1: %% LyX 1.4.1 created this file.  For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.

2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.

3: \documentclass[english,aps,manuscript]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

5: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

6: 

7: \makeatletter

8: 

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.

10: %% Bold symbol macro for standard LaTeX users

11: \providecommand{\boldsymbol}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

12: 

13: 

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

15: %% LyX 1.4.1 created this file.  For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.

16: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.

17: 

18: 

19: 

20: 

21: \makeatletter

22: 

23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.

24: %% Bold symbol macro for standard LaTeX users

25: 

26: 

27: 

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

29: % put your own definitions here:

30: %   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}

31: %   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]

32: %   ...

33: \newcommand{\bee}{\begin{equation}}

34: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

35: \newcommand{\beea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

36: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

37: \newcommand{\rme}{{\rm e}}

38: \newcommand{\ewxy}[2]{\setlength{\epsfxsize}{#2}\epsfbox[10 60 640 570]{#1}}

39: 

40: 

41: \makeatother

42: 

43: \usepackage{babel}

44: \makeatother

45: \begin{document}

46: 

47: \preprint{COLO-HEP-525, NSF-KITP-06-147}

48: 

49: \maketitle

50: \textbf{\Large String Phenomenology and the Cosmological Constant }{\Large \par}

51: 

52: \begin{center}\vspace{0.3cm}

53: \par\end{center}

54: 

55: \begin{center}{\large S. P. de Alwis$^{\dagger}$ }\par\end{center}{\large \par}

56: 

57: 

58: 

59: \begin{center}\vspace{0.3cm}

60: \par\end{center}

61: 

62: \begin{center}Physics Department, University of Colorado, \\

63:  Boulder, CO 80309 USA\par\end{center}

64: 

65: \begin{center}\vspace{0.3cm}

66: \par\end{center}

67: 

68: \begin{center}\textbf{Abstract}\par\end{center}

69: 

70: \begin{center}\vspace{0.3cm}

71: \par\end{center}

72: 

73: \begin{center}It is argued that classical string solutions should

74: not be fine tuned to have a positive cosmological constant (CC) at

75: the observed size, since even the quantum corrections from standard

76: model effects will completely negate any classical string theory solution

77: with such a CC. In fact it is even possible that there is no need

78: at all for any ad hoc uplifting term in the potential since these

79: quantum effects may well take care of this. Correspondingly any calculation

80: of the parameters of the MSSM has to be rethought to take into account

81: the evolution of the CC. This considerably complicates the issue since

82: the initial conditions for RG evolution of these parameters are determined

83: by the final condition on the CC! The Anthropic Principle is of no

84: help in addressing these issues. \par\end{center}

85: 

86: \vspace{0.3cm}

87: 

88: 

89: PACS numbers: 11.25. -w, 98.80.-k; 

90: 

91: \vfill{}

92: 

93: 

94: $^{\dagger}$ {\small e-mail: dealwis@pizero.colorado.edu}{\small \par}

95: 

96: \eject

97: 

98: 

99: \section{Introduction}

100: 

101: Much effort has been expended on trying to find constructions which

102: yield solutions with a small positive cosmological constant (CC) in

103: the context of recent work on flux compactifications of string theory.

104: The motivation stems from the observation of a small positive CC.

105: These classical string solutions are a good description at some high

106: scale somewhat less than the string or Kaluza-Klein (KK) scale. But

107: the observed cosmological constant is measured at cosmological scales,

108: and clearly one needs to incorporate quantum effects before one can

109: compare the CC of the effective theory coming from the string theory

110: model, with the observed cosmological constant.

111: 

112: In this respect it is necessary to clear up some apparent confusion

113: in the literature concerning the argument of Bousso and Polchinski

114: (BP) and its relation to the concrete models of classical string solutions

115: in which all the moduli are stabilized. The argument of BP proceeds

116: from the following assertion: the measured cosmological constant $\Lambda$

117: can be written, in the context of string theory, as the sum of two

118: contributions\begin{equation}

119: \Lambda=\Lambda_{0}+\sum_{i}n_{i}^{2}q_{i}^{2}.\label{BT}\end{equation}

120: Here the second term is the contribution of internal fluxes and the

121: $q_{i}$ are a set of charges and the $n_{i}$ are a set of integers

122: characterizing the set of fluxes through the various cycles of the

123: internal space. $\Lambda_{0}$ (which is assumed to be negative) is

124: the sum of all contributions except those coming from the fluxes -

125: \textit{in particular it is supposed to include all quantum corrections

126: to the cosmological constant}. However the arguments of BP were not

127: made in a context where the moduli were stabilized, and in any concrete

128: context where this has been achieved, the corresponding formula including

129: quantum corrections is much more complicated than what is indicated

130: by (\ref{BT}).

131: 

132: Consider the case of type IIB compactifications. The work of many

133: authors (see \cite{Grana:2005jc} for a recent review) led to the

134: realization that the complex structure moduli and the dilaton could

135: be stabilized by turning on internal fluxes. Then it was pointed out

136: in \cite{Kachru:2003aw} (KKLT) that with the inclusion of non-perturbative

137: terms the Kaehler moduli could also be stabilized. However this calculation

138: resulted in a minimum which was negative. KKLT then decided to raise

139: this minimum by adding an uplifting term, originating from Dbar branes,

140: in order to get a model with a positive cosmological constant. Subsequently

141: many authors considered other mechanisms for uplifting AdS minima

142: to dS minima %

143: \footnote{For a list of references see \cite{Grana:2005jc}.%

144: }.

145: 

146: However there clearly is no need to insist on getting a positive CC

147: at the observed value from a classical string theory calculation,

148: which can only give the initial conditions for an RG evolution down

149: to the far infra-red. KKLT type calculations are essentially done

150: in classical string theory (or rather its low energy supergravity

151: (SUGRA) approximation) with some instanton corrections. Even though

152: some attempts have been made to include $\alpha'$ corrections, the

153: question of including the corrections coming from integrating down

154: from the string/KK scale has not been seriously addressed. Instead

155: what many authors have done is to start with a KKLT type model (or

156: one of its variants) with the cosmological constant adjusted to the

157: observed value. Then the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)

158: parameters (Yukawa couplings, soft masses) are computed. The latter

159: are then used as the initial conditions of an RG evolution down to

160: the standard model scale.

161: 

162: What is ignored in these calculations is the fact that in going from

163: the KK scale down to the TeV scale the cosmological constant also

164: evolves - in fact (generically) it acquires corrections which are

165: quadratic in the cutoff scale (quartic corrections are absent in a

166: theory with equal numbers of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom).

167: In very special situations though it may be possible to make sure

168: that these quadratic corrections are absent (see for example (\cite{Ferrara:1994kg})

169: and then the corrections are of order the supermultiplet splitting

170: (TeV?) scale. Thus if one started with a model with a tiny positive

171: CC at the observed value, one ends up with a cosmological constant

172: which is at least at the TeV scale! Clearly such a calculation makes

173: no sense.

174: 

175: It was in fact pointed out in \cite{Brustein:2004xn} that at the

176: classical string theory level what one needs to ensure is that the

177: cosmological constant is at or below the TeV scale. One could very

178: well have started with a negative CC at the classical level, and (provided

179: that this minimum breaks supersymmetry (SUSY)) one could envisage

180: (depending on the model) the subsequent evolution to produce positive

181: contributions that could lift it up. Alternatively it is also possible

182: to start with a classically SUSY (AdS) minimum of the moduli potential

183: and then consider (provided this minimum was tuned to be at the TeV

184: scale) an uplift coming from dynamics of some hidden matter sector

185: as in \cite{Intriligator:2006dd}. One would still be left with the

186: usual (broken SUSY) fine-tuning problem of the CC at the level of

187: (at least) 1 part in $10^{60}$. In any event it is important to realize

188: that the simple cancellation posited in equation (\ref{BT}) is no

189: longer valid. The quantum corrections are themselves dependent on

190: the fluxes since the masses of the moduli and all matter couplings

191: and masses and hence in particular the splitting within supermultiplets

192: (whatever the mechanism of SUSY breaking) are dependent on them.

193: 

194: There is an additional problem that to the author's knowledge has

195: not been discussed in the literature. Suppose that a string theory

196: construction of the standard model (or more likely the MSSM) is found.

197: There is likely to be a large degeneracy in that the same MSSM states

198: are likely to emerge from many different choices of internal manifolds

199: and flux configurations. Let us call the set of values for any such

200: choice $\beta$. The four dimensional moduli potential will depend

201: on this choice i.e. $V=V(\Phi,\beta)$, where $\Phi$ are the moduli

202: and the MSSM fields. The MSSM parameters i.e. the Yukawa couplings

203: and the soft masses and the CC will therefore depend on $\beta$.

204: Now in order to have any predictive power at all, one should be able

205: to find at most a few values of $\beta$ which give the observed CC

206: and SM couplings, from which the MSSM parameters could then be computed.

207: One might hope that the probability distribution on the landscape

208: is highly peaked at such values of $\beta$. Then one could hope to

209: compute the MSSM parameters and compare with experiments in the near

210: future (assuming low energy SUSY is observed). But therein lies the

211: problem. The allowed set of values $\beta$ are not directly determined

212: by the experimental value of the cosmological constant. In order to

213: determine them one needs to evolve the observed value back to the

214: ultra violet scale at which the classical CC is relevant. But this

215: evolution depends on the states that are integrated out in between

216: these two scales and which are in turn dependent on $\beta$. In other

217: words what we have is a highly non-linear coupled problem.

218: 

219: In the following we elaborate on this.

220: 

221: 

222: \section{One loop effective potential\label{sec:One-loop-effective}}

223: 

224: Using the Coleman-Weinberg \cite{Coleman:1973jx} formula the effective

225: potential upto one loop corrections is \begin{equation}

226: V=V_{c}+\frac{1}{32\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{2}\Lambda^{2}+\frac{1}{64\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{4}\ln\frac{M^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}}+\ldots.\label{pot1lp}\end{equation}

227:  Here $V_{c}$ is the classical potential, the ellipses represent

228: cutoff ($\Lambda$) independent terms, and\begin{equation}

229: {\rm Str}M^{n}\equiv\sum_{i}(-1)^{2J_{i}+1}m_{i}^{n}(\Phi),\label{suptrace}\end{equation}

230: where $m_{i}$ is the (field dependent) mass of a particle with spin

231: $J_{i}$. Note also that the quartic divergence is zero because its

232: coefficient ${\rm Str}M^{0}=0$ in a theory with equal numbers of

233: bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. Now if SUSY is softly broken

234: then ${\rm Str}M^{2}$ should be field independent. However there

235: could still be a contribution to the cosmological constant of $O(m_{3/2}^{2}\Lambda^{2})$

236: since the SUSY breaking supertrace is of the order of the gravitino

237: mass %

238: \footnote{Note that this is true irrespective of the mode of supersymmetry breaking.

239: It just follows from formula \ref{strm^2} below.%

240: }. In a string theory calculation of these one loop effects one would

241: expect a similar formula to hold in the low energy limit with the

242: cutoff replaced by the string scale %

243: \footnote{There is a complication here that we will ignore. This comes from

244: the fact that the Planck scale to string scale ratio is actually a

245: modulus.%

246: }. 

247: 

248: The classical potential is ( in Planck units $M_{p}^{2}\equiv\frac{1}{8\pi G_{N}}=1$)

249: \begin{eqnarray}

250: V_{c} & = & V_{F}+V_{D}.\nonumber \\

251: V_{F} & = & e^{G}(G_{i}G_{\bar{j}}G^{i\bar{j}}-3),\label{potclassical}\\

252: V_{D} & = & (f_{R}^{-1})^{ab}k_{a}^{i}k_{b}^{j}G_{i}G_{j},\nonumber \end{eqnarray}

253:  Here $G=K(\Phi,\bar{\Phi})+\ln|W(\Phi)|^{2}$ is the Kaehler invariant

254: combination of the Kaehler potential $K$ and the superpotential $W(\Phi)$.

255: Also $G_{i}=\partial_{i}G$, $G_{i\bar{j}}=\partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}G$

256: is the Kaehler metric, and $k_{a}$ is a Killing vector corresponding

257: to some gauge symmetry generator labelled by the index $a$. Of course

258: this general form of the potential is expected to be valid quantum

259: mechanically as well, but the point is that the expression for the

260: Kaehler potential $K$ that one starts with is taken from a classical

261: string theory calculation.

262: 

263: First assume that the classical potential has a minimum at $V_{F}=V_{D}=0$.

264: Now in (\ref{pot1lp}) the coefficient of the quadratic term in the

265: cutoff is given by\begin{equation}

266: {\rm Str}M^{2}(\Phi,\bar{\Phi})=2Q(\Phi,\bar{\Phi})m_{3/2}^{2}(\Phi,\bar{\Phi}).\label{strm^2}\end{equation}

267:  Here $m_{3/2}^{2}=e^{K}|W|^{2}$, and assuming for simplicity that

268: SUSY is broken in some modulus direction $T$, \begin{equation}

269: Q(\Phi,\bar{\Phi})=N_{tot}-1-G^{T}H_{T\bar{T}}G^{\bar{T}}.\label{Q}\end{equation}

270:  Now we have from (\ref{potclassical}) and the assumption that the

271: minimum has zero CC, $|G_{T}|\sim O(\sqrt{3})$. $H_{T\bar{T}}$ is

272: generically of $O(1)$ (see eqn (\ref{Hijbar}) for a definition).

273: Then we see that for large values of $N_{tot}$ (the total number

274: of degrees of freedom in the effective theory) the quadratic contribution

275: to the potential is positive. Of course it is not clear that we will

276: have an extremum, leave alone a minimum, but clearly the possibility

277: of getting a dS minimum exists!

278: 

279: Although ${\rm Str}M^{2}$ needs to be independent of the MSSM fields

280: in order to have soft supersymmetry breaking, it can still be a function

281: of the moduli fields. In any case generically it is non-zero and gives

282: an $O(m_{3/2}^{2}\Lambda^{2})$ contribution to the cosmological constant.

283: Under some special circumstances \cite{Ferrara:1994kg} this could

284: be zero, in which case the leading perturbative contribution would

285: be of $O(\Delta m^{4}\sim(1TeV)^{4})$ where the last estimate follows

286: from the observational bound on SUSY partners to the SM fields. In

287: other words even under the most favorable circumstances the classical

288: CC needs to be fine tuned to sixty decimal places. Note also that

289: the above formulae are independent of the mode of transmission of

290: supersymmetry breaking from a hidden sector to the visible sector.

291: The general conclusion is valid for any mechanism for mediating supersymmetry

292: breaking (including low energy mechanisms such as gauge mediation)

293: since it depends only on the Coleman-Weinberg formula (\ref{pot1lp}).

294: 

295: Actually the above formulae are valid only if the classical starting

296: point is in flat space. To really be consistent one should recalculate

297: these perturbative corrections around an arbitrary (curved) background.

298: Below we will briefly review some aspects of such calculations and

299: discuss some of the additional complications involved.

300: 

301: 

302: \section{Curved space calculations\label{sec:Curved}}

303: 

304: The superpotential $W$ cannot get perturbative corrections but the

305: Kaehler potential can. Now in global supersymmetry the order parameter

306: for supersymmetry breaking is $F_{i}=\partial_{i}W$ (i.e. the derivative

307: of $W$ with respect to any chiral scalar $\Phi^{i}$) at the minimum,

308: so that if the theory has no supersymmetry breaking minima classically,

309: then perturbative corrections will not generate one (ignore D-terms

310: for the moment). In local supersymmetry however the situation is more

311: subtle. The (F-term) potential for chiral scalars can be rewritten

312: as \begin{equation}

313: V=e^{K}(F_{i}\bar{F}_{\bar{j}}K^{i\bar{j}}-3|W|^{2})\label{SUGRAPOT}\end{equation}

314: 

315: 

316: Here $K=K(\Phi_{i,}\Phi_{\bar{j}}),\, W=W(\Phi_{i}),\textrm{ F}_{i}=\partial_{i}W+\partial_{i}KW$

317: and $K_{i\bar{j}}=\partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}K$ is the Kaehler

318: metric. The order parameter $F_{i}$ now involves both $W$ and $K$,

319: but since the latter is renormalized in perturbation theory, in general

320: one would expect that the condition for supersymmetry $F_{i}=0,\,\forall i$,

321: could be affected in perturbation theory. Around a Poincare invariant

322: vacuum (i.e one with zero cosmological constant (CC)) however this

323: cannot happen. The reason is that for a flat space supersymmetry the

324: two terms in $V$ must cancel at the minimum which in effect means

325: that the condition for supersymmetry is $\partial_{i}W=W=0$ at the

326: minimum. Then since $W$ is not renormalized in perturbation theory,

327: one cannot break supersymmetry. The other (and in fact the generic)

328: possibility is anti-deSitter (AdS) supersymmetry where $W|_{0}\ne0$

329: so that the cosmological constant is $V|_{0}=-3e^{K}|W|^{2}$. Perturbative

330: corrections around such a vacuum can in principle break supersymmetry.

331: 

332: Here we will consider only the leading, generically non-vanishing,

333: quadratic divergence that arises in perturbation theory. This (as

334: well as the log divergences and the finite terms to one loop) has

335: been calculated for an arbitrary curved background \cite{Barbieri:1983bv}\cite{Gaillard:1993es}

336: and gives the result\[

337: \delta L=\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}[\frac{N+1}{2}r-2(N-5)V-2e^{G}\{(N-1)-H^{i\bar{j}}G_{i}G_{\bar{j}}\}].\]

338: Here $r$ is the Ricci scalar of space time and \begin{eqnarray}

339: H_{i\bar{j}}= & R_{i\bar{j}}+F_{i\bar{j}}\label{Hijbar}\\

340: R_{i\bar{j}}= & \partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}\ln\det G_{m\bar{n}}\nonumber \\

341: F_{i\bar{j}}= & -\partial_{i}\partial_{\bar{j}}\ln\det Re[f_{ab}].\nonumber \end{eqnarray}

342: 

343: 

344: Here $f_{ab}(z,\bar{z})$ is the gauge coupling function. Thus keeping

345: only these quadratic divergences the one loop corrected Lagrangian

346: can then be written as \[

347: L=\frac{\tilde{M}_{p}^{2}}{2}r-\tilde{V}.\]

348: Here $\tilde{M}_{p}^{2}=(1+\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}\frac{N+1}{2})$

349: is the corrected Plank mass and the corrected potential is \begin{equation}

350: \tilde{V}=e^{G}[G_{i}(K^{i\bar{j}}-\beta H^{i\bar{j}})G_{\bar{j}}-\{3-\beta(N-1)\}]\label{v1loop}\end{equation}

351:  with $G$ being redefined by adding a constant $\alpha=1+\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{16\pi^{2}}(N-5)$

352: and $\beta=\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\alpha}$ . Indeed if the perturbative

353: corrections are computed with a regularization scheme which preserves

354: the (local) supersymmetry of the action, then one should be able to

355: write it in the same form as the classical potential, \begin{equation}

356: \tilde{V}=e^{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{G}_{i}\tilde{G}^{i\bar{j}}\tilde{G}_{\bar{j}}-3).\label{vtilde}\end{equation}

357: Here $\tilde{G}=G+\delta K$ where the second term is the pertubative

358: correction to the Kaehler potential. This can be computed from the

359: corrections to the kinetic terms of the chiral scalars of the theory.

360: In fact reference \cite{Gaillard:1993es} does give expressions for

361: the latter. However it is far from obvious how to express the potential

362: in the above form if one assumed that the calculations of \cite{Gaillard:1993es}

363: respected the SUGRA symmetry. So we will simply continue to work with

364: (\ref{v1loop}) since we are only interested in the qualitative and

365: order of magnitude effects of these corrections %

366: \footnote{It should be noted that (\ref{v1loop}) is in agreement with equations

367: (1.1) and (1.13) of \cite{Ferrara:1994kg} upto the constant shift

368: of $G$.%

369: }, but will assume that there is a correction to the Kaehler potential

370: that gurantees the validity of (\ref{vtilde}).

371: 

372: 

373: 

374: 

375: \section{Calculating MSSM parameters}

376: 

377: To calculate MSSM parameters one expands the Kaehler potential and

378: the superpotential in terms of the MSSM fields $\phi^{i}$,\begin{eqnarray}

379: K & = & \hat{K}+\tilde{K}_{i\bar{j}}\phi^{i}\bar{\phi}^{\bar{j}}+Z_{ij}\phi^{i}\phi^{j}+\ldots,\label{Kexpn}\\

380: W & = & \hat{W}+\mu_{ij}\phi^{i}\phi^{j}+Y_{ijk}\phi^{i}\phi^{j}\phi^{k}+\ldots.\label{Wexpn}\end{eqnarray}

381:  The coefficients of the powers of the MSSM fields are functions of

382: (the stabilized values of) the hidden (moduli) sector fields. Let

383: us go to a basis in which $\tilde{K}_{i\bar{j}}=\tilde{K}_{i}\delta_{ij}$.

384: The Yukawa couplings and the soft terms of the canonically normalized

385: fields are \cite{Kaplunovsky:1993rd,Brignole:1997dp}, \begin{eqnarray}

386: \hat{Y}_{ijk} & = & Y_{ijk}\frac{\bar{\hat{W}}}{|W|}e^{\hat{K}/2}(\tilde{K}_{i}\tilde{K}_{j}\tilde{K}_{k})^{-1/2}\label{Y}\\

387: A_{ijk} & = & F^{m}(\hat{K}_{m}+\partial_{m}(\ln Y_{ijk}-\ln(\tilde{K}_{i}\tilde{K}_{j}\tilde{K}_{k}))\label{A}\\

388: m_{i}^{2} & = & m_{3/2}^{2}+V_{0}-F^{m}\bar{F}^{\bar{n}}\partial_{m}\partial_{\bar{n}}\ln\tilde{K}_{i}\label{m}\\

389: M_{a} & = & \frac{1}{2}(\Re f_{a})^{-1}F^{m}\partial_{m}f_{a}\label{M}\end{eqnarray}

390:  These expressions are supposed to be valid at some high scale - presumably

391: somewhat below the string or KK scale. What is usually done is to

392: use these in a model where the classical CC has been fine-tuned to

393: be close to zero and positive by one or other mechanism, such as adding

394: the uplift terms of the original KKLT model or D terms. Then the physical

395: predictions are supposed to be obtained by running these down to the

396: MSSM scale by using the RG equations.

397: 

398: This procedure is however not meaningful. It is simply incorrect to

399: ignore the running of the cosmological constant, which generically

400: runs quadratically as was discussed in section \ref{sec:One-loop-effective}.

401: In fact it is the final CC (at the largest scales) which has a measured

402: value at the $10^{-3}eV$scale. The problem is that this final condition

403: has to be used to determine the initial conditions that are needed

404: to evolve the MSSM parameters!

405: 

406: To be concrete let us assume that a model with three generations and

407: the standard model gauge group has been found with the moduli stabilized

408: by a combination of fluxes and non-perturbative terms as in the KKLT

409: model. Let us denote the set of stringy parameters (data on the internal

410: manifold and the fluxes) by $ $$\beta$. This set determines the

411: moduli potential and hence in particular the cosmological constant

412: and the coefficients in (\ref{Kexpn})(\ref{Wexpn}). What is usually

413: done \cite{Grana:2003ek}\cite{Camara:2003ku}\cite{Lust:2004fi}\cite{Choi:2005ge}\cite{Allanach:2005pv}\cite{Conlon:2005ki}

414: following the original arguments of \cite{Kaplunovsky:1993rd,Brignole:1997dp}

415: is to tune the CC to be zero (or positive and small) by an appropriate

416: choice of $\beta$. However as we argued in section \ref{sec:One-loop-effective}

417: if one tuned the CC at this high scale to be small, one would get

418: a large CC at the MSSM scale (and below).

419: 

420: Thus a meaningful calculation of the MSSM parameters must have a starting

421: point, which at the classical string level has a CC which is tuned

422: such that the final CC, including all quantum corrections, is in accordance

423: with observation. This is of course the well-known non-trivial part

424: of the fine-tuning problem of the CC. In the context of classical

425: string solutions of the landscape this probem takes on the following

426: aspect. In terms of RG evolution the condition on the CC is a final

427: condition (looking at the flow as one from the UV to the IR). In other

428: words finding the set of allowed $\beta$ means solving an equation

429: of the form (as we discussed in section \ref{sec:Curved} the actual

430: condition is even more complicated)\begin{equation}

431: V_{eff,0}(\beta)=V_{c,0}(\beta)+\frac{1}{32\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{2}(\beta)\Lambda^{2}|_{0}+\frac{1}{64\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{4}(\beta)\ln\frac{M^{2}(\beta)}{\Lambda^{2}}|_{0}+\ldots.\simeq O((10^{-120})\label{CCobs}\end{equation}

432: where the last estimate is written in Planck units. Here $V_{c}$

433: denotes the classical potential, $V_{eff}$ denotes the quantum effective

434: potential and the subscript $0$ denotes evaluation at the minimum

435: of the effective potential. Fixing this final value within experimental

436: errors will lead to a large subspace of values of $\beta$ that is

437: not only (generically) going to be much larger than the subspace that

438: yields a classical CC that is within the bounds, but is also much

439: harder to determine. This is because the inverse RG problem depends

440: on knowing the supermultiplet splittings which of course are dependent

441: on the set $\beta$. Once this space of $\beta$ is determined the

442: initial value space for the RG evolution can be determined and then

443: one could calculate for each point in this space the corresponding

444: MSSM parameters at the relevant scale. Needless to say this appears

445: to be a rather intractable problem!

446: 

447: The point is that quantum corrections, should not be expected to cancel

448: amongst themselves barring some miracle. Let us try to estimate them.

449: From (\ref{CCobs}) we see that\begin{equation}

450: \delta V|_{0}\equiv\frac{1}{32\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{2}\Lambda^{2}|_{0}+\frac{1}{64\pi^{2}}{\rm Str}M^{4}\ln\frac{M^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}}|_{0}+\ldots.=O(10^{-46}).\label{correctionest}\end{equation}

451: In the last step we have made an estimate of the typical value of

452: the radiative corrections after supersymmetry breaking by taking the

453: cutoff to be at an intermediate scale at $10^{-8}$ as in many popular

454: models (see for example \cite{Conlon:2005ki}) and estimating the

455: squared mass splitting in typical SUSY multiplets to be around a $TeV^{2}=10^{-30}$,

456: from the lower limit on SUSY partners. This means that in order to

457: get the observed value (barring some highly unlikely cancellation

458: of the quantum effects among themselves) one needs a classical value

459: $V_{c}|_{0}\sim O(10^{-46})$. Even the most conservative estimate

460: of this (for instance in those models where the quadratic divergence

461: is absent) gives a value $O(10^{-60})$ which is 60 orders of magnitude

462: larger than the value of the observed CC.

463: 

464: On the other hand one might ask whether the problem of the CC can

465: be decoupled from the calculation of the MSSM parameters. In other

466: words if we calculate the latter after tuning the CC at the classical

467: level to the observed value and ignore the quantum corrections to

468: the CC, can we get MSSM parameter values that are approximately correct.

469: This is what is typically assumed in the literature. However the point

470: is that the classical Kaehler potential $K$ AND superpotential $W$

471: for a theory tuned (i.e. $\beta$ chosen) such that (\ref{CCobs})

472: is satisfied, will in general be very different from that in a theory

473: in which the classical potential by itself is tuned to satisfy the

474: observational constraint. There is no perturbative relation between

475: the two sets of $K$'s and $W$'s. They are obtained in different

476: flux sectors and there is no reason at all to think that even qualitative

477: predictions obtained with the latter theory will be obtained also

478: in the former theory. 

479: 

480: $ $The essential point can be summarized as follows. Suppose the

481: tuning $V_{c}(\beta)|_{0}=O(10^{-120})$ yields a subspace ${\cal L}_{c}$

482: of the landscape ${\cal L}$ i.e. $\beta=\beta_{c}\in{\cal L}_{c}\subset{\cal L}$.

483: On the other hand the tuning $V_{eff,0}(\beta)=O(10^{-120})$ will

484: yield $\beta=\beta_{eff}\in{\cal L}_{eff}\subset{\cal L}$. Barring

485: accidental cancellations that would make the quantum corrections in

486: formulas such as (\ref{correctionest}) of the order of the observed

487: CC, one should expect that ${\cal L}_{eff}\cap{\cal L}_{c}=0$. There

488: is absolutely no reason to expect in general that $\tilde{K}_{eff,i}(\beta_{eff})$

489: and $W(\beta_{eff})$ with $\beta_{eff}\subset{\cal L}_{eff}$ are

490: approximately equal (respectively) to $\tilde{K}_{ci}(\beta_{c}),\, W(\beta_{c})$,

491: with $\beta_{c}\subset{\cal L}_{c}$. It should be emphasized here

492: that the values $\beta$, enter the formulae for the MSSM parameters

493: both directly, and indirectly through the dependence of the moduli

494: at the minimum on them. Thus the values of the measurable quantities

495: (\ref{Y},\ref{A},\ref{m},\ref{M}) in the quantum theory are likely

496: to be very different from the values obtained in the theory with the

497: cosmological constant tuned to zero in the classical theory. 

498: 

499: Actually even if one knew the set of $\beta_{eff}$ defined in the

500: previous paragraph it still does not make sense to compute the soft

501: terms with the classical value of the Kaehler potential. Thus consider

502: the effective quantum potential $V(K_{eff},W(\beta_{eff})$, where

503: $K_{eff}=K_{c}+\delta K$ (the second term includes both perturbative

504: and non-perturbative corrections). The superpotential $W$ is of course

505: not supposed to be renormalized in perturbation theory but contains

506: non-perturbative effects as in KKLT. The physical cosmological constant

507: is then \begin{equation}

508: V_{eff,0}\equiv V(K_{eff},W(\beta_{eff}))|_{0}=V(K_{c},W(\beta_{eff}))|_{0}+\delta K.\frac{\delta V}{\delta K}+O(\delta K^{2})\sim(10^{-3}eV)^{4}\label{eq:Keff}\end{equation}

509: $ $However as we've argued earlier the second term is generically

510: around 75 orders of magnitude larger than the observed CC and has

511: to be cancelled by a classical term which is of the same order. Thus

512: the corrections to the Kaehler potential have to be of the same order

513: as the classical Kahler potential and these corrections will give

514: corrections to the soft masses and couplings calculated from the classical

515: term that are not suppressed. In fact it is clear from the above analysis

516: what the basic (hidden) assumption that is made in typical string

517: phenomenology calculations is. It is that (at least for small fluctuations

518: around the relevant minimum)\begin{equation}

519: V(K_{c},W(\beta_{c}))\simeq V(K_{eff},W(\beta_{eff})).\label{eq:hidden}\end{equation}

520: Note that in the above not only is the Kaehler potential on the right

521: hand side the quantum corrected one, but also the superpotential is

522: evaluated at a different set of internal data. If indeed (\ref{eq:hidden})

523: is true, then the calculations made with the classical Kaehler potential

524: (tuned so that minium is the observed CC) will be in agreement with

525: that made with the effective potential tuned so that its minimum is

526: the observed CC). Unfortunately there is no a priori justification

527: for this assumption!

528: 

529: Given that there is no gurantee that (\ref{eq:hidden}) is correct

530: it is not clear that even qualitative predictions will survive. Except

531: under the very special circumstances discussed earlier, the only ones

532: that can be expected to survive are those that can be shown to be

533: independent of the flux parameters $\beta$ and the Kaehler potential.

534: Thus models in which certain Yukawa couplings vanish (irrespective

535: of the values of the fluxes) will retain this feature in the full

536: quantum theory upto (small?) non-perturbative corrections. Unfortunately

537: it is difficult to find any other classical predictions that can survive

538: the tuning of the CC in the effective quantum theory after supersymmetry

539: is broken.

540: 

541: 

542: \section{Conclusions}

543: 

544: The purpose of this note was to bring together certain well-known

545: facts which are central to understanding the relevance of string theory

546: to physics at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The most important

547: of these is the universally acknowledged but (in the context of KKLT

548: models) universally ignored fact that the CC undergoes quantum corrections

549: %

550: \footnote{For an early (pre-lanscape) attempt to incorporate this into the calculation

551: of MSSM parameters see \cite{Choi:1994xg,Choi:1997de}. But these

552: works do not take into acount the fact that any attempt to fine tune

553: the CC at the quantum effective level changes the fine tuning parameters

554: and thus can in general completely change both the Kaehler and the

555: superpotential from the classically tuned values.%

556: }. The BP argument \cite{Bousso:2000xa} of course tried to take the

557: latter into account, but as we pointed out this is not relevant to

558: what happens in concrete string theory situations exemplified by KKLT

559: type constructions. We have argued that since these are essentially

560: classical arguments (with the addition of some non-perturbative corrections

561: in the type IIB case) it is not meaningful to demand that the value

562: of the minimum of the potential be at the observed value of the CC.

563: Even if one is to make qualitative predictions or statistical ones

564: (as advocated by Douglas and collaborators \cite{Douglas:2004zg})

565: one has to face up to the fact that the quantum effects can completely

566: change any classical predictions, essentially because of the cosmological

567: constant problem. Clearly the Anthropic Principle is of no use in

568: resolving this issue.

569: 

570: Finally it should be noted that if a dynamical principle selected

571: one or a few vacua (perhaps after imposing some criteria such as the

572: dimensionality of space and the number of generations and the standard

573: model gauge group) then one can proceed in the top down fashion to

574: calculate for these models both the cosmological constant and the

575: MSSM parameters. This was of course the hope of string theorists until

576: very recently. The point of this note is merely to argue that if such

577: a principle does not exist, then it is unlikely that top-down approaches

578: have any relevance for phenomenology.

579: 

580: 

581: \section{Acknowledgments}

582: 

583: I wish to thank Ralph Blumenhagen, Oliver DeWolfe and especially Jan

584: Louis for discussions and comments on the manuscript. I also wish

585: to thank the latter for hospitality at DESY/ ITP-University of Hamburg

586: and Dieter Luest for hospitality at the Max-Planck Institute, Munich,

587: and the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was completed. In

588: addition I would like to thank Peter Nilles, Fernando Quevedo, Graham

589: Ross and other participants at the String Phenomenology workshop at

590: KITP for discussions on the revised version. I also wish to thank

591: the Perimeter Institute and DOE grant No. DE-FG02-91-ER-40672 for

592: partial support.

593: 

594: \bibliographystyle{apsrev} \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

595: \bibliography{myrefs}

596: 

597: \end{document}

598: