1: \documentclass[hyper]{JHEP3} % 10pt is ignored!
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{cite}
6:
7:
8: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}}
9: \newcommand{\smbox}[1]{\mbox{\scriptsize #1}}
10: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}
11: \newcommand{\slh}[1]{\displaystyle{\not}#1}
12: \newcommand{\gL}{g_{\mbox{\tiny{L}}}}
13: \newcommand{\gR}{g_{\mbox{\tiny{R}}}}
14: \newcommand{\gY}{g_{\mbox{\tiny{Y}}}}
15: \newcommand{\gBL}{g_{\mbox{\tiny{BL}}}}
16: \newcommand{\gdenomA}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2\gL^2+\gBL^2\gR^2}}
17: \newcommand{\gdenomB}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}
18: \newcommand{\Psibar}{\overline{\Psi}}
19: \newcommand{\Bvec}{B^{\tbox{(11)}}_{\mu}}
20: \newcommand{\Bsca}{B^{\tbox{(11)}}_{\tbox{(-)}}}
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft, %%%%%%%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%% a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper,%%%%
24: %%%%%%%%%%%% 11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% *=default %%%%%%%%
26: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...} %%%%%%%%
28: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...} %% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...} %
32: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: %%%%%%%%%%%% Your definitions: %%%%%%%%%%% MINE :) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39: % ... %
40: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
41: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
42:
43: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-0.5 cm}
44: \setlength{\textheight}{22 cm}
45: % ... %
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47:
48: \title{\Large\bf Mixed Dark Matter in Universal Extra Dimension Models
49: with TeV Scale $W_{\tbox{R}}$ and $Z'$}
50:
51: \author{\bf Ken Hsieh$^{1}$, R.N. Mohapatra$^{1}$ and Salah Nasri$^{2}$\\
52: $^1$Department of Physics, University of Maryland,
53: College Park, MD 20742, USA\\
54: $^2$Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611\\
55: E-mail: \email {kenhsieh@physics.umd.edu, rmohapat@physics.umd.edu, snasri@phy.ufl.edu}}
56:
57: \received{\today} %%
58: \accepted{\today} %% These are for published papers.
59:
60: \preprint{UFIFT-HEP-06-16 \\
61: UMD-HEP-06-055\\ \today}
62: % OR: \preprint{Aaaa/Mm/Yy\\Aaa-aa/Nnnnnn}
63: % Use \hepth etc. also in bibliography.
64:
65: \abstract{We show that in a class of universal extra dimension (UED)
66: models that solves both the neutrino mass and proton decay problems
67: using low scale left-right symmetry, the dark matter of the Universe
68: consists of an admixture of KK photon and KK right-handed neutrinos.
69: We present a full calculation of the dark matter density in these
70: models taking into account the co-annihilation effects due to near
71: by states such as the scalar partner of the KK photon as well as
72: fermion states near the right-handed KK neutrino. Using the value of
73: the relic CDM density, we obtain upper limits on $R^{-1}$ of about
74: $400-650$ GeV and $M_{Z'}\leq 1.5$ TeV, both being accessible to
75: LHC. For a region in this parameter space where the KK right-handed
76: neutrino contributes significantly to the total relic density of
77: dark matter, we obtain a lower bound on the dark matter-nucleon
78: scattering cross section of $10^{-44}$ cm$^2$, which can be probed
79: by the next round of dark matter search experiments.}
80:
81: \keywords{Dark Matter, Cosmology of Theories beyond the SM, Field Theories in Higher Dimensions, Beyond Standard Model, Compactification and String Models}
82:
83: \begin{document}
84:
85: %%%%%%%%Section #1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
86: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
87: \section{Introduction}
88: \label{sec:intro}
89:
90: Understanding the dark constituent of the Universe is one of the
91: major problems of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). While in the
92: supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, the lightest
93: supersymmetric partner (LSP) of the standard model fields is one of the
94: most well motivated candidates for the cold dark matter (CDM), it is
95: by no means unique and other viable CDM candidates have been
96: proposed in the literature \cite{tait,aghase,mdm}. It is hoped
97: that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will provide evidence for
98: supersymmetry making the case for this particle stronger.
99: Nonetheless, at this point, different candidates must be studied in
100: order to isolate their possibly different signatures in other
101: experiments in order to make a proper identification of the true
102: candidate. With this goal in mind, in this paper, we continue our
103: study \cite{hsieh} of a class of dark matter
104: candidates \cite{tait,kong}, which arises in models with extra
105: dimensions\cite{Antoniadis:1990ew,antoniadis,arkani-hamed}, the so-called universal
106: extra dimensional (UED) models \cite{acd}.
107:
108: The UED models lead to a very different kind of TeV scale physics
109: and will also be explored at LHC. These models have hidden extra
110: spatial dimensions with sizes of order of an inverse TeV with all
111: SM fields residing in all the dimensions. There could be
112: one or two such extra dimensions and they are compactified with
113: radius $R^{-1}\leq $ TeV \cite{acd}. It has recently been pointed out
114: \cite{tait} that the lightest Kaluza-Klein (KK) particles of these models
115: being stable can serve as viable dark matter candidates. This result
116: is nontrivial due to the fact that the dark matter relic abundance
117: is determined by the interactions in the theory which are
118: predetermined by the Standard Model. It turns out that in the minimal, 5D extra
119: dimension UED models based on the standard model gauge group, the first
120: KK mode of the hypercharge boson is the
121: dark matter candidate provided the inverse size of the extra
122: dimension is less than a TeV \cite{tait}.
123:
124: A generic phenomenological problem with 5D UED models based on the
125: Standard Model gauge group is that they can lead to rapid proton
126: decay as well as unsuppressed neutrino masses. One way to cure the
127: rapid proton decay problem is to consider six dimensions \cite{yee}
128: where the two extra spatial dimensions lead to a new $U(1)$ global
129: symmetry that suppresses the strength of all baryon number
130: nonconserving operators. On the other hand both the neutrino mass
131: and the proton decay problem can be solved simultaneously if we
132: extend the gauge group of the six dimensional model to
133: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_{\tbox{R}}\times U(1)_{B- L}$ \cite{abdel}. This avoids
134: having to invoke a seventh warped extra dimension solely for the
135: purpose of solving the neutrino mass problem \cite{app}. With
136: appropriate orbifolding, a neutrino mass comes out to be of the
137: desired order due to a combination two factors: the existence of
138: $B-L$ gauge symmetry and the orbifolding that keeps the left-handed
139: singlet neutrino as a zero-mode which forbids the lower dimensional
140: operators that could give unsuppressed neutrino mass. Another advantage
141: of the 6D
142: models over the 5D ones is that cancellation of gravitational anomaly
143: automatically leads to the existence of the right-handed
144: neutrinos \cite{poppitz} needed for generating neutrino masses.
145:
146: In a recent paper \cite{hsieh}, we pointed out that the 6D UED models
147: with an extended gauge group \cite{abdel} provide a
148: two-component picture of dark matter consisting of a KK right-handed
149: neutrino and a KK hypercharge boson. We presented a detailed
150: calculation of the relic abundance of both the
151: $\nu^{\tbox{KK}}_{\smbox{R}}$ and the
152: $B_Y^{\tbox{KK}}$ as well as the cross section for scattering of the dark
153: matter in the cryogenic detectors in these models. The two main
154: results of this calculation\cite{hsieh} are that: (i) present
155: experimental limits on the value of
156: the relic density \cite{wmap} imply very stringent limits on the the
157: two fundamental parameters of the theory i.e. $R^{-1}$ and the
158: second $Z'$-boson associated with the extended gauge group i.e.
159: $R^{-1}\leq 550$ GeV and $M_{Z'}\leq 1.2$ TeV and (ii) for one
160: particular region in
161: this parameter range where the relic density of the KK right-handed neutrino
162: contributes significantly to the total relic density of the dark matter,
163: the DM-nucleon cross-section is greater than $10^{-44}$
164: cm$^2$, and is accessible to the next round of dark
165: matter searches. Thus combined with LHC results for an extra
166: $Z'$ search, the direct dark matter search experiments could
167: rule out this model. This result is to be contrasted
168: with that of minimal 5-D UED models, where the above experiments
169: will only rule out a part of the parameter space. Discovery of two
170: components
171: to dark matter should also have implications for cosmology of structure
172: formation.
173:
174: In this paper, we extend the work of ref.\ \cite{hsieh} in several
175: ways: (i) we update our calculations taking into account the
176: co-annihilation effect of nearby states; (ii) a feature unique to
177: six and higher dimensional models is the presence of physical scalar
178: KK states of gauge bosons degenerate at the tree level with
179: $\gamma_{\tbox{KK}}$ state and will therefore impact the discussion of KK
180: dark matter. Its couplings to matter have different Lorentz
181: structure and therefore contribute in different ways to the relic
182: density. We discuss the relative significance of the scalar state
183: and its effect on the relic density calculation of the previous
184: paper \cite{hsieh} for both the cases when it is lighter and heavier
185: than the $\gamma_{\tbox{KK}}$ state. (iii) We also comment on the extra $W$
186: and $Z'$ boson phenomenology in the model.
187:
188: This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:setup}, we
189: review the basic
190: set up of the model \cite{abdel}. In Section \ref{sec:spectrum}, we
191: present the
192: spectrum of states at tree level. In Sections \ref{sec:DM1} and
193: \ref{sec:DM2}, we discuss the
194: relic density of $\nu_{KK}$ states and the hypercharge vector and
195: pseudoscalar, respectively.
196: In Section \ref{sec:RelicResult}, we give the overall picture of dark
197: matter in these models in
198: terms of relic abundance and rates of direct detection.
199: Section \ref{sec:DirectD} discusses the signals such two-component dark
200: matter would give
201: in direct detection experiments.
202: In Section \ref{sec:WZPheno}, we give the phenomenology of the model for
203: colliders,
204: especially the $Z'$ and $W_{\tbox{R}}$ production and decays.
205: Finally, in Section \ref{sec:Conclusions} we
206: present our conclusions.
207: %
208: %
209: %
210: \section{Set up of the Model}
211: \label{sec:setup}
212: We choose the gauge group of the model to be $SU(3)_c\times
213: SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_{\tbox{R}}\times U(1)_{\tbox{B-L}}$ with matter content per
214: generation as follows:
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: {\cal Q}_{1,-}, {\cal Q}'_{1,-}= (3,2,1,\tfrac{1}{3});&
217: {\cal Q}_{2,+}, {\cal Q}'_{2,+}= (3,1,2,\tfrac{1}{3});\nonumber\\
218: {\cal \psi}_{1,-}, {\cal \psi}'_{1,-}= (1,2,1,-1);& {\cal
219: \psi}_{2,+}, {\cal \psi}'_{2,+}= (1,1,2,-1); \label{matter}
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: where, within parenthesis, we have written the quantum numbers that
222: correspond to each group factor, respectively and the subscript
223: gives the six dimensional chirality to cancel gravitational anomaly
224: in six dimensions. We denote the gauge bosons as $G_M$,
225: $W^{\pm}_{1,M}$, $W^{\pm}_{2,M}$, and $B_M$, for $SU(3)_c$,
226: $SU(2)_L$, $SU(2)_{\tbox{R}}$ and $U(1)_{\tbox{B-L}}$ respectively, where
227: $M=0,1,2,3,4,5$ denotes the six space-time indices. We will also use
228: the following short hand notations: Greek letters
229: $\mu,\nu,\dots=0,1,2,3$ to denote usual four dimensions indices, as
230: usual, and lower case Latin letters $a,b,\dots=4,5$ for those of the
231: extra space dimensions. We will also use $\vec y$ to denote the
232: ($x_4,x_5$) coordinates of a point in the extra space.
233:
234: First, we compactify the extra $x_4$, $x_5$ dimensions into
235: a torus, $T^2$, with equal radii, $R$, by imposing periodicity
236: conditions, $\varphi(x_4,x_5) = \varphi(x_4+ 2\pi R,x_5) =
237: \varphi(x_4,x_5+ 2\pi R)$ for any field $\varphi$.
238: This has the effect of breaking the original $SO(1,5)$
239: Lorentz symmetry group of the six dimensional space into the
240: subgroup $SO(1,3)\times Z_4$, where the last factor corresponds to
241: the group of discrete rotations in the $x_4$-$x_5$ plane, by angles
242: of $k\pi/2$ for $k=0,1,2,3$. This is a subgroup of the continuous
243: $U(1)_{45}$ rotational symmetry contained in $SO(1,5)$. The
244: remaining $SO(1,3)$ symmetry gives the usual 4D Lorentz invariance.
245: The presence of the surviving $Z_4$ symmetry leads to suppression of
246: proton decay \cite{yee} as well as neutrino mass \cite{abdel}.
247: \newline
248: \indent Employing the further orbifolding conditions :
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: Z_2&:& {\bf{y}} \rightarrow -{\bf {y}}
251: \\ \nonumber
252: Z'_2&:& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
253: (x_4,x_5)~' \rightarrow - (x_4,x_5)~' \\
254: {\bf{y}}~' = {\bf{y}} - (\pi R /2, \pi R/2)&
255: \end{array} \right.
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: We can project out the
258: zero modes and obtain the KK modes by assigning appropriate
259: $Z_2\times Z'_2$ quantum numbers to the fields.
260:
261: In the effective 4D theory the mass of each mode has the
262: form: $m_{N}^2 = m_0^2 + \frac{N}{R^2}$; with $N=\vec{n}^2=n_1^2 +
263: n_2^2$ and $m_0$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev)
264: contribution to mass, and the physical mass of the zero mode.
265: % There are radiative corrections to
266: %this spectrum\cite{cheng1}.
267:
268: We assign the following $Z_2\times Z'_2$ charges to the
269: various fields:
270: \begin{eqnarray}
271: G_\mu(+,+);\ B_\mu(+,+);\ W_{1,\mu}^{3,\pm}(+,+);\
272: W^3_{2,\mu}(+,+);\ W^\pm_{2,\mu}(+,-); \nonumber\\
273: G_{a}(-,-);\ B_a(-,-);\ W_{1,a}^{3,\pm}(-,-);\ W^3_{2,a}(-,-);\
274: W^\pm_{2,a}(-,+). \label{gparity}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: For quarks we choose,
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: Q_{\tbox{1L}}\!\equiv\!
279: \left(\begin{array}{c} u_{\tbox{1L}}(+,+)\\
280: d_{\tbox{1L}}(+,+)\end{array}\right);
281: \
282: Q'_{\tbox{1L}}\!\equiv\!
283: \left(\begin{array}{c} u'_{\tbox{1L}}(+,-)\\
284: d'_{\tbox{1L}}(+,-)\end{array}\right);
285: \
286: Q_{\tbox{1R}}\!\equiv\!
287: \left(\begin{array}{c} u_{\tbox{1R}}(-,-)\\
288: d_{\tbox{1R}}(-,-)\end{array}\right);
289: \
290: Q'_{\tbox{1R}}\!\equiv\!
291: \left(\begin{array}{c} u'_{\tbox{1R}}(-,+)\\
292: d'_{\tbox{1R}}(-,+)\end{array}\right);
293: \nonumber\\
294: Q_{\tbox{2L}}\!\equiv\!
295: \left(\begin{array}{c} u_{\tbox{2L}}(-,-)\\
296: d_{\tbox{2L}}(-,+)\end{array}\right);
297: \
298: Q'_{\tbox{2L}}\!\equiv\!
299: \left(\begin{array}{c} u'_{\tbox{2L}}(-,+)\\
300: d'_{\tbox{2L}}(-,-)\end{array}\right);
301: \
302: Q_{\tbox{2R}}\!\equiv\!
303: \left(\begin{array}{c} u_{\tbox{2R}}(+,+)\\
304: d_{\tbox{2R}}(+,-)\end{array}\right);
305: \
306: Q'_{\tbox{2R}}\!\equiv\!
307: \left(\begin{array}{c} u'_{\tbox{2R}}(+,-)\\
308: d'_{\tbox{2R}}(+,+)\end{array}\right);
309: \label{eq:quarks}
310: \end{eqnarray}
311: and for leptons:
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: \psi_{\tbox{1L}}&\!\equiv\!
314: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_{\tbox{1L}}(+,+) \\
315: e_{\tbox{1L}}(+,+)\end{array}\right);
316: \ \
317: \psi'_{\tbox{1L}}\!\equiv\!
318: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu'_{\tbox{1L}}(-,+) \\
319: e'_{\tbox{1L}}(-,+)\end{array}\right);
320: \ \
321: \psi_{\tbox{1R}}\!\equiv\!
322: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_{\tbox{1R}}(-,-) \\
323: e_{\tbox{1R}}(-,-)\end{array}\right);
324: \ \
325: \psi'_{\tbox{1R}}\!\equiv\!
326: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu'_{\tbox{1R}}(+,-) \\
327: e'_{\tbox{1R}}(+,-)\end{array}\right);
328: \nonumber \\
329: \psi_{\tbox{2L}}&\!\equiv\!
330: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_{\tbox{2L}}(-,+) \\
331: e_{\tbox{2L}}(-,-)\end{array}\right);
332: \ \
333: \psi'_{\tbox{2L}}\!\equiv\!
334: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu'_{\tbox{2L}}(+,+)\\
335: e'_{\tbox{2L}}(+,-)\end{array}\right);
336: \ \
337: \psi_{\tbox{2R}}\!\equiv\!
338: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu_{\tbox{2R}}(+,-)\\
339: e_{\tbox{2R}}(+,+)\end{array}\right);
340: \ \
341: \psi'_{\tbox{2R}}\!\equiv\!
342: \left(\begin{array}{c} \nu'_{\tbox{2R}}(-,-)\\
343: e'_{\tbox{2R}}(-,+)\end{array}\right).
344: \label{eq:leptons}
345: \end{eqnarray}
346: The zero modes i.e. (+,+) fields corresponds to the standard model
347: fields along with an extra singlet neutrino which is left-handed.
348: They will have zero mass prior to gauge symmetry breaking. The
349: singlet neutrino state being a left-handed (instead of right-handed
350: as in the usual case) has important implications for neutrino mass.
351: For example, the conventional Dirac mass term $\bar{L}H\nu_{\tbox{R}}$ is not
352: present due to the selection rules of the model and Lorentz
353: invariance. Similarly, $L\tilde{H}\nu_{2L}$ is forbidden by gauge
354: invariance as is the operator $(LH)^2$. Thus neutrino mass comes only
355: from much higher dimensional terms.
356:
357: % ===============================================================
358: %===============================================================
359: %
360:
361: For the Higgs bosons, we choose a bidoublet, which will
362: be needed to give masses to fermions and break the standard model
363: symmetry and and a pair of doublets $\chi_{L,R}$ with the following
364: $Z_2\times Z'_2$ quantum numbers:
365: \begin{align}
366: \phi\equiv
367: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \phi^0_u(+,+) & \phi^+_d(+,-)\\
368: \phi^-_u(+,+) & \phi^0_d(+,-)\end{array}\right);\quad
369: \chi_L\equiv \left(\begin{array}{c} \chi^0_L(-,+) \\
370: \chi^-_L(-,+)\end{array}\right);\quad
371: \chi_{\tbox{R}}\equiv \left(\begin{array}{c} \chi^0_{\tbox{R}}(+,+) \\
372: \chi^-_{\tbox{R}}(+,-)\end{array}\right),
373: \end{align}
374: and the following charge assignment under the gauge group,
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: \phi &=& (1,2,2,0),\nonumber\\
377: \chi_L&=&(1,2,1,-1),\quad \chi_{\tbox{R}}=(1,1,2,-1).
378: \end{eqnarray}
379: At the zero mode level, only the SM doublet $(\phi^0_u, \phi^-_u)$
380: and a singlet $\chi^0_{\tbox{R}}$ appear. The vacuum expectation values
381: (vev) of these fields, namely
382: $\langle\phi^0_u\rangle = v_{wk}$ and $\langle\chi^0_{\tbox{R}}\rangle=
383: v_{\tbox{R}}$,
384: break the SM symmetry and the extra $U(1)_Y'$ gauge group,
385: respectively.
386: %
387: A diagram that illustrates the lowest KK modes of all the particles
388: and their masses is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:level} with the following
389: identification of modes in Table \ref{modetable}.
390: %
391:
392:
393: \TABLE{
394: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
395: \hline ($Z_2,Z_2^{\prime}$) & Particle Content \\
396: \hline (++) &
397: $\begin{array}{l}
398: Q_{\tbox{1L}};~
399: u_{\tbox{2R}};~
400: d^{\prime}_{\tbox{2R}};~
401: \psi_{\tbox{1L}};~
402: e_{\tbox{2R}};~
403: \nu^{\prime}_{\tbox{2L}};
404: \vspace{0.05in}
405: \\
406: G_{\mu};~
407: B_{\mu};~
408: W_{1,\mu}^{3,\pm};~
409: W_{2,\mu}^3;
410: \vspace{0.05in}
411: \\
412: \phi_u^0;~
413: \phi_u^-;~
414: \chi_{\tbox{R}}^{\tbox{0}}
415: \vspace{0.05in}
416: \end{array}$
417: \\
418: \hline ($+-$) &
419: $\begin{array}{l}
420: Q^{\prime}_{\tbox{1L}};~
421: u^{\prime}_{\tbox{2R}};~
422: d_{\tbox{2R}};~
423: \psi^{\prime}_{\tbox{1R}};~
424: \nu_{\tbox{2R}};~
425: e^{\prime}_{\tbox{2R}};
426: \vspace{0.05in}
427: \\
428: W_{2,\mu}^{\pm};
429: \vspace{0.05in}
430: \\
431: \phi_d^+;~
432: \phi_d^{\tbox{0}};~
433: \chi_{\tbox{R}}^{\tbox{-}}
434: \vspace{0.05in}
435: \end{array}$
436: \\
437: \hline ($-+$) &
438: $\begin{array}{l}
439: Q^{\prime}_{\tbox{1R}};~
440: u^{\prime}_{\tbox{2L}};~
441: d_{\tbox{2L}};~
442: \psi^{\prime}_{\tbox{1L}};~
443: \nu_{\tbox{2L}};~
444: e^{\prime}_{\tbox{2R}};
445: \vspace{0.05in}
446: \\
447: W_{2,a}^{\pm};
448: \vspace{0.05in}
449: \\
450: \chi_{\tbox{L}}^{\tbox{0}};~
451: \chi_{\tbox{L}}^{\tbox{-}}
452: \vspace{0.05in}
453: \end{array}$
454: \\
455: \hline
456: ($--$)
457: &
458: $\begin{array}{l}
459: Q_{\tbox{1R}};~
460: u_{\tbox{2L}};~
461: d^{\prime}_{\tbox{2L}};~
462: \psi_{\tbox{1R}};~
463: \nu_{\tbox{1R}};~
464: e_{\tbox{2L}};
465: \vspace{0.05in}
466: \\
467: G_a;~
468: B_a;~
469: W_{1,a}^{3,\pm};~
470: W_{2,a}^{3}
471: \vspace{0.05in}
472: \end{array}$
473: \\
474: \hline
475: \end{tabular}
476: \caption{Particle content of 6D model separated by $Z_2\times
477: Z_2^{\prime}$ parities.}
478: \label{modetable}
479: }
480:
481:
482: %
483: \FIGURE[h]{
484: \includegraphics[width=5in]{HMN_level.eps}
485: \caption{The masses of lowest KK-modes of 6D model.}
486: \label{fig:level}}
487: %
488: %===============================================================
489: %===============================================================
490:
491: The most general Yukawa couplings in the model are
492: \beq
493: h_u \bar Q_1\phi Q_2 + h_d \bar Q_1\tilde\phi Q'_2 +
494: h_e\bar \psi_1\tilde \phi \psi_2 +
495: h'_u \bar Q'_1\phi Q'_2 + h'_d \bar Q'_1\tilde\phi Q_2 +
496: h'_e\bar \psi'_1\tilde \phi \psi'_2 +
497: h.c.;
498: \label{Yuk}
499: \eeq
500: where $\tilde \phi\equiv \tau_2\phi^* \tau_2$ is
501: the charge conjugate field of $\phi$. A six dimensional realization
502: of the left-right symmetry, which interchanges the subscripts:
503: $1\leftrightarrow 2$, is obtained provided the $3\times 3$ Yukawa
504: coupling matrices satisfy the constraints: $h_u~=~h^{\dagger}_u$;
505: $h'_u~=~h^{'\dagger}_u$; $h_e~=~h^{\dagger}_e;$
506: $h'_e~=~h^{'\dagger}_e;$ $h_d~=~h^{'\dagger}_d$. At the zero mode
507: level one obtains the SM Yukawa couplings
508: \beq {\cal L}~=~h_u \bar
509: Q\phi_u u_R + h_d \bar Q\tilde\phi_u d_R + h_e \bar L\tilde \phi_u
510: e_R + h.c.
511: \label{yukawa}
512: \eeq
513: It is important to notice that in the
514: above equation $h_{u,e}$ are hermitian matrices, while $h_d$ is
515: not. The vev of $\phi_u$ gives mass to the charged fermions of the model.
516: As far as the neutrino mass is concerned,
517: the lowest dimensional gauge invariant operator in six-D that gives rise
518: to neutrino mass after compactificaion has the
519: form $\psi^T_{1,L}{\phi}\psi_{2,L}\chi^2_{R}$ and leads to neutrino mass
520: $m_\nu\simeq \lambda \frac{v_{wk}v^2_R}{M^2_*(M^2_*R)^3}$. For $M_*R\sim
521: 100$ and $M_*\sim$ 10 TeV, $v_R\sim 2 $ TeV and $\lambda\sim 10^{-3}$, we
522: get neutrino masses of order $\sim$ eV without fine tuning. Furthermore,
523: it predicts that the neutrino mass is Dirac (predominantly) rather than
524: Majorana type.
525:
526:
527: As there are a large number of KK modes, one may worry whether or
528: not electroweak precision constraints in terms of S and T parameters
529: are satisfied. It has been shown that in the minimal universal extra
530: dimension (MUED) the KK contributions to the T parameter almost
531: cancel for heavier standard model Higgs \cite{acd, gm}. However, it
532: was found that in the MUED for Higgs mass heavier than 300 GeV
533: the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle is the charged KK Higgs
534: \cite{KMS}. The abundance of such charged massive particles are
535: inconsistent with big bang nucleosynthesis as well as other cosmological
536: observations for masses less than a
537: TeV \cite{KY}. This lead to the conclusion that the compactification
538: scale $1/R >$ 400 GeV for $m_H >$ 300 GeV. To our knowledge, there
539: has been no such analysis for the $6-$D models similar to ours, and
540: it is outside the scope of the current paper to perform a complete
541: analysis regarding the electroweak constraints. Therefore, we leave
542: the investigation of this open issue for future work.
543:
544:
545: \section{Spectrum of Particles}
546: \label{sec:spectrum}
547: Once the extra dimensions are compactified, the KK modes are labelled by the quanta of momenta
548: in the extra dimensions. As we have two such extra spatial dimensions, the KK modes are labelled
549: by two integers, and we will denote a KK mode as $\phi^{(mn)}$, where $m$ ($n$) is the
550: momentum in the quantized unit of $R^{-1}$ along the fifth (sixth) dimension. A detailed
551: expansion of a field in the 6D theory into KK mode is presented in the Appendix. Generally,
552: $\phi^{(mn)}$ would receive a (mass)$^2$ of the order $(m^2+n^2)R^{-2}$.
553:
554: \subsection{Gauge and Higgs Particles at the Zeroth KK Level}
555: In the gauge basis, we have the zero-mode gauge bosons:
556: $B^{\smbox{(00)}}_{\tbox{(B-L)}\mu},W^{\pm,3\smbox{(00)}}_{L,\mu}$, and
557: $W^{3\smbox{(00)}}_{R,\mu}$. After symmetry-breaking, we will
558: have the usual SM gauge bosons: one exactly massless gauge boson, $A_{\mu}^{\smbox{(00)}}$, one
559: pair of massive, charged vector boson $W_{L,\mu}^{\pm,\smbox{(00)}}$, and
560: one massive neutral guage boson $Z_{\mu}^{\smbox{(00)}}$.
561: In addition, we will have another neutral gauge boson
562: $Z_{\mu}^{\prime\smbox{(00)}}$, as well as mixing between $Z_{\mu}^{\smbox{(00)}}$
563: and $Z_{\mu}^{\prime\smbox{(00)}}$.
564:
565: In this subsection we calculate the zeroth-mode gauge boson masses and mixings from Higgs
566: mechanism (and drop the $(00)$ superscript throughout this
567: subsection). The relevant terms are
568: \begin{align}
569: \mathcal{L}_h=\mbox{Tr}[(D_{\mu}\phi)^{\dag}D_{\mu}\phi]+
570: (D^{\mu}\chi_{\tbox{R}})^{\ast}D_{\mu}\chi_{\tbox{R}}
571: +(D^{\mu}\chi_L)^{\ast}D_{\mu}\chi_L
572: \end{align}
573: where
574: \begin{align}
575: D_{\mu}\phi&=\partial_{\mu}\phi-i\gL
576: (\vect{\tau}\cdot\vect{W_L}_{\mu})\phi+i
577: \gR\phi(\vect{\tau}\cdot\vect{W_{\tbox{R}}}_{\mu}), \nonumber\\
578: \phi&=\begin{pmatrix}\phi_u^0 & \phi_d^+ \\ \phi_u^- &
579: \phi_d^0\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
580: D_{\mu}\chi_L&=\left(\partial_{\mu}-i\gL
581: (\vect{\tau}\cdot\vect{W_L,}_{\mu}) +i(\frac{1}{2})\gBL
582: B_{\tbox{(B-L)},\mu}\right)
583: \begin{pmatrix}\chi_L^0 \\ \chi_L^-\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
584: D_{\mu}\chi_{\tbox{R}}&=\left(\partial_{\mu}-i\gR
585: (\vect{\tau}\cdot\vect{W_{\tbox{R}},}_{\mu}) +i(\frac{1}{2})\gBL
586: B_{\tbox{(B-L)},\mu}\right)
587: \begin{pmatrix}\chi_{\tbox{R}}^0 \\ \chi_{\tbox{R}}^-\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
588: \vect{\tau}\cdot\vect{W_{\mu}}&=\frac{1}{2}
589: \begin{pmatrix}W^3_{\mu} & \sqrt{2}W_{\mu}^+ \\ \sqrt{2}W_{\mu}^- &
590: -W^3_{\mu}\end{pmatrix}.
591: \end{align}
592: With vev of the fields $\langle\phi_u^0\rangle=v_w$ and
593: $\langle\chi_{\tbox{R}}^0\rangle=v_{\tbox{R}}$, we obtain the following mass terms for
594: the gauge bosons:
595: \begin{align}
596: \mathcal{L}&=\frac{1}{2}v^2_w(W^+_{L,\mu}W^-_{L,\mu})
597: +\frac{1}{2}(v^2_w+v^2_{\tbox{R}})(W^+_{R,\mu}W^-_{R,\mu})\nonumber\\
598: &+\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}W^3_{L,{\mu}} & W^3_{R,{\mu}} &
599: B_{\tbox{(B-L)}\mu}
600: \end{pmatrix}
601: \begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{2}\gL^2v_w^2 & -\frac{1}{2}\gL\gR v_w^2 & 0 \\
602: -\frac{1}{2}\gL\gR v_w^2 & \frac{1}{2}\gR^2(v_w^2+v_{\tbox{R}}^2) &
603: -\frac{1}{2}
604: (\gR\gBL)v_{\tbox{R}}^2\\
605: 0& -\frac{1}{2}(\gR\gBL)v_{\tbox{R}}^2& \frac{1}{2}\gBL^2 v_{\tbox{R}}^2\end{pmatrix}
606: \begin{pmatrix}W^{3,\mu}_{L} \\ W^{3,\mu}_{R} \\ B_{\tbox{(B-L)}}^{\mu} \end{pmatrix}.
607: \label{eq:HHWW}
608: \end{align}
609: %
610: %
611: %
612: The exact expressions of the mass eigenvalues and the compositions
613: of the eigenstates $(A_{\mu}, Z_{\mu},Z^{\prime}_{\mu})$ in terms of
614: $(B_{\tbox{(B-L)}\mu},W^3_{L,\mu},W^{3}_{R,\mu})$ are rather complicated,
615: and we make the approximation of $v_{\tbox{R}} \gg v_w$. In this
616: approximation, we find the relations,
617: \begin{align}
618: \begin{pmatrix} A_{\mu} \\ Z_{\mu} \\ Z^{\prime}_{\mu} \end{pmatrix}
619: = U^{\dag}_G \begin{pmatrix} W^0_{1,\mu} \\ W^0_{2,\mu} \\ B_{\mu}
620: \end{pmatrix},
621: \end{align}
622: where
623: \begin{align}
624: U^{\dag}_G=
625: \begin{pmatrix}
626: \sin\theta_w & \cos\theta_w & 0 \\
627: \cos\theta_w & - \sin\theta_w & 0 \\
628: 0 & 0 & 1
629: \end{pmatrix}
630: \begin{pmatrix}
631: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
632: 0 & \sin\theta_{\tbox{R}} & \cos\theta_{\tbox{R}} \\
633: 0 & \cos\theta_{\tbox{R}} & -\sin\theta_{\tbox{R}}
634: \end{pmatrix},
635: %\nonumber\\
636: %&=\begin{pmatrix}
637: %\frac{\gBL\ \gR}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
638: %\frac{\gBL\ \gL}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
639: %\frac{\gL\ \gR}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} \\
640: %\frac{\gL (\gR^2+\gBL^2)}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
641: %-\frac{\gR\gBL^2}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
642: %-\frac{\gR^2\gBL}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}}\\
643: %0 &
644: %-\frac{\gR}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}} &
645: %\frac{\gBL}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}
646: %\end{pmatrix}.
647: \end{align}
648: and
649: \begin{align}
650: \tan\theta_{\tbox{R}}\equiv\frac{\gBL}{\gR}, \quad
651: \gY^2\equiv\frac{\gBL^2\gR^2}{\gBL^2+\gR^2}, \quad\mbox{and} \quad
652: \tan\theta_w\equiv \frac{\gY}{\gL}.
653: \end{align}
654: It is easy to understand $U_G$ intuitively. In the limit $v_w\ll
655: v_{\tbox{R}}$, the symmetry-breaking occurs in two stages, corresponding to
656: the two matrices in $U_G$. First, we have $SU(2)_L\times
657: SU(2)_{\tbox{R}}\times U(1)_{\tbox{B-L}}\rightarrow SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$, where a
658: linear combination of $B_{\tbox{(B-L)},\mu}$ and $W^3_{R,\mu}$ acquire a
659: mass to become $Z_{\mu}^{\prime}$, while the orthogonal
660: combination, $B_{Y,\mu}$, remains massless and serves as the gauge
661: boson of the residual group $U(1)_Y$. Then we have the standard
662: electroweak breaking of $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\rightarrow
663: U(1)_{\smbox{em}}$, giving us massive $Z_{\mu}$ and the massless
664: photon $A_{\mu}$.
665: %One can verify that $U_G$ is indeed a unitary matrix.
666: Using $U_G$, we can simplify the mass matrix enormously
667: \begin{align}
668: U^{\dag}_G \mathcal{M}^2 U_G &=
669: %\begin{pmatrix}
670: %0 & 0 & 0 \\
671: %0 & \left( \gL^2+\gY^2\right)\frac{v^2_w}{2} &
672: %-\gR^2\sqrt{\frac{\gL^2+\gY^2}{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}\frac{v^2_w}{2}\\
673: %0 & -\gR^2\sqrt{\frac{\gL^2+\gY^2}{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}\frac{v^2_w}{2}&
674: %(\gBL^2+\gR^2)\frac{v^2_{\tbox{R}}}{2}+\frac{\gR^4}{(\gBL^2+\gR^2)}\frac{v_w^2}{2}
675: %\end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
677: %&=
678: \begin{pmatrix}
679: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
680: 0 & M_Z^2 &
681: -\frac{\gR^2}{\sqrt{(\gL^2+\gY^2)(\gR^2+\gBL^2)}} M_Z^2 \\
682: 0 & -\frac{\gR^2}{\sqrt{(\gL^2+\gY^2)(\gR^2+\gBL^2)}} M_Z^2 &
683: M_{Z^{\prime}}^2
684: \end{pmatrix},
685: \label{eq:gaugematrix}
686: \end{align}
687: where we have defined the mass eigenvalues
688: (up to $\mathcal{O}(v_w/v_{\tbox{R}})^2$)
689: \begin{align}
690: M_Z^2&=\left( \gL^2+\gY^2\right)\frac{v^2_w}{2}\nonumber\\
691: M_{Z^{\prime}}^2&=(\gBL^2+\gR^2)\frac{v^2_{\tbox{R}}}{2}+
692: \frac{\gR^4}{(\gBL^2+\gR^2)}\frac{v_w^2}{2}. \label{eq:gaugeeigen}
693: \end{align}
694: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
695: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
696: Here we see that we have explicitly decoupled $A_{\mu}$, and it
697: remains massless exactly. Although we have defined $M_Z$ to be same
698: as the tree-level mass of $Z$-boson of the Standard Model, here
699: $Z_{\mu}$ is strictly speaking not an eigenstate because of the
700: $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing. Such mixing would be important, as we will see,
701: for the calculation of relic density and the direct detection rates of
702: the dark matter of the model. However, in the limit $v^2_{\tbox{R}}\gg v^2_w$ that we will be working
703: with, we can treat the defined masses and states in Eq.~\ref{eq:gaugeeigen} as
704: eigenvalues and eigenstates,
705: and treat the mixing terms perturbatively in powers of $(v_w^2/v_{\tbox{R}}^2)$.
706:
707: %In summary, we have the decomposition
708: %\begin{align}
709: %\begin{pmatrix} W^0_{1,\mu} \\ W^0_{2,\mu} \\ B_{\mu} \end{pmatrix}
710: %=\begin{pmatrix}
711: %\frac{\gBL\ \gR}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
712: %\frac{\gL (\gR^2+\gBL^2)}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
713: %0 \\
714: %\frac{\gBL\ \gL}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}}&
715: %-\frac{\gR\gBL^2}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
716: %-\frac{\gR}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}} \\
717: %\frac{\gL\ \gR}{\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}} &
718: %-\frac{\gR^2\gBL}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}\sqrt{\gL^2\gR^2+\gBL^2(\gL^2+\gR^2)}}&
719: %\frac{\gBL}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}
720: %\end{pmatrix}
721: %\begin{pmatrix} A_{\mu} \\ Z_{\mu} \\ Z^{\prime}_{\mu} \end{pmatrix}
722: %\end{align}
723:
724: The only zero-mode Higgs bosons in the model are
725: $\phi_u^{0\smbox{(00)}}, \phi_u^{-\smbox{(00)}},$ and
726: $\chi_{\tbox{R}}^{0,\smbox{(00)}}$. Four of the six degrees of freedoms are
727: eaten and the remaining physical Higgs particles are the real parts
728: of $\phi_u^{0\smbox{(00)}}$ and $\chi_{\tbox{R}}^{0,\smbox{(00)}}$. The
729: masses are these particles are determined from the potential, and
730: are free parameters, whose values, however, do not affect the calculations
731: of the relic density and direct detection rates of the dark matter.
732:
733: \subsection{Gauge and Higgs Particles at the First KK Level}
734: We first consider the question of whether KK modes of Higgs bosons
735: acquire vevs. The zero modes Higgs bosons acquire vevs due to
736: negative mass-squared terms in the potential. The higher KK modes of
737: the Higgs bosons $\phi^{\smbox{(mn)}}$, however, have an additional
738: mass-squared contribution of the form $(m^2+n^2)R^{-2}$. Therefore,
739: if the negative mass-squared term in the potential
740: is smaller in magnitude than $R^{-2}$, then none of the higher Higgs KK
741: modes would acquire vevs. We will assume this is the case in our
742: calculations, and the only fields that acquire vevs are
743: $\phi_u^{0\smbox{(00)}}$ and $\chi_{\tbox{R}}^{0,\smbox{(00)}}$, the zero-modes of
744: neutral Higgs fields.
745:
746:
747: Here we will only consider the details of those gauge bosons in the
748: $(11)$ KK modes, and in this subsection it is understood that we
749: have the superscript $(11)$. That is, we do not consider the $(01)$
750: and $(10)$ modes of $W^{\pm}_{R,\mu,5,6}$.
751: For a compact notation that will be convenient later on, for the
752: scalar partners ($G_5$ and $G_6$) of a generic vector gauge boson
753: ($G_{\mu}$), we form the combinations
754: \begin{align}
755: G_{(\pm)}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(G_5\pm G_6).
756: \end{align}
757: In the absence of Higgs mechanism, $G_{(+)}$ will be eaten by
758: $G_{\mu}$ at the corresponding KK-level, while $G_{(-)}$ will be
759: left as a physical degree of freedom.
760: Qualitatively,
761: $W^{\pm}_{R,\mu}$ eats a linear combination of $W^{\pm}_{R,(+)}$,
762: $W^{\pm}_{R,(-)}$, and $\chi_{\tbox{R}}^-$ (all fields with the superscript
763: $(01)$ and $(10)$), while the two remaining orthogonal directions
764: are left as physical degrees of freedom.
765:
766: At the $(11)$-level, before symmetry breaking, we have the modes
767: \begin{align}
768: \mbox{Neutral Gauge Bosons:}&\quad W^{3}_{L,\mu},W^3_{R,\mu},B_{\mu}\nonumber\\
769: \mbox{Neutral Scalars:}&\quad W^3_{L,(+)}, W^3_{L,(-)},
770: W^3_{R,(+)},
771: W^3_{R,(-)},B_{(+)},B_{(-)},\phi_u^0,\chi_{\tbox{R}}^0\nonumber\\
772: \mbox{Charged Gauge Bosons:}&\quad W^{\pm}_{L\mu}\nonumber\\
773: \mbox{Charged Scalars:}&\quad
774: W^{\pm}_{L,(+)},W^{\pm}_{L,(-)},\phi_u^-.
775: \end{align}
776: Three (two) linear combinations of the neutral (charged) scalars
777: would be eaten, leaving seven (four) degrees of freedom (note that
778: the Higgs fields are complex). Since only the zero-mode Higgs
779: acquire vevs, the Higgs mechanism contribution to the mass matrix of
780: the neutral gauge bosons is same as that in Eq.~\ref{eq:HHWW}, and
781: we have an additional contribution of $2R^{-2}\mathbf{1}_{3\times
782: 3}$. We can diagonalize the (mass)$^2$ matrix up to
783: $\mathcal{O}(v_w^2/v_{\tbox{R}}^2)$ using the same unitary matrix $U_G$ and
784: obtain the eigenvalues to be those in Eq.~\ref{eq:gaugeeigen} with
785: the additional $2R^{-2}$.
786:
787: Of the neutral scalars, we have several sets of particles that do
788: not mix with members of other sets at tree level:
789: \begin{align}
790: \mbox{Set 1:}&\quad \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mbox{Re}[\phi_u^0],
791: \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mbox{Re}[\chi_{\tbox{R}}^0]\nonumber\\
792: \mbox{Set 2:}&\quad W^3_{L,(-)}, W^3_{R,(-)}, B_{(-)}\nonumber\\
793: \mbox{Set 3:}&\quad W^3_{L,(+)}, W^3_{R,(+)}, B_{(+)},
794: \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mbox{Im}[\phi_u^0],
795: \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mbox{Im}[\chi_{\tbox{R}}^0].
796: \end{align}
797: The squared-mass of particles in Set 1 are simply $2R^{-2}$ in
798: addition to the squared-masses of corresponding particles at
799: $(00)$-modes. The mass matrix of particles in Set 2 are exactly
800: that of the neutral gauge bosons, with a lightest mode of $A_{(-)}$
801: with mass $m_{A_{(-)}}=m_{A_{\mu}}=\sqrt{2}R^{-1}$. Three linear
802: combinations of particles in Set 3 are eaten, and the two remaining
803: particles have masses that will depend on the Higgs potential.
804: As is the case with the zeroth-modes, as long as these Higgs are heavier
805: than the lightest gauge bosons, the values of their masses will not affect
806: our results about the dark matter of the model.
807:
808:
809: \subsection{Spectrum of Matter Fields}
810: Because there is no yukawa coupling between the Higgs doublet
811: $\chi_{\tbox{R}}$ and matter, at tree level all
812: mass terms arise from the momentum in the extra dimensions and $v_w$.
813: The structure of the yukawa couplings, with the $Z_2\times
814: Z_2^{\prime}$ orbifolding ensures that the zero-mode matter fields
815: have the SM spectrum. As for the higher modes, the mass terms
816: arising from the extra dimension connect the left- and right-handed
817: components of a 6D chiral fermion $\Psi_{\pm}$, where $\pm$ denotes
818: 6D chirality. The mass terms arising from electroweak
819: symmetry-breaking, however, connects left- and right-handed
820: components of two different 6D chiral fields. Taking the electron as
821: an example, the mass matrix of the electron KK modes in the basis
822: $\{ e_{1L}\ e_{1R}\ e_{2L}\ e_{2R}\}$ (with $e_{1L}$ and $e_{2R}$
823: having zero modes) is
824: \begin{align}
825: \mathcal{M}_{e^{(1)}}&=
826: \begin{pmatrix}\overline{e}_{1L}&\overline{e}_{1R}&
827: \overline{e}_{2L}&\overline{e}_{2R} \end{pmatrix}
828: \begin{pmatrix}
829: 0 & R^{-1} & 0 & y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} \\
830: R^{-1} & 0 & y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} &0 \\
831: 0 & y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -R^{-1}\\
832: y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -R^{-1} & 0
833: \end{pmatrix}
834: \begin{pmatrix} e_{1L}\\ e_{1R}\\e_{2L}\\e_{2R} \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
835: &=\begin{pmatrix}\overline{e}_{1}&\overline{e}_{2} \end{pmatrix}
836: \begin{pmatrix} R^{-1} & y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} \\
837: y_e\tfrac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} & -R^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
838: \begin{pmatrix} e_{1}\\ e_{2}\end{pmatrix}.
839: \label{eq:mattermatrix}
840: \end{align}
841: Generalizing this, we see that the $(mn)$ modes have masses
842: \begin{align}
843: m_{f^{(mn)}}=\left(\frac{N^2}{R^2}\pm m^2_{f^{(00)}}\right)^{1/2},
844: \end{align}
845: where $N^2=m^2+n^2$ and $m^2_{f^{(00)}}=y_f^2\frac{v_w^2}{2}$ is the
846: zero-mode mass of the fermion.
847:
848: \subsubsection{Possible Dark Matter Candidates}
849: In order to see the dark matter candidates in our model, we look at the
850: spectrum of the KK modes (see Fig.~\ref{fig:level}). There are two classes of KK modes
851: of interest whose stability is guaranteed by KK parity: the ones with
852: $(-,-)$ and $(\pm, \mp)$ $Z_2\times Z^{\prime}_2$ quantum numbers. The former
853: have mass $\sqrt{2}R^{-1}$ and the latter $R^{-1}$. We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:level}
854: that the first class of particles are the first KK mode of the
855: hypercharge gauge boson $B_Y$ and the second are the right handed
856: neutrinos $\nu_{\tbox{2L, 2R}}$. The presence of the RH neutrino dark matter
857: makes the model predictive and testable as we will see quantitatively in
858: what follows. The basic idea is that $\nu_{\tbox{R}}$ annihilation proceeds
859: primarily via the exchange of the $Z^{\prime}$ boson. So as the $Z^{\prime}$ boson mass
860: gets larger, the annihilation rate goes down very fast (like
861: $M^{-4}_{Z^{\prime}}$) and the $\nu_{\tbox{2}}$'s overclose the Universe.
862: Also since there
863: are lower limits on the $Z^{\prime}$ mass from collider searches \cite{zprime},
864: the $\nu_{\tbox{2}}$'s contribute a minimum amount to the $\Omega_{\tbox{DM}}$.
865: This leads to a two-component picture of dark matter and also adds
866: to direct scattering cross section making the dark matter detectable.
867: Below we make these comments more quantitative and present our detailed
868: results.
869:
870:
871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
874: %
875: \section{Dark Matter Candidate I: $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$}
876: \label{sec:DM1}
877: \subsection{Annihilation Channels of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$}
878: %\subsubsection{Matter Fields}
879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
880: Since the yukawa couplings are small, except for the top-quark
881: coupling, we only consider annihilations through gauge-mediated
882: processes. For completeness, we first list the couplings between
883: matter fields and the neutral vector gauge bosons. For matter fields
884: charged under $SU(2)_1$, we have
885: \begin{align}
886: \mathcal{L}^{SU(2)_1}_{\overline{f}fB}&=
887: (\overline{q}\gamma^{\mu}P_Lq)\left[
888: \left(T^3_L+\frac{Y_{BL}}{2}\right)
889: \left(\frac{\gL\gR\gBL}{\gdenomA}\right)A_{\mu}
890: \right.\nonumber\\
891: &\quad\qquad\qquad
892: +\left(\frac{T^3_L\gL^2(\gR^2+\gBL^2)-
893: \tfrac{Y_{BL}}{2}\gR^2\gBL^2}{\gdenomA\gdenomB}\right)Z_{\mu}
894: \nonumber\\
895: &\left.\quad\quad\qquad
896: +\left(\frac{Y_{BL}}{2}\frac{\gBL^2}{\gdenomB}\right)Z^{\prime}_{\mu}\right].
897: \end{align}
898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
899: And for matter fields charged under $SU(2)_2$,
900: \begin{align}
901: \mathcal{L}^{SU(2)_2}_{\overline{f}fB}&=
902: (\overline{q}\gamma^{\mu}P_{\tbox{R}}q)\left[
903: \left(T^3_R+\frac{Y_{BL}}{2}\right)
904: \left(\frac{\gL\gR\gBL}{\gdenomA}\right)A_{\mu}
905: \right.\nonumber\\
906: &\quad\qquad\qquad +\left(-T^3_R-\frac{Y_{BL}}{2}\right)
907: \left(\frac{\gR^2\gBL^2}{\gdenomA\gdenomB}\right)Z_{\mu}
908: \nonumber\\
909: &\left.\quad\qquad\qquad
910: +\left(\frac{-T^3_R\gR^2+\tfrac{Y_{BL}}{2}\gBL^2}{\gdenomB}\right)
911: Z^{\prime}_{\mu}\right],
912: \end{align}
913: where $T^3_{\tbox{L}}=\pm\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $T^3_{\tbox{R}}=\pm\tfrac{1}{2}$
914: are the quantum number for the $SU(2)_1$ and $SU(2)_2$ groups respectively.
915: We choose this notation because $SU(2)_1$ is to be identified with $SU(2)_L$
916: of the Standard Model, even though there are right-handed particles
917: that are charged under the $SU(2)_1$ group.
918: Also, $Y_{\smbox{BL}}=+1/3$ for quarks and $Y_{\smbox{BL}}=-1$ for
919: leptons.
920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
922:
923: Using these formulas, the gauge interaction of the dark matter
924: candidates $\nu_{2L,2R}$ is given by the six-dimensional Lagrangian
925: \begin{align}
926: \mathcal{L}_{\nu}
927: %&=\frac{\gR}{2}(\overline{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\nu)W^{0}_{2,\mu}-\frac{\gBL}{2}(\overline{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\nu)B_{\mu}\nonumber\\
928: &=-\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\nu)
929: \frac{\gR^2+\gBL^2}{\sqrt{\gBL^2+\gR^2}}Z^{\prime}_{\mu}.
930: \end{align}
931: We first notice that $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ couple as a Lorentz vector. Second,
932: we see that $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ do not couple to $A_{\mu}$ nor $Z_{\mu}$
933: as expected because $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ are singlets under the SM gauge
934: group. There is a small coupling between $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ and $Z_{\mu}$
935: due to $Z^{\prime}_{\mu}-Z_{\mu}$ mixing. For the purpose of
936: evaluating annihilation cross sections, we can safely ignore this
937: mixing, as we will show. However, this mixing will be important when we consider the direct
938: detection of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$. In addition, we have the charged-current
939: interaction, similar to the SM case
940: \begin{align}
941: \mathcal{L}_{\smbox{CC}}=\frac{\gR}{\sqrt{2}}
942: \left(\overline{\nu}_2\gamma^{\mu}W_{2,\mu}^+P_{\tbox{R}}e_2+
943: \overline{e}_2\gamma^{\mu}W_{2,\mu}^-P_{\tbox{R}}\nu_2\right).
944: \end{align}
945: Even though $e_2$ is a Dirac spinor, its left-handed component has
946: $Z_2\times Z_2^{\prime}$ charge of $e_{2L}(--)$, and the
947: annihilation is kinematically forbidden.
948:
949: %
950: %\section{Yukawa Interactions of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$}
951: %The relevant terms in the Lagrangian are
952: %\begin{align}
953: %\mathcal{L}&=h_e\overline{\psi}_1\tilde{\phi}\psi_2+\smbox{h.c.}\nonumber\\
954: %&=h_e(\overline{\nu}_1\phi_d^{0\ast}\nu_2+\overline{e}_1\phi_u^{0\ast}e_2
955: %-\overline{e}_1\phi_d^-\nu_2-\overline{\nu}_1\phi_u^{+}e_2)+\smbox{h.c.}
956: %\end{align}
957: %So at tree level, there are naively two diagrams relevant for annihilations:
958: %\begin{align}
959: %\overline{\nu}_{2L,R}\nu_{2L,R}\rightarrow\overline{\nu}_{1L,R}\nu_{1L,R}\quad\smbox{and}\quad
960: %\overline{\nu}_{2L,R}\nu_{2L,R}\overline{e}_{1L,R}e_{1L,R}.
961: %\end{align}
962: %The first (second) process involves an
963: %exchange of $\phi_d^{0\ast}$($\phi_d^-$), and both are $t$-channel processes.
964: %For an extra check, we find that these couplings are still allowed even when
965: %we take $Z_2\times Z_2^{\prime}$ parity into account. We have the following assignments
966: %\begin{align}
967: %\psi_{1L}=\begin{pmatrix}\nu_{1L}(+,+)\\ e_{1L}(+,+)\end{pmatrix},&\quad
968: %\psi_{1R}=\begin{pmatrix}\nu_{1R}(-,-)\\ e_{1R}(-,-)\end{pmatrix},&\quad\nonumber\\
969: %\psi_{2L}=\begin{pmatrix}\nu_{2L}(-,+)\\ e_{2L}(-,-)\end{pmatrix},&\quad
970: %\psi_{2R}=\begin{pmatrix}\nu_{2R}(+,-)\\ e_{2R}(+,+)\end{pmatrix},&\quad
971: %\phi_{d}=\begin{pmatrix}\phi_d^+(+,-)\\ \phi_d^0(+,-)\end{pmatrix}.\quad
972: %\end{align}
973: %
974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
975: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
976:
977: \FIGURE{
978: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-s1.eps}\quad\quad
979: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-t.eps}
980: \caption{Diagrams of annihilation channels of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}^{\tbox{KK}}$
981: to SM fermion-antifermion pairs.}
982: \label{fig:nu-anni}
983: }
984: Although we have two independent Dirac fermions for dark matter,
985: $\nu_{2}^{(10)}$ and $\nu_{2}^{(01)}$, they couple the same way to
986: $Z^{\prime}_{\mu}$ and have the same annihilation channels. The
987: only difference is that, for charged current processes,
988: $\nu^{(01)}$ ($\nu^{(10)}$) couples to $W_{2,\mu}^{\pm,(01)}$
989: ($W_{2,\mu}^{\pm,(10))}$). The dominant contribution to the total
990: annihilation cross section of $\nu_{2L,R}$ is $s$-channel process
991: mediated by $Z^{\prime}_{\mu}$, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:nu-anni}.
992: %(and $Z_{\mu}$ through $Z^{\prime}_{\mu}-Z_{\mu}$ mixing).
993: The thermal-averaged cross
994: section for $\langle\sigma(\overline{\nu}_2\nu_2\rightarrow
995: \overline{f}f)v_{\smbox{rel}}\rangle$, where $f$ is any chiral SM fermion
996: except the right-handed electron $e_{\tbox{R}}$, is
997: \begin{align}
998: \sigma(\overline{\nu}_2\nu_2\rightarrow
999: \overline{f}f)v_{\smbox{rel}} =
1000: \frac{g^2_{(\overline{\nu}{\nu}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}
1001: g^2_{(\overline{f}{f}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}}{12\pi}
1002: \frac{s+2M_{\nu}^2}{(s-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})^2},
1003: \end{align}
1004: and with $s=4 M_{\nu}^2+M_{\nu}^2v^2_{\smbox{rel}}$, we expand in
1005: $v^2_{\smbox{rel}}$,
1006: \begin{align}
1007: \sigma(\overline{\nu}_2\nu_2\rightarrow
1008: \overline{f}f)v_{\smbox{rel}}
1009: =\frac{g^2_{(\overline{\nu}{\nu}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}
1010: g^2_{(\overline{f}{f}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}}{2\pi}
1011: \frac{M_{\nu}^2}{(4M_{\nu}^2-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})^2}
1012: \left[1+v_{\smbox{rel}}^2\left(\frac{1}{6}-\frac{2M_{\nu}^2}
1013: {4M_{\nu}^2-M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}\right)\right].
1014: \label{eq:S-general}
1015: \end{align}
1016:
1017: For the final state $\overline{e}_{\tbox{R}}{e}_{\tbox{R}}$, we have a $t$-channel process
1018: through charged-current in addition to the $s$-channel
1019: neutral-current process (see Fig. \ref{fig:nu-anni}). The cross-section therefore involves three
1020: pieces: two due to the $s$ and $t$ channels and another from the
1021: interference, denoted by $\sigma_{ss}$, $\sigma_{tt}$ and
1022: $\sigma_{st}$ respectively. Of these, $\sigma_{ss}$ has the same
1023: form as Eq.~\ref{eq:S-general}, and we have
1024: \begin{align}
1025: \sigma(\overline{\nu}_2\nu_2\rightarrow
1026: \overline{e}_{\tbox{R}}e_r)_{tt}v_{\smbox{rel}}
1027: =\frac{\gR^4}{32\pi}\frac{M^2}{(M^2+M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}})^2}
1028: \left[1+v_{\smbox{rel}}^2\left(
1029: \frac{3M^4+M^2M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}}+M^4_{W_{\tbox{R}}}}{3(M^2+M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}})^2}\right)\right],
1030: \nonumber\\
1031: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1032: \sigma_{st}v_{\smbox{rel}}
1033: =\frac{g_{(\overline{\nu}{\nu}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}g_{(\overline{e}_{\tbox{R}}{e}_{\tbox{R}}Z^{\prime}_{\mu})}\gR^2}
1034: {4\pi(4M^2-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})(M^2+M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}})}
1035: \left[M^2-v^2_{\smbox{rel}}
1036: \frac{M^2(40M^4+M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}}M^2_{Z^{\prime}}+8M^2M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}}-7M^2M^2_{Z^{\prime}})}
1037: {12(4M^2-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})(M^2+M^2_{W_{\tbox{R}}})} \right]
1038: \end{align}
1039:
1040: \FIGURE{
1041: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-s2.eps}\quad\quad
1042: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-s2a.eps}\\
1043: \vspace{0.1in}
1044: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-s2b.eps}\quad\quad
1045: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-nu-s2c.eps}\quad\quad
1046: \caption{Diagrams of annihilation channels of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}^{\tbox{KK}}$
1047: to SM particles through $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing.}
1048: \label{fig:nu-anni2}
1049: }
1050: %
1051: %
1052: Due to $Z-Z^{\prime}$, there can also be annihilation of KK neutrino
1053: into SM Higgs, charged bosons, as well as fermion-antifermion pairs.
1054: The diagrams for these processes are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:nu-anni2}.
1055: In the limit that $v_w\ll v_{\tbox{R}}$,
1056: we can work to the leading-order in the expansion of
1057: $\mathcal{O}(v^2_w/v^2_{\tbox{R}})$, where we can estimate these processes by treating
1058: the $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing as a
1059: mass-insertion.
1060: In terms of Feynman diagrams, these annihilation channels are $s$-channel processes,
1061: where a pair KK neutrino annihilates into a $Z^{\prime}$-boson, which propagates
1062: to the mixing vertex, converting $Z^{\prime}$ to $Z$, which then decays into
1063: $h^{\ast}h$ (both neutral and charged), massless $W^+W^-$ or $\overline{f}{f}$.
1064: Compared to the
1065: amplitude of annihilation of KK neutrino into SM fermions without $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing, the
1066: annihilation through mixing have effectively a replaced propagator
1067: \begin{align}
1068: \frac{1}{(s-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})}\rightarrow
1069: \frac{1}{(s-M^2_{Z^{\prime}})} \delta\!M^2 \frac{1}{(s-M_Z^2)}
1070: \end{align}
1071: where
1072: \begin{align}
1073: \delta\!M^2\equiv\frac{\gR^2}{\sqrt{(\gL^2+\gY^2)(\gR^2+\gBL^2)}}M_Z^2,
1074: \end{align}
1075: is the off-diagonal element in the $Z-Z^{\prime}$ (mass)$^2$ matrix.
1076: Since $s\sim 4M^2_{\nu}=4 R^{-2}$, the annihilation cross section
1077: into transverse gauge bosons and the Higgs bosons are suppressed by a factor of
1078: $M_Z^4/s^2\sim (100 GeV)^4/ 16(500 GeV)^4\sim 10^{-4}$, and
1079: can therefore be neglected. The same is true for the annihilation to fermion-antifermion
1080: pairs of the SM; we can ignore the effects of $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing in these channels.
1081: As for the longitudinal modes, the ratio of annihilation cross-sections
1082: of the longitudinal modes of the gauge bosons to the one single mode of SM fermion-antifermion pair is roughly
1083: \begin{align}
1084: \frac{\sigma(\nu^{\tbox{KK}}\nu^{\tbox{KK}}\rightarrow W^+W^-)}
1085: {\sigma(\nu^{\tbox{KK}}\nu^{\tbox{KK}}\rightarrow \overline{f}{f})}
1086: \sim \left(\frac{\delta M^2}{m_W^2}\right)^2.
1087: \end{align}
1088: This ratio is about $\tfrac{1}{2}$ for $\gR=0.7 \gL$. As there is only one annihilation mode into
1089: the longitudinal modes of the charged gauge bosons, whereas there are many annihilation channels
1090: to the SM fermion-antifermion pairs, the total annihilation cross section is dominated
1091: by the SM fermion-antifermion contributions.
1092:
1093: \subsection{Co-annihilation Contributions to the Relic Density of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$}
1094: In the MUED model, the KK mode of the left-handed electron, $e_{\smbox{L}}^{\tbox{KK}}$, is expected to be nearly
1095: degenerate with the KK mode of the left-handed neutrino. The self- and co-annihilation contribution
1096: of $e_{\smbox{L}}^{\tbox{KK}}$ has been studied in the literature \cite{tait} \cite{kong}, where it is shown
1097: that including such effects do not significantly alter the qualitative results, and that
1098: $\nu_{\smbox{L}}^{\tbox{KK}}$ with a slightly different mass can still account for the observed relic density.
1099: (However, $\nu_{\smbox{L}}^{\tbox{KK}}$ is ruled out by the direct detection experiments. This
1100: will be discussed in detail in Section \ref{sec:DirectD}.)
1101:
1102: For our current model, the story is different. As can be seen in Eq.~\ref{eq:leptons},
1103: $e_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$,
1104: the partners
1105: of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ under $SU(2)_2$, carry different quantum numbers under
1106: the $Z_2\times Z_2^{\prime}$ orbifold, and thus do not have $(10)$ nor $(01)$ modes.
1107: There are states that are nearly degenerate with $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$, such as
1108: the $e^{\prime}$ states. However, these states interact with $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ only
1109: through Yukawa interactions, which can be ignored. Therefore, we expect effects of self- and
1110: co-annihilation with $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ nearby states to be even smaller than
1111: the MUED case, and ignore all such effects in our analysis.
1112:
1113: \subsection{Important Differences in Comparison to Standard Analysis}
1114: We note here that our our analysis
1115: of the annihilation channels for $\nu^{\tbox{KK}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$
1116: differ from those of \cite{tait} and
1117: \cite{feng} for $\nu^{\tbox{KK}}_{\smbox{L}}$ in
1118: two important ways.
1119: First, in their analysis, the $s$-channel process is mediated by
1120: $Z$-boson of the SM, whose mass can be ignored, whereas we have
1121: $s$-channel processes mediated by $Z^{\prime}$, whose mass is
1122: significantly larger than the mass of our dark matter candidate in
1123: the region of interest. Second, to a good approximation we can
1124: discard $t$,$u$-channel processes mediated by charged gauge bosons
1125: $W_2^{\pm}$, because $m^2_{W_2^{\pm}}$ has contributions both from
1126: $R^{-1}$ and $v_{\tbox{R}}$. To see this, let us make the approximation
1127: $m^2_{W^{\pm}}=m^2_{Z^{\prime}}+R^{-2}$, then we compare the cross
1128: section involving the product of a $t$ or $u$ diagram with a
1129: $s$-channel diagram $\sigma_{st}$ with that coming from the square
1130: of an $s$-channel diagram $\sigma_{ss}$,
1131: \begin{align}
1132: \frac{\sigma_{ss}}{\sigma_{st}}\approx
1133: \frac{m^2_{\nu}+m^2_{W^{\pm}}}{4 m^2_{\nu}-m^2_{Z^{\prime}}}
1134: =\frac{{2 (R^{-1})^2+m^2_{Z^{\prime}}}}{4
1135: (R^{-1})^2-m^2_{Z^{\prime}}}.
1136: \end{align}
1137: Then $\sigma_{ss}\gg\sigma_{st}$ would require that
1138: \begin{align}
1139: \frac{{2 (R^{-1})^2+m^2_{Z^{\prime}}}}{4
1140: (R^{-1})^2-m^2_{Z^{\prime}}}\gg 1 \quad\rightarrow\quad
1141: m^2_{Z^{\prime}}\gg 2(R^{-1})^2,
1142: \end{align}
1143: which is satisfied in the region of interest in the parameter space.
1144: Similarly, the cross section involving two $t-$ or $u$-channel
1145: diagrams, $\sigma_{tt},\sigma_{uu}$ or $\sigma_{tu}$ is small
1146: compared to $\sigma_{ss}$.
1147:
1148:
1149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1151: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1152: \section{Dark Matter Candidate II: $\Bsca$ or $\Bvec$}
1153: \label{sec:DM2}
1154: The lightest (11) mode is either $\Bsca$ or $\Bvec$, depending on
1155: radiative corrections. Although in Reference \cite{ponton} found
1156: that $\Bvec$ is heavier than $\Bsca$, this result is specific the
1157: choice of orbifold in that particular case, and may not apply to
1158: $Z_2\times Z_{2}^{\prime}$ orbifold that we have here. Instead of
1159: performing the radiative corrections to determine which of the two
1160: particles is lighter, we will do a phenomenological study exploring
1161: both of these cases. To simplify the notation, we will often discard
1162: the $(11)$ superscript in the fields.
1163:
1164: \subsection{(Co)-Annihilation Channels of $\Bvec$}
1165: When $v_w\ll R^{-1}$, $\Bvec$ is same as $A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{Y,\mu}$,
1166: the KK mode of the photon up to small mixing effects. The
1167: annihilation channels and cross sections of $\Bvec$ have been
1168: studied in detail in \cite{tait} and \cite{kong}, and in this
1169: subsection we summarize their results.
1170:
1171: \FIGURE{
1172: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-bvec-u.eps}
1173: \includegraphics[width=2in]{HMN-bvec-t.eps}
1174: \caption{Annihilation channels of a pair of $\Bvec$ into SM fermion-antifermion
1175: pair.}
1176: \label{fig:bvec-anni}
1177: }
1178:
1179: $\Bvec$ can annihilate itself into a fermion-antifermion pair
1180: through $t$- and $u$-channel processes mediated by the (11) mode of
1181: the fermion (Fig.\ \ref{fig:bvec-anni}). It is important to note that the left- and
1182: right-handed fermions of SM have separate massive KK modes with
1183: vector-like couplings to the zero-mode fermion and $\Bvec$. The
1184: annihilation cross section can be written as
1185: \begin{align}
1186: \sigma(\Bvec\Bvec\rightarrow\overline{f}f)
1187: =g_1^4(Y_L^2+Y_{\tbox{R}}^4)N_c\frac{10(2
1188: M_f^2+s)\mbox{ArcTanh}(\beta)-7s\beta}{72\pi s^2\beta^2},
1189: \end{align}
1190: where $M_f=\sqrt{2}R^{-1}$ is the mass of the KK-fermion exchanged,
1191: $N_c$ is the color factor in the final state (3 for quarks and 1 for
1192: leptons), and $Y_{L,R}$ is the hypercharge of the left- and
1193: right-handed fermion. Summing over all SM fermions gives
1194: \begin{align}
1195: \sum_{f\in
1196: \tbox{SM}}N_c(Y_L^4+Y_{\tbox{R}}^4)=3(Y^4_{e_L}+Y^4_{e_{\tbox{R}}}+Y^4_{\nu_L}
1197: +3(Y^4_{u_L}+Y^4_{u_{\tbox{R}}}+Y^4_{d_L}+Y^4_{d_{\tbox{R}}}))=\frac{95}{18}.
1198: \end{align}
1199:
1200: There are also annihilation channels to Higgs through $t$- and
1201: $u$-channel processes mediated by a (11) mode of the Higgs boson as
1202: well as a quartic interaction. The annihilation cross section is
1203: given by
1204: \begin{align}
1205: \sigma(\Bvec\Bvec\rightarrow
1206: h^{\ast}h)=\frac{g_1^4Y^4_{\phi}}{6\pi\beta s},
1207: \end{align}
1208: where $Y_{\phi}=1/2$ is the hypercharge of the Higgs doublet. By
1209: summing over two complex Higgs doublets, we have taken into account
1210: the annihilation into the longitudinal zero modes of the $W$ and $Z$
1211: gauge bosons.
1212:
1213: %\subsection{Co-annihilation Channels of $\Bvec$}
1214: In the MUED, the KK mode with mass closest to
1215: $B^{\tbox{(1)}}_{\mu}$ is the KK mode of the right-handed
1216: electron $e^{(1)}_{\tbox{R}}$ when radiative corrections are included
1217: \cite{cheng1}. However, compared to the case without
1218: co-annihilation, the qualitative results of the relic density due to
1219: $B^{\tbox{(1)}}_{\mu}$ remains the same when one includes the
1220: co-annihilation $e^{(1)}_{\tbox{R}} B^{\tbox{(1)}}_{\mu}\rightarrow
1221: e_{R}A_{\mu}$ \cite{tait}. As pointed out by \cite{tait}, this is
1222: because there are only two channel of such co-annihilation, leading
1223: to a small co-annihilation cross section, and thus small change in
1224: the relic density for a fixed $R^{-1}$.
1225:
1226: In our case, we expect $\Bsca$ (which has no MUED analog) to be
1227: close in mass to $\Bvec$ in addition to $e^{(11)}_{1R}$ (the analog
1228: of $e^{(1)}_{\tbox{R}}$ in MUED). Furthermore, the co-annihilation
1229: $\Bvec\Bsca\rightarrow XX$ is significant as $\Bvec\Bsca$ can
1230: annihilate to all SM fermions through $t$- and $u$-channel processes
1231: mediated by a KK fermion. The co-annihilation cross section to
1232: fermion-antifermion pair is
1233: \begin{align}
1234: \sum_{f\in \tbox{SM}}\sigma(\Bvec\Bsca\rightarrow\overline{f}f)=
1235: g_1^4\frac{95}{18}\frac{\mbox{ArcTan}(\beta)}{12\pi s \beta^2}.
1236: \end{align}
1237:
1238: Although the co-annihilation effect was overlooked in \cite{hsieh},
1239: the most important conclusions of our previous work remain the same,
1240: as we will show later.
1241:
1242: \subsection{(Co)-Annihilation Channels of $\Bsca$}
1243: The coupling of $\Bsca$ to matter fields in the full 6D-Lagrangian
1244: is given by (in four-component notation)
1245: \begin{align}
1246: \mathcal{L}^{\tbox{6D}} &=\frac{g_1
1247: Y}{\sqrt{2}}B_{\tbox{Y,-}}\left[\Psibar_{-}(i\gamma_5-\mathbf{1})\Psi_{-}
1248: +\Psibar_{+}(i\gamma_5+\mathbf{1})\Psi_{+}\right]\nonumber\\
1249: &=\frac{g_1
1250: Y}{\sqrt{2}}B_{Y,-}\left[(-i-1)\Psibar_{\tbox{-L}}\Psi_{\tbox{-R}}
1251: +(i-1)\Psibar_{\tbox{-R}}\Psi_{\tbox{-L}}
1252: +(-i+1)\Psibar_{\tbox{+L}}\Psi_{\tbox{+R}}
1253: +(i+1)\Psibar_{\tbox{+R}}\Psi_{\tbox{+L}}\right].
1254: \end{align}
1255: In terms of KK-modes, $\Bsca$ will couple to fermion fields in
1256: (00-fermion)(11-fermion) pairs, and its annihilation channels to
1257: fermions will proceed through $t-$ and $u-$processes mediated by a
1258: KK-fermion. The annihilation cross section is
1259: \begin{align}
1260: \sum_{f\in \smbox{SM}}\sigma(\Bsca\Bsca\rightarrow \overline{f}f)=
1261: g_1^4\frac{95}{18}\frac{2(2M_f^2+s)\mbox{ArcTan}(\beta)-3s\beta}{2\pi
1262: s\beta^2}.
1263: \end{align}
1264: In the non-relativistic limit, this cross-section is $p$-wave suppressed.
1265: %
1266: There is also annihilation to a pair of Higgs bosons through
1267: the quartic coupling
1268: \begin{align}
1269: \mathcal{L}^{\tbox{4D}}&=g_1^2 Y_H^2\Bsca\Bsca H^{\dag\tbox{(00)}}H^{\tbox{(00)}},
1270: \end{align}
1271: and this gives a cross section of
1272: \begin{align}
1273: \langle\sigma v_{\tbox{rel}}\rangle=\frac{g_1^4 Y_H^4}{2\pi s}.
1274: \end{align}
1275:
1276: Because the annihilation of $\Bsca$ to fermion modes is $p$-wave suppressed,
1277: the relic density resulting $\Bsca$ self-annihilation channels would in general
1278: be too high. Therefore, we must rely on co-annihilation channels such as $\Bvec\Bsca\rightarrow XX$
1279: to obtain observed relic density, as we will see in the next section.
1280:
1281: \section{Numerical Results of Relic Density}
1282: \label{sec:RelicResult}
1283: %\subsection{Relic Density of Two-Component Dark Matter}
1284: The main free parameters of our theory are $R^{-1}$ and
1285: $M_{Z^{\prime}}$, and the mass-splitting
1286: $\Delta\equiv(M_{\Bvec}-M_{\Bsca})/M_{\Bsca}$. In addition, we have
1287: $\gR$ or $\gBL$ as a free parameter as long as we can satisfy the
1288: constraint
1289: \begin{align*}
1290: g_1^2=\frac{\gBL^2\gR^2}{\gBL^2+\gR^2}.
1291: \end{align*}
1292:
1293: \subsection{$\Bvec$-$\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ Dark Matter}
1294: \FIGURE{
1295: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{HMN01.eps}
1296: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{HMN05.eps}
1297: \caption{The plot on the left shows the contour in the $R^{-1}-M_{Z'}$ plane that corresponds to
1298: $\Omega_{\nu_{L,R}}h^2 + \Omega_{B_Y}h^2$ being the observed dark
1299: matter. The intersection of the red lines with the contour indicate
1300: the the fraction of KK neutrinos in the dark matter.
1301: The plot on the right shows $\Omega_{B_Y}h^2$ as a function of $\Delta$ for
1302: various values of $R^{-1}$.}
1303: \label{fig:MainPlotVector}
1304: }
1305:
1306: For $\Delta=0.05$, we present the allowed region in
1307: $R^{-1}-M_{Z^{\prime}}$ space that gives the observed dark
1308: matter relic density in the first plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:MainPlotVector}.
1309: Since both
1310: $\Bvec$ and $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ can independently give the
1311: correct relic density without co-annihilation from other modes with
1312: almost degenerate mass, varying $\Delta$ does not affect the
1313: qualitative results of what we present below.
1314: The independence of $\Omega_{\Bvec}h^2$ on $\Delta$ as can
1315: be seen in the second plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:MainPlotVector}.
1316: For small values of
1317: $M_{Z^{\prime}}$, the annihilation of $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$
1318: is efficient and most of the dark matter is $\Bvec$ having a mass of
1319: roughly $\sqrt{2}R^{-1}\sim 700$ GeV. In fact, along the line
1320: $2M_{\nu^{(01)}}=2R^{-1}=M_{Z^{\prime}}$, the annihilation of
1321: $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ has an $s$-channel resonance, and its
1322: contribution to dark matter relic density is minimal. Away from the
1323: line of $s$-channel resonance, the contribution of
1324: $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ to the relic density increases, and
1325: $R^{-1}$ decreases so as to decrease the relic density due to
1326: $\Bvec$, keeping the total relic density within the allowed range.
1327:
1328: The current experimental bound on the massive, neutral, vector boson
1329: is $M_{Z^{\prime}}>800$ GeV. If we further impose the bound that
1330: $R^{-1}>400$ GeV, the allowed region in the parameter space is very
1331: limited.
1332:
1333: \subsection{$\Bsca$-$\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ Dark Matter}
1334: \FIGURE{
1335: \includegraphics[width=3in]{HMN02.eps}
1336: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{HMN06.eps}
1337: \caption{The plot on the left shows the allowed region in the
1338: parameter space that gives rise to the observed dark matter relic
1339: density for $\gR=0.7\gL$ and different values of $\Delta$. On the
1340: right, we plot the relic density due to $\Bsca$ as a function of the
1341: mass-splitting $\Delta$ for various values of $R^{-1}$.}
1342: \label{fig:MainPlotBM}
1343: }
1344:
1345: As stated earlier, $\Bsca$ by itself can not annihilate efficiently
1346: enough to account for the observed relic abundance. However, there
1347: is significant co-annihilation process $\Bsca\Bvec\rightarrow
1348: \overline{f}f$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:MainPlotBM}, we show contours that
1349: give the observed relic density for various values of $\Delta$. We
1350: see that when $\Bsca$ and $\Bvec$ are nearly degenerate to less than
1351: 5\%, then the distribution of dark matter among
1352: $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ and $\Bsca$ is similar to the previous
1353: case. When the mass splitting between $\Bsca$ and $\Bvec$ is
1354: larger than 5\%, however, the model is ruled out as we can not
1355: obtain the observed relic density without violating $R>400$ GeV
1356: bound. When $\Bsca$ and $\Bvec$ are nearly degenerate,
1357: $\nu^{\tbox{(KK)}}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ can still contribute significantly to
1358: the observed relic density when $M_{Z^{\prime}}$ is about $1.2$ TeV
1359: and $R^{-1}\sim 400$ GeV.
1360:
1361: \section{Direct Detection of Two-Component Dark Matter}
1362: \label{sec:DirectD}
1363: As we have a two-component dark matter, the total dark
1364: matter-nucleon cross section is given by
1365: \begin{align}
1366: \sigma_n=\kappa_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}\sigma_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}+\kappa_B \sigma_B,
1367: \end{align}
1368: where $\sigma_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}(B)}$ is the spin-independent KK neutrino
1369: (hypercharge vector or pseudoscalar)- nucleon scattering cross section, and
1370: \begin{align}
1371: \kappa_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}\equiv \frac{\Omega_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}} h^2 }{\Omega_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}} h^2
1372: +\Omega_{B} h^2 },
1373: \end{align}
1374: is the fractional contribution of the KK neutrino relic density
1375: to the total relic density of the dark matter. $\kappa_B$ is
1376: similarly defined. As pointed out in Ref. \cite{tait},
1377: $\sigma_B$ is of the order $\sigma_B\sim10^{-10}$ pb, and we will find that
1378: $\sigma_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}\gg\sigma_B$. Therefore, it is a good approximation to
1379: take $\sigma_n$ as
1380: \begin{align}
1381: \sigma_n\approx\kappa_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}\sigma_{\nu_{\tbox{R}}}.
1382: \end{align}
1383:
1384: The elastic cross section between $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ and a
1385: nucleon inside a nucleus $N(A,Z)$ is given by
1386: \begin{align}
1387: \sigma_0&=\frac{b_N^2 m^2_n}{\pi A^2},
1388: \end{align}
1389: where $b_N=Z b_p+(A-Z)b_n$ and $b_{p,n}$ is the effective four-fermion
1390: coupling between $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ and nucleon. They are given by
1391: $b_p=2b_u+b_d$ and $b_n=b_u+2b_d$. In our case, although
1392: $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ only couples to $Z^{\prime}_{\mu}$ at leading order,
1393: we have to taken into account the $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing. We can
1394: including the effects of mixing up to order of
1395: $\mathcal{O}(M^2_Z/M^2_{Z^{\prime}})$ by treating the mixing as
1396: perturbations and include one vertex mixing. In this case, we have
1397: \begin{align}
1398: b_q&=\frac{1}{2M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}
1399: g_{(\overline{\nu_2}{\nu_2}Z^{\prime})}
1400: \left[(g_{(\overline{q}_L{q}_LZ^{\prime})}
1401: +g_{(\overline{q}_{\tbox{R}}{q}_{\tbox{R}}Z^{\prime})}) -(g_{(\overline{q}_L{q}_LZ)}
1402: +g_{(\overline{q}_{\tbox{R}}{q}_{\tbox{R}}Z)})\frac{\delta\!M^2}{M^2_Z}
1403: +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{M^2_Z}{M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}\right) \right],
1404: %\nonumber\\
1405: %&=-\frac{1}{4M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}
1406: %\left[(g_{(\overline{q}_L{q}_LZ^{\prime})}
1407: %+g_{(\overline{q}_{\tbox{R}}{q}_{\tbox{R}}Z^{\prime})})
1408: %-\kappa(g_{(\overline{q}_L{q}_LZ)}
1409: %+g_{(\overline{q}_{\tbox{R}}{q}_{\tbox{R}}Z)})
1410: %\right]
1411: \end{align}
1412: where
1413: \begin{align}
1414: \delta\!M^2\equiv\frac{\gR^2}{\sqrt{(\gL^2+\gY^2)(\gR^2+\gBL^2)}}M_Z^2
1415: \end{align}
1416: is the mixing between $Z$ and $Z^{\prime}$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:gaugematrix}).
1417: %
1418: %We then obtain
1419: %\begin{eqnarray}
1420: %b_p&=-\frac{1}{4M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}\left(\gBL^2-\frac{1}{2}\gR^2\right),\nonumber\\
1421: %b_n&=-\frac{1}{4M^2_{Z^{\prime}}}\left(\gBL^2+\frac{1}{2}\gR^2\right),
1422: %\end{eqnarray}
1423: %in the limit that there is no $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing.
1424: %For $M_{Z^{\prime}}=1.2$ TeV and $\gR=\gL=g_2=0.64$, we obtain $\sigma_0=1.43\times 10^{-43}\mbox{cm}^2$.
1425:
1426:
1427: The prospects of direct detection of $\Bvec$ has been studied
1428: extensively, and the calculated detection rates are beyond the reach
1429: of current experiments. As for $\Bsca$, because there is no
1430: $s$-wave for elastic scattering $\Bsca N \rightarrow\Bsca N$, the
1431: cross-section is suppressed by a factor of $v_{\tbox{rel}}^2\sim 10^{-5}$.
1432: Therefore, we expect that the direct detection rates of
1433: $\nu^{(10)}_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ will dominate that of both $\Bvec$ and $\Bsca$.
1434: This is one of the main points of our work: the lightest KK-mode of
1435: sterile neutrino as dark matter candidate could be detected directly
1436: in the current and the next rounds of direct-detection experiments if its
1437: relic density is significant compared to the observed total relic density,
1438: in contrast to
1439: other dark matter candidates in the literature, such as the
1440: neutralino of MSSM or the lightest KK-mode of the photon.
1441:
1442: \FIGURE{
1443: \includegraphics[width=3in]{HMN03.eps}
1444: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{HMN04.eps}
1445: \caption{The plot
1446: on the left (right) shows the dark matter-nucleon cross-section as a
1447: function of $M_{Z^{\prime}}$ for the case
1448: where $\Bvec$ ($\Bsca$) is lightest (11) mode. The plots
1449: scan over different values of $R^{-1}$ and
1450: $-0.05< \Delta <0$ that gives the observed relic density.
1451: The horizontal lines correspond to the upper bounds on
1452: $\sigma_n$ from CDMS II
1453: for dark matter candidates with masses 300
1454: and 500 GeV}
1455: \label{fig:dd}
1456: }
1457:
1458: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dd}, we show the direct detection cross section as a function
1459: of $M_{Z^{\prime}}$ for both cases where $\Bvec$ and $\Bsca$ is the lighter of the two.
1460: The horizontal lines correspond to the upper bounds on
1461: $\sigma_n$ from CDMS II
1462: for dark matter candidates with masses 300
1463: and 500 GeV, which are about 4$\times
1464: 10^{-43} \mbox{cm}^2$ and 7$\times
1465: 10^{-43} \mbox{cm}^2$, respectively.
1466:
1467: A particularly interesting region in the parameter space
1468: is $R\sim 400$ GeV and $M_{Z^{\prime}}\sim 1200$ GeV. Here, the
1469: KK-sterile neutrino contributes to roughly half of the relic
1470: density. This admixture of dark matter is just below the current
1471: experimental bound from direct detection, as shown in Fig.
1472: \ref{fig:MainPlotVector}, when we use the CDMS II bound that dark
1473: matter-nucleon spin-independent cross-section must not exceed
1474: $4\times 10^{-43} \mbox{cm}^2$ for a 400 GeV dark matter.
1475:
1476: \section{Some Phenomenological Implications}
1477: \label{sec:WZPheno}
1478:
1479: In this section, we give a qualitative comparision of the phenomenological
1480: implications of this model with
1481: those of the conventional left-right symmetric models \cite{lr}. It has
1482: long been recognized that two important characteristic predictions of the
1483: left-right models are the presence of TeV scale $W_R$ and $Z'$ gauge
1484: bosons which can be detectable in high energy colliders \cite{kayser}.
1485: In addition to the collider signatures of generic UED models \cite{macesanu},
1486: two predictions characteristic of the model discussed here which differ
1487: from those of the earlier models are : (i) The mass of $Z'$ has an upper
1488: bound of about $1.5$ TeV and a more spectacular one where (ii) the $W_R$
1489: in this model, being a KK
1490: excitation, does not couple to a pair of the known standard model
1491: fermions which are zero modes. This property of the $W_R$ has a major
1492: phenomenological impact and will require a completely new analysis of
1493: constraints on this e.g. the well known $K_L-K_S$ mass difference
1494: constraint on $M_{W_R}$ \cite{soni} does not apply here since the mixed
1495: $W_L-W_R$ exchange box
1496: graph responsible for the new contribution to $K_L-K_S$ mass difference
1497: does not exist. The box graph where both exchange particles are $W_R$'s
1498: exists but its contribution to the $\Delta S=2$ Hamiltonian is suppressed
1499: compared to the left-handed one by a factor
1500: $\left(\frac{M_{W_L}}{M_{W_R}}\right)^4$ and gives only a very weak bound
1501: on $M_{W_R}$.
1502:
1503: Also, the bounds from muon and beta decay \cite{beg} are
1504: nonexistent for the same reason because there is no tree
1505: level $W_R$ contribution to these processes. Furthermore, in this model,
1506: there is no $W_L-W_R$ mixing unlike the conventional left-right models.
1507:
1508: Because of this property, the decay modes and production mechanism of the
1509: $W_R$ are also very different from the case of the conventional
1510: left-right model, while the decay modes and production mechanism of the
1511: $Z'$ remain the same. We do not discuss the $Z'$ case which has been very
1512: widely discussed in literature.
1513:
1514: The $W_R$ will have a mass given by As far as the $W_R$ is concerned, it
1515: is given by the formula $M^2_{W_R}\sim \frac{cos^2\theta_W}{cos
1516: 2\theta_W}M^2_{Z'}$. Furthermore, it can only be pair produced and will decay
1517: to $u'_{\tbox{2L}}\bar{d'}_{\tbox{2L}},\ u_{\tbox{2R}}\bar{d}_{\tbox{2R}},\
1518: u'_{\tbox{2R}}\bar{d'}_{\tbox{2R}},\ u_{\tbox{2L}}\bar{d}_{\tbox{2L}},
1519: \ \bar{e}_{\tbox{2L,R}}\nu_{\tbox{2L,R}},$ and
1520: $\bar{e'}_{\tbox{2L,R}}\nu'_{\tbox{2L,R}}$. For sub-TeV $W_R$, only the decay modes
1521: $\bar{e'}_{\tbox{2L}}\nu'_{\tbox{2L}}$ and $u_{\tbox{2R}}\bar{d}_{\tbox{2R}}$ will dominate
1522: depending on the precise value of $W_R$ mass and the $R^{-1}$.
1523: The leptonic decay mode will
1524: look very similar to the supersymmetric case where pair-produced sleptons
1525: will decay to a lepton and the neutralino. The hadronic channel will
1526: however look different from the squark case. The further details of the
1527: collider signature of our model is currently under investigation and will
1528: be presented separately.
1529:
1530:
1531: \section{Conclusions}
1532: \label{sec:Conclusions}
1533: In summary, we have studied the profile of cold dark matter candidates
1534: in a Universal Extra Dimension model with a low-scale extra $W_{\tbox{R}}$
1535: and $Z'$. There are two possible candidates: $\nu^{\tbox{KK}}_{\tbox{R}}$ and either
1536: the $\Bsca$ or $\Bvec$ depending on which one receives less
1537: radiative corrections. We have done detailed calculation of the
1538: relic density of these particles as a function of the parameters of
1539: the model which are $g_{\tbox{R}}$, $R^{-1}$ and $M_{Z'}$. We find upper
1540: limits on these parameters where the above KK modes can be cold dark
1541: matter of the universe. In discussing the relic abundance, we have
1542: considered the co-annihilation effect of nearby states. We also
1543: calculate the direct detection cross-section in current underground
1544: detectors for the entire allowed parameter range in the model and we
1545: find that, for the case where KK neutrino contributes
1546: significantly to the total relic density,
1547: the lowest possible value of the cross-section predicted
1548: by our model is accessible to the current and/or planned direct
1549: search experiments. Therefore, the most interesting region of our model can
1550: not only be tested in the colliders but also these dark matter
1551: experiments. Combined with LHC search for the $Z'$ of left-right model,
1552: dark matter experiments could rule out this model.
1553:
1554:
1555: \section{Acknowledgement}
1556: The work of K.H and R.N.M is supported by the National Science Foundation grant
1557: no. Phy-0354401. S.N is supported by the DOE grant no. Phy.
1558: DE-FG02-97ER41029.
1559:
1560: \appendix
1561: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendices}
1562: \section{Fields on $T^2/{Z_2\times Z'_2}$}
1563: For convenience of type-setting, we define the functions
1564: \begin{align}
1565: c(i,j)\equiv \cos\frac{i x^5+j x^6}{R},\quad\quad
1566: s(i,j)\equiv \sin\frac{i x^5+j x^6}{R},\nonumber\\
1567: c^{\prime}(i,j)\equiv \cos\frac{i x^{\prime 5}+j x^{\prime 6}}{R},\quad\quad
1568: s^{\prime}(i,j)\equiv \sin\frac{i x^{\prime 5}+j x^{\prime 6}}{R},
1569: \end{align}
1570: And for reference we will make use of this integral
1571: \begin{align}
1572: \int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! dx^5 \int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
1573: dx^6 c(i,j) c(m,n)
1574: =\int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! dx^5
1575: \int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! dx^6
1576: s(i,j) s(m,n)
1577: =2\pi^2
1578: R^2\delta_{im}\delta{jn}
1579: \end{align}
1580: for positive integers $i,j,m$ and $n$, extensively.
1581: We have the compactified space $2\pi R\times 2\pi R$ by imposing the
1582: periodic boundary conditions on the fields
1583: \begin{align}
1584: \phi(x^{\mu},x^4,x^5)=\phi(x^{\mu},x^4+2\pi
1585: R,x^5)=\phi(x^{\mu},x^4,x^5+2\pi R).
1586: \end{align}
1587: The periodic boundary conditions mean that we can write the fields
1588: in the form of
1589: \begin{align}
1590: \phi(x^{\mu},x^4,x^5)=\sum_{n,m}\left( c(n,m)\varphi^{(nm)}(x^{\mu})
1591: +s(n,m)\tilde{\varphi}^{(nm)}(x^{\mu})\right).
1592: \label{eq:KKexpand}
1593: \end{align}
1594: On top of the periodic boundary conditions, we impose two
1595: orbifolding symmetries on our theory
1596: \begin{align}
1597: Z_2:{\bf{y}}\rightarrow -{\bf{y}},\quad
1598: Z_2^{\prime}:{\bf{y^{\prime}}}\rightarrow -{\bf{y^{\prime}}}.
1599: \end{align}
1600: with ${\bf y^{\prime}}={\bf y}-(\pi R/2,\pi R/2)$.
1601: Demanding that the Lagrangian be invariant under
1602: the orbifolding symmetries, we can assign parities to the fields under
1603: the discrete transformations and remove roughly half of the KK
1604: modes in Eq.~\ref{eq:KKexpand}. The choices of signs are motivated
1605: by the desired phenomenology. In our case, we have two orbifolding
1606: symmetries, so we can assign two signs to a given field. There are
1607: four possibilities: $(+,\pm)$ and $(-,\pm)$, and we examine each
1608: case separately.
1609:
1610: For $(+,\pm)$ case, we have the general expansion
1611: \begin{align}
1612: \phi^{(+,\pm)}(x^{\mu},x^4,x^5)&=\frac{1}{2\pi
1613: R}\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}\left( c(n,m)\varphi^{(nm)}
1614: \right)\nonumber\\
1615: &=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}\left[ \left(c^{\prime}(n,m)
1616: \cos\frac{(m+n)\pi}{2}- s^{\prime}(n,m)\sin\frac{(m+n)\pi}{2}\right)\varphi^{(nm)}\right].
1617: %\nonumber\\
1618: %&\ \ \quad\qquad\qquad\left.\left(\cos\frac{n x^{\prime 4}-m x^{\prime 5}}{R}\cos(n-m)\frac{\pi}{2}-
1619: %\sin\frac{n x^{\prime 4}-m x^{\prime 5}}{R}\sin(n-m)\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\tilde{\varphi}_{nm}(x^{\mu})\right].
1620: \label{eq:KKexpand++}
1621: \end{align}
1622: So we see that for $(+,+)$ fields, we need $n+m$ and $n-m$ to be
1623: even.
1624:
1625: For $(+,-)$ fields, we need $n+m$ and $n-m$ to be odd. For
1626: $(-,\pm)$ case, we have the general expansion
1627: \begin{align}
1628: \phi^{(-,\pm)}(x^{\mu},x^4,x^5)&=\frac{1}{2\pi
1629: R}\sum_{n+m\geq1}^{\infty}\left( s(n,m)\varphi^{(nm)}
1630: %+\sin\frac{n x^4-m x^5}{R}\tilde{\varphi}_{nm}(x^{\mu})
1631: \right)\nonumber\\
1632: &=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\sum_{n+m\geq1}^{\infty}\left[ \left(s^{\prime}(n,m)\cos\frac{(m+n)\pi}{2}+
1633: c^{\prime}(n,m)\sin\frac{(m+n)\pi}{2}\right)\varphi^{(nm)}\right].
1634: \label{eq:KKexpand--}
1635: \end{align}
1636: So we see that for $(-,+)$ fields, we need $n+m$ and $n-m$ to be
1637: odd. For $(-,-)$ fields, we need $n+m$ and $n-m$ to be even. Of
1638: course, for the $(-,\pm)$ cases, we can not have $(m,n)=(0,0)$ mode.
1639:
1640: \section{Normalization of Fields and Couplings}
1641: \subsection{Matter Fields}
1642: The dark matter candidates of the theory are the first KK modes of
1643: the neutrinos charged under $SU(2)_2$. They have the $Z_2\times
1644: Z_2^{\prime}$ charges: $\nu_{\tbox{2L}}(-,+),\nu_{\tbox{2R}}(+,-)$. If we let
1645: $\vect{n}=(n,m)$, we see each of $\nu_{\tbox{2L,2R}}$ has two independent modes:
1646: $\vect{n}=(1,0)$ and $\vect{n}=(0,1)$. These are two independent Dirac particles
1647: in the sense that there is no mixing at tree level in the effective 4D theory.
1648:
1649: We expand the kinetic energy term
1650: \begin{align}
1651: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{6D-KE}}&=i\overline{\Psi}\Gamma^M\partial_M\Psi\nonumber\\
1652: &=i\begin{pmatrix} \overline{\Psi}_- & \overline{\Psi}_+ \end{pmatrix}
1653: \begin{pmatrix}0 & \gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+i\gamma_5\partial_5+\partial_6 \\
1654: \gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+i\gamma_5\partial_5-\partial_6 &
1655: 0\end{pmatrix}
1656: \begin{pmatrix}\Psi_+ \\ \Psi_- \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
1657: &=i\overline{\Psi}_-(\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+i\gamma_5\partial_5+\partial_6)\Psi_-
1658: +i\overline{\Psi}_+(\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+i\gamma_5\partial_5-\partial_6)\Psi_+.
1659: \end{align}
1660: Note that $\Psi$ is an eight-component object, while $\Psi_{\pm}$
1661: are four-component, six-dimensional chiral spinors. We denote
1662: six-dimensional chirality by $\pm$ and four-dimensional chirality by
1663: $L,R$. Each six-dimensional chiral spinor is vector-like in the
1664: four-dimensional sense, and each is a Dirac spinor. Since our dark
1665: matter candidate is of (-1) 6D-chirality, we only deal with the first part of
1666: the kinetic energy term, and drop the subscript.
1667:
1668: Since we are after the coefficients, we expand in detail the first
1669: KK mode of the dark matter candidate.
1670: \begin{align}
1671: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{6D-KE}}& \supset
1672: i\overline{\Psi}_-(\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+i\gamma_5\partial_5+\partial_6)\Psi_-\nonumber\\
1673: &=i\begin{pmatrix} \Psi^{\dag}_L & \Psi^{\dag}_{\tbox{R}} \end{pmatrix}
1674: \begin{pmatrix}i\partial_5+\partial_6 & \sigma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \\
1675: \overline{\sigma}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} &
1676: -i\partial_5+\partial_6\end{pmatrix}
1677: \begin{pmatrix}\Psi_{\tbox{R}} \\ \Psi_L \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
1678: &=i(\Psi^{\dag}_L\sigma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\Psi_L+
1679: \Psi^{\dag}_{\tbox{R}}\overline{\sigma}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\Psi_{\tbox{R}}
1680: +\Psi^{\dag}_L(i\partial_5+\partial_6)\Psi_{\tbox{R}}+\Psi_{\tbox{R}}(-i\partial_5+\partial_6)\Psi_L)
1681: \label{eq:nuKE}
1682: \end{align}
1683: At this point, we use the KK-expansions. Noting the charge
1684: assignments $\nu_{2L}(-,+),\nu_{2R}(+,-)$, we expand the fields as
1685: \begin{align}
1686: \nu_{\tbox{2R}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\left(c(1,0)\nu^{\tbox{(10)}}_{\tbox{2R}}(x^{\mu})
1687: +c(0,1)\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2R}}(x^{\mu})\right),\nonumber\\
1688: \nu_{\tbox{2L}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\left(s(1,0)\nu^{{\tbox{(10)}}}_{\tbox{2L}}(x^{\mu})
1689: +i s(0,1)\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L}}(x^{\mu})\right).
1690: \label{eq:nuKKexpand}
1691: \end{align}
1692: The four-dimensional effective
1693: Lagrangian is obtained by inserting the expansion of Eq.~\ref{eq:nuKKexpand}
1694: into Eq.~\ref{eq:nuKE}, and integrate $x^5$ and
1695: $x^6$ from $0$ to $2\pi R$. Following this procedure, we obtain
1696: %
1697: \begin{align}
1698: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{4D-eff}}=
1699: \int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! dx^5
1700: \int_0^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! dx^6
1701: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{6D-KE}}&=
1702: i\left(
1703: \nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\dag\tbox{(10)}}\sigma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\tbox{(10)}}
1704: +\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\dag\tbox{(01)}}\sigma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\tbox{(01)}}
1705: +\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\dag\tbox{(10)}}\overline{\sigma}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\tbox{(10)}}
1706: +\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\dag\tbox{(01)}}\overline{\sigma}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\tbox{(01)}}\right)\nonumber\\
1707: &\ \
1708: -\frac{1}{R}\left(
1709: (\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\dag\tbox{(10)}}\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\tbox{(10)}}
1710: -\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\dag\tbox{(10)}}\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\tbox{(10)}})
1711: -(\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\dag\tbox{(01)}}\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\tbox{(01)}}
1712: -\nu_{\tbox{2R}}^{\dag\tbox{(01)}}\nu_{\tbox{2L}}^{\tbox{(01)}})\right).
1713: \end{align}
1714: %
1715: %===============================================================
1716: %
1717: >From this calculation, we see that we have two independent Dirac neutrinos that do
1718: not mix with each other:
1719: $\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}$ and
1720: $\nu^{\tbox{(10)}}$.
1721:
1722: %In summary, we have the expansion
1723: %\begin{eqnarray}
1724: %\nu_{\tbox{2R}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi
1725: %R}\left(\cos\frac{x^5}{R}\ \nu^{\tbox{(10)}}_{\tbox{2R}}(x^{\mu})
1726: %+\cos\frac{x^6}{R}\ \nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2R}}(x^{\mu})\right),\nonumber\\
1727: %\nu_{\tbox{2L}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi
1728: %R}\left(\sin\frac{x^5}{R}\
1729: %\nu^{{\tbox{(10)}}}_{\tbox{2L}}(x^{\mu}) +i \sin\frac{x^6}{R}\
1730: %\nu^{\tbox{(01)}}_{\tbox{2L}}(x^{\mu})\right).
1731: %%\label{eq:nuKKexpand}
1732: %\end{eqnarray}%%
1733:
1734: Following the same procedure, we can find the normalization of
1735: scalars.
1736: \begin{align}
1737: \Phi(+,+)&=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\phi^{(00)}+
1738: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\sum_{m,n}\cos\frac{m x^5+n x^6}{R}\phi^{(mn)},\nonumber\\
1739: \Phi(+,-)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\sum_{m,n}\cos\frac{m x^5+n x^6}{R}\phi^{(mn)},\nonumber\\
1740: \Phi(-,+)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\sum_{m,n}\sin\frac{m x^5+n x^6}{R}\phi^{(mn)},\nonumber\\
1741: \Phi(-,-)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\sum_{m,n}\cos\frac{m x^5+n
1742: x^6}{R}\phi^{(mn)}.
1743: \end{align}
1744: Again, the rules of $m,n$ in the previous section for fermions apply
1745: to the scalars.
1746:
1747: \subsection{Gauge Bosons}
1748: \newcommand{\mA}{\mathcal{A}}
1749: As we are only interested in the normalization of the gauge fields, we
1750: consider a generic gauge boson, $\mA_M$, associated with an $U(1)$ symmetry.
1751: We then have the expansion
1752: \begin{align}
1753: \mathcal{L}_{gauge}&=-\frac{1}{4}F^{MN}F_{MN}\nonumber\\
1754: &=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}F_{5\mu}F^{5\mu}
1755: -\frac{1}{2}F_{6\mu}F^{6\mu}-\frac{1}{2}F_{56}F^{56}\nonumber\\
1756: &=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
1757: &\quad+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\mA_5\partial^{\mu}\mA_5
1758: +\partial_{5}\mA_{\mu}\partial_{5}\mA^{\mu}
1759: -\partial_{5}\mA_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\mA_5
1760: -\partial_{\mu}\mA_{5}\partial_{5}\mA^{\mu})\nonumber\\
1761: &\quad+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\mA_6\partial^{\mu}\mA_6
1762: +\partial_{6}\mA_{\mu}\partial_{6}\mA^{\mu}
1763: -\partial_{6}\mA_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\mA_6
1764: -\partial_{\mu}\mA_{6}\partial_{6}\mA^{\mu})\nonumber\\
1765: &\quad-\frac{1}{2}(\partial_5\mA_6\partial_5\mA_6
1766: +\partial_6\mA_5\partial_6\mA_5 -2\partial_5\mA_6\partial_6\mA_5)
1767: \label{eq:FKKExpand}
1768: \end{align}
1769: Notice that we have made the changes $\mA^{5,6}=-\mA_{5,6},
1770: \partial^{5,6}=-\partial_{5,6}$, so that $\mA_{5,6}$ should be treated
1771: as real, scalar fields. We will work with this equation for the
1772: various gauge particles.
1773:
1774: As with the case of the neutral gauge bosons in our theory,
1775: we assign the $Z_2\times Z_2^{\prime}$ parities to be
1776: $\mA_{\mu}(++)$ and $\mA_{5,6}(--)$, and obtain the following lowest KK modes:
1777: \begin{align}
1778: A^{\tbox{(00)}}_{\mu},\ &A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{\mu},\ A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{\mu},\ A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{\mu},\nonumber\\
1779: &A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{5},\ A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{5},\ A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{5},\nonumber\\
1780: &A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{6},\ A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{6},\ A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{6},
1781: \end{align}
1782: and the KK-mode expansions for these states
1783: \begin{align}
1784: \mA_{\mu}&=
1785: \frac{1}{2\pi R}
1786: A^{\tbox{(00)}}_{\mu}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\left(
1787: \cos\frac{2x^5}{R}A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{\mu}
1788: +\cos\frac{2 x^6}{R}A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{\mu}
1789: +\cos\frac{x^5+x^6}{R}A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{\mu}
1790: \right),\nonumber\\
1791: \mA_{5,6}&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi R}\left(
1792: \sin\frac{2x^5}{R}A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{5,6}
1793: +\sin\frac{2 x^6}{R}A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{5,6}
1794: +\sin\frac{x^5+x^6}{R}A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{5,6}\right).
1795: \label{eq:B-LKKExpand}
1796: \end{align}
1797: One may check that the normalization gives canonical fields for
1798: the scalars $A^{\tbox{KK}}_{5,6}$.
1799:
1800: For the four-dimensional Lagrangian we insert the expansion of
1801: Eq.~\ref{eq:B-LKKExpand} into Eq.~\ref{eq:FKKExpand} and integrate over
1802: $x^5$ and $x^6$. In additional to canonical kinetic energy terms,
1803: we obtain the masses of these modes.
1804: \begin{align}
1805: \mathcal{L}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[
1806: \frac{4}{R^2} A_{\mu}^{\tbox{(20)}} A^{\mu,\tbox{(20)}}+
1807: \frac{4}{R^2} A_{\mu}^{\tbox{(02)}} A^{\mu,\tbox{(02)}}+
1808: \frac{2}{R^2} A_{\mu}^{\tbox{(11)}} A^{\mu,\tbox{(11)}}
1809: \right]\nonumber\\
1810: &\!\! -\frac{1}{2}\left[
1811: \frac{4}{R^2} (A^{\tbox{(20)}}_{5})^2+
1812: \frac{4}{R^2} (A^{\tbox{(02)}}_{6})^2+
1813: \frac{1}{R^2} (A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{5})^2+
1814: \frac{1}{R^2} (A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{6})^2
1815: - 2\frac{1}{R^2}A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{5}A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{6}\right]
1816: \end{align}
1817: We note first that we have some massless modes in $A_{6}^{\tbox{(02)}}$ and
1818: $A_{5}^{\tbox{(20)}}$. This can be traced to the fact that we do not have
1819: terms $\partial_5 A_5$ and $\partial_6 A_6$ in $F_{\tbox{MN}}F^{\tbox{MN}}$. As
1820: in the case of 5D UED models, these modes are eaten by the
1821: corresponding KK modes of $A_{\mu}^{\tbox{(mn)}}$ so they can become massive.
1822: Here we note that the linear combination of
1823: $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{5}+A^{\tbox{(11)}}_{6})$ is also massless, and is
1824: eaten by $B_{\mu(11)}$. Generally, at each KK level, one linear
1825: combination of $A_{5}^{\tbox{KK}}$ and $A_{6}^{\tbox{KK}}$
1826: (and any corresponding KK modes of Higgs particle, if
1827: there is Higgs mechanism)
1828: is eaten by $A_{\mu}^{\tbox{KK}}$,
1829: while the orthogonal KK combination remains a physical mode, and is
1830: a potential DM candidate if it is indeed the lightest KK mode.
1831:
1832:
1833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1834: \subsection{Normalization of Couplings}
1835: In six-dimensional Lagrangian, both the yukawa and gauge couplings
1836: are dimensionful. We find the correct normalization by equating the
1837: 4D couplings to the effective 4D coupling resulting from integrating
1838: over $x^5$ and $x^6$. For example, consider a generic yukawa
1839: interaction in the 6D theory
1840: \begin{align*}
1841: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{6D-Yukawa}}=y^{\tbox{6D}}\overline{\Psi}_1\Phi \Psi_2
1842: \end{align*}
1843: where $y^{\tbox{6D}}$ has dimension $[M]^{-1}$. The coupling
1844: involving the zero-modes in the effective theory is then
1845: \begin{align}
1846: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{4D-Yukawa}}
1847: =
1848: \int_{0}^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!dx^5
1849: \int_{0}^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!dx^6
1850: \frac{y^{\tbox{6D}}}{(2\pi R)^3}
1851: \overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}_1\phi^{\tbox{(00)}}\psi_2^{\tbox{(00)}}
1852: =
1853: \frac{y^{\tbox{6D}}}{2\pi R}
1854: \overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}_1\phi^{\tbox{(00)}}\psi_2^{\tbox{(00)}}.
1855: \end{align}
1856: So effectively we have $y^{\tbox{4D}}=y^{\tbox{6D}}(2\pi
1857: R)^{-1}$. Note that this is general: for the SM couplings in the 4D
1858: effective theory, all fields are $(00)$ and have a normalization
1859: $(2\pi R)^{-1}$, so the effective 4D couplings obtained after
1860: integrating over $x^5$ and $x^6$ are simply the 6D couplings
1861: multiplied by $(2\pi R)$. By the same reasoning, we also have
1862: $\lambda^{\tbox{6D}}=(2\pi R)^2 \lambda^{\tbox{4D}}$ for the
1863: quartic coupling in the potential.
1864:
1865: In general, the coupling between higher modes will come with extra
1866: factors resulting from integrating over $x^5$ and $x^6$. However,
1867: the most important case for our purpose of calculating annihilation
1868: diagrams involve couplings between two fermions and a boson where
1869: exactly one of
1870: field is a $(00)$ mode, and the two other fields are both $(mn)$
1871: mode with $m,n$ nonzero. Suppose we have a coupling in the 6D
1872: Lagrangian of the form
1873: $\mathcal{L}^{\tbox{6D}}=g^{\tbox{6D}}\overline{\Psi}\Phi\Psi$,
1874: where $g^{\tbox{6D}}$ has dimension of $[M]^{-1}$, and we impose
1875: that $g^{\tbox{6D}}=g^{\tbox{4D}}(2\pi R)$. In the 4D effective
1876: theory we have
1877: $\mathcal{L}^{\tbox{4D}}=g^{\tbox{4D}}\overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}\phi^{(mn)}\psi^{(mn)}$,
1878: where the lower-case fields are the KK-modes of the corresponding 6D
1879: fields in capital letters. The effective coupling between the KK modes
1880: $g^{\tbox{4D}}\overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}\phi^{(mn)}\psi^{(mn)}$ in the
1881: effective 4D theory is then
1882: \begin{align}
1883: \mathcal{L}_{\tbox{4D-eff}}=
1884: \int_{0}^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!dx^5
1885: \int_{0}^{2\pi R}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!dx^6
1886: \frac{g^{\tbox{4D}}(2\pi R)}
1887: {(2\pi R)(\sqrt{2}\pi R)^2}c^2(m,n)
1888: \overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}_1\phi^{(mn)}\psi^{(mn)}
1889: %\nonumber\\
1890: =&g^{\tbox{4D}}\overline{\psi}^{\tbox{(00)}}_1\phi^{(mn)}\psi^{(mn)}.
1891: \end{align}
1892: So we see that there is no additional factors compared to the case
1893: with all (00)-modes.
1894:
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898:
1899: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1900: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
1901:
1902: \bibitem{tait} G.~Servant and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
1903: %``Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?,''
1904: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 391 (2003); H.~C.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng and
1905: K.~T.~Matchev, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 211301 (2002);
1906:
1907:
1908:
1909: \bibitem{aghase} K.~Agashe and G.~Servant,
1910: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 231805 (2004).
1911:
1912: \bibitem{mdm} R.~N.~Mohapatra and V.~L.~Teplitz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
1913: 62}, 063506 (2000); R.~Foot, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ D {\bf 13},
1914: 2161 (2004); Z.~Berezhiani, P.~Ciarcelluti, D.~Comelli and
1915: F.~L.~Villante, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ D {\bf 14}, 107 (2005);
1916: A.~Y.~Ignatiev and R.~R.~Volkas, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 023518
1917: (2003).
1918:
1919: \bibitem{hsieh}
1920: %\cite{Hsieh:2006qe}
1921: %\bibitem{Hsieh:2006qe}
1922: K.~Hsieh, R.~N.~Mohapatra and S.~Nasri,
1923: %``Dark matter in universal extra dimension models: gamma(KK) vrs nu(R,KK),''
1924: arXiv:hep-ph/0604154; Phys.Rev. {\bf D74}, 066004 (2006).
1925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604154;%%
1926:
1927: \bibitem{kong} K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
1928: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 038 (2006).
1929:
1930: %\cite{Antoniadis:1990ew}
1931: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1990ew}
1932: I.~Antoniadis,
1933: %``A Possible new dimension at a few TeV,''
1934: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990).
1935: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%
1936:
1937: %\cite{Antoniadis:1998ig}
1938: \bibitem{antoniadis}
1939: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
1940: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
1941: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)
1942: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].
1943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
1944:
1945: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
1946: \bibitem{arkani-hamed}
1947: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
1948: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
1949: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
1950: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315].
1951: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
1952:
1953: \bibitem{acd} T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,
1954: %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''
1955: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001).
1956:
1957: \bibitem{yee} T.~Appelquist, B.~A.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton and H.~U.~Yee,
1958: %``Proton stability in six dimensions,''
1959: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 181802 (2001).
1960:
1961:
1962: \bibitem{abdel} R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Perez-Lorenzana,
1963: %``Neutrino mass, proton decay and dark matter in TeV scale universal extra
1964: %dimension models,''
1965: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 075015 (2003).
1966:
1967: \bibitem{app} T.~Appelquist, B.~A.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton and H.~U.~Yee,
1968: %``Neutrinos vis-a-vis the six-dimensional standard model,''
1969: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 105019 (2002).
1970:
1971: \bibitem{poppitz} B.~A.~Dobrescu and E.~Poppitz,
1972: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 031801 (2001).
1973:
1974: \bibitem{wmap} D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
1975: %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:
1976: %Implications for cosmology,''
1977: arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
1978:
1979: \bibitem{gm} I.~Gogoladze and C.~Macesanu,
1980: arXiv:hep-ph/0605207.
1981:
1982: \bibitem{KMS} M.~Kakizaki, S.~Matsumoto and M.~Senami,
1983: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 023504 (2006).
1984:
1985: \bibitem{KY} A.~Gould, B.~T.~Draine, R.~W.~Romani and S.~Nussinov,
1986: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 238}, 337 (1990); S.~Dimopoulos,
1987: D.~Eichler, R.~Esmailzadeh and G.~D.~Starkman, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41},
1988: 2388 (1990); A.~Kudo and M.~Yamaguchi,
1989: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516}, 151 (2001).
1990:
1991: %\cite{Akerib:2005kh}
1992: \bibitem{cdms}
1993: D.~S.~Akerib {\it et al.} [CDMS Collaboration],
1994: %``Limits on spin-independent WIMP nucleon interactions from the two-tower run
1995: %of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search,''
1996: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 011302 (2006)
1997: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0509259].
1998: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0509259;%%
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2003: %\cite{Kong:2005hn}
2004:
2005: \bibitem{ay} T.~Appelquist and H.~U.~Yee,
2006: %``Universal extra dimensions and the Higgs boson mass,''
2007: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 055002 (2003).
2008:
2009:
2010: \bibitem{feng} H.~C.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,\cite{tait}.
2011:
2012:
2013: \bibitem{burnell}
2014: %\cite{Burnell:2005hm}
2015: %\bibitem{Burnell:2005hm}
2016: F.~Burnell and G.~D.~Kribs,
2017: %``The abundance of Kaluza-Klein dark matter with coannihilation,''
2018: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 015001 (2006).
2019: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0509118].
2020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509118;%%
2021:
2022:
2023: \bibitem{cheng1} H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
2024: %``Radiative corrections to Kaluza-Klein masses,''
2025: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 036005 (2002).
2026:
2027:
2028: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. {\bf 592 B}, 1 (2004).
2029:
2030: %\cite{Ponton:2005kx}
2031: \bibitem{ponton}
2032: E.~Ponton and L.~Wang,
2033: %``Radiative effects on the chiral square,''
2034: arXiv:hep-ph/0512304.
2035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512304;%%
2036:
2037: \bibitem{zprime} For a review, see J. Erler and P. langacker, Particle
2038: Data Group, Zeit. fur Phys. {\bf C 15}, 1 (2000).
2039:
2040: \bibitem{lr} J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 10}, 275 (1974);
2041: R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 11}, 566, 2558
2042: (1975); G. Senjanovi\'c and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf D
2043: 12}, 1502 (1975).
2044:
2045: %\cite{Macesanu:2002ew}
2046: \bibitem{macesanu}
2047: C.~Macesanu, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi,
2048: %``New signal for universal extra dimensions,''
2049: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546}, 253 (2002)
2050: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207269].
2051: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207269;%%
2052:
2053:
2054:
2055: \bibitem{kayser} For discussion of $W_R$ and $Z'$ properties of the
2056: left-right models, see B. kayser and J. Gunion, {\it Proceedings of the
2057: Snowmass workshop, 1984}, ed. R. Donaldson et al.; M.~Cvetic and
2058: P.~Langacker, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 4943 (1992); [Erratum-ibid.\ D
2059: {\bf 48}, 4484 (1993)]; T.~G.~Rizzo, arXiv:hep-ph/0610104.
2060:
2061:
2062: \bibitem{soni} G.~Beall, M.~Bander and A.~Soni, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
2063: {\bf 48}, 848 (1982).
2064:
2065: \bibitem{beg} M.~A.~B.~Beg, R.~V.~Budny, R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Sirlin,
2066: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 38}, 1252 (1977)
2067: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 39}, 54 (1977)].
2068:
2069:
2070:
2071: \end{thebibliography}
2072:
2073: \end{document}
2074: