some threshold $M_{cross}$, $\lambda$ will be
60: driven negative by RG running and the vacuum becomes meta-stable. If $|\lambda(\mu)|$ does not become too large in the UV, the vacuum in the
61: early universe has only a very small amplitude to decay as the universe cools, and the theory is safe from cosmological disaster. Turning this
62: picture around, suppose $\lambda(M_{*})$ starts negative at the cutoff scale, say $\lambda(M_{*})\approx \lambda_{UV}$. As the universe cools
63: $\lambda(\mu)$ crosses zero at a scale $M_{cross}$ exponentially suppressed with respect to the cutoff. Moreover, the low energy universe looks
64: very different depending on $m_H^2$.
65:
66: Case I ($m_H^2\geq 0$): The higgs vacuum centered around zero is exactly stable and electro-weak symmetry is broken only by the QCD quark
67: condensate. Because $M_W\approx \alpha_2\Lambda_{QCD}$, sphaleron transitions operate all the way down to $\Lambda_{QCD}$, biasing zero baryon
68: number and washing out any baryon asymmetry in the universe down to the freeze-out level of $\frac{n_B}{s}\approx 10^{-19}$. (See
69: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv} for a discussion of this effect in more detail). The universe remains essentially radiation dominated and devoid of
70: baryons, thereby prohibiting structure formation. Thus, the structure principle would rule this range of parameters out.
71:
72: Case II ($m_H^2\leq -M_{cross}^2$): The Higgs field is heavier than $M_{cross}$, so $\lambda(m_H)<0$ and the Higgs vacuum is unstable.
73: Fluctuations trigger $\langle \phi \rangle\rightarrow M_{PL}$. When the vacuum decays, the universe becomes dominated by a cosmological constant
74: $\Lambda\sim M_{PL}^4$, so no structure can form in this case either.
75:
76: Case III ($-M_{cross}\leq m_H^2\leq 0$): Because electroweak symmetry is broken below the scale $M_{cross}$, all of the matter fields can obtain
77: sizable masses and the universe can become matter-dominated allowing structure to form.
78:
79: Thus, if the dark matter gets mass from electroweak symmetry breaking, the prediction without any fine-tunings is that the Higgs mass should be
80: close to $M_{cross}$. To determine how close $|m_H^2|$ should be to $M_{cross}$ to avoid fine-tuning, we calculate the 1-loop effective
81: potential and look for the largest values of $|m_H^2|$ for which a meta-stable minimum develops in $V(\phi)_{1-loop}$ at nonzero $\phi$.
82: Following \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2005yv}, we approximate $\lambda(\mu)$ near $M_{cross}$ using an approximate solution to its RGE. Following
83: appendix \ref{app:VacuumStability}, we see that $\lambda(\mu)\approx -b\log(\frac{\mu}{M_{cross}})$ where $b$ is an RG coefficient and,
84: \begin{equation}
85: \frac{V(\phi)_{1-loop}}{M_{cross}^4}\approx
86: -\epsilon^2(\frac{\phi}{M_{cross}})-\frac{b}{2}\log(\frac{\phi}{M_{cross}})(\frac{\phi}{M_{cross}})^4,
87: \end{equation}
88: %
89: where $\epsilon=|m_H|/M_{cross}$. For the Standard Model, $b\approx 0.076$ and numerical solutions indicate that a stable secondary minimum
90: develops for $\epsilon\leq 0.09$ at $\langle\phi\rangle\leq 0.4M_{cross}$. Typical values for slightly smaller $\epsilon$ are in the range of
91: $\langle\phi\rangle\leq 0.2M_{cross}$. Thus, without fine-tuning to a scale below that suggested by the structure principle, we would expect
92: physical Higgs masses in the range of $(0.1-0.2)M_{cross}$ for the Standard Model. With a more careful analysis of the one-loop effective
93: potential, we expect to find that the threshold mass is slightly higher than this.
94:
95: %%Apply this analysis to the SM
96: In the Standard Model with a higgs mass of $115$ GeV, we calculated $M_{cross}$ for a top mass in the experimentally allowed range of
97: $169.2-188.5$ GeV. $M_{cross}\approx 7, 40, 120, 1350$ TeV for top masses of $m_t=188.5, 178.1, 174.3, 169.2$ GeV respectively. If the top were
98: $m_t\approx 188$ GeV, then a higgs mass of $115$ GeV would be entirely consistent with this scenario without fine-tuning. A top mass near its
99: central value of $m_t=178$ leaves a small hierarchy to deal with.
100:
101: %%See if we can do better in the vector model and show graphs.
102: Turning to the vector lepton model, the additional Yukawa couplings drive $\lambda(\mu)$ negative even faster. Thus, we expect to find
103: $M_{cross}$ lower for heavier lepton masses. Setting all heavy lepton masses equal to $M_V$, we consider the dependence on $M_V$ of $M_{cross}$
104: for several values of Higgs mass in figure \ref{fig:McrossNaive}.
105: \begin{figure}
106: \begin{center}
107: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Graph_QuarticCrossing_Overlay.eps}
108: \caption{$M_{cross}$ versus heavy degenerate charged and neutral state masses. The one-loop running of $\lambda$ was computed using tree level
109: values of the heavy lepton yukawa couplings. We used physical Higgs masses of $m_H=155, 135$ and $115$ GeV from top to bottom and a top mass of
110: $m_t=178.1$ GeV.} \label{fig:McrossNaive}
111: \end{center}
112: \end{figure}
113: %
114: The hierarchy between typical values of $M_{cross}$ in the range of 10-50 TeV in the Standard Model is eliminated for a light Higgs and a
115: modestly heavy vector lepton spectrum of $\sim 150$ GeV, but $\lambda(\mu)$ runs dangerously negative in the UV.
116:
117: In the Standard Model, requiring that $\lambda(\mu)$ not run so negative that the vacuum should have decayed during
118: the last $10^{10}$ years leads to a bound on the Higgs mass of $m_H\geq 115$ GeV. For the vector model extension, even
119: with a light spectrum near $\sim 100$ GeV, $\lambda(\mu)$ tends to run too negative in the UV. In our analysis, we
120: calculated the scale at which $\lambda(\mu)$ becomes sufficiently negative for the vacuum in our universe to have
121: decayed already (assuming $m_H\geq 115$ GeV). We discuss the details of this requirement in appendix
122: \ref{app:VacuumStability}. For this rough analysis, we require that $\lambda(\mu)$ not be less than
123: $\lambda_{decay}\approx -0.13$.
124: \begin{figure}
125: \begin{center}
126: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Graph_VacuumStability_Overlay.eps}
127: \caption{The vacuum instability scale $M_{decay}$ versus heavy degenerate charged and neutral state masses. The one-loop running of $\lambda$
128: was computed using tree level values of the heavy lepton yukawa couplings. We used physical Higgs masses of $m_H=155, 135$ and $115$ GeV from
129: top to bottom and a top mass of $m_t=178.1$ GeV.} \label{fig:VacuumStabilityNaive}
130: \end{center}
131: \end{figure}
132: %
133: Figure \ref{fig:VacuumStabilityNaive} displays our results. We found that requiring $\lambda$ to not run past the stability bound requires
134: $m_H\gtrsim 155$ GeV. Thus, for the above explanation of the gauge hierarchy to work, new physics must enter below the scale $M_{decay}$ to
135: prevent $\lambda(\mu)$ from running too negative. This new physics should make the UV fixed point for $\lambda$ less negative. For example, new
136: $SU(3)$ fermions at an intermediate scale slows the running of $\alpha_3$ and hence helps keep the top Yukawa $y_t$ small, in turn making the UV
137: fixed point for $\lambda$ less negative. Alternatively, gauging the chiral symmetry that was introduced to forbid mass terms with a strongly
138: coupled U(1) that is broken near $M_{decay}$ (which requires adding an extra vector lepton generation to eliminate anomalies) drives the charged
139: and neutral state Yukawa couplings smaller in the UV, increasing the UV fixed point of $\lambda$.
140:
141: Finally, the upper bound derived from the requirement of not hitting any Landau pole up to $M_G\approx 10^{13}$ GeV requires $m_H\lesssim 165$
142: GeV. The exact limit depends on vector lepton masses. Consequently, the self-consistency region for the Higgs mass in our minimal vector lepton
143: model is $155\lesssim m_H\lesssim 165$ GeV.
144: