- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Detecting physics at the post-grand-unified-theory and string scales by linear colliders

R. Arnowitt

Pran Nath

  • Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4242

  • Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 56, 2833 – Published 1 September, 1997

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2833

Abstract

The ability of linear colliders to test physics at the post-GUT scale is investigated. Using current estimates of measurements available at such accelerators, it is seen that soft breaking masses can be measured with errors of about (1–20)%. Three classes of models in the post-GUT region are examined: models with universal soft breaking masses at the string scale, models with horizontal symmetry, and string models with Calabi-Yau compactifications. In each case, linear colliders would be able to test directly theoretical assumptions made at energies beyond the GUT scale to a good accuracy, distinguish between different models, and measure parameters that are expected to be predictions of string models.

View figure in article

References (31)

  1. P. Langacker, Proceedings of PASCOS90, edited by P. Nath and S. Reucroft (World Scientific, Singapore 1990); J. Ellis, S. Kelley, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 249, 441 (1990); 260, 131 (1991); U. Amaldi, W. De Boer, and H. Furstenau, 260, 447 (1991); F. Anselmo, L. Cifarelli, A. Peterman, and A. Zichichi, Nuovo Cimento A 104, 1817 (1991); 115<\/rs>, 581 (1992).
  2. J. Bagger, K. Matchev, and D. Pierce, Phys. Lett. B 348, 443 (1995); P.H. Chankowski, Z. Pluciennik, and S. Polorski, Nucl. Phys. B439, 23 (1995).
  3. R. Barbieri and L.J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 752 (1992); L.J. Hall and U. Sarid, 70, 2673 (1993): P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4028 (1993).
  4. T. Dasgupta, P. Mameles, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5366 (1995); R. Ring, S. Urano, and R. Arnowitt, 52, 6623 (1995); S. Urano, D. Ring, and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3663 (1996); P. Nath, 76, 2218 (1996).
  5. A.H. Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 970 (1982). For reviews, see P. Nath, R. Arnowitt, and A.H. Chamseddine, Applied N = 1 Supergravity (World Scientific, Singapore, 1984); H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 100, 1 (1984); R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Proceedings VII Swieca Summer School, edited by E. Eboli (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
  6. K. Inoue et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 68, 927 (1982); L. Ibañez and G.G. Ross, Phys. Lett. 110B, 227 (1982); L. Alvarez-Gaumé, J. Polchinski, and M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B221, 495 (1983); J. Ellis, J. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. 125B, 2275 (1983); L.E. Ibañez and C. Lopez, 128B, 54 (1983); Nucl. Phys. B233, 545 (1984); L.E. Ibañez, C. Lopez, and C. Muños, B256, 218 (1985).
  7. S. Soni and A. Weldon, Phys. Lett. 126B, 215 (1983).
  8. C.T. Hill, Phys. Lett. 135B, 47 (1984); Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 875 (1984).
  9. P. Langacker, talk at APS Division of Particles and Fields 1996 Conference, DDF96, Minneapolis, 1996 (unpublished).
  10. P. Nath, A.H. Chamseddine, and R. Arnowitt, Proceedings of 1983 Coral Gables Conference on High Energy Physics, edited by S. Mintz and A. Perlmutter (Plenum, New York, 1985); L. Alvarez-Gaumé et al., Ref. [6].
  11. QCD corrections to this relation are given in S.P. Martin and M.T. Vaughn, Phys. Lett. B 318, 331 (1993); D. Pierce and A. Papdopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B430, 278 (1994).
  12. T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi, and Y. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3153 (1995).
  13. I. Hinchliffe, F.E. Paige, M.D. Shapiro, J. Söderqvist, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5520 (1997).
  14. R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 725 (1992); P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Lett. B 289, 368 (1992).
  15. J.L. Feng, M.E. Peskin, H. Murayama, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1418 (1995).
  16. R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C.A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. 119B, 343 (1982); L. Hall, J. Lykken, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2359 (1983); P. Nath, R. Arnowitt, and A.H. Chamseddine, Nucl. Phys. B227, 121 (1983); V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993).
  17. N. Polonsky and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6532 (1995); R. Barbieri, L. Hall, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B445, 219 (1995).
  18. H. Kim and C. Muños, hep-ph/9608214.
  19. A small correction of about 1% in size proportional to δ2−δ1 has been omitted from Eqs. (24) and (25). See, e.g., Kawamura et al., Ref. [25].
  20. M.M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6281 (1995); M.E. Peskin, talk at KIS95, Kyoto 1995 (unpublished).
  21. J.F. Feng and D.E. Finnell, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2369 (1994).
  22. H. Haber, Proceedings of Beyond the Standard Model IV, edited by J. Gunion, T. Hans, and J. Ohnemus (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
  23. A. Bartl et al., hep-ph/9604221.
  24. M. Drees, Phys. Lett. B 181, 279 (1986); P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2006 (1989); J.S. Hagelin and S. Kelley, Nucl. Phys. B342, 95 (1990).
  25. Y. Kawamura, H. Murayama, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 324, 52 (1994): R. Rattazzi and U. Sarid, Phys. Rev. D 53, 1553 (1996).
  26. A.E. Faraggi, Phys. Lett. B 278, 131 (1992); 302, 202 (1993).
  27. M. Dine, R. Leigh, and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4269 (1993).
  28. A. Font, L.E. Ibañez, D. Lust, and F. Quevedo, Phys. Lett. B 245, 401 (1990); M. Cvetič, A. Font, L.E. Ibañez, D. Lust, and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B361, 194 (1991); A. de la Macorra and G.G. Ross, B404, 321 (1993); V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993); R. Barbieri, J. Louis, and M. Moretti, 312, 451 (1993); 316, 632(E) (1993); J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos, and A. Zichichi, 319, 451 (1993); S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas, and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B429, 589 (1994); B433, 255(E) (1995).
  29. P. Candelas, M. Lynker, and R. Schimmrigk, Nucl. Phys. B341, 383 (1990); J. Fuchs, A. Klemm, C. Scheich, and M.G. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 232, 317 (1989).
  30. In Eq. (49) we have neglected the contribution in running the RGE from MG to Mstr. This contribution depends upon the particle content above MG and on the Yukawa couplings, and hence requires fixing the Calabi-Yau compactification to calculate it. Thus our analysis here is meant to illustrate what an LC could determine rather than being a detailed calculation for a given model. (We also note that the choice of large ReT made below moves Mstr closer to MG reducing this contribution.)
  31. A. Klemm and S. Theisen, Nucl. Phys. B389, 153 (1993); A. Font, B391, 358 (1993); S. Hosono, A. Klemm, S. Theisen, and S.-T. Yau, B433, 501 (1995).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 56, 2833– Published 1 September, 1997
  • Received 17 January 1997

© 1997 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation