1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs9x6.tex : 2 January 2004
3: %% Text file for Proceedings Trim Size [9in x 6in] written in Latex2E.
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
7: %% All rights are reserved.
8: %%
9: %% Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in
10: %% Text Area: 7.35in (include runningheads) x 4.5in
11: %% Main Text is 10/13pt
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs9x6}
15: \documentclass[final]{ws-procs9x6}
16: \usepackage{graphics}
17: \usepackage{axodraw}
18: \usepackage{natbib}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: % Slash character...
22:
23: \newcommand{ \slashchar }[1]{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
24: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
25: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
26: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
27: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
28: #1 % and print #1
29: \else % / is bigger
30: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
31: / % and print /
32: \fi} %
33:
34: %%EXAMPLE: $\slashchar{E}$ or $\slashchar{E}_{t}$
35:
36: \newcommand{\Mpl}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}
37: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
38: \newcommand{\Mstar}{M_\star}
39: \newcommand{\MRS}{M_\mathrm{RS}}
40: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
41: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}
42:
43: \newcommand{\B}{B^{(1)}}
44: \newcommand{\f}{f^{(1)}}
45: \newcommand{\uR}{u^{(1)}_R}
46: \newcommand{\dR}{d^{(1)}_R}
47: \newcommand{\qR}{q^{(1)}_R}
48: \newcommand{\lR}{\ell^{(1)}_R}
49:
50: % use numbers for footnotes
51: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
52:
53: % use ordinary square brackets for references
54: \bibpunct{[}{]}{,}{n}{,}{,}
55:
56:
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: \begin{document}
59:
60: % remove the draftnote comments and the trimmarks
61: \def\draftnote{}
62: \def\trimmarks{}
63: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.01cm}
64:
65: % page numbers at bottom
66: \pagestyle{plain}
67:
68: \title{TASI 2004 Lectures on the \\ Phenomenology of Extra Dimensions}
69:
70: \author{GRAHAM D. KRIBS}
71:
72: \address{Department of Physics and Institute of Theoretical Science, \\
73: University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 \\[3mm]
74: \textnormal{\texttt{kribs@uoregon.edu}}}
75:
76: \maketitle
77:
78: \abstracts{The phenomenology of large, warped, and universal
79: extra dimensions is reviewed. Characteristic signals are emphasized
80: rather than an extensive survey. This is the writeup of lectures given at
81: the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in 2004.}
82:
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84: \section{Introduction}
85:
86: The most exciting development in physics beyond the
87: Standard Model in the past ten years is the phenomenology of
88: extra dimensions. A cursory glance at the SLAC Spires
89: ``all time high'' citation count confirms this crude statement.
90: As of the close of the summer of 2005, the papers on
91: large \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs},
92: warped \cite{Randall:1999ee},
93: and universal \cite{Appelquist:2000nn}
94: extra dimensions have garnered nearly 4000
95: citations\footnote{Nearly 4000 papers have cited one or more
96: these three papers.} among them. This also shows that the literature
97: on extra dimensions is immense. As a consequence, I will utterly
98: fail at being able to provide a complete reference list,
99: and hence I apologize in advance for omissions.
100:
101: Extra dimensions have been around for a long time.
102: Kaluza and Klein postulated a fifth dimension to
103: unify electromagnetism with gravity \cite{Kaluza:1921tu}.
104: A closer look at
105: this old idea reveals both its promise and problems.
106: Imagine a Universe with five-dimensional (5-d) gravity,
107: in which one dimension is compactified on a circle
108: with circumference $L$.
109: The Einstein-Hilbert action is
110: \begin{equation}
111: S = \int d^5 x \sqrt{-g^{(5)}} \, \Mstar^3 R^{(5)}
112: \end{equation}
113: where $g_{M N}^{(5)}$ is the metric and $R^{(5)}$ is the Ricci scalar
114: for the five-dimensional spacetime, respectively.
115: Expanding the metric about flat spacetime,
116: $g_{M N} = \eta_{M N} + h_{M N}/(2 \Mstar^{3/2})$,
117: the five-dimensional graviton
118: $h_{M N}$ contains five physical
119: components that are decomposed
120: on $R_4 \otimes S^1$ at the massless level as
121: \begin{equation}
122: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
123: h_{\mu\nu} & A_{\mu 5} \\
124: A_{5\nu} & \phi
125: \end{array} \right)
126: \end{equation}
127: where $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the four-dimensional (4-d) graviton,
128: $A_{\mu 5}$ is a massless vector field, and
129: $\phi$ is a massless scalar field.
130: The action reduces to
131: \begin{equation}
132: \int d^4 x (M_\star^3 L) R^{(4)} - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}
133: + \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi
134: \end{equation}
135: comprising four-dimensional gravity plus a gauge field with
136: coupling strength $g^2 = (M_* L)^{-1}$, as well as a massless
137: scalar field (with only gravitational couplings).
138:
139: The remarkable finding that gauge theory could arise
140: from a higher dimensional spacetime suitably compactified
141: has been a tantalizing hint of how to unify gravity with
142: the other gauge forces. As it stands, however, the original
143: Kaluza-Klein proposal suffers from three problems: \\
144: (1) there is a gravitationally coupled scalar field $\phi$; \\
145: (2) the gauge field strength is order one only when $L^{-1} \sim M_*$; \\
146: (3) fermions are not chiral in five dimensions, leading to
147: fermion ``doubling'' at the massless level. \\
148: Orbifolding the compactified spacetime on $S^1/Z_2$ doesn't help,
149: since the same operation that projects out half of the fermions
150: also projects out the massless gauge field.
151:
152: Where the original hope of Kaluza-Klein's idea fails, string
153: theory takes over, and I refer you to other TASI lectures
154: and books to give you the past and present scoop on string theory
155: (for starters, try Ref.~\cite{Zwiebach:2004tj}).
156: These lectures, instead, concentrate on what the world is
157: like if some of or all of the fields we know and love live in
158: extra dimensions. There is some overlap between these lectures
159: and those of Sundrum \cite{Sundrum:2005jf}
160: and Cs\'aki (with Hubisz and Meade) \cite{Csaki:2005vy}, however,
161: I believe you will find that my perspective on this
162: (and the direction given to me by the TASI 2004 organizers)
163: is somewhat different. Hopefully it is useful!
164:
165: There is one issue that I think is useful to dispense with
166: right away, namely: Why study extra dimensions?
167: In light of deconstruction \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca,Hill:2000mu},
168: one is tempted to believe everything can be studied from a
169: purely four-dimensional view. This is certainly true of gauge theory.
170: Does this mean
171: we should discard extra dimensions and just consider product gauge theories?
172: Here it useful to consider the point of view of
173: Hill, Pokorski, Wang \cite{Hill:2000mu},
174: in which they sought an effective theory of the Kaluza-Klein modes
175: of an extra dimension. They emphasized that imposing a lattice
176: cutoff on the extra dimensional space was tantamount to writing
177: a product gauge theory with particular relationships among all
178: of the couplings and masses. Perhaps an analogy to gauge theory
179: is useful here. Imagine that you know nothing of gauge theory
180: and just go out and measure couplings of fermions to gluons
181: and gluons to themselves (3-point and 4-point couplings).
182: Gradually, through careful measurement you would find that
183: the couplings are all related, up to certain overall
184: constants (later identified as group theory factors dependent
185: on the representation of the fermions). These relationships would be
186: curious, but certainly would not prevent you from writing down
187: the low energy effective theory of the couplings of these particles.
188: Eventually, once the couplings are established to be the same
189: up to some experimental accuracy, you would discard the effective
190: theory of totally separate couplings and instead just write down
191: the QCD Lagrangian. Analogously, once the couplings and masses
192: of Kaluza-Klein modes are measured to sufficient accuracy,
193: one will likely cease to characterize this as ``a product gauge theory
194: with relationships among the couplings'' and instead simply
195: begin saying one has ``discovered an extra dimension''.
196:
197: All of this is true for both gauge theory and gravity. However,
198: deconstructing gravity has proved more elusive, due to
199: various issues of strong coupling that appear inevitable.
200: I refer you to several papers \cite{deconstructinggravity}
201: for discussions of this fascinating topic. Suffice to say,
202: it is much more straightforward to understand the low energy
203: effective theory of a compactified ``physical'' extra dimension
204: rather than an extra dimension built out of multiple general
205: coordinate invariances. Since the focus of these lectures is
206: on phenomenology, this view is efficient, simple, and prudent.
207:
208:
209:
210: \section{Large Extra Dimensions}
211:
212: The renaissance of extra dimensions began with the
213: Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali (ADD) proposal
214: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Arkani-Hamed:1998nn} to lower
215: the scale of quantum gravity to a TeV by localizing the SM to
216: a 3+1 dimensional surface or ``brane'' in a higher dimensional spacetime.
217: The extra dimensions are compactified into a large volume that
218: effectively dilutes the strength of gravity from the fundamental
219: scale (the TeV scale) to the Planck scale. A sketch of the
220: setup is shown in Fig.~\ref{ADD-sketch-fig}.
221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
222: \begin{figure}
223: \begin{center}
224: \begin{picture}(300,200)
225: %
226:
227: \Line( 50, 50 )( 150, 100 )
228: \Line( 150, 100 )( 250, 50 )
229: \Line( 150, 0 )( 250, 50 )
230: \Line( 150, 0 )( 50, 50 )
231: \Text( 260, 20 )[c]{4-d spacetime}
232: %
233: \DashLine( 70, 40 )( 170, 90 ){4}
234: \DashLine( 90, 30 )( 190, 80 ){4}
235: \DashLine( 110, 20 )( 210, 70 ){4}
236: \DashLine( 130, 10 )( 230, 60 ){4}
237: %
238: \DashLine( 70, 60 )( 170, 10 ){4}
239: \DashLine( 90, 70 )( 190, 20 ){4}
240: \DashLine( 110, 80 )( 210, 30 ){4}
241: \DashLine( 130, 90 )( 230, 40 ){4}
242: %
243: \CArc( 150, 150 )(50, 0, 360)
244: \qbezier( 150, 200 )( 100, 150 )( 150, 100 )
245: \qbezier( 150, 200 )( 200, 150 )( 150, 100 )
246: \Text( 260, 157 )[c]{extra compactified}
247: \Text( 260, 143 )[c]{dimensions}
248: %
249: \LongArrow( 95, 170 )( 105, 185 )
250: \Text( 90, 165 )[c]{$y_i$}
251: \LongArrow( 120, 160 )( 125, 175 )
252: \Text( 115, 155 )[c]{$y_j$}
253: %
254: \end{picture}
255: \end{center}
256: \caption{Sketch of the large extra dimension ADD model worldview.}
257: \label{ADD-sketch-fig}
258: \end{figure}
259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
260:
261: The idea that the quantum gravity scale could be lowered
262: while the SM remain on a brane was motivated by earlier results in
263: string theory. In particular, it was realized in string theory
264: that the quantum gravity scale could be lowered from the
265: Planck scale to the GUT scale \cite{stringextraD}.
266: Others also pursued
267: extra dimensions opening up between the TeV scale
268: to the GUT scale \cite{otherearly}.
269: In this section, however, I will concentrate solely on
270: the ADD model and discuss several of its important
271: phenomenological implications.
272:
273: First, let's be explicit about the assumptions.
274: The ADD model consists of
275: \begin{itemize}
276: \item $n$ extra dimensions, each compactified with radius $r$
277: (taken to be the same size for each dimension)
278: on a torus with volume $V_n = (2 \pi r)^n$.
279: \item All SM fields (matter, Higgs, gauge fields) localized
280: to a 3-brane (``SM brane'') in the bulk (``gravity only'')
281: spacetime.
282: \item Bulk and boundary spacetime is flat, i.e., the bulk and
283: boundary cosmological constants vanish.
284: \item The SM 3-brane is ``stiff''; the fluctuations of the brane
285: surface itself in the higher dimensional spacetime
286: can be ignored (or, more technically, the brane fluctuations
287: have masses of order the cutoff scale)
288: \end{itemize}
289: The action for this model divides into two pieces:
290: \begin{equation}
291: S = S_{\rm bulk} + S_{\rm brane}
292: \end{equation}
293: where we are assuming for the moment that there is only one SM brane
294: on which all of the SM fields live.
295: Concentrate on the bulk action first, which is just the
296: Einstein-Hilbert action for $4+n$ dimensional
297: gravity:\footnote{This is my definition of $\Mstar$, and there
298: are plenty other others out there absorbing various factors of
299: $2$ and $\pi$. One can argue that this one has the most intuitive
300: physical interpretation \cite{Han:2002yy},
301: and thus is the one that \emph{ought}
302: to be used. But, having not stumbled onto this until four years after
303: ADD's original paper, the other definitions are unlikely to go away.}
304: \begin{equation}
305: S_{\rm bulk} = - \frac{1}{2}
306: \int d^{4+n} x \sqrt{-g^{(4+n)}} \Mstar^{n+2} R^{(4+n)}
307: \end{equation}
308: We obviously integrate over all spacetime coordinates; hence
309: the Lagrangian has mass dimension $D = 4 + n$. The
310: higher dimensional Ricci curvature scalar $R^{(4+n)}$,
311: formed in the usual way from two derivatives acting on the metric,
312: having mass dimension 2. This determines the mass dimension
313: of the coefficient of this highly relevant operator, namely
314: $n+2$.
315:
316: The line element of the bulk is
317: \begin{equation}
318: d s^2 = g_{M N}^{(4+n)} d x^M d x^N
319: \end{equation}
320: where we use capital letters, $M,N = 0 \ldots (4+n-1)$, as the indices
321: for the bulk spacetime. Assumption (2) of the ADD model is that spacetime
322: is flat, so we can write expand $g_{M N}$ about flat spacetime
323: including fluctuations. For the moment, let's only consider 4-d metric
324: fluctuations, $h_{\mu\nu}$. Then the line element is
325: \begin{equation}
326: d s^2 = \left( \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu} \right) d x^\mu d x^\nu
327: - r^2 d \Omega^2_{(n)}
328: \end{equation}
329: where $d \Omega_{(n)}$ are $n$-dimensional toroidal coordinates.
330:
331: Given this factorization of the metric, the higher dimensional
332: metric and Ricci scalar can be replaced with their four-dimensional ones,
333: \begin{eqnarray}
334: \sqrt{-g^{(4+n)}} &\rightarrow& \sqrt{-g^{(4)}} \\
335: R^{(4+n)} &\rightarrow& R^{(4)}
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: where $g^{(4)}$ and $R^{(4)}$ implicitly depend on $h_{\mu\nu}$.
338:
339: Now rewrite the higher dimensional action in terms of 4-d modes
340: by ``integrating out'' the extra dimensions:
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: S_{\rm bulk} &=& - \frac{1}{2}
343: \Mstar^{n+2} \int d^{4+n} x \sqrt{-g^{(4+n)}} R^{(4+n)} \\
344: &=& - \frac{1}{2}
345: \Mstar^{n+2} \int d^4 x \int d \Omega_{(n)} r^n
346: \sqrt{-g^{(4)}} R^{(4)} \\
347: &=& - \frac{1}{2}
348: \Mstar^{n+2} (2 \pi r)^n \int d^4 x
349: \sqrt{-g^{(4)}} R^{(4)}
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: The last line is the action for 4-d gravity.
352: Matching the coefficient of the above action
353: with the Planck scale, one obtains the famous result
354: \begin{equation}
355: \Mpl^2 = \Mstar^{n+2} (2 \pi r)^n \; .
356: \label{famous-eq}
357: \end{equation}
358: This equation shows that our measured Planck scale is a derived quantity
359: determined by the fundamental scale of quantum gravity, $\Mstar$,
360: and the volume of the extra dimensions, $V_n = (2 \pi r)^n$.
361:
362: What does this result mean physically? The weakness of 4-d long-distance
363: gravity is fundamentally to due the graviton being spread rather thin
364: across the extra dimensions with a small intersection with the SM-brane.
365: At long distances, gravity behaves exactly as it does in 4-d by construction,
366: since we have integrated out the extra dimensions and matched this
367: action to the usual 4-d action. Close to the length scale of the
368: extra dimensions, however, the gravitational potential changes
369: and one expects to see macroscopic changes in the strength of the
370: force of gravity.
371:
372: \subsection{Deviations from Newtonian Gravity}
373:
374: Classically, the gravitational potential changes at short distance.
375: The Newtonian potential between two bodies of mass $m_1$ and $m_2$ is
376: \begin{eqnarray}
377: V(r') &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
378: \displaystyle{- G_N^{(4+n)} \frac{m_1 m_2}{r'^{1+n}}}
379: & \qquad & r' < r \\[1em]
380: \displaystyle{- G_N \frac{m_1 m_2}{r'}} & & r' > r
381: \end{array} \right.
382: \label{changeover-eq}
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: where $r'$ represents the distance separating the objects,
385: not to be confused with the size of the extra dimensions, $r$.
386:
387: This leads to a vital question: How well is gravity measured?
388: The answer is, for short distances, rather poorly compared
389: with all the other forces. With hindsight, we really should not
390: be surprised since gravity is so weak in comparison to the
391: other forces. Nevertheless, it was the genius of ADD to
392: exploit this fact in constructing their model.
393:
394: For years there have been outlandish ideas on the potential
395: modification of gravity at small but macroscopic distances,
396: from fifth force shenanigans to light scalar moduli from
397: certain string theories. There is some history here, and
398: since each particular idea has a somewhat different
399: functional dependence of the strength of gravity as a
400: function of distance, experimentalists simplified all this
401: by parameterizing deviations in Newton's law as
402: \begin{equation}
403: V(r') = - G_N^{(4)} \frac{m_1 m_2}{r} \left( 1 + \alpha e^{-r'/\lambda} \right)
404: \end{equation}
405: The Yukawa form of the correction to Newton's law roughly
406: corresponds to the exchange of virtual bosons of mass
407: $1/\lambda$, and $\alpha=1$ corresponds to gravitational strength.
408:
409:
410:
411: Fig.~\ref{poster-fig} shows how well gravity is tested at
412: macroscopic distances of direct relevance to the ADD model.
413: You have all seen this graph many times, since it was showcased
414: on the poster for this TASI school!
415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
416: \begin{figure}[t]
417: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0307284_midlam.eps}}
418: \caption{95\%-confidence-level constraints on ISL-violating Yukawa
419: interactions with 1~$\mu\mathrm{m} < \lambda < 1$ cm. The heavy curves
420: give experimental upper limits.
421: (Fig.~5 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Adelberger:2003zx}.)}
422: \label{poster-fig}
423: \end{figure}
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425: This is rather busy graph showing several experimental results
426: as well as theoretical predictions for deviations in assorted
427: models. For us, what is relevant are the experimental bounds
428: (i.e., ignore all of the non-capitalized identifications on the graph).
429: Five experimental results are plotted that provide the strongest
430: constraint on deviations from Newton's law for various ranges of
431: distances and strengths of forces. For gravitational strength
432: deviations, relevant to models of extra dimensions, the strongest
433: constraint comes from the E\"ot-Wash experiment that is consistent
434: with Newtonian gravity down to about 200 microns \cite{Hoyle:2004cw}.
435: These are remarkable experiments, and I encourage you to read
436: the very nice review by
437: Adelberger, Heckel and Nelson \cite{Adelberger:2003zx}
438: for more complete details on how the experiments are done and
439: what they imply for the assorted models that predict deviations.
440:
441: How big is the deviation in the ADD model? The changeover
442: from four-dimensional gravity to higher dimensional gravity
443: in Eq.~(\ref{changeover-eq}) implies that once objects are brought
444: to a distance $r' < r$ apart, they begin to experience
445: a gravitational potential increasing in strength proportional to
446: $1/r'^{n+1}$. Gravity becomes \emph{far} stronger at short distances.
447: Since experiment has not found any (unambiguous) deviations
448: from the $1/r'$ potential, the best we can do is to constrain
449: the parameters of the ADD model using these null results.
450:
451: For the ADD model, it's obvious that $\alpha \sim 1$, $\lambda \sim r$
452: is where an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ deviation from Newtonian gravity
453: is expected. Doing this a bit more carefully (for example,
454: see \cite{Adelberger:2003zx}), one obtains
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: \lambda &=& r \\
457: \alpha &=& \frac{4}{3} (2 n)
458: \end{eqnarray}
459: where $2 n$ sums over the number of KK gravitons with the same mass,
460: and the $4/3$ factor results from summing over all polarizations of
461: the massive KK graviton.
462:
463: Numerically, the size of this correction depends on the
464: volume of the extra dimensions and the size of the fundamental
465: Planck scale $\Mstar$.
466: Let's take the lowest value that we could possibly imagine,
467: namely $\Mstar \sim 1$ TeV. This choice ``solves'' the
468: hierarchy problem by lowering the cutoff scale of the Standard
469: Model to 1 TeV. There are many implications of this,
470: particularly if cutoff scale effects violate the global symmetries
471: of the Standard Model such as flavor, baryon number, lepton number,
472: etc. This is certainly what an effective field theorist should
473: \emph{expect} happens, and so ADD is immediately faced with
474: serious problems. Let's not forget, however, that every other
475: ``solution'' to the hierarchy problem also faces the same
476: problems, i.e., excess violation of SM global symmetries.
477: (For an amusing comparison of ADD to supersymmetry,
478: see \cite{Hall:2000hq}.)
479: Just as there are fixes to these model-induced problems in supersymmetry,
480: there are also some ingenious fixes for extra dimensions, and
481: I'll mention a few at the end of this section and in the third lecture.
482:
483: For now, let's just calculate. Assuming equal-sized extra dimensions,
484: we can trivially solve for the radius of $n$ extra dimensions
485: from Eq.~(\ref{famous-eq}),
486: \begin{equation}
487: r = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \left( \frac{\Mpl^2}{\Mstar^{n+2}} \right)^{1/n}\; .
488: \end{equation}
489: Setting $\Mstar = 1$ TeV, here is a table of the distance scale where
490: one expects order one deviations from Newtonian gravity:
491: \begin{center}
492: \begin{tabular}{c|c}
493: number of extra dimensions & $r$ \\ \hline
494: $n=1$ & $\sim 10^{12}$~m \\
495: $n=2$ & $\sim 10^{-3}$~m \\
496: $n=3$ & $\sim 10^{-8}$~m \\
497: $\vdots$ & \\
498: $n=6$ & $\sim 10^{-11}$~m \\
499: \end{tabular}
500: \end{center}
501: Clearly, one extra dimension $n=1$ with $\Mstar = 1$ TeV is totally
502: ruled out by solar system tests of Newtonian gravity.
503: It is amusing to see how well gravity really is measured
504: at these distances. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{planetary-fig},
505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
506: \begin{figure}[t]
507: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0307284_longlam.eps}}
508: \caption{95\%-confidence-level constraints on ISL-violating Yukawa
509: interactions with $\lambda > 1$ cm. The LLR constraint is based
510: on the anomalous perigee precession; the remaining constraints
511: are based on Keplerian tests.
512: (Fig.~4 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Adelberger:2003zx}.)}
513: \label{planetary-fig}
514: \end{figure}
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516: where estimates of the bounds on new Yukawa-like forces
517: are shown from a diverse set of experimental techniques
518: across the distance scales in the figure. As an aside,
519: notice that for distances several orders of magnitude longer
520: than the solar system, deviations from Newtonian gravity are not
521: well constrained. Indeed, astronomers have in fact measured
522: very significant deviations from Newtonian gravity on galactic
523: distance scales: the famous mismatch between the observed rotation
524: curves with what one would expect from Newtonian gravity given
525: the luminous mass distribution. This is of course one motivation
526: for dark matter; for reviews, see
527: Refs.~\cite{Jungman:1995df,Olive:2003iq,Bertone:2004pz}.
528:
529: For two extra dimensions, the predicted deviation from
530: Newtonian gravity occurs at $r \sim 1$ mm. In 1998, when
531: ADD wrote the first paper on their model, the best experimental limit
532: on gravitational strength forces happened also to be at about 1 mm!
533: Subsequent experiments, however, have found no deviation down to
534: 200 microns, and thus rules out two extra dimensions with a
535: quantum gravity scale of $\Mstar = 1$ TeV. For three or more
536: extra dimensions, the predicted deviation from Newtonian gravity
537: occurs at considerably smaller distances, less than ten nanometers.
538: The experimental constraints on new forces at these distances are
539: extremely weak, as shown in Fig.~\ref{nm-fig}.
540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
541: \begin{figure}[t]
542: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0307284_shortlam.eps}}
543: \caption{Constraints on ISL-violating Yukawa
544: interactions with $1{\rm nm}< \lambda < 1\mu$m.
545: (Fig.~9 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Adelberger:2003zx}.)}
546: \label{nm-fig}
547: \end{figure}
548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
549: The good news is that ADD with $\Mstar = 1$ TeV and $n \ge 3$
550: is not ruled by these experiments! The bad news is that the
551: experiments are so far from testing gravitational strength
552: interactions that it is hopeless to attempt to observe
553: the change from $1/r$ to $1/r^{n+1}$
554: directly.\footnote{There may be ``auxiliary'' effects associated
555: with extra dimensions that lead to observable deviations
556: from Newtonian gravity, such as additional scalar moduli
557: that couple stronger than gravity. Some of these effects
558: are shown in Fig.~\ref{poster-fig}, and I refer you to
559: Ref.~\cite{Adelberger:2003zx} for details.}
560:
561: \subsection{Dynamics of the Higher Dimensional Graviton}
562:
563: Let's generalize the line element for arbitrary metric fluctuations
564: about a flat background bulk spacetime
565: \begin{eqnarray}
566: d s^2 &=& g_{MN} d x^M d x^N \\
567: &=& \left( \eta_{MN} + \frac{1}{2 \Mstar^{n/2 + 1}} h_{MN} \right)
568: d x^M d x^N
569: \end{eqnarray}
570: where now $h_{MN}$ is the higher dimensional graviton. The coefficient
571: is chosen for convenience to lead to canonical normalization for the
572: graviton.
573:
574: Insert the metric expansion into the higher dimensional
575: equations of motion
576: \begin{equation}
577: G_{AB} \equiv R_{AB} - \frac{1}{2 + n} g_{AB} R = - \frac{T_{AB}}{\Mstar^{2+n}}
578: \end{equation}
579: and one obtains \cite{Giudice:1998ck}
580: \begin{eqnarray}
581: \Mstar^{n/2 + 1} G_{AB} &\equiv&
582: \Box h_{AB}
583: - \partial_A \partial^C h_{CB}
584: - \partial_B \partial^C h_{CA}
585: + \partial_A \partial^B h_C^C \\
586: & &{} - \eta_{AB} \Box h_C^C
587: + \eta_{AB} \partial^C \partial^D h_{CD}
588: = - \frac{T_{AB}}{\Mstar^{n/2 + 1}}
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: Define the higher dimensional coordinates as
591: \begin{equation}
592: x_M \equiv (x_\mu; y_i) \equiv (x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3; y_1, \ldots y_n)
593: \end{equation}
594: where compactification of the extra dimensions implies the $y$'s
595: are periodic $y_i \ra y_i + 2 \pi r$. Upon imposing these
596: periodic boundary conditions, the expansion of the higher dimensional
597: graviton in terms of 4-d Kaluza-Klein fields is
598: \begin{equation}
599: h_{AB}(x; y) = \sum_{m_1 =-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots \sum_{m_n =-\infty}^{\infty}
600: \frac{h^{(m)}_{AB}(x)}{\sqrt{V_n}} e^{i \frac{m_j y_j}{r}}
601: \end{equation}
602: where $h^{(m)}$ is a shorthand for $h^{(m_1, m_2, \ldots m_n)}$.
603: %and a sum over $j = 1 \ldots n$ in the exponential is implicit.
604:
605: The SM is confined to a 3-brane within this bulk spacetime, so that
606: \begin{equation}
607: T_{AB}(x; y) = \eta^\mu_A \eta^\nu_B T_{\mu\nu} \delta^{(n)}(\vec{y})
608: \end{equation}
609: taking the SM brane to be located at $\vec{y} = 0$.
610: The physics content of this equation is important:
611: \begin{itemize}
612: \item We are neglecting brane fluctuations.
613: \item We assume the brane is infinitely thin as represented by
614: the $\delta$-function of extra dimensional coordinates.
615: From an effective field theory point of view the $\delta$-function
616: in coordinate space is unusual, potentially leading to singularities,
617: but this can be smoothed out by replacing
618: the $\delta$-function by $e^{-y^2 \Mstar^2}$ where the brane has a width
619: of at least $1/\Mstar$. Thick-brane effects can therefore be neglected
620: so long as we work in an energy regime where $\sqrt{s} \ll \Mstar$.
621: \end{itemize}
622:
623: Now, plug in the KK expansion into Einstein's equations
624: \begin{eqnarray}
625: G_{\mu\nu}^{(k)}(x) =& f \left(h_{\mu\nu}^{(k)}, h_{\mu j}^{(k)}, h^{(k)}_{jk}
626: \right) &= - \frac{T_{\mu\nu}}{\Mpl^2} \\
627: G_{\mu j}^{(k)}(x) =& \ldots &= 0 \\
628: G_{j k}^{(k)}(x) =& \ldots &= 0
629: \end{eqnarray}
630: where the precise forms of $f( \, )$ are not particularly illuminating
631: (and can be found in \cite{Giudice:1998ck}). Here the superscript
632: $(k)$ refers to the Kaluza-Klein level $k$.
633: Rewrite Einstein's equations
634: in terms of propagating (i.e., physical) degrees of freedom
635: for $n \not= 0$ and one obtains
636: \begin{eqnarray}
637: \left( \Box + \hat{k}^2 \right) G^{(k)}_{\mu\nu} &=&
638: \frac{1}{\Mpl} \left[ - T_{\mu\nu}
639: + \left( \frac{\partial_\mu \partial_\nu}{\hat{n}^2} + \eta_{\mu\nu} \right)
640: \frac{T_\lambda^\lambda}{3} \right] \label{KKgrav-eq} \\
641: \left( \Box + \hat{k}^2 \right) H^{(\vec{k})} &=&
642: \frac{1}{2 \Mpl} \sqrt{\frac{3 (n - 1)}{n + 2}}
643: T_\mu^\mu \label{KKradion-eq} \\
644: \left( \Box + \hat{k}^2 \right) V^{(k)}_{\mu j} &=& 0 \label{KKgravipho-eq}\\
645: \left( \Box + \hat{k}^2 \right) S^{(k)}_{jk} &=& 0 \label{KKscalar-eq} \;
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: where the notation
648: \begin{equation}
649: \hat{k}^2 \equiv \sum_i^n \left| \frac{k_i}{r} \right|^2
650: \end{equation}
651: was used.
652: The $G^{(k)}_{\mu\nu}$ correspond to massive KK gravitons that
653: have absorbed one KK vector and one KK scalar for each KK level $k$.
654: The $V^{(k)}_{\mu j}$ correspond to massive KK graviphotons,
655: that absorbed one KK scalar per propagating vector per level.
656: Finally the $S^{(k)}_{jk}$ and $H^{(\vec{k})}$ correspond to
657: remaining massive KK scalars. At each level (for $n > 1$),
658: there is one single scalar, $H^{(\vec{k})}$, that couples to the
659: 4-d energy momentum tensor as shown above.
660:
661: These excitations are coming from the decomposition of the
662: higher dimensional metric fluctuations
663: \begin{equation}
664: h_{MN} = \left( \begin{array}{c|ccc}
665: h_{\mu\nu} & h_{\mu5} & h_{\mu6} & \ldots \\ \hline
666: & h_{55} & h_{56} & \ldots \\
667: & & h_{66} & \ldots \\
668: & & & \end{array} \right) \; .
669: \end{equation}
670:
671: Notice that the vectors and most scalars from this decomposition
672: do not couple to SM brane-localized fields. The gravitons and
673: $H^{(\vec{k})}$ do!
674: Let's do an example of this in 5-d. The five-dimensional
675: metric fluctuation decomposition is
676: \begin{equation}
677: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
678: h_{\mu\nu} & h_{\mu5} \\
679: & \phi \end{array} \right)
680: \end{equation}
681: naively has KK models
682: \begin{equation}
683: \begin{array}{ccccccc}
684: h_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} & h_{\mu5}^{(0)} & \phantom{000} , \phantom{000} &
685: h_{\mu\nu}^{(1)} & h_{\mu5}^{(1)} & \phantom{000} , \phantom{000} & \ldots \\
686: & \phi^{(0)} & \phantom{000} , \phantom{000} &
687: & \phi^{(1)} & \phantom{000} , \phantom{000} & \ldots
688: \end{array}
689: \end{equation}
690: However, a massive graviton in 4-d has five polarizations:
691: $h_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}$ eats $h_{\mu5}^{(1)}$ and $\phi^{(1)}$;
692: the latter are the longitudinal components.
693:
694: It's now appropriate to go through the degree of freedom counting
695: for gravitons. As a warmup, let's begin with gauge theory.
696: A general gauge field $A_M$ in $D$ dimensions has $D$ real components.
697: One can always choose a gauge, such as Coulomb gauge,
698: \begin{eqnarray}
699: \partial_M A^M &=& 0
700: \end{eqnarray}
701: reducing the number of independent components to $D-1$.
702: One can then do a gauge transformation on $A_M$:
703: \begin{eqnarray}
704: A_M &\ra& A_M + \partial_M \chi
705: \end{eqnarray}
706: for some real function $\chi$. This gauge transformation
707: leaves the kinetic term invariant
708: \begin{eqnarray}
709: F_{M N} &\ra& \left[ \partial_M \left( A_N + \partial_N \chi \right)
710: - \partial_N \left( A_M + \partial_M \chi \right)
711: \right] \\
712: &=& F_{M N}
713: \end{eqnarray}
714: since the $\partial_M \partial_N \chi$ terms drop out.
715: A massless, on-shell $D$-dimensional gauge field has therefore
716: $D-2$ independent components.
717: A mass term for the gauge field, however, is famously known not
718: to be gauge invariant since
719: \begin{eqnarray}
720: \frac{1}{2} m^2 A_M A^M &\ra& \frac{1}{2} m^2 \left[ A_M A^M
721: + 2 A^M \partial_M \chi + \partial_M \chi \partial^M \chi \right] \; .
722: \end{eqnarray}
723: This gauge-transformed Lagrangian contains terms that are rather similar
724: to the expansion of $D_\mu \phi D^\mu \phi$ when the minimum of $\phi$
725: is displaced from the origin. This is just the usual Higgs mechanism
726: where one can suitably reinterpret the last term as a kinetic term
727: for a scalar (Goldstone) field $\chi$ and the mixing term
728: represents the gauge boson/scalar mixing that gives rise to
729: a gauge boson mass. A massive, on-shell gauge field in $D$
730: dimensions therefore has $D-1$ independent components.
731:
732: The story for the graviton is entirely analogous. A $D$-dimensional
733: graviton is a $D \times D$ real symmetric matrix with two indices,
734: and therefore $D (D + 1)/2$ components. We can first
735: choose a gauge, such as the harmonic gauge,
736: \begin{eqnarray}
737: \partial_M h^M_N &=& \frac{1}{2} \partial_N h^M_M
738: \label{harmonic-gauge-eq}
739: \end{eqnarray}
740: which reduces the number of independent components by $D$ since
741: Eq.~(\ref{harmonic-gauge-eq}) represents $D$ independent constraints.
742: One can then do a general coordinate transformation on $h_{M N}$:
743: \begin{eqnarray}
744: h_{M N} &\ra& h_{M N} + \partial_M \epsilon_N + \partial_N \epsilon_M
745: \label{hMN-gauge-transformation-eq}
746: \end{eqnarray}
747: for some real vector function $\epsilon_N$. This gauge transformation
748: leaves the kinetic term for gravity invariant. To show this, one needs
749: the graviton kinetic term, namely the Einstein-Hilbert action expanded
750: to leading order in the graviton fluctuation $h_{M N}$ \cite{Giudice:1998ck}
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: R &=& - \frac{1}{2} h^{A B} \Box h_{A B} + \frac{1}{2} h^A_A \Box h^B_B
753: - h^{A B} \partial_A \partial_B h^C_C
754: + h^{A B} \partial_A \partial_C h^C_B \; .
755: \end{eqnarray}
756: I leave it as an exercise to verify that $R$ is invariant under the
757: general coordinate transformation Eq.~(\ref{hMN-gauge-transformation-eq}).
758: A massless, on-shell $D$-dimensional graviton has therefore
759: $D (D - 3)/2$ independent components. For $D=4$ we obtain
760: two real components, consistent with our expectations.
761: A mass term for the graviton field, however, is not gauge invariant
762: with respect to general coordinate invariance. The Fierz-Pauli
763: graviton mass term in $D$ dimensions is
764: \begin{eqnarray}
765: \frac{1}{2} m^2 \left( h_{M N} h^{M N} - h_M^M h_N^N \right)
766: \end{eqnarray}
767: picks up non-zero contributions that include terms like
768: $h_{M N} \partial^M \epsilon^N$. Just like for the gauge theory
769: example above, one can suitably reinterpret the terms of the
770: gauge transformed Fierz-Pauli action as analogous to a Higgs
771: mechanism for gravity, where now graviton-vector mixing
772: is the analogue of vector-scalar mixing we found above.
773: Doing this analysis carefully, one finds that the vector is
774: itself composed of a Goldstone (massless) vector with a Goldstone scalar,
775: contributing a total $D - 1$ components to the graviton. A massive
776: graviton in $D$ dimensions therefore contains $D (D - 1)/2 - 1$
777: components. For example, this evaluates to 5 components for
778: a 4-d graviton, matching our expectations.
779: A nice description of how massive gravitons absorbs vectors,
780: the issues surrounding massive gravity
781: (vDVZ discontinuity \cite{vDVZ}, etc.),
782: and what this means for a deconstruction of gravity can be
783: found in Ref.~\cite{deconstructinggravity}.
784:
785: The potentially dangerous mode is the scalar degree of freedom
786: that couples to the energy momentum tensor: the radion.
787: The radion is a conformally-coupled scalar, and thus couples
788: to explicit conformal violation in the Standard Model, for example
789: \begin{equation}
790: T_\mu^\mu \sim M_W^2 W_\mu^+ W^{\mu-} + m_f \overline{f} f + \ldots \; .
791: \end{equation}
792: We have implicitly assumed that a stabilization mechanism is in
793: place to fix the size of the extra dimensions and thus
794: give the radion a mass sufficiently heavy so as to not modify
795: gravity in experimentally unacceptable ways. This is obviously
796: a highly model-dependent statement, and several groups have
797: explored constraints on radion couplings in large extra dimension
798: scenarios (for example, see
799: Refs.~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998kx,Banks:1999eg,Csaki:1999ht}).
800:
801: At this point, what I have done is to show you that the effects
802: of large extra dimensions (suitably stabilized) is reduced to
803: the problem of determining the effects of the KK modes of the
804: graviton. Given the results thus far, it is straightforward to
805: derive the Feynman rules. I'll simply sketch the well known
806: procedure for obtaining the interactions
807: of the KK models with matter. The graviton couples to the
808: energy momentum tensor, which we obtain from the SM action by
809: \begin{equation}
810: - 2 \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}
811: \frac{\delta S_{\rm SM}}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} = T^{\mu\nu}_{\rm SM}
812: \end{equation}
813: For example, the QED part of the energy-momentum tensor is
814: \begin{eqnarray}
815: T^{\mu\nu}_{\rm QED} &=&
816: - F^{\mu\lambda} F_\lambda^\nu
817: + \frac{1}{4} \eta^{\mu\nu} F^{\lambda\rho} F_{\lambda\rho}
818: \end{eqnarray}
819: The Feynman rules follow directly (for example, see
820: \cite{Giudice:1998ck,Han:1998sg}). A few of them are shown in
821: Fig.~\ref{graviton-feynman-rules-fig}.
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823: \begin{figure}
824: \begin{center}
825: \begin{picture}(300,400)
826: %
827: \Text( 20, 390 )[r]{$f(p_1)$}
828: \Text( 20, 330 )[r]{$\overline{f}(p_2)$}
829: \ArrowLine( 30 , 390 )( 70 , 360 )
830: \ArrowLine( 70 , 360 )( 30 , 330 )
831: \Photon( 70 , 361 )( 120 , 361 ){4}{5}
832: \Photon( 70 , 359 )( 120 , 359 ){4}{5}
833: \Text( 130 , 360 )[l]{$G_{\mu\nu}$}
834: \Text( 180 , 360)[l]{$\displaystyle{-\frac{i}{4 \Mpl}
835: \left[W_{\mu\nu} + W_{\nu\mu} \right]}$}
836: \Text( 70 , 330 )[c]{(a)}
837: %
838: \Text( 20, 290 )[r]{$A_\alpha(p_1)$}
839: \Text( 20, 230 )[r]{$A_\beta(p_2)$}
840: \Photon( 30 , 290 )( 70 , 260 ){4}{6}
841: \Photon( 70 , 260 )( 30 , 230 ){4}{6}
842: \Photon( 70 , 261 )( 120 , 261 ){4}{5}
843: \Photon( 70 , 259 )( 120 , 259 ){4}{5}
844: \Text( 130, 260 )[l]{$G_{\mu\nu}$}
845: \Text( 180 ,260)[l]{$\displaystyle{-\frac{i}{\Mpl}
846: \left[ W_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} + W_{\nu\mu\alpha\beta} \right]}$}
847: \Text( 70 , 230 )[c]{(b)}
848: %
849: \Text( 20, 190 )[r]{$f$}
850: \Text( 20, 130 )[r]{$\overline{f}$}
851: \ArrowLine( 30 , 190 )( 70 , 160 )
852: \ArrowLine( 70 , 160 )( 30 , 130 )
853: \Photon( 70 , 161 )( 120 , 191 ){4}{6}
854: \Photon( 70 , 159 )( 120 , 189 ){4}{6}
855: \Photon( 70 , 160 )( 120 , 130 ){4}{6}
856: \Text( 130 , 190 )[l]{$G_{\mu\nu}$}
857: \Text( 130 , 130 )[l]{$A_\alpha$}
858: \Text( 180 , 160)[l]{$\displaystyle{-\frac{i}{2 \Mpl} e Q
859: \left[\gamma_\mu \eta_{\nu\alpha} + \gamma_\nu \eta_{\mu\alpha} \right]}$}
860: \Text( 70 , 130 )[c]{(c)}
861: %
862: \Text( 20, 90 )[r]{$g^a_\alpha(p_1)$}
863: \Text( 20, 30 )[r]{$g^b_\beta(p_2)$}
864: \Gluon( 30 , 90 )( 70 , 60 ){4}{6}
865: \Gluon( 70 , 60 )( 30 , 30 ){4}{6}
866: \Photon( 70 , 61 )( 120 , 91 ){4}{6}
867: \Photon( 70 , 59 )( 120 , 89 ){4}{6}
868: \Gluon( 70 , 60 )( 120 , 30 ){4}{6}
869: \Text( 130 , 90 )[l]{$G_{\mu\nu}$}
870: \Text( 130 , 30 )[l]{$g^c_\gamma(p_3)$}
871: \Text( 180 , 60)[l]{$\displaystyle{\frac{g_3}{\Mpl} f^{abc}
872: K(p_1, p_2, p_3)_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}}$}
873: \Text( 70 , 30 )[c]{(d)}
874: %
875: \end{picture}
876: \end{center}
877: \caption{Some of the Feynman rules connecting gravitons to
878: SM fields, from Ref.~\cite{Giudice:1998ck}.
879: Here $W^{(f)}_{\mu\nu} = (p_1 + p_2)_\mu \gamma_\nu$
880: and the other kinematical functions $W^{(\gamma)}_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$
881: and $K(p_1, p_2, p_3)_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}$
882: can be found in \cite{Giudice:1998ck}.
883: Rules (b) and (c) are present for all SM groups;
884: rule (d) occurs for non-Abelian groups (gluons shown).}
885: \label{graviton-feynman-rules-fig}
886: \end{figure}
887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
888: Given the Feynman rules, we are now ready to do phenomenology!
889:
890: \subsection{Scales and Graviton Counting}
891:
892: KK gravitons have a mass $k/r$ so that the mass splittings
893: between KK gravitons is
894: \begin{equation}
895: \Delta m \sim \frac{1}{r} = 2 \pi \Mstar
896: \left( \frac{\Mstar}{\Mpl} \right)^{2/n} \; .
897: \label{r-solve-eq}
898: \end{equation}
899: Plugging in some numbers to give some feeling for the size
900: \begin{equation}
901: \Delta m \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
902: 0.003 \; \mbox{eV} & \quad & $n=2$ \\
903: 0.1 \; \mbox{MeV} & & $n=4$ \\
904: 0.05 \; \mbox{GeV} & & $n=6$ \end{array} \right.
905: \qquad \mbox{for} \; \Mstar = 1 \; \mbox{TeV.}
906: \end{equation}
907: Obviously this is very small! For illustration,
908: the KK mass spectrum of gravitons for $n=2$ extra dimensions
909: is shown in Fig.~\ref{dos-fig}.
910: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
911: \begin{figure}[t]
912: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/dos_n=2.eps}}
913: \caption{The mass spectrum of the KK gravitons is shown for
914: $n=2$. Notice that the density of KK states fills in the energy
915: axis quite rapidly, allowing us to very accurately replace the
916: discrete set of KK states with a continuum.}
917: \label{dos-fig}
918: \end{figure}
919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
920:
921: It is convenient to replace the sum over modes with an
922: integral over the density of states. Fig.~\ref{dos-fig} graphically
923: shows that the continuum rapidly becomes an excellent approximation,
924: so long as experiments are not sensitive to the mass splitting.
925: (This is certainly true for $\Mstar$ near the TeV scale and the
926: number of extra dimensions is, say, $n \lsim 6$.)
927: The number of states $d N$ in an $n$-dimensional spatial volume
928: having Kaluza-Klein index between $|k|$ to $|k| + d k$ is
929: \begin{equation}
930: d N = S_{n-1} |k|^{n-1} d k \qquad S_{n-1} = \frac{2 \pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}
931: \end{equation}
932: where $S_{n-1}$ is the area of an $n$-sphere. Using $m=|k|/r$,
933: the density of states is
934: \begin{equation}
935: d N = S_{n-1} r^n m^{n-1} d m
936: \end{equation}
937: so that the differential cross section for \emph{inclusive}
938: graviton production becomes
939: \begin{equation}
940: \frac{d^2 \sigma}{d t d m} = S_{n-1} \frac{\Mpl^2}{(2 \pi)^n \Mstar^{n+2}}
941: m^{n-1} \frac{d \sigma_m}{d t}
942: \end{equation}
943: where $t = (p_1 - p_3)^2$; $d \sigma/d t$ is the differential
944: cross section for a single graviton of mass $m$; and I have
945: substituted for $r$ using Eq.~(\ref{r-solve-eq}).
946:
947: This general formula can applied to any specific process
948: involving gravitons. For example, consider real graviton production
949: in association with photons, $f \overline{f} \rightarrow \gamma G$.
950: Gravitons produced at colliders in models with large extra dimensions
951: escape the detector, leading to a missing energy. Since missing energy
952: by itself leads to no signal at any collider detector, adding
953: a photon to the final state allows for ``tagging'' of large missing
954: energy using the single photon signal.
955: The differential cross section to produce a particular graviton is
956: \begin{equation}
957: \frac{d \sigma_m}{d t} \left( f \overline{f} \ra \gamma G \right) =
958: \frac{\alpha Q_f^2}{16 N_f} \frac{1}{s \Mpl^2}
959: F_1 \left( \frac{t}{s} , \frac{m^2}{s} \right)
960: \end{equation}
961: where
962: $\alpha$ is the photon coupling,
963: $Q_f$ is the electric charge of the fermion,
964: $N_f$ is number of colors, and
965: $s$ is the center of mass energy.
966: Using the Feynman rules given above, the kinematical function
967: $F_1(x,y)$ can be computed, and is given in the Appendix of
968: Ref.~\cite{Giudice:1998ck}.
969: Notice that the cross section for producing a single graviton is
970: suppressed by the 4-d Planck scale, as you would expect. But upon
971: integrating over the huge density of states from $1/r$ up to the
972: energy of the process $\sqrt{s}$, one obtains
973: \begin{equation}
974: \frac{d \sigma_m}{d t} \left( f \overline{f} \ra \gamma G \right) =
975: \frac{\alpha Q_f^2}{16 N_f} \frac{1}{s \Mstar^{2+n}}
976: S_{n-1} \frac{m^{n-1}}{(2 \pi)^n}
977: F_1 \left( \frac{t}{s} , \frac{m^2}{s} \right)
978: \end{equation}
979: where the dependence on the 4-d Planck scale cancels!
980: This of course had to happen, since we could have just
981: as easily done the same calculation in $D$ dimensions, where
982: the only scale in the problem is the fundamental quantum gravity
983: scale, $\Mstar$, which is the coupling of the $D$-dimensional graviton!
984:
985: The total cross section is obtained by integrating over all angles.
986: To give you a feeling for the size of this signal, consider the
987: process where the initial state particles $\overline{f}f = e^+e^-$
988: from a 1 TeV center-of-mass energy collider (such a linear collider
989: that is under active consideration by the high energy physics
990: community). The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{gamma-plus-missing-fig}.
991: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
992: \begin{figure}[t]
993: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/9811291_fige2.ps}}
994: \caption{Total $e^+e^-\to \gamma + \mathrm{nothing}$ cross-section
995: at a 1 TeV center-of-mass energy $e^+e^-$ collider.
996: Here $\Mstar = (2 \pi)^{-n/(2+n)} M_D \sim (0.4 \ra 0.25) M_D$ for
997: $n$ (called $\delta$ in the figure) between $(2 \ra 6)$.
998: The signal from
999: graviton production is presented as solid lines for various
1000: numbers of extra dimension ($n=2,3,4,5$).
1001: The Standard Model background for
1002: unpolarized beams is given by the upper dash-dotted line, and the background
1003: with $90\%$ polarization is given by the lower dash-dotted line. The signal
1004: and background are computed with the requirement $E_\gamma < 450$ GeV
1005: in order to eliminate the $\gamma Z\to \gamma\bar\nu\nu$
1006: contribution to the background. The dashed line is the Standard Model
1007: background subtracted signal from a representative dimension-6 operator.
1008: (Fig.~2 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Giudice:1998ck}.)}
1009: \label{gamma-plus-missing-fig}
1010: \end{figure}
1011: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1012: There are several things to glean from the figure.
1013: Holding the energy of the incident particles fixed
1014: (as a partonic collider does for you for free),
1015: you can see that more extra dimensions generically means
1016: a smaller signal; i.e., contrast the $n=2$ curve with the $n=5$ curve.
1017: This is easy to understand: As the number of dimensions increases,
1018: $1/r$ increases, and hence the density of graviton states per unit
1019: energy interval increases dramatically. Holding $\sqrt{s}/\Mstar$ fixed,
1020: then, implies that the integrated density of states between
1021: $1/r$ to $\sqrt{s}$ always decreases as the number of dimensions
1022: increase. Hence, all other things considered equal, signals associated
1023: with graviton emission will always be harder to see as the number of
1024: extra dimensions increases.
1025: Also, notice in Fig.~\ref{gamma-plus-missing-fig} that the
1026: estimated size of the SM background is rather substantial, and so
1027: one really has to get rather lucky with $\Mstar$ awfully close to
1028: $\sqrt{s}$ to get a signal at a TeV $e^+e^-$ collider.
1029:
1030: Hadron colliders can do much better. This subject has
1031: received enormous attention (the first few papers that
1032: performed calculations for hadron colliders are
1033: \cite{Giudice:1998ck,Mirabelli:1998rt,Han:1998sg,Hewett:1998sn}).
1034: As just one example, consider the basic partonic diagrams for the
1035: LHC that lead to graviton emission in association with one
1036: colored parton that becomes a jet in the detector. The basic
1037: subprocesses include $q g \ra q G$ (which gives the largest contribution),
1038: $q \overline{q} \ra g G$, and $gg \ra g G$. Processes with
1039: a single quark or gluon in the final state are considered for
1040: the same reason that a single photon in the final state was considered
1041: for an $e^+e^-$ machine: the large missing energy can be ``tagged''
1042: using the monojet plus missing energy signal.
1043: The resulting hadronic collider process is thus
1044: $p p \ra \mbox{jet} + \slashchar{E}_T$.
1045: For a sufficiently high enough cut on the jet energy,
1046: the background from one jet plus $Z \ra \overline{\nu}\nu$
1047: can be sufficiently reduced to weed out the signal.
1048: Doing the calculation in detail \cite{Giudice:1998ck}
1049: one finds the cut on the jet energy must be in the
1050: several hundred GeV to TeV range. As an illustration of the
1051: size of this process in comparison to background,
1052: Fig.~\ref{hadron-ADD-fig} shows the hadronic production
1053: cross section at leading order as a function of the
1054: lowered quantum gravity scale.
1055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1056: \begin{figure}[t]
1057: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/9811291_figp2.ps}}
1058: \caption{The total ${\rm jet}+{\rm nothing}$ cross-section
1059: versus $M_D$ at the LHC integrated for all
1060: $E_{T,{\rm jet}} > 1$ TeV with the requirement that
1061: $|\eta_{\rm jet}|< 3.0$.
1062: Here again $\Mstar = (2 \pi)^{-n/(2+n)} M_D \sim (0.4 \ra 0.25) M_D$ for
1063: $n$ (called $\delta$ in the figure) between $(2 \ra 4)$.
1064: The Standard Model background is the
1065: dash-dotted line, and the signal
1066: is plotted as solid and dashed lines
1067: for $n=2$ and $4$ extra
1068: dimensions. The ``a'' (``b'') lines are constructed by integrating
1069: the cross-section over $\hat s < M_D^2$ (all $\hat s$).}
1070: \label{hadron-ADD-fig}
1071: \end{figure}
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1073:
1074: Another interesting signal is virtual graviton exchange.
1075: Here one now must sum over all KK gravitons exchanged,
1076: so that the amplitude contains
1077: \begin{eqnarray}
1078: \mathcal{A} &\sim& \frac{1}{\Mpl^2} \sum \frac{1}{s - m_{\rm KK}^2} \\
1079: &\sim& \frac{s^{(n-2)/2}}{\Mstar^{n+2}}
1080: \end{eqnarray}
1081: where like before, the sum over the KK modes removes the $1/\Mpl$
1082: suppression in favor of $1/\Mstar$ suppression.\footnote{For the case
1083: $n=2$, the amplitude should be multiplied by $\ln s/\mu^2$.}
1084: This result, unlike the real graviton emission in association with
1085: photons discussed above, has certain theoretical ambiguities.
1086:
1087: The central issue is the positive power of $\sqrt{s}$ in the numerator.
1088: This means that this process is ostensibly diverging as one
1089: approaches $\Mstar$. This is analogous to what happens to the
1090: amplitude of gauge boson scattering in the Standard Model
1091: without a Higgs boson. Unlike the SM, however, we don't know what
1092: regulates quantum gravity (even if there are extra dimensions),
1093: and so this amplitude could well be affected by the UV physics
1094: that smoothes out quantum gravity (strings at a TeV!).
1095: In effective field theory, this UV dependence corresponds to
1096: higher dimensional operators suppressed by the cutoff scale,
1097: i.e., the quantum gravity scale. Hence, another way to probe
1098: the ADD model is to look for effects of these higher dimensional
1099: operators. At dimension-8, one can write the effective operator
1100: corresponding to virtual graviton exchange at tree-level
1101: \begin{eqnarray}
1102: \frac{c}{\Mstar^4} \frac{1}{2} \left( T_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{n + 2}
1103: T_\mu^\mu T_\nu^\nu \right)
1104: \label{ADD-dim8-eq}
1105: \end{eqnarray}
1106: where the coefficient $c \sim 4 \pi$ is conventionally taken as
1107: the strength of this operator at strong coupling
1108: using naive dimensional analysis (NDA). At dimension-6,
1109: graviton loops can also induce new four-fermion operators, of the form
1110: \begin{eqnarray}
1111: c \frac{\overline{f}f\overline{f}f}{\Mstar^2}
1112: \label{ADD-dim6-eq}
1113: \end{eqnarray}
1114: where again $c \sim 4\pi$ at strong coupling. The effects of these
1115: operators correspond to what is usually called ``compositeness''
1116: in older literature, and indeed the same analysis applies.
1117: Large extra dimensions are simply one realization of these operators.
1118: The precise constraints depend on the assumption of strong coupling
1119: (the $4\pi$ coefficient) and the particular operators in question,
1120: but one finds numbers of order $1.5$ TeV for Eq.~(\ref{ADD-dim8-eq}) and
1121: of order $15$ TeV for Eq.~(\ref{ADD-dim6-eq})
1122: (see 2005 update of PDG \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}).
1123:
1124: \subsection{Astrophysics}
1125:
1126: Collider experiments can probe large extra dimensions by integrating
1127: over a large number of graviton modes. To get stronger bounds
1128: one must either increase the energy of the collider or increase
1129: the luminosity. The existence of light gravitons, however,
1130: allows a different window on this physics: namely,
1131: thermal systems that are hot enough to produce graviton KK modes
1132: and large enough to produce enough of them to have an effect
1133: on the astrophysical system. Specifically, consider astrophysical
1134: systems whose temperature is
1135: \begin{equation}
1136: T \gsim m_{\rm KK} \; .
1137: \end{equation}
1138: We can estimate the rate of thermal graviton production by
1139: multiplying the coupling of each graviton by the number of
1140: modes accessible,
1141: \begin{equation}
1142: \mbox{rate of graviton production} \propto \frac{1}{\Mpl^2}
1143: \left( T r \right)^n \sim \frac{T^n}{\Mstar^{n+2}} \; .
1144: \end{equation}
1145:
1146: To find the best astrophysical bound, we want the hottest
1147: astrophysical system in the Universe. The system must, however,
1148: be well enough understood via ordinary SM physics so that we can
1149: use it as testing laboratory. This system is a supernova,
1150: and SN1987A in particular.
1151:
1152: SN1987A is a core collapse type II supernova that went off in
1153: our sister galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, emitting a huge
1154: amount of energy mostly into neutrinos. The neutrinos appeared
1155: after the stellar core of the dying star collapsed to a neutron star
1156: and remained hot enough so that the nucleons could bremsstrahlung
1157: neutrinos via the weak interaction.
1158: Several neutrino events were recorded by
1159: underground detectors on Earth, including Kamiokande in Japan
1160: and IMB in the USA. The time extent of the neutrino burst
1161: was several seconds, suggesting the supernova remained hot enough
1162: for neutrino emission to proceed on a
1163: macroscopic time scale. The temperature of SN1987A is estimated
1164: to be $T \sim 50 \pm 20$ MeV.
1165:
1166: SN1987A has been used to constrain all sorts of non-standard
1167: physics (for example, see Ref.~\cite{Raffelt:1999tx}).
1168: Here what is of most interest are the constraints on axions that
1169: have rather weak couplings to matter. The basis for constraints on
1170: axions is that too large a coupling leads to too much axion emission
1171: from the supernova that has the effect of providing a means to more
1172: rapidly cool the supernova. In this case, the time
1173: extent of neutrino observations limits the total amount of cooling,
1174: and thus the strength of the axion coupling.
1175:
1176: Similarly, graviton emission can cause excess cooling of a
1177: supernova, and this is what we want to work out now.
1178: The calculation is a bit different between axions and gravitons,
1179: since axions are derivatively coupled. The relevant reaction
1180: for gravitons is
1181: \begin{equation}
1182: N + N \ra N + N + G
1183: \end{equation}
1184: where strong interaction effects (through pion exchange)
1185: are unsuppressed while the nucleons $N$ themselves are
1186: non-relativistic. The graviton coupling to non-relativistic
1187: matter is
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: h_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu} \qquad \mbox{where} \qquad
1190: T^{\mu\nu} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1191: m & p_i \\
1192: p_i & p_i p_j/m
1193: \end{array} \right)
1194: \end{equation}
1195: where the transverse-traceless part couples to $p_i p_j/m \sim T$,
1196: the temperature of the non-relativistic plasma. This causes
1197: an extra suppression $T^2/\Mstar^2$ for the cross section to produce
1198: gravitons compared with axions. The thermally averaged
1199: cross section is roughly \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \langle \sigma v \rangle \sim (30 \; \mathrm{mb})
1202: \left( \frac{T}{\Mstar} \right)^{n+2}
1203: \end{equation}
1204: During SN collapse, roughly $10^{53}$ erg are released in a few seconds.
1205: To use this to place a bound on graviton emission, we simply
1206: require that the graviton luminosity is less than $10^{53}$ erg/s
1207: $\sim (10^{16} \; \mathrm{GeV})^2$. The graviton luminosity is
1208: \begin{equation}
1209: L_G \sim M_{\rm core} \frac{n_N^2}{\rho} (30 \; \mathrm{mb})
1210: \left( \frac{T}{\Mstar} \right)^{n+2}
1211: \end{equation}
1212: where $n_N$ is the nucleon number density in the core and
1213: $\rho$ is the mass density.
1214: This calculation was done carefully in \cite{Cullen:1999hc},
1215: obtaining the constraints
1216: \begin{equation}
1217: M_D \gsim \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
1218: 50 \; \mathrm{TeV} & \quad & n=2 \\
1219: 4 \; \mathrm{TeV} & & n=3 \\
1220: 1 \; \mathrm{TeV} & & n=4
1221: \end{array} \right.
1222: \end{equation}
1223: where $M_D = (2 \pi)^{n/(n+2)} \Mstar$.
1224: There is no bound for $n > 4$ since the mass splitting
1225: between the gravitons is between a few to tens of MeV,
1226: leaving a rather small range of KK gravitons that can be emitted
1227: without Boltzmann suppression.
1228:
1229: These bounds are significant for several reasons.
1230: Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be drawn
1231: from these results becomes manifest if we translate
1232: the bounds on $\Mstar$ into upper bounds on the size of
1233: the extra dimensions:
1234: \begin{eqnarray}
1235: r \lsim \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
1236: 10^{-4} \; \mathrm{mm} & \quad & n=2 \\
1237: 10^{-7} \; \mathrm{mm} & & n=3 \\
1238: 10^{-8} \; \mathrm{mm} & & n=4
1239: \end{array} \right.
1240: \end{eqnarray}
1241: Hence, the scale where gravitational strength deviations from
1242: Newton's law are guaranteed to be present\footnote{To be
1243: distinguished from certain model-dependent effects that can
1244: also occur in models of large extra dimensions.}
1245: in models of large extra dimensions
1246: is far smaller than the present experimental bound
1247: (about $0.2$ mm) and indeed much smaller than future experiments
1248: are likely able to probe (at gravitational strength).
1249:
1250: There is a good lesson here. New physics can appear in myriad
1251: experimental situations, and one must consider all of them
1252: to obtain the best bounds on the parameters of a new physics model.
1253: Of course this is not to suggest that continued experiments
1254: probing gravitational deviations is futile, but
1255: it does mean that a deviation attributed to KK gravitons
1256: would be (apparently) inconsistent with graviton emission from
1257: SN1987A.
1258:
1259: \subsection{Cosmology}
1260:
1261: There is another constraint that I want to discuss that
1262: concerns excess cooling of another big astrophysical system:
1263: the entire Universe!
1264: The source of cooling is the same as for supernovae,
1265: namely graviton emission. In 5-d language, a 5-d graviton
1266: can be emitted into the bulk with a coupling that is
1267: suppressed by just $1/\Mstar$. In 4-d language, the probability
1268: to emit \emph{some} KK mode goes as $1/\Mstar^{n+2}$ while
1269: the decay of a given mode goes as $1/\Mpl$. This means for
1270: high enough temperatures in the early universe, graviton emission
1271: becomes large, and this depletes the energy of the coupled
1272: plasma causing excess cooling that would be observed by large
1273: differences in big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).
1274:
1275: The decay rate for a graviton into two photons is
1276: \begin{equation}
1277: \Gamma_{G \ra \gamma\gamma} = \frac{m_G^3}{80 \pi \Mpl^2}
1278: \label{KK-grav-decay-eq}
1279: \end{equation}
1280: which corresponds to a decay time of
1281: \begin{equation}
1282: \tau \sim \left( 10^8 \; \mbox{Gyr} \right)
1283: \left( \frac{\mbox{MeV}}{m_G} \right)^3
1284: \end{equation}
1285: Hence, once a graviton is produced it decouples from the thermal
1286: plasma and does not decay for a long, long time.
1287:
1288: To extract a bound on large extra dimension models, let's compare
1289: the ordinary Hubble expansion rate to that of cooling by gravitons.
1290: Cooling by Hubble expansion is roughly
1291: \begin{equation}
1292: \left. \frac{d \rho}{d t}\right|_\mathrm{expansion}
1293: \sim - 3 H \rho \sim - 3 \frac{T^2}{\Mpl^2} \rho
1294: \end{equation}
1295: whereas cooling by graviton emission goes as
1296: \begin{equation}
1297: \left. \frac{d \rho}{d t}\right|_\mathrm{evaporation}
1298: \sim \frac{T^n}{\Mstar^{n+2}}
1299: \end{equation}
1300: These rates are equal at the ``normalcy'' temperature, which is
1301: easily found by equating the above rates, and one obtains
1302: \begin{equation}
1303: T_\star = 10^{\frac{6 n - 9}{n+1}} \; \mathrm{MeV} =
1304: \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
1305: 10 \; \mathrm{MeV} & \quad & n=2 \\
1306: \;\;\; \vdots & & \\
1307: 10 \; \mathrm{GeV} & & n=6 \; . \end{array} \right.
1308: \end{equation}
1309: The normalcy temperature is is the maximum reheat temperature
1310: of the Universe such that cooling by ordinary Hubble expansion
1311: dominates. The good news is that this temperature is above
1312: the temperature of BBN (about $1$ MeV), and so we do not expect
1313: BBN predictions to be modified. The bad news is that we have generally
1314: thought that the Universe was far hotter than tens of MeV
1315: to tens of GeV, for example to generate weakly interacting
1316: dark matter, baryogenesis, inflation, etc. All of these phenomena
1317: need new mechanisms that operate at low temperatures.
1318: See for example Ref.~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999gq} for a discussion
1319: of some of these issues.
1320:
1321:
1322: \subsection{Relic Photons}
1323:
1324: Even if the Universe is reheated to a temperature that is below
1325: the normalcy temperature, many light, long-lived gravitons are
1326: produced. By themselves, the relic KK gravitons are not a nuisance,
1327: but their decay products may well be. The KK graviton decay rate
1328: into photons was given above in Eq.~(\ref{KK-grav-decay-eq}),
1329: and we see that some significant fraction of the KK gravitons
1330: (ones lighter than about 5 MeV) produced in the early Universe
1331: will have decayed by now. This excess source of keV to MeV photons
1332: contributes to the diffuse cosmic $\gamma$-ray background.
1333:
1334: Measuring the diffuse high energy photon spectrum is an ongoing
1335: enterprise. The region of interest to us has been covered by
1336: the COMPTEL experiment's $\gamma$-ray observations, shown (in conjunction
1337: with measurements throughout the high energy photon spectrum) in
1338: Fig.~\ref{gamma-ray-fig}.
1339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1340: \begin{figure}[t]
1341: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=1.0\hsize]{figures/9709258_cgro_revpaper_fig6.ps}}
1342: \caption{Multiwavelength spectrum from X-rays to $\gamma$-rays
1343: including the revised 1$\sigma$ upper limits from the Apollo experiment
1344: (Trombka 1997). The thick solid line indicates
1345: the sum of all the components.
1346: (Fig.~6 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Burrows:1997eb}.)}
1347: \label{gamma-ray-fig}
1348: \end{figure}
1349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1350: Since BBN requires the Universe be reheated to at least
1351: about $1$ MeV, we can obtain the best bound by requiring
1352: that the diffuse photon flux does not exceed the diffuse $\gamma$-ray
1353: observations assuming the normalcy temperature
1354: $T_\star = 1$ MeV.
1355:
1356: Ref.~\cite{Hall:1999mk} worked this out, obtaining
1357: \begin{equation}
1358: \left. \frac{d n_\gamma}{d E} \right|_{T_\star = 1 \; \mathrm{MeV}} =
1359: \alpha_n(E) \left( \frac{\mathrm{TeV}}{\Mstar} \right)^{n+2} \quad
1360: \frac{1}{\mathrm{MeV} \; \mathrm{cm}^2 \; \mathrm{s} \; \mathrm{sr}}
1361: \end{equation}
1362: where the coefficient was found to be
1363: \begin{eqnarray}
1364: \alpha_2(4 \; \mathrm{MeV}) &\sim& 10^4 \\
1365: \alpha_3(4 \; \mathrm{MeV}) &\sim& 0.4
1366: \end{eqnarray}
1367: for $n=2,3$ extra dimensions evaluated at a photon energy of $4$ MeV.
1368: Comparing this result to the data allows us to extract a new
1369: bound on the quantum gravity scale
1370: \begin{equation}
1371: M_D > \left\{ \begin{array}{rclcl}
1372: 110 & \ra & 350 \; \mbox{TeV} & \quad & n=2 \\
1373: 5 & \ra & 14 \; \mbox{TeV} & & n=3
1374: \end{array} \right.
1375: \end{equation}
1376: where the first (second) number corresponds to restricting the
1377: normalcy temperature to be $1$ ($2.2$) MeV. Regardless,
1378: this is clearly the strongest bound we have seen on the
1379: scale of quantum gravity from experiment for $2$ and $3$
1380: extra dimensions. No significant bound is obtained for
1381: $n > 3$ dimensions.
1382:
1383: \section{Warped Extra Dimensions}
1384:
1385: From Sundrum's lectures \cite{Sundrum:2005jf}
1386: and Cs\'aki's lectures (with Hubisz and Meade) \cite{Csaki:2005vy}
1387: you are already well versed on warped extra dimensions.
1388: Their emphasis, however, is a bit different from the charge
1389: of these lectures. Both Sundrum and Cs\'aki were largely interested
1390: in warped spacetimes in which some or all of the Standard Model
1391: fields propagate in the bulk. This is done for all sorts of
1392: reasons that they have expertly explained in their lectures.
1393:
1394: In this lecture, I want to focus on the original proposal of
1395: Randall and Sundrum (RS) \cite{Randall:1999ee} in which only gravity
1396: exists in the warped extra dimension while the SM is confined to a
1397: 3-brane whose dimensionful parameters are scaled to the TeV
1398: scale. This is the historical approach, which may seem a bit
1399: dated by now, however I see this as a minimalist approach
1400: to general topic of warped extra dimensions: Most of what
1401: I describe below applies to these model variants involving
1402: warped extra dimensions. For instance, there are graviton resonances
1403: in the composite unification model \cite{compositeunification}
1404: as well as the warped Higgsless model \cite{Csaki:2003zu}
1405: as well as effects of radius stabilization, even if they
1406: are not of primary interest in those scenarios.\footnote{The
1407: differences between these proposals and the original
1408: Randall-Sundrum model is the location of the matter, Higgs, and
1409: gauge bosons, which will however affect the strengths
1410: of the couplings to the radion or Kaluza-Klein gravitons.}
1411:
1412: Without further ado, let's plunge into the original RS model.
1413: The RS model is a 5-d theory compactified on an $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold,
1414: with bulk and boundary cosmological constants that precisely balance
1415: to give a stable 4-d low energy effective theory with vanishing
1416: 4-d cosmological constant.
1417: The basic setup is sketched in Fig.~\ref{RS-setup-fig}.
1418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1419: \begin{figure}[!t]
1420: \begin{picture}(300,140)
1421: %
1422: \Line( 100 , 100 )( 140 , 140 )
1423: \Line( 100 , 20 )( 140 , 60 )
1424: \Line( 100 , 20 )( 100 , 100 )
1425: \Line( 140 , 60 )( 140 , 140 )
1426: %
1427: \Line( 200 , 100 )( 240 , 140 )
1428: \Line( 200 , 20 )( 240 , 60 )
1429: \Line( 200 , 20 )( 200 , 100 )
1430: \Line( 240 , 60 )( 240 , 140 )
1431: %
1432: \Text( 40, 78 )[c]{Planck}
1433: \Text( 40, 62 )[c]{Brane}
1434: \Text( 300, 78 )[c]{TeV}
1435: \Text( 300, 62 )[c]{Brane}
1436: \Text( 100, 10 )[c]{$y=0$}
1437: \Text( 200, 10 )[c]{$y=b$}
1438: \Text( 120, 80 )[c]{$V_{\rm Planck}$}
1439: \Text( 220, 80 )[c]{$V_{\rm TeV}$}
1440: \Text( 170, 80 )[c]{$-\Lambda$}
1441: \Text( 170, 130 )[c]{bulk}
1442: %
1443: \end{picture}
1444: \caption{Sketch of the warped extra dimension RS model.}
1445: \label{RS-setup-fig}
1446: \end{figure}
1447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1448: The background spacetime metric is taken to be
1449: \begin{equation}
1450: d s^2 = e^{-k|y|} \eta_{\mu\nu} d x^\mu d x^\nu - d y^2
1451: \end{equation}
1452: where the metric is not as trivial as in the ADD model.
1453: Specifically, the $y$ dependence that enters the metric
1454: as $e^{-k|y|}$ is known as the ``warp factor''.
1455: The absolute value of $y$ is taken because the extra
1456: dimension is compactified on an orbifold that identifies
1457: $y \leftrightarrow -y$. We will see the physical
1458: significance of the warp factor shortly.
1459:
1460: The action of the model is
1461: \begin{eqnarray}
1462: S &=& S_{\rm bulk} + S_{\rm Planck} + S_{\rm TeV}
1463: \end{eqnarray}
1464: in which
1465: \begin{eqnarray}
1466: S_{\rm bulk} &=& - \int d^5 x \sqrt{-g} \left( \MRS^3 R - \Lambda \right) \\
1467: S_{\rm Planck} &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{\rm Planck}} V_{\rm Planck} \\
1468: S_{\rm TeV} &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{\rm TeV}} \left( V_{\rm TeV}
1469: + \mbox{SM Lagrangian} \right)
1470: \end{eqnarray}
1471: where $g_{\rm Planck}$ and $g_{\rm TeV}$ are the \emph{induced} metrics
1472: on the Planck and TeV branes, respectively.
1473: Using Einstein's equations to match the metric at $y=0,b$,
1474: one obtains
1475: \begin{eqnarray}
1476: V_{\rm Planck} &=& -V_{\rm TeV} = 12 k \MRS^3 \\
1477: \Lambda &=& - k V_{\rm Planck}
1478: \end{eqnarray}
1479: in terms of the AdS curvature $k$ and the fundamental
1480: quantum gravity scale $\MRS$.\footnote{I use $\MRS$ for the
1481: quantum gravity scale in RS to be distinguished from $\Mstar$
1482: in the ADD model.}
1483: This solution balances bulk curvature with boundary brane
1484: tensions (4-d cosmological constants). There is one troubling
1485: fact we see already, namely the brane tension of the TeV brane
1486: is negative. One simple way to see the effects of this is to
1487: phase rotate the entire TeV brane action, $S \ra -S$, that shifts
1488: the negative sign to be in front of the kinetic terms of brane
1489: fields. Negative kinetic terms (for scalars, anyway) are
1490: well known to signal a instability in the theory in which
1491: the kinetic terms can grow (negative) arbitrarily large.
1492: We will ignore this issue here, and assume that the UV completion
1493: of the RS model stabilizes the negative tension brane
1494: (in field theory see e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{Nunes:2005up}
1495: and in string theory see e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{Giddings:2001yu}).
1496:
1497: Examine the SM action:
1498: \begin{equation}
1499: S_{\rm SM} = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{\rm TeV}} \left[
1500: g_{\rm TeV}^{\mu\nu} (D_\mu H)^\dag D_\nu H - \lambda (H^\dag H - v^2)^2
1501: + \ldots \right]
1502: \end{equation}
1503: Now insert the induced metric evaluated on the TeV brane,
1504: $(g_{\rm TeV})_{\mu\nu} = e^{-2 k b} \eta_{\mu\nu}$
1505: and one obtains
1506: \begin{equation}
1507: \int d^4 x \left[ \eta^{\mu\nu} (D_\mu \tilde{H})^\dag (D_\nu \tilde{H})
1508: - \lambda \left(\tilde{H}^\dag \tilde{H} - (e^{-k b} v)^2 \right)^2
1509: + \ldots \right]
1510: \end{equation}
1511: in terms of the canonically normalized fields
1512: \begin{eqnarray}
1513: \tilde{H} &=& e^{-k b} H \\
1514: \tilde{A}_\mu &=& e^{-k b} A_\mu \\
1515: \tilde{f} &=& e^{-3 k b/2} f \; .
1516: \end{eqnarray}
1517: The central result is that the warp factor can be rescaled away
1518: from all of the dimensionless terms of the SM (at tree-level)
1519: by field redefinitions. The only dimensionful operator, the Higgs
1520: (mass)$^2$, gets physically rescaled. We can define a new
1521: Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV)
1522: that absorbs the warp factor
1523: \begin{equation}
1524: \tilde{v} = e^{-k b} v
1525: \end{equation}
1526: which we see can be exponentially smaller in the canonically
1527: normalized basis.
1528:
1529: The RS model presupposes that we take all fundamental mass
1530: parameters to be $\mathcal{O}(\Mpl)$, including $v \sim 0.1 \Mpl$.
1531: Then for a suitably large enough slice of AdS space
1532: relative to the curvature size, $k b \sim 35$, we obtain
1533: \begin{equation}
1534: \tilde{v} \sim 0.1 e^{-k b} \Mpl \sim 0.1 \; \mathrm{TeV}
1535: \end{equation}
1536: This is the key result that got everyone excited about the
1537: RS model! The interpretation is that all dimensionful
1538: parameters on the TeV brane are ``warped'' down to TeV
1539: scale assuming only that the size of the AdS space is
1540: parametrically larger than the inverse of the AdS curvature.
1541:
1542: What are the sizes of fundamental parameters?
1543: The 4-d effective Planck scale can be obtained by integrating
1544: out the extra dimension to extract the coefficient of
1545: \begin{equation}
1546: \int d^5 x \sqrt{-g^{(4)}} e^{-2k|y|} R^{(4)}
1547: \end{equation}
1548: which is
1549: \begin{equation}
1550: \Mpl^2 = \MRS^3 \int_{y=-b}^{y=+b} e^{-2 k |y|} d y =
1551: \frac{\MRS^3}{k} \left( 1 - e^{-2 k b} \right) \; .
1552: \end{equation}
1553: Clearly, given a tiny warp factor $e^{-k b}$, all fundamental
1554: parameters can be of order the 4-d Planck scale,
1555: $\MRS \sim k \sim \Mpl$.
1556:
1557:
1558: \subsection{Metric Fluctuations}
1559:
1560: The generic ansatz for metric fluctuations about the RS background is
1561: \begin{equation}
1562: d s^2 = e^{-2 k |y|} g_{\mu\nu} d x^\mu d x^\nu + A_\mu d x^\mu d y
1563: - b^2 d y^2 \; .
1564: \end{equation}
1565: RS is by definition an AdS spacetime on an $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold,
1566: and thus the zero mode of the graviphoton, $A_\mu^{(0)}$,
1567: is absent. Furthermore, we saw from ADD that in 5-d there are only
1568: graviton KK excitations since the would-be graviphoton and graviscalar
1569: KK excitations are completely absorbed into the longitudinal components
1570: of the massive KK gravitons. The mass spectrum of RS is thus exceedingly
1571: simple: the massless graviton $h_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}$, the massive
1572: KK graviton excitations $h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}$ and a single real
1573: scalar field $\phi$, called the radion.
1574:
1575: Consider first just the tensor excitations; for this section, I will
1576: follow closely Refs.~\cite{Randall:1999vf,Csaki:2004ay}.
1577: This is easiest to
1578: consider when the RS metric in written in the the conformal frame
1579: \begin{equation}
1580: d s^2 = e^{-A(z)} \left( \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}(x,z) d x^\mu d x^\nu
1581: - d z^2 \right)
1582: \end{equation}
1583: with
1584: \begin{equation}
1585: e^{-A(z)} = \frac{1}{(1 + k|z|)^2} \quad , \quad A(z) = 2 \log(k|z| + 1)
1586: \label{Az-eq}
1587: \end{equation}
1588: where the relationship between the two coordinates is simply
1589: \begin{equation}
1590: \frac{1}{1 + k|z|} = e^{-k|y|} \; .
1591: \end{equation}
1592:
1593: %%%%% stop here
1594:
1595: We seek linearized fluctuations about the background that satisfy
1596: \begin{equation}
1597: \delta G_{M N} = \frac{1}{\MRS^3} \delta T_{M N} \; .
1598: \end{equation}
1599: First let's fix the gauge, the ``RS gauge'', in which
1600: the fluctuations satisfy $h_\mu^\mu = \partial_\mu h^\mu_\nu = 0$.
1601: Expanding out $\delta G_{M N}$, keeping the leading order terms for
1602: $h_{\mu\nu}$, one obtains
1603: \begin{eqnarray}
1604: - \frac{1}{2} \partial^R \partial_R h_{\mu\nu}
1605: + \frac{3}{4} \partial^R A \partial_R h_{\mu\nu} &=& 0 \; .
1606: \end{eqnarray}
1607: This can be written in a somewhat cleaner way by rescaling the
1608: graviton perturbation by $h_{\mu\nu} = e^{3 A/4} \tilde{h}_{\mu\nu}$
1609: and then the linearized Einstein equations become
1610: \begin{equation}
1611: - \frac{1}{2} \partial^R \partial_R \tilde{h}_{\mu\nu} +
1612: \left[ \frac{9}{32} \partial^R A \partial_R A
1613: - \frac{3}{8} \partial^R \partial_R A \right] \tilde{h}_{\mu\nu} = 0 \; .
1614: \label{RS-grav-eq-of-motion}
1615: \end{equation}
1616: Now separate variables
1617: \begin{equation}
1618: \tilde{h}_{\mu\nu}(x,z) = \hat{h}_{\mu\nu}(x) \phi(z)
1619: \end{equation}
1620: where $\hat{h}$ is a four-dimensional mass eigenstate satisfying
1621: \begin{equation}
1622: \Box \hat{h}_{\mu\nu} = m^2 \hat{h}_{\mu\nu} \; .
1623: \end{equation}
1624: The $z$-dependence within $\phi(z)$ satisfies the 1-D Schr\"odinger-like
1625: equation
1626: \begin{equation}
1627: - \partial_z^2 \phi + V(z) \phi = m^2 \phi
1628: \label{grav-phi-eq}
1629: \end{equation}
1630: where the potential can be read off from Eq.~(\ref{RS-grav-eq-of-motion})
1631: to be
1632: \begin{equation}
1633: V(z) = \frac{9}{16} {A'}^2 - \frac{3}{4} A''
1634: \end{equation}
1635: and primes denote derivatives with respect to $z$.
1636: Substituting for $A(z)$ using Eq.~(\ref{Az-eq}), one obtains
1637: \begin{eqnarray}
1638: V(z) = \frac{15}{4} \frac{k^2}{(1 + k|z|)^2} - \frac{3 k}{1 + k|z|} \delta(z)
1639: \end{eqnarray}
1640: where $V(z)$ is the famous ``Volcano potential'' that falls off
1641: as $1/z^2$ far from the UV brane with a single $\delta$-function
1642: at the caldera implying there is a single bound state
1643: (the massless 4-d graviton).
1644:
1645: One can solve for the zero mode wavefunction
1646: \begin{equation}
1647: \phi^{(0)}(z) = e^{-3/4 A(z)} \quad \Longleftrightarrow
1648: \quad \phi(y) = e^{-3/4 k|y|}
1649: \end{equation}
1650: and thus we find that the overlap of the graviton with
1651: the TeV brane is exponentially suppressed. This is why gravity
1652: appears so weak to us in the RS model. Notice that there were no
1653: small parameters needed to obtain this result, beyond the requirement
1654: of the size of the extra dimension being a factor of $35$ times the
1655: inverse of the AdS curvature.
1656:
1657: To obtain the wavefunctions and masses of the KK modes, we first
1658: must impose boundary conditions on the 5-d graviton wavefunction:
1659: \begin{eqnarray}
1660: \partial_z \phi &=& \left. - \frac{3}{2} k \phi \right|_{z=z_{\rm UV}}
1661: \label{bc1-eq} \\
1662: \partial_z \phi &=& \left. - \frac{3}{2} \frac{k}{k|z| + 1} \phi
1663: \right|_{z=z_{\rm IR}} \label{bc2-eq}
1664: \end{eqnarray}
1665: where $z_{\rm UV} = 0$ and $z_{\rm IR} = e^{k b}/k$ are the locations
1666: of the Planck and TeV branes in the conformal coordinates.
1667: Inserting the expression for $A(z)$ into Eq.~(\ref{grav-phi-eq}), we obtain
1668: \begin{equation}
1669: - \partial_z^2 \phi + \frac{15}{4} \frac{k^2}{(k|z|+1)^2} = m^2 \phi \; .
1670: \end{equation}
1671: The solution to this PDE can be cast in terms of a sum over
1672: Bessel functions
1673: \begin{equation}
1674: \phi(z) = (k z + 1)^{1/2} \left[ a_m Y_2[m (z + 1/k)]
1675: + b_m J_2[m (z + 1/k)] \right]
1676: \end{equation}
1677: where the boundary conditions Eqs.~(\ref{bc1-eq}),(\ref{bc2-eq})
1678: completely determine the wavefunction coefficients $a_m,b_m$.
1679: The masses of the Kaluza-Klein graviton modes are easily found
1680: \begin{equation}
1681: m_j = x_j k e^{-k b}
1682: \label{mass-RS-grav-eq}
1683: \end{equation}
1684: where $x_j$ are the roots of the Bessel function $J_1(x_j) = 0$.
1685: Roughly,
1686: \begin{eqnarray}
1687: x_j \simeq \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}
1688: 3.8 & \qquad j=1 \\
1689: 7.0 & \qquad j=2 \\
1690: 10.2 & \qquad j=3 \\
1691: 16.5 & \qquad j=4 \\
1692: & \vdots
1693: \end{array} \right.
1694: \end{eqnarray}
1695: where the modes are obviously \emph{not} evenly spaced.
1696: Furthermore, the quantity $k e^{-k b}$ is roughly the TeV scale
1697: for a TeV brane, and thus these gravitons have masses of order
1698: the TeV scale! This is a central prediction of the RS model:
1699: distinct spin-2 resonances with a Kaluza-Klein spectrum that
1700: is spaced according to the roots of the first Bessel function.
1701:
1702: What is the strength of the coupling of these gravitons?
1703: This is where there is a big distinction between the zero mode
1704: and the Kaluza-Klein modes of the graviton. The zero mode
1705: graviton has a $1/\Mpl$ strength coupling, since its wavefunction
1706: is peaked near the Planck brane, while the Kaluza-Klein modes
1707: have 1/TeV strength couplings since their wavefunctions are
1708: peaked near the TeV brane. This is easy to see by simply
1709: evaluating
1710: \begin{equation}
1711: \frac{\phi(z)|_{z=z_{\rm IR}}}{\phi(z)|_{z=z_{\rm UV}}} \sim e^{k b}
1712: \end{equation}
1713: that is exponentially enhanced by the (inverse) warp factor.
1714: Hence, the full action for the graviton fluctuations interacting
1715: with matter on the TeV brane is
1716: \begin{equation}
1717: \mathcal{L}_{\rm TeV} = - \frac{1}{\Mpl} T^{\mu\nu} h_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}
1718: - \frac{1}{\Mpl e^{-k b}} T^{\mu\nu} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)} \; .
1719: \end{equation}
1720:
1721: \subsection{Phenomenology of Kaluza-Klein Gravitons}
1722:
1723: We found that the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the graviton
1724: have $\mathcal{O}({\rm TeV})$ masses with $\mathcal{O}(1/{\rm TeV})$
1725: strength couplings to fields on the TeV brane.
1726: This means that they will behave like new
1727: spin-2 resonances that can be produced and observed individually.
1728: In particular, Kaluza-Klein gravitons will decay on a timescale of
1729: order 1/TeV. This we can easily estimate on dimensional grounds to be
1730: \begin{equation}
1731: \Gamma_G \sim n_{\rm SM} \frac{m_g^3}{(\Mpl e^{-k b})^2}
1732: \end{equation}
1733: where $n_{\rm SM}$ is the number of SM particles into which
1734: the graviton could decay.
1735:
1736: There are two parameters that determine the graviton production
1737: cross sections and decay rates: the warp factor and the AdS
1738: curvature. The warp factor can be equivalently replaced by the
1739: mass of the first graviton resonance.
1740: At the LHC, the $s$-channel exchange of gravitons leads to
1741: new resonances, analogous to the search for new $Z'$ gauge
1742: bosons. The subprocesses for this include
1743: $q\overline{q},gg \ra G^{(1)} \ra \ell^+\ell^-$ which provides
1744: relatively clean leptonic events as well as
1745: $q\overline{q},gg \ra G^{(1)} \ra q\overline{q},gg$ which leads
1746: to pairs of jets that will reconstruct to the graviton mass.
1747: Using these parton processes to calculate the rate of graviton
1748: production, one can calculate a constraint on the warped
1749: Planck scale as a function of the AdS curvature. This is shown
1750: in Fig.~\ref{RS-LHC-fig}, where the warped Planck scale
1751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1752: \begin{figure}[t]
1753: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.95\hsize]{figures/9909255_lhcbump.ps}}
1754: \caption{Exclusion regions for resonance production of the first KK graviton
1755: excitation at the the LHC. The dashed, solid curves correspond to
1756: 10, 100 fb$^{-1}$. The excluded region lies above and to the left
1757: of the curves.
1758: (Fig.~1(b) from Ref.~\protect\cite{Davoudiasl:1999jd}.)}
1759: \label{RS-LHC-fig}
1760: \end{figure}
1761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1762: is related to the first graviton mass by Eq.~(\ref{mass-RS-grav-eq}).
1763: The LHC is thus able to probe to several TeV.
1764:
1765: At a hypothetical $e^+e^-$ collider, the broad resonances of $s$-channel
1766: KK graviton exchange are clearly visible (if the energy of the
1767: collider is high enough), allowing a detailed study of the graviton
1768: properties. This is shown in Fig.~\ref{RS-LC-fig}, where an
1769: example of graviton production and
1770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1771: \begin{figure}[t]
1772: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.95\hsize]{figures/9909255_nlc_shape.ps}}
1773: \caption{The cross section for $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$ including the exchange of
1774: a tower of KK gravitons, taking the mass of the first mode to be 600 GeV,
1775: as a function of $\sqrt s$. From top to bottom the curves correspond to
1776: $k/\Mpl=1.0,\, 0.7,\, 0.5,\, 0.3,\, 0.2,\, 0.1$.
1777: (Fig.~2 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Davoudiasl:1999jd}.)}
1778: \label{RS-LC-fig}
1779: \end{figure}
1780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1781: decay is shown for the process $e^+e^- \ra \mu^+\mu^-$ at a
1782: rather optimistic mass for the first KK resonance. In any case,
1783: the total cross section plot is rather striking!
1784:
1785:
1786: \subsection{Radius Stabilization}
1787:
1788: As it stands, the radion mass in the the RS model vanishes.
1789: This is because the brane tensions were tuned to
1790: balance the bulk cosmological constant.
1791: As there is no energy cost to increase or decrease
1792: the size of the extra dimension, radial excitations are
1793: uninhibited. This is a disaster, since massless scalar fields
1794: which couple with gravitational strength or stronger are ruled out
1795: by light-bending and other solar system tests of general relativity.
1796:
1797: However, there is a simple modification of the original RS proposal
1798: in which \emph{dynamics} can be used to stabilize the extra
1799: dimension. Goldberger and Wise realized that adding a bulk scalar
1800: field with an expectation value that had a profile, namely
1801: $v_{\rm bulk}(y)$, would be sufficient \cite{Goldberger:1999uk}.
1802: Roughly speaking,
1803: the bulk kinetic term wants to maximize the size of the extra dimension
1804: whereas the bulk mass term wants to minimize the size.
1805: The balance between these two forces results in a stabilized
1806: warped extra dimension.
1807:
1808: A complete analysis of radius stabilization is a rather intricate
1809: affair. The original Goldberger-Wise paper \cite{Goldberger:1999uk}
1810: provides a very clear account
1811: of the problem and its solution. There are, however, a few subtleties
1812: concerning how they implemented their solution. Specifically,
1813: a naive ansatz for the radion field was used which ignores both
1814: the radion wavefunction and the backreaction of the stabilizing
1815: scalar field on the metric. This was remedied in
1816: Ref.~\cite{Csaki:2000zn} (see also Ref.~\cite{Tanaka:2000er}),
1817: were we combined the metric ansatz of Ref.~\cite{Charmousis:1999rg}
1818: that solves Einstein's equations, with a bulk scalar potential
1819: that includes backreaction effects that was given by
1820: Ref.~\cite{DeWolfe:1999cp}. Rather than repeating the analysis
1821: in these lectures, let me simply quote the main results here and
1822: refer interested readers to the original literature for
1823: details on the derivation.
1824:
1825: The main properties of the radion relevant to phenomenology
1826: are its mass and couplings. The radion mass is given by
1827: \begin{eqnarray}
1828: m_\phi &\sim& \epsilon \frac{1}{\sqrt{k b}} \Mpl e^{-k b}
1829: \label{radion-mass-eq}
1830: \end{eqnarray}
1831: where $\epsilon$ is parameter that characterizes the size
1832: of the backreaction on the metric due to the bulk scalar field
1833: VEV profile. In Ref.~\cite{Csaki:2000zn}, our analysis
1834: computed the mass of the radion treating the backreaction
1835: as a perturbation, and thus Eq.~(\ref{radion-mass-eq}) is valid
1836: for $\epsilon \lsim 1$. The key result here is that the
1837: radion mass is of order the warped Planck scale, i.e., the
1838: TeV scale, but parametrically smaller by a factor $1/\sqrt{k b}$.
1839: This is unlike the KK gravitons that we found above, where
1840: the first KK mode had a mass of $\simeq 4 k e^{-k b}$.
1841: This suggests that the radion is the lightest mode in the
1842: RS model, and thus possibly the most important excitation
1843: to study at colliders.
1844:
1845: The couplings of the radion to matter are also of vital importance.
1846: They were first given in \cite{Csaki:1999mp,Goldberger:1999un}
1847: and confirmed using the formalism described above in
1848: \cite{Csaki:2000zn}. At leading order in the radion field,
1849: the radion couplings are
1850: \begin{eqnarray}
1851: \frac{\phi}{\sqrt{6} \Mpl e^{-k b}} T_\mu^\mu
1852: \label{radion-coupling-eq}
1853: \end{eqnarray}
1854: where $T_\mu^\mu$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor
1855: of the Standard Model. This coupling is precisely the same
1856: as a conformally coupled scalar field, which is not surprising
1857: given the holographic interpretation of the RS model
1858: \cite{Verlinde:1999fy,Arkani-Hamed:2000ds,Rattazzi:2000hs}.
1859: There is a fascinating story here, based on the AdS/CFT correspondence,
1860: concerning the duality between the 5-d RS model and a 4-d
1861: strongly-coupled conformal field theory.
1862: This would take me well beyond the scope of these lectures,
1863: and so I refer you to some excellent TASI lectures
1864: for details \cite{AdSCFTlectures}.
1865: In any case, a phenomenologically successful RS model
1866: must have dynamics that stabilize the extra dimension and
1867: give the radion a mass, and this can be seen in either
1868: the 5-d AdS picture or the 4-d CFT dual picture.
1869:
1870:
1871: \subsection{Radion Phenomenology}
1872:
1873: Given that the radion mass, Eq.~(\ref{radion-mass-eq}), is of order
1874: (slightly smaller than) the warped Planck scale, and the couplings
1875: of the radion are dimension-5 operators suppressed by the warped
1876: Planck scale, Eq.~(\ref{radion-coupling-eq}), the radion clearly
1877: has observable effects at high energy colliders. The mass of the
1878: radion is effectively a free parameter $m_\phi$, which can be
1879: bounded from above by the warped Planck scale
1880: \begin{eqnarray}
1881: \Lambda = \sqrt{6} \Mpl e^{-k b}
1882: \end{eqnarray}
1883: and bounded from below by naturalness, namely quadratically divergent
1884: radiative corrections to its mass. Roughly, then, we anticipate
1885: \begin{eqnarray}
1886: \frac{\Lambda}{4 \pi} \lsim m_\phi \lsim \Lambda
1887: \end{eqnarray}
1888: which corresponds to perhaps tens of GeV up to a TeV or so
1889: assuming $\Lambda \sim 1$ TeV.
1890:
1891: The conformal couplings of the radion are straightforward to work out.
1892: The Standard Model in an unbroken electroweak vacuum, i.e., without a
1893: Higgs boson, is classically scale invariant and so $T_\mu^\mu$
1894: vanishes classically. However, once a Higgs boson is introduced
1895: and electroweak symmetry is broken, the radion couples at tree-level
1896: to the conformal violation, namely, everywhere the Higgs VEV enters
1897: (as well as the Higgs (mass)$^2$ term). Scale invariance of the SM
1898: is broken at the quantum level, since for example coupling constants
1899: change with energy scale under the renormalization group.
1900: The radion also couples to this (loop-level) breaking of scale invariance.
1901: Thus, the tree-level couplings of the radion are identical to the
1902: Higgs boson of the SM, except that the coupling is universally scaled
1903: by a factor $v/\Lambda$. At loop-level, the scaling factor $v/\Lambda$
1904: remains, but the coefficients change since the Higgs boson is not a
1905: conformally coupled scalar! The radion couplings, as well as
1906: the couplings of the SM Higgs boson for comparison, are shown in
1907: Fig.~\ref{radion-couplings-fig}.
1908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1909: \begin{figure}[t]
1910: \begin{center}
1911: \begin{picture}(300,300)
1912: %
1913: \Text( 75, 300 )[c]{\underline{radion couplings}}
1914: \Text( 215, 300 )[c]{\underline{Higgs couplings}}
1915: %
1916: \Text( 5, 280 )[r]{$f$}
1917: \Text( 5, 220 )[r]{$\overline{f}$}
1918: \ArrowLine( 10, 280 )( 40, 250 )
1919: \ArrowLine( 40, 250 )( 10, 220 )
1920: \DashLine( 40, 250 )( 80, 250 ){4}
1921: \Text( 85, 250 )[l]{$\phi$}
1922: \Text( 80, 220 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{m_f}{\Lambda}}$}
1923: %
1924: \Text( 155, 280 )[r]{$f$}
1925: \Text( 155, 220 )[r]{$\overline{f}$}
1926: \ArrowLine( 160, 280 )( 190, 250 )
1927: \ArrowLine( 190, 250 )( 160, 220 )
1928: \DashLine( 190, 250 )( 230, 250 ){4}
1929: \Text( 235, 250 )[l]{$h$}
1930: \Text( 240, 220 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{m_f}{v}}$}
1931: %
1932: \Text( 5, 180 )[r]{$W^+_\mu$}
1933: \Text( 5, 120 )[r]{$W^-_\nu$}
1934: \Photon( 10, 180 )( 40, 150 ){4}{4}
1935: \Photon( 40, 150 )( 10, 120 ){4}{4}
1936: \DashLine( 40, 150 )( 80, 150 ){4}
1937: \Text( 85, 150 )[l]{$\phi$}
1938: \Text( 80, 120 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{2 M_W^2}{\Lambda}
1939: \eta_{\mu\nu}}$}
1940: %
1941: \Text( 155, 180 )[r]{$W^+_\mu$}
1942: \Text( 155, 120 )[r]{$W^-_\nu$}
1943: \Photon( 160, 180 )( 190, 150 ){4}{4}
1944: \Photon( 190, 150 )( 160, 120 ){4}{4}
1945: \DashLine( 190, 150 )( 230, 150 ){4}
1946: \Text( 235, 150 )[l]{$h$}
1947: \Text( 240, 120 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{2 M_W^2}{v}
1948: \eta_{\mu\nu}}$}
1949: %
1950: \Text( 5, 80 )[r]{$g_\mu$}
1951: \Text( 5, 20 )[r]{$g_\nu$}
1952: \Gluon( 10, 80 )( 40, 50 ){4}{4}
1953: \Gluon( 40, 50 )( 10, 20 ){4}{4}
1954: \DashLine( 40, 50 )( 80, 50 ){4}
1955: \Text( 85, 50 )[l]{$\phi$}
1956: \Text( 80, 20 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{b_3 \alpha_3}{2 \pi \Lambda}
1957: \left( p_1 p_2 \eta_{\mu\nu} - {p_1}_\mu {p_2}_\nu \right)}$}
1958: %
1959: \Text( 155, 80 )[r]{$g_\mu$}
1960: \Text( 155, 20 )[r]{$g_\nu$}
1961: \Gluon( 160, 80 )( 180, 60 ){4}{3}
1962: \Gluon( 180, 40 )( 160, 20 ){4}{3}
1963: \ArrowLine( 180, 60 )( 180, 40 )
1964: \ArrowLine( 180, 40 )( 200, 50 )
1965: \ArrowLine( 200, 50 )( 180, 60 )
1966: \DashLine( 200, 50 )( 230, 50 ){4}
1967: \Text( 195, 63 )[c]{$t$}
1968: \Text( 235, 50 )[l]{$h$}
1969: \Text( 240, 20 )[c]{$\displaystyle{-i \frac{(\sim \, 1) \alpha_3}{2 \pi v}
1970: \left( p_1 p_2 \eta_{\mu\nu} - {p_1}_\mu {p_2}_\nu \right)}$}
1971: %
1972: \end{picture}
1973: \end{center}
1974: \caption{The leading order radion couplings to several fields in
1975: the Standard Model are shown. At tree-level, radion couplings are
1976: identical to Higgs boson couplings up to an overall factor $v/\Lambda$.
1977: At loop-level, the conformal couplings of the radion are manifest,
1978: for example, in the proportionality to the beta function coefficients
1979: illustrated by the coupling to gluons.}
1980: \label{radion-couplings-fig}
1981: \end{figure}
1982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1983:
1984: There are several comments to make about these couplings.
1985: First, the coefficient $v/\Lambda$ is expected to be of order
1986: $1/10$ for $\Lambda \sim \; {\rm TeV}$ scale. This drops out
1987: of branching ratios, and thus at tree-level the radion's
1988: branching ratios are the same as (tree-level) Higgs branching ratios.
1989: This suggests it is rather hard to tell the radion and the Higgs apart!
1990: The definitive measure is total width: again, at tree-level
1991: we would expect $\Gamma_\phi = \frac{v^2}{\Lambda^2} \Gamma_h$.
1992: Unfortunately, measuring the total width of the Higgs boson or radion
1993: directly is somewhere between hard to really hard.
1994: How hard it is depends on the mass of the scalar in question,
1995: and thus its width,
1996: and what instruments are at our disposal. Obviously $s$-channel
1997: production at a lepton collider would be ideal, measuring the
1998: width in the same way that LEP measured the $Z$ width.
1999: The $Z$, however, has an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ coupling with
2000: the colliding leptons, whereas the Higgs and radion couple
2001: (at tree-level) with only Yukawa strength. This means an
2002: $e^+e^-$ collider is hopeless: the cross section is simply too small.
2003: A muon collider is much more promising, if such a machine could
2004: actually be made to work.
2005: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2006: \begin{figure}[t]
2007: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0009232_mphi-total.eps}}
2008: \caption{Production cross sections versus the mass of the radion for
2009: $p\bar p \to \phi$ ($gg$ fusion), $p\bar p \to q q' \phi$ ($WW,ZZ$ fusion),
2010: $p\bar p \to W\phi$, $p\bar p \to Z\phi$, and $p\bar p \to t \bar t \phi$.
2011: (Fig.~3(b) from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheung:2000rw}.)}
2012: \label{radion-production-fig}
2013: \end{figure}
2014: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2015:
2016: At loop-level there are differences in the branching ratios,
2017: and fortunately the loop effects associated with the radion couplings
2018: are significant. In particular, the radion coupling to gluons
2019: has a strength that far exceeds that of the Higgs, and this has
2020: several important consequences. One is that the production
2021: cross section for radions at hadron colliders is enhanced
2022: by roughly a factor of $b_3^2 = (7)^2$, the QCD beta function
2023: coefficient. This nearly compensates for the $v^2/\Lambda^2$
2024: suppression factor from the conformal coupling, and leads
2025: to radion production through gluon fusion that is comparable
2026: to that of Higgs production. The production cross
2027: section for radion production at the LHC and the Tevatron is
2028: shown in Fig.~\ref{radion-production-fig} as a function
2029: of the radion mass.
2030:
2031: The second effect of the large coupling to gluons is that if
2032: the radion mass is less than about $2 M_W$, the only open
2033: decay modes are $\phi \ra \overline{b}b$ and loop-level
2034: decays into gluons or photons. In the Standard Model, the
2035: Higgs branching ratio to gluons never dominates for any range
2036: of the Higgs boson mass.
2037: For radions, however, the far larger coupling to gluons
2038: dominates over the small $b$ Yukawa coupling causing the
2039: radion to decay dominantly to gluons for the radion mass
2040: range $20 \; {\rm GeV} \; \lsim m_\phi \lsim 2 M_W$. This is a
2041: strikingly different signal as compared with a Higgs boson in
2042: the same mass range.
2043: It is, in fact, a far more challenging signal to find since
2044: the two gluons become two jets, and the LHC is overwhelmed with
2045: multi-jet events with modest transverse momentum.
2046: Branching ratios for the radion into different Standard Model
2047: final states were calculated in \cite{Giudice:2000av,Cheung:2000rw}
2048: and are shown in Fig.~\ref{radion-BR-fig}.
2049: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2050: \begin{figure}[t]
2051: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0009232_BR.eps}}
2052: \caption{Branching ratios of the radion versus the radion mass.
2053: Here we have used $m_h=150$ GeV.
2054: (Fig.~2 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheung:2000rw}.)}
2055: \label{radion-BR-fig}
2056: \end{figure}
2057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2058:
2059: \section{Universal Extra Dimensions}
2060:
2061: \subsection{Motivation}
2062:
2063: We have seen that both large and warped extra dimensions
2064: have the potential to lower the cutoff scale of the SM to
2065: the TeV scale. In ADD, we saw that the fundamental quantum
2066: gravity scale is the TeV scale, and so the TeV scale becomes
2067: the cutoff scale of the SM. In RS, identifying the cutoff scale
2068: is a bit more subtle, but the potential for phenomenological
2069: difficulties associated with higher dimensional operators
2070: remains (in the form of TeV brane-localized higher dimensional
2071: operators). This is easy to see by writing
2072: the full effective theory for the SM plus all higher dimensional
2073: operators on the TeV brane with natural size, i.e., of order
2074: the 4-d Planck scale. After the extra dimension is stabilized,
2075: the warp factor appears everywhere there is a dimensionful
2076: scale. This causes the Higgs (mass)$^2$ to warp down to the
2077: TeV scale, and simultaneously causes the higher dimensional
2078: operators proportional to $1/\Mpl^n$ to scale ``up'' to
2079: $1/{\rm TeV}^n$.
2080:
2081: In both cases, the cutoff scale is set ultimately by quantum
2082: gravity. It is well known lore that quantum gravity generically
2083: violates global symmetries (e.g., black holes with Hawking evaporation).
2084: Hence, we expect that
2085: the presence of higher dimensional operators with dimensionful
2086: coefficients of order $1/\Lambda^n \sim 1/({\rm TeV})^n$ to
2087: violate the global symmetries of the SM.
2088: The global symmetries of the SM protect against an awful lot of
2089: curious phenomena, including $B$ and $L$ violation (together or
2090: separately), non-GIM flavor symmetry violation, excessive CP violation,
2091: custodial SU(2) violation, etc. The SM relies on having a large
2092: energy desert between the weak scale and the cutoff scale to
2093: solve these problems.
2094: Experimental limits on the absence of these phenomena correspond
2095: to raising the appropriate cutoff scale of these operators high enough
2096: so that these phenomena do not occur. For instance, proton decay in the
2097: SM occurs through
2098: \begin{equation}
2099: \frac{Q \overline{Q} Q \overline{L}}{M^2}
2100: \end{equation}
2101: among other dimension-6 $B$ and $L$ violating operators.
2102: On dimensional grounds, this operator leads to a proton lifetime
2103: \begin{equation}
2104: \tau \sim \frac{M^4}{m_p^5}
2105: \end{equation}
2106: that must be longer than about $10^{33}$ yrs based on the
2107: super-Kamiokande bounds \cite{Shiozawa:1998si}.
2108: Converting this lifetime into a bound on the scale $M$
2109: suppressing the operator one finds $M \gsim 10^{16}$ GeV.
2110:
2111: Examples of other global symmetries of concern are:
2112: \begin{itemize}
2113: \item Lepton number violation via the dim-5 operator
2114: \begin{equation}
2115: \frac{(H L)^2}{M}
2116: \end{equation}
2117: that leads to too large (Majorana) neutrino masses
2118: unless $M \gsim 10^{13}$ GeV.
2119: \item Flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) operators, such as
2120: \begin{equation}
2121: \frac{d \overline{s} \overline{d} s}{M^2}
2122: \end{equation}
2123: leading to excessive $K_0 \leftrightarrow \overline{K}_0$ mixing.
2124: \item Baryon number violating operators, such as
2125: \begin{equation}
2126: \frac{Qud\overline{Q}\overline{u}\overline{d}}{M^5}
2127: \end{equation}
2128: leading to neutron--anti-neutron oscillations \cite{Nussinov:2001rb}.
2129: \end{itemize}
2130: Some of these operators, such as the one leading to
2131: $K_0 \leftrightarrow \overline{K}_0$ mixing, cannot simply be
2132: forbidden by exact symmetries since this mixing has been
2133: observed experimentally and has been successfully explained by
2134: GIM-suppressed flavor violation in the SM.
2135:
2136: There are numerous proposals for solving these problems within
2137: the contexts of the ADD model and the RS model.
2138: A small set of examples include
2139: physical separation of fermions \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc},
2140: discrete symmetries \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Davoudiasl:2005ks},
2141: fermions in the bulk \cite{Sundrum:2005jf}, and so on.
2142: Unfortunately, I don't have the time, space, or energy to review
2143: these ideas here. Instead, I simply want to emphasize that
2144: the ADD and RS models are \emph{incomplete} as originally proposed,
2145: and require mechanisms to explain why these processes are small.
2146: Universal extra dimensions have the potential to solve some
2147: of these problems as well as provide interesting ``what if''
2148: scenarios that can be tested in experiments.
2149:
2150:
2151: \subsection{UED: The Model(s)}
2152:
2153: Universal Extra Dimensions are models in which all of the SM
2154: fields live in $4 + n$ dimensions with the $n$ extra dimensions
2155: taken to be flat and compact. This basic idea has a
2156: long history; for some of the earlier work see \cite{otherearly}.
2157: In this lecture I will
2158: primarily discuss the proposal given in \cite{Appelquist:2000nn}
2159: and then touch on several of its numerous spin-offs:
2160: a solution to the proton decay problem \cite{Appelquist:2001mj};
2161: a rationale for three generations \cite{Dobrescu:2001ae};
2162: a test-bed for a scenario with experimental signatures that
2163: have great similarity with (versions of) supersymmetry
2164: \cite{Cheng:2002iz,Cheng:2002ab,Battaglia:2005zf,Datta:2005zs};
2165: and a dark matter candidate \cite{Cheng:2002iz,Servant:2002aq}.
2166:
2167: Promoting the full SM to extra dimensions seems like a crazy
2168: idea for several reasons. First, the spin-1/2 representations of the
2169: Poincar\'e group in higher dimensions generically have more degrees
2170: of freedom and differing restrictions based on chirality properties
2171: and anomalies (see Ref.~\cite{Lykken:1996xt} for a nice review).
2172: This means that fermions are generically non-chiral
2173: (with respect to our four dimensions). A simple example of this
2174: is that in five dimensions, $\gamma^5$ becomes part of the
2175: group structure, and so no chiral projection operators can be
2176: constructed to reduce what are intrinsically four-dimensional
2177: fermion representations to chiral two-dimensional representations.
2178: This problem is solved by ``orbifolding'', i.e., compactifying
2179: on surfaces with endpoints. In five dimensions, the only
2180: choice is $S^1/Z_2$, which identifies opposite sides of a
2181: circle to create a line segment with two endpoints.
2182: In six and higher dimensions, there are many more surfaces
2183: to compactify on; the one that is more interesting for this
2184: discussion is $T^2/Z_2$.
2185:
2186: The next problem is that gauge couplings are dimensionful.
2187: Given the higher dimensional gauge field action
2188: \begin{equation}
2189: S = \int d^{4 + n} x \, F_{M N} F^{M N}
2190: \end{equation}
2191: (where $M,N$ are the higher dimensional indices running from
2192: $0$ to $3 + n$), one deduces that the canonical dimension
2193: of the gauge fields is $(2+n)/2$. This means the gauge couplings
2194: have dimension $-n/2$. Gauge field couplings in higher
2195: dimensions become analogous to graviton couplings in four dimensions,
2196: and this means these effective theories have a cutoff of order
2197: the scale of the coupling. Here I have been loose with ``of order'';
2198: a more complete accounting of the relationship between the
2199: cutoff and the compactification scale can be found in
2200: Ref.~\cite{Chacko:1999hg}.
2201: I should warn you, however, that my own partially substantiated
2202: hunch is that counting $4 \pi$'s in higher dimensional
2203: calculations to estimate the cutoff scale may be even more subtle.
2204: This is because if one matches these higher dimensional theories
2205: with four-dimensional product gauge theories via deconstruction,
2206: it appears that the $4 \pi$ counting may be better estimated using
2207: just four-dimensional naive dimensional analysis.
2208: Anyways, for ``few extra dimensional'' theories, the difference is
2209: a rather innocuous $\mathcal{O}(1)$ number, and so will not really
2210: affect the discussion below.
2211:
2212: Lastly, as good phenomenologists we will push the compactification
2213: scale to the lowest possible value that is not excluded by
2214: experiment. Putting gauge fields, fermions, and Higgs bosons
2215: in extra dimensions means there is a tower of KK excitations
2216: for all of these fields. Given that we have not seen excited
2217: massive resonances of KK photons or gluons, while colliders have
2218: probed up to the few hundred GeV scale, we can expect that
2219: $1/R \gsim$ hundreds of GeV. We'll be much more precise below.
2220:
2221: \subsection{Three Generations}
2222:
2223: Dobrescu and Poppitz \cite{Dobrescu:2001ae} found a very interesting result
2224: of promoting the SM into six dimensions. Six dimensions
2225: happens to be the most interesting numbers of dimensions due to
2226: existence of chiral fermions, as occurs for even numbers
2227: of dimensions, and also additional anomaly cancellation constraints,
2228: in particular due to the gravitational anomaly \cite{Alvarez-Gaume:1983ig}
2229: that exists in two, six, ten, \ldots dimensions.
2230:
2231: The anomalies that exist in six dimensions can be classified as
2232: ``irreducible'' gauge anomalies,
2233: ``reducible'' gauge anomalies,
2234: or pure or mixed gravitational anomalies.
2235: Here ``reducible'' gauge anomalies correspond to most of the
2236: SM ones involving $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)_L$. Dobrescu and Poppitz
2237: argue that we do not need to care about anomalies associated with
2238: symmetries that are spontaneously broken. One way to rationalize
2239: this argument is that since the electroweak breaking scale and
2240: the compactification scale are roughly the same for UED,
2241: any effects associated with anomalies of these spontaneously
2242: broken gauge symmetries can be absorbed by cutoff scale effects.
2243: Alternatively, they also point out that the reducible gauge anomalies
2244: can be canceled by a higher dimensional version of the
2245: Green-Schwarz mechanism, see Ref.~\cite{Dobrescu:2001ae} for details.
2246:
2247: The irreducible gauge anomalies are those associated with
2248: $SU(3)_c$ and $U(1)_{\rm em}$. Since colored particles and
2249: electrically charged particles are vector-like, the only
2250: non-trivial anomaly comes from $U(1)_{\rm em} [SU(3)_c]^3$
2251: (in six dimensions, anomalies correspond to box diagrams
2252: connecting four gauge fields together).
2253:
2254: The pure and mixed gravitational anomalies arise with respect
2255: to the six-dimensional (6-d) chirality assignments of the 6-d
2256: generalizations of SM fermions. Fermions can take on either chirality,
2257: using
2258: \begin{eqnarray}
2259: \Gamma^7 \cdot f &\rightarrow& \pm f_{\pm}
2260: \end{eqnarray}
2261: where $\Gamma^M$ are anti-commuting $2^{D/2} \times 2^{D/2}$
2262: [$2^{(D-1)/2} \times 2^{(D-1)/2}$] matrices for even [old]
2263: $D$ dimensions.
2264: The $f_{\pm}$ are the 6-d chiral fermions (each chirality is
2265: a four-component spinor) analogous to
2266: the more familiar $f_{L,R}$ 4-d chiral fermions (where each
2267: chirality is a two-component spinor).
2268: Requiring the irreducible gauge anomaly to cancel
2269: combined with the pure and mixed gravitational anomalies
2270: leads to one of four possible 6-d chiral assignments
2271: \begin{eqnarray}
2272: Q_+, u_-, d_-, L_+, e_-, N_- \\
2273: Q_+, u_-, d_-, L_-, e_+, N_+
2274: \end{eqnarray}
2275: where the other two assignments simply flip $+ \leftrightarrow -$
2276: for all fermion species. Already, an interesting result is
2277: that a gauge-neutral fermion, $N$, is required to exist so
2278: that the pure and mixed gravitational anomaly is canceled.
2279: This requirement is curiously similar to an analogous phenomena
2280: that occurs with gauged flavor symmetry extensions of the
2281: (four-dimensional) SM \cite{Kribs:2003jn}.
2282:
2283: Finally, there are the global gauge anomalies. These are higher
2284: dimensional analogues of the Witten anomaly for SU(2) \cite{Witten:1982fp}.
2285: Global gauge anomalies potentially exist for $SU(3)$, $SU(2)$, and $G_2$
2286: in six dimensions. In UED, $SU(3)_c$ is vector-like and so
2287: automatically cancels. $SU(2)_L$, however, requires
2288: \begin{equation}
2289: n(2_+) - n(2_-) = 0 \; {\rm mod} \; 6
2290: \end{equation}
2291: where $n(2_\pm)$ corresponds to the number of doublets with 6-d
2292: chirality $\pm$. For one generation, $n(Q) = 3$, $n(L) = \pm 1$
2293: implying $n(+) - n(-) = 2 \; {\rm or} \; 4$. For $n_g$ generations,
2294: this becomes
2295: \begin{eqnarray}
2296: n(Q) &=& 3 n_g \\
2297: n(L) &=& \pm n_g \\
2298: n(2_+) - n(2_-) &=& 2 n_g \; {\rm or} \; 4 n_g
2299: \end{eqnarray}
2300: and we see that the global gauge anomaly is canceled with
2301: $n_g = 3$ (${\rm mod} \; 3$) generations!
2302:
2303:
2304: \subsection{Proton Decay}
2305:
2306:
2307:
2308: We already remarked on the potential problems with operators
2309: that lead to proton decay in models with a low cutoff scale.
2310: Ref.~\cite{Appelquist:2001mj} pointed out that
2311: part of the global symmetry associated with the extra dimensional
2312: coordinates can be utilized to restrict the forms of higher
2313: dimensional operators that are allowed. In particular,
2314: in 6-d the Poincare symmetry $SO(1,5) \ra SO(1,3) \times U(1)_{45}$
2315: where the $U(1)_{45}$\footnote{``$45$'' is a label for one U(1),
2316: not to be confused with forty-five U(1)'s.} corresponds to rotations
2317: between the fourth and fifth (extra dimensional) coordinates.
2318:
2319: Chiral 6-d fermions decompose under 4-d $SU(2)_L$ chirality as
2320: \begin{equation}
2321: \phi_{\pm} = \phi_{\pm L} + \phi_{\pm R}
2322: \end{equation}
2323: defined via the projection operators
2324: \begin{equation}
2325: P_{\pm L} = P_{\mp R} = \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 \mp \Sigma^{45} \right)
2326: \end{equation}
2327: where $\Sigma^{\alpha\beta}/2$ are the generators of the spin-1/2
2328: representations of $SO(1,5)$. The 4-d chiral fermions have
2329: $U(1)_{45}$ charges given by the eigenvalues of $\Sigma^{45}/2$:
2330: $\mp 1/2$ for $\phi_{\pm L}$ and $\pm 1/2$ for $\phi_{\pm R}$.
2331: This implies the $U(1)_{45}$ charge assignments for the SM fields:
2332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2333: \begin{center}
2334: \begin{tabular}{c|cc} \hline\hline
2335: fermion & $U(1)_{45}$ charge & $U(1)_B$ \\ \hline
2336: $Q_{+L}$ & $-1/2$ & $1/3$ \\
2337: $u_{-R}$, $d_{-R}$ & $-1/2$ & $1/3$ \\
2338: $L_{+L}$ & $-1/2$ & $0$ \\
2339: $e_{-R}$, $N_{-R}$ & $-1/2$ & $0$ \\ \hline\hline
2340: \end{tabular}
2341: \end{center}
2342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2343: Baryon number violation requires three quark fields,
2344: but obviously no combination of three quarks is invariant
2345: under $U(1)_{45}$. To obtain a $\Delta B = 1$ operator,
2346: therefore, we need \emph{three} lepton fields to make the
2347: operator $U(1)_{45}$-invariant. The lowest dimensional
2348: operator\footnote{There are several operators at dim-16 involving
2349: the singlet $N$, but for conciseness I will only consider the
2350: lowest dimensional operator involving SM fields.}
2351: occurs at dimension-17
2352: \begin{equation}
2353: \mathcal{O}_{17} =
2354: \frac{\left( \overline{L}_{+L} d_{-R} \right)^3 H^\dag}{\Lambda^{11}}
2355: \end{equation}
2356: After integrating over the extra dimensions, the 4-d low energy
2357: effective theory contains the dim-9 operator
2358: \begin{equation}
2359: \frac{v}{R^5 \Lambda^{11}} (\overline{\nu}_L d_R) (\overline{l}_L d_R)^2
2360: \end{equation}
2361: leading to proton decay via the 5-body process such as
2362: $p \ra e^- \pi^+ \pi^+ \nu\nu$.
2363: Putting in appropriate coefficients and form factors, one
2364: obtains \cite{Appelquist:2001mj}
2365: \begin{equation}
2366: \tau_p \simeq 10^{35} \; \mbox{yr} \,
2367: \left( \frac{1/R}{500 \; {\rm GeV}} \right)^{12}
2368: \left( \frac{\Lambda R}{5} \right)^{22} \; .
2369: \end{equation}
2370: Hence, for $1/R$ of order the weak scale with a cutoff scale
2371: $\Lambda \gsim 5/R$, the 6-d UED model based on
2372: $T^2/Z_2$ is completely safe from proton decay.
2373:
2374: One can show more generally that the sum rule
2375: \begin{equation}
2376: 3 \Delta B \pm \Delta L = 0 \; {\rm mod} \; 8
2377: \end{equation}
2378: is satisfied for all of the zero-mode fields.
2379: This forbids: proton decay with less than 6 fermions;
2380: $\Delta B = 2$, $\Delta L = 0$ baryon-number violating interactions
2381: leading to neutron--anti-neutron oscillations; and
2382: $\Delta B = 0$, $\Delta L = 2$ lepton-number violating interactions
2383: leading to Majorana neutrino masses. Hence, many of the most
2384: dangerous violations of the SM global symmetries are forbidden
2385: or sufficiently suppressed.
2386:
2387:
2388: \subsection{UED: The Model}
2389:
2390:
2391: Having piqued your interest in UED by the argument for three
2392: generations as well as naturally allowing a low cutoff scale,
2393: let's now delve into the UED model and its phenomenology.
2394:
2395: The action for the SM in higher dimensions is
2396: \begin{eqnarray}
2397: S &=& \int d^4 x \int d^n y \, \bigg[
2398: \frac{1}{2 \overline{g}^2} F_{MN} F^{MN} \nonumber \\
2399: & &{} + i \overline{Q} \Gamma^M D_M Q
2400: + i \overline{u} \Gamma^M D_M u
2401: + i \overline{d} \Gamma^M D_M d \nonumber \\
2402: & &{} + \overline{Q} \lambda_u u i \sigma_2 H^*
2403: + \overline{Q} \lambda_d d H \nonumber \\
2404: & &{} + \mathcal{L}_{\rm Higgs} + \mbox{leptons} + \ldots \bigg]
2405: \end{eqnarray}
2406: where gauge interactions, Yukawa interactions, and Higgs interactions
2407: are all \emph{bulk} interactions. These couplings are thus
2408: \emph{dimensionful}, since this is a higher dimensional theory.
2409: In particular, it must be stressed that there are no $\delta(y)$
2410: functions present. The UED model, by definition, has no tree-level
2411: brane-localized fields or interactions.
2412:
2413: Demanding that all fields and interactions are bulk interactions,
2414: with no $\delta$-functions in extra-dimensional coordinate space,
2415: has one extremely important
2416: consequence. To see this, let's first decompose a ($4+n$)-dimensional
2417: gauge field into its 4-d Kaluza-Klein (KK) components:
2418: \begin{eqnarray}
2419: A_\mu(x,y) &=& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{(2 \pi R)^{n/2}} \Bigg\{ A_\mu^{(0)}(x)
2420: \nonumber \\
2421: & &{} + \sqrt{2} \sum_{j_1, \ldots, j_n}
2422: A_\mu^{(j_1,\ldots,j_n)}(x) \,
2423: \cos \left[ \frac{j_1 y_1 + \ldots + j_n y_n}{R} \right] \Bigg\}
2424: \end{eqnarray}
2425: We could continue this discussion in an arbitrary number
2426: of dimensions, but for simplicity let's concentrate on
2427: just one extra dimension. There is no loss of generality
2428: to the basic argument I am about to present by specializing to 5-d.
2429: Indeed, numerous papers that have been written about UED
2430: have concentrated on the 5-d version, so this sets us up
2431: nicely to discuss this body of work. In most cases, it is
2432: more complicated but nevertheless straightforward to extend
2433: the 5-d discussions into 6-d to preserve the properties that
2434: we found in the first two subsections.
2435:
2436: Back to the significance of the absence of $\delta$-functions
2437: in extra-dimensional coordinate space.
2438: This is best understood with an example. Consider two distinct 5-d
2439: theories: one contains bulk fermions $F$, the other contains
2440: boundary fermions $f$ (localized at $y=0$), while both are coupled
2441: to a bulk gauge field $A_M$.
2442: The theory with boundary fermions has an action
2443: \begin{eqnarray}
2444: \int d^4 x \, d y \, \overline{f} \Gamma^M D_M f \, \delta(y)
2445: \end{eqnarray}
2446: that upon KK expansion becomes
2447: \begin{eqnarray}
2448: \int d^4 x \, d y \, \overline{f} \Gamma^\mu \left[ A_\mu^{(0)} +
2449: \sqrt{2} \sum_j A_\mu^{(j)} \cos \left( \frac{j y}{R} \right) \right]
2450: f \, \delta(y)
2451: \end{eqnarray}
2452: where there is an overall constant as well as an additive
2453: set of interactions with the fifth component of the gauge field
2454: (an additional scalar field) that I'm not bothering about here.
2455: Integrate out the fifth dimension, assumed to be on the interval
2456: $S^1/Z_2$,
2457: \begin{eqnarray}
2458: \int_0^{\pi R} d y \, \cos\left( \frac{j y}{R} \right) \delta(y) = 1
2459: \end{eqnarray}
2460: and one is left with the 4-d Lagrangian
2461: \begin{eqnarray}
2462: \int d^4 x \, \overline{f} \Gamma^\mu
2463: \left[ A_\mu^{(0)} + \sqrt{2} \sum_j A_\mu^{(j)} \right] f
2464: \end{eqnarray}
2465: where the 4-d boundary fermions couple to all of the KK modes
2466: with the same strength.
2467:
2468: Now contrast this to what happens in the theory with only bulk fermions.
2469: The action
2470: \begin{eqnarray}
2471: \int d^4 x \, d y \, \overline{F} \, \Gamma^M D_M F
2472: \end{eqnarray}
2473: is KK expanded into
2474: \begin{eqnarray}
2475: \int d^4 x \, d y \, \overline{F}^{(0)} \Gamma^\mu
2476: \left[ A_\mu^{(0)} +
2477: \sqrt{2} \sum_j A_\mu^{(j)} \cos \left( \frac{j y}{R} \right) \right] F^{(0)}
2478: \end{eqnarray}
2479: plus all of the terms with KK excitations for the fermions that
2480: I neglected to write here. Integrate out the fifth dimension
2481: \begin{eqnarray}
2482: \frac{2}{\pi R} \int_0^{\pi R} d y \, \cos\left( \frac{j y}{R} \right) &=&
2483: 2 \delta_{j0}
2484: \label{bulk-integral-1-eq}
2485: \end{eqnarray}
2486: where this integral vanishes for all $j$ except $j=0$.
2487: One is left with the 4-d Lagrangian
2488: \begin{eqnarray}
2489: \int d^4 x \, \overline{F}^{(0)} \Gamma^\mu A_\mu^{(0)} F^{(0)}
2490: \end{eqnarray}
2491: where the 4-d zero mode fermions couple \emph{only} to the zero mode
2492: of the gauge field! Generalizing to the $k^{\rm th}$ KK mode of one of
2493: the bulk fermions interacting with the $j^{\rm th}$ KK mode of the gauge
2494: field, the integral Eq.~(\ref{bulk-integral-1-eq}) becomes
2495: \begin{eqnarray}
2496: \frac{2}{\pi R}
2497: \int_0^{\pi R} dy \, \cos\left( \frac{j y}{R} \right)
2498: \cos\left( \frac{k y}{R} \right) = \delta_{jk}
2499: \end{eqnarray}
2500: leading to the non-zero 4-d interactions
2501: \begin{eqnarray}
2502: \int d^4 x \, \overline{F}^{(k)} \Gamma^\mu A_\mu^{(k)} F^{(0)}
2503: + \overline{F}^{(0)} \Gamma^\mu A_\mu^{(k)} F^{(k)}\; ,
2504: \end{eqnarray}
2505: also shown diagrammatically in Fig.~\ref{UED-diagrams-fig}.
2506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2507: \begin{figure}[t]
2508: \begin{picture}(400,100)
2509: %
2510: \ArrowLine(50,85)(50,50)
2511: \ArrowLine(50,50)(50,15)
2512: \Photon(50,50)(100,50){4}{4}
2513: \Text(45,80)[r]{$F^{(0)}$}
2514: \Text(45,20)[r]{$F^{(0)}$}
2515: \Text(95,60)[r]{$A_\mu^{(0)}$}
2516: \Text(75,10)[c]{(a)}
2517: %
2518: \ArrowLine(150,85)(150,50)
2519: \ArrowLine(150,50)(150,15)
2520: \Photon(150,50)(200,50){4}{4}
2521: \Text(145,80)[r]{$F^{(k)}$}
2522: \Text(145,20)[r]{$F^{(0)}$}
2523: \Text(195,60)[r]{$A_\mu^{(k)}$}
2524: \Text(175,10)[c]{(b)}
2525: %
2526: \ArrowLine(250,85)(250,50)
2527: \ArrowLine(250,50)(250,15)
2528: \Photon(250,50)(300,50){4}{4}
2529: \Text(245,80)[r]{$F^{(0)}$}
2530: \Text(245,20)[r]{$F^{(0)}$}
2531: \Text(295,60)[r]{$A_\mu^{(k)}$}
2532: \Line(240,15)(290,85)
2533: \Line(240,85)(290,15)
2534: \Text(275,10)[c]{(c)}
2535: %
2536: \end{picture}
2537: \caption{Example of interactions that are allowed [(a) and (b)]
2538: and are not allowed [(c)] by KK number (or KK parity) conservation.}
2539: \label{UED-diagrams-fig}
2540: \end{figure}
2541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2542: The presence of interactions with an even number of same-level KK modes
2543: is due precisely to the absence of $\delta$-functions.
2544: The $\delta$-functions are sources for brane-localized interactions
2545: which completely break translation invariance in the fifth dimension.
2546: The absence of $\delta$-functions implies that a discrete remnant
2547: of translation invariance survives compactification:
2548: KK number conservation.
2549:
2550: To obtain 4-d chiral fermions, UED is compactified on an orbifold,
2551: and this introduces fixed points on which interactions that
2552: break KK number conservation could exist. Generically, KK number
2553: conservation is broken to a subgroup called KK parity
2554: \cite{Appelquist:2000nn} by brane-localized interactions
2555: that can arise radiatively \cite{Georgi:2000ks}.
2556: The size of the one-loop brane-localized corrections for UED
2557: have been explicitly calculated in Ref.~\cite{Cheng:2002iz},
2558: which we'll discuss more below.
2559: Nevertheless, KK parity remains unbroken so long as no explicit KK parity
2560: violating interactions are added to the orbifold fixed points.
2561: In other words, KK parity is technically natural, in that the
2562: symmetry structure is enhanced when coefficients of these bare
2563: would-be KK parity violating interactions are taken to zero.
2564: This is entirely analogous to $R$-parity in supersymmetric models.
2565:
2566: KK parity can be written succinctly as $P_{\rm KK} = (-1)^k$
2567: for the $k^{\rm th}$ KK mode. This implies:
2568: \begin{itemize}
2569: \item The lightest level-one KK mode is stable.
2570: \item Odd level KK modes can only be produced in pairs.
2571: \item Direct couplings to even KK modes occur through
2572: brane-localized, loop-suppressed interactions.
2573: \end{itemize}
2574: We'll now discuss these implications of KK parity on the
2575: phenomenology of the UED model.
2576:
2577: \subsection{Corrections to Electroweak Precision Observables}
2578:
2579: The typical problem with additional gauge bosons that
2580: couple to light fermions is that they can give large contributions
2581: to electroweak precision observables. Consider the quintessential
2582: observable, the $Z$-width. Given measurements of $M_Z$, $G_F$,
2583: and $\alpha_{\rm em}(M_Z)$, the $Z$ width can be calculated at tree-level.
2584: New contributions to the width potentially arise from the exchange
2585: of heavier gauge bosons, but such contributions do \emph{not} exist
2586: in UED models since KK parity forbids tree-level couplings of
2587: $Z^{(k)}$ with the fermion zero modes as well as the
2588: $Z^{(k)} Z^{(0)} H^{(0)} {H^{(0)}}^\dag$ four-point coupling.
2589:
2590: Through one-loop interactions, however, there are calculable
2591: corrections\footnote{Distinguished from cutoff scale contributions,
2592: discussed below.} to the electroweak precision observables.
2593: Using the parameterization given by Peskin and Takeuchi
2594: \cite{Peskin:1991sw},
2595: the contributions to $S$ and $T$
2596: were calculated in Ref.~\cite{Appelquist:2000nn}.
2597: They found
2598: \begin{eqnarray}
2599: T = \sum_{j} D_j \left( T_j^t + T_j^h + T_j^V \right)
2600: \end{eqnarray}
2601: where the sum is over all modes up to the cutoff scale of the
2602: $D$-dimensional theory, and $D_j$ is the density of states
2603: at each level $j$. The individual contributions are
2604: \begin{eqnarray}
2605: \alpha T_j^V &=& -\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi \cos^2 \theta_W}
2606: \frac{(2 n + 1) M_W^2}{6 M_j^2} \\
2607: \alpha T_j^h &=& -\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi \cos^2 \theta_W}
2608: \frac{5 m_h^2 + 7 M_W^2}{12 M_j^2} \\
2609: \alpha T_j^t &\simeq& \frac{m_t^4}{8 \pi^2 v^2 M_j^2}
2610: \end{eqnarray}
2611: where $M_j = j/R$ is $j^{\rm th}$ Kaluza-Klein mass level.
2612: Using the experimental values for the SM parameters,
2613: the $T$ parameter is roughly
2614: \begin{equation}
2615: T \simeq 0.76 \sum_{j} D_j \frac{m_t^2}{M_j^2} \; .
2616: \end{equation}
2617: A similar calculation can be done for $S$,
2618: \begin{equation}
2619: S \simeq 0.01 \sum_j D_j \frac{m_t^2}{M_j^2}
2620: \end{equation}
2621: where the contribution to the isospin-breaking parameter $T$
2622: is two orders of magnitude larger than the isospin-preserving
2623: parameter $S$. There is no large contribution to $S$ because
2624: the heavy KK quarks acquire their mass dominantly from the vector-like
2625: contribution arising from compactification.
2626: Note that the sum over states for these electroweak parameters is
2627: \begin{eqnarray}
2628: \mbox{convergent} & & D=5 \nonumber \\
2629: \mbox{log divergent} & \quad \mbox{for} \quad & D=6 \nonumber \\
2630: \mbox{power divergent} & & D>6 \; . \nonumber
2631: \end{eqnarray}
2632: Contemplating UED models with $D>6$ therefore appear somewhat
2633: problematic, since even the calculable contribution to the
2634: electroweak precision observables diverges.
2635:
2636: In any case, using the calculable corrections we can find a
2637: lower bound on the inverse radius of the extra dimensions.
2638: Ref.~\cite{Appelquist:2000nn} required the moderately loose
2639: constraint $T \lsim 0.4$ which leads to
2640: \begin{eqnarray}
2641: \frac{1}{R} &\gsim& \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
2642: 300 \; \mbox{GeV} & \qquad & D=5 \\
2643: 500 \; \mbox{GeV} & & D=6 \; . \end{array} \right.
2644: \end{eqnarray}
2645: These bounds are probably a bit too low given the latest
2646: electroweak fits \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}, but in any case the
2647: bound is in the several hundred GeV range.
2648: These bounds on UED dimensions should be contrasted with
2649: those that result from extra dimensions that are \emph{not}
2650: universal, i.e., SM gauge bosons living in higher dimensions
2651: with SM fermions localized to 4-d.
2652: For example, Ref.~\cite{Rizzo:1999br} found
2653: constraints on the inverse size of an extra dimension of this type
2654: in the several TeV range.
2655:
2656: \subsection{UED Cutoff Scale}
2657:
2658: We have alluded to the fact that UED models are effective
2659: theories of extra dimensions with a cutoff scale.
2660: What is the cutoff scale? Since gauge couplings in
2661: extra dimensional theories are dimensionful, i.e.\
2662: $\alpha_D$ has mass dimension $-n$, a rough guess is
2663: \begin{equation}
2664: \Lambda \sim \frac{4 \pi}{\alpha_D^{1/n}}
2665: \end{equation}
2666: where I have been excessively naive about my NDA counting.
2667: Matching this $D$-dimensional gauge coupling to a 4-d coupling
2668: of the SM,
2669: \begin{equation}
2670: \frac{1}{g^2} = \frac{(\pi R)^n}{g_D^2}
2671: \end{equation}
2672: we obtain
2673: \begin{equation}
2674: \Lambda R \sim \frac{4}{\alpha^{1/n}} \sim
2675: \left\{
2676: \begin{array}{lcl}
2677: 30 & \mbox{for} & D=5 \\
2678: 10 & \mbox{for} & D=6
2679: \end{array} \right.
2680: \end{equation}
2681: which is roughly what is expected. A 4-d version of the same
2682: calculation, which is arguably better defined, sums over the
2683: number of KK particles running in loops to determine the scale
2684: of strong coupling. In this way of counting, since the number
2685: of KK modes is proportional to $n^2$, we would expect
2686: $\Lambda_{6-d} R \simeq \sqrt{\Lambda_{5-d} R}$, and thus
2687: $\Lambda_{6-d} R \simeq 5$. These are the typical numbers given
2688: for the cutoff scales of the 5-d and 6-d theories.
2689:
2690: Cutoff scales that are only about one order of magnitude
2691: above the compactification scale may be problematic in other
2692: ways. While proton decay and lepton number violating operators
2693: can be suppressed or eliminated in six dimensions, given a
2694: cutoff only a factor of $5$ above the compactification scale
2695: one ought to be concerned about other higher dimensional operators
2696: that violate flavor symmetries or custodial SU(2).
2697: Also, the cutoff scale may be even lower than the above estimates
2698: suggest. Ref.~\cite{Chivukula:2003kq} found that requiring
2699: scattering amplitudes satisfy the unitarity bound results in
2700: rather low estimates for the scale where strong coupling appears,
2701: only a small factor above the compactification scale.
2702:
2703: \subsection{UED in 5-d: The Spectrum}
2704:
2705: For the remainder of the discussion, I want to focus on
2706: the spectrum of the 5-d version of UED. Fortunately, the spectrum
2707: depends linearly on $1/R$ and only logarithmically on $\Lambda R$,
2708: which we will leave as a free parameter varied in some reasonable range.
2709: We will also ignore the effects of higher dimensional operators
2710: suppressed by the cutoff scale. What we will do is to examine
2711: more closely the spectrum of UED and the implications for
2712: collider searches and for the possibility of having a dark matter
2713: candidate. I'll briefly mention the ways in which a UED dark
2714: matter candidate could be detected, emphasizing the difference
2715: from a typical supersymmetric candidate.
2716:
2717: The spectrum of the 5-d UED model consists of all of the particles
2718: of the SM and their Kaluza-Klein excitations. Let's focus on
2719: the first KK level. At tree-level, the masses of the KK particles
2720: are simply
2721: \begin{equation}
2722: m_{KK}^2 = \frac{1}{R^2} + m_{\rm SM}^2
2723: \end{equation}
2724: where $m_{SM}$ is the mass of level-zero (Standard Model) particle.
2725: This suggests a high degree of degeneracy for the KK excitations
2726: of light SM particles, but this degeneracy is not preserved beyond
2727: tree-level. Indeed, in Ref.~\cite{Cheng:2002ab} it was
2728: realized that radiative corrections to the KK particle masses
2729: are often much larger than the tree-level SM contribution.
2730:
2731: There are two classes of calculable radiative corrections.
2732: One arises from diagrams involving bulk loops, namely particles
2733: that traverse around the circle (or actually from one side to
2734: the other, in an orbifold). The loops are non-contractable,
2735: with finite extent in the extra dimension, implying they give finite
2736: corrections to the masses. The second class of corrections
2737: involves brane-localized kinetic terms that appear on the boundaries
2738: of the orbifold. These corrections are logarithmically sensitive to
2739: the cutoff scale of the theory. The generic form of this correction
2740: to the Lagrangian is
2741: \begin{eqnarray}
2742: \delta L &=& \left( \delta(y) + \delta(y - \pi R) \right) \frac{R g^2}{128 \pi}
2743: \ln \frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2} \times \nonumber \\
2744: & &{} \left[ \overline{F}_+ i \slashchar{\partial} F_+
2745: + 5 (\partial_5 \overline{F}_-) F_+
2746: + 5 (\overline{F}_+ (\partial_5 F_-) \right]
2747: \end{eqnarray}
2748: where $F_+$ and $F_-$ are the components of a bulk
2749: four-component spinor corresponding to any of the SM fermions.
2750: These corrections are necessarily logarithmically sensitive
2751: to the cutoff scale.
2752:
2753: The shifts in the KK masses resulting from these two classes
2754: of radiative corrections are \cite{Cheng:2002iz}:
2755: \begin{eqnarray}
2756: \delta(m^2_{B^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{g'^2}{16 \pi^2 R^2}
2757: \left( \frac{-39}{2} \frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^2} -\frac{n^2}{3} \ln \,
2758: \Lambda R \right) \nonumber \\
2759: \delta(m^2_{W^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{g^2}{16 \pi^2 R^2} \left (
2760: \frac{-5}{2} \frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^2} + 15 n^2 \ln \,
2761: \Lambda R \right )\nonumber \\
2762: \delta(m^2_{g^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{ g_3^2}{16 \pi^2 R^2} \left (
2763: \frac{-3}{2} \frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^2} + 23 n^2 \ln \,
2764: \Lambda R \right )\nonumber \\
2765: \delta(m_{Q^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{n}{16 \pi^2 R} \left ( 6 g_3^2+ \frac{27}{8}
2766: g^2 + \frac{1}{8} g'^2 \right) \ln \, \Lambda R \nonumber \\
2767: \delta(m_{u^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{n}{16 \pi^2 R} \left ( 6 g_3^2+
2768: 2 g'^2 \right) \ln \, \Lambda R \nonumber \\
2769: \delta(m_{d^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{n}{16 \pi^2 R} \left ( 6 g_3^2+ \frac{1}{2}
2770: g'^2 \right) \ln \, \Lambda R \nonumber \\
2771: \delta(m_{L^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{n}{16 \pi^2 R} \left ( \frac{27}{8}
2772: g^2 + \frac{9}{8} g'^2 \right) \ln \, \Lambda R \nonumber \\
2773: \delta(m_{e^{(n)}}) &=& \frac{n}{16 \pi^2 R}\frac{9}{2} g'^2 \ln \, \Lambda R
2774: \; . \label{MassCorr}
2775: \end{eqnarray}
2776: All of the non-colored KK excitation masses are within about 10\%
2777: of $m_{\gamma^{(1)}}$ up to moderately high values of the cutoff scale
2778: ($\Lambda R \approx 30$). The strongly interacting particles
2779: are somewhat heavier, up to perhaps $20\%-25\%$ above $1/R$.
2780: Fig.~\ref{UED-spectrum-fig} gives an example of this spectrum
2781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2782: \begin{figure}[t]
2783: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0205314_levels_nob.ps}}
2784: \caption{One-loop corrected mass spectrum of
2785: the first KK level for $R^{-1}=500$ GeV, $\Lambda R = 20$
2786: and $m_h=120$ GeV. The states $t_{1,2}$, $b_{1,2}$, and $\tau_{1,2}$
2787: correspond to the mass eigenstates of the first KK excitations of
2788: the left- and right-handed SM fermions.
2789: (Fig.~1 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheng:2002ab}.)}
2790: \label{UED-spectrum-fig}
2791: \end{figure}
2792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2793: for a compactification size relevant to upcoming collider
2794: experiments.
2795:
2796: I should emphasize that there are several assumptions built into
2797: this radiatively-corrected spectrum. One is that the matching
2798: contributions to the brane-localized kinetic terms are assumed to be
2799: zero when evaluated at the cutoff scale. This leads to a finite
2800: correction that should be compared against a log-enhanced
2801: correction. However, since the log is relatively small,
2802: of order $\ln 30 \sim 3.4$, the finite contribution
2803: could easily compete or dominate over this correction.
2804: Also, the spectrum assumes that there are no brane-localized
2805: quadratically-divergent contributions to the Higgs (mass)$^2$.
2806:
2807: Nevertheless, it is intriguing that the spectrum is so qualitatively
2808: similar to a moderately degenerate supersymmetric spectrum.
2809: The spin of the KK excitations is of course equal to the spin
2810: of the corresponding SM (zero mode) field, whereas superpartners
2811: have spin that differ by $1/2$ from their SM counterparts.
2812: Unfortunately, measurements of the spin of newly discovered
2813: heavy particles at hadron colliders is not easy. This had led
2814: to suggestions that a KK spectrum could easily be mistaken for
2815: a degenerate supersymmetric spectrum \cite{Cheng:2002ab}.
2816:
2817: Another similarity to supersymmetry is that UED possesses
2818: an auxiliary discrete symmetry that (if exact) forces
2819: pair production of the lightest level-one KK excitations and
2820: prevents the lightest level-one KK excitation from decaying
2821: into SM particles. The latter property implies that a stable
2822: particle exists in the spectrum, potentially a dark matter candidate.
2823:
2824: If the spectrum of the level-one KK excitations follows precisely
2825: that of Eqs.~(\ref{MassCorr}), then the lightest KK particle is
2826: the KK photon.
2827: Saying ``KK photon'' is somewhat misleading, however, since the
2828: neutral gauge boson mass matrix in the ($B^{(n)}$, $W^{3(n)}$) basis
2829: \begin{equation}
2830: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
2831: \frac{n^2}{R^2} + \delta m^2_{B^{(n)}} + \frac{1}{4} g'^2 v^2
2832: & \frac{1}{4} g'g v^2 \\
2833: \frac{1}{4} g'g v^2
2834: & \frac{n^2}{R^2} + \delta m^2_{W^{(n)}} + \frac{1}{4} g^2 v^2
2835: \end{array} \right)
2836: \end{equation}
2837: depends on both the tree-level contributions (proportional to $v^2$)
2838: and the radiative corrections. The effective mixing angle,
2839: $\sin^2 \theta_W^{(n)}$ for the $n^{\rm th}$ mode is much smaller
2840: than the Weinberg angle, shown in Fig.~\ref{Weinberg-angle-fig}.
2841: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2842: \begin{figure}[t]
2843: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0204342_s2theta_vs_R.ps}}
2844: \caption{The effective Weinberg angle $\theta^{(n)}$
2845: that determines the gauge content of the lightest level-$n$ KK mode,
2846: $\gamma^{(n)} = \cos \theta^{(n)} B^{(n)} - \sin \theta^{(n)} W^{3(n)}$.
2847: (Fig.~5 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheng:2002iz}.)}
2848: \label{Weinberg-angle-fig}
2849: \end{figure}
2850: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2851: Clearly, for $1/R \gsim 500$ GeV combined with $\Lambda R \sim 20$,
2852: $\gamma^{(1)} \simeq B^{(1)}$ to within a percent, and so for all
2853: subsequent purposes we can consider them equivalent.
2854: From now on I'll just use $B^{(1)}$ to refer to the lightest
2855: level-one KK excitation of the neutral gauge bosons.
2856:
2857: \subsection{UED Dark Matter}
2858:
2859: It is amusing that $B^{(1)}$ happens to be the candidate for dark
2860: matter in UED models. The close analogy with supersymmetry would seem
2861: to continue here, since the supersymmetric partner to the hypercharge
2862: gauge boson, the Bino ($\tilde{B}$), is the typical candidate for
2863: supersymmetric dark matter. But, this is where the similarity ends.
2864:
2865: In supersymmetry, Bino annihilation typically proceeds through
2866: sfermion exchange, shown in Fig.~\ref{annihilation-fig}(a).
2867: Since the Binos
2868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2869: \begin{figure}[t]
2870: \begin{picture}(300,200)
2871: %
2872: \Text( 14, 180 )[r]{$\tilde{B}$}
2873: \Text( 14, 120 )[r]{$\tilde{B}$}
2874: \Photon( 20 , 180 )( 70 , 180 ){4}{5}
2875: \Line( 20 , 180 )( 70 , 180 )
2876: \Photon( 20 , 120 )( 70 , 120 ){4}{5}
2877: \Line( 20 , 120 )( 70 , 120 )
2878: \ArrowLine( 120, 180 )( 70, 180 )
2879: \DashArrowLine( 70, 180 )( 70, 120 ){4}
2880: \ArrowLine( 70, 120 )( 120, 120 )
2881: \Text( 80 , 150 )[l]{$\tilde{f}$}
2882: \Text( 125 , 180 )[l]{$\overline{f}$}
2883: \Text( 125 , 120 )[l]{$f$}
2884: \Text( 70 , 100 )[c]{(a)}
2885: %
2886: \Text( 174, 180 )[r]{$B^{(1)}$}
2887: \Text( 174, 120 )[r]{$B^{(1)}$}
2888: \Photon( 180 , 181 )( 230 , 181 ){4}{5}
2889: \Photon( 180 , 179 )( 230 , 179 ){4}{5}
2890: \Photon( 180 , 121 )( 230 , 121 ){4}{5}
2891: \Photon( 180 , 119 )( 230 , 119 ){4}{5}
2892: \ArrowLine( 280, 180 )( 230, 180 )
2893: \ArrowLine( 230, 180 )( 230, 120 )
2894: \ArrowLine( 230, 120 )( 280, 120 )
2895: \Text( 240 , 150 )[l]{$f^{(1)}$}
2896: \Text( 285 , 180 )[l]{$\overline{f}$}
2897: \Text( 285 , 120 )[l]{$f$}
2898: \Text( 230 , 100 )[c]{(b)}
2899: %
2900: \Text( 85, 80 )[r]{$B^{(1)}$}
2901: \Text( 85, 20 )[r]{$f$}
2902: \Photon( 90 , 81 )( 130 , 51 ){4}{5}
2903: \Photon( 90 , 79 )( 130 , 49 ){4}{5}
2904: \Photon( 170 , 51 )( 210 , 81 ){4}{5}
2905: \Photon( 170 , 49 )( 210 , 79 ){4}{5}
2906: \ArrowLine( 90, 20 )( 130, 50 )
2907: \ArrowLine( 130, 50 )( 170, 50 )
2908: \ArrowLine( 170, 50 )( 210, 20 )
2909: \Text( 150 , 60 )[l]{$f^{(1)}$}
2910: \Text( 215 , 80 )[l]{$B^{(1)}$}
2911: \Text( 215 , 20 )[l]{$f$}
2912: \Text( 150 , 15 )[c]{(c)}
2913: %
2914: \end{picture}
2915: \caption{Relevant annihilation and scattering processes
2916: for (a) supersymmetry and (b),(c) UED. The supersymmetric
2917: annihilation diagram (a) is $s$-wave suppressed by a factor
2918: $m_f^2/m_{B^{(1)}}$, whereas the UED diagram (b) is unsuppressed.
2919: Observable annihilation in the Sun occurs through diagram (b) with $f = \nu$.
2920: Annihilation in the galactic neighborhood to positrons occurs through
2921: diagram (b) with $f = \ell$. Scattering off nuclei occurs via
2922: diagram (c) with $f = q$, suitably ``dressed'' into a
2923: proton or neutron.}
2924: \label{annihilation-fig}
2925: \end{figure}
2926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2927: are Majorana fermions, Fermi statistics requires that they have
2928: their spins oppositely directed when prepared in an initial
2929: $s$-wave. This means that a chirality flip of the fermions
2930: is required, and thus a mass insertion in the diagram.
2931: This causes the cross section
2932: to be suppressed by a factor $m_f^2/m_{\tilde{B}}^2$.
2933:
2934: In UED, $B^{(1)}$ annihilation also proceeds through KK fermion
2935: annihilation shown in Fig.~\ref{annihilation-fig}(b),
2936: but because the incoming states
2937: are bosons, there is no $s$-wave suppression. This means that
2938: the mass range for $B^{(1)}$ to make up the dark matter of the Universe
2939: is significantly higher than the range of Bino masses for
2940: supersymmetric dark matter.
2941: We can estimate the thermally-averaged annihilation cross section
2942: by assuming that only diagrams of type (b) shown in
2943: Fig.~\ref{annihilation-fig}
2944: are present. Given the KK spectrum above, Eqs.~(\ref{MassCorr}),
2945: the radiative correction to level-one KK fermions is typically
2946: at the few to tens of percent level. A reasonable approximation
2947: is to assume that the mass of the exchanged KK particle $f^{(1)}$
2948: is roughly degenerate with $B^{(1)}$. The cross section is then
2949: simply $1/m_{B^{(1)}}^2$ times the coupling factors, which are
2950: just $g_1^4 \sum_i (Y_f^{i})^4$. The final result is
2951: \begin{equation}
2952: \langle \sigma v \rangle = \frac{95 g_1^4}{324 \pi m_{B^{(1)}}^2}
2953: \end{equation}
2954: where this cross section with numerical factors was
2955: worked out in Ref.~\cite{Servant:2002aq}. If you take a
2956: rough estimate of the relic density given in Kolb and Turner
2957: \cite{Kolb:1990vq}
2958: \begin{equation}
2959: \Omega h^2 \sim
2960: \frac{0.77 \times 10^{-37} \; {\rm cm}^2}{\langle \sigma v \rangle}
2961: \end{equation}
2962: and then plug in the thermally-averaged cross section above,
2963: one obtains
2964: \begin{equation}
2965: \Omega h^2 \sim 0.1 \left( \frac{m_{B^{(1)}}}{1 \; {\rm TeV}} \right)^2
2966: \end{equation}
2967: which is accurate to within about 15\% of the numerical results given
2968: in Ref.~\cite{Servant:2002aq}. A plot of the relic density
2969: is shown in Fig.~\ref{ST-fig}, along with several additional
2970: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2971: \begin{figure}[t]
2972: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0206071_relicber.eps}}
2973: \caption{Prediction for $\Omega_{B^{(1)}} h^2$.
2974: The solid line is the case for $B^{(1)}$ alone,
2975: and the dashed and dotted lines correspond
2976: to the case in which there are one (three) flavors of nearly degenerate
2977: $e_R^{(1)}$. For each case, the black curves (upper of each pair)
2978: denote the case where the fractional mass difference between
2979: the RH KK lepton and $B^{(1)}$ is 1\%, while the red curves
2980: (lower of each pair) correspond to 5\%.
2981: Note that the ``favorable range'' of $\Omega h^2$ for dark matter
2982: is now out-of-date; current cosmological data suggest
2983: $\Omega h^2 \sim 0.1$, just below the bottom of the shaded band.
2984: (Fig.~3 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Servant:2002aq}.)}
2985: \label{ST-fig}
2986: \end{figure}
2987: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2988: curves that represent including coannihilation with one to
2989: three generations of the level-one KK excitations of the
2990: right-handed leptons.
2991:
2992: An interesting outcome of the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Servant:2002aq}
2993: is that coannihilation\footnote{See
2994: Ref.~\cite{Griest:1990kh} for a nice general discussion of
2995: the effects of coannihilation.}
2996: with light KK leptons causes an \emph{increase}
2997: in the effective annihilation cross section and thus a
2998: \emph{decrease} in the mass range of the KK particle.
2999: This happens because the additional KK particles, when
3000: close enough in mass to $B^{(1)}$, have small annihilation
3001: and coannihilation cross sections, freeze
3002: out later, causing them to act as additional components
3003: to dark matter. These right-handed (RH) KK leptons decay into $B^{(1)}$
3004: after their mutual interactions are too slow compared with
3005: the expansion rate, and thus they decay into $B^{(1)}$,
3006: boosting the $B^{(1)}$ relic density, or equivalently lowering
3007: the mass range of $B^{(1)}$ when the relic density is held fixed.
3008:
3009: This result, however, is unique to right-handed KK leptons.
3010: As shown by two groups Refs.~\cite{Burnell:2005hm,Kong:2005hn},
3011: coannihilation with left-handed KK leptons, KK quarks,
3012: KK gluons, etc., all have cross sections that are larger
3013: than $B^{(1)}$ annihilation, causing the total effective
3014: cross section to go up. Holding the relic density fixed,
3015: this implies the mass range of $B^{(1)}$ must also increase.
3016: If the KK quarks and KK gluon are below about $1.1$ times the
3017: mass of $B^{(1)}$, these coannihilation effects can cause
3018: the mass range for $B^{(1)}$ to go up to the few TeV range.
3019: On face value, such a small separation between the mass of $B^{(1)}$
3020: and the strongly interacting level-one KK particles is not expected
3021: from the radiative corrections to the masses of the first KK level
3022: computed in \cite{Cheng:2002iz}. However, if the cutoff scale is not much
3023: larger than the compactification scale, and thus matching corrections
3024: are comparable in size while opposite in sign to compensate,
3025: the level-one KK spectrum could be much more degenerate.
3026:
3027: UED dark matter can be detected by the usual methods,
3028: namely direct detection by scattering off nuclei,
3029: as well as indirect detection through annihilation
3030: in the Sun to neutrinos or annihilation in our galactic
3031: neighborhood to positrons.
3032:
3033: \subsection{Direct Detection of UED Dark Matter}
3034:
3035: First consider the direct detection of $B^{(1)}$ dark matter. Dark
3036: matter particles are currently non-relativistic, with velocity $v \sim
3037: 10^{-3}$. For weak scale dark matter, the recoil energy from
3038: scattering off nuclei is far less than for scattering off electrons,
3039: and thus one need only consider elastic scattering off nucleons
3040: and nuclei.
3041:
3042: At the quark level, $B^{(1)}$ scattering goes through KK quarks,
3043: such as shown in Fig.~\ref{annihilation-fig}(c). The amplitudes
3044: and cross sections for the quark level processes are easy to
3045: calculate, but then these processes must be convoluted
3046: with structure functions for nucleons and nuclei.
3047: The interactions divide into spin-dependent and spin-independent
3048: parts \cite{Goodman:1984dc}. Higgs exchange contributes to scalar
3049: couplings, while KK quark exchange contributes to both.
3050:
3051: In Refs.~\cite{Cheng:2002ej,Servant:2002hb}
3052: both spin-independent and spin-dependent cross sections
3053: were calculated and are shown in Fig.~\ref{KK-direct-fig}.
3054: This figure assumes all level-one KK quarks are
3055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3056: \begin{figure}[t]
3057: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{figures/0207125_dirdet_1_050.eps}}
3058: \caption{
3059: Predicted spin-dependent proton cross sections (dark-shaded, blue),
3060: along with the projected sensitivity of a 100 kg NAIAD
3061: array; and predicted spin-independent proton cross
3062: sections (light-shaded, red), along with the current EDELWEISS
3063: sensitivity, and projected sensitivities of
3064: CDMS, GENIUS, and CRESST.
3065: The predictions are for $m_h = 120$ GeV and $0.01 \le r =
3066: (m_{q^1} - m_{B^{(1)}}) / m_{B^{(1)}} \le 0.5$,
3067: with contours for specific intermediate $r$ labeled.
3068: (Fig.~1 from Ref.~\protect\cite{Cheng:2002ej}.)}
3069: \label{KK-direct-fig}
3070: \end{figure}
3071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3072: degenerate with mass $m_{q^{(1)}}$ that is different from $m_{B^{(1)}}$.
3073: Projected sensitivities of near future experiments are also shown in
3074: Fig.~\ref{KK-direct-fig}. For scattering off individual nucleons, scalar
3075: cross sections are suppressed relative to spin-dependent ones by $\sim
3076: m_p/m_{B^{(1)}}$. However, this effect is compensated in large nuclei
3077: where spin-independent rates are enhanced by $\sim A^2$
3078: ($A$ is the nuclei mass number).
3079: In the case of
3080: bosonic UED dark matter, the latter effect dominates, and the
3081: spin-independent experiments have the best prospects for detection
3082: with sensitivity to $m_{B^{(1)}}$ far above current limits.
3083:
3084: \subsection{Indirect Detection of UED Dark Matter}
3085:
3086: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3087: \begin{figure}[t]
3088: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\hsize]{figures/0208261_eventsx.ps}}
3089: \caption{The number of events per year in a detector with effective
3090: area equal to one square kilometer. Contours are shown for
3091: $r_{q^{(1)}_R}=0.1$, $0.2$, and $0.3$. The $r_{q^{(1)}_R}=0.3$
3092: is shown merely for comparison, since this mass ratio is
3093: larger than would be expected from the one-loop radiative correction
3094: calculations of the KK mode masses.
3095: The relic density of the $B^{(1)}$'s lies within the range
3096: $\Omega_{B^{(1)}} h^2 = 0.16 \pm 0.04$ for the solid sections
3097: of each line. Matching to the WMAP data, in which
3098: $\Omega_{B^{(1)}} h^2 \sim 0.1$ is preferred, corresponds roughly
3099: to the left-hand side dash-to-solid transition for each curve.
3100: (Fig.~2 from \protect\cite{Hooper:2002gs}.)}
3101: \label{KK-sun-fig}
3102: \end{figure}
3103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3104:
3105: Weakly interacting dark matter particles are expected to become
3106: gravitationally trapped in large bodies, such as the Sun, and
3107: annihilate into neutrinos or other particles that decay into neutrinos.
3108: The calculation of the flux of neutrinos from particle dark matter
3109: annihilation in the
3110: Sun has been explored in some detail, particularly the case
3111: of neutralino dark matter (for reviews, see
3112: Refs.~\cite{Jungman:1995df,Bertone:2004pz}).
3113: The basic idea is to
3114: begin with the relatively well-known local dark matter density from
3115: the galactic rotation data, compute the interaction cross section
3116: of the particle dark matter with nuclei in the Sun, compare the capture
3117: rate with the annihilation rate to determine if these processes
3118: are in equilibrium, and then compute the flux of neutrinos that
3119: result from this rate capture and annihilation.
3120: There is a huge detector at the south pole that has instrumented
3121: a large area of antarctic ice by stringing detectors down deep holes.
3122: The first version of this experiment had an effective area of
3123: $0.1 \; {\rm km}^2$ (called AMANDA) that is now in progress
3124: towards expansion to $1 \; {\rm km}^2$ (called IceCube).
3125:
3126: The calculation of the annihilation rate in the Sun involves
3127: similar scattering processes to what we found for direct detection,
3128: except that now the dominant process is simply scattering
3129: off protons. The new ingredient is to determine when the
3130: capture rate equilibrates with the annihilation rate,
3131: which is determined by the mass of the (core of the) Sun,
3132: the dark matter density and (relative) velocity,
3133: as well as the microscopic scattering cross section.
3134: Since the particle dark matter candidate in UED is rather heavy,
3135: it is not surprising that the elastic scattering is not
3136: particularly large, and a detailed calculation \cite{Hooper:2002gs}
3137: shows that $B^{(1)}$ dark matter just barely comes into
3138: equilibrium after 4.5 billion years. This gives the
3139: maximal neutrino signal emitted from the Sun.
3140:
3141: The actual outgoing flux depends on
3142: the annihilation fraction directly into neutrinos, as well as
3143: indirectly through decays. Muon neutrinos are the main actors,
3144: since at the energies relevant to $\B$ annihilation,
3145: neutrino telescopes only observe muon tracks generated in
3146: charged-current interactions. In Ref.~\cite{Hooper:2002gs}
3147: the heavier level-one KK modes were approximated to have about the
3148: same mass, but this mass was taken to be slightly larger than
3149: $m_{B^{(1)}}$ by a fraction
3150: \begin{equation}
3151: r_{f^{(1)}} \equiv \frac{m_{f^{(1)}} - m_{B^{(1)}}}{m_{B^{(1)}}} \; ,
3152: \end{equation}
3153: typically about $0.1$--$0.2$ given the spectrum from Eqs.~(\ref{MassCorr}).
3154: Using the neutrino energy spectrum, the event rate expected at an
3155: existing or future neutrino telescope can be calculated.
3156: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{KK-sun-fig}
3157: for a detector with an effective area of $1 \; {\rm km}^2$.
3158: Combining the spectrum determined by the one-loop radiative corrections
3159: with a relic density appropriate for dark matter, the expectation
3160: is to get between a few to tens of events per year at the
3161: IceCube detector.
3162:
3163: Finally, there are speculations that UED dark matter annihilation
3164: in the galactic halo might account for the positron excess,
3165: see Ref.~\cite{Hooper:2004xn} for details.
3166:
3167:
3168:
3169: \section{Conclusions}
3170:
3171: In these lectures I have showed how the phenomenology of
3172: extra dimensions is very rich, should Nature choose to follow
3173: one or more of the ideas discussed in this review. I have tried to
3174: give a overview of what I perceive to be the main characteristic signals
3175: of the specific extra dimensional models that I discussed.
3176: Nevertheless, there are several related models and a host of other
3177: aspects to extra dimensions that I did not have the time or
3178: space to review. This remains a very active field of investigation
3179: with new ideas continually being developed.
3180:
3181: How likely is any given extra dimensional proposal?
3182: This is not a question that has any scientific answer, even
3183: though physicists try hard to quantify their qualitative
3184: instincts. This much can be said with relative certainty:
3185: In all cases the cutoff scale of the Standard Model is
3186: drastically lowered from the Planck scale to near the
3187: TeV scale. Since the lore of quantum gravity is that all
3188: global symmetries are broken by Planck scale effects,
3189: naturalness suggests cutoff-scale suppressed higher dimensional
3190: operators should appear at the 1/TeV level with order one
3191: coefficients. If this were true, all of these models would
3192: be ruled out immediately by $B$ and $L$ violating operators,
3193: operators leading to FCNC, and operators modifying precision
3194: electroweak observables. As model builders, we must conclude that
3195: either the cutoff scale (i.e., the quantum gravity scale) is larger
3196: or there are mechanisms to suppress or eliminate these dangerous effects.
3197: Some of these remarkably creative mechanisms were discussed or
3198: referenced in the preceding sections. As phenomenologists,
3199: however, we are blissfully free to assume that these operators
3200: are suppressed by an unspecified mechanism or simply tuned to
3201: be small, and then we have the opportunity to probe the physics
3202: of these scenarios directly in colliders and indirectly in
3203: all sorts of ways from astrophysics to table-top experiments.
3204:
3205: During the lectures, I repeatedly emphasized that while extra
3206: dimensions are interesting in themselves, the real take home
3207: lesson is to understand how to turn ``great model A'' into
3208: ``predictions 1,2,3'' and compare with ``experiments X,Y,Z''.
3209: Extra dimensions provide a fascinating and exciting set of models
3210: to illustrate precisely this important exercise. As we approach
3211: the next energy frontier with the LHC and future experiments,
3212: I hope these lectures instill some of the techniques to turn new physics
3213: ideas into a testable theory. Good luck developing your own great ideas
3214: and turning them into calculable phenomenology!
3215:
3216:
3217:
3218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3219: \section*{Acknowledgments}
3220:
3221: I thank John Terning, Carlos Wagner, and Dieter Zeppenfeld,
3222: the organizers of the 2004 ``Physics in $D \ge 4$'' TASI, for the invitation
3223: to present these lectures and for putting together a fabulous program.
3224: I particularly thank John Terning for persistent nagging emails
3225: which ensured the writeup of these lectures was finally completed.
3226: I am grateful to K.~T. Mahanthappa for his hospitality.
3227: I also thank the many TASI participants for their insightful
3228: questions and comments, and would particularly like to thank
3229: Jay Hubisz, Ben Lillie, Patrick Meade, and Brian Murray for
3230: providing feedback on a written version of these lectures.
3231: This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy
3232: grant number DE-FG02-96ER40969.
3233:
3234:
3235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3236: %\appendix
3237:
3238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3239: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
3240:
3241: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
3242: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
3243: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
3244: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
3245: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
3246: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315].
3247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
3248:
3249: %\cite{Randall:1999ee}
3250: \bibitem{Randall:1999ee}
3251: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
3252: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
3253: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
3254: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].
3255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
3256:
3257: %\cite{Appelquist:2000nn}
3258: \bibitem{Appelquist:2000nn}
3259: T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,
3260: %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''
3261: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001)
3262: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100].
3263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012100;%%
3264:
3265: %\cite{Kaluza:1921tu}
3266: \bibitem{Kaluza:1921tu}
3267: T.~Kaluza,
3268: %``On The Problem Of Unity In Physics,''
3269: Sitzungsber.\ Preuss.\ Akad.\ Wiss.\ Berlin (Math.\ Phys.\ ) {\bf 1921}, 966 (1921);
3270: %%CITATION = SPWPA,1921,966;%%
3271: %\cite{Klein:1926tv}
3272: %\bibitem{Klein:1926tv}
3273: O.~Klein,
3274: %``Quantum Theory And Five-Dimensional Theory Of Relativity,''
3275: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf 37}, 895 (1926)
3276: [Surveys High Energ.\ Phys.\ {\bf 5}, 241 (1986)].
3277: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,37,895;%%
3278:
3279: %\cite{Zwiebach:2004tj}
3280: \bibitem{Zwiebach:2004tj}
3281: B.~Zwiebach,
3282: ``A first course in string theory,''
3283: Cambridge University Press (2004).
3284: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=6000347}{SPIRES entry}
3285:
3286: %\cite{Sundrum:2005jf}
3287: \bibitem{Sundrum:2005jf}
3288: R.~Sundrum,
3289: %``To the fifth dimension and back. (TASI 2004),''
3290: arXiv:hep-th/0508134.
3291: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508134;%%
3292:
3293: %\cite{Csaki:2005vy}
3294: \bibitem{Csaki:2005vy}
3295: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz and P.~Meade,
3296: %``TASI lectures on electroweak symmetry breaking from extra dimensions,''
3297: arXiv:hep-ph/0510275.
3298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510275;%%
3299:
3300: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
3301: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
3302: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
3303: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''
3304: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001)
3305: [arXiv:hep-th/0104005].
3306: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%
3307:
3308: %\cite{Hill:2000mu}
3309: \bibitem{Hill:2000mu}
3310: C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,
3311: %``Gauge invariant effective Lagrangian for Kaluza-Klein modes,''
3312: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 105005 (2001)
3313: [arXiv:hep-th/0104035].
3314: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104035;%%
3315:
3316: \bibitem{deconstructinggravity}
3317: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}
3318: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}
3319: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~Georgi and M.~D.~Schwartz,
3320: %``Effective field theory for massive gravitons and gravity in theory space,''
3321: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 305}, 96 (2003)
3322: [arXiv:hep-th/0210184];
3323: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210184;%%
3324: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2003vb}
3325: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2003vb}
3326: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~D.~Schwartz,
3327: %``Discrete gravitational dimensions,''
3328: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 104001 (2004)
3329: [arXiv:hep-th/0302110];
3330: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302110;%%
3331: %\cite{Schwartz:2003vj}
3332: %\bibitem{Schwartz:2003vj}
3333: M.~D.~Schwartz,
3334: %``Constructing gravitational dimensions,''
3335: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 024029 (2003)
3336: [arXiv:hep-th/0303114].
3337: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303114;%%
3338:
3339: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
3340: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
3341: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
3342: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with sub-millimeter
3343: %dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''
3344: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999)
3345: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807344].
3346: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%
3347:
3348: \bibitem{stringextraD}
3349: %\cite{Witten:1995ex}
3350: %\bibitem{Witten:1995ex}
3351: E.~Witten,
3352: %``String theory dynamics in various dimensions,''
3353: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 443}, 85 (1995)
3354: [arXiv:hep-th/9503124];
3355: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9503124;%%
3356: %\cite{Horava:1995qa}
3357: %\bibitem{Horava:1995qa}
3358: P.~Horava and E.~Witten,
3359: %``Heterotic and type I string dynamics from eleven dimensions,''
3360: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460}, 506 (1996)
3361: [arXiv:hep-th/9510209];
3362: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510209;%%
3363: %\cite{Lykken:1996fj}
3364: %\bibitem{Lykken:1996fj}
3365: J.~D.~Lykken,
3366: %``Weak Scale Superstrings,''
3367: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3693 (1996)
3368: [arXiv:hep-th/9603133];
3369: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603133;%%
3370: %\cite{Banks:1996ss}
3371: %\bibitem{Banks:1996ss}
3372: T.~Banks and M.~Dine,
3373: %``Couplings and Scales in Strongly Coupled Heterotic String Theory,''
3374: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 479}, 173 (1996)
3375: [arXiv:hep-th/9605136].
3376: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9605136;%%
3377: %\cite{Antoniadis:1998ig}
3378: %\bibitem{Antoniadis:1998ig}
3379: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
3380: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
3381: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)
3382: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].
3383: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
3384:
3385: \bibitem{otherearly}
3386: See for example
3387: %\cite{Antoniadis:1990ew}
3388: %\bibitem{Antoniadis:1990ew}
3389: I.~Antoniadis,
3390: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''
3391: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990);
3392: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%
3393: %\cite{Antoniadis:1993jp}
3394: %\bibitem{Antoniadis:1993jp}
3395: I.~Antoniadis and K.~Benakli,
3396: %``Limits on extra dimensions in orbifold compactifications of superstrings,''
3397: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 326}, 69 (1994)
3398: [arXiv:hep-th/9310151];
3399: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9310151;%%
3400: %\cite{Dienes:1998vh}
3401: %\bibitem{Dienes:1998vh}
3402: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,
3403: %``Extra spacetime dimensions and unification,''
3404: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 55 (1998)
3405: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803466];
3406: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803466;%%
3407: %\cite{Dienes:1998vg}
3408: %\bibitem{Dienes:1998vg}
3409: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,
3410: %``Grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra dimensions,''
3411: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 537}, 47 (1999)
3412: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806292].
3413: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806292;%%
3414:
3415: %\cite{Han:2002yy}
3416: \bibitem{Han:2002yy}
3417: T.~Han, G.~D.~Kribs and B.~McElrath,
3418: %``Black hole evaporation with separated fermions,''
3419: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 031601 (2003)
3420: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207003].
3421: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207003;%%
3422:
3423: %\cite{Adelberger:2003zx}
3424: \bibitem{Adelberger:2003zx}
3425: E.~G.~Adelberger, B.~R.~Heckel and A.~E.~Nelson,
3426: %``Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law,''
3427: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 53}, 77 (2003)
3428: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307284].
3429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307284;%%
3430:
3431: %\cite{Hoyle:2004cw}
3432: \bibitem{Hoyle:2004cw}
3433: C.~D.~Hoyle, D.~J.~Kapner, B.~R.~Heckel, E.~G.~Adelberger, J.~H.~Gundlach, U.~Schmidt and H.~E.~Swanson,
3434: %``Sub-millimeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law,''
3435: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 042004 (2004)
3436: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405262].
3437: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405262;%%
3438:
3439: %\cite{Hall:2000hq}
3440: \bibitem{Hall:2000hq}
3441: L.~J.~Hall,
3442: %``Beyond the standard model,''
3443: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4828712}{SPIRES entry}
3444: {\it Prepared for 30th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 2000), Osaka, Japan, 27 Jul - 2 Aug 2000}
3445:
3446: %\cite{Jungman:1995df}
3447: \bibitem{Jungman:1995df}
3448: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,
3449: %``Supersymmetric dark matter,''
3450: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 267}, 195 (1996)
3451: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506380].
3452: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506380;%%
3453:
3454: %\cite{Olive:2003iq}
3455: \bibitem{Olive:2003iq}
3456: K.~A.~Olive,
3457: %``Dark matter,''
3458: arXiv:astro-ph/0301505.
3459: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0301505;%%
3460:
3461: %\cite{Bertone:2004pz}
3462: \bibitem{Bertone:2004pz}
3463: G.~Bertone, D.~Hooper and J.~Silk,
3464: %``Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,''
3465: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 405}, 279 (2005)
3466: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175].
3467: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404175;%%
3468:
3469: %\cite{Giudice:1998ck}
3470: \bibitem{Giudice:1998ck}
3471: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,
3472: %``Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,''
3473: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544}, 3 (1999)
3474: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811291].
3475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811291;%%
3476:
3477: \bibitem{vDVZ}
3478: H.~van Dam and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,
3479: %``Massive And Massless Yang-Mills And Gravitational Fields,''
3480: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 22}, 397 (1970);
3481: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B22,397;%%
3482: V.~I.~Zakharov, JETP Lett.\ {\bf 12}, 312 (1970).
3483: %%CITATION = JTPLA,12,312;%%
3484:
3485: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998kx}
3486: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998kx}
3487: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and J.~March-Russell,
3488: %``Stabilization of sub-millimeter dimensions: The new guise of the hierarchy
3489: %problem,''
3490: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 064020 (2001)
3491: [arXiv:hep-th/9809124].
3492: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809124;%%
3493:
3494: %\cite{Banks:1999eg}
3495: \bibitem{Banks:1999eg}
3496: T.~Banks, M.~Dine and A.~E.~Nelson,
3497: %``Constraints on theories with large extra dimensions,''
3498: JHEP {\bf 9906}, 014 (1999)
3499: [arXiv:hep-th/9903019].
3500: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9903019;%%
3501:
3502: %\cite{Csaki:1999ht}
3503: \bibitem{Csaki:1999ht}
3504: C.~Csaki, M.~Graesser and J.~Terning,
3505: %``Late inflation and the moduli problem of sub-millimeter dimensions,''
3506: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 456}, 16 (1999)
3507: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903319].
3508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903319;%%
3509:
3510: %\cite{Mirabelli:1998rt}
3511: \bibitem{Mirabelli:1998rt}
3512: E.~A.~Mirabelli, M.~Perelstein and M.~E.~Peskin,
3513: %``Collider signatures of new large space dimensions,''
3514: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 2236 (1999)
3515: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811337].
3516: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811337;%%
3517:
3518: %\cite{Han:1998sg}
3519: \bibitem{Han:1998sg}
3520: T.~Han, J.~D.~Lykken and R.~J.~Zhang,
3521: %``On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions,''
3522: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 105006 (1999)
3523: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811350].
3524: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811350;%%
3525:
3526: %\cite{Hewett:1998sn}
3527: \bibitem{Hewett:1998sn}
3528: J.~L.~Hewett,
3529: %``Indirect collider signals for extra dimensions,''
3530: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 4765 (1999)
3531: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811356].
3532: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811356;%%
3533:
3534: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
3535: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
3536: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
3537: %``Review of particle physics,''
3538: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
3539: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
3540:
3541: %\cite{Raffelt:1999tx}
3542: \bibitem{Raffelt:1999tx}
3543: G.~G.~Raffelt,
3544: %``Particle physics from stars,''
3545: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 49}, 163 (1999)
3546: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903472].
3547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903472;%%
3548:
3549: %\cite{Cullen:1999hc}
3550: \bibitem{Cullen:1999hc}
3551: S.~Cullen and M.~Perelstein,
3552: %``SN1987A constraints on large compact dimensions,''
3553: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 268 (1999)
3554: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903422].
3555: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903422;%%
3556:
3557: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999gq}
3558: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1999gq}
3559: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, N.~Kaloper and J.~March-Russell,
3560: %``Rapid asymmetric inflation and early cosmology in theories with
3561: %sub-millimeter dimensions,''
3562: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 567}, 189 (2000)
3563: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903224].
3564: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903224;%%
3565:
3566: %\cite{Burrows:1997eb}
3567: \bibitem{Burrows:1997eb}
3568: A.~Burrows {\it et al.},
3569: %``The Spectral Character of Giant Planets and Brown Dwarfs,''
3570: arXiv:astro-ph/9709278.
3571: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709278;%%
3572:
3573: %\cite{Hall:1999mk}
3574: \bibitem{Hall:1999mk}
3575: L.~J.~Hall and D.~R.~Smith,
3576: %``Cosmological constraints on theories with large extra dimensions,''
3577: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 085008 (1999)
3578: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904267].
3579: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904267;%%
3580:
3581: \bibitem{compositeunification}
3582: %\cite{Agashe:2003zs}
3583: %\bibitem{Agashe:2003zs}
3584: K.~Agashe, A.~Delgado, M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,
3585: %``RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,''
3586: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 050 (2003)
3587: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308036];
3588: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308036;%%
3589: %\cite{Agashe:2004rs}
3590: %\bibitem{Agashe:2004rs}
3591: K.~Agashe, R.~Contino and A.~Pomarol,
3592: %``The minimal composite Higgs model,''
3593: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 719}, 165 (2005)
3594: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412089].
3595: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412089;%%
3596:
3597: %\cite{Csaki:2003zu}
3598: \bibitem{Csaki:2003zu}
3599: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,
3600: %``Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,''
3601: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 101802 (2004)
3602: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308038].
3603: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308038;%%
3604:
3605: %\cite{Nunes:2005up}
3606: \bibitem{Nunes:2005up}
3607: N.~J.~Nunes and M.~Peloso,
3608: %``On the stability of field-theoretical regularizations of negative tension
3609: %branes,''
3610: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 623}, 147 (2005)
3611: [arXiv:hep-th/0506039].
3612: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0506039;%%
3613:
3614: %\cite{Giddings:2001yu}
3615: \bibitem{Giddings:2001yu}
3616: S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,
3617: %``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,''
3618: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 106006 (2002)
3619: [arXiv:hep-th/0105097].
3620: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105097;%%
3621:
3622: %\cite{Randall:1999vf}
3623: \bibitem{Randall:1999vf}
3624: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
3625: %``An alternative to compactification,''
3626: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999)
3627: [arXiv:hep-th/9906064].
3628: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%
3629:
3630: %\cite{Csaki:2004ay}
3631: \bibitem{Csaki:2004ay}
3632: C.~Csaki,
3633: %``TASI lectures on extra dimensions and branes,''
3634: arXiv:hep-ph/0404096.
3635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404096;%%
3636:
3637: %\cite{Davoudiasl:1999jd}
3638: \bibitem{Davoudiasl:1999jd}
3639: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
3640: %``Phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum gauge hierarchy model,''
3641: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 2080 (2000)
3642: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909255].
3643: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909255;%%
3644:
3645: %\cite{Goldberger:1999uk}
3646: \bibitem{Goldberger:1999uk}
3647: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
3648: %``Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,''
3649: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4922 (1999)
3650: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907447].
3651: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907447;%%
3652:
3653: %\cite{Csaki:2000zn}
3654: \bibitem{Csaki:2000zn}
3655: C.~Csaki, M.~L.~Graesser and G.~D.~Kribs,
3656: %``Radion dynamics and electroweak physics,''
3657: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 065002 (2001)
3658: [arXiv:hep-th/0008151].
3659: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008151;%%
3660:
3661: %\cite{Tanaka:2000er})
3662: \bibitem{Tanaka:2000er}
3663: T.~Tanaka and X.~Montes,
3664: %``Gravity in the brane-world for two-branes model with stabilized modulus,''
3665: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 259 (2000)
3666: [arXiv:hep-th/0001092].
3667: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001092;%%
3668:
3669: %\cite{Charmousis:1999rg}
3670: \bibitem{Charmousis:1999rg}
3671: C.~Charmousis, R.~Gregory and V.~A.~Rubakov,
3672: %``Wave function of the radion in a brane world,''
3673: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 067505 (2000)
3674: [arXiv:hep-th/9912160].
3675: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912160;%%
3676:
3677: %\cite{DeWolfe:1999cp}
3678: \bibitem{DeWolfe:1999cp}
3679: O.~DeWolfe, D.~Z.~Freedman, S.~S.~Gubser and A.~Karch,
3680: %``Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,''
3681: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 046008 (2000)
3682: [arXiv:hep-th/9909134].
3683: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909134;%%
3684:
3685: %\cite{Csaki:1999mp}
3686: \bibitem{Csaki:1999mp}
3687: C.~Csaki, M.~Graesser, L.~Randall and J.~Terning,
3688: %``Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization,''
3689: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 045015 (2000)
3690: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911406].
3691: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911406;%%
3692:
3693: %\cite{Goldberger:1999un}
3694: \bibitem{Goldberger:1999un}
3695: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise,
3696: %``Phenomenology of a stabilized modulus,''
3697: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 475}, 275 (2000)
3698: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911457].
3699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911457;%%
3700:
3701: %\cite{Verlinde:1999fy}
3702: \bibitem{Verlinde:1999fy}
3703: H.~L.~Verlinde,
3704: %``Holography and compactification,''
3705: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 264 (2000)
3706: [arXiv:hep-th/9906182].
3707: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906182;%%
3708:
3709: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}
3710: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}
3711: N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,
3712: %``Holography and phenomenology,''
3713: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 017 (2001)
3714: [arXiv:hep-th/0012148].
3715: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%
3716:
3717: %\cite{Rattazzi:2000hs}
3718: \bibitem{Rattazzi:2000hs}
3719: R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,
3720: %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''
3721: JHEP {\bf 0104}, 021 (2001)
3722: [arXiv:hep-th/0012248].
3723: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%
3724:
3725: \bibitem{AdSCFTlectures}
3726: %\cite{Klebanov:2000me}
3727: %\bibitem{Klebanov:2000me}
3728: I.~R.~Klebanov,
3729: %``TASI lectures: Introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence,''
3730: arXiv:hep-th/0009139;
3731: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009139;%%
3732: %%Cited 52 times in SPIRES-HEP
3733: %\cite{Maldacena:2003nj}
3734: %\bibitem{Maldacena:2003nj}
3735: J.~M.~Maldacena,
3736: %``Lectures on AdS/CFT,''
3737: arXiv:hep-th/0309246.
3738: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309246;%%
3739:
3740: %\cite{Cheung:2000rw}
3741: \bibitem{Cheung:2000rw}
3742: K.~m.~Cheung,
3743: %``Phenomenology of radion in Randall-Sundrum scenario,''
3744: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 056007 (2001)
3745: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009232].
3746: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009232;%%
3747:
3748: %\cite{Giudice:2000av}
3749: \bibitem{Giudice:2000av}
3750: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,
3751: %``Graviscalars from higher-dimensional metrics and curvature-Higgs mixing,''
3752: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 595}, 250 (2001)
3753: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002178].
3754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002178;%%
3755:
3756: %\cite{Shiozawa:1998si}
3757: \bibitem{Shiozawa:1998si}
3758: M.~Shiozawa {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
3759: %``Search for proton decay via p $\to$ e+ pi0 in a large water Cherenkov
3760: %detector,''
3761: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 3319 (1998)
3762: [arXiv:hep-ex/9806014].
3763: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9806014;%%
3764:
3765: %\cite{Nussinov:2001rb}
3766: \bibitem{Nussinov:2001rb}
3767: S.~Nussinov and R.~Shrock,
3768: %``n anti-n oscillations in models with large extra dimensions,''
3769: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 171601 (2002)
3770: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112337].
3771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112337;%%
3772:
3773: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc}
3774: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc}
3775: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,
3776: %``Hierarchies without symmetries from extra dimensions,''
3777: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 033005 (2000)
3778: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903417].
3779: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903417;%%
3780:
3781: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2005ks}
3782: \bibitem{Davoudiasl:2005ks}
3783: H.~Davoudiasl, R.~Kitano, G.~D.~Kribs and H.~Murayama,
3784: %``Models of neutrino mass with a low cutoff scale,''
3785: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 113004 (2005)
3786: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502176].
3787: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502176;%%
3788:
3789: %\cite{Appelquist:2001mj}
3790: \bibitem{Appelquist:2001mj}
3791: T.~Appelquist, B.~A.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton and H.~U.~Yee,
3792: %``Proton stability in six dimensions,''
3793: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 181802 (2001)
3794: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107056].
3795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107056;%%
3796:
3797: %\cite{Dobrescu:2001ae}
3798: \bibitem{Dobrescu:2001ae}
3799: B.~A.~Dobrescu and E.~Poppitz,
3800: %``Number of fermion generations derived from anomaly cancellation,''
3801: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 031801 (2001)
3802: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102010].
3803: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102010;%%
3804:
3805: %\cite{Cheng:2002iz}
3806: \bibitem{Cheng:2002iz}
3807: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
3808: %``Radiative corrections to Kaluza-Klein masses,''
3809: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 036005 (2002)
3810: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204342].
3811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204342;%%
3812:
3813: %\cite{Cheng:2002ab}
3814: \bibitem{Cheng:2002ab}
3815: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
3816: %``Bosonic supersymmetry? Getting fooled at the LHC,''
3817: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 056006 (2002)
3818: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205314].
3819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205314;%%
3820:
3821: %\cite{Battaglia:2005zf}
3822: \bibitem{Battaglia:2005zf}
3823: M.~Battaglia, A.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
3824: %``Contrasting supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at the CLIC
3825: %multi-TeV e+ e- collider,''
3826: JHEP {\bf 0507}, 033 (2005)
3827: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502041].
3828: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502041;%%
3829:
3830: %\cite{Datta:2005zs}
3831: \bibitem{Datta:2005zs}
3832: A.~Datta, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
3833: %``Discrimination of supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at hadron
3834: %colliders,''
3835: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 096006 (2005)
3836: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72}, 119901 (2005)]
3837: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509246].
3838: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509246;%%
3839:
3840: %\cite{Servant:2002aq}
3841: \bibitem{Servant:2002aq}
3842: G.~Servant and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
3843: %``Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?,''
3844: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 391 (2003)
3845: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206071].
3846: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206071;%%
3847:
3848: %\cite{Lykken:1996xt}
3849: \bibitem{Lykken:1996xt}
3850: J.~D.~Lykken,
3851: %``Introduction to supersymmetry,''
3852: arXiv:hep-th/9612114.
3853: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612114;%%
3854:
3855: %\cite{Chacko:1999hg}.
3856: \bibitem{Chacko:1999hg}
3857: Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,
3858: %``Massive higher-dimensional gauge fields as messengers of supersymmetry
3859: %breaking,''
3860: JHEP {\bf 0007}, 036 (2000)
3861: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909248].
3862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909248;%%
3863:
3864: %\cite{Alvarez-Gaume:1983ig}
3865: \bibitem{Alvarez-Gaume:1983ig}
3866: L.~Alvarez-Gaume and E.~Witten,
3867: %``Gravitational Anomalies,''
3868: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 234}, 269 (1984).
3869: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B234,269;%%
3870: %%Cited 921 time in SPIRES-HEP
3871:
3872: %\cite{Kribs:2003jn}
3873: \bibitem{Kribs:2003jn}
3874: G.~D.~Kribs,
3875: %``Rationalizing right-handed neutrinos,''
3876: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 111701 (2004)
3877: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304256].
3878: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304256;%%
3879:
3880: %\cite{Witten:1982fp}
3881: \bibitem{Witten:1982fp}
3882: E.~Witten,
3883: %``An SU(2) Anomaly,''
3884: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 117}, 324 (1982).
3885: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B117,324;%%
3886:
3887: %\cite{Georgi:2000ks}
3888: \bibitem{Georgi:2000ks}
3889: H.~Georgi, A.~K.~Grant and G.~Hailu,
3890: %``Brane couplings from bulk loops,''
3891: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 207 (2001)
3892: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012379].
3893: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012379;%%
3894:
3895: %\cite{Peskin:1991sw}
3896: \bibitem{Peskin:1991sw}
3897: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,
3898: %``Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,''
3899: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 381 (1992).
3900: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,381;%%
3901:
3902: %\cite{Rizzo:1999br}
3903: \bibitem{Rizzo:1999br}
3904: T.~G.~Rizzo and J.~D.~Wells,
3905: %``Electroweak precision measurements and collider probes of the standard
3906: %model with large extra dimensions,''
3907: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 016007 (2000)
3908: [arXiv:hep-ph/9906234].
3909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906234;%%
3910:
3911: %\cite{Chivukula:2003kq}
3912: \bibitem{Chivukula:2003kq}
3913: R.~S.~Chivukula, D.~A.~Dicus, H.~J.~He and S.~Nandi,
3914: %``Unitarity of the higher dimensional standard model,''
3915: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 562}, 109 (2003)
3916: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302263].
3917: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302263;%%
3918:
3919: %\cite{Kolb:1990vq}
3920: \bibitem{Kolb:1990vq}
3921: E.~W.~Kolb and M.~S.~Turner,
3922: ``The Early Universe,''
3923: Addison-Wesley (1990).
3924: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=2256878}{SPIRES entry}
3925:
3926: %\cite{Griest:1990kh}
3927: \bibitem{Griest:1990kh}
3928: K.~Griest and D.~Seckel,
3929: %``Three Exceptions In The Calculation Of Relic Abundances,''
3930: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 3191 (1991).
3931: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,3191;%%
3932:
3933: %\cite{Burnell:2005hm}
3934: \bibitem{Burnell:2005hm}
3935: F.~Burnell and G.~D.~Kribs,
3936: %``The abundance of Kaluza-Klein dark matter with coannihilation,''
3937: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 015001 (2006)
3938: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509118].
3939: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509118;%%
3940:
3941: %\cite{Kong:2005hn}
3942: \bibitem{Kong:2005hn}
3943: K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
3944: %``Precise calculation of the relic density of Kaluza-Klein dark matter in
3945: %universal extra dimensions,''
3946: arXiv:hep-ph/0509119.
3947: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509119;%%
3948:
3949: %\cite{Goodman:1984dc}
3950: \bibitem{Goodman:1984dc}
3951: M.~W.~Goodman and E.~Witten,
3952: %``Detectability Of Certain Dark-Matter Candidates,''
3953: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 3059 (1985).
3954: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,3059;%%
3955:
3956: %\cite{Cheng:2002ej}
3957: \bibitem{Cheng:2002ej}
3958: H.~C.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,
3959: %``Kaluza-Klein dark matter,''
3960: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 211301 (2002)
3961: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207125].
3962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207125;%%
3963:
3964: %\cite{Servant:2002hb}
3965: \bibitem{Servant:2002hb}
3966: G.~Servant and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
3967: %``Elastic scattering and direct detection of Kaluza-Klein dark matter,''
3968: New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 4}, 99 (2002)
3969: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209262].
3970: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209262;%%
3971:
3972: %\cite{Hooper:2002gs}
3973: \bibitem{Hooper:2002gs}
3974: D.~Hooper and G.~D.~Kribs,
3975: %``Probing Kaluza-Klein dark matter with neutrino telescopes,''
3976: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 055003 (2003)
3977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208261].
3978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208261;%%
3979:
3980: %\cite{Hooper:2004xn}
3981: \bibitem{Hooper:2004xn}
3982: D.~Hooper and G.~D.~Kribs,
3983: %``Kaluza-Klein dark matter and the positron excess,''
3984: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 115004 (2004)
3985: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406026].
3986: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406026;%%
3987:
3988:
3989: \end{thebibliography}
3990:
3991: \end{document}
3992: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3993: