Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Minimal walking technicolor: Setup for collider physics

Roshan Foadi*, Mads T. Frandsen, Thomas A. Ryttov, and Francesco Sannino§

  • CERN Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland,
  • University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark,
  • and Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

  • *roshan@fysik.sdu.dk
  • toudal@nbi.dk
  • ryttov@nbi.dk
  • §sannino@fysik.sdu.dk

Phys. Rev. D 76, 055005 – Published 17 September, 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.055005

Abstract

Different theoretical and phenomenological aspects of the minimal and nonminimal walking technicolor theories have recently been studied. The goal here is to make the models ready for collider phenomenology. We do this by constructing the low energy effective theory containing scalars, pseudoscalars, vector mesons, and other fields predicted by the minimal walking theory. We construct their self-interactions and interactions with standard model fields. Using the Weinberg sum rules, opportunely modified to take into account the walking behavior of the underlying gauge theory, we find interesting relations for the spin-one spectrum. We derive the electroweak parameters using the newly constructed effective theory and compare the results with the underlying gauge theory. Our analysis is sufficiently general such that the resulting model can be used to represent a generic walking technicolor theory not at odds with precision data.

Article Text

References (67)

  1. D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 75, 085018 (2007).
  2. F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 71, 051901 (2005).
  3. T. Appelquist, K. D. Lane, and U. Mahanta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1553 (1988).
  4. A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B314, 7 (1989).
  5. T. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1214 (1996).
  6. V. A. Miransky and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5051 (1997); 56, 3768(E) (1997).
  7. H. Gies and J. Jaeckel, Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 433 (2006).
  8. D. D. Dietrich, F. Sannino, and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 055001 (2005); 73, 037701 (2006).
  9. N. D. Christensen and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 632, 92 (2006).
  10. S. Catterall and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 034504 (2007).
  11. S. B. Gudnason, T. A. Ryttov, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015005 (2007).
  12. K. Kainulainen, K. Tuominen, and J. Virkajarvi, Phys. Rev. D 75, 085003 (2007).
  13. C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015011 (2007).
  14. S. B. Gudnason, C. Kouvaris, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 74, 095008 (2006); 73, 115003 (2006).
  15. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 150B, 301 (1985).
  16. E. Eichten and K. D. Lane, Phys. Lett. 90B, 125 (1980).
  17. B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1441 (1981).
  18. K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, and K. i. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1335 (1986).
  19. T. W. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 957 (1986).
  20. K. D. Lane and E. Eichten, Phys. Lett. B 222, 274 (1989).
  21. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 507 (1967).
  22. T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 59, 067702 (1999).
  23. M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990).
  24. B. Holdom and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B 247, 88 (1990).
  25. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1277 (1979); L. Susskind, 20, 2619 (1979).
  26. R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, R. Gatto, and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5201 (1996).
  27. H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 221601 (2007).
  28. H. Georgi, arXiv:0704.2457.
  29. K. Cheung, W. Y. Keung, and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 051803 (2007).
  30. N. Greiner, arXiv:0705.3518.
  31. H. Davoudiasl, arXiv:0705.3636.
  32. C. H. Chen and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 76, 036007 (2007).
  33. P. J. Fox, A. Rajaraman, and Y. Shirman, arXiv:0705.3092.
  34. E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 117B, 324 (1982).
  35. J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton Series in Physics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992).
  36. T. Appelquist, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116007 (1999); Z. y. Duan, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, and F. Sannino, Nucl. Phys. B592, 371 (2001).
  37. D. K. Hong, S. D. H. Hsu, F. Sanninoand , Phys. Lett. B 597, 89 (2004).
  38. The gauge fields explicitly break the original SU(4) global symmetry to SU(2)L×U(1)R×U(1)V, where U(1)R is the T3 part of SU(2)R, in the SU(2)L×SU(2)R×U(1)V subgroup of SU(4).

  39. C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rep. 381, 235 (2003); 390, 553(E) (2004).
  40. L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B403, 122 (1993).
  41. N. Evans and F. Sannino, arXiv:hep-ph/0512080.
  42. Another nonminimal way to give masses to the ordinary fermions is to (re)introduce a new Higgs doublet as already done many times in the literature [11,62–67]. This possibility and its phenomenological applications will be studied elsewhere.
  43. Small splittings with respect to the electroweak scale will be induced by the standard model corrections per se.

  44. E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2351 (1983).
  45. C. W. Bernard, A. Duncan, J. LoSecco, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 12, 792 (1975).
  46. R. Sundrum and S. D. H. Hsu, Nucl. Phys. B391, 127 (1993).
  47. J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998); Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999).
  48. D. K. Hong and H. U. Yee, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015011 (2006).
  49. J. Hirn and V. Sanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 121803 (2006).
  50. M. Piai, arXiv:hep-ph/0609104.
  51. K. Agashe, C. Csaki, C. Grojean, and M. Reece, arXiv:0704.1821.
  52. C. D. Carone, J. Erlich, and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015015 (2007).
  53. M. Kurachi, R. Shrock, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 035003 (2007). See also, M. Harada, M. Kurachi, and K. Yamawaki, arXiv:hep-ph/0509193.
  54. For the MWT, we separate the contribution due to the new leptonic sector (which will be dealt with later in the main text) and the one due to the underlying strongly coupled gauge theory which is expected to be well represented by the perturbative contribution and is of the order of 1/2π. When comparing with the S parameter from the vector meson sector of the effective theory we should subtract from the underlying S the one due to the new fermionic composite states U˜ and D˜. This contribution is very small since it is 1/6π in the limit when these states are degenerate and heavier than the Z0 gauge boson.

  55. R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B703, 127 (2004).
  56. We used the S-T plot presented by the LEP Electroweak Working group (EWWG) which can be found at http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/plots/summer2006/. The extra small further drop of the Top mass presented in 2007 does not affect comparison. The EWWG final results allow for a more positive value of S than the ones reported in the Particle Data Group (http://pdg.lbl.gov/). This is so since the EWWG does not use the data at low Q2 as an input.
  57. M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1215 (1985).
  58. M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep. 164, 217 (1988).
  59. O. Kaymakcalan and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1109 (1985).
  60. O. Kaymakcalan, S. Rajeev, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 594 (1984).
  61. R. S. Chivukula, E. H. Simmons, H. J. He, M. Kurachi, and M. Tanabashi, Phys. Lett. B 603, 210 (2004).
  62. E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B312, 253 (1989).
  63. M. Dine, A. Kagan, and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 243, 250 (1990).
  64. A. Kagan and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 252, 605 (1990).
  65. A. Kagan and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 270, 37 (1991).
  66. C. D. Carone and E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B397, 591 (1993).
  67. C. D. Carone and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1427 (1994).

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation