1: \documentclass[12pt,epsf,axodraw]{article}
2:
3: \input epsf.sty
4:
5: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\begin{equation}}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \thispagestyle{empty}
13:
14: \begin{flushright}
15: {\tt VEC/PHYSICS/P/2/2004-2005}
16: \end{flushright}
17:
18: \begin{center}
19: {\LARGE \bf Upper bound on the mass scale of superpartners
20: in minimal $N=2$ supersymmetry \\}
21: \vspace{2cm}
22: {\bf Biswajoy Brahmachari}
23: \\
24: \vskip 1cm
25: {\sl Department of Physics, Vidyasagar Evening College,\\
26: 39, Sankar Ghosh Lane, Kolkata 700006, India.\\}
27: \end{center}
28: \vskip 1cm
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: If $N=2$ supersymmetry breaks to $N=1$ supersymmetry at an
32: intermediate scale $m_2$ and then, later on, $N=1$ supersymmetry
33: breaks and produces standard model at a scale $m_{susy}$ such that
34: $m_2 > m_{susy}$, renormalization group evolution of three gauge
35: couplings are altered above the scale $m_2$, changing the unification
36: scale and the unified coupling. We show that when we enforce this
37: general condition $m_2 > m_{susy}$ on the solutions of the
38: renormalization group equations, the condition is translated into an
39: upper bound on the scale $m_{susy}$. Using presently favored values of
40: $\alpha_1(m_z),\alpha_2(m_z),\alpha_3(m_z)$, we get $m_{susy} < 4.5
41: \times 10^9$ GeVs for the central value of $\alpha_3(m_Z)$.
42: When low energy threshold effect is present, this bound gets smeared
43: yet remains generally stable in the $10^9-10^{10}$ GeV range. We also
44: show that if we demand string
45: unification instead of
46: having an unified gauge theory, this constraint can be changed by
47: exotic hypercharge normalizations.
48:
49:
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \vskip .75in
53:
54: \begin{flushleft}
55: {\tt email: biswajoy.brahmachari@cern.ch}
56: \end{flushleft}
57:
58: \newpage
59:
60: In minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) there exists a fundamental
61: scale $m_{susy}$. It is a common mass scale of the superpartners of
62: Standard Model(SM) fields. We usually assume that it is less than a TeV or so
63: because it helpful for solving the gauge hierarchy problem. In principle
64: $m_{susy}$ can be as high as the Planck scale or the String scale. In
65: this paper we will seek an upper bound on the scale $m_{susy}$ by
66: demanding that gauge couplings should unify at some scale $M_X$, and
67: there exists a natural hierarchy of four mass scales of the form
68: $M_X > m_2 > m_{susy} > m_z$. Here $m_2$ is the scale where $N=2$
69: supersymmetry breaks, all mirror particles of MSSM become heavy and
70: they decouple from Renormalization Group(RG) running. As in usual
71: notation $m_{susy}$ is the scale where super partners of Standard
72: Model becomes heavy and so they decouple from RG running. Therefore
73: we see that $m_{susy}$ is the scale where $N=1$ supersymmetry breaking
74: is expected to be directly felt by experiments\cite{ref0-exp1,
75: ref0-exp2,ref0-exp3,ref0-exp4,ref0-exp5,ref0-exp6,ref0-exp7},
76: consequently it is quite important to search for any theoretical upper
77: bound that may exist on the mass scale $m_{susy}$.
78:
79: Supersymmetric extensions of the standard model are interesting
80: from two points of view. (i) Gauge coupling unification is precise
81: at the scale of approximately $2 \times 10^{16}$
82: GeV\cite{ref1-amaldi1,ref1-amaldi2,ref1-amaldi3,ref1-amaldi4}. (ii)
83: Divergences in the scalar sector are
84: canceled by loops involving superpartners of standard particles which
85: helps to solve hierarchy problem partially\cite{ref2-kaul1,ref2-kaul2,
86: ref2-kaul3}. $N=2$
87: supersymmetric extensions of the standard model are relatively less
88: studied\footnote{In extra-dimensional models N=2 supersymmetry occurs
89: frequently. See for example \cite{ref11-n2ex1,ref11-n2ex2,ref11-n2ex3,
90: ref11-n2ex4,ref11-n2ex5}} even-though they are
91: much more restrictive than the $N=1$ framework. Particularly after the
92: breakdown of $N=2$ supersymmetry, vanishing of supertrace $Str(M^2)$
93: condition forces all field dependent quartic divergences to be
94: zero\cite{ref3-str1,ref3-str2,ref3-str3,ref3-str4}, which is a
95: desirable ingredient for solving the
96: hierarchy problem in a more comprehensive manner. There are known
97: mechanisms by which $N=2$
98: supersymmetry can be spontaneously broken down to $N=1$ in local
99: quantum field theories. It is therefore relevant to consider a
100: symmetry breaking chain in which $N=2$ supersymmetry is spontaneously
101: broken at an intermediate scale below the unification scale. This
102: possibility is studied by Antoniadis, Ellis and Leontaris (AEL)
103: \cite{ref4-ael}. In their analysis AEL assumed $m_Z \equiv m_{susy}$,
104: or in other words minimal supersymmetric standard model is effective
105: very near the electroweak scale. Consequently they used $N=1$ beta
106: functions from the electroweak scale and the intermediate scale and
107: $N=2$ beta functions from the intermediate scale to the unification
108: scale. In this present analysis we separate $m_Z$ from $m_{susy}$ and
109: make $m_{susy}$ a free parameter and then we run couplings up to the
110: scale $m_{susy}$ using non-supersymmetric beta functions, from
111: $m_{susy}$ to $m_2$ we use $N=1$ supersummetric beta functions as was
112: done by AEL and from $m_2$ to the unification scale $M_X$ we use $N=2$
113: supersymmetric beta functions exactly as AEL performed. We aim to
114: obtain constraints on the scale $m_{susy}$ enforcing two conditions
115: (a) gauge coupling unification should take place (b) The condition
116: $m_2 > m_{susy}$ has to be satisfied. We will see that in this way we
117: can obtain an interesting upper bound on $m_{susy}$. This the result
118: that we are reporting in this paper.
119:
120: We know that if $N=4$ supersymmetry is present, beta functions vanish
121: at all orders\cite{ref5-n41,ref5-n42,ref5-n43,ref5-n44,ref5-n45}, but if $N=2$ supersymmetry is present, they
122: vanish beyond one-loop
123: order\cite{ref6-n21,ref6-n22,ref6-n23,ref6-n24,ref6-n25}. For $N=1$
124: supersymmetry,
125: however, using one loop beta functions is an approximation. This
126: approximation is justified in the context of the present analysis. Had
127: we done a precision test of whether gauge couplings are at all
128: unifying or not in a restrictive scenario like unification in MSSM it
129: would have been necessary to use higher loop beta functions. However,
130: our objective is not to do a precision test of gauge coupling unification. We
131: will give an upper bound on the scale $m_{susy}$ is a theory with
132: two intermediate scales namely $m_{susy}$ and $m_2$; one does not gain
133: appreciably in precision by using higher loop beta functions in a
134: theory with many unknown intermediate scales. Using two loop
135: beta function below $m_2$ will give a slight shift in the values
136: of $m_{susy}$ and $m_2$. Because we have to cross two thresholds $m_2$ and
137: $m_{susy}$, and we are neglecting unknown threshold effects at those
138: intermediate scales, it is reasonable to neglect two-loop corrections to gauge
139: coupling evolution which is comparable to these threshold corrections.
140:
141:
142: The three gauge couplings evolve via the Renormalization Group
143: Equations (RGE). The solutions of RGE in the energy range $m_Z
144: \longrightarrow m_{susy} \longrightarrow m_2 \longrightarrow M_X$ are,
145: \begin{eqnarray}
146: \alpha^{-1}_1(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
147: {\beta^{N=2}_1 \over \kappa}~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
148: {\beta^{N=1}_1 \over \kappa}~\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}+
149: {\beta_1 \over \kappa}~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}, \label{sol1}\\
150: \alpha^{-1}_2(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
151: \beta^{N=2}_2~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
152: \beta^{N=1}_2~\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}+
153: \beta_2~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}, \label{sol2}\\
154: \alpha^{-1}_3(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
155: \beta^{N=2}_3~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
156: \beta^{N=1}_3~\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}+
157: \beta_3~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}\label{sol3}.
158: \end{eqnarray}
159: Here $\alpha_X^{-1}$ is the inverse of unified coupling, $\kappa$ is
160: the $U(1)$ normalization factor, which is usually taken as ${5 \over
161: 3}$ valid for the $SU(5)$ case, but could be different as well in
162: string models, and the beta coefficients without U(1) normalizations
163: are listed in Table \ref{table1}.
164:
165: \begin{table}
166: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
167: \hline
168: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{N=2 SUSY}
169: &
170: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{N=1 SUSY}
171: &
172: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{NON-SUSY}
173: \\
174: \cline{1-3}
175: \cline{4-6}
176: \cline{7-9}
177: $2 \pi \beta^{N=2}_3$ & $2 \pi \beta^{N=2}_2 $& $2 \pi \beta^{N=2}_1$ &
178: $2 \pi \beta^{N=1}_3$ & $2 \pi \beta^{N=1}_2 $& $2 \pi \beta^{N=1}_1$ &
179: $2 \pi \beta_3$ & $2 \pi \beta_2 $& $2 \pi \beta_1$
180: \\
181: \hline
182: 6 & 10 & 22 & -3 & 1 & 11 & -7 & -19/6 & 41/6 \\
183: \hline
184: \end{tabular}
185: \caption{ This table gives beta coefficients without the U(1)
186: normalization factor. When we divide columns 3,6,9 by 5/3 we
187: get, 66/5, 33/5 and 41/10 which are well-known values in SU(5) case.}
188: \label{table1}
189: \end{table}
190:
191: Let us use canonical normalization $\kappa={5 \over 3}$, and the
192: values of three gauge couplings at the scale $m_Z$ to be
193: $\alpha_1(m_Z)=0.01688$, $\alpha_2(m_Z)=0.03322$, and $\alpha_3(m_Z)=0.118$.
194: We solve three simultaneous equations Eqn. \ref{sol1}-\ref{sol3} for
195: three unknowns. The unknowns are
196: $\alpha^{-1}_X, \ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}, \ln{M_X \over m_2}$.
197: After solving we find that,
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: \alpha^{-1}_X &=& 22.42 - 0.48 ~~\ln{m_{susy} \over
200: m_Z},\label{bound11}
201: \\
202: \ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}} &=& 31.00 - 1.75 ~~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z},
203: \label{bound12}\\
204: \ln{M_X \over m_2} &=& 2.98 + 0.79~~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}
205: \label{bound13}.
206: \end{eqnarray}
207:
208: Because $m_2 > m_{susy}$,
209: $\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}$ has to be non-negative. Therefore, from
210: Eqn. \ref{bound12} we see that
211: $\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}$
212: has an absolute
213: upper bound at $31.00/1.75=17.71$. Using the value $m_Z=91.2$ GeV
214: we find that
215: \begin{equation}
216: m_{susy} < 4.48 \times 10^9~~~{\rm GeV}\label{result}.
217: \end{equation}
218: This upper bound depends on the value of $\alpha_3(m_Z)$.
219: We have plotted this upper bound in solid black line Fig. \ref{fig1}
220: for values of
221: $\alpha_3(m_Z)$ in the range $0.11-0.13$ and for the canonical U(1)
222: normalization of $\kappa=5/3$. For the central value of
223: $\alpha_3(m_Z)=0.118$, and $m_{susy}$ at its upper limit, we get
224: $\alpha^{-1}_X= 12.10, M_X=1.02 \times 10^{17}$ GeV. For
225: $m_{susy} \approx m_Z$, we get, for
226: $\alpha_3(m_Z)=0.118$, three solved quantities to be,
227: $\alpha^{-1}_X=20.42, m_2= 2.6 \times 10^{15}$ GeV and $M_X= 5.1 \times
228: 10^{16}$ GeV. Consequently, we see that, we reproduce
229: results obtained by AEL in the special case of $m_Z \approx m_{susy}$ as
230: expected.
231:
232: \begin{figure}
233: \begin{center}
234: \epsfysize=13cm \epsfxsize=13cm \epsffile{n2.eps} \caption{
235: Upper bound on $m_{susy}$ for canonical U(1) normalization.
236: Dashed magenta line shows effects of threshold corrections when wino
237: and gluino thresholds are one order of magnitude higher than
238: $m_{susy}$. Blue dashed line is the case where wino mass is the
239: same as $m_{susy}$ but gluino mass is higher than $m_{susy}$ by one
240: order of magnitude. Green dashed line is the case when gluino mass
241: is the same as $m_{susy}$ but wino mass is larger by one order of
242: magnitude.
243: } \label{fig1}
244: \end{center}
245: \end{figure}
246:
247:
248: Now let us discuss low energy threshold effects and how it may
249: influence our results. To see this let us recast the RGE and
250: include two more thresholds, namely the, $M_{\tilde{g}}$ and
251: $M_{\tilde{w}}$. These two are the most important supersymmetric
252: thresholds because the gauge contribution to beta function coefficients
253: dominates over fermion contribution and Higgs contribution.
254: Evolution of $\alpha_1$ remains unaffected at one-loop because
255: it does not have to cross any new threshold.
256: When threshold effect is present $M_{\tilde{g}}$
257: and $M_{\tilde{w}}$ are different from the common mass scale
258: $m_{susy}$. Unfortunately we do not know how different they
259: actually are. We can use a few representative cases only.
260: The RGE
261: now becomes,
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \alpha^{-1}_2(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
264: \beta^{N=2}_2~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
265: \beta^{N=1}_2~\ln{m_2 \over m_{\tilde{w}}}+
266: (\beta^{N=1}_2-\Delta_{w})~\ln{m_{\tilde{w}} \over m_{susy}}
267: \nonumber\\
268: && +\beta_2 ~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_z}
269: , \label{sol2p}\\
270: \alpha^{-1}_3(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
271: \beta^{N=2}_3~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
272: \beta^{N=1}_3~\ln{m_2 \over m_{\tilde{g}}}+
273: (\beta^{N=1}_3-\Delta_{g})~\ln{m_{\tilde{g}} \over m_{susy}}
274: \nonumber\\
275: && +\beta_3 \ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}
276: \label{sol3p}.
277: \end{eqnarray}
278:
279: We will use $\Delta_g=2$ and $\Delta_w=4/3$. An easy way to see
280: these numbers is the following. In the non-supersymmetric cases gauge
281: contribution to $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$ beta functions are $-11$ and
282: $-22/3$ respectively. If we add to them the gluino contribution
283: $\Delta_g=2$ and wino contribution $\Delta_w=4/3$ we get $-9$ and $-6$
284: which are gauge contributions in the supersymmetric case.
285: Using values given in Table \ref{table1}, now we get,
286: \begin{eqnarray}
287: 2 \pi (\beta^{N=1}_3-\Delta_g) &=& -5 \label{d1}\\
288: 2 \pi (\beta^{N=1}_2-\Delta_w) &=& -{1 \over 3} \label{d2}
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: Furthermore let us use two more identities,
291: \begin{equation}
292: \ln {m_2 \over m_{susy}}=
293: \ln {m_2 \over m_{\tilde{w}}} + \ln
294: {m_{\tilde{w}} \over m_{susy}}
295: =\ln {m_2 \over m_{\tilde{g}}} + \ln
296: {m_{\tilde{g}} \over m_{susy}}
297: \end{equation}
298: Then the RGE can be rewritten as,
299: \begin{eqnarray}
300: \alpha^{-1}_2(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
301: \beta^{N=2}_2~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
302: \beta^{N=1}_2~
303: (\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}-\ln{ m_{\tilde{w}} \over m_{susy}})
304: \nonumber\\
305: && +
306: (\beta^{N=1}_2-\Delta_{w})~\ln{m_{\tilde{w}} \over m_{susy}}
307: +\beta_2 ~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_z}
308: , \label{sol2pp}\\
309: \alpha^{-1}_3(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
310: \beta^{N=2}_3~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
311: \beta^{N=1}_3~
312: (\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}-\ln{ m_{\tilde{g}} \over m_{susy}})
313: \nonumber\\
314: && +(\beta^{N=1}_3-\Delta_{g})~\ln{m_{\tilde{g}} \over m_{susy}}
315: +\beta_3 \ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}
316: \label{sol3pp}.
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: Now let us define two threshold parameters ($\sigma_w,\sigma_g$) which
319: vanish in the limit $m_{susy}=m_{\tilde{w}}=m_{\tilde{g}}$.
320: \begin{equation}
321: \ln {m_{\tilde{w}} \over m_{susy}}=\sigma_w,~~
322: \ln {m_{\tilde{g}} \over m_{susy}}=\sigma_g, \label{d3}
323: \end{equation}
324: Magnitude of these parameters are roughly of the order of $\ln_e
325: 10=2.302$
326: when the gluiono
327: and wino masses differ from $m_{susy}$ by one order of magnitude.
328: Then we get corrected RGE after threshold corrections using
329: Eqn. \ref{d1}, \ref{d2}, \ref{d3},
330: \begin{eqnarray}
331: \alpha^{-1}_2(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
332: \beta^{N=2}_2~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
333: \beta^{N=1}_2~
334: (\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}-\sigma_w)
335: \nonumber\\
336: && +
337: \beta_2 ~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_z}-{\sigma_w \over 6 \pi}
338: , \label{sol2ppp}\\
339: \alpha^{-1}_3(m_Z) &=& \alpha_X^{-1}+
340: \beta^{N=2}_3~\ln{M_X \over m_2}+
341: \beta^{N=1}_3~
342: (\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}-\sigma_g)
343: \nonumber\\
344: &&
345: +\beta_3 \ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z} -{5 \sigma_g \over 2 \pi}
346: \label{sol3ppp}.
347: \end{eqnarray}
348: These equation reduce to Equations \ref{sol2}, \ref{sol3}
349: in the limit of $\sigma_w \rightarrow 0, \sigma_g \rightarrow 0$.
350: So we will solve Equations \ref{sol1},\ref{sol2ppp},\ref{sol3ppp}
351: to get threshold corrections on our bound. From Fig. \ref{fig1}
352: we see the results. For $\alpha_s=0.118$ four representative cases can
353: be compared.
354: (i) When all superpartners are degenerate at $m_{susy}$ we get
355: the bound at $4.5 \times 10^9$ GeV. (ii) When both gluino as well as
356: wino thresholds are one order of magnitude larger than $m_{susy}$ the
357: bound becomes $2.85 \times 10^9$ GeV. (iii) When the wino mass is
358: degenerate with $m_{susy}$ but the gluino mass is one order of
359: magnitude larger then the bound is $1.06 \times 10^{10}$ GeV. (iv)
360: When the gluino is degenerate with $m_{susy}$ but the wino mass is one
361: order of magnitude larger the bound becomes $1.18 \times 10^9$ GeV.
362: So we see that the bound remains stable in the same ball-park region of
363: $10^9-10^{10}$ GeVs when threshold effects are included. The upper
364: bound is smeared due to threshold correction. This is not surprising
365: as we know that threshold corrections
366: have a very similar smearing effect on the mass scales such as the
367: unification scale or intermediate scale of all supersymmetric GUTs.
368:
369: The upper bounds diplayed on Fig \ref{fig1}. should undergo further
370: small corrections when threshold effects at the N=2 supersymmetry breaking
371: scale is included. We have not considered heavy threshold effects in the
372: text because it is beyond the scope of present letter. But a general
373: observation is that when the spread of n=2 superpartner masses are near
374: the scale $m_2$ the bound will remain more or less stable near the values
375: given in Fig \ref{fig1}. The theoretical reason behind it is that the
376: mass scales
377: in the RGE enters only through natural logarithms. Therefore the results
378: do not get much affected by small fluctuations in individual masses
379: near about the scale $m_2$. Note that only new particles beyond
380: standard model those are included in this analysis have their origin
381: in $N=1$ and $N=2$ supersymmetry. Therefore their masses must be tied
382: to the scales $m_{susy}$ and $m_2$ and fluctuation will remain under control.
383:
384:
385: Another possiblility is the existance of ad-hoc new thresholds such
386: as exotic particles between $M_X$ and $m_z$ which are completely unrelated
387: to N=1 and N=2 supersymmetry. Their masses will therefore be completely
388: unrelated to $m_{susy}$ or $m_2$. They may change the upperbound
389: considerably. But here we have not considered exotic new particles which
390: are not predicted by $N=1$ or $N=2$ supersymmetry.
391:
392:
393: Furthermore we would like to comment on extra vector-like exotic matter those
394: may exist anywhere in between $M_X$ and $m_{susy}$. Such vector-like
395: matter may get masses from the Giudice-Masiero \cite{gm} type mechanism
396: which is often used to get the mass of the $\mu~H_1~H_2$ term.
397: Their existence will change the beta functions and alter the present
398: RGE analysis. Therefore the existence of such extra vectorlike matter
399: will also change the upper bounds quoted in this paper. Because we
400: have worked on the minimal version of $N=2$ supersymmetry, we have
401: not considered exotic vector-like matter either.
402:
403:
404: Now let us discuss briefly how this upper bound on $m_{susy}$ can be
405: changed. If we take the canonical value of $\kappa=5/3$ results of
406: Fig. \ref{fig1} are obtained. If we notice numerical values of $U(1)_Y$
407: beta functions we will realize that electric charge is defined as,
408: \begin{equation}
409: Q=T^3_L + \sqrt{5 \over 3} Y.
410: \end{equation}
411: This is a consequence of the fact that all charges of matter multiplets are
412: normalized under either $SU(3)$ or $SU(2)_L$ or $U(1)_Y$ in a similar
413: manner. The underlying assumption being that the generators of $SU(3)$ or
414: $SU(2)_L$ or $U(1)_Y$ are unified as generators of a bigger unified
415: gauge group. This is a natural demand if we want gauge coupling
416: unification as some scale below the mass scale of string theory.
417: If this is not the case, and string theory breaks directly to $SU(3)_3
418: \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ without passing through an unified
419: gauge theory just below string scale, the charge relation need not
420: have the factor $\sqrt{5 \over 3}$ \cite{ref7-kappa1,ref7-kappa2,
421: ref7-kappa3,ref7-kappa4,ref7-kappa5} and the general
422: string inspired unification condition then reads,
423: \begin{equation}
424: K_3 ~\alpha_3=K_2 ~\alpha_2= K_Y~ \alpha_1.
425: \end{equation}
426: Let us choose $K_3=K_2=1$ and $K_Y \ne 1$.
427: Then the upper-bound can be
428: changed. If we take a sample value of
429: $K_Y= 17/3$, then in this string inspired model, electric charge is
430: defined as,
431: \begin{equation}
432: Q=T^3_L + \sqrt{17 \over 3} Y,
433: \end{equation}
434: and, corresponding solution of mass scales reads as,
435: \begin{eqnarray}
436: \alpha^{-1}_X &=& 2.04222 - 0.0477465 ~~\ln{m_{susy} \over
437: m_Z},\label{boundn1} \\
438: \ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}} &=& 18.1579 - 1.45 ~~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z},
439: \label{boundn2}\\
440: \ln{M_X \over m_2} &=& 15.8149 + 0.491667 ~~\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}
441: \label{boundn3}.
442: \end{eqnarray}
443: From Eqn. \ref{boundn2} we see that to keep $\ln{m_2 \over m_{susy}}$
444: non-negative we have to have $\ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}$ less than
445: 12.5227, which gives $m_{susy} < 2.50 \times 10^{7}$. So the
446: bound on $m_{susy}$ given in Eqn. \ref{result} is changed by two
447: orders of magnitude. Also note that for $ \ln{m_{susy} \over m_Z}=0$ one
448: get $\alpha_X=0.4896, m_2=7.01 \times 10^9, M_X=5.17 \times 10^{16}$
449: thus correctly reproducing numbers quoted by AEL (c.f. Table 3 row 1 of
450: AEL) for the special case of $m_Z=m_{susy}$.
451:
452: Let us now discuss two relevent points regarding this letter. (i) This
453: is a $N=2$ supersymmetric model broken to $N=1$ supersymmetric
454: model. This may look unfamiliar. However whenever we work on
455: supersymmetric unification we assume that there is string theory at
456: some scale above the GUT scale. String theory predicts $N=4$
457: supersymmetry. So at some stage $N=4$ supersymmetry has to break to
458: $N=2$ supersymmetry which will then break to $N=1$ supersymmetry.
459: (ii) The upper bound is very high, which is not attainable at
460: foreseeable future. This seemingly uninteresting result is relevant
461: for the following reason. There are plans to probe $N=1$ supersymmetric
462: particle content in future experiments. Let us assume that we want to search
463: superpartners at the scale of 40 TeV. We may ask that is that too high
464: a scale to search for superpartners if $N=2$ supersymmetry breaks to $N=1$?
465: We have given the answer to that here which states that in the class of
466: models where the symmetry breaking chain is $N=2 \rightarrow N=1$, if
467: superpartners exist at (say) 40 TeV, they will not conflict with gauge
468: coupling unification. Our result also says that if $N=1$ supersymmetry
469: is broken at a scale higher than $6.35 \times 10^9$ GeV, we will not
470: achieve gauge coupling unification.
471:
472:
473: In conclusion, we have generalized the analysis of AEL by separating
474: two scales $m_Z$ and $m_{susy}$. In the paper of AEL the question that
475: was asked was how much one can lower the scale $m_2$ which is the
476: scale of $N=2$ breaking and also what other relevant constraints can
477: be imposed upon $m_2$. In the present analysis we ask the question,
478: how high the scale $m_{susy}$ can be in that context by unlocking to
479: scales $m_Z$ and $m_{susy}$ which were assumed to be equal in the
480: analysis of AEL. This analysis is in some sense complementary to the
481: analysis of AEL. The scale $m_{susy}$ is very important from the point
482: of view of experiments. This is because in experiments we search for
483: superpartners of standard model particle at around the scale
484: $m_{susy}$. In principle $m_{susy}$ can be as high as the Planck
485: scale\cite{ref9-planck1,ref9-planck2,ref9-planck3}, ie, all
486: superpartners become massive at
487: Planck scale and below Planck scale there is non-SUSY standard model.
488: In such a case, present day experiments will not be able to trace any
489: superpartner. This is the reason why any theoretical or experimental
490: upper bound or lower bouund\cite{ref10-lower} on the scale $m_{susy}$,
491: that may exist, should be explored.
492:
493:
494: This work is supported by UGC, New Delhi, under the grant number
495: F.PSU-075/05-06
496:
497:
498: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
499:
500: \bibitem{ref0-exp1}
501: S. P. Martin, In *Kane, G.L. (ed.): Perspectives on supersymmetry* 1-98.
502: e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9709356
503:
504:
505: \bibitem{ref0-exp2}
506: X. Tata, UH-511-872-97, Lectures given at 9th Jorge Andre Swieca
507: Summer School: Particles and Fields, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16-28 Feb 1997.
508: In *Campos do Jordao 1997, Particles and fields* 404-492.
509: e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9706307
510:
511: \bibitem{ref0-exp3}
512: D0 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 1591 (1998)
513:
514: \bibitem{ref0-exp4}
515: CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5275 (1998)
516:
517:
518: \bibitem{ref0-exp5}
519:
520: D0 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94} 041801, (2005)
521:
522: \bibitem{ref0-exp6}
523:
524: K. Maeshima (Fermilab), Prepared for 24th
525: International Meeting on Fundamental Physics: From the Tevatron
526: to the LHC, Playa de Gandia, Valencia, Spain, 22-26 Apr 1996.
527: Published in *Valencia 1996, From the Tevatron to the LHC* 101-118
528:
529: \bibitem{ref0-exp7}
530:
531: E. Duchovni, Prepared for 9th International Symposium on Particles,
532: Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS 03), Mumbai (Bombay) India, 3-8 Jan
533: 2003, Pramana {\bf 62}, 541 (2004)
534:
535: \bibitem{ref1-amaldi1}
536: J. R. Ellis, S. Kelley, D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B249},
537: 441 (1990)
538:
539: \bibitem{ref1-amaldi2}
540: U. Amaldi,
541: W. de Boer, H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. {\bf B260}, 447 (1991)
542:
543:
544: \bibitem{ref1-amaldi3}
545: U. Amaldi, W. de Boer, P. H. Frampton, H. Furstenau, J. T. Liu,
546: Phys. Lett. {\bf B281}, 374 (1992)
547:
548: \bibitem{ref1-amaldi4}
549: P. Langacker, N. Polonsky,
550: Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 3081 (1995)
551:
552:
553: \bibitem{ref11-n2ex1}
554: K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B537}, 47
555: (1999)
556:
557: \bibitem{ref11-n2ex2}
558: B. Brahmachari, Acta Physica Polonica {\bf B36}, 1997 (2005)
559:
560: \bibitem{ref11-n2ex3}
561: C. D. Carone, Phys. Lett. {\bf B454}, 70 (1999)
562:
563: \bibitem{ref11-n2ex4}
564: B. Brahmachari, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 067502 (2002)
565:
566: \bibitem{ref11-n2ex5}
567: M. Bastero-Gil,
568: B. Brahmachari, Phys. Lett. {\bf B403}, 51 (1997)
569:
570: \bibitem{ref2-kaul1}
571: R. K. Kaul, P. Majumdar, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B199}, 36 (1982)
572:
573: \bibitem{ref2-kaul2}
574: S. Dimopoulos, H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B117}, 287 (1982)
575:
576: \bibitem{ref2-kaul3}
577: L. Susskind, Phys. Rept. {\bf 104}, 181 (1984)
578:
579: \bibitem{ref3-str1}
580: P. Fayet, S. Ferrara, Phys. Rept. {\bf 32}, 249 (1977)
581:
582: \bibitem{ref3-str2}
583: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B188}, 513 (1981)
584:
585: \bibitem{ref3-str3}
586: L. J. Romans, Phys. Lett. {\bf B169}, 374 (1986)
587:
588:
589: \bibitem{ref3-str4}
590: S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. {\bf B366}, 155 (1996)
591:
592:
593: \bibitem{ref4-ael} I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis and G. K. Leontaris,
594: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 399}, 92 (1997)
595:
596:
597: \bibitem{ref5-n41}
598: M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek, W. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 1063
599: (1980)
600:
601:
602: \bibitem{ref5-n42}
603: A. Parkes, P. C. West, Phys. Lett. {\bf B138}, 99 (1984)
604:
605: \bibitem{ref5-n43}
606: K.S. Stelle, Nuffield Workshop 1981:0337 (QC178:W6:1981)
607:
608: \bibitem{ref5-n44}
609: P.K. Townsend, CERN-TH-3066, Published in Karpacz Winter School
610: 1981:0628 (QC174.45:W5:1981)
611:
612: \bibitem{ref5-n45}
613: B. de Wit, J.W. van Holten, A. Van
614: Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B184}, 77 (1981), Erratum-ibid. {\bf B222},
615: 516, (1983)
616:
617: \bibitem{ref6-n21}
618: P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. {\bf B142}, 263 (1984); ibid {\bf B 159}, 121
619: (1985)
620:
621: \bibitem{ref6-n22}
622: P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B246}, 89 (1984)
623:
624: \bibitem{ref6-n23}
625: P. Fayet,
626: Phys. Lett. {\bf B153}, 397 (1985)
627:
628: \bibitem{ref6-n24}
629: P. Fayet
630: Published in Moriond 1985:QCD:525 (QCD161:R34:1985 v.1) Also in
631: Moriond 1985:Electroweak:385 (QCD161:R34:1985 v.2)
632:
633: \bibitem{ref6-n25}
634: H. Itoyama, L. D. McLerran, T.R. Taylor, J.J. van der Bij,
635: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B279}, 380 (1987)
636:
637: \bibitem{ref7-kappa1}
638: L. E. Ibanez, Phys. Lett. {\bf B318}, 73 (1993) e-Print Archive:
639: hep-ph/9308365
640:
641: \bibitem{ref7-kappa2}
642: K. R. Dienes, A. E. Faraggi, J. March-Russell,
643: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B467}, 44 (1996)
644:
645:
646: \bibitem{ref7-kappa3}
647: A.N. Schellekens, Phys. Lett. {\bf B237}, 363 (1990)
648:
649:
650: \bibitem{ref7-kappa4}
651: I. Antoniadis, J. R. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V.
652: Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B231}, 65 (1989)
653:
654: \bibitem{ref7-kappa5}
655: J. R. Ellis, J. L. Lopez,
656: D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B245}, 375 (1990)
657:
658: \bibitem{ref9-planck1}
659: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, e-Print Archive: hep-th/0405159
660:
661: \bibitem{ref9-planck2}
662: Gi-Chol Cho, K. Hagiwara, Phys. Lett. {\bf B419} 199 (1998)
663:
664: \bibitem{ref9-planck3}
665: D.
666: Emmanuel-Costa, R. Gonzalez Felipe, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0505257.
667:
668:
669: \bibitem{gm} G. F. Giudice, A. Masiero, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 206},
670: 480 (1988)
671:
672: \bibitem{ref10-lower} S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 48}, 1303 (1982)
673:
674: \end{thebibliography}
675:
676: \end{document}
677:
678:
679:
680:
681:
682:
683:
684: