1:  

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: 

4: 

5: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

6: \usepackage{epsf}

7: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.8}

8: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8}

9: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}

10: % shortcuts

11: \newcommand{\bmat}{\left(\begin{array}}

12: \newcommand{\emat}{\end{array}\right)}

13: \def\NPB#1#2#3{Nucl. Phys. B{#1} (19#2) #3}

14: \def\PLB#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. B{#1} (19#2) #3}

15: \def\PLBold#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {#1B} (19#2) #3}

16: \def\PRD#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. D{#1} (19#2) #3}

17: \def\PRL#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. Lett. {#1} (19#2) #3}

18: \def\PRT#1#2#3{Phys. Rep. {#1} C (19#2) #3}

19: \def\MODA#1#2#3{Mod. Phys. Lett.  {#1} (19#2) #3}

20: %\def\mb#1{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

21: \def\Deq#1{\mbox{$D$=#1}}

22: \def\Neq#1{\mbox{$N$=#1}}

23: \def\preal{{\rm Re\,}}

24: \def\pim{{\rm Im\,}}

25: \def\ds{\displaystyle}

26: \def\yzero{\smash{\hbox{$y\kern-4pt\raise1pt\hbox{${}^\circ$}$}}}

27: \def\p{\partial}

28: \def\a{\alpha}

29: \def\b{\beta}

30: \def\g{\gamma}

31: \def\d{\delta}

32: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

33: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

34: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

35: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

36: \def\Om{\Omega}

37: \def\om{\omega}

38: \def\th{\theta}

39: \def\vt{\vartheta}

40: \def\vphi{\varphi}

41: \def\-{\hphantom{-}}

42: \def\ov{\overline}

43: \def\s2{\frac{1}{\sqrt2}}

44: \def\wh{\widehat}

45: \def\wt{\widetilde}

46: \def\oh{\frac{1}{2}}

47: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

48: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

49: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

50: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

51: \def\tr{{\rm tr \,}}

52: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr \,}}

53: \def\diag{{\rm diag \,}}

54: \def\IF{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em F}}

55: \def\II{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em I}}

56: \def\IP{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em P}}

57: \def\IC{\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}}

58: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}

59: \def\hm{\relax{n_H}}

60: \def\vac{|0 \rangle}

61: \def\vm{\relax{n_V}}

62: \def\cc{{\cal C}}

63: \def\ck{{\cal K}}

64: \def\ci{{\cal I}}

65: \def\cu{{\cal U}}

66: \def\cg{{\cal G}}

67: \def\cn{{\cal N}}

68: \def\cam{{\cal M}}

69: \def\cp{{\cal P}}

70: \def\ct{{\cal T}}

71: \def\cv{{\cal V}}

72: \def\cz{{\cal Z}}

73: \def\ch{{\cal H}}

74: \def\cf{{\cal F}}

75: \def\tv{\tilde v}

76: \def\Dsl{\,\raise.15ex\hbox{/}\mkern-13.5mu D} %this one can be subscripted

77: \def\IZ{Z\kern-.4em  Z}

78: \def\id{{\rm I}}

79: %\def\cp#1{\relax\ifmmode {\IP\kern-2pt{}_{#1}}\else $\IP\kern-2pt{}_{#1}$\fi}

80: 

81: %my defs

82: 

83: \def\A{{\bf A}}

84: \def\B{{\bf B}}

85: \def\ent{{\bf Z}}

86: \def\C{{\bf C}}

87: \def\ti{\times}

88: \def\OR{\Omega {\cal R}}

89: \def\R{{\cal R}}

90: \def\ca{{\cal A}}

91: \def\lam{\lambda}

92: \def\raw{\rightarrow}

93: \def\Raw{\Rightarrow}

94: \def\G{\Gamma}

95: \def\ep{\epsilon}

96: \def\arr{\arrowvert}

97: \def\Arr{\Arrowvert}

98: 

99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% rotate.sty

100: %

101: %   These macros allow you to rotate or flip a \TeX\ box.  Very useful for

102: %   sideways tables or upsidedown answers.

103: %

104: %   To use, create a box containing the information you want to rotate.

105: %   (An hbox or vbox will do.)  Now call \@rotr\boxnum to rotate the

106: %   material and create a new box with the appropriate (flipped) dimensions.

107: %   \@rotr rotates right, \@rotl rotates left, \@rotu turns upside down, and

108: %   \@rotf flips.  These boxes may contain other rotated boxes.

109: %

110: \catcode`\@=11

111: \newdimen\@rotdimen

112: \newbox\@rotbox

113: 

114: \def\@vspec#1{\special{ps:#1}}%  passes #1 verbatim to the output

115: \def\@rotstart#1{\@vspec{gsave currentpoint currentpoint translate

116:    #1 neg exch neg exch translate}}% #1 can be any origin-fixing transformation

117: \def\@rotfinish{\@vspec{currentpoint grestore moveto}}% gets back in synch

118: %

119: %   First, the rotation right. The reference point of the rotated box

120: %   is the lower right corner of the original box.

121: %

122: \def\@rotr#1{\@rotdimen=\ht#1\advance\@rotdimen by\dp#1%

123:    \hbox to\@rotdimen{\hskip\ht#1\vbox to\wd#1{\@rotstart{90 rotate}%

124:    \box#1\vss}\hss}\@rotfinish}

125: %

126: %   Next, the rotation left. The reference point of the rotated box

127: %   is the upper left corner of the original box.

128: %

129: \def\@rotl#1{\@rotdimen=\ht#1\advance\@rotdimen by\dp#1%

130:    \hbox to\@rotdimen{\vbox to\wd#1{\vskip\wd#1\@rotstart{270 rotate}%

131:    \box#1\vss}\hss}\@rotfinish}%

132: %

133: %   Upside down is simple. The reference point of the rotated box

134: %   is the upper right corner of the original box. (The box's height

135: %   should be the current font's xheight, \fontdimen5\font,

136: %   if you want that xheight to be at the baseline after rotation.)

137: %

138: \def\@rotu#1{\@rotdimen=\ht#1\advance\@rotdimen by\dp#1%

139:    \hbox to\wd#1{\hskip\wd#1\vbox to\@rotdimen{\vskip\@rotdimen

140:    \@rotstart{-1 dup scale}\box#1\vss}\hss}\@rotfinish}%

141: %

142: %   And flipped end for end is pretty ysae too. We retain the baseline.

143: %

144: \def\@rotf#1{\hbox to\wd#1{\hskip\wd#1\@rotstart{-1 1 scale}%

145:    \box#1\hss}\@rotfinish}%

146: %

147: %   Now the user interface for LaTeX:  \rotate[type]{text} where

148: %   ``type'' is `l' for left, `r' for right, `u' for upside-down, or

149: %   `f' for flip.  `l' is the default.

150: %

151: \def\rotate{\@ifnextchar[{\@rotate}{\@rotate[l]}}

152: \def\@rotate[#1]#2{\setbox\@rotbox=\hbox{#2}\@nameuse{@rot#1}\@rotbox}

153: 

154: \catcode`\@=12

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  End of rotate.sty

156: 

157: \topmargin

158: -1.5cm

159: \textwidth

160: 15.5cm

161: \textheight

162: 23.5cm

163: \oddsidemargin

164: 0.7cm

165: \evensidemargin

166: 1.2cm

167: 

168: \begin{document}

169: 

170: 

171: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

172: %  numbering equations with section number

173: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

174: \makeatletter

175: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

176: \makeatother

177: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

178: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

179: %  title page

180: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

181: \pagestyle{empty}

182: %\vspace*{1.0in}

183: \rightline{FTUAM-02/12; IFT-UAM/CSIC-02-13}

184: \rightline{\tt hep-th/0205074}

185: \vspace{0.5cm}

186: \begin{center}

187: \LARGE{ Standard Model at Intersecting D5-branes : Lowering the 

188: String Scale \\[10mm]}

189: \large{

190: D. Cremades, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and  F. Marchesano  

191: \\[2mm]}

192: \small{

193:  Departamento de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica C-XI

194: and Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica  C-XVI,\\[-0.3em]

195: Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid,

196: Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain.

197: \\[9mm]}

198: \small{\bf Abstract} \\[7mm]

199: \end{center}

200: 

201: \begin{center}

202: \begin{minipage}[h]{14.0cm}

203: Recently a class of Type IIA orientifold models was constructed 

204: yielding just the fermions of the SM at the intersections of D6-branes

205: wrapping a 6-torus. We generalize that construction to the case of 

206: Type IIB compactified on an orientifold of 

207: ${\bf T^4 \times (C/Z_N)}$ with D5-branes intersecting at 

208: angles on ${\bf T^4}$. 

209: We construct explicit models in which the

210: massless fermion spectrum is just the one of a three-generation

211: Standard Model. 

212:  One of the motivations for these 

213: new constructions is that  

214:  in this case there are  2 dimensions which are

215: transverse to the SM D5-brane configuration. By making those

216: two dimensions large enough one can have a low string scale

217: $M_s$ of order 1-10 TeV and still have a large $M_{Planck}$  

218: in agreement with observations. 

219: From this point of view,

220: these are the first explicit D-brane string constructions 

221: where one can achieve having just the fermionic spectrum and

222: gauge group of the SM embedded in a Low String Scale

223: scenario. The cancellation

224: of $U(1)$ anomalies turns out to be quite analogous to the toroidal

225: D6-brane case and the proton is automatically stable due to the gauging

226: of baryon number. Unlike the D6-brane case, the present class of models

227: has $\cn = 0$ SUSY both in the bulk and on the branes and hence the spectrum

228: is simpler.

229: 

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: 

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: 

238: 

239: 

240: \end{minipage}

241: \end{center}

242: \newpage

243: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

244: %  Resetting of counters

245: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

246: \setcounter{page}{1}

247: \pagestyle{plain}

248: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

249: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

250: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

251: %  Paper begins

252: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%

253: 

254: %\end{document}

255: 

256: 

257: \section{Introduction}

258: 

259: The brane-world idea has become popular in the last couple of years.

260:  In this scheme 

261: it is assumed that the standard model (SM) fields and

262: interactions are confined to a $(p+1)$ dimensional submanifold

263: of a larger D-dimensional ($D>(p+1)$) manifold in which 

264: gravitational fields propagate. Dp-branes in string theory

265: provide a natural setting in which this scenario arises,

266: since gauge interactions are confined to the world-volume

267: of branes. However, in the brane-world scenario studies

268: a crucial property of the SM is often ignored, the fact 

269: that its spectrum is chiral. Dp-branes on a smooth 

270: space have non-chiral extended SUSY on their worldvolume.

271: 

272: In order to obtain explicit D-brane realizations of the SM 

273: it is thus necessary to do something to obtain chiral 

274: theories on their worldvolume. One of the simplest options 

275: to obtain chirality is locating stacks of branes on

276: top of some, e.g., orbifold singularity on transverse 

277: space. For example, three generation models may be obtained

278: by locating sets of D3-branes on top of a $\ent_3$ singularity 

279: \cite{bbarmod,aiqu} (see also \cite{cuw,bailind4,bjl,auquivers,

280: kephart,hxy}).

281: Local tadpole cancellation in general requires the immersion of 

282: those D3-branes on some D7-branes. These are simple theories

283: with phenomenological interest. However the  spectrum in general

284: goes beyond the minimal content of the SM (or the MSSM), since

285: extra doublet fermions appear in the spectrum due to the 

286: structure of $U(1)$ anomaly cancellation

287: \footnote{For attempts to obtain models of D3-branes 

288: on a $\ent_N$ singularity without extra fermionic doublets see

289: ref.\cite{gerardo}.}.

290: 

291: Another option in order to get $D=4$ chirality is to consider

292: intersecting D-branes \cite{bdl,arfaei}

293: (for somewhat related work see also \cite{bachas,inter1,fluxes}).  

294: Recently, a class of intersecting D-brane configurations yielding just the

295: fermionic spectrum of the SM was for the first time constructed

296: \cite{imr}.

297: They are obtained from four stacks  of D6-branes wrapping 

298: an orientifolded 6-torus and intersecting at angles

299: \cite{bgkl,afiru,afiru2,bkl} (see also

300: \cite{pseudogermans,bklo,csu,pheno,honecker,kataoka,cim1,cim2,koko}

301: for further developments).

302: In the bulk there is $\cn = 4$ supersymmetry but the spectrum

303: is chiral at the brane intersections. The models are 

304: in general non-supersymmetric but for certain choices 

305: of the compact radii one can preserve some $\cn = 1$ SUSY

306: at each intersection \cite{csu,cim1,cim2}.  

307: One of the nice features of the simplest such

308: constructions is that the existence of  three 

309: quark-lepton generations is related 

310: (via $U(1)$ anomaly cancellation)

311: to the presence  of three

312: colours in QCD \cite{imr}. Another interesting feature is that one

313: may expect the appearance of some exponential suppression

314: in certain  Yukawa couplings, providing a means to understand

315: the hierarchical structure of fermion masses \cite{afiru2}.

316: The SM Higgs mechanism has an interpretation as a brane recombination

317: process in which the branes supporting the SM gauge group 

318: are recombined into a single brane related to electromagnetism

319: \cite{afiru2,cim2}.

320: 

321: One point which remains to be understood in those 

322: brane configurations is the hierarchy between the Planck scale 

323: and the weak scale. The models are non-supersymmetric and

324: in order to avoid the standard gauge hierarchy problem

325: of the Higgs scalars a natural  option is to assume the 

326: string scale $M_s$ not much above the electroweak

327: scale, i.e., $M_s \sim 1-10$ TeV. Then a possibility 

328: for understanding the observed smallness of gravitational 

329: interactions would be to have some compact dimensions

330: (transverse to the brane)  

331: very large, as suggested in \cite{TeV,aadd}. However in the 

332: case of these intersecting D6-brane models one can see 

333: there is no compact direction transverse to all SM

334: stacks of branes \cite{bgkl}. Thus one has to look for other 

335: possible sources of suppression for gravitational 

336: interactions like e.g., that in ref.\cite{rs}.

337: 

338: A natural alternative is

339: to  consider  instead of D6-branes lower dimensional

340: ones,  intersecting D5- and D4-branes. This would be interesting since,

341: as pointed in ref.\cite{afiru},  

342: then there are more transverse dimensions to the branes which

343: can be made large, allowing for a low string scale 

344: $M_s<<M_p$.   

345: In the present paper we extend the work of ref.\cite{imr}

346: to the case 

347: of intersecting D5- and D4-branes  wrapping cycles

348: on ${\bf T^2\times T^2\times T^2/\ent_N}$

349: and ${\bf T^2\times (T^4/\ent_N)}$ respectively

350: \footnote{ Unlike the case of D6-branes, D5- or D4-branes wrapping 

351: cycles on ${\bf T^2\times T^2\times T^2}$ do not lead to D=4 chiral theories.

352: This is why in order to achieve chirality an additional 

353: $\ent_N$ twist in transverse dimensions  

354: is performed in the constructions of the present paper.}.

355: In the case of D5-branes, these are localized on a

356: fixed point of the  

357: orbifold ${\bf T^2/\ent_N}$ and wrap 2-cycles on ${\bf T^2\times T^2}$.

358: This class of constructions was already introduced in \cite{afiru},

359: but in order to obtain just the spectrum of the 

360: SM we will be now considering orientifolds of such 

361: constructions. 

362: 

363: We will be able to obtain intersecting D5-brane models with

364: the fermionic spectrum and gauge group of the SM.

365: The $U(1)$ anomaly structure is identical to  

366: that of the D6-brane  models of ref.\cite{imr}. There are however 

367: many differences between both classes of models. The present class

368: of models have $\cn = 0$ SUSY both in the bulk and on the branes

369: and none of the quarks, leptons or gauge bosons have any

370: SUSY partner. Thus the massless spectrum is closer to that

371: of the non-SUSY SM spectrum. The only light particles beyond the

372: SM spectrum will be some extra scalars (often coloured) and

373: a minimal  Higgs system analogous to that of the MSSM.

374: 

375:  

376: The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section 

377: we describe the construction of intersecting D5-branes 

378: wrapping cycles on ${\bf T^2\times T^2\times C/\ent_N}$.

379: We derive the RR-tadpole cancellation conditions for the

380: orientifold case and obtain the lightest spectrum. 

381: The cancellation of mixed $U(1)$ anomalies through a

382: generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism is presented

383: in some detail. In Section 3 we present the general strategy to obtain 

384: intersecting  D5-brane configurations with the spectrum of the SM. 

385: We present a particular example in some detail and leave further

386: examples for Appendix II. Examples of left-right symmetric models 

387: are  provided as well. We also show how to construct a left-right 

388: symmetric model free of open string tachyons for any odd value 

389: $N$ of the twist $\ent_N$. Some general physical issues like 

390: the form of the lightest  spectrum beyond the SM and

391: the lowering of the string scale are discussed in Section 4.

392: We leave some general comments and conclusions for Section 5.

393: 

394: In Appendix I we analyze the case of

395: intersecting D4-branes wrapping one-cycles 

396: on ${\bf T^2\times T^4/\ent_N}$. These configurations turn out to be less

397: flexible for model building purposes. In particular

398: there is no obvious  way to  obtain just the SM fermion spectrum 

399: at the intersections. We nevertheless provide some

400: semi-realistic example based on intersecting D4-branes 

401: in that appendix.

402:  

403:  

404: 

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: 

409:  

410: \section{Intersecting D5-branes on ${\bf T^4\times C/\ent_N}$ orientifolds}

411: 

412: 

413: Let us describe the general intersecting branes setup 

414: that we will be considering. As was explained in \cite{afiru},

415: chiral compactifications may naturally arise from considering 

416: configurations of D($3+n$)-branes filling four-dimensional

417: Minkowski space, wrapping $n$-cycles of a 

418: $2n$-dimensional compact manifold $\A_{\bf 2n}$ and sitting at a point 

419: in a transverse ($6-2n$)-dimensional manifold $\B_{\bf 6-2n}$. In order

420: to obtain a chiral spectrum from the open string sector, 

421: the cycles the branes wrap should have nontrivial intersection 

422: numbers, while the point they sit in $\B_{\bf 6-2n}$ must be singular.

423: Lowering the string scale in a natural way implies, in turn,

424: having $n < 3$, so that we can consider a nontrivial transverse 

425: space $\B_{\bf 6-2n}$ whose global properties (as its volume) do not 

426: directly affect our open string sector (where our chiral gauge theory arises),

427: but only the closed string sector.

428: 

429: The special case $n = 0$, that corresponds to D3-branes

430: on top of a singularity, was already considered in \cite{aiqu}

431: (and more recently in \cite{gerardo}), yielding semi-realistic

432: gauge theories in $D=4$. The cases $n = 1,2,3$ were then considered

433: in \cite{afiru,afiru2} in a simple setup where ${\bf A_{2n} = T^{2n}}$ 

434: and the branes sit in an orbifold singularity $\C^{3-n}/\ent_N$.

435: However, as was explicitly shown in \cite{imr}, considering

436: orientifold models may greatly simplify our chiral spectrum, being 

437: possible to attain configurations where the matter content

438: just reduces to the SM fermion content. These models were 

439: constructed in a particular setup of the case $n = 3$, where

440: D$6$-branes wrap 3-cycles of ${\bf A_{2n} = T^2 \ti T^2 \ti T^2}$,

441: as previously considered in \cite{bgkl,bkl}.

442: 

443: This fact naturally lead us to consider orientifold models 

444: of branes at angles. In particular, we will consider the 

445: orientifold version of the compactifications already constructed

446: in \cite{afiru}, focusing on the cases $n = 1,2$ that allow us

447: to obtain  low string scale scenarios \cite{TeV,aadd}. Some related 

448: constructions of branes at angles have been considered in 

449: \cite{honecker,kataoka}. Notice, however, that the class of models

450: constructed in the present paper are more general, in the sense

451: that, following the {\it Bottom-Up} approach described in \cite{aiqu},

452: we will only bother about the local physics arising from the

453: singular point in $\B_{\bf 6-2n}$ where the D-brane content lies. 

454: The specific models presented as explicit examples of 

455: such constructions are also new, as well as their associated

456: phenomenology.

457: 

458: \subsection{Construction}

459: 

460: Let us consider some specific D-brane setting where the

461: above scenario can be naturally realized. As previously

462: stated, this will imply considering configurations of 

463: D5(D4)-branes wrapping 2(1)-cycles of a 4(2)-dimensional

464: compact manifold $\A$ 

465: which is in turn embedded in some 6-dimensional manifold $\cam$

466: as the `tip' of an orientifold singularity.

467: We will consider in what follows the D5-brane

468: case, leaving the discussion of D4-brane constructions  

469: for an appendix. Following \cite{afiru}, we will choose 

470: a fairly simple realization of this setup, given by

471: \beq

472: {\rm Type \ IIB \ on \ } M_4 \ti 

473: \frac{\ T^{4} \ti \C/\ent_N}{\{1 + \OR\}},

474: \label{singuori}

475: \eeq

476: where $\R$ stands for an involution associated with the parity

477: reversal operation $\Om$. In our case, 

478: $\R = \R_{(5)}\R_{(7)}\R_{(8)}\R_{(9)} (-1)^{F_L}$,

479: $\R_{(i)}$ standing for a reflection in the $i^{th}$ coordinate

480: and ${F_L}$ being the left fermion number.

481: More specifically, 

482: if we describe our internal coordinates by complex variables

483: $Z_i = X_{2i+2} + iX_{2i+3}$, then  

484: ${\cal R}$ is given by the geometrical action

485: \beq

486: \begin{array}{rlc}

487: {\cal R}_g : & Z_i \longmapsto \bar Z_i, & i = 1,2 \\  

488: & Z_3 \longmapsto - Z_3.

489: \end{array}

490: \label{R5}

491: \eeq

492: 

493: Such orientifold singularity will induce, as usual, a non-vanishing 

494: Klein-bottle amplitude, signaling the presence of an O5-plane 

495: in our configuration. In order to cancel the associated 

496: RR tadpoles, we will introduce $K$ stacks of $N_a$ D5-branes 

497: filling $M_4$ and wrapping 2-cycles $[\Pi_a] \in H_2 (T^4,\ent)$

498: ($a = 1,\dots,K$), while sitting at the origin of $\C/\ent_N$,

499: $N$ being an odd integer

500: \footnote{In the compact case of interest the D5-branes will be sitting 

501: at a generic $\ent_N$ singularity in the 

502: third complex compact dimension.} . 

503: Furthermore, we will consider a particularly 

504: simple subclass of configurations where ${\bf T^4}$ is a factorizable

505: torus ${\bf T^2 \ti T^2}$, and the 2-cycles the branes wrap can be decomposed

506: as a product of two 1-cycles $[(n_a^1, m_a^1)] \otimes [(n_a^2, m_a^2)]$, 

507: each wrapping a different ${\bf T^2}$ (see figure \ref{world} for an example). 

508: 

509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

510: \begin{figure}

511: \centering

512: \epsfxsize=4.4in

513: \hspace*{0in}\vspace*{.2in}

514: \epsffile{world.eps}

515: \caption{\small{Intersecting brane world setup.

516: We consider configurations of D5-branes filling four-dimensional

517: Minkowski spacetime, wrapping factorizable 2-cycles of ${\bf T^2 \ti T^2}$

518: and sitting at a singular point of some compact two-dimensional space

519: $\B_2$. In the figure, two such branes are depicted, with

520: wrapping numbers $(1,2)(1,\frac 32)$ (solid line) and $(1,-1)(1,\oh)$

521: (dashed line). The fractional wrapping numbers arise from a

522: tilted complex structure: $b^{(1)} = 0$, $b^{(2)} = \oh$.

523: %For simplicity, we have not included mirror branes nor O5-planes.

524: }

525: \label{world}}

526: \end{figure}

527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

528: 

529: The $\ent_N$ orbifold twist on the third complex dimension is 

530: generated by a geometric action $\om$, encoded 

531: in a twist vector of the form $v_\om = \frac 1N (0,0,-2,0)$

532: for modular invariance requirements and for

533: the variety to be spin. This same $\ent_N$ action may be 

534: embedded in the $U(N_a)$ degrees of freedom arising from the

535: $a^{th}$ stack of D5-branes, through a unitary matrix of the 

536: form

537: \beq

538: \g_{\om,a} = {\it diag} \left( {\bf 1}_{N_a^0},\ \a {\bf 1}_{N_a^1}, 

539: \ldots,\ \a^{N-1} {\bf 1}_{N_a^{N-1}} \right),

540: \label{Chan}

541: \eeq

542: with $\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} N_a^i = N_a$, and where we have defined 

543: $\a \equiv {\rm exp} (2\pi i/N)$.

544: 

545: This same class of configurations can be analyzed in a T-dual

546: picture, in terms of Type IIB D7-branes with non-trivial 

547: wrapping numbers and fluxes in the first two compact 

548: complex dimensions, while again localized 

549: in the orientifold singularity.

550: Furthermore, when embedding such singularity in a simple toroidal 

551: orbifold as ${\bf T^2/\ent_N}$, any configuration can be easily 

552: related to Type I compactified on ${\bf T^2 \ti T^2 \ti T^2/\ent_N}$, 

553: with some $F$ and $B$-fluxes in the first two tori.

554: As discussed in \cite{bkl} (see also \cite{bflux}), in such compactifications

555: only discrete values of the $b$-field are allowed by the 

556: presence of $\Om$, namely $b = 0, \oh$. In our T-dual

557: picture of branes at angles, this can be seen by 

558: noticing that the geometric action of $\R$ 

559: restricts the generic toroidal complex structures of

560: ${\bf T^2 \ti T^2}$ to those that are invariant under complex conjugation.

561: This allows us to consider either rectangular ($b = 0$) 

562: or special tilted ($b = \oh$) lattices when defining our ${\bf T^2}$

563: (see figure \ref{world}). In order to describe

564: configurations with non-vanishing $b$, is convenient to define 

565: effective wrapping numbers

566: \beq

567: (n_a^i,m_a^i)_{eff} := (n_a^i,m_a^i) + b^{(i)}(0,n_a^i), 

568: \label{frac}

569: \eeq

570: where $b^{(i)}$ stands for the value of $b$ on the $i^{th}$ torus 

571: ${\bf T^2}$. This simple redefinition of the wrapping numbers allows

572: us to simply describe the action of $\OR$ in the open string sector. 

573: Indeed, in order to have a consistent compactification we should

574: always consider either D5-branes invariant under $\OR$ or

575: pairs of branes related by its action. If a D$5_a$-brane is 

576: described by 

577: \beqa

578: & (n_a^1,m_a^1) \otimes (n_a^2,m_a^2) \nonumber \\

579: & \g_{\om,a} = {\it diag} \left( {\bf 1}_{N_a^0},\ \a {\bf 1}_{N_a^1}, 

580: \ldots,\ \a^{N-1} {\bf 1}_{N_a^{N-1}} \right),

581: \label{brana_a}

582: \eeqa

583: then the sector $\OR$D$5_a$ or D$5_{a^*}$ will be given by

584: \beqa

585: & (n_a^1,-m_a^1) \otimes (n_a^2,-m_a^2) \nonumber \\

586: & \g_{\om,a^*} = {\it diag} \left( {\bf 1}_{N_a^0},\ \a^{N-1} 

587: {\bf 1}_{N_a^{1}}, \ldots,\ \a {\bf 1}_{N_a^{N-1}} \right),

588: \label{brana_a*}

589: \eeqa

590: where we consider the effective wrapping numbers defined in (\ref{frac}).

591: Both branes $a$ and its mirror partner $a^*$ should be included in 

592: a consistent configuration. 

593: 

594: Let us now analyze the low energy spectrum arising from such generic 

595: class of configurations. First let us consider the closed string sector,

596: which can be computed using standard orbifold techniques.

597: Such techniques have been recently used in a sistematic 

598: study of non-supersymmetric Type II and Heterotic toroidal orbifolds

599: in \cite{anamaria}. In particular, the closed Type IIB

600: spectrum has been explicitely computed for the toroidal embedding 

601: of the $N = 3$ orbifold singularity, so we refer the reader to the 

602: appendix of \cite{anamaria} for further details. 

603: 

604: Let us first notice that, since we are only concerned with the 

605: physics arising at the orientifold singularity, 

606: it is pointless to compute the {\it untwisted} 

607: sector of the theory, which concerns the whole compactification. 

608: However, when embedding this $\ent_N$ singularity in a compact 

609: six-dimensional manifold $\cam$, this sector should give rise to 

610: four dimensional gravitation plus some other extra massless 

611: particles. At this level we will only  state that, since

612: the twist $v_\om$ is explicitly non-supersymmetric, 

613: the spectrum in the bulk will necessarily present $\cn = 0$,

614: thus yielding a more economical spectrum that

615: the one obtained by plain dimensional reduction on a torus.

616: 

617: On the contrary, the closed string {\it twisted} sector

618: of the theory will play a relevant role with respect to

619: the local physics on the singularity. As expected, 

620: Type IIB theory on such singularity will give rise to 

621: RR twisted $p$-forms of even $p$:

622: \beq

623: \begin{array}{cccc}

624: A_0^{(k)}, & A_2^{(k)}, & A_4^{(k)}, & A_6^{(k)}

625: \end{array}

626: \label{pformas}

627: \eeq

628: where $k = 1, \dots, N-1$ denotes the $k^{th}$-twisted sector of the theory.

629: $A_p^{(k)}$ and $A_{6-p}^{(k)}$ field strenghts are related

630: by Hodge duality in $D = 8$, while the orientifold action 

631: identifies $k$ and $N - k$ sectors. 

632: In addition, each NSNS $k^{th}$-twisted sector will lead to

633: a closed string tachyon of $\a'$(mass)$^2 = - \frac {4 k}{N}$

634: (actually, due to the $\OR$ modding, only $\oh (N-1)$ {\em real} 

635: such tachyons do actually appear).

636: The physical interpretation  of analogous  type of closed string tachyons

637: have been recently discussed in ref.\cite{tachyons}

638: for the case of non-compact orbifolds. A similar discussion in the

639: case of compact orbifolds and orientifolds 

640: is still lacking and goes beyond

641: the scope of the present paper.

642: Note in particular that in the ${\bf C/Z_N}$  case 

643: considered in \cite{tachyons} the tachyons are complex 

644: and their vev signal the smoothing of the singularity.

645: In the present {\em orientifold } case the tachyons are real fields

646: and the analysis should be different.

647: 

648: 

649: 

650: Let us now focus on the open string sector of the theory.

651: Whenever a D$5_a$-brane is not invariant under the orientifold 

652: action $\OR$, the massless spectrum arising from the 

653: D$5_a$D$5_a$ sector is identical to the one computed 

654: for the orbifold case in \cite{afiru}, since this sector will be

655: mapped to the D$5_{a^*}$D$5_{a^*}$ sector, and there will not be

656: any associated $\Om$ projection. 

657: This spectrum can be easily described in bosonic language.

658: Indeed, to each open string excitation we can associate 

659: a four-dimensional vector $r \in (\ent + \nu)^4$, where

660: $\nu$ distinguishes between the Ramond ($\nu = \oh$) 

661: and Neveu-Schwarz ($\nu = 0$) sectors of the theory.

662: The GSO projection is imposed by requiring $\sum_i r^i =$ odd,

663: and the massless states are those that satisfy $\sum_i (r^i)^2 = 1$.

664: Namely, the massless states surviving the 

665: GSO projection in both R and NS sectors are

666: {\small \beqa

667: \begin{array}{cccc}

668: {\rm \bf NS\ State} \quad & \quad {\bf \ent_N \ phase}  \quad 

669: & \quad {\rm \bf R \ State} \quad & \quad {\bf \ent_N \ phase} \\

670: (\pm1,0,0,0) & 1 & \pm\oh(-,+,+,+) & e^{\mp2\pi i \frac{1}{N}}\\

671: (0,\pm1,0,0) & 1 & \pm\oh(+,-,+,+) & e^{\mp2\pi i \frac{1}{N}}\\

672: (0,0,\pm1,0) & e^{\mp4\pi i \frac{1}{N}} & \pm\oh(+,+,-,+) 

673: & e^{\pm2\pi i \frac{1}{N}}\\

674: (0,0,0,\pm1) & 1 & \pm\oh(+,+,+,-) &  e^{\mp2\pi i \frac{1}{N}}

675: \label{sector5aa}

676: \end{array}

677: \eeqa}

678: where its behaviour under the $\ent_N$ orbifold twist has also 

679: been indicated. As usual, the open string spectrum is computed

680: by keeping states invariant under the combined geometric plus 

681: Chan-Paton (CP) $\ent_N$ action \cite{dg}, so after this projection

682: we are led to a spectrum of the form

683: {\small\beq

684: \begin{array}{rl}

685: {\rm\bf Gauge\; Bosons} & \prod_a \prod_{i=1}^N U(N_a^i)

686: \nonumber\\

687: {\rm\bf Complex \; Scalars} & \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N

688: [\; (N_a^{i},{\ov N}_a^{i-2}) + 2\times  {\bf Adj}_a^i\; ] \nonumber\\

689: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions} 

690: & \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N 2 \ti (N_a^{i},{\ov N}_a^{i-1}) \nonumber\\

691: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} 

692: & \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N 2 \ti (N_a^{i},{\ov N}_a^{i-1})

693: \label{espectro5aa}

694: \end{array}

695: \eeq}

696: where the index $i$ is defined $mod$ $N$.

697: Notice that this spectrum is explicitly 

698: non-chiral and also non-supersymmetric,

699: since all the gauginos have been projected out. Notice,

700: as well, that when considering D5-branes invariant under 

701: the $\OR$ action, $SO(N)$ and $USp(N)$ gauge groups will

702: also arise. Since we are not interested in constructing

703: configurations with these groups, we will not consider

704: this option any longer.

705: 

706: Both the chiral matter and the tachyonic content of our 

707: configuration will arise from the sectors $D5_aD5_b$,

708: $D5_aD5_{b^*}$ and $D5_aD5_{a^*}$. Let us compute this spectrum

709: explicitly for the $D5_aD5_b$ sector. Just as in the

710: $D5_aD5_a$ case, this sector is not constrained by the 

711: $\OR$ projection, so its associated spectrum is computed

712: in the same way as in an orbifold compactification.

713: In order to properly describe it, we can introduce

714: the twist vector $v_\vt = (\vt_{ab}^1, \vt_{ab}^2, 0, 0)$,

715: $\pi \vt_{ab}^i$ being the angle that both branes form

716: on the $i^{th}$ torus \cite{afiru}.

717: The states living in the $ab$ intersection are then

718: characterized by four-dimensional vectors of the form

719: $r + v_\vt$, where $r$ stands for the set of discrete

720: vectors introduced above.  The mass formula is also modified

721: to \cite{arfaei,afiru}

722: \beq

723: \a' M_{ab}^2 = {Y^2 \over 4\pi\a^\prime} + N_{bos}(\vt) 

724: + {(r + v_\vt)^2 \over 2} -\oh + E_{ab},

725: \label{mass2}

726: \eeq

727: where $Y$ stands for any transversal separation between both branes,

728: $N_{bos}(\vt)$ is the bosonic oscillator contribution and $E_{ab}$ is

729: the vacuum energy:

730: \beq

731: E_{ab} = \sum_{i=1}^3 \oh |\vt^i| (1 - |\vt^i|)

732: \label{vacio}

733: \eeq

734: 

735: The massless and tachyonic states will now be

736: {\small\beq

737: \begin{array}{cccc}

738: {\rm\bf Sector} & {\rm\bf State} & {\rm\bf \ent_N \ phase} & {\rm\bf \a' Mass^2}

739: \vspace{2mm}\\

740: {\rm NS} & (-1+\vartheta^1,\vt^2,0,0) & 1 & -\oh(\vt^1 - \vt^2) \nonumber \\

741:          & (\vt^1,-1+\vartheta^2,0,0) & 1 & \oh(\vt^1 - \vt^2)\nonumber 

742: \vspace{2mm}\\

743: {\rm R}  & (-\oh+\vartheta^1,-\oh+\vartheta^2,-\oh,+\oh) &

744: e^{2\pi i\frac {1}{N}} & 0\\

745:          &  (-\oh+\vartheta^1,-\oh+\vartheta^2,+\oh,-\oh) &

746: e^{-2\pi i\frac{1}{N}} & 0

747: \end{array}

748: \label{sector5ab}

749: \eeq}

750: where $\vt^i \equiv \vt^i_{ab}$ and we have supposed 

751:  $0 < \vt^i < 1$, $i = 1,2$. In any case, one of the NS states will

752: be necessarily tachyonic, unless $|\vt^1| = |\vt^2|$ and

753: both are massless. The spectrum can be found again by projecting

754: out non-invariant states. In this case, however, we must 

755: also consider the intersection number of both branes

756: \beq

757: I_{ab} \equiv [\Pi_a]\cdot[\Pi_b] = I_{ab}^1 I_{ab}^2 

758: = (n_a^1 m_b^1- m_a^1\ n_b^2)

759: (n_a^2 m_b^2- m_a^2 n_b^2).

760: \label{interfive}

761: \eeq

762: This number is a topological invariant associated to the

763: two 2-cycles the branes wrap. Its absolute value counts 

764: the net number of intersection between such cycles, thus 

765: telling us how many replicas of (\ref{sector5ab}) are

766: present, and its sign indicates the chirality of the

767: fermions living at the intersection \cite{afiru,cim1}.

768: The final spectrum arising from this sector is thus

769: {\small\beq

770: \begin{array}{rl}

771: {\rm\bf Tachyons} & \quad \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; I_{ab}\times

772: (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^i) \nonumber \\

773: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions} & \quad \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;

774: I_{ab}\times(N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i+1}) \nonumber \\

775: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} & \quad \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;  I_{ab}\times

776: (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-1})

777: \end{array}

778: \label{espectro5ab}

779: \eeq}

780: 

781: In the same manner, we can compute the massless and tachyonic 

782: spectrum arising from the $D5_aD5_{b^*}$ and $D5_aD5_{a^*}$ sectors,

783: taking account of their respective wrapping numbers and twist 

784: vectors. The important point to notice is that fermions arising

785: from $D5_aD5_{b^*}$ will transform as bifundamentals in some

786: $(N_a^i,N_b^{-i-1})$ instead of $(N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i+1})$.

787: This simple fact will allow us to achieve a much more economical

788: chiral spectrum, as already noted in \cite{imr}. The $D5_aD5_{a^*}$

789: sector, in turn, will generically have some fixed points under 

790: the orientifold action, giving rise to fermions and scalars 

791: in symmetric (${\bf S}$) and antisymmetric (${\bf A}$) 

792: representations. The complete spectrum is given by

793: {\small\beq

794: \begin{array}{l}

795: {\rm\bf Complex\; Scalars} \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

796: [\; \arr I_{ab}\arr (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^i) + 

797: \arr I_{ab^*}\arr (N_a^i,N_b^{-i})\;]\\

798: \sum_a [\;2 \arr m_a^1 m_a^2\arr (\arr n_a^1 n_a^2\arr + 1) ({\bf A}_a^0)

799: + 2 \arr m_a^1 m_a^2\arr (\arr n_a^1 n_a^2\arr - 1) ({\bf S}_a^0)\;] 

800: \vspace{3mm}\\

801: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions} \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;

802: [\;I_{ab}(N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i+1}) + I_{ab*}(N_a^i,N_b^{-i-1})\;]  \\

803: \sum_a \sum_{j,i=1}^N \; \d_{j,-i-1}

804: [\;2 m_a^1 m_a^2 (n_a^1 n_a^2 + 1) ({\bf A}_a^j)

805: + 2 m_a^1 m_a^2 (n_a^1 n_a^2 - 1) ({\bf S}_a^j)\;] 

806: \vspace{3mm}\\

807: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;

808: [\;I_{ab}(N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-1}) + I_{ab*}(N_a^i,N_b^{-i+1})\;]  \\

809: \sum_a \sum_{j,i=1}^N \; \d_{j,-i+1}

810: [\;2 m_a^1 m_a^2 (n_a^1 n_a^2 + 1) ({\bf A}_a^j)

811: + 2 m_a^1 m_a^2 (n_a^1 n_a^2 - 1) ({\bf S}_a^j)\;] 

812: \end{array}

813: \label{espectro5ab*}

814: \eeq}

815: 

816: Let us also mention that, in case $I_{aa*} = 0$, some care 

817: should be taken when considering the {\it scalar} spectrum

818: arising from the $aa^*$ sector. If, for instance,

819: $I_{aa^*}^i = 0$, in order to obtain 

820: such spectrum we must `forget' about this ${\bf (T^2)_i}$ and 

821: compute it from a system of D4-branes wrapping as

822: $(n_a^j, m_a^j)$ on ${\bf (T^2)_j}$, $j \neq i$ 

823: (see formulae (\ref{espectro4ab*})).

824: Notice that if $m_a^i = 0$ there is an extra contribution

825: to the mass$^2$ of the whole spectrum arising from $aa^*$, coming from the 

826: separation $Y$ that both mirror branes may have in the 

827: $i^{th}$ torus.

828: 

829: \subsection{Tadpoles and anomalies}

830: 

831: When dealing with a full consistent configuration of D5-branes,

832: RR tadpole cancellation conditions should always be satisfied.

833: These can be easily computed from usual factorization of

834: one-loop amplitudes. As mentioned before, the presence 

835: of the $\OR$ factor will induce non-vanishing

836: Klein bottle and Moebius strip contributions to such 

837: amplitudes, so the conditions computed in \cite{afiru}

838: for D5-branes sitting on an orbifold singularity 

839: will be slightly modified to

840: {\beq

841: \begin{array}{l}

842: c_k^2 \ \sum_a n_a^1 n_a^2 \ 

843: \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right)

844: = 16 \ {\rm sin} \left(\frac{\pi k}{N} \right) \\

845: c_k^2 \ \sum_a m_a^1 m_a^2 \ 

846: \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right) = 0\\

847: c_k^2 \ \sum_a n_a^1 m_a^2 \ 

848: \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} - {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right) = 0\\

849: c_k^2 \ \sum_a m_a^1 n_a^2 \ 

850: \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} - {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right) = 0

851: \label{tadpoleO5b}

852: \end{array}

853: \eeq}

854: where $c_k^2 = {\rm sin \ } \frac{2\pi k}{N}$ is a weight for each

855: $k^{th}$ twisted sector usually arising in $\ent_N$ orientifold 

856: compactifications \cite{GJ}. As can easily be seen,

857: the difference with the orbifold case amounts to consider the presence 

858: of mirror branes $a^*$ in our configuration and including a constant

859: term in the first equation. This constant term can be interpreted as

860: a negative RR charge induced by the presence of an O5-plane. Indeed,

861: in the more general context of D$5_a$-branes wrapping general 2-cycles 

862: $[\Pi_a]$ on ${\bf T^4}$ these conditions can be expressed as

863: \beq

864: c_k^2 \ \sum_a \left([\Pi_a] \ {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} 

865: + [\Pi_{a^*}] \ {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right)

866: = [\Pi_{O5}] \ 16 \b^1\b^2 \

867: {\rm sin} \left(\frac{\pi k}{N} \right),

868: \label{tadpoleO5}

869: \eeq

870: where $[\Pi_{O5}]$ describes the 2-cycle the O5-plane wraps,

871: and $\b^i = 1 - b^{(i)}$. Notice that the factor of 

872: $16 \b^1\b^2$ can be interpreted as the number of O$5$-planes,

873: which is $4 \b^1\b^2$, times their relative charge to a 

874: D$5$-brane, which is $-4$. We thus see that RR conditions

875: can be interpreted, as usual, as the vanishing of the total

876: RR charge in a compact space (in our case ${\bf T^4}$). 

877: In this token, notice that $c_0^2 = 0$, so we are not imposing 

878: any condition in the untwisted sector, whose associated RR form

879: can escape the singularity. This implies that we are not fixing

880: the total number of branes. In this sense, we are being less

881: restrictive than in a simple toroidal orbifold 

882: (see, e.g., the related  constructions considered in \cite{honecker}).

883: When embedding our orientifold singularity in a 

884: full compact variety $\cam$, however, these RR untwisted conditions

885: should also be taken into account. The cancellation of these untwisted

886: tadpoles is easy to achieve by adding appropriate D5-branes

887: at locations in the third torus away from the $\ent_N$ singularity

888: at which the SM branes sit. This is why we will not discuss them

889: explicitly in the rest of the paper.

890:  

891: 

892: Although quite general, the expression (\ref{tadpoleO5}) is not 

893: very useful for our model-building purposes. We will make use

894: instead of (\ref{tadpoleO5b}), which can be also be converted into a 

895: more tractable expression. Indeed, notice that the upper 

896: set of equations in (\ref{tadpoleO5b}) is equivalent to

897: \beq

898: \sum_a{n_a^1 n_a^2 \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{2k,a} 

899: + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{2k,a^*}\right)} =

900: {16 \over {\alpha^k + \alpha^{-k}}},

901: \label{decomp}

902: \eeq

903: where we have again used $\alpha = e^{2\pi i/N}$.

904: Taking $2k \equiv 1  \ mod \ N$, we can easily read

905: the condition that has to be imposed to the

906: Chan-Paton matrix $\gamma_{\om,a}$

907: \beq

908: \sum_a{n_a^1 n_a^2 \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{\om,a} 

909: + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{\om,a^*}\right)} =

910: {16 \over {\alpha^{N+1 \over 2}  + \alpha^{N-1 \over 2}}} =

911: 16 \eta \sum_{l=1}^r{(\alpha^{2l-1}+ \bar\alpha^{2l-1})},

912: \label{generadortwist}

913: \eeq

914: \beq

915: \eta = \left\{\begin{array}{l}

916: +1 \ {\rm if} \ N = 4r-1 \\

917: -1 \ {\rm if} \ N = 4r+1

918: \end{array}\right.

919: \label{eta}

920: \eeq

921: 

922: Cancellation of RR tadpoles has, as usual, very important

923: consequences from the point of view of the effective

924: four-dimensional field theory. Indeed, when considering

925: a chiral spectrum as the one considered in (\ref{espectro5ab*})

926: potential chiral anomalies may arise. RR tadpole conditions

927: (\ref{tadpoleO5b}) insure the cancellation of such anomalies,

928: as we will now see. Let us first consider the cancellation of 

929: the cubic non-Abelian anomaly for the gauge group $SU(N_a^i)$,

930: which in our configurations reads

931: \beq

932: \ca_{SU(N_a^i)^3} = \sum_{b,j} N_b^j \left(I_{ab} \ \d(i,j) 

933: + I_{ab^*} \ \d(i,-j)\right) + 16\b^1\b^2 \ I_{a,O5}\ \d(i,-i), 

934: \label{quiralO5}

935: \eeq

936: where $\d(i,j) = \d_{i+1,j} - \d_{i-1,j}$ 

937: (the indexes $i,j$ are again defined $mod$ $N$) 

938: and, in case of factorizable branes (\ref{brana_a}), 

939: $\b^1\b^2 I_{a,O5} = m_a^1 m_a^2$.

940: 

941: Just as done in \cite{leigh,afiru}, we can use the discrete

942: Fourier transform 

943: $\d_{ij} = \frac 1N \sum_{k=1}^N e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{N} (j-i)}$ 

944: to rewrite (\ref{quiralO5}) as 

945: \beq

946: \ca_{SU(N_a^i)^3} = {-4 \over N} \sum_{k=1}^N e^{2\pi i\frac{k\cdot i}{N}} 

947: c_k^2 \left( \sum_b I_{ab} \ {\rm Tr \ }\g_{k,a}\ 

948: + \ I_{ab^*} {\rm Tr \ }\g_{k,a^*}\right) + 16 m_a^1 m_a^2 \d(i,-i),

949: \label{quiralO5b}

950: \eeq

951: which after some simple manipulations, can be seen to vanish whenever

952: the tadpoles conditions (\ref{tadpoleO5b}) are satisfied. As usual,

953: the latter turn out to be more restrictive that the vanishing of

954: (\ref{quiralO5b}).

955: %(ZZZ la formula (\ref{quiralO5b}) es horrorosa y no dice mucho.

956: %Su unica virtud es que es cierta. 

957: %Podemos suprimirla y decir las cosas de palabra.)

958: 

959: We can also consider mixed and cubic $U(1)$ anomalies, both involving 

960: a generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism mediated by RR twisted fields.

961: Indeed, the full expression for the mixed $U(1)_{a,i}-SU(N_b^j)^2$

962: anomaly is given by

963: \beqa

964: \ca_{U(1)_{a,i}-SU(N_b^j)^2} & = &\oh \d_{ab} \d_{ij} 

965: \left(

966: \sum_{c,l} N_c^l \left[ I_{ac}\ \d(i,l) + I_{ac^*}\ \d(i,-l) \right]

967: + 16 m_a^1 m_a^2 \d(i,-i)

968: \right) \nonumber \\

969: & + & \oh N_a^i \left( I_{ab}\ \d(i,j) + I_{ab^*}\ \d(i,-j) \right),

970: \label{mixtaO5}

971: \eeqa

972: the first term in brackets being proportional to the cubic

973: chiral anomaly of $SU(N_a^i)$, thus vanishing when imposing 

974: tadpoles. The remaining contribution can then be canceled by

975: means of a generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism. 

976: Indeed, by use of the discrete Fourier

977: transform, we can rewrite the residual anomaly in (\ref{mixtaO5})

978: as

979: \beq

980: \ca_{U(1)_{a,i}-SU(N_b^j)^2} = {-2 N_a^i \over N} 

981: \sum_{k=1}^N e^{2\pi i\frac{k\cdot i}{N}} 

982: c_k^2 \left( I_{ab} \ e^{-2\pi i\frac{k\cdot j}{N}}

983: + \ I_{ab^*}  \ e^{2\pi i\frac{k\cdot j}{N}} \right).

984: \label{mixtaO5b}

985: \eeq

986: As explained in \cite{afiru} for the orbifold (non-orientifold) 

987: case, this quantity can be canceled by exchange of four-dimensional 

988: fields, which arise upon dimensional reduction of the

989: RR twisted forms living on the singularity. 

990: For showing this, let us consider the T-dual picture of

991: fractional D7-branes wrapping the first two tori, and with

992: non-trivial $F$ and $B$-fluxes on them. 

993: On the worldvolume of each D7-brane, there will appear some 

994: couplings to the twisted RR forms in (\ref{pformas}),

995: and by integrating such couplings on the compact toroidal dimensions

996: ${\bf (T^2)_1 \times (T^2)_2}$ we will obtain four-dimensional

997: couplings that will be relevant to our low-energy theory.

998: Indeed, if we define

999: \beq

1000: \begin{array}{lcl}

1001: B_0^{(k)} = A_0^{(k)}, 

1002: & & B_2^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_1 \times (T^2)_2} A_6^{(k)}, \\

1003: C_0^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_1 \times (T^2)_2} A_4^{(k)}, 

1004: & & C_2^{(k)} =  A_2^{(k)}, \\

1005: D_0^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_2} A_2^{(k)},

1006: & & D_2^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_1} A_4^{(k)}, \\

1007: E_0^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_1} A_2^{(k)}, 

1008: & & E_2^{(k)} = \int_{\bf (T^2)_2} A_4^{(k)},

1009: \end{array}

1010: \label{pformas4}

1011: \eeq

1012: then these four dimensional couplings can be computed to be

1013: \beqa & &

1014: \begin{array}{c}

1015: c_k N_a^i\, n^1_a n^2_a \int_{M_4} 

1016: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}-\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i \

1017: B_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i}, \\

1018: c_k N_a^i\, m^1_a m^2_a \int_{M_4} 

1019: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}-\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i \

1020: C_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i}, \\

1021: c_k N_a^i\, n^1_a m^2_a \int_{M_4} 

1022: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}+\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i \

1023: D_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i}, \\

1024: c_k N_a^i\, m^1_a n^2_a \int_{M_4} 

1025: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}+\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i \

1026: E_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i},

1027: \end{array} 

1028: \label{acoplosdualO5} \\ & &

1029: \begin{array}{c}

1030: c_k m^1_b m^2_b \int_{M_4} 

1031: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}+\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

1032: B_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right), \\

1033: c_k n^1_b n^2_b \int_{M_4} 

1034: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}+\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

1035: C_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right), \\

1036: c_k m^1_b n^2_b \int_{M_4} 

1037: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}-\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

1038: D_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right), \\

1039: c_k n^1_b m^2_b \int_{M_4} 

1040: {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}-\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

1041: E_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right),

1042: \end{array}

1043: \label{acoplosdual2O5}

1044: \eeqa

1045: where $\lam$ denotes the Chan-Paton wavefunction for the gauge 

1046: boson state, and the $N_a^i$ factor arises from normalization of 

1047: the $U(1)_{a,i}$ generator (see \cite{iru}). 

1048:  Since $B_2^{(k)}$ and $B_0^{(k)}$ are

1049: four-dimensional Hodge duals, same for $C$, $D$ and $E$,

1050: the sum over the GS diagrams

1051: %\footnote{Actually, $B^{(k)}$ and $B^{(N-k)}$ are to be

1052: %identified under the action of $\Om$, so that only $2(N-1)$

1053: %such fields must be considered.}

1054: will provide a counterterm

1055: with the structure (\ref{mixtaO5b}), just as required 

1056: to cancel the residual mixed anomaly in (\ref{mixtaO5}).

1057: Cancellation of cubic $U(1)$ anomalies works in a similar way.

1058: 

1059: An important consequence of this anomaly cancellation mechanism

1060: is the Abelian gauge structure of the low-energy

1061: effective action. It can be shown that, as a result of

1062: the couplings (\ref{acoplosdualO5})

1063: the gauge bosons of the potentially anomalous 

1064: $U(1)$ get massive, decoupling from the low energy spectrum

1065: of the theory. More generally,

1066: any $U(1)$ gauge boson (anomalous or not)  

1067: with a non-vanishing axionic coupling

1068: of the form (\ref{acoplosdualO5}) will have an induced mass term

1069: of the order of the string scale. The associated gauge symmetry

1070: will no longer be present, although such $U(1)$ will remain

1071: as an exact perturbative global symmetry.

1072: 

1073: A similar analysis regarding the construction of intersecting

1074: D$4$-branes configurations wrapping ${\bf T^2}$ and sitting in a 

1075: $\C^2/\ent_N$  orientifold singularity can also be performed, 

1076: the general formalism being much alike as the one just presented for

1077: the case of D5-branes. These D4-branes constructions are

1078: also of  interest from the model-building point of view,

1079: and some non-orientifold examples were built in \cite{afiru2}

1080: (see also  related  models 

1081: in \cite{honecker}). However, 

1082: it turns out to be difficult to obtain D4-brane

1083: models with just the SM fermion spectrum.

1084: That is why  we leave the presentation of the

1085: D4-brane formalism for an appendix.

1086: 

1087: 

1088: \section{The Standard Model at intersecting D5-branes }

1089: 

1090: In the present section we will be interested in 

1091:  finding intersecting

1092: D5-branes models whose gauge group and matter content correspond

1093: to either the Standard Model (SM) or some Left-Right symmetric (LR) 

1094: extension of it \cite{LR}. Such low energy spectra must contain 

1095: the following gauge group and fermionic content:

1096: \beq

1097: \begin{array}{ccc}

1098: {\rm Standard\ Model} &  & {\rm Left}$-${\rm Right\ Model}

1099: \vspace{0.1cm} \\ 

1100: SU(3)_c \ti SU(2)_L \ti U(1)_Y 

1101: & & SU(3)_c \ti SU(2)_L \ti SU(2)_R \ti U(1)_{B-L} \\

1102: Q_L^i=(3,2)_{\frac 16} & \raw & Q_L^i=(3,2,1)_{1/3}\\ 

1103: \left.

1104: \begin{array}{c} 

1105: U_R^i =({\bar 3},1)_{-\frac 23} \\

1106: D_R^i=({\bar 3},1)_{\frac 13} 

1107: \end{array} \right\}

1108: & \raw & Q_R^i=(\bar 3,2,1)_{-1/3} \\

1109: L^i=(1,2)_{-\frac 12} & \raw & L_L^i=(1,2,1)_{-1}  \\ 

1110: \left.

1111: \begin{array}{c} 

1112: E_R^i=(1,1)_1 \\

1113: N_R^i=(1,1)_0

1114: \end{array} \right\}

1115: & \raw & L_R^i=(1,1,2)_{1}

1116: \end{array}

1117: \label{content}

1118: \eeq

1119: where $i = 1,2,3$ indexes the three different generations 

1120: that have to be considered in each model. 

1121: 

1122: Following the general philosophy described in \cite{imr},

1123: we will be considering a class of configurations where

1124: the chiral fermions arise only in bifundamental representations

1125: \beq

1126: \sum_{a,b}

1127: n_{ab}(N_a,{\overline N}_b)+m_{ab}  (N_a,N_b) + n_{ab}^* ({\overline N}_a,

1128: N_b)+m_{ab}^*({\overline N}_a , {\overline N}_b),

1129: \label{bifundamentals}

1130: \eeq

1131: where  $n_{ab},n_{ab}^*,m_{ab},m_{ab}^*$ are model dependent 

1132: and non-negative integer numbers. In this particular class of 

1133: models, cubic anomaly cancellation for a non-Abelian gauge group 

1134: $SU(N_a)$ reduces to having the same 

1135: number of fundamental representations $N_a$ as antifundamental

1136: representations $\overline N_a$. 

1137: Notice also that, from the

1138: point of view of Left-Right unification, right-handed neutrinos 

1139: must exist, as they complete the $SU(2)_R$ leptonic doublet 

1140: that contains the charged right-handed leptons $E_R^i$. 

1141: From the point of view of SM building, though, there is no reason

1142: why we should consider having such representations in our fermionic 

1143: content. However, as was emphasized in \cite{imr}, when obtaining

1144: the chiral content of our theory just from fields transforming in 

1145: bifundamental representations, such right-handed neutrinos naturally

1146: appear from anomaly cancellation conditions. Since in the present

1147: paper we will construct our models from such ``bifundamental'' fermions, 

1148: we will include these particles right from the start

1149: \footnote{For some intersecting branes SM constructions without 

1150: right-handed neutrinos see \cite{bklo,cim2}.}.

1151: In general, it can also be shown that 

1152: in this case where chiral fields transform in bifundamentals

1153: the simplest embedding of the SM (or the LR extension)

1154: will consist in a configuration of four stack of branes, as

1155: presented in table \ref{SMbranes}.

1156: %

1157: \begin{table}[htb]

1158: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7}

1159: \begin{center}

1160: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1161: \hline

1162: Label & Multiplicity & Gauge Group & Name \\

1163: \hline

1164: \hline

1165: stack $a$ & $N_a = 3$ & $SU(3) \times U(1)_a$ & Baryonic brane\\

1166: \hline

1167: stack $b$ & $N_b = 2$ & $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_b$ & Left brane\\

1168: \hline

1169: stack $c$ & $N_c = 

1170: \left\{

1171: \begin{array}{c}

1172: 2\\ 1

1173: \end{array}

1174: \right.$ & 

1175: $\begin{array}{c}

1176: SU(2)_R \ti U(1)_c \\ U(1)_c

1177: \end{array}$ & Right brane\\

1178: \hline

1179: stack $d$ & $N_d = 1$ & $U(1)_d$ & Leptonic brane \\

1180: \hline

1181: \end{tabular}

1182: \caption{\small Brane content yielding the SM or LR spectrum.

1183: \label{SMbranes}}

1184: \end{center}

1185: \end{table}

1186: %

1187: 

1188: Given this brane content is relatively easy to figure out

1189: how to realize the specific fermion content of both SM and LR

1190: models. Indeed, let us for instance consider strings coming 

1191: from the $ab$ and $ab^*$ sectors. Their (left-handed) massless modes will 

1192: transform as either $(3,\bar 2)$ or $(3,2)$ under the gauge 

1193: group $SU(3) \ti SU(2)_L$

1194: and hence can be naturally identified 

1195: with the left-handed quarks $Q_L^i$. The fermion content  

1196:  of both classes of models are shown in tables

1197: \ref{specSM} and \ref{specLR}, where each chiral fermion in 

1198: (\ref{content}) is associated to a definite sector.

1199: 

1200: \begin{table}[htb] \footnotesize

1201: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

1202: \begin{center}

1203: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1204: \hline Intersection &

1205:  Matter fields  &   &  $Q_a$  & $Q_b $ & $Q_c $ & $Q_d$  & Y \\

1206: \hline\hline (ab) & $Q_L$ &  $(3,2)$ & 1  & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1/6 \\

1207: \hline (ab*) & $q_L$   &  $2(3,2)$ &  1  & 1  & 0  & 0  & 1/6 \\

1208: \hline (ac) & $U_R$   &  $3( {\bar 3},1)$ &  -1  & 0  & 1  & 0 & -2/3 \\ 

1209: \hline (ac*) & $D_R$   &  $3( {\bar 3},1)$ &  -1  & 0  & -1  & 0 & 1/3 \\

1210: \hline (bd) & $L$    &  $3(1,2)$ &  0   & -1   & 0  & 1 & -1/2  \\

1211: \hline (cd) & $N_R$   &  $3(1,1)$ &  0  & 0  & 1  & -1  & 0  \\

1212: \hline (cd*) & $E_R$   &  $3(1,1)$ &  0 & 0 & -1 & -1  & 1 \\

1213: \hline \end{tabular}

1214: \end{center} \caption{\small Standard model spectrum and $U(1)$ charges. 

1215: The hypercharge generator is defined as 

1216: $Q_Y = \frac 16 Q_a - \frac 12 Q_c - \frac 12 Q_d$.}

1217: \label{specSM} 

1218: \end{table}

1219: %

1220: \begin{table}[htb] \footnotesize

1221: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

1222: \begin{center}

1223: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1224: \hline Intersection &

1225:  Matter fields  &   &  $Q_a$  & $Q_b $ & $Q_c $ & $Q_d$  & $B-L$ \\

1226: \hline\hline (ab) & $Q_L$ &  $(3,2,1)$ & 1  & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 \\

1227: \hline (ab*) & $q_L$   &  $2(3,2,1)$ &  1  & 1  & 0  & 0  & 1/3 \\

1228: \hline (ac) & $Q_R$   &  $({\bar 3},1,2)$ &  -1  & 0  & 1  & 0 & -1/3 \\

1229: \hline (ac*) & $q_R$   &  $2({\bar 3},1,2)$ &  -1  & 0  & -1  & 0 & -1/3 \\

1230: \hline (bd) & $L_L$    &  $3(1,2,1)$ &  0  & -1  & 0  & 1 & -1  \\

1231: \hline (cd) & $L_R$   &  $3(1,1,2)$ &  0  & 0  & 1  & -1  & 1  \\

1232: \hline \end{tabular}

1233: \end{center} \caption{\small Left Right symmetric chiral spectrum

1234: and $U(1)$ charges. The $U(1)_{B-L}$ generator is defined as 

1235: $Q_{B-L} = \frac 13 Q_a - Q_d$.}

1236: \label{specLR}

1237: \end{table}

1238: 

1239: In order to realize such spectra as the chiral content of a

1240: concrete configuration of D5-branes we must impose some topological

1241: constraints on  our models. Unlike the case of D6-branes, where all 

1242: the spectrum information is encoded on the intersection numbers,

1243: we must now also consider the orbifold structure of our configuration.

1244: Such structure can be easily encoded in a quiver diagram

1245: \footnote{These are quivers in the sense of ref.\cite{dg,quiver,auquivers},

1246: not in the sense of the SUSY-quivers discussed in ref.\cite{cim1,cim2}

1247: in which no $\ent_N$ twist is present.},

1248: as shown in figure \ref{quiverZN}. 

1249: 

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: \begin{figure}

1252: \centering

1253: \epsfxsize=2.5in

1254: \hspace*{0in}\vspace*{.2in}

1255: \epsffile{ZN.eps}

1256: \caption{\small{Quiver diagram of a $\ent_N$ orbifold singularity.

1257: The nodes of such diagram represent the phases associated to each 

1258: different gauge group in the theory, whereas each arrow

1259: represents a chiral fermion transforming in a bifundamental

1260: of the two groups it links.}}

1261: \label{quiverZN}

1262: \end{figure}

1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1264: 

1265: In general, a D-brane configuration living on an orbifold 

1266: singularity can be locally described by quotienting the theory 

1267: by a discrete group $\Gamma$, which is acting 

1268: on both an ambient space $\C^n$ and on the CP 

1269: degrees of freedom. To each $\Gamma$ action we can associate 

1270: a quiver diagram \cite{dg,quiver,auquivers}. Each node of such diagram 

1271: will represent an irreducible representation (irreps) of $\Gamma$,

1272: whereas the arrows connecting the nodes represent invariant fields

1273: under combined geometric and gauge actions. In general, the $\G$

1274: action $\g_g$ on the Chan-Paton degrees of freedom can be written

1275: as a direct sum of such irreps, and the gauge groups that will arise

1276: from it will correspond to a product of unitary groups, each one

1277: associated to a definite irreps. In our specific setup

1278: $n = 1$ and $\Gamma = \ent_N$, so each irreps of $\G$ is one-dimensional

1279: and can be associated to a $N^{th}$-root of unity. Indeed,

1280: any $\ent_N$ generator action on the Chan-Paton degrees of freedom can be

1281: written on the form (\ref{Chan}), where several such phases are involved.

1282: Without loss of generality, we will consider that each brane

1283: $a, b, c, d$ has a $\g_\om$ matrix proportional to the identity, 

1284: that is $\g_{\om,i} = \a^n {\bf 1}_{N_i}$, so that

1285: it will give rise to just one unitary gauge group $U(N_i)$. 

1286: We will represent this by locating that brane $i$ on the node

1287: corresponding to the irreps $\a^n$. Notice that, in an orientifold

1288: theory, the mirror brane $i^*$ will then be placed in the node

1289: $\bar \a^n$.

1290: 

1291: Chiral fields can also be easily identified in this diagram 

1292: by arrows connecting the nodes. These arrows will always link 

1293: two different nodes, so that if there is some brane content 

1294: in both of them we will find a fermion transforming under

1295: the corresponding gauge groups. The sense of the arrow will

1296: denote the chirality that such representation has.

1297: In our conventions the positive sense represents left

1298: fermions. This arrow structure can be easily read from the chiral 

1299: spectrum in (\ref{espectro5ab}), giving rise to the cyclic quiver

1300: depicted in figure \ref{quiverZN}. Notice that this simple spectrum

1301: comes from a plain orbifold singularity. In this case every 

1302: chiral field will transform in bifundamental representations of

1303: two gauge groups with contiguous phases. When considering

1304: orientifold singularities, however, we should also include the mirror

1305: branes on the picture, and more ``exotic'' representations may arise.

1306: 

1307: There are, in principle, many different ways of obtaining the

1308: desired chiral spectrum (\ref{content}) from the brane content

1309: of table \ref{SMbranes}. Furthermore, the details of the 

1310: construction will depend on the specific model (SM or LR)

1311: and on the $\ent_N$ quiver under consideration.

1312: There are, however, some general features of the

1313: construction that can be already addressed at this level.

1314: 

1315: \begin{itemize}

1316: 

1317: \item 

1318: In both SM and LR models, chiral fermions must arise in a very

1319: definite pattern. Namely, we need left and right-handed quarks ,

1320: so we must consider matter arising from the intersections

1321: of the {\it baryonic} brane with both the {\it left} and 

1322: {\it right} branes. We must avoid, however, lepto-quarks

1323: which may arise from some intersection with the {\it leptonic}

1324: brane. The same considerations must be applied to the latter.

1325: This pattern can be easily achieved in D5-branes configurations

1326: by placing both $b$ and $c$ (or $c^*$) branes on the same node of the 

1327: $\ent_N$ quiver, while $a$ and $d$ in some contiguous node.

1328: Since, in order to achieve the spectra of tables 

1329: \ref{specSM} and \ref{specLR},

1330: we must consider non-trivial $ab$, $ab^*$, $ac$ and $ac^*$

1331: sectors, we must place the stack $a$ either in the phase

1332: $1$ or in the phase $\a$, while stacks $b$, $c$ must be in 

1333: the other one. This restricts our search to essentially 

1334: two different distributions of branes, which are shown in 

1335: figure \ref{2quivers}.

1336: 

1337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1338: \begin{figure}

1339: \centering

1340: \epsfxsize=4in

1341: \hspace*{0in}\vspace*{.2in}

1342: \epsffile{ZNa.eps}

1343: \caption{\small{Two possible embeddings of the brane content

1344: of a SM or LR configuration.}}

1345: \label{2quivers}

1346: \end{figure}

1347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1348: 

1349: \item 

1350: Given these two possibilities, it is now easy to guess which

1351: intersection numbers must we impose in order to achieve

1352: the desired spectra. Indeed, the modulus of an intersection 

1353: number, say $I_{ab}$, will give us the multiplicity of

1354: this sector. This implies that, in order to have the desired

1355: number of left-handed quarks, we must impose $|I_{ab}| = 1$,

1356: $|I_{ab^*}| = 2$ as can be read directly from tables 

1357: \ref{specSM} and \ref{specLR}.

1358: \footnote{We could have alternatively imposed $|I_{ab}| = 2$,

1359: $|I_{ab^*}| = 1$, giving an equivalent spectrum.

1360: %(esta nota va por Kokorelis)

1361: }

1362: On the other hand, we will have to choose the sign of these

1363: intersection numbers in order to properly fix the chirality

1364: of our fermions. These signs will be different for each

1365: distribution of branes considered in figure \ref{2quivers}, 

1366: since chirality also depends on the arrow structure of the 

1367: quiver diagram. For instance, we should impose 

1368: $I_{ab} = 1$, $I_{ab*} = -2$ in the $a$)-type of quiver

1369: in this figure, while $I_{ab} = -1$, $I_{ab*} = -2$

1370: in the $b$)-type. Similar reasoning  applies  to  other intersections

1371: involving branes $b$ and $c$.

1372: 

1373: \item 

1374: Finally, we are interested in getting all of our chiral matter 

1375: from bifundamental representations. Thus, we must avoid the 

1376: appearance of Symmetrics and Antisymmetrics that might appear 

1377: from the general spectrum (\ref{espectro5ab*}).

1378: This will specially arise in $\ent_3$ models, where

1379: we will have to impose $I_{ii^*} = 0$ for those branes 

1380: in the $\a$ node. 

1381: %(ZZZ No se si poner algo mas. No creo que valga la pena.)

1382: 

1383: \end{itemize}

1384: 

1385: 

1386: 

1387: 

1388: 

1389: \subsection{D5 Standard Models}

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: 

1397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1398: \begin{figure}

1399: \centering

1400: \epsfxsize=4.5in

1401: \hspace*{0in}\vspace*{.2in}

1402: \epsffile{Z3.eps}

1403: \caption{\small{Four possible embeddings of the brane content

1404: of a SM configuration in a $\ent_3$ quiver.}}

1405: \label{SMfig}

1406: \end{figure}

1407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1408: 

1409: Let us give an example that shows how the SM structure can be

1410: implemented on D5-branes configurations.

1411: The simplest choice for such example is the $\ent_3$ singularity, 

1412: which is the smallest $\ent_N$ quiver that provides 

1413: non vector-like spectra. 

1414: Imposing the chirality pattern discussed above give us four different

1415: ways of embedding the SM spectrum, each of them depicted in figure 

1416: \ref{SMfig}.

1417: In order to achieve a SM configuration, we must

1418: impose the intersection numbers that will give us the 

1419: desired matter content. As discussed above, these will depend on

1420: the particular $\ent_3$ quiver considered. Let us first consider the quiver

1421: $a_1$). In table \ref{SMatab} we show the general class of solutions

1422: for the wrapping numbers that will provide us with such fermionic spectrum.

1423: 

1424: \begin{table}[htb] 

1425: \footnotesize

1426: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7}

1427: \begin{center}

1428: 

1429: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

1430: \hline

1431:  $N_i$    &  $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$  &  $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$   & $\gamma_{\om,i}$ \\

1432: \hline\hline 

1433: $N_a = 3$ & $(n_a^1, \ep \b^1)$  &  $(3,- \oh \ep \tilde \ep)$ & 

1434: $1_3$  \\

1435: \hline 

1436: $N_b = 2$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$ &

1437: $(\tilde \ep, -\oh \ep)$ &  $\a 1_2$   \\

1438: \hline 

1439: $N_c = 1$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$ & $(0, \ep)$ & $\a$ \\

1440: \hline 

1441: $N_d=1$ & $(n_d^1, 3\ep \b^1)$ & $(1, \oh\ep\tilde\ep) $ & $1$ \\

1442: \hline

1443: $N_h$ & $(\ep_h/\b^1, 0)$ & $(2,0)$ & $1_{N_h}$  \\

1444: \hline

1445: \end{tabular}

1446: 

1447: \caption{\small{D5-branes wrapping numbers and CP phases giving rise

1448: to a SM spectrum the $\ent_3$ quiver of fig \ref{SMfig}.$a_1$). The solution

1449: is parametrized by $n_a^1, n_d^1 \in \ent$, $\ep, \tilde\ep = \pm 1$

1450: and $\b^1 = 1 - b^{(1)} = 1, 1/2$. Notice that the second torus has

1451: to be tilted, hence $\b^2 = 1/2$.}

1452: \label{SMatab}}

1453: \end{center}

1454: \end{table}

1455: 

1456: Notice that for the sake of generality  

1457: we have added a new stack of $N_h$ branes to our initial 

1458: configuration, yielding an extra $U(N_h)$ gauge group. However,

1459: the wrapping numbers and the CP phase of such brane have

1460: been chosen in such a way that no extra chiral matter arises from

1461: its presence. Since no chiral fermion is charged under the gauge group

1462: of this brane, the stack $h$ is a sort of hidden sector of the 

1463: theory. This is strictly true, however, only from the fermion 

1464: content point of view, and generically some scalars 

1465: with both SM and $U(N_h)$ quantum numbers may  appear.

1466: %\footnote{For a generalization of the idea of hidden branes see

1467: %\cite{cim1,uranga,cim2}.}. 

1468: 

1469: Having achieved the fermionic spectrum of table \ref{specSM},

1470: our low energy field theory will be automatically free of 

1471: cubic chiral anomalies. In order to have a consistent compactification, 

1472: however, we must impose the stronger tadpole cancellation conditions.

1473: Interestingly enough, most of the conditions in (\ref{tadpoleO5b})

1474: turn out to be trivially satisfied by this brane content, the only

1475: non-trivial one being the first condition, that now reads

1476: \beq

1477: 9n_a^1 + n_d^1 - \frac{\tilde\ep}{\b^1} + 2N_h \frac{\ep_h}{\b^1}

1478: = -8.

1479: \label{tadSMZ3a}

1480: \eeq

1481: 

1482: Let us now analyze the $U(1)$ structure of such model. As described in

1483: the previous section, couplings of gauge bosons to

1484: twisted RR fields will give rise to GS counterterms that will cancel 

1485: the residual $U(1)$ anomalies. We are particularly interested in

1486: couplings (\ref{acoplosdualO5}), that tell us which gauge bosons

1487: are becoming massive by this mechanism. In the $\ent_3$ orientifold

1488: case there is only one independent twisted sector, so only four

1489: couplings are relevant. By considering the brane content

1490: above we find that these couplings are

1491: \beq

1492: \begin{array}{rcl}

1493: B_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ (\a -\a^2) {{2\tilde\ep}\over {\beta^1}}

1494: F^{b} \\

1495: D_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1 

1496: \left( \ep \tilde\ep (-3n_a^1 F^a\ +\ n_d^1 F^d)\ +\

1497: \frac{\ep}{\b^1}(F^b\ -\ F^c) \right) \\

1498: E_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ 6\ep\b^1 (3F^a\ +\  F^{d})

1499: \end{array}

1500: \label{bfsSMZ3a}

1501: \eeq

1502: the coupling to the $C_2^{(1)}$ field being trivially null.

1503: In general, such couplings will give mass to three linearly

1504: independent combinations of $U(1)$'s, leaving just one $U(1)$

1505: as a true Abelian gauge symmetry of the spectrum. Among these 

1506: massive $U(1)$'s, two are model-independent, and correspond 

1507: to the `anomalous' combinations $U(1)_b$ and $3U(1)_a+U(1)_d$ 

1508: characteristic of this fermionic spectrum. The third one,

1509: however, will depend on the specific model considered. 

1510: Indeed, we find that the generator of the massless $U(1)$ 

1511: is given by

1512: \beq

1513: Q_0 = Q_a - 3 Q_d - 3\tilde\ep \b^1 (n_a^1 + n_d^1) Q_c,

1514: \label{masslessSMZ3a}

1515: \eeq

1516: so if we further impose to our class of models the condition

1517: \beq

1518: \tilde\ep \b^1 (n_a^1 + n_d^1) = 1,

1519: \label{condSMZ3a}

1520: \eeq

1521: then we find that this

1522: massless Abelian gauge group precisely corresponds to the hypercharge,

1523: which in these models is given by 

1524: $U(1)_Y = \frac 16 U(1)_a - \frac 12 U(1)_c - \frac 12 U(1)_d$.

1525: 

1526: Notice that the whole of this construction is quite analogous to the 

1527: one described in \cite{imr}. Indeed, we have imposed the same chiral

1528: spectrum, again arising from bifundamental representation of four stack

1529: of branes. After imposing some conditions regarding tadpoles and

1530: the Abelian gauge structure, we are finally led to a compactification 

1531: yielding just the gauge and fermionic spectrum of the Standard Model 

1532: (and possibly  some hidden sector of the theory given by the brane $h$).

1533: 

1534: 

1535: 

1536: \subsubsection{Scalars and tachyons in the spectrum}

1537: 

1538: 

1539: As explained in Section 2.1, at the intersection of pairs of

1540: D5-branes with  the {\it same} CP phase there may appear 

1541: scalar tachyons with masses given in eq.(\ref{sector5ab}).

1542: Since branes $b,c$ and their mirrors are parallel along the 

1543: first 2-torus, they generically do not intersect. On the other 

1544: hand there may be tachyons at the intersections $(aa^*),(dd^*)$,

1545: $(ad),(ad^*)$ plus possibly others involving the hidden branes $h$. 

1546: One can get rid of many of these tachyons by appropriately

1547: choosing some discrete parameters and the compactification radii. 

1548: Consider for instance the following choice of parameters:

1549: %

1550: \beq

1551: n_a^1 = n_d^1\ =\ -1,\ N_h=0,\  \tilde \epsilon\ =\ -1,\ 

1552: \b^1\ =\ \oh   \ .

1553: \label{choice}

1554: \eeq

1555: %\beq

1556: %n_a^1=n_d^1\ =\ 1 \ ,\ N_h=4 \ \epsilon ={\tilde \epsilon}=1 \ ,\ 

1557: %\epsilon _h =-1  \ .

1558: %\label{choice}

1559: %\eeq

1560: %

1561: With this choice it is easy to check that the tadpole cancellation 

1562: conditions  (\ref{tadSMZ3a}) are verified and the standard hypercharge 

1563: is the only $U(1)$ remaining at the massless level. 

1564: Furthermore, the $h$ brane is not needed in order to cancel tadpoles,

1565: this hidden sector thus being absent. 

1566: Now, the angles formed by the branes $d,a$ with the orientifold plane on the 

1567: two tori are given by

1568: %

1569: \beqa

1570: \theta_a^1 = \ep\ \left(\pi - tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^1}{2}\right) \right) \ 

1571: & ; & 

1572: \theta_a^2 = \ep\  tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{6}\right) 

1573: \nonumber \\

1574: \theta_d^1 = \ep\ \left(\pi - tg^{-1}\left(\frac{3U^1}{2}\right) \right) \ 

1575: & ; & 

1576: \theta_d^2 = - \ep\  tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{2}\right)

1577: \label{angulillos}

1578: \eeqa

1579: %

1580: respectively. Here $U^i=R_2^i/R_1^i$, $i=1,2$. 

1581: Now, the angles formed by such branes with their mirrors 

1582: is given by $\vt_{a,d}^i \equiv - 2 \th_{a,d}^i$ mod $2\pi$,

1583: so for $U^1 = U^2/3$ one gets 

1584: $\arr \vt_{a,d}^1 \arr = \arr \vt_{a,d}^2 \arr$,

1585: and according to eq.(\ref{sector5ab}) the scalars in $(aa^*)$ and $(dd^*)$

1586: cease to be tachyonic and become massless

1587: \footnote{Actually, according to (\ref{espectro5ab*}), scalars in

1588: the sector $(dd^*)$ transform in the antisymmetric representation

1589: of $U(N_d) =  U(1)$, thus being absent for any choice of angles.}

1590: . The only tachyonic scalars in the spectrum persist in the

1591: $ad$ and $ad^*$ intersections which have mass$^2$:

1592: %

1593: \beq

1594: m^2_{ad}\ =\ m^2_{ad^*}\ = -\ \frac 1\pi 

1595: tg^{-1}\left({{U^2}\over 6}\right)M_s^2 \ .

1596: \label{tachyoncognazo}

1597: \eeq

1598: %

1599: In table \ref{escalares} we present the lightest scalar spectrum arising 

1600: from branes $a$, $d$ and their mirrors when the particular choice

1601: (\ref{choice}) is made.

1602: %

1603: \begin{table}[htb] \footnotesize

1604: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

1605: \begin{center}

1606: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}

1607: \hline

1608:  Sector   &  Representation  & $\a'$ mass$^2$ \\

1609: \hline\hline ($aa^*$) & 

1610: $\begin{array}{c}

1611: 4\b^1\ (3,1)_{1/3} \\

1612: 2\b^1\ (6,1)_{1/3} \\

1613: \end{array}$

1614:   & 0  \\

1615: \hline ($ad$) & $4\b^1$ $(3,1)_{2/3}$ & 

1616: $\pm \frac 1\pi tg^{-1}\left({{U^2}\over 6}\right)$   \\  

1617: \hline ($ad^*$) & $4\b^1$ $(3,1)_{-1/3}$ & 

1618: $\pm \frac 1\pi tg^{-1}\left({{U^2}\over 6}\right)$   \\  

1619: \hline \end{tabular}

1620: \end{center} \caption{\small Lighter scalar excitations arising from the

1621: brane content with phase $1$ in table \ref{SMatab}, under the 

1622: choice of parameters (\ref{choice}).

1623: \label{escalares} }

1624: \end{table}

1625: %

1626: 

1627: Note however that all the above scalar masses are tree level results and that,

1628: since the models are non-SUSY,  

1629: there are in general important one-loop contributions to the 

1630: scalar masses. Those will be particularly important for the 

1631: coloured objects like the scalars in $(ad)$, $(ad^*)$ sectors

1632: which are color triplets. Those one-loop corrections may be estimated

1633: from the effective field theory (one gauge boson exchange) and

1634: yield \cite{afiru2}

1635: %

1636: \beq

1637: \Delta m^2(\mu ) \ =\ \sum_a { {4C_F^a \alpha_a(M_s) }\over {4\pi }} M_s^2

1638: f_a \log(M_s/\mu) \ +\ \Delta M^2_{KK/W}

1639: \label{massloop}

1640: \eeq

1641: %

1642: where the sum on $a$ runs over the different gauge interactions 

1643: under which the scalar transforms and $C_F^a$

1644: is the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir in the fundamental representation.

1645: Here $\Delta M^2_{KK/W}$ denotes further contributions which may

1646: appear from the Kaluza-Klein, winding and string 

1647:  excitations if they are substantially lighter than the

1648: string scale $M_s$. The function $f_a$ is given by

1649: %

1650: \beq

1651: f_a \ =\  { {2+b_a{{\alpha_a(M_s)}\over {4\pi }} t}\over

1652: {1+b_a{{\alpha_a(M_s)}\over {4\pi }}t } }

1653: \eeq

1654: %

1655: where $t=2\log(M_s/\mu)$ and $b_a$ are the coefficients of the one-loop

1656: $\beta $-functions. These corrections are positive and may easily overcome 

1657:  the tree level result if $U^2$ is not too large.

1658: This is analogous to the one-loop contribution to squark

1659: masses in the MSSM in which for large gaugino masses

1660: the one-loop contribution clearly dominates over the tree-level

1661: soft masses (see e.g. ref.\cite{mssm} and references therein).

1662: Thus in this class of models, apart from the fermion 

1663: spectrum of the SM, one expects the presence of some extra 

1664: relatively light (of order the electroweak scale) coloured 

1665: scalars. 

1666: 

1667: 

1668: 

1669: 

1670: 

1671: \subsubsection{Electroweak symmetry breaking}

1672: 

1673: 

1674: 

1675: The Higgs sector in this class of theories is relatively similar to the one 

1676: in the models in \cite{imr}.

1677: %\footnote{An important difference is that there are no Higgsinos}. 

1678: Consider in particular the SM 

1679: configuration described in the previous subsections. 

1680: Here, the only light scalar with the quantum numbers of a Higgs

1681: boson lives in the $bc$ sector. Branes 

1682: $b$ and $c$ are parallel in the first torus, but if the 

1683: distance  $X_{bc}$  between the branes in that torus

1684: is set to zero the branes intersect at an angle 

1685: %

1686: \beq

1687: \pi \vt_{bc}^2 = \ep\tilde \ep \left({{\pi}\over 2}

1688: + tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{2}\right)\right)\ ,\

1689: %\pi \vt_{bc^*}^2 = \ep\ \left({{\pi}\over 2}

1690: %- tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{2}\right)\right)\

1691: \eeq

1692: %

1693: and at those intersections complex scalar doublets appear with masses

1694: %

1695: \beq

1696: m^2_{H^{\pm}} \  =\ {{X_{bc}^2}\over {4\pi } } M_s^2 \  \pm \

1697: {{M_s^2}\over 2} |\vt_{bc}^2| \ ;\

1698: %m^2_{H^{\pm}} \  =\ {{X_{bc^*}^2}\over {4\pi } }

1699: %M_s^2 \  \pm \

1700: %{{M_s^2}\over 2} |\vt_{bc^*}|  \ .

1701: \label{masshiggs}

1702: \eeq

1703: %

1704: There are in fact two scalar doublets with quantum numbers as in table

1705: \ref{higgsses},

1706: %

1707: \begin{table}[htb] \footnotesize

1708: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

1709: \begin{center}

1710: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1711: \hline

1712:  Higgs   &  $Q_b$  &  $Q_c$   & Y \\

1713: %\hline\hline $h_1$ & 1  &  -1 & 1/2  \\

1714: %\hline $h_2$ &   -1    &  1  &  -1/2   \\  

1715: \hline\hline $H_1$ & 1  &  -1 & 1/2  \\

1716: \hline $H_2$ & -1  & 1 &  -1/2   \\

1717: \hline \end{tabular}

1718: \end{center} \caption{\small Electroweak Higgs fields

1719: \label{higgsses} }

1720: \end{table}

1721: %

1722: 

1723: and defined as

1724: \beq

1725: H^{\pm}={1\over2}(H_1^*\pm H_2) \ .  

1726: %\ h^{\pm}={1\over2}(h_1^*\pm h_2)  \ .

1727: \eeq

1728: %

1729: The intersection number of these branes in the second torus is 

1730: equal to $\pm 1$ so that only one copy of this Higgs system appears.

1731: Thus in the present model we have the same minimal Higgs sector

1732: as in the MSSM.

1733: As may be seen from eq.(\ref{masshiggs}) as the distance

1734: $X_{bc}$ decreases the Higgs doublets become 

1735: tachyonic, giving rise to EW symmetry breaking. 

1736: This is quite similar to the process of EW symmetry breaking in the 

1737: D6-brane models of ref.\cite{imr,cim2}, in which it may be

1738: described as brane recombination of a $b$ brane and a $c$ brane

1739: into a single recombined brane $e$.

1740: Note that, although one-loop positive corrections as given in 

1741: eq.(\ref{massloop}) will in general be present

1742: also for the Higgs fields, one also expects 

1743: large negative contributions from the usual one-loop top-quark

1744: contribution which will again favour EW symmetry breaking

1745: \cite{ir}. 

1746:   

1747: To sum up, the brane content of table \ref{SMatab} give us

1748: an example of how an SM construction can be achieved by

1749: means of intersecting D5-branes. This particular class of

1750: models shares many features already present in the D6-branes

1751: models of \cite{imr}, whereas some important novelties do also appear.

1752: Notice that in this section we have restricted ourselves to only one 

1753: possible quiver configuration of fig. \ref{SMfig}. Some other

1754: inequivalent constructions can also be performed from the rest of

1755: the quivers in that figure, their discussion being postponed to

1756: Appendix II.

1757: 

1758: %Concerning the other possibilities for building SM configurations,

1759: %considering the quiver of fig. \ref{SMfig}.$a_2$)

1760: %gives us totally equivalent wrapping numbers. The other two

1761: %possibilities are discussed in Appendix II.

1762: 

1763: 

1764: 

1765: 

1766: 

1767: 

1768: 

1769: 

1770: 

1771: \subsection{D5 Left-Right Symmetric Models}

1772: 

1773: Quite analogously, the LR structure can also be implemented 

1774: in a D5-brane construction. To show this, let us again 

1775: consider a $\ent_3$ orbifold. Since the chirality pattern

1776: is the same for both SM and LR configurations, the possible brane 

1777: distributions will again be those of figure \ref{SMfig}.

1778: Let us consider now the quiver $a_2$).

1779: The brane content with LR spectrum for such quiver 

1780: is shown in table \ref{LRa2tab}.

1781: \begin{table}[htb]

1782: \footnotesize

1783: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}

1784: \begin{center}

1785: 

1786: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

1787: \hline

1788: $N_i$ & $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$ & $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$ & $\gamma_{w,i}$ \\

1789: \hline\hline

1790: $N_a=3$ & $(n_a^1, \ep\b^1)$ & $(1/\rho, -\oh\ep\tilde\ep)$ & $1_3$ \\

1791: \hline

1792: $N_b=2$ & $ (1/\b^1, 0)$ & $(\tilde\ep, -\frac{3\rho}{2}\ep)$ & $\a 1_2$ \\

1793: \hline

1794: $N_c=2$ & $ (1/\b^1, 0)$ & $(\tilde\ep, -\frac{3\rho}{2}\ep)$ & $\a^2 1_2$ \\

1795: \hline

1796: $N_d=1$ & $(n_d^1, \ep\b^1/\rho )$ & $(1, \frac{3\rho}{2}\ep\tilde\ep)$ 

1797: & $1$ \\

1798: \hline

1799: $N_h$ & $(\ep_h/\b^1,0)$  &  $(2,0)$ & $1_{N_h}$  \\

1800: \hline

1801: \end{tabular}

1802: \caption{\small{D5-branes wrapping numbers and CP phases yielding a LR spectrum

1803: in the $\ent_3$ orbifold of fig.\ref{SMfig}.$a_2$). Solutions are parametrized

1804: by $n_a^1, n_d^1 \in \ent$, $\ep, \tilde\ep = \pm 1$, 

1805: $\beta^1=1-b^{(1)} = 1, 1/2$ and $\rho=1,1/3$.}

1806: \label{LRa2tab}}

1807: \end{center}

1808: \end{table}

1809: 

1810: Notice that branes $b$ and $c$ belong in fact to the same stack

1811: of four branes, with a non-trivial CP action on it. From the point

1812: of view of gauge fields, however, each one is a separate sector.

1813: Tadpole cancellation conditions are, as usual, almost satisfied when 

1814: imposing this wrapping numbers. The only non-trivial conditions that

1815: remains is

1816: \beq

1817: \frac{3n_a^1}{\rho} \ -\ \frac{2 \tilde\ep}{\b^1} \ +\ n_d^1\ 

1818: +\ 2 N_h \frac{\ep_h}{\beta^1} \ = \ -8 .

1819: \label{tadLRZ3}

1820: \eeq

1821: 

1822: On the other hand, we must also compute the couplings to RR twisted 

1823: fields, which in this case are

1824: \beq

1825: \begin{array}{rcl}

1826: B_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1 (\a -\a^2) {{2\tilde\ep}\over {\b^1} }

1827: (F^{b} - F^{c}) \\

1828: D_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1 \left( {{3\rho}\ep \over {\b^1}}\ 

1829: (F^{b} \ +\ F^c) 

1830: -\ 3\ep\tilde\ep (n_a^1 F^a\ - \ \rho  n_d^1 F^d) \right) \

1831: \nonumber \\

1832: E_2^{(1)} & \wedge  &  \ c_1 \frac{2\ep\b^1}{\rho}(3F^a\ +\  F^{d})

1833: \end{array}

1834: \label{bfsLRZ3}

1835: \eeq

1836: 

1837: This $B \wedge F$ couplings will again give mass to three of

1838: the four $U(1)$ gauge bosons initially present in our spectrum.

1839: If we impose the condition

1840: \beq

1841: n_a^1 \ =\ - 3 \rho n_d^1,

1842: \label{condLRZ3}

1843: \eeq

1844: then the only generator with null coupling to these fields is

1845: $Q_0 = Q_a - 3Q_d$, which corresponds to $U(1)_{B-L}$. After

1846: imposing this condition, tadpoles (\ref{tadLRZ3}) become

1847: \beq

1848: 4 n_d^1  \ + \ \frac{1}{\beta^1} \left(\tilde\ep - N_h \ep_h \right) \ = \ 4,

1849: \label{tadlrZ3b}

1850: \eeq

1851: so the extra brane $h$ will be generically necessary in order to 

1852: satisfy tadpoles. 

1853: 

1854: For completeness, let us give an explicit solution of (\ref{tadlrZ3b}).

1855: Consider the following choice of parameters:

1856: \beqa

1857: n_d^1 = N_h = 1 & \stackrel{(\ref{condLRZ3})}\Longrightarrow 

1858: & n_a^1 = -3\rho \nonumber \\

1859: & \ep_h = \tilde \ep,

1860: \label{choice2}

1861: \eeqa

1862: which now give us a non-trivial $h$ sector with gauge group $U(1)$.

1863: Following the same considerations as in the previous SM construction,

1864: we see that the angles the branes $a$, $d$ and $h$ form with the 

1865: orientifold plane are

1866: \beq

1867: \begin{array}{cc}

1868: \theta_a^1 = \ep\ \left(\pi - tg^{-1}

1869: \left(\frac{\b^1}{3\rho}U^1\right) \right) & 

1870: \theta_a^2 = - \ep\tilde\ep\  tg^{-1}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}U^2\right) \\

1871: \theta_d^1 = \ep\ tg^{-1}\left(\frac{\b^1}{\rho}U^1\right) &

1872: \theta_d^2 = \ep\tilde\ep\  tg^{-1}\left(\frac{3\rho}{2}U^2\right) \\ 

1873: \th_h^1 = \frac{\pi}{2} (1 - \tilde\ep) & \th_h^2 = 0

1874: \label{angulillos2}

1875: \end{array}

1876: \eeq

1877: %

1878: where again $U^i = R_2^i/R_1^i$, $i=1,2$. Under the choice

1879: $U^1 = \frac{3\rho^2}{2\b^1} U^2$, some of the potential tachyons 

1880: in these sectors will become massless, as for instance those arising from

1881: ($aa^*$) intersections. However, just as in the previously discussed 

1882: SM construction some tachyons will remain at ($ad$), ($ad^*$) 

1883: intersections, and some other new tachyons involving the brane $h$.

1884: Again, as in the previous SM case, one-loop contributions 

1885: to the scalar masses may easily overcome the tachyonic contribution.

1886: 

1887: 

1888: %As can be appreciated from the previous examples, getting 

1889: %rid of all open string tachyonics modes is not trivial  

1890: %in D5-brane models, specially when dealing with SM configurations.

1891: %Let us give an example of LR model where this can easily be 

1892: %achieved.

1893: 

1894: One can also find an interesting family of left-right symmetric 

1895: models with no open string tachyons already at the tree-level. 

1896: Indeed, it is quite easy to generalize the Left-Right

1897: symmetric spectrum for a $\ent_N$ orbifold with odd $N > 3$.

1898: As an example, let us take the brane content of table 

1899: \ref{wnumbersZN}, which corresponds to a particular case of

1900: fig. \ref{2quivers}.$a$), and that will again give us the spectrum

1901: of table \ref{specLR}.

1902: %

1903: \begin{table}[h]

1904: \footnotesize

1905: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}

1906: \begin{center}

1907: 

1908: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

1909: \hline

1910:  $N_i$  &  $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$  &  $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$  & $\gamma_{w,i}$ \\

1911: \hline\hline

1912: $N_a=3$ & $(1/\b^1,0)$ & $(\ep,\oh\tilde\ep)$ & $1_3$ \\

1913: \hline

1914: $N_b=2$ & $(n_b^1,-\tilde\ep\b^1)$ & $ (3, \oh\ep\tilde\ep)$ & $\a 1_2$ \\

1915: \hline

1916: $N_c=2$ & $(n_c^1,\tilde\ep\b^1)$ & $ (3, \oh\ep\tilde\ep)$ & $\a 1_2$ \\

1917: \hline

1918: $N_d=1$ & $(1/\b^1,0)$ & $(-3\ep, \oh\tilde\ep)$ & $1$ \\

1919: \hline

1920: \end{tabular}

1921: \caption{\small{D5-branes wrapping numbers and CP phases yielding a LR spectrum

1922: in a $\ent_N$. Solutions are parametrized

1923: by $n_b^1, n_c^1 \in \ent$, $\ep, \tilde\ep = \pm 1$ and 

1924: $\beta^1=1-b^{(1)} = 1, 1/2$.}

1925: \label{wnumbersZN}}

1926: \end{center}

1927: \end{table}

1928: %

1929: As in our previous LR example, tadpoles will be cancel by means

1930: of a hidden-brane sector, which in this $\ent_N$ case will

1931: consist of a brane system as shown in table \ref{hiddenZN}.

1932: %

1933: \begin{table}[htb]

1934: \footnotesize

1935: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}

1936: \begin{center}

1937: 

1938: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

1939: \hline

1940: $N_i$ & $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$ & $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$ & $\gamma_{w,i}$ \\

1941: \hline\hline

1942: $N_{h1}$ & $(\ep_{h1}/\b^1,0)$ & $(n_h^2,m_h^2)$ & $\a$  \\

1943: \hline

1944: $N_{h2}$ & $(\ep_{h2}/\b^1, 0)$ & $(2,0)$ & $\a^3$  \\

1945: \hline

1946: $\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$  & $\vdots$  \\

1947: \hline

1948: $N_{hs}$ & $(\ep_{hs}/\b^1, 0)$ & $(2,0)$ & $\a^{2s-1}$  \\

1949: \hline

1950: \end{tabular}

1951: 

1952: \caption{\small {Hidden brane system in a ${\bf Z_N}$ orbifold singularity.}

1953: \label{hiddenZN}}

1954: \end{center}

1955: \end{table}

1956: %

1957: There one has $\ep_{hi} = \pm 1$ and the value of $s$ is fixed by

1958: tadpole conditions. Consistency conditions in (\ref{tadpoleO5b})

1959: are now easily satisfied. Indeed, second and fourth conditions

1960: are already satisfied with this brane content, while the third

1961: amounts to imposing

1962: %

1963: \beq

1964: \ep \tilde\ep (n_b^1 + n_c^1) + \ep_{h1} N_{h1} {m_h^2 \over \beta^1} = 0.

1965: \label{tadLRZNa}

1966: \eeq

1967: As mentioned above, the first of these conditions can be expressed as

1968: (\ref{generadortwist}), from where we can read that we must also impose

1969: \beqa

1970:  6 (n_b^1 + n_c^1) + \ep_{h1} N_{h1} {n_h^2 \over \beta^1} = \eta 16 

1971: \label{tadLRZNb} \\

1972: \ep_{hi} N_{hi} {2 \over \beta^1} = \eta 16, \  \ {\rm (i=2,\cdots,r)},

1973: \label{tadLRZNc}

1974: \eeqa

1975: where $r$ and $\eta$ have been defined in (\ref{eta}). Last condition

1976: actually implies $s = r$, $\ep_{hi} = \eta$ and $N_{hi} = 8\b^1$, for 

1977: $i > 1$. Let us also compute the couplings to RR 2-form twisted fields

1978: which will render some of these $U(1)$ gauge bosons massive.

1979: Even if there are in principle 2($N-1$) such fields, most of their

1980: couplings are redundant, so we will still have some massless $U(1)$'s 

1981: in our gauge group. Indeed, these couplings are

1982: 

1983: \beq

1984: \begin{array}{rcl}

1985: B_2^{(k)} & \wedge & c_k \left( (\alpha^k - \bar\alpha^k)  

1986: \left[ 6(n_b^1 F^b + n_c^1 F^c) + 

1987: \ep_{h1} N_{h1} {n_h^2 \over \beta^1} F^{h1} \right]

1988: + \sum_{i=2}^r (\alpha^{ik} - \bar\alpha^{ik}) \eta 16 F^{hi} \right) \\

1989: C_2^{(k)} &\wedge & c_k (\alpha^k - \bar\alpha^k) \ep\beta^1 (- F^b + F^c) 

1990: \\

1991: D_2^{(k)} &\wedge & c_k 

1992: \left( {2\tilde\ep \over \beta^1} (3F^a + F^d) + (\alpha^k + \bar\alpha^k) 

1993: \left[\ep\tilde\ep (n_b^1 F^b + n_c^1 F^c) 

1994: + \ep_{h1} N_{h1} {m_h^2 \over \beta^1} F^{h1} \right] \right)

1995: \\

1996: E_2^{(k)} & \wedge & \ c_k (\alpha^k + \bar\alpha^k) 6\b^1 

1997: \tilde\ep (- F^b + F^c) 

1998: \end{array}

1999: \label{bfslrZN}

2000: \eeq

2001: 

2002: Imposing tadpole conditions (\ref{tadLRZNa}), (\ref{tadLRZNb})

2003: and (\ref{tadLRZNc})

2004: is easy to see that the only linear combination of abelian groups

2005: that does not couple to any RR field is just 

2006: $U(1)_{B-L} = \frac 13 U(1)_a - U(1)_d$, providing us with

2007: another example of Left-Right symmetric model.

2008: This family of configurations

2009: yielding the same spectrum for arbitrary odd-ordered $\ent_N$

2010: orientifold seems quite interesting, since it gives us

2011: a family of $\ent_N$ models with $N$ arbitrarily large.

2012: In addition they may have an 

2013: open-string tachyonless spectrum. For instance, by the choice of

2014: discrete parameters

2015: \beq

2016: \begin{array}{ll}

2017: n_b^1 = n_c^1 =\eta, & N_{h1} = 4 \b^1, \\ 

2018: \ep_{h1} = \eta, & (n_h^2, m_h^2) = (1, -\oh\ep\tilde\ep),

2019: \end{array}

2020: \label{solZN}

2021: \eeq

2022: conditions (\ref{tadLRZNa}), (\ref{tadLRZNb}) and (\ref{tadLRZNc}) are 

2023: satisfied,

2024: and the compactification radii can also be chosen to avoid

2025: any tachyonic excitation. Indeed, our potential tachyons

2026: will arise only from ($bh1$) and ($ch1$) intersections whose

2027: characteristic angles are

2028: %

2029: \beq

2030: \pi |\vt_{bh1}^1| = \pi |\vt_{ch1}^1| =

2031: tg^{-1}\left(\b^1 U^1 \right)\ ;\

2032: \pi |\vt_{bh1}^2| = \pi |\vt_{ch1}^2| =

2033: tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{6}\right) 

2034: + tg^{-1}\left(\frac{U^2}{2}\right),

2035: \eeq

2036: %

2037: so by appropriately choosing the complex structure moduli we can

2038: achieve $|\vt_{bh1}^1| = |\vt_{bh1}^2|$ and 

2039: $|\vt_{ch1}^1| = |\vt_{ch1}^2|$, finding

2040: a one-parameter family of tachyonless open-string spectra.

2041: 

2042: Let us end this subsection by recalling an apparent phenomenological 

2043: shortcoming of the class of left-right symmetric models built here.

2044: Eventually we would like to break the gauge symmetry down to

2045: the Standard Model one and, in order to do that, we need to give a vev to 

2046: a right-handed doublet of scalars with non-vanishing

2047: lepton number. No such scalars are present in the lightest

2048: spectrum of the particular models constructed here.

2049: It would be interesting to find other examples in which

2050: correct gauge symmetry breaking is feasible.

2051: 

2052: \section{Some physics issues}

2053: 

2054: 

2055: \subsection{Low-energy spectrum beyond the SM} 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: Let us summarize the lightest (open string) spectra

2059: in the class of SM D5-brane constructions:

2060: 

2061: \begin{itemize} 

2062: 

2063: 

2064: \item {\it Fermions}

2065:  

2066: The only massless fermions are the ones 

2067: of the SM (plus right-handed neutrinos). In particular,

2068: unlike the case of D6-branes, there are no gauginos 

2069: in the lightest spectrum. 

2070: 

2071: \item{\it Gauge bosons} 

2072: 

2073: There are only the ones of the SM

2074: (or its left-right extension). There are in addition three

2075: extra  massive (of order the string scale)

2076: $Z_0$'s, two of them anomalous and the other

2077: being the extra $Z_0$ of left-right symmetric models. 

2078: As discussed in ref.\cite{giiq} for a string scale 

2079: of order a few TeV the presence of these extra $U(1)$'s 

2080: may be amenable to experimental test. In fact already 

2081: present constraints from electroweak

2082: precision data (i.e., $\rho $-parameter) put important

2083: bounds on the mass of these extra gauge bosons.  

2084: 

2085: 

2086: 

2087: \item{\it Scalars in the D5-branes  bulk}

2088: 

2089: 

2090: There are two copies of scalars in the adjoint representation

2091: of $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_a\times U(1)_b\times U(1)_c\times

2092: U(1)_d$, as  

2093: given in eq.(\ref{espectro5aa}). These will include a couple of 

2094: colour octets and $SU(2)_L$ triplets plus eight singlets.

2095: The vevs of the latter parametrize the  locations of 

2096: the four stacks of branes along the two tori

2097: ($4\times 2$ parameters) and hence are moduli

2098: at the classical  level. The colour octets and $SU(2)$

2099: triplets get masses at one loop as given in eq.(\ref{massloop}).

2100: 

2101: \item {\it Scalars at the intersections} 

2102: 

2103: These are model 

2104: dependent. In the SM example described in some detail 

2105: in section (3.1) there are colour  triplets and sextets 

2106: (from $(aa*)$) and  colour triplets {\it ` leptoquarks'} 

2107: (from $(ad), (ad^*)$) (see table \ref{escalares}). 

2108:  Again their leading contribution to their masses 

2109: should come from eq.(\ref{massloop}). These scalars are

2110: not stable particles, they 

2111: decay into quarks and leptons through Yukawa couplings.

2112: In the SM examples in Appendix II the scalars at the intersections 

2113: are colour singlets.

2114: 

2115: 

2116: \item {\it SM Higgs doublets}   

2117: 

2118: There are sets of Higgs doublets as in table \ref{higgsses}

2119: with a multiplicity which is model dependent. In the example of

2120: section (3.1) the multiplicity is one and hence

2121: we have the same minimal Higgs sector as in the MSSM.

2122: 

2123: 

2124: \end{itemize}

2125: 

2126: 

2127: 

2128: The above states constitute the lightest states in the brane 

2129: configuration. At the massive level there will appear 

2130: Kaluza-Klein replicas for the gauge bosons as well as

2131: stringy winding and oscillator states (gonions). 

2132: Compared to the spectra of D6-brane intersection models

2133: \cite{imr,cim1,cim2}  

2134: the present spectrum is quite simpler, since the fermions and

2135: gauge bosons of the SM do not have any kind of SUSY partner.

2136: 

2137: 

2138: Note that the structure of the $U(1)$ gauge bosons in D5-brane

2139: models is remarkably similar to that of the D6-brane models of 

2140: ref.\cite{imr,cim1,cim2}. This similarity is dictated by 

2141: the massless chiral fermion spectrum in both classes of 

2142: models which is identical, i.e., the fermions of the SM.

2143: In particular baryon number is a gauged 

2144: symmetry ($U(1)_a$) which remains as a global symmetry in

2145: perturbation theory once the corresponding $U(1)$'s become massive.

2146: This naturally guarantees proton stability.

2147: 

2148: 

2149: Concerning the closed string sector, the $\ent_N$ 

2150: projection kills all fermionic partners of the 

2151: untwisted sector. We will have the graviton plus

2152: a number of untwisted moduli field as well as 

2153: untwisted RR-fields. The twisted closed string sector

2154: is relevant to anomaly cancellation. 

2155: 

2156: 

2157: \subsection{Lowering the string scale}

2158: 

2159: 

2160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2161: \begin{figure}

2162: \centering

2163: \epsfxsize=4in

2164: \hspace*{0in}\vspace*{.2in}

2165: \epsffile{D5.eps}

2166: \caption{\small Intersecting D5-world set up. 

2167: The $Z_i$, $i=1,2,3$ represent complex compact dimensions.

2168: The  D5-branes $a,b,c,d$ (corresponding to the gauge group

2169: $U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)\times U(1)$) wrap cycles

2170: on ${\bf T^2\times T^2}$. At the intersections lie 

2171: quarks and leptons. This system is transverse to a

2172: 2-dimensional compact space  ${\bf B_2}$ (e.g., ${\bf T^2/Z_N}$)

2173: whose volume may be quite large so as to explain 

2174: $M_p>>M_s$. This would be a D-brane realization of the 

2175: scenario in ref.\cite{aadd}.}

2176: \label{braneworld}  

2177: \end{figure}

2178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2179: 

2180: 

2181: 

2182: 

2183: 

2184: 

2185: 

2186: 

2187: 

2188: 

2189: 

2190: 

2191: The D5-brane models here constructed are non-supersymmetric.

2192: In order not to have the standard hierarchy problem for

2193: Higgs scalars the most obvious possibility is to have 

2194: the fundamental string scale not much above 

2195: the weak scale. Thus we  should have $M_s\propto 1-10$ TeV.

2196: 

2197: Interestingly enough,

2198: in the intersecting D5-brane models here studied

2199: one can  have a low string scale $M_s\propto 1-10$ TeV

2200: while maintaining the experimentally measured four-dimensional

2201: Planck mass $M_p= 1.18 \times 10^{19}$ GeV by

2202: some dimensions getting very large \cite{aadd}.

2203: Indeed, in the present examples the compact space

2204: has the form ${\bf T^4\times B_2}$, and the 

2205: D5-branes sit at a ${\bf C/Z_N}$ singularity in

2206: ${\bf B_2}$  and wrap two-cycles

2207: on ${\bf T^4}$. Let us denote by $V_4$ the volume of ${\bf T^4}$ and by

2208: $V_2$ that of the manifold ${\bf B_2}$. Then the Planck scale

2209: is given by 

2210: %

2211: \beq

2212: M_p \ =\  {2\over \lambda }  M_s^4 \sqrt{V_4V_2} 

2213: \eeq

2214: %

2215: In order to avoid too light KK/Winding modes in the 

2216: worldvolume of the D5-branes let us assume $V_4\propto 1/M_s^4$.

2217: Then one has 

2218: %

2219: \beq

2220: V_2 \ =\  {  { M_p^2 \lambda ^2 } \over {4 M_s^4} }

2221: \eeq

2222: %

2223: and one can accommodate a low string scale $M_s\propto 1$ TeV

2224: by having the volume $V_2$  of the 2-dimensional manifold ${\bf B_2}$

2225: large enough (i.e., of order $(mm.)^2$). For a pictorial view of

2226: this explicit D-brane realization of the proposal in \cite{aadd}

2227: see fig.\ref{braneworld}.

2228: 

2229: 

2230: 

2231: 

2232: 

2233: 

2234: 

2235: 

2236: 

2237: 

2238: 

2239: 

2240: 

2241: \section{Final comments}

2242: 

2243: In this paper we have presented D5-brane configurations 

2244: wrapping cycles on ${\bf T^2\times T^2\times}$ $({\bf C/\ent_N})$ yielding

2245: the massless fermionic spectrum of the three-generation SM.

2246: This is a generalization of the work in ref.\cite{imr}

2247: in which it was obtained the SM spectrum from D6-branes 

2248: wrapping cycles on ${\bf T^2\times T^2\times T^2}$. 

2249: We have also presented for completeness the case of D4-branes 

2250: wrapping cycles on ${\bf T^2\times (T^4/Z_N)}$, which turns out

2251: to be less flexible from the model-building point of view.

2252: 

2253: 

2254: 

2255: One of our main motivations to consider the case of D5-branes 

2256: is the fact that in this case there are  2 dimensions which are 

2257: transverse to  the SM D5-brane configuration. By making those

2258: two dimensions large enough one can have a low string scale 

2259: $M_s$ of order 1-10 TeV and still have a large $M_{Planck}$

2260: in agreement with observations. From this point of view 

2261: these are the first explicit D-brane string constructions in which

2262: one has just the fermionic spectrum of the SM at low energies

2263: and the mechanism for lowering the string scale in

2264: \cite{aadd} simultaneously at work.

2265: 

2266: 

2267: There are a number of questions both theoretical and 

2268: phenomenological which we have not addressed in this paper 

2269: and should be the subject of further research. 

2270: These D5-brane constructions are non-supersymmetric and

2271: it remains to be seen if such configurations can 

2272: be rendered stable. One source of instability may be 

2273: the presence of closed string tachyons in the twisted 

2274: spectrum. An analogous class  of tachyons have been studied recently 

2275: in ref.\cite{tachyons} in the non-compact orbifold  

2276: case. That analysis cannot be directly traslated to 

2277: the compact orientifold case considered here in which e.g. the

2278: tachyons are real rather than complex fields.

2279: It remains to be seen

2280: whether in the compact {\em orientifold case}  a stabilization

2281: of the

2282: closed string tachyons may be feasible.

2283:  This is also relevant to the question

2284: whether one can obtain a stable minimum in which the two

2285: dimensions transverse to the SM brane configuration are very

2286: large compared to the rest, thus providing for a dynamical

2287: explanation of the smallness of the string scale compared to

2288: the Planck mass.

2289: 

2290: 

2291: 

2292: The only fermions in the light spectrum are those of

2293: the non-SUSY SM. The fermions do not have any 

2294: SUSY-partners, no squarks or sleptons appear.

2295: There are however some scalars in the lightest spectrum.

2296:  There are some with the quantum numbers of

2297: electroweak Higgs fields which may become tachyonic and trigger 

2298: electroweak symmetry breaking if certain branes are sufficiently close.

2299: On the other hand there are further scalars which may be tachyonic at the 

2300: tree level.  In the simple SM example in the text those 

2301: are coloured particles and we argue

2302: that their full mass$^2$ including one-loop effects will in general be

2303: positive. Those coloured (triplets and sextets ) should then be

2304: relatively light with masses close to the electroweak scale. They are

2305: unstable and decay into ordinary quarks and leptons. In addition there are

2306: three extra $Z_0$'s beyond the ordinary one with masses of order the string scale

2307: (i.e., 1-10 TeV in low string models). These may lead already to

2308: observable effects as recently argued in ref.\cite{giiq}.

2309: The fact that baryon number is gauged will guarantee that in these 

2310: constructions the proton is perturbatively stable.

2311: We leave a more systematic study of the phenomenological aspects 

2312: of this class of brane models for future work.

2313:  

2314: 

2315: 

2316: 

2317: 

2318: 

2319: 

2320: 

2321: 

2322: 

2323: 

2324: 

2325: 

2326: \vspace{1cm}

2327: 

2328: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}

2329: We are grateful to G. Aldaz\'abal, A. Font, C. Kokorelis,  

2330: R. Rabad\'an and  A.~Uranga for useful discussions.

2331: The research of D.C.  and F.M. was  supported by

2332:  the Ministerio de Educaci\'on, Cultura y Deporte (Spain) through FPU grants.

2333: This work is partially supported by CICYT (Spain) and the

2334: European Commission (RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148).     

2335: 

2336: 

2337: 

2338: 

2339: 

2340: \newpage

2341: 

2342: \section{Appendix I: D4-branes wrapping on 

2343: ${\bf T^2\times C^2/\ent_N}$ orientifolds }

2344: 

2345: For the sake of completeness, in this appendix we present

2346: the general construction involving intersecting D4-branes

2347: in an orientifold singularity. This general class of models

2348: is both of theoretical and phenomenological interest

2349: since they also provide a natural setup for considering

2350: chiral compactifications with low string scale scenarios.

2351: To be concrete, we will consider the compactification

2352: \beq

2353: {\rm Type \ IIA \ on \ } M_4 \ti 

2354: \frac{\ T^{2} \ti \C^2/\ent_N}{\{1 + \OR\}},

2355: \label{singuoriD4}

2356: \eeq

2357: where $\R$ now stands for $\R_{(5)}\R_{(6)}\R_{(7)}\R_{(8)}\R_{(9)}$.

2358: In terms of its action on complex coordinates this involution 

2359: is given by

2360: \beqa

2361: {\cal R}: & Z_1 \longmapsto \bar Z_1, \\

2362: & Z_i \longmapsto - Z_i, & i = 2, 3.

2363: \label{R4}

2364: \eeqa

2365: This theory will contain a O$4$-plane wrapping a 1-cycle 

2366: in ${\bf T^2}$ (the one invariant under $\R_{(5)}$, and in order to 

2367: cancel its negative RR charge we will have to include an

2368: open string sectors involving D$4$-branes wrapping 1-cycles 

2369: $[\Pi] = [(n,m)]$ \footnote{Notice that in this 

2370: particular class of compactifications every cycle is 

2371: factorizable.} of this same ${\bf T^2}$, while sitting at 

2372: the origin of $\C^2/\ent_N$.

2373: 

2374: The geometric action of the orbifold group $\ent_N$ 

2375: can be described by a twist vector 

2376: $v_\om = {1 \over N} (0,b_1,b_2,0)$,

2377: $b_1 = b_2$ mod $2$ for the variety to admit spinors.

2378: This twist will preserve some bulk supersymmetry

2379: whenever $b_1 = \pm b_2$ mod $N$.  

2380: Just as in the case of D5-branes, the orbifold 

2381: action on the Chan-Paton degrees of freedom can 

2382: be described by a matrix of the form (\ref{Chan}),

2383: and the orientifold action can also be implemented

2384: by adding a mirror sector $a^*$ for every D4-brane

2385: $a$ in the configuration. If we again consider effective

2386: wrapping number for describing our 1-cycles, mirror

2387: branes will be related in an analogous way that

2388: the one described in (\ref{brana_a}) and (\ref{brana_a*})

2389: for the case of D$5$-branes.

2390: 

2391: Let us now describe the low energy spectrum of the theory

2392: 

2393: \begin{itemize}

2394: 

2395: \item{Closed string sector}

2396: 

2397: The twisted closed string sector will consist, 

2398: in the supersymmetric case,

2399: of a $D = 4$ $\cn = 4$ $U^{(\frac{N-1}{2})}$

2400: gauge multiplet for odd $N$, the gauge group

2401: being $U^{(\frac{N}{2})}$ if $N$ is even.

2402: When dealing with the non-supersymmetric $|b_1| \neq |b_2|$ 

2403: case, however, the twisted closed string spectrum

2404: will be much similar to the case of D$5$-branes,

2405: a closed string tachyon appearing for each twisted sector.

2406: 

2407: \item{$D4_aD4_a$ sector}

2408: 

2409: This sector gets mapped to $D4_{a^*}D4_{a^*}$, which 

2410: usually is a different sector of the theory. The computation

2411: of its massless spectrum will be the same as in the orbifold case,

2412: already computed in \cite{afiru}. However, we present 

2413: its computation for completeness.

2414: The massless GSO projected states in both R and NS sectors are

2415: {\small \beq

2416: \begin{array}{cccc}

2417: {\rm \bf NS \ Sector} \quad & \quad {\bf \ent_N \ phase}  \quad 

2418: & \quad {\rm \bf R \ Sector} \quad & \quad {\bf \ent_N \ phase} \\

2419: (\pm1,0,0,0) & 1 & \pm\oh(-,+,+,+) & e^{\pm\pi i \frac{b_1 + b_2}{N}}\\

2420: (0,\pm1,0,0) & e^{\pm2\pi i \frac{b_1}{N}} 

2421: & \pm\oh(+,-,+,+) & e^{\mp\pi i \frac{b_1 - b_2}{N}}\\

2422: (0,0,\pm1,0) & e^{\pm2\pi i \frac{b_2}{N}} 

2423: & \pm\oh(+,+,-,+) & e^{\pm\pi i \frac{b_1 - b_2}{N}}\\

2424: (0,0,0,\pm1) & 1 & \pm\oh(+,+,+,-) & e^{\pm\pi i \frac{b_1 + b_2}{N}}

2425: \label{sector4aa}

2426: \end{array}

2427: \eeq}

2428: where the behaviour of such states under the $\ent_N$ action 

2429: has been indicated. Keeping states invariant under combined 

2430: geometrical and Chan-Paton action we are left with the 

2431: following spectrum

2432: {\small\beq

2433: \begin{array}{rl}

2434: {\rm\bf Gauge\; Bosons} & \quad \prod_a \prod_{i=1}^N U(N_a^i) \\

2435: {\rm\bf Complex\; Escalars} & \quad \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N \;

2436: [\, (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i+b_1}) + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i+b_2}) \, 

2437: + {\bf Adj}_a^i ] \\

2438: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions} & \quad \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N \; [\;

2439: (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i-(b_1-b_2)/2}) + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i+(b_1-b_2)/2}) ]

2440: \nonumber \\

2441: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} & \quad \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N \; [\;

2442: (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i+(b_1+b_2)/2}) + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_a^{i-(b_1+b_2)/2})]

2443: \label{espectro4aa}

2444: \end{array}

2445: \eeq}

2446: which is generically non-supersymmetric and always non-chiral.

2447: The supersymmetric twist give us the $\cn = 2$ theory

2448: {\small\beq

2449: \begin{array}{rl}

2450: {\rm\bf Vector\; Multiplet} &\quad \prod_a \prod_{i=1}^N U(N_a^i)

2451: \nonumber\\

2452: {\rm\bf Hypermultiplet} & \quad \sum_a \sum_{i=1}^N (N_a^i,{\ov

2453: N}_a^{i+1})

2454: \label{multipletes4aa}

2455: \end{array}

2456: \eeq}

2457: 

2458: \item{$D4_aD4_b$, $D4_aD4_{b^*}$ and $D4_aD4_{a^*}$ sectors}

2459: 

2460: These three sectors will contain the chiral spectrum of the theory. 

2461: Let us analyze the $D4_aD4_b$ spectrum, whose associated twisted

2462: vector is given by $v_\vt = (0,\vt_{ab},0,0)$. Being mapped into

2463: $D4_{b^*}D4_{a^*}$ under the action of $\OR$, we only have to consider 

2464: the orbifold action. The massless states are

2465: {\small\beq

2466: \begin{array}{cccc}

2467: {\rm\bf Sector} & {\rm\bf State} & {\bf \ent_N \ phase}  

2468: & {\rm\bf \a^\prime Mass^2} \\

2469: {\rm NS} & (-1+\vartheta,0,0,0) & 1 & -\oh |\vt_{ab}|\\

2470: {\rm R}  & (-\oh+\vartheta,+\oh,-\oh,-\oh) &

2471: e^{\pi i\frac{(b_1-b_2)}{N}} & 0 \\

2472:          & (-\oh+\vartheta,-\oh,+\oh,-\oh) &

2473: e^{-\pi i\frac{(b_1-b_2)}{N}} & 0 \\

2474:          & (-\oh+\vartheta,-\oh,-\oh,+\oh) & 

2475: e^{-\pi i\frac{(b_1+b_2)}{N}} & 0 \\

2476:          & (-\oh+\vartheta,+\oh,+\oh,+\oh) & 

2477: e^{\pi i\frac{(b_1+b_2)}{N}} & 0

2478: \end{array}

2479: \label{sector4ab}

2480: \eeq}

2481: where we have supposed $0 < \vt_{ab} < 1$. This spectrum is 

2482: explicitely non-supersymmetric, even for a supersymmetric twist.

2483: Keeping the invariant states we are left with the spectrum

2484: {\small\beq

2485: \begin{array}{rl}

2486: {\rm\bf Tachyons} & \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; I_{ab}\times

2487: (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^i) \\

2488: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions} & \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;  I_{ab}\times\;

2489: [\; (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-(b_1+b_2)/2}) + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^{i+(b_1+b_2)/2})

2490: \; ] \\

2491: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} & \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \;I_{ab}\times

2492: [\; (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-(b_1-b_2)/2}) + (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i+(b_1-b_2)/2})

2493: \; ]

2494: \end{array}

2495: \label{espectro4ab}

2496: \eeq}

2497: which is generically supersymmetric. Notice that the intersection

2498: number is now given by 

2499: $I_{ab} \equiv [\Pi_a]\cdot[\Pi_b] = n_am_b - m_an_b$. Similarly,

2500: we can compute the other two chiral sectors of the theory,

2501: the complete spectrum being

2502: \footnote{In case $n_a = 0$, there is just one tachyon coming from 

2503: the $aa^*$ sector, transforming in the 

2504: antisymmetric representation $({\bf A}_a^0)$ 

2505: of the $U(N_a^0)$ gauge group. This is just a T-dual orbifolded version of

2506: the non-BPS systems constructed in \cite{antisym}.}

2507: {\small\beq

2508: \begin{array}{l}

2509: {\rm\bf Tachyons} \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

2510: [\; I_{ab}(N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^i) + 

2511: I_{ab^*}(N_a^i,N_b^{-i})\;]\\

2512: \sum_a [\;2 |m_a|(|n_a| + 1) ({\bf A}_a^0) 

2513: + 2 |m_a|(|n_a| - 1) ({\bf S}_a^0)\;]

2514: \vspace{3mm}\\ 

2515: {\rm\bf Left\; Fermions}  \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

2516: I_{ab} [\; (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-\oh{(b_1+b_2)}}) 

2517: + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^{i+\oh{(b_1+b_2)}}) \;]\\

2518: \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

2519: I_{ab^*} [\; (N_a^i,N_b^{-i+\oh{(b_1+b_2)}}) 

2520: + (N_a^i,N_b^{-i-\oh{(b_1+b_2)}}) \;] \\

2521: \sum_a \sum_{j,i=1}^N \; (\d_{j,-i+\oh(b_1+b_2)}+\d_{j,-i-\oh(b_1+b_2)})

2522: [\; - m_a (n_a + 1) ({\bf A}_a^j) - m_a (n_a - 1) ({\bf S}_a^j)\;]

2523: \vspace{3mm}\\

2524: {\rm\bf Right\; Fermions} \\ \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

2525: I_{ab} [\; (N_a^i,{\ov  N}_b^{i-\oh{(b_1-b_2)}}) 

2526: + (N_a^i,{\ov N}_b^{i+\oh{(b_1-b_2)}}) \;]\\

2527: \sum_{a<b} \sum_{i=1}^N \; 

2528: I_{ab^*} [\; (N_a^i,N_b^{-i+\oh{(b_1-b_2)}}) 

2529: + (N_a^i,N_b^{-i-\oh{(b_1-b_2)}}) \;]\\

2530: \sum_a \sum_{j,i=1}^N \; (\d_{j,-i+\oh{(b_1-b_2)}}+\d_{j,-i-\oh{(b_1-b_2)}})

2531: [\; - m_a (n_a + 1) ({\bf A}_a^j) - m_a (n_a - 1) ({\bf S}_a^j)\;]

2532: \end{array}

2533: \label{espectro4ab*}

2534: \eeq}

2535: 

2536: \end{itemize}

2537: 

2538: The construction of these configurations are, as usual, constrained by

2539: tadpole cancellation conditions, which in this case read

2540: \beqa

2541: & & c_k^2 \ \sum_a n_a \ \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} 

2542: + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right) = 8  

2543: \prod_{r = 1}^2 {\rm sin } \left(\frac{\pi k b_r}{2N}\right),

2544: \label{tadpoleO4n}\\

2545: & & c_k^2 \ \sum_a m_a \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} 

2546: - {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right) = 0,

2547: \label{tadpoleO4m}

2548: \eeqa

2549: where now $c_k^2 = \prod_{r = 1}^2 {\rm sin }(\pi k b_r/N)$,

2550: and we are using effective wrapping numbers.

2551: These two conditions can be expressed more elegantly as

2552: \beq

2553: c_k^2 \ \sum_a \left([\Pi_a] \ {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a} 

2554: + [\Pi_{a^*}] \ {\rm Tr} \gamma_{k,a^*} \right)

2555: = [\Pi_{O4}] \ 8 \b 

2556: \prod_{r = 1}^2 {\rm sin} \left(\frac{\pi k b_r}{2N}\right),

2557: \label{tadpoleO4}

2558: \eeq

2559: where $\b = 1 - b$ discriminates between rectangular and tilted

2560: tori. In the same manner as scketched for the case of D$5$-branes in

2561: section 2, tadpole conditions will directly imply cancellation

2562: of cubic chiral anomalies, whose expression is now given by

2563: \beqa

2564: \ca_{SU(N_a^j)^3} & = & \sum_{b,k} N_b^k \left(I_{ab} \ \d(j,k) 

2565: + I_{ab^*} \ \d(j,-k)\right) + 8\b \ I_{a,O4}\ \d(j,-j) \\

2566: \d(j,k) & \equiv & \d_{j,k+\frac{b_1+b_2}{2}} 

2567: + \d_{j,k-\frac{b_1+b_2}{2}} -

2568: \d_{j,k+\frac{b_1-b_2}{2}} - \d_{j,k-\frac{b_1-b_2}{2}}.

2569: \label{quiralO4}

2570: \eeqa

2571: 

2572: On the other hand, the mixed anomalies analysis mimicks

2573: the one performed in Section 2 for D$5$-branes. In fact,

2574: expressions (\ref{mixtaO5}) and (\ref{mixtaO5b}) are 

2575: also valid for this case if we just substitute 

2576: $16 m_a^1 m_a^2$ by $8 m_a$ and consider the definitions of 

2577: $\d(i,j)$ and $c_k$ used in this appendix. The only 

2578: difference comes from the details of the GS mechanism

2579: which now only involves $(N-1)$ RR twisted fields.

2580: For completeness, we present the four-dimensional couplings

2581: that give rise to such mechanism

2582: \beqa & &

2583: \begin{array}{c}

2584: c_k N_a\, n_a \int_{M_4} {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}-\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i

2585: \ C_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i}, \\

2586: c_k N_a\, m_a \int_{M_4} {\rm Tr} \left(\g_{k,a}+\g_{k,a^*}\right)\lam_i \

2587: B_2^{(k)}\wedge {\rm Tr} F_{a,i},

2588: \end{array} 

2589: \label{acoplosdual2O4}

2590: \\ & &

2591: \begin{array}{c}

2592: c_k N_b m_b \int_{M_4} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}-\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

2593: C_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right), \\

2594: c_k N_b n_b \int_{M_4} \left(\g_{k,b}^{-1}+\g_{k,b^*}^{-1}\right)\lam_j^2 \

2595: B_0^{(k)} \wedge {\rm Tr} \left(F_{b,j}\wedge F_{b,j}\right).

2596: \end{array}

2597: \label{acoplosdualO4}

2598: \eeqa

2599: Of special interest are the couplings (\ref{acoplosdual2O4}),

2600: which encode the massive $U(1)$'s of the theory.

2601: 

2602: Let us also scketch some model-building features regarding D4-branes

2603: orientifold models. For simplicity, we will constrain ourselves

2604: to the supersymetric case $b_1 = - b_2 = 1$.

2605: Since the $\ent_3$ orbifold case has already been

2606: considered in \cite{honecker}, we will focus on odd $N > 3$ orientifolds.

2607: In the same way as performed for D5-branes tadpoles, we can

2608: express the tadpole condition (\ref{tadpoleO4n}) as

2609: \beq

2610: \sum_a{n_a \left({\rm Tr} \gamma_{\om,a} 

2611: + {\rm Tr} \gamma_{\om,a^*}\right)} =

2612: {8 \over \left({\alpha^{N+1 \over 4}  + \bar\alpha^{N+1 \over 4}}\right)^2},

2613: \label{generadortwist2}

2614: \eeq

2615: where $\alpha = e^{2\pi i/N}$. Again

2616: we can reexpress (\ref{generadortwist2}) as a sum of orbifold

2617: phases by using

2618: \beq

2619: {1 \over {\alpha^{N+1 \over 4}  + \bar\alpha^{N+1 \over 4}}} =

2620: \iota \left(1 + \sum_{l=1}^r{(\alpha^{r}+ \bar\alpha^{r})}\right),

2621: \label{decomp2}

2622: \eeq

2623: \beq

2624: \iota = \left\{\begin{array}{l}

2625: +1 \ {\rm if} \ N = 4r+1 \\

2626: -1 \ {\rm if} \ N = 4r+3

2627: \end{array}\right.

2628: \label{iota}

2629: \eeq

2630: 

2631: Let us, for instance, consider the $\ent_5$ orientifold 

2632: model whose brane content is shown in table \ref{D4model}.

2633: \begin{table}[htb]

2634: \footnotesize

2635: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}

2636: \begin{center}

2637: 

2638: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}

2639: \hline

2640: $N_i$ & $(n_i,m_i)$ & $\gamma_{w,i}$ \\

2641: \hline\hline

2642: $N_a=3$ & $(2, 0) $ & $\a 1_3$ \\

2643: \hline

2644: $N_b=2$ & $ (1, -\frac 32)$ & $\a^2 1_2$ \\

2645: \hline

2646: $N_c=2$ & $ (-1, \frac 32)$ & $\a^2 1_2$ \\

2647: \hline

2648: $N_d=1$ & $(2, 0) $ & $\a 1_3$ \\

2649: \hline

2650: $N_h = 4$ & $(2, 0)$ & $1_{4}$  \\

2651: \hline

2652: \end{tabular}

2653: \caption{\small{Example of a D4-branes LR model in a $\ent_5$ orbifold.} 

2654: \label{D4model}}

2655: \end{center}

2656: \end{table}

2657: As usual, the brane content of this model consist of four D$4$-branes

2658: $a, b, c, d$, again identified with those of table \ref{SMbranes},

2659: plus some hidden brane $h$. The gauge group is

2660: $SU(3) \ti SU(2) \ti SU(2) \ti U(1)^4 \ti [U(4)_h]$, 

2661: which is the LR gauge group extended by three abelian groups and

2662: one hidden $U(4)_h$. The chiral matter content of such model is 

2663: given in table \ref{D4fermions}

2664: %

2665: \begin{table}[htb] \footnotesize

2666: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

2667: \begin{center}

2668: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

2669: \hline Intersection &

2670:  Matter fields  &   &  $Q_a$  & $Q_b $ & $Q_c $ & $Q_d$  & $B-L$ \\

2671: \hline

2672: \hline ($ab$) & $Q_L$ & $3(3,2,1)$ & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1/3 \\

2673: \hline ($ac$) & $Q_R$ & $3({\bar 3},1,2)$ & -1  & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1/3 \\

2674: \hline ($bd$) & $L_L$ & $3(1,2,1)$ &  0  & -1 & 0 & 1 & -1 \\

2675: \hline ($cd$) & $L_R$ & $3(1,1,2)$ &  0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\

2676: \hline ($bc^*$) & $H$ & $3(1,2,2)$ &  0  & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\

2677: \hline ($bb^*$) & $A_i$  & $3(1,1,1)$ & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\

2678: \hline ($cc^*$) & $S_i$  & $3(1,1,3)$ & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0  \\

2679: \hline \end{tabular}

2680: \end{center} \caption{\small Extended Left-Right symmetric chiral 

2681: spectrum arising from the $\ent_5$ D4-branes model of table 

2682: \ref{D4model}. The $U(1)_{B-L}$ generator is defined as 

2683: $Q_{B-L} = \frac 13 Q_a - Q_d$.}

2684: \label{D4fermions}

2685: \end{table}

2686: 

2687: Notice that this particular example does not 

2688: follow the general philosophy described in Section 3, where

2689: every chiral fermion arised from a bifundamental representation

2690: and the matter content was thus described by table \ref{specLR}.

2691: Instead, we now find some extra chiral fermions that can be 

2692: identified with three Higgssino-like particles, whereas some 

2693: exotic matter transforming as singlets  ($A_i$) and symmetrics 

2694: of $SU(2)_R$  ($S_i$) do also appear. 

2695: The only light bosonic sector arises from branes $b$ and $c$

2696: giving us a Higgs-like particle that can become tachyonic

2697: if we approach both branes close enough.

2698: No extra chiral matter nor scalars arise from the hidden 

2699: sector of the theory.

2700: 

2701: It is easy to see that this brane content satisfies both twisted

2702: tadpole conditions (\ref{tadpoleO4n}) and (\ref{tadpoleO4m}).

2703: Interestingly enough, it also satisfies untwisted tadpoles

2704: conditions, so when embedding such model in a compact 

2705: four-dimensional manifold $B$ no extra brane content would be 

2706: needed.

2707: 

2708: Finally, by computing the couplings (\ref{acoplosdual2O4}) that

2709: mediate the GS mechanism, we can check that two of the abelian

2710: gauge groups are in fact massive, the only massless linear combinations

2711: being $U(1)_{B-L} = \frac 13 U(1)_a - U(1)_d$ and

2712: $U(1)_b + U(1)_c$, just as in our $\ent_N$ D$5$-branes constructions

2713: of Section 3.2.

2714: 

2715: Note that the $\ent_5$ twist in this model preserves a $\cn = 2$ 

2716: supersymmetry of the gravitational bulk. Due to this fact there

2717: are no closed string twisted tachyons.

2718: 

2719: 

2720: \newpage

2721: 

2722: \section{Appendix II: Other D5-brane configurations yielding SM spectra }

2723: 

2724: Althought in Section 3 we have focussed on a very particular class

2725: of D5-branes configurations in a $\ent_3$ orbifold, there are other

2726: possibilities when constructing models giving rise to just the

2727: SM fermionic spectrum. Indeed, the brane content of table

2728: \ref{SMatab} corresponds to the brane distribution of 

2729: fig.\ref{SMfig}.$a_1$), while in principle any of these four 

2730: figures is valid. For completeness, in this appendix we consider the

2731: other three possibilities. 

2732: 

2733: After imposing the analogous constraints to the rest of the $\ent_3$

2734: quivers of figure \ref{SMfig}, we find that the distribution 

2735: $a_2$) give us a totally equivalent class of models to the one already 

2736: presented, whereas $b_1$) and $b_2$) give us two new different 

2737: families of configurations.

2738: Let us first consider  the $\ent_3$ quiver in fig. \ref{SMfig}.$b_1$). 

2739: The wrapping numbers giving the same SM spectrum of table \ref{specSM} 

2740: are shown in table \ref{SMbtab}.

2741: 

2742: \begin{table}[htb] 

2743: \footnotesize

2744: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7}

2745: \begin{center}

2746: 

2747: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

2748: \hline

2749:  $N_i$    &  $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$  &  $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$   & $\gamma_{\om,i}$ \\

2750: \hline\hline 

2751: $N_a = 3$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$  &  $(\ep, -\oh\tilde \ep)$ & 

2752: $\a 1_3$  \\

2753: \hline 

2754: $N_b = 2$ & $(n_b^1, \tilde\ep\b^1)$ &

2755: $(1, -\frac 32 \ep\tilde\ep)$ &  $1_2$   \\

2756: \hline 

2757: $N_c = 1$ & $(n_c^1, 3\ep\b^1)$ & $(0, 1)$ & $1$ \\

2758: \hline 

2759: $N_d=1$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$ & $(\ep, \frac 32 \tilde\ep) $ & $\a$ \\

2760: \hline

2761: $N_h$ & $(\ep_h/\b^1, 0)$ & $(2,0)$ & $1_{N_h}$  \\

2762: \hline

2763: \end{tabular}

2764: 

2765: \caption{\small{D5-branes wrapping numbers and CP phases giving rise

2766: to a SM spectrum in the $\ent_3$ quiver of fig. \ref{SMfig}.$b_1$). 

2767: The solution is now parametrized by $n_b^1, n_c^1 \in \ent$, 

2768: $\ep, \tilde\ep = \pm 1$, and $\b^1 = 1 - b^{(1)} = 1, 1/2$.}

2769: \label{SMbtab}}

2770: \end{center}

2771: \end{table}

2772: 

2773: Just as before, tadpoles are almost automatically satisfied, and the 

2774: only condition to be imposed is

2775: \beq

2776: n_b^1 = -4 + \frac{1}{\b^1} (\ep - N_h\ep_h).

2777: \label{tadSMZ3b}

2778: \eeq

2779: 

2780: The $U(1)$ structure is quite similar as well, again with three 

2781: non-trivial couplings to RR twisted fields, now given by

2782: \beq

2783: \begin{array}{rcl}

2784: B_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ (\a -\a^2)\ \frac{\ep}{\b^1}

2785: \ (3F^a\ +\ F^{d})\\

2786: D_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1 

2787: \left( \frac{3 \tilde\ep}{2\b^1} (F^a\ -\ F^d)\ -\ 6 n_b^ 1 \ep\tilde\ep F^b\ 

2788: +\ 2 n_c^1 F^c \right) \\

2789: E_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ 4 \tilde\ep \b^1 F^b

2790: \end{array}

2791: \label{bfsSMZ3b}

2792: \eeq

2793: The massless $U(1)$ will again be model-dependent

2794: \beq

2795: Q_0 = Q_a - 3 Q_d - \frac{3\tilde\ep}{n_c^1\b^1} Q_c,

2796: \label{masslessSMZ3b}

2797: \eeq

2798: and getting the hypercharge as the unique massless $U(1)$ amounts

2799: to requiring

2800: \beq

2801: n_c^1 = \frac {\tilde\ep}{\b^1}\ \Rightarrow\ \b^1 = 1,  

2802: \label{condSMZ3b}

2803: \eeq

2804: since $n_c^1$ has to be an integer.

2805: A simple solution is 

2806:  $N_h = 3$, $\ep = -\ep_h = 1$. 

2807: This implies setting 

2808:  $n_h^1 = 0$, and then we have a single Higgs system as in table

2809: \ref{higgsses}.

2810:  

2811: Considering now the quiver in fig. \ref{SMfig}.$b_2$)

2812: give us another family of configurations. 

2813: Looking for the same spectrum than in table

2814: \ref{specSM}, we find the following wrapping numbers:

2815: \begin{table}[htb] 

2816: \footnotesize

2817: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.7}

2818: \begin{center}

2819: 

2820: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}

2821: \hline

2822:  $N_i$    &  $(n_i^1,m_i^1)$  &  $(n_i^2,m_i^2)$   & $\gamma_{\om,i}$ \\

2823: \hline\hline 

2824: $N_a = 3$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$  &  $(\ep, -\oh\tilde \ep)$ & 

2825: $\a 1_3$  \\

2826: \hline 

2827: $N_b = 2$ & $(n_b^1, \tilde\ep\b^1)$ &

2828: $(1, -\frac 32 \ep\tilde\ep)$ &  $1_2$   \\

2829: \hline 

2830: $N_c = 1$ & $(n_c^1, 3\ep\b^1)$ & $(0, 1)$ & $1$ \\

2831: \hline 

2832: $N_d=1$ & $(1/\b^1, 0)$ & $(-\ep, -\frac 32 \tilde\ep) $ & $\a^2$ \\

2833: \hline

2834: $N_h$ & $(\ep_h/\b^1, 0)$ & $(2,0)$ & $1_{N_h}$  \\

2835: \hline

2836: \end{tabular}

2837: 

2838: \caption{\small{D5-branes wrapping numbers and CP phases giving rise

2839: to a SM spectrum in the $\ent_3$ quiver of fig. \ref{SMfig}.$b_2$). 

2840: The solution is now parametrized by $n_b^1, n_c^1 \in \ent$, 

2841: $\ep, \tilde\ep = \pm 1$, and $\b^1 = 1 - b^{(1)} = 1, 1/2$.}

2842: \label{SMb2tab}}

2843: \end{center}

2844: \end{table}

2845: 

2846: Tadpoles read:

2847: \beq

2848: 2 n_b^1 = -8 + \frac{1}{\b^1} (\ep - 2 N_h\ep_h)\ \Rightarrow\ \b^1 = \oh.

2849: \label{tadSMZ3a2}

2850: \eeq

2851: 

2852: The $U(1)$ couplings are:

2853: \beq

2854: \begin{array}{rcl}

2855: B_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ (\a -\a^2)\ \frac{\ep}{\b^1}

2856: \ (3F^a\ +\ F^{d})\\

2857: D_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1 

2858: \left( \frac{3 \tilde\ep}{2\b^1} (F^a\ {\bf +}\ F^d)\ 

2859: -\ 6 n_b^ 1 \ep\tilde\ep F^b\ 

2860: +\ 2 n_c^1 F^c \right) \\

2861: E_2^{(1)} & \wedge  & \ c_1\ 4 \tilde\ep \b^1 F^b

2862: \end{array}

2863: \label{bfsSMZ3a2}

2864: \eeq

2865: 

2866: The massless $U(1)$ will now be

2867: \beq

2868: Q_0 = Q_a - 3 Q_d + \frac{3\tilde\ep}{2 n_c^1\b^1} Q_c,

2869: \label{masslessSMZ3a2}

2870: \eeq

2871: and getting the hypercharge as the unique massless $U(1)$ amounts

2872: to requiring

2873: \beq

2874: n_c^1 = - \frac {\tilde\ep}{2\b^1} = - \tilde\ep.

2875: \label{condSMZ3a2}

2876: \eeq

2877: Unlike the SM D5-brane constructions in the main text, 

2878: the lightest scalars and/or tachyons are now coulour singlets.

2879: 

2880: 

2881: 

2882: 

2883: 

2884: 

2885: 

2886: 

2887: \newpage

2888: 

2889: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2890: %

2891: %

2892: \bibitem{bbarmod}

2893: G.~Aldaz\'abal, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and F.~Quevedo,

2894: {\em ``Standard-like models with broken 

2895: supersymmetry from type I string  vacua,''}

2896: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 031 (2000),

2897: hep-th/9909172. \

2898: {\em ``A D-brane alternative to the MSSM,''}

2899: JHEP {\bf 0002}, 015 (2000),

2900: hep-ph/0001083. 

2901: %

2902: %

2903: \bibitem{aiqu}

2904: G.~Aldaz\'abal, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,

2905: {\em ``D-branes at singularities:

2906: A bottom-up approach to the string  embedding of the standard model,''}

2907: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 002 (2000),

2908: hep-th/0005067.

2909: %

2910: %

2911: \bibitem{cuw}

2912: M.~Cveti\v c, A.~Uranga and J.~Wang,

2913: {\em ``Discrete Wilson lines in N=1, D=4, Type IIB orientifolds:

2914: a systematic exploration for $Z_6$ orientifold,''}

2915: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 595}, 63 (2001),

2916: hep-th/0010091.

2917: %

2918: %

2919: \bibitem{bailind4}

2920: D.~Bailin, G.~V.~Kraniotis and A.~Love,

2921: {\em ``Supersymmetric standard models on D-branes,''}

2922: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502}, 209 (2001),

2923: hep-th/0011289.

2924: %

2925: %

2926: \bibitem{bjl}

2927: D.~Berenstein, V.~Jejjala and R.~G.~Leigh,

2928: {\em ``The standard model on a D-brane,''}

2929: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 071602 (2002),

2930: hep-ph/0105042.

2931: %

2932: %

2933: \bibitem{auquivers}

2934: A. Uranga, {\em `` From quiver diagrams to particle physics,''}

2935: hep-th/0007173.

2936: %

2937: %

2938: \bibitem{kephart}

2939: T.~W.~Kephart and H.~Pas,

2940: {\em ``Three family $\cn = 1$ SUSY models from $Z_n$ orbifolded AdS/CFT,''}

2941: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 522}, 315 (2001),

2942: hep-ph/0109111.

2943: %

2944: %

2945: \bibitem{hxy}

2946: H.~X.~Yang,

2947: {\em ``Standard-like model from D = 4 type IIB orbifolds,''}

2948: hep-th/0112259.

2949: %

2950: \bibitem{gerardo}

2951: L.~F.~Alday and G.~Aldaz\'abal,

2952: {\em ``In quest of 'just' the standard model on D-branes at a singularity,''}

2953: JHEP {\bf 0205}, 022 (2002),

2954: hep-th/0203129.

2955: %

2956: \bibitem{bdl}  

2957: M.~Berkooz, M.~R.~Douglas and R.~G.~Leigh,

2958: {\em ``Branes intersecting at angles,''}

2959: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 480}, 265 (1996),

2960: hep-th/9606139;\\

2961: V.~Balasubramanian and R.~G.~Leigh,

2962: {\em ``D-branes, moduli and supersymmetry,''}

2963: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 6415 (1997),

2964: hep-th/9611165. 

2965: %

2966: %

2967: \bibitem{arfaei}

2968: H.~Arfaei and M.~M.~Sheikh Jabbari,

2969: {\em ``Different D-brane interactions,''}

2970: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 394}, 288 (1997),

2971: hep-th/9608167.\\

2972: M.~M.~Sheikh Jabbari,

2973: {\em ``Classification of different branes at angles,''}

2974: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 420}, 279 (1998),

2975: hep-th/9710121.

2976: %

2977: %

2978: \bibitem{bachas}

2979: C.~Bachas,

2980: {\em ``A Way to Break Supersymmetry,''}

2981: hep-th/9503030.

2982: %

2983: %

2984: \bibitem{inter1}

2985: R.~Blumenhagen, L.~G\"orlich and B.~K\"ors,

2986: {\em ``Supersymmetric orientifolds in 6D with D-branes at angles,''}

2987: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 569}, 209 (2000),

2988: hep-th/9908130. \

2989: {\em ``Supersymmetric 4D orientifolds of type IIA with D6-branes at angles,''}

2990: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 040 (2000),

2991: hep-th/9912204. \

2992: {\em ``A new class of supersymmetric orientifolds with D-branes at angles,''}

2993: hep-th/0002146.\\

2994: S.~F\"orste, G.~Honecker and R.~Schreyer,

2995: {\em ``Supersymmetric $Z_N \times Z_M$ Orientifolds in 4D with

2996: D-Branes at Angles,''}

2997: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 593}, 127 (2001),

2998: hep-th/0008250.  

2999: %

3000: %

3001: \bibitem{fluxes}

3002: R.~Blumenhagen, L.~G\"orlich, B.~K\"ors and D.~L\"ust,

3003: {\em ``Asymmetric orbifolds, noncommutative geometry and

3004: type I string vacua,''}

3005: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 44 (2000),

3006: hep-th/0003024. \\

3007: C.~Angelantonj, I.~Antoniadis, E.~Dudas and A.~Sagnotti,

3008: {\em ``Type-I strings on magnetised orbifolds and brane transmutation,''}

3009: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 489}, 223 (2000),

3010: hep-th/0007090. \\

3011: C.~Angelantonj and A.~Sagnotti,

3012: {\em ``Type-I vacua and brane transmutation,''}

3013: hep-th/0010279.

3014: %

3015: %

3016: \bibitem{imr}

3017: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, F.~Marchesano and R.~Rabad\'an,

3018: {\em ``Getting just the standard model at intersecting branes,''}

3019: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 002 (2001),

3020: hep-th/0105155. \\

3021: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, 

3022: {\em ``Standard Model Engineering with Intersecting Branes,''}

3023: hep-ph/0109082.

3024: %

3025: %

3026: \bibitem{bgkl}

3027: R.~Blumenhagen, L.~G\"orlich, B.~K\"ors and D.~L\"ust,

3028: {\em ``Noncommutative compactifications of type I strings on tori with

3029: magnetic flux'',}

3030: JHEP {\bf 0010}, 006 (2000),

3031: hep-th/0007024. \

3032: {\em ``Magnetic flux in toroidal type I compactification,''}

3033: Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 49}, 591 (2001),

3034: hep-th/0010198.

3035: %

3036: %

3037: \bibitem{afiru}

3038: G.~Aldaz\'abal, S.~Franco, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, R.~Rabad\'an and

3039: A.~M.~Uranga,

3040: {\em ``D = 4 chiral string compactifications from intersecting

3041: branes,''}

3042: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 3103 (2001),

3043: hep-th/0011073.

3044: %

3045: %

3046: \bibitem{afiru2}

3047: G.~Aldaz\'abal, S.~Franco, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, R.~Rabad\'an and

3048: A.~M.~Uranga,

3049: {\em ``Intersecting brane worlds,''}

3050: JHEP {\bf 0102}, 047 (2001),

3051: hep-ph/0011132.

3052: %

3053: %

3054: \bibitem{bkl}

3055: R.~Blumenhagen, B.~K\"ors and D.~L\"ust,

3056: {\em ``Type I strings with F- and B-flux,''}

3057: JHEP {\bf 0102}, 030 (2001),

3058: hep-th/0012156.

3059: %

3060: %

3061: \bibitem{pseudogermans}

3062: S.~F\"orste, G.~Honecker and R.~Schreyer,

3063: {\em ``Orientifolds with branes at angles,''}

3064: JHEP {\bf 0106}, 004 (2001),

3065: hep-th/0105208.

3066: %

3067: %

3068: \bibitem{bklo}

3069: R.~Blumenhagen, B.~K\"ors, D.~L\"ust and T.~Ott,

3070: {\em ``The standard model from stable intersecting brane world orbifolds,''}

3071: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 616}, 3 (2001),

3072: hep-th/0107138. \

3073: {\em ``Intersecting brane worlds on tori and orbifolds,''}

3074: hep-th/0112015.

3075: %

3076: %

3077: \bibitem{csu}

3078: M.~Cveti\v c, G.~Shiu and A.~M.~Uranga,

3079: {\em ``Three-family supersymmetric standard like models from  

3080: intersecting branes,''}

3081: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 201801 (2001),

3082: hep-th/0107143. \

3083: {\em ``Chiral four-dimensional N = 1 supersymmetric type IIA

3084: orientifolds from intersecting branes,''}

3085: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 615}, 3 (2001),

3086: hep-th/0107166. \

3087: {\em ``Chiral type II orientifold constructions as M theory on G(2)

3088: holonomy spaces,''}

3089: hep-th/0111179.

3090: %

3091: %

3092: \bibitem{pheno}

3093: D.~Bailin, G.~V.~Kraniotis and A.~Love,

3094: {\em ``Standard-like models from intersecting D4-branes,''}

3095: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530}, 202 (2002),

3096: hep-th/0108131.

3097: %

3098: %

3099: \bibitem{honecker}

3100: G.~Honecker,

3101: {\em ``Non-supersymmetric orientifolds with D-branes at angles,''}

3102: hep-th/0112174. \

3103: {\em ``Intersecting brane world models from D8-branes on

3104: $(T^2 \ti T^4/\ent_3)/\OR_1$ type IIA orientifolds,''}  

3105: JHEP {\bf 0201}, 025 (2002),

3106: hep-th/0201037.

3107: %

3108: %

3109: \bibitem{kataoka}

3110: H.~Kataoka and M.~Shimojo,

3111: {\em ``$SU(3) \ti SU(2) \ti U(1)$ chiral models from

3112: intersecting D4/D5 branes,''}

3113: hep-th/0112247.

3114: %

3115: %

3116: \bibitem{cim1}

3117: D.~Cremades, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and F.~Marchesano,

3118: {\em ``SUSY quivers, intersecting branes and the modest hierarchy problem,''}

3119: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 009 (2002),

3120: hep-th/0201205.

3121: %

3122: %

3123: \bibitem{cim2}

3124: D.~Cremades, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and F.~Marchesano,

3125: {\em ``Intersecting Brane Models of Particle Physics 

3126: and the Higgs Mechanism,''}

3127: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 022 (2002),

3128: hep-th/0203160.

3129: %

3130: %

3131: \bibitem{koko}

3132: C. Kokorelis,

3133: {\em ``GUT model hierarchies from intersecting branes''},

3134: hep-th/0203187.

3135: %

3136: %

3137: \bibitem{TeV}  

3138: J.~D.~Lykken,

3139: {\em ``Weak Scale Superstrings,''}

3140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3693 (1996),

3141: hep-th/9603133.

3142: %

3143: %

3144: \bibitem{aadd}

3145: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

3146: {\em ``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''}

3147: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998),

3148: hep-ph/9803315. \\

3149: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

3150: {\em ``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''}

3151: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)

3152: hep-ph/9804398.

3153: %

3154: %

3155: \bibitem{rs}

3156: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

3157: {\em ``An alternative to compactification,''}

3158: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999),

3159: hep-th/9906064.

3160: %

3161: %

3162: \bibitem{bflux}

3163: M.~Bianchi, G.~Pradisi and A.~Sagnotti,

3164: {\em ``Toroidal compactification and symmetry breaking 

3165: in open string theories,''}

3166: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 376}, 365 (1992). \\

3167: M.~Bianchi,

3168: {\em ``A note on toroidal compactifications of the type I 

3169: superstring and  other superstring vacuum configurations with 

3170: 16 supercharges,''}

3171: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 528}, 73 (1998),

3172: hep-th/9711201. \\

3173: E.~Witten,

3174: {\em ``Toroidal compactification without vector structure,''}

3175: JHEP {\bf 9802}, 006 (1998),

3176: hep-th/9712028. \\

3177: C.~Angelantonj,

3178: {\em ``Comments on Open String Orbifolds

3179: with a Non-Vanishing $B_{ab}$,''}

3180: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 566}, 126 (2000),

3181: hep-th/9908064. \\

3182: C.~Angelantonj and R.~Blumenhagen,

3183: {\em ``Discrete deformations in type I vacua,''}

3184: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 86 (2000)

3185: hep-th/9911190. \\

3186: Z.~Kakushadze,

3187: {\em ``Geometry of orientifolds with NS-NS B-flux,''}

3188: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 15}, 3113 (2000),

3189: hep-th/0001212.

3190: %

3191: %

3192: \bibitem{anamaria}

3193: A. Font and A. Hern\'andez,

3194: {\em ``Nonsupersymmetric orbifolds''},

3195: hep-th/0202057. 

3196: %

3197: %

3198: \bibitem{tachyons}

3199: A.~Adams, J.~Polchinski and E.~Silverstein,

3200: {\em ``Don't panic! Closed string tachyons in ALE space-times,''}

3201: JHEP {\bf 0110}, 029 (2001),

3202: hep-th/0108075.

3203: %

3204: %

3205: \bibitem{dg}

3206: M.~R.~Douglas and G.~W.~Moore,

3207: {\em ``D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons,''}

3208: hep-th/9603167. \\

3209: C.~V.~Johnson and R.~C.~Myers,

3210: {\em ``Aspects of type IIB theory on ALE spaces,''}

3211: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 6382 (1997),

3212: hep-th/9610140.

3213: %

3214: %

3215: \bibitem{GJ}

3216: E.~G.~Gimon and C.~V.~Johnson,

3217: {\em ``K3 Orientifolds,''}

3218: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477}, 715 (1996),

3219: hep-th/9604129.

3220: %

3221: %

3222: \bibitem{leigh}

3223: R.~G.~Leigh and M.~Rozali,

3224: {\em ``Brane boxes, anomalies, bending and tadpoles,''}

3225: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 026004 (1999),

3226: hep-th/9807082.

3227: %

3228: %

3229: \bibitem{iru}

3230: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, R.~Rabad\'an and A.~M.~Uranga,

3231: {\em ``Anomalous U(1)'s in type I and type IIB D = 4, N = 1 string vacua,''}

3232: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 542}, 112 (1999),

3233: hep-th/9808139.

3234: %

3235: %

3236: \bibitem{LR}

3237: R.N.~Mohapatra and J.~C.~Pati,

3238: {\em ``Left-Right Gauge Symmetry And An 

3239: ``Isoconjugate'' Model Of CP Violation''};

3240: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11}, 566 (1975). \\

3241: G.~Senjanovic and R.N.~Mohapatra,

3242: {\em``Exact Left-Right Symmetry And Spontaneous Violation Of Parity''};

3243: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12}, 1502 (1975). \\

3244: R.N.~Mohapatra,

3245: {\em ``Left-right symmetry just beyond minimal supersymmetric 

3246: standard model,  electric dipole moment of the neutron, 

3247: and HERA leptoquarks''};

3248: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 61}, 963 (1998), hep-ph/9707518. \

3249: {\em ``Unification and supersymmetry''};

3250: hep-ph/9911272.

3251: %

3252: %

3253: \bibitem{quiver}

3254: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~R.~Greene and D.~R.~Morrison,

3255: {\em ``Orbifold resolution by D-branes,''}

3256: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 506}, 84 (1997),

3257: hep-th/9704151. 

3258: %

3259: %

3260: \bibitem{mssm}

3261: S.P. Martin, {\em ``A supersymmetry primer''},

3262: hep-ph/9709356; \\

3263: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.~G.~Ross,

3264: {\em ``Electroweak breaking in supersymmetric models,''}

3265: hep-ph/9204201. In {\em `Perspectives on Higgs Physics'},

3266: G. Kane ed., World Scientific (1993).

3267: %

3268: %

3269: \bibitem{ir}

3270: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.~G.~Ross,

3271: {\em ``$SU(2)_L \times U(1)$ symmetry breaking as a radiative effect of

3272: supersymmetry breaking in GUT's,''}

3273: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110}, 215 (1982).

3274: %

3275: %

3276: \bibitem{giiq}

3277: D.~M.~Ghilencea, L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez, N.~Irges and F.~Quevedo,

3278: {\em ``TeV-scale Z' bosons from D-branes,''}

3279: hep-ph/0205083.

3280: %

3281: %

3282: \bibitem{antisym}

3283: E.~Witten,

3284: {\em ``D-branes and K-theory,''}

3285: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 019 (1998),

3286: hep-th/9810188. \\

3287: R.~Rabadan and A.~M.~Uranga,

3288: {\em ``Type IIB orientifolds without untwisted tadpoles, 

3289: and non-BPS D-branes,''},

3290: JHEP {\bf 0101}, 029 (2001)

3291: hep-th/0009135. \\

3292: O.~Loaiza-Brito and A.~M.~Uranga,

3293: {\em ``The fate of the type I non-BPS D7-brane,''}

3294: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619}, 211 (2001),

3295: hep-th/0104173.

3296: %

3297: 

3298: 

3299: 

3300: 

3301: \end{thebibliography}

3302: 

3303: 

3304: 

3305: 

3306: \end{document}

3307: 

3308: 

3309: 

3310: 

3311: 

3312: 

3313: 

3314: