- 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

Holographic theories of electroweak symmetry breaking without a Higgs boson

Gustavo Burdman

Yasunori Nomura

  • Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

  • Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
  • Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 69, 115013 – Published 28 June, 2004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.115013

Abstract

Recently, realistic theories of electroweak symmetry breaking have been constructed in which the electroweak symmetry is broken by boundary conditions imposed at a boundary of higher dimensional spacetime. These theories have equivalent 4D dual descriptions, in which the electroweak symmetry is dynamically broken by nontrivial infrared dynamics of some gauge interaction, whose gauge coupling g̃ and size N satisfy g2N≳16π2. Such theories allow one to calculate electroweak radiative corrections, including the oblique parameters S, T and U, as long as g2N/16π2 and N are sufficiently larger than unity. We study how the duality between the 4D and 5D theories manifests itself in the computation of various physical quantities. In particular, we calculate the electroweak oblique parameters in a warped 5D theory where the electroweak symmetry is broken by boundary conditions at the infrared brane. We show that the value of S obtained in the minimal theory exceeds the experimental bound if the theory is in a weakly coupled regime. This requires either an extension of the minimal model or departure from weak coupling. A particularly interesting scenario is obtained if the gauge couplings in the 5D theory take the largest possible values—the value suggested by naive dimensional analysis. We argue that such a theory can provide a potentially consistent picture for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking: corrections to the electroweak observables are sufficiently small while realistic fermion masses are obtained without conflicting with bounds from flavor violation. The theory contains only the standard model quarks, leptons and gauge bosons below ≃2TeV, except for a possible light scalar associated with the radius of the extra dimension. At ≃2TeV increasingly broad string resonances appear. An analysis of top-quark phenomenology and flavor violation is also presented, which is applicable to both the weakly coupled and strongly coupled cases.

View figure in article

References (37)

  1. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 974 (1976); ibid.19, 1277 (1979); ibid.L. Susskind, 20, 2619 (1979).
  2. D.B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 136B, 183 (1984); ibid.D.B. Kaplan, H. Georgi, and S. Dimopoulos, 136B, 187 (1984).
  3. J.M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998) [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999)]; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998); E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998).
  4. R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B671, 148 (2003); T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085018 (2003).
  5. C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 101802 (2004).
  6. Y. Nomura, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 050 (2003).
  7. C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 69, 055006 (2004).
  8. R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, hep-ph/0310285.
  9. M.E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990); Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992).
  10. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999).
  11. S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B155, 237 (1979); E. Eichten and K.D. Lane, Phys. Lett. 90B, 125 (1980).
  12. B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1441 (1981); K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, and K.i. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1335 (1986); ibid.T.W. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, 57, 957 (1986).
  13. G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72, 461 (1974).
  14. Y. Nomura, D.R. Smith, and N. Weiner, Nucl. Phys. B613, 147 (2001).
  15. W.D. Goldberger, Y. Nomura, and D.R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 67, 075021 (2003); S.J. Huber and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B 583, 293 (2004).
  16. N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 516, 395 (2001); T. Hirayama and K. Yoshioka, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 032 (2004).
  17. T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B586, 141 (2000); S.J. Huber and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B 498, 256 (2001).
  18. W.D. Goldberger and I.Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 131601 (2002); Phys. Rev. D 68, 125011 (2003); ibid.Y. Nomura and D.R. Smith, 68, 075003 (2003).
  19. A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984); ibid.H. Georgi and L. Randall, B276, 241 (1986); Z. Chacko, M.A. Luty, and E. Ponton, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 036 (2000); Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D 65, 085036 (2002).
  20. N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati, and L. Randall, J. High Energy Phys. 08, 017 (2001); ibid.R. Rattazzi and A. Zaffaroni, 04, 021 (2001); ibid.M. Perez-Victoria, 05, 064 (2001).
  21. See, for example, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B160, 57 (1979).
  22. K. Agashe, A. Delgado, M.J. May, and R. Sundrum, J. High Energy Phys. 08, 050 (2003).
  23. H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B363, 301 (1991); M.J. Dugan and L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B 264, 154 (1991); E. Gates and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1840 (1991); ibid.M.A. Luty and R. Sundrum, 70, 529 (1993).
  24. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 259, 329 (1991); P. Langacker and M.x. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 45, 278 (1992).
  25. C. Csaki, M.L. Graesser, and G.D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 63, 065002 (2001); J.F. Gunion, M. Toharia, and J.D. Wells, Phys. Lett. B 585, 295 (2004).
  26. L.J. Hall, H. Murayama, and Y. Nomura, Nucl. Phys. B645, 85 (2002); R. Sekhar Chivukula, D.A. Dicus, and H.J. He, Phys. Lett. B 525, 175 (2002); Y. Abe, N. Haba, Y. Higashide, K. Kobayashi, and M. Matsunaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 109, 831 (2003).
  27. C. Csaki, C. Grojean, J. Hubisz, Y. Shirman, and J. Terning, hep-ph/0310355.
  28. M. Henningson and K. Sfetsos, Phys. Lett. B 431, 63 (1998); W. Muck and K.S. Viswanathan, Phys. Rev. D 58, 106006 (1998); J. Garriga and A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B 560, 91 (2003).
  29. See, for example, American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration, T. Abe et al., in Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001), edited by N. Graf, hep-ex/0106055; T. Abehep-ex/0106057.
  30. D. Atwood and G. Hiller, hep-ph/0307251.
  31. K. Agashe, Talk given at the Second Workshop on the Discovery Potential of an Asymmetric B Factory at 1036 Luminosity, SLAC, Oct. 2003.
  32. G. Burdman, Phys. Lett. B590, 86 (2004).
  33. G. Burdman and I. Shipsey, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 431 (2003).
  34. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G.R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998); ibid.I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G.R. Dvali, 436, 257 (1998).
  35. For example, R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B395, 60 (1993).
  36. G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, and J.D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B595, 250 (2001); C. Csaki, M.L. Graesser, and G.D. Kribs, in Ref. [25].
  37. H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett, B. Lillie, and T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/0312193.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 69, 115013– Published 28 June, 2004
  • Received 30 December 2003

© 2004 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation