1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,floatflt,amssymb,epsf,psfig,rotate}
3: \textwidth=17cm
4: \textheight=22.5cm
5: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
6: \topmargin -1.5cm
7: \parskip 0.3cm
8: \tolerance=10000
9: \parindent 10pt
10: \tolerance=10000
11: \widowpenalty=10000
12: \clubpenalty=10000
13:
14:
15: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
16: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
17:
18:
19: \begin{document}
20: %\pagestyle{empty}
21: \begin{flushright}
22: \texttt{hep-ph/0608208}\\
23: SINP/TNP/06-22\\
24: HRI-P-06-08-002 \\
25: CU-Physics-09/2006
26: \end{flushright}
27:
28: \vskip 30pt
29:
30: \begin{center}
31: {\Large \bf Power law scaling in Universal Extra Dimension
32: scenarios} \\
33: \vspace*{1cm}
34: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
35: { {\sf Gautam Bhattacharyya${}^1$}, {\sf Anindya Datta${}^{2,3}$},
36: {\sf Swarup Kumar Majee${}^{2,3}$}, {\sf Amitava Raychaudhuri${}^{2,3}$}
37: } \\
38: \vspace{10pt}
39: {\small ${}^{1)}$ {\em Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
40: 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India} \\
41: ${}^{2)}$ {\em Harish-Chandra Research Institute,
42: Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad 211019, India} \\
43: ${}^{3)}$ {\em Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,
44: 92 A.P.C. Road, Kolkata 700009, India}}
45:
46: \normalsize
47: \end{center}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We study the power law running of gauge, Yukawa and quartic scalar couplings
51: in the universal extra dimension scenario where the extra dimension is
52: accessed by all the standard model fields. After compactifying on an $S_1
53: /Z_2$ orbifold, we compute one-loop contributions of the relevant Kaluza-Klein
54: (KK) towers to the above couplings up to a cutoff scale $\Lambda$. Beyond the
55: scale of inverse radius, once the KK states are excited, these couplings
56: exhibit power law dependence on $\Lambda$. As a result of faster running, the
57: gauge couplings tend to unify at a relatively low scale, and we choose our
58: cutoff also around that scale. For example, for a radius $R \sim 1\; \rm
59: TeV^{-1}$, the cutoff is around 30 TeV. We then examine the consequences of
60: power law running on the triviality and vacuum stability bounds on the Higgs
61: mass. We also comment that the supersymmetric extension of the scenario
62: requires $R^{-1}$ to be larger than $\sim 10^{10}$ GeV in order that the gauge
63: couplings remain perturbative up to the scale where they tend to unify.
64:
65:
66: \vskip 5pt \noindent
67: \texttt{PACS Nos:~ 12.60.-i, 11.10.Hi, 11.25.Mj } \\
68: \texttt{Key Words:~~Universal Extra Dimension, Renormalisation group,
69: Higgs mass}
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72:
73:
74: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
75: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
76: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79: In the standard model (SM), the gauge, Yukawa and quartic scalar couplings run
80: logarithmically with the energy scale. Although the gauge couplings do not all
81: meet at a point, they tend to unify near $10^{15}$ GeV. Such a high scale is
82: beyond the reach of any present or future experiments. Extra dimensions
83: accessible to SM fields have the virtue, thanks to the couplings' power law
84: running, of bringing the unification scale down to an explorable range. Higher
85: dimensional theories, with radii of compactification around an inverse TeV,
86: have been investigated from the perspective of high energy experiments,
87: phenomenology, string theory, cosmology, and astrophysics. Such TeV scale
88: extra-dimensional scenarios could lead to a new mechanism of supersymmetry
89: breaking \cite{antoniadis1}, address the issue of fermion mass hierarchy from
90: a different angle \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc}, provide a cosmologically viable
91: dark matter candidate \cite{Servant:2002aq}, interpret the Higgs as a quark
92: composite leading to a successful electroweak symmetry breaking without the
93: necessity of a fundamental Yukawa interaction \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000hv}, and,
94: as mentioned before and what constitutes the central issue of our present
95: study, lower the unification scale down to a few TeV
96: \cite{dienes,dienes2}. Our concern here is a specific framework, called the
97: Universal Extra Dimension (UED) scenario, where there is a single flat extra
98: dimension, compactified on an $S_1 /Z_2$ orbifold, which is accessed by all
99: the SM particles \cite{acd}. From a 4-dimensional viewpoint, every field will
100: then have an infinite tower of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes, the zero modes being
101: identified as the SM states. We examine the cumulative contribution of these
102: KK states to the renormalisation group (RG) evolution of the gauge, Yukawa and
103: quartic scalar couplings. Our motive is to extract any subtle features that
104: emerge due to the KK tower induced power law running of these couplings in
105: contrast to the usual logarithmic running of the standard 4-dimensional
106: theories, and whether they set any limit on parameters for the sake of
107: theoretical and experimental consistency. Before we illustrate the RG
108: calculational details, we take a stock of the existing constraints on the UED
109: scenario, and we comment on what does RG evolution technically mean in the
110: context of {\em hitherto} non-renormalisable higher dimensional theories.
111:
112: The key feature of UED is that the momentum in the universal fifth direction
113: is conserved. From a 4-dimensional perspective this implies KK number
114: conservation. Strictly speaking, what actually remains conserved is the KK
115: parity $(-1)^n$, where $n$ is the KK number. As a result, the lightest KK
116: particle is stable. Also, KK modes cannot affect electroweak processes
117: at the tree level. They do however contribute to higher order electroweak
118: processes. In spite of the infinite multiplicity of the KK states, the KK
119: parity ensures that all electroweak observables are finite (up to
120: one-loop)\footnote{The observables start showing cutoff sensitivity of various
121: degree as one goes beyond one-loop or considers more than one extra
122: dimension.}, and comparison of the observable predictions with experimental
123: data yields bounds on $R$. Constraints on the UED scenario from $g-2$ of the
124: muon \cite{nath}, flavour changing neutral currents \cite{chk,buras,desh}, $Z
125: \to b\bar{b}$ decay \cite{santa}, the $\rho$ parameter \cite{acd,appel-yee},
126: several other electroweak precision tests \cite{ewued} and implications from
127: hadron collider studies \cite{collued}, all conclude that $R^{-1}~\gtap~300$
128: GeV.
129:
130: We now come to the technical meaning of RG running in a higher
131: dimensional context. This has been extensively clarified in
132: \cite{dienes} in a general context, and here we merely reiterate it to
133: put our specific calculations into perspective. Like all other
134: extra-dimensional models, from a 4-dimensional point of view, the UED
135: scenario too is non-renormalisable due to the infinite multiplicity of
136: the KK states\footnote{For a study of ultraviolet cutoff sensitivity
137: in different kinds of TeV scale extra-dimensional models, see
138: \cite{db}.}. So `running' of couplings as a function of the energy scale $\mu$
139: ceases to make sense. What we should say is that the couplings receive finite
140: quantum corrections whose size depend on some explicit
141: cutoff\footnote{The beta functions are coefficients of the
142: divergence $1/\epsilon$ in a 4-dimensional theory. Here, a second
143: kind of divergence appears when the finite beta functions get
144: corrections from each layer of KK states which are summed over.
145: This summation is truncated at a scale $\Lambda$.} $\Lambda$. The
146: corrections originate from the $\Lambda R$ number of KK states
147: which lie between the scale $R^{-1}$ where the first KK states
148: are excited and the cutoff scale $\Lambda$. The couplings will
149: have a power law dependence on $\Lambda$ as a result of the KK
150: summation. This cutoff is interpreted as the scale where a
151: paradigm shift occurs when some new renormalisable physics
152: underlying our effective non-renormalisable framework surfaces.
153:
154: \section{Universal Extra Dimension}
155: The extra dimension is compactified on a circle of radius $R$ with a $Z_2$
156: orbifolding identifying $y \to -y$, where $y$ denotes the fifth compactified
157: coordinate. The orbifolding is crucial in generating
158: {\em chiral} zero modes for fermions. After integrating out the compactified
159: dimension, the 4-dimensional Lagrangian can be written involving the zero mode
160: and the KK modes. To appreciate the contributions of the KK towers into the
161: so-called RG evolutions, it is instructive to have a glance at the KK mode
162: expansions of these fields. Each component of a 5-dimensional field must be
163: either even or odd under the orbifold projection. The KK expansions are given
164: by,
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: \label{fourier}
167: A_{\mu}(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
168: R}}A_{\mu}^{(0)}(x)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
169: R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}A_{\mu}^{(n)}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R},~~~~
170: A_5(x,y) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
171: R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}A_5^{(n)}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R}, \nonumber\\
172: \phi(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
173: R}}\phi^{(0)}(x)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
174: R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\phi^{(n)}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R}, \nonumber \\
175: \mathcal{Q}_{i}(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
176: R}}\bigg[{\pmatrix{u_i\cr d_i}}_{L}(x)+\sqrt{2}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\Big[
177: \mathcal{Q}^{(n)}_{iL}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R}+
178: \mathcal{Q}^{(n)}_{iR}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R}\Big]\bigg], \\
179: \mathcal{U}_{i}(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
180: R}}\bigg[u_{iR}(x)+\sqrt{2}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\Big[
181: \mathcal{U}^{(n)}_{iR}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R}+
182: \mathcal{U}^{(n)}_{iL}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R}\Big]\bigg], \nonumber\\
183: \mathcal{D}_{i}(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
184: R}}\bigg[d_{iR}(x)+\sqrt{2}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\Big[
185: \mathcal{D}^{(n)}_{iR}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R}+
186: \mathcal{D}^{(n)}_{iL}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R}\Big]\bigg], \nonumber
187: \end{eqnarray}
188: where $i=1,2,3$ are generation indices. Above, $x (\equiv x^{\mu})$ denotes
189: the first four coordinates, and as mentioned before, $y$ is the compactified
190: coordinate. The complex scalar field $\phi (x,y)$ and the gauge boson
191: $A_\mu(x,y)$ are $Z_2$ even fields with their zero modes identified with the
192: SM scalar doublet and a SM gauge boson respectively. On the contrary, the
193: field $A_5(x,y)$, which is a real scalar transforming in the adjoint
194: representation of the gauge group, does not have any zero mode. The fields
195: $\mathcal{Q}$, $\mathcal{U}$, and $\mathcal{D}$ describe the 5-dimensional
196: quark doublet and singlet states, respectively, whose zero modes are
197: identified with the 4-dimensional chiral SM quark states. The KK expansions of
198: the weak-doublet and -singlet leptons will be likewise and are not shown for
199: brevity.
200:
201:
202: \section{Renormalisation Group Equations}
203: We now lay out the strategy followed to compute the RG correction
204: to the couplings from the KK modes. The first step is obviously
205: the calculation of the contribution from a given KK level which
206: has both $Z_2$-even and -odd states. Three points are noteworthy
207: and should be taken into consideration during this step:
208: \begin{enumerate}
209: \item While the zero mode fermions are chiral as a result of
210: orbifolding, the KK quarks and leptons at a given level are
211: vector-like.
212: \item The fifth compotent of the gauge bosons are ($Z_2$ odd)
213: scalars\footnote{The coupling of the $A_5^{(n)}$ states to
214: fermions involve $\gamma_5$ and so, strictly, they are pseudoscalars.}, but in
215: the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Such states are not encountered
216: in the SM context.
217: \item The KK index $n$ is conserved at each tree level vertex.
218: \end{enumerate}
219: The first step KK excitation occurs at the scale $R^{-1}$ (modulo the zero
220: mode mass). Up to this scale the RG evolution is logarithmic, controlled by
221: the SM beta functions. Between $R^{-1}$ and $2 R^{-1}$, the running is still
222: logarithmic but with beta functions modified due to the first KK level
223: excitations, and so on. Every time a KK threshold is crossed, new resonances
224: are sparked into life, and new sets of beta functions rule till the next
225: threshold arrives. The beta function contributions are the same for each of
226: the $\Lambda R$ KK levels, which, in effect, can be summed. After this, the
227: scale dependence is not logarithmic any more, it shows power law behaviour, as
228: illustrated by Dienes {\em et al} in \cite{dienes2}. This illustration shows
229: that if $\Lambda R \gg 1$, then to a very good accuracy the calculation
230: basically boils down to computing the number of KK states up to the cutoff
231: scale. For one extra dimension up to the energy scale $E$ this number is $S =
232: ER$, and $E^{\rm max} = \Lambda$. Then if $\beta^{\rm SM}$ is a generic SM
233: beta function valid during the logarithmic running up to $R^{-1}$, beyond that
234: scale one should replace it as\footnote{We refer the readers to Eqs.~(2.15)
235: and (2.21) of Ref.~\cite{dienes2}, and the subtleties leading to these
236: equations in the context of gauge couplings, to have a feel for our
237: Eq.~(\ref{master}).}
238: \begin{equation}
239: \label{master}
240: \beta^{\rm SM} \to \beta^{\rm SM} + (S - 1) \tilde{\beta},
241: \end{equation}
242: where $\tilde{\beta}$ is a generic contribution from a single KK
243: level. Irrespective of whether we deal with the `running' of gauge, Yukawa, or
244: quartic scalar couplings, the structure of Eq.~(\ref{master}) would continue
245: to hold. Clearly, the $S$ dependence reflects power law running. How this
246: master formula (\ref{master}) enters diagram by diagram into the evolution of
247: the above couplings in the UED scenario constitutes the main part of
248: calculation in the present paper.
249:
250:
251: \subsection{Gauge couplings}
252: While considering the evolution of the gauge couplings, we first write
253: $\tilde{\beta}_i^g = \tilde{b}_i g_i^3$. The calculation of $\tilde{b}_i^g$
254: would proceed via the same set of Feynman graphs which give the SM
255: contributions $b_i^{\rm SM}$ but now containing the KK internal lines. The
256: key points to remember are the presence of adjoint scalars and doubling of KK
257: quark and lepton states due to their vectorial nature.
258:
259:
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261:
262: \begin{center}
263: \begin{figure}[thb]
264: \hspace*{2cm}\psfig{figure=gauge.ps,width=12cm,height=8cm,angle=270}
265: \caption{\sf \small {Evolution of gauge couplings for UED with $R^{-1}$ = 1,
266: 5, and 20 TeV. For each of the three couplings, $\alpha_g \equiv g^2/4\pi$.}}
267: \label{f:gunif}
268: \end{figure}
269: \end{center}
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271:
272: We obtain
273: \begin{equation}
274: \tilde{b}_1 = \frac{81}{10}, ~~ \tilde{b}_2 = \frac{7}{6}, ~~
275: \tilde{b}_3 = - \frac{5}{2},
276: \label{ued}
277: \end{equation}
278: where the U(1) beta function is appropriately normalised. Just to
279: recall, the corresponding SM numbers are 41/10, $-$19/6, $-$7,
280: respectively. We have plotted the evolution of gauge couplings in UED
281: for $R^{-1} =$ 1, 5, and 20 TeV in Fig.~\ref{f:gunif}. The running is
282: fast, as expected, and the couplings nearly meet around\footnote{The
283: issue of proton stability in such low scale unification scenarios has
284: been dealt in \cite{pdecay}.} 30, 138 and 525 TeV,
285: respectively. It is not hard to provide an intuitive argument for
286: such low unification scales and how they vary with $R$: roughly
287: speaking, $\Lambda R$ is order $\ln (M_{\rm GUT}/M_W) \sim
288: \ln(10^{15})$, where $M_{\rm GUT}$ is the 4-dimensional GUT scale,
289: i.e. the effect of a slow logarithmic running over a large scale is
290: roughly reproduced by a fast power law sprint over a short track. The
291: other striking feature reflected in Fig.~\ref{f:gunif} is that the
292: SU(2) gauge coupling ceases to be asymptotically free: the dominance
293: of the KK matter sector over the gauge part in $\tilde{b}_2$ severely
294: challenges the SU(2) asymptotic freedom. In contrast, the negative
295: sign of $\tilde{b}_3$ causes a precipitous drop in the SU(3) gauge
296: coupling with energy.
297:
298:
299: \subsection{Yukawa couplings}
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: \begin{center}
302: \begin{figure}[thb]
303: \hspace*{2cm}\psfig{figure=yukawa.eps,width=12cm,height=10cm,angle=0}
304: \caption{\sf \small {Diagrams contributing to Yukawa coupling
305: evolution in the Landau gauge. Solid (broken) lines correspond to
306: fermions (SM scalars), while wavy lines (wavy+solid lines) represent
307: ordinary gauge bosons (fifth components of gauge bosons).}}
308: \label{f:yuk}
309: \end{figure}
310: \end{center}
311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313: \begin{center}
314: \begin{figure}[thb]
315: %\hspace*{2cm}\psfig{figure=yukawa.eps,width=12cm,height=8cm,angle=0}
316: %\vskip -30pt
317: \hskip 1.50cm
318: \psfig{figure=ued_top.ps,width=6.2cm,height=6.2cm,angle=270}
319: \vskip -6.23cm
320: \hskip 8.0cm
321: \psfig{figure=sm_top.ps,width=6.2cm,height=6.2cm,angle=270}
322: \caption{\sf \small {Evolution of the top quark Yukawa coupling in the UED
323: scenario (left panel) and (b) the SM (right panel). UED evolution is shown for
324: three different values of $R^{-1}$ and the curves are terminated at the
325: corresponding unification scales.}}
326: \label{f:tyuk}
327: \end{figure}
328: \end{center}
329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
330: The Feynman diagrams that contribute to the power law evolution of
331: Yukawa couplings (in Landau gauge) are shown in Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}. The
332: contributions come from the pure SM states, their KK towers, and from
333: the adjoint representation scalars\footnote{A subtle feature is worth
334: noticing. In four dimensions, the calculational advantage of working
335: in Landau gauge is that some diagrams give vanishing
336: contributions. The argument breaks down in a higher dimensional
337: context. More explicitly, consider the Figs.~\ref{f:yuk}h and
338: \ref{f:yuk}i. These graphs proceed through the exchange of adjoint
339: $A_5$ scalars and yield non-vanishing contributions. The corresponding
340: figures with $A_\mu$ exchange are absent because they give null
341: results in the Landau gauge.}. The last two contributions, as the
342: master formula (\ref{master}) indicates, have an overall
343: proportionality factor $(S-1)$. As we examine contributions from
344: individual KK states, we see that due to the argument of fermion
345: chirality, not in all diagrams do the cosine and sine mode states both
346: {\em simultaneously} contribute. This accounts for a relative factor
347: of 2 between the two types of diagrams. For example, in
348: Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}a the fermionic KK modes can only come from cosine
349: expansions, whereas in Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}d both cosine and sine fermion
350: modes contribute. This is why Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}a has a multiplicating
351: factor $(S-1)$, while for Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}d the factor is $2(S-1)$.
352: Whereever $A_5$ is involved as an internal line, the associated KK
353: internal fermions necessarily come from sine expansion, e.g. in
354: Figs.~2g, 2h and 2i. The above book-keeping has been done for
355: individual graphs and the proportionality factors have been mentioned
356: for each diagram in Fig.~\ref{f:yuk}. The Yukawa RG equations (beyond
357: the threshold $R^{-1}$) can be written as ($t = \ln E$):
358: \begin{equation}
359: 16 \pi^2 \frac{dy_f}{dt} = \beta^{\rm SM}_{y_f} + \beta^{\rm UED}_{y_f},
360: \label{eq:gen}
361: \end{equation}
362: where $f$ generically stands for the up/down quarks or leptons. The SM
363: beta functions $\beta^{\rm SM}_{y_f}$ can be found e.g. in
364: \cite{sumathi}. The UED contributions to the beta functions
365: $\beta^{\rm UED}_{y_{l,u,d}}$ are given by:
366: \vbox{
367: \begin{eqnarray}
368: \beta^{\rm UED}_{y_{l}} &=& (S -
369: 1)\;\left[-(\frac{21}{8}g_2^2 +\frac{129}{40}g_1^2 )
370: +\frac{3}{2} y_l^2 \right]\;y_l + 2(S -
371: 1)\;\left[Y_l + 3 Y_u + 3 Y_d \right]\;y_l ,\nonumber \\
372: \beta^{\rm UED}_{y_{u}} &=& (S - 1)\;\left[-(12 g_3^2 +
373: \frac{21}{8}g_2^2 +\frac{9}{8}g_1^2 ) + \frac{3}{2}(y_u^2 -
374: y_d^2)\right]\;y_u + 2(S -
375: 1)\;\left[Y_l + 3 Y_u + 3 Y_d \right]\;y_u , \\
376: \beta^{\rm UED}_{y_{d}} &=& (S - 1)\;\left[-(12 g_3^2 +
377: \frac{21}{8}g_2^2 + \frac{9}{40}g_1^2 ) + \frac{3}{2}(y_d^2 -
378: y_u^2)\right]\;y_d + 2(S - 1)\;\left[Y_l + 3 Y_u + 3 Y_d \right]\;
379: y_d , \nonumber
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: }
382: with $Y_l = \sum_{l} y_l^2$, $Y_d = \sum_{d} y_d^2$, and $Y_u =
383: \sum_{u} y_u^2$.
384: To illustrate how the power law dependence of Yukawa couplings quantitatively
385: compares and contrasts with their 4-dimensional logarithmic running, we have
386: exhibited in Fig.~\ref{f:tyuk} the behaviour of the top-quark Yukawa
387: coupling in the two cases.
388:
389: Another consequence of unification in many models is a prediction
390: of the low energy value of $m_b/m_\tau$. This ratio, unity at
391: the unification scale, at low energies takes the values 4.7, 4.2,
392: and 3.9 for $1/R$ = 1, 5, and 20 TeV, respectively. Admittedly, $m_b$ is
393: on the high side; a limitation which perhaps may be attributable
394: to the one-loop level of the calculation.
395:
396:
397:
398:
399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
400: \begin{center}
401: \begin{figure}[thb]
402: \hspace*{3cm}\psfig{figure=quartic.eps,width=10cm,height=8cm,angle=0}
403: \caption{\sf \small {Diagrams contributing to quartic scalar
404: coupling evolution. The conventions are the same as in Fig. \ref{f:yuk}.}}
405: \label{f:lamb}
406: \end{figure}
407: \end{center}
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
410: \begin{center}
411: \begin{figure}[thb]
412: \hspace*{2cm}\psfig{figure=higgs.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm,angle=270}
413: \caption{\sf \small {Bounds on the Higgs mass at the electroweak scale in the
414: UED scenario from the triviality and vacuum stability conditions for $R^{-1}$
415: = 1, 5, and 20 TeV. See text for details.}}
416: \label{f:higgs}
417: \end{figure}
418: \end{center}
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \subsection{Quartic scalar coupling and the Higgs mass}
421: The one-loop diagrams through which the KK modes contribute to the power law
422: running of the quartic scalar coupling $\lambda$ (in Landau gauge) are shown
423: in Fig.~\ref{f:lamb}. As clarified before in the case of Yukawa running, the
424: extra factor of 2 in front of $(S - 1)$ for some graphs indicates that
425: cosine and sine KK modes {\em both} contribute only to those graphs. The
426: evolution equation can be written as
427: \begin{equation}
428: 16 \pi^2 \frac{d\lambda}{dt} = \beta^{\rm SM}_{\lambda} +
429: \beta^{\rm UED}_{\lambda}
430: \end{equation}
431:
432: The expressions for $\beta^{\rm SM}_{\lambda}$ can be found e.g.~in
433: \cite{chengli}. The UED beta functions are given by
434: \vbox{
435: \begin{eqnarray}
436: \beta^{\rm UED}_{\lambda} &=&
437: (S - 1)\left[ 3 g_2^4 + \frac{6}{5}g_2^2 g_1^2 + \frac{9}{25}
438: g_1^4 -3 \lambda (3 g_2^2 +
439: \frac{3}{5}g_1^2) + 12 \lambda^2 \right] \nonumber \\
440: &+& 2(S - 1)\left[ 4 \left(Y_l + 3 Y_u +
441: 3 Y_d \right) \lambda -4\sum_{l,u,d}\left(y_l^4 + 3 y_u^4 + 3 y_d^4
442: \right) \right].
443: \end{eqnarray}
444: } The evolution of $\lambda$ has interesting bearings on the Higgs mass. In
445: the standard 4-dimensional context, bounds on the Higgs mass have been placed
446: on the grounds of `triviality' and `vacuum stability' \cite{trivia}. What do
447: they imply in the UED context? The `triviality' argument requires that
448: $\lambda$ stays away from the Landau pole, i.e. remains finite, all the way to
449: the cutoff scale $\Lambda$. The condition that $1/\lambda(\Lambda) > 0$ can be
450: translated to an upper bound on the Higgs mass ($m_H$) at the electroweak
451: scale when the cutoff of the theory is $\Lambda$. This has been plotted in
452: Fig.~\ref{f:higgs} (the upper curves) for three different values of $R$. A
453: given point on that curve (for a given $R$) corresponds to a maximum allowed
454: $m_H$ at the weak scale; for a larger $m_H$ the coupling $\lambda$ becomes
455: infinite at some scale less than $\Lambda$ and the theory ceases to be
456: perturbative. Clearly, this $m_H^{\rm max}$ varies as we vary the cutoff
457: $\Lambda$ . The argument of `vacuum stability' relies on the requirement that
458: the scalar potential be always bounded from below, i.e. $\lambda (\Lambda) >
459: 0$. This can be translated to a lower bound $m_H^{\rm min}$ at the weak
460: scale. The lower set of curves in Fig.~\ref{f:higgs} (for three values of
461: $R^{-1}$) represent the `vacuum stability' limits, the region below the curve
462: for a given $R$ being ruled out. Recalling that the cutoff is where the gauge
463: couplings tend to unify, we observe that the Higgs mass is limited in the
464: narrow zone
465: \begin{equation}
466: 148 ~ \ltap~ m_H ~\ltap~ 186 ~{\rm GeV}
467: \label{higgsued}
468: \end{equation}
469: in all the three cases, for a zero mode top quark mass of 174.2
470: GeV. Admittedly, our limits are based on one-loop corrections
471: only. That the upper and lower limits are insensitive to the choice of
472: $R$ is not difficult to understand, as what really counts is the
473: number of KK states, given by the product $\Lambda R$, which, as
474: mentioned before, is nearly constant, order $\ln (10^{15})$. The
475: limits in Eq.~(\ref{higgsued}) are very close to what we obtain in the
476: SM at the one-loop level, namely $147 ~\ltap ~ m_H^{\rm SM} ~
477: \ltap 189$ GeV (see also \cite{Kielanowski:2003jg}, where one-loop SM results
478: have been derived\footnote{The SM two-loop limits are \cite{trivia}: $145
479: ~\ltap ~ m_H^{\rm SM} ~ \ltap~ 168$ GeV for $m_t = 174.2$ GeV.}).
480:
481:
482: \subsection{Supersymmetric UED}
483: What happens if we take the supersymmetric (SUSY) version of UED? A
484: 5-dimensional $N=1$ supersymmetry when perceived from a 4-dimensional context
485: contains two different $N=1$ multiplets forming one $N=2$ supermultiplet. For
486: a comprehensive analysis, we refer the readers to \cite{dienes}. There are
487: two issues that immediately concern our analysis. First, unlike in the
488: non-SUSY case, the Higgs scalar in a chiral multiplet will now have both even
489: and odd $Z_2$ modes on account of degrees of freedom counting consistent with
490: supersymmetry. Also, there will be two such $N=2$ chiral supermultiplets to
491: meet the requirement of supersymmetry. Second, in the RG evolution two energy
492: scales will come into play. The first of these is the supersymmetry scale,
493: called $M_S$, which we take to be 1 TeV. Beyond $M_S$, supersymmetric
494: particles get excited and their contributions must be included in the RG
495: evolution. The second scale is that of the compactified extra dimension $1/R$,
496: which we take to be larger than $M_S$.
497:
498: The gauge coupling evolution must now be specified for three
499: different regions. The first of these is when $E < M_S$ where the
500: SM with the additional scalar doublet\footnote{SUSY requires two
501: complex scalar doublets.} beta functions are in control. In this region:
502: \begin{equation}
503: {b}_{1o} = \frac{21}{5}, ~~ {b}_{2o} = -\frac{10}{3}, ~~
504: {b}_{3o} = -7 .
505: \label{smplus}
506: \end{equation}
507: Once $M_S$ is crossed and up until $1/R$, we also have the superpartners of
508: the SM particles pitching in with their effects. The contributions of the SM
509: particles and their superpartners together are given by:
510: \begin{equation}
511: {b}_{1s} = \frac{33}{5}, ~~ {b}_{2s} = 1, ~~
512: {b}_{3s} = -3 .
513: \label{susy1}
514: \end{equation}
515: Finally, when the KK-modes are excited ($E > 1/R$) one has
516: further contributions from the individual modes:
517: \begin{equation}
518: \tilde{b}_1 = \frac{66}{5}, ~~ \tilde{b}_2 = 10, ~~
519: \tilde{b}_3 = 6 .
520: \label{susy2}
521: \end{equation}
522: Thus, beyond $1/R$, the total contribution is given by
523: \begin{equation}
524: b_i^{\rm tot} = b_{io} + \Theta (E-M_S) ~(b_{is} - b_{i0}) + \Theta (E-
525: \frac{1}{R}) ~(S - 1) ~\tilde{b}_i,
526: \end{equation}
527:
528: Not unexpectedly, for the SUSY UED case, gauge unification is possible. We
529: observe that the introduction of this plethora of KK excitations of the SM
530: particles and their superpartners radically changes the beta functions; so
531: much so, that the gauge couplings tend to become non-perturbative before
532: unification is achieved. For clarity, we make the argument more explicit
533: below. First, from Eqs.~(\ref{susy1}) and (\ref{susy2}) we note that the
534: dominance of the KK matter over the KK gauge parts is so overwhelming that the
535: SU(3) beta function ($\tilde{b}_3$) beyond the first KK threshold ceases to be
536: negative any longer. The other two gauge beta functions, which were already
537: positive with contributions from zero mode particles plus their superpartners,
538: become even more positive. So the curves for all the three gauge couplings
539: would have the same sign slopes once the KK modes are excited. As a result,
540: with increasing energy the three curves for $\alpha_g^{-1}$ would dip with a
541: power law scaling fast into a region where the couplings themselves become too
542: large at the time they meet. Therefore, in order that all of them remain
543: perturbative during the entire RG evolution, the onset of the KK dynamics has
544: to be sufficiently delayed. This requirement imposes $R^{-1}~\gtap~5.0 \times
545: 10^{10}$ GeV. In effect, this implies that the twin requirements of a
546: SUSY-UED framework as well as perturbative gauge coupling unification pushes
547: the detectability of the KK excitations well beyond the realm of the LHC.
548:
549: \section{Conclusions and Outlook}
550: As the LHC is getting all set to roar in 2007, expectations are
551: mounting as we prepare ourselves to get a glimpse of new and
552: unexplored territory. New physics of different incarnations,
553: especially supersymmetry and/or extra dimensions, are crying out for
554: verification. How does the landscape beyond the electroweak scale
555: confront the evolution of the gauge, Yukawa and scalar quartic
556: couplings? Will there be a long logarithmic march through the desert
557: all the way to $10^{(16-17)}$ GeV, or is a power law sprint
558: awaiting us with a stamp of extra dimensions? In which way does the
559: latter quantitatively differ from the former has been the subject of
560: our investigation in the present paper. We observe the following
561: landmarks that characterise the extra-dimensional running:
562: \begin{enumerate}
563: \item
564: The orbifolding renders some subtle features to the RG running in UED. Due to
565: the conservation of KK number at tree level vertices, the $Z_2$ even and odd
566: KK states selectively contribute to different diagrams. While some diagrams
567: are forbidden, there are new diagrams originating from adjoint scalar
568: exchanges. In the present article we have performed a diagram by
569: diagram book-keeping leading to the evolution equations.
570:
571: \item Low gauge coupling unification scales can be achieved without
572: introducing non-perturbative gauge couplings. The unification scale depends on
573: $R$, and is approximately given by $\Lambda \sim (25-30)/R$.
574:
575: \item The `triviality' and `vacuum stability' bounds on the Higgs mass have
576: been studied in the context of power law evolution. This limits the
577: Higgs mass in the range $148 ~ \ltap m_H ~\ltap 186$ GeV at the
578: one-loop level. The corresponding SM limits at the one-loop level
579: are not very different.
580:
581:
582: \item If low energy SUSY is realised in Nature, then the requirement of
583: perturbative gauge coupling unification pushes the inverse radius of
584: compactification all the way up to $\sim 10^{10}$ GeV. Thus if
585: superpartners of the SM particles are observed at the LHC, the
586: nearest KK states within the UED framework are predicted to lie
587: beyond the boundary of any observational relevance.
588: \end{enumerate}
589:
590: It should be admitted that even if TeV scale extra dimensional theories are
591: established, the spectrum might be more complicated than what UED
592: predicts. The confusion is expected to clear up at least when the low-lying KK
593: states face appointment with destiny within the first few years of the LHC
594: run. Our intention in the present article has been to choose a simple
595: framework to study power law evolution. Flat extra dimensional models are
596: particularly handy as they provide equispaced KK states which allow an elegant
597: handling of internal KK summation in the loops. UED is an ideal
598: test-bed to conduct this study as it has been motivated from various angles
599: and subjected to different phenomenological tests.
600:
601: \vskip 5pt
602:
603: \noindent {\bf{Acknowledgements:}}~
604: We thank E.~Dudas for useful correspondences. G.~B. thanks CFTP,
605: Instituto Superior T\'ecnico (Lisbon) and ICTP (Trieste) for
606: hospitality at different stages of the work.
607:
608:
609: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
610: \bibitem{antoniadis1} I.~Antoniadis,
611: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246} (1990) 377.
612:
613:
614: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc}
615: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,
616: %``Hierarchies without symmetries from extra dimensions,''
617: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 033005
618: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903417].
619:
620: \bibitem{Servant:2002aq}
621: G.~Servant and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
622: %``Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?,''
623: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 391
624: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206071].
625:
626: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000hv}
627: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~C.~Cheng, B.~A.~Dobrescu and L.~J.~Hall,
628: %``Self-breaking of the standard model gauge symmetry,''
629: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 096006
630: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006238].
631:
632: \bibitem{dienes} K. Dienes, E. Dudas, and T. Gherghetta; Nucl. \ Phys.\ B
633: {\bf 537} (1999) 47 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806292].
634:
635:
636: \bibitem{dienes2}
637: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,
638: %``Extra spacetime dimensions and unification,''
639: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436} (1998) 55
640: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803466].
641: For a parallel analysis based on a minimal length scenario, see
642: S.~Hossenfelder,
643: %``Running coupling with minimal length,''
644: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 105003
645: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405127].
646:
647:
648: \bibitem{acd}
649: T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,
650: %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''
651: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 035002
652: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100].
653:
654:
655: \bibitem{nath}
656: P.~Nath and M.~Yamaguchi,
657: %``Effects of Kaluza-Klein excitations on g(mu)-2,''
658: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 116006
659: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903298].
660:
661: \bibitem{chk}
662: D.~Chakraverty, K.~Huitu and A.~Kundu,
663: %``Effects of universal extra dimensions on B0 - anti-B0 mixing,''
664: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 558} (2003) 173
665: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212047].
666:
667:
668: \bibitem{buras} A.J.~Buras, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
669: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on the unitarity triangle and
670: %rare K and B decays. ((U)),''
671: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660} (2003) 225
672: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212143];
673: A.J.~Buras, A.~Poschenrieder, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
674: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on B $\to$ X/s gamma, B $\to$ X/s
675: %gluon, B $\to$ X/s mu+ mu-, K(L) $\to$ pi0 e+ e-, and epsilon'/epsilon,''
676: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 678} (2004) 455
677: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306158].
678:
679: \bibitem{desh}
680: K.~Agashe, N.G.~Deshpande and G.H.~Wu,
681: %``Universal extra dimensions and b $\to$ s gamma,''
682: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 309
683: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105084].
684:
685: \bibitem{santa}
686: J.F.~Oliver, J.~Papavassiliou and A.~Santamaria,
687: %``Universal extra dimensions and Z $\to$ b anti-b,''
688: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 056002
689: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212391].
690:
691: \bibitem{appel-yee}
692: T.~Appelquist and H.~U.~Yee,
693: %``Universal extra dimensions and the Higgs boson mass,''
694: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 055002
695: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211023].
696:
697:
698: \bibitem{ewued} T.G. Rizzo and J.D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}
699: (2000) 016007 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906234]; A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
700: 466} (1999) 107 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266]; C.D. Carone, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
701: 61} (2000) 015008 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907362].
702:
703: \bibitem{collued} T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 095010
704: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106336]; C. Macesanu, C.D. McMullen and S. Nandi,
705: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 015009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201300];
706: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 546} (2002) 253 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207269];
707: H.-C. Cheng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 18} (2003) 2779
708: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206035]; A. Muck, A. Pilaftsis and R. R\"uckl,
709: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 687} (2004) 55 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312186].
710:
711: \bibitem{db}
712: P.~Dey and G.~Bhattacharyya,
713: %``A comparison of ultraviolet sensitivities in universal, nonuniversal, and
714: %split extra dimensional models,''
715: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 116012
716: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407314];
717: P.~Dey and G.~Bhattacharyya,
718: %``Ultraviolet sensitivity of rare decays in nonuniversal extra dimensional
719: %models,''
720: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 076009
721: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309110].
722:
723:
724: \bibitem{pdecay}
725: T.~Appelquist, B.~A.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton and H.~U.~Yee,
726: %``Proton stability in six dimensions,''
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 181802
728: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107056];
729: R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Perez-Lorenzana,
730: %``Neutrino mass, proton decay and dark matter in TeV scale universal extra
731: %dimension models,''
732: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 075015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212254].
733:
734:
735: \bibitem{sumathi}C. Hill, C. N. Leung, and S. Rao; Nucl. \ Phys.\ B
736: {\bf 262} (1985) 517.
737:
738: \bibitem{chengli}T. P. Cheng, E. Eichten, and L. F. Li;
739: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 9} (1974) 2259.
740:
741:
742: \bibitem{trivia}
743: G.~Altarelli and G.~Isidori,
744: %``Lower limit on the Higgs mass in the standard model: An Update,''
745: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 337} (1994) 141; S.~Dawson, arXiv:hep-ph/9901280.
746:
747: \bibitem{Kielanowski:2003jg}
748: P.~Kielanowski and S.~R.~Juarez W.,
749: %``Precise bounds on the Higgs boson mass,''
750: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 096003
751: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310122].
752: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310122;%%
753:
754:
755:
756: \end{thebibliography}
757: \end{document}
758: