Arxiv:2008.00464V3 [Hep-Ph] 8 Jul 2021 ffcsi H Mta Il H Rdcinsin Prediction the Yield Loop Quantum That by SM Renormalized the Is in This Effects Scale

arXiv:2008.00464v3 [hep-ph] 8 Jul 2021 ffcsi h Mta il h rdcinsin prediction the yield loop quantum that by SM renormalized the is in This effects scale. GUT the at tigter 4.I U5 U hois o instance, that for prediction theories, tree-level GUT characteristic a SU(5) is In there [4]. theory string xesoso h M .. yebdigteS na of in magnitude SM the the where embedding (GUT), θ by Theory e.g., Unified within SM, value Grand its the predict of physics. to particle extensions possible of becomes (SM) it Model However, Standard the within ter rm h xeietlvlesin value experimental the from, tthe at atce nteS()GTcluainrpoue very [6]. reproduces value experimental calculation the GUT SM accurately SU(5) of the partners in supersymmetric particles the For including calculation. renomalization example, the particle in new freedom to of due degrees corrections quantum recovered the be including can by value experimental The [5]. prescription CERN-TH-2020-131 KCL-PH-TH/2020-42, odto htsesfo h nw o-rva homo- Georgi- non-trivial the known to the from similar quantization stems topological spirit that a a obeys condition and in [8], group, model Glashow SU(2) triplet scalar the real non- a of This with TeV. topologically associated few is a a of monopole includes mass au- magnetic a current with that the monopole [7], magnetic of GUT, trivial in high-scale one a by (PQH) not proposed thors is theory, that a SM rather the but of extension an in W h lcrwa iigangle mixing electroweak The nti ril emk ieetpeito o sin for prediction different a make we article this In scnrle ytedtiso nfiain[–] rin or [1–3], unification of details the by controlled is Z bsnms 2,wihi ls o u different but to, close is which [2], mass -boson odtoso h pcrmo h xr atce ntemode the in particles extra the of spectrum the on conditions rsneo h oooe hslast h rdcinsin the prediction the quantum to the leads This of sector monopole. consistency SU(2) the for of the presence required in o quantization (DQC) mass a topological Condition with to monopoles addition magnetic in admits which (PQH), authors nl tteeeg cl e ytemnpl as leading- A mass. monopole sin the of by value set the scale yields energy the at angle ecnie netnino h tnadMdlta a propo was that Model Standard the of extension an consider We ainlIsiueo hmclPyis&Bohsc,R¨ava Biophysics, & Physics Chemical of Institute National b INTRODUCTION eateto hsc,Uiest fVrii,Charlottes Virginia, of University Physics, of Department nEetoekMnpl,DrcQuantization Dirac Monopole, Electroweak An sin b a hoeia hsc eatet EN H11 Gen`eve 23, CH-1211 CERN, Department, Physics Theoretical 2 hoeia atcePyisadCsooyGop Physics Group, Cosmology and Physics Particle Theoretical θ W 3 = onEllis John igsCleeLno,Srn,Lno CR2S UK. 2LS, WC2R London Strand, London, College King’s 2 2 / θ θ (1) 8 θ W W W n h ekMxn Angle Mixing Weak the and ≃ ≃ safe parame- free a is 0 0 . a,b 3 tthe at 231 . 3 nthe in 231 .Q Hung Q. P. , 2 θ W ≃ Z 2 0 bsnms,a esrdb xeiet ne suitable under experiment, by measured as mass, -boson MS θ . Abstract 20 W c n ikE Mavromatos E. Nick and n h oooems htapa ntemdl n the and model, sin the value in experimental appear that mass monopole the and ogaatestsato fteDrcQatzto Con- Quantization (DQC), Dirac the dition of satisfaction guarantee to group. SU(2) the of properties topy ttemnpl assaei h oe.Ti au is value This between masses model. with the particles in extra scale by renormalized mass monopole the at ntemdlo 7 h Q utb moe sa extra prediction an the as to imposed 10]. leads be must which [9, DQC [11], field the condition magnetic [7] of monopole’s model the the In such in particle electron charged a the of as theory quantum the of sistency with o rvt,i htflosw emti oe h EW- the model this by term we ν e.g., vertices. follows what displaced colliders, in with at brevity, For dileptons principle neu- like-sign in light for testable searching for is mechanism scale, that seesaw electroweak the a trinos of in order participate the which of masses with involves trinos It [7]. in proposed particles. these of spectrum the on conditions suitable R IH OOOE NTEMDLO [7] OF MODEL THE IN MONOPOLES LIGHT eso htti odto sntsffiin yitself by sufficient not is condition this that show We enwrve reytemi etrso h model the of features main the briefly review now We model. g 2 M θ W ftemdl h ia Quantization Dirac the model, the of h antccag,wihi eurdfrcon- for required is which charge, magnetic the l. re eomlzto-ru analysis renormalization-group order 1 = a1,113Tlin Estonia Tallinn, 10143 10, la r facagdeeto nthe in electron charged a of ory re fafwTV eimpose, We TeV. few a of order f e eetyb n ftecurrent the of one by recently sed il,V 20-74 USA 22904-4714, VA ville, / ,where 4, g M e sin Department, 2 = θ Switzerland; θ W 2 W θ m a 2 W stewa mixing weak the is ≃ non-sterile m , 1 = 0 . 3 5 srcvrdunder recovered is [5] 231 / ∈ (3) 4 Z , ih-addneu- right-handed m (2) Z 2

2 2 The central reason why the EW-νR model admits the sphere S , for which π2(S ) = Z. Thus the EW-νR monopoles with masses at the electroweak scale, ΛEW , is model makes an interesting connection between the light that its right-handed neutrinos acquire [12] electroweak- neutrino masses and the existence of magnetic monopole scale Majorana masses MR ΛEW 246 GeV through solutions. their coupling to a complex Higgs∝ triplet∼ χ ˜. It was noted in [7] that, since S2 is associated with the Because the νRs are not sterile, consistency with the vacuum manifold of the real triplet ξ, topological quan- measured width of the Z-boson requires M 46 GeV, tization would involve the SU(2) coupling g, rather than R ≥ which implies χ˜ = vM ΛEW . Such non-sterile neu- the electromagnetic coupling e, leading to the following trinos would seriouslyh i affect∝ the experimentally-verified quantization condition for the magnetic chargeg ˜ of the relationship between the W - and Z-boson masses MW = monopole: M cos θ in the SM, in the absence of an additional Z W gg˜ real triplet of (Higgs-like) scalar fields ξ with ξ = χ˜ = = n, n Z . (6) h i h i ~ c ∈ vM [13], which realize a custodial symmetry in the EW- ~ νR model [12]. The ξ triplet is hypercharge-neutral and From now on we work in units with = c = 1. The gives rise to a finite-energy electroweak monopole so- fact that the quantization condition (6) is in terms of lution of the classical Euler-Lagrange equations of the the monopole chargeg ˜ and the weak charge g instead of model [7], following the pattern of the SO(3) monopole in the electric charge e appearing in the standard DQC is a the Georgi-Glashow model [8], discovered by ‘t Hooft [14] characteristic feature of the model of [7]. It distinguishes and Polyakov [15] (the ’tHP monopole). In that model the monopole in the model of [7] from the ’tHP magnetic the electromagnetic Uem(1) gauge group is embedded monopole or the Cho-Maison monopole [17] and its fi- into the SO(3) gauge group, whose algebra is isomorphic nite energy extensions [18], to which the standard DQC to that of the SU(2) appearing in the model of [7, 12]. applies. However, in the model of [7] Uem(1) is a combination of It is easy to see that the condition (6) follows from 2 the SU(2) and UY(1) of the SM, parametrized by sin θW the equation of motion for the field strength of the µν µ ν ν µ in the usual way. W3 SU(2) gauge boson, W3 = ∂ W3 ∂ W3 + 1 a µ b ν c − 3 εabcξ ∂ ξ ∂ ξ : We now review the topological arguments [7] for the vM g existence of the monopole, clarifying the independence µν ν of the topological quantization condition from the DQC ∂µW˜3 = K , (7) that we explore subsequently. The EW-νR model con- µν where W˜ 1 ε W σρ and K 1 ǫ ∂ν W σρ is tains [7, 12]. In addition to the real triplet ξ and the 3 ≡ 2 µνσρ 3 µ ≡ 2 µνσρ 3 SM a topological current that is automatically conserved by complex tripletχ ˜, four complex Higgs doublets, φi (which couple to SM fermions only), and φM (which cou- definition. The topological charge, gM , is defined as gM = i 3 ple to mirror fermions (MF ) [16], each with i = 1, 2 d xK0. Carrying out the integration, one obtains the Rtopological quantization condition (6). and some Higgs singlets φS that are not relevant to the magnetic monopole solution. The vacuum alignment Including the full electroweak gauge group structure SU(2) U (1), which is broken down to the electromag- that guarantees the custodial electroweak symmetry has × Y χ˜ = ξ = v [12]. The vacuum manifold of the Higgs netic Uem(1) by the complex Higgs doublets and the h i h i M 3 sector is tripletχ ˜ of the EW-νR model [7], one sees that the Wµ gauge field of the SU(2) subgroup is a mixture of the Z- 2 5 3 3 Svac = S S SSMi SMi . (4) boson and photon fields, parametrized as usual by the × × × 3 iX=1,2 iX=1,2 weak mixing angle θW : Wµ = cos θW Zµ + sin θW Aµ, with sin θ = g′/ g2 + g′2 where g′ is the U (1) cou- where an n-sphere Sn is described by the equation W Y pling. It should bep stressed that, under the breaking x2 + x2 + .. + x2 = constant. Here, the x denote 1 2 n+1 i U(1) U(1) , corresponding to some v.e.v. v , which the various scalar field values, and the constant radii of W Y 2 symbolically× represents the contribution of the other the various spheres correspond to the vacuum expecta- Higgs fields of the model, the W 3 is no longer a mass tion values of the various Higgs field components. The µ eigenstate, but the Z and A are the correct, physical, second homotopy group of the vacuum manifold of the µ µ mass eigenstates. EW-ν model (4) is therefore [7] R The corresponding field strengths are 2 5 3 π2(Svac) = π2(S ) π2(S ) i=1,2 π2(SSMi,Mi ) (5) 3 ⊕ ⊕ Wij = cos θW Zij + sin θW Fij , (8) 2 = π2(S )= Z, where Fij is the usual electromagnetic field-strength ten- which is the standard topological argument for the ex- sor and Zij is the Z field-strength tensor. This mixing istence of an ’tHP monopole [14, 15]. We see that the between the photon and the Z-boson is the reason why EW-νR model has a topologically-stable monopole solu- the terminology “γ-Z magnetic monopole” was used in tion thanks to the real SU(2) triplet ξ, corresponding to [7] to describe the magnetic monopole solution. 3

γZ As discussed in [7], the magnetic monopole has a mass to be related to Bi by a factor of 1/ sin θW , so that at large distances compared to the core monopole Rc 4πvM 2 −1 ∼ M = f(λ/g ) , (9) (gvM ) : M g sin θ where the function f(λ/g2) varies between 1 for λ = 0 B W rˆ i =1, 2, 3 , r R (15) i ≈ er2 i ≫ c (the Prasad-Sommerfield limit [19]) and 1.78 for λ = . ∞ The phenomenological analysis of Ref. [12] shows that Comparing this magnetic field [7] with the conventional the value of vM is bounded from below by the Z width definition of the magnetic charge of the monopole [9], we (assuming only three light neutrinos): vM > MZ /2 see that 45.5 GeV, and from above by the sum of the squared∼ 2 M,2 sinθW scalar fields VEVs in the model: ( i=1,2 vi + vi )+ gM = . (16) 2 2 e 8vM = (246 GeV) . The monopoleP mass range given by (9) is then obtained by saturating the bounds on vM : Eq. (16) can be understood from the definition of the magnetic charge, gM , which is topological in our model, M 890 GeV 3.0 TeV , (10) M ∼ − and given by the topological quantization condition, The corresponding magnetic field intensity arising in the Eq. (6). Taking n = 1 and settingg ˜ = gM in that re- lation, one obtains:g ˜ = gM = 1/g. Using the standard breaking of SU(2) UY(1) Uem(1) is defined by [7] × → form of the magnetic field of a magnetic monopole, far 1 ri away from its centre (placed at the origin) [9] BγZ = ǫijk W 3 = , (11) i −2 jk g r2 b g 1 Bγ = M rˆ = rˆ , (17) where ǫijk (i, j, k = 1, 2, 3) is the totally antisymmetric i r2 i g r2 i symbol in three Euclidean (spatial) dimensions. We then obtain from (8) [7] and using (13)) we find

γZ Z γ γ sinθW B = cos θW B + sin θW B i i i Bi = 2 rˆi . (18) 1 e r = rˆ (cos θ e−MZ r + sin θ ) gr2 i W W We thus recover the expression (15) for the effective mag- sin θ netic field in our model, defined via (8), at distances = W rˆ (cos θ e−MZ r + sin θ ) , (12) er2 i W W larger than the monopole core radius. We stress again that the topological magnetic charge is not of the form Z 1 −MZ r γ 1 where B = 2 rˆ exp and B = 2 rˆ are the 2 2 i gr i i gr i sin θW /e, which appears as the coefficient of 1/r in the short-range Z-magnetic field and the long-range mag- expression for the γ Z “SU(2) magnetic” field BγZ , but netic field, respectively, and − i of the form (16), carrying a single power of sin θW , when expressed in terms of the electron charge e in the model. e = g sin θW (13) We stress that the above solution for the γ Z mag- denotes the usual electromagnetic coupling, as in the SM. netic field respects rotational symmetry, and− takes the ′ We observe that in the limit v2 = 0 and g = 0, i.e., Dirac form at large distances, but vanishes at the centre θW = 0 and MZ = 0, one recovers (11) from (12), con- of the monopole, so that the solution has finite energy [7]. firming the mathematical correctness and consistency of In this respect, our solution differs from the (dumbbell) the latter expression. monopole of Nambu in the conventional SU(2) U(1)Y We note the exponential damping factor exp( M r) Standard Model [20], which breaks spontaneously× the ro- ∝ − Z in the expression (12) for the magnetic field strength, due tational (and hence Lorentz) symmetry, due to the pres- to the finite Z-boson mass, MZ = 0. The short- and long- ence of a Z-flux string. The latter is also responsible for γZ 6 range parts of Bi become comparable in strength at a the confinement of the Nambu monopole with its anti- distance r = 1 ln(cot θ ) 0.6/M from the centre monopole. As demonstrated in [21], the presence of the MZ W ∼ Z of the monopole, which is well inside its core. At large Z-string in that case leads to the satisfaction of the DQC distances compared to the monopole core radius, r without any restriction on the weak mixing angle, un- −1 ≫ Rc (gvM ) , the magnetic field differs in strength from like our situation as discussed below. Specifically, in the ∼ 2 that of a point-like Dirac monopole by a factor sin θW . Nambu electroweak monopole, the (non-singular) hyper- At these large distances, the γ Z magnetic field is charge U(1) magnetic field B~ emanating from the − Y U(1)Y monopole is compensated by that entering the monopole sin2 θ γZ W via the Z-string, leading to a divergence-free component Bi 2 rˆi . (14) ≈ er of the field, ~ B~ = 0. As a consequence the Nambu ∇· U(1)Y The true magnetic field, Bi, i =1, 2, 3, is defined in terms monopole pertains exclusively to the SU(2) sector of the of the electromagnetic tensor Fij , which is seen from (8) Standard Model, which contains only the coupling g of 4 that sector, and obeys the standard topological quanti- involves a Higgs breaking SU(2) U (1) U (1) (in × Y → EM zation condition, without any factors of sinθW . This is contrast to the conventional ’tHP monopole [14, 15] that not the case in the spherically-symmetric magnetic γ Z is based on a Higgs breaking the simple group SU(2) field (17) in the model of [7] which, we stress again, does− U(1) as in the Georgi-Glashow model [8]) with an Abelian→ not possess any such Z-flux string. We stress, though, Wu-Yang (WY) monopole [22], which does not involve a that, as in the non-singular dumbbell solution of [20], Dirac string. the total energy of the monopole solution of [7] is finite, In such a case, it is well known [10] that the DQC can leading to a finite mass for the monopole of order a TeV, be derived by covering the 3-space surrounding the WY as discussed in [7] and here. monopole at the origin by two hemispheres (North (N) and South (S)) and considering a closed loop ℓ that lies entirely in the “equator region” in which the two hemi- THE DIRAC QUANTIZATION CONDITION spheres overlap. The loop can be located far away from the centre of the monopole. The wave function of an As a consequence of (16), the DQC (2) is in general electrically-charged particle circulating the loop, say an violated by the weak mixing-angle factor in g . Thus the AS,N M electron of charge e, will pick up a phase e ℓ dℓ , electron wave function would not be single-valued along N (S) H · where Aµ denotes the electromagnetic potential in a loop that surrounds the monopole at large distances the North (South) hemisphere. Applying Stokes’s theo- from the monopole centre [9]. rem in each hemisphere, we may write: The DQC is often derived by considering the trans- lation of an electron around a Dirac string of the type e dℓ AN = e dS ( AN)= e dS B, connected to a point-like monopole. However, in the cur- Iℓ · ZRN · ∇× ZRN · rent monopole solution, there is no Dirac string, hence S S the reader might think that the topological quantization e dℓ A = e dS ( A )= e dS B, I · − ZRS · ∇× − ZRS · (6), which stems from the non-trivial homotopy structure ℓ (20) (5), is sufficient for the consistency of the model. How- ever, the DQC is a general condition, derivable from con- where B is the magnetic field of the monopole, whose sistency conditions far away from the monopole centre, B gM r asymptotic structure is given by r2 ˆ, with gM the independent of the details of the monopole solution and magnetic charge. The action S is therefore∼ defined up to whether it has an attached string. Hence, for the con- a term sistency of a theory, the DQC must always be imposed, if not automatically satisfied as is the case of the ’tHP 3 ∆S = e dS B = d r B =4πegM , (21) monopole. Below we outline several arguments showing ZRN∪ RS · ZV ∇ · how the DQC emerges, independent of the details of the monopole structure. where we used Gauss’s law over the entire space volume First, it can be shown [9, 10] that the DQC corre- V , and the corresponding Maxwell’s equations for the sponds to the the quantization condition of the angular monopole magnetic field. The requirement that the ac- momentum of a classical charged particle, say an electron tion change (21) does not affect any physical observables for concreteness, moving in the background of a mag- implies the DQC, in a way independent of the topological 1 netic pole at rest. Thomson [23] considered such a sys- argument (5). tem twenty-seven years before Dirac’s theory of magnetic We stress that the use of a non-compact Abelian U(1) monopoles, and showed that the total classical angular gauge field in the above argument is specific to the fact momentum of the electron in this system is that the model contains the Standard Model group with its usual breaking to U(1), which plays the role of the d~r ~r L~ = m~r eg , (19) non-compact Abelian group associated with the gauge × dt − r potential used above. One cannot apply this argument where the second term on the right-hand side is the con- to the standard ’tHP monopole, for which the topologi- tribution due to the interaction of the electron with the cal quantization of the non-Abelian simple group SU(2) magnetic monopole field, as derived from the pertinent replaces the DQC. Poynting vector. The DQC (2) follows from (19) as a This is the central point of this article: in the model consequence of the usual quantization rule of the angular of [7], unlike the ’tHP monopole, the topological quanti- momentum, which is required to take on integer or half- zation rule (6) stemming from the homotopy properties integer values, in the case where both the electron and the monopole are at rest (d~r/dt = 0). Secondly, in the context of the monopole of the model 1 A similar result is obtained if one considers, alternatively, the of [7], the DQC can be understood [10] by making an gauge dependence of the electron wave function in a monopole analogy between this monopole solution, which crucially field [9]. 5 of the SU(2) group is not sufficient for the quantum con- where m“H” is the mass of the appropriate Higgs field in sistency of the electron wave function in the presence of the model of [7], and vM its vacuum expectation value, as the magnetic field induced by the γ Z monopole. reviewed above. Thus, the total number of Higgs quanta In a similar spirit to the Kalb-Ramond− monopole of is [11], one must impose the DQC as an additional con- 4 3 2 straint: nquanta = ( πR ) m“H”v . (27) 3 c M m egM = , m Z . (22) where the monopole core radius is given by R 2 ∈ c (gv )−1, m √λ v , and λ is the correspond-∼ M “H” ∼ M We then obtain from (22) and (16) a consistency condiion ing Higgs-self-interaction coupling. Assuming following for the weak mixing angle, and the prediction [25] that √λ/3 g in order of magnitude, so that ∼ m“H” mW gvM , one then obtains m m2 ∼ ∼ sinθ = sin2θ = , m Z , (23) W 2 ⇒ W 4 ∈ 4 √λ 1 nquanta ( π) 3 (28) 2 ∼ 3 g ∼ α2 where sin θW is the quantity that it is usually quoted in experimental measurements [24]. Since sinθ 1, the in order of magnitude, where, α g2/(4π) is the fine W ≤ 2 condition (23) allows only two topological sectors, namely structure constant of the SU(2) group.≡ m = 1 and m = 2. The case m = 2 would imply In the pure SU(2) ’tHP-monopole case studied in [25], | | | | ′ sin θW = 1, which corresponds to the limit g/g 0 and the electric charge of the W states is g, since there is no → 3 a massless W boson. In the allowed case m = 1 we have mixing, hence the collective coupling to photons ( Wµ ) the prediction would in this case be given by (25) but with e replaced∼ by g. In this case, (27) implies the topological charge 2 1 γ sin θW = , (24) quantization (6), with n = 1, upon identifying gcoll 4 4π g˜, whereg ˜ =1/g. ∼ 2 However, in the model of [7], due to the presence of which is close to the experimental value sin θW 0.231. ≃ the Standard-Model group SU(2) U (1) breaking down At this point we would like to offer further inde- × Y pendent support to the restriction (23) by considering to the non-compact electromagnetic group UEM(1), and thus a non-trivial weak mixing angle θ = 0 mod π, we the coherent-state approach to the composite monopoles W 6 proposed in [25], which also lead to the arguments have g = e/ sin θW , with e the electric charge that would on the impossibility of producing composite monopole- couple the charged W states to photons. Hence in that antimonopole pairs at colliders, as a result of the extreme case, we obtain from (28) suppression of the pertinent production cross sections of sin2 θ order e−4π/α, with α the electromagnetic fine structure n W , (29) quanta ∼ α2 constant. where α = e2/(4π) is the fine structure constant of elec- tromagnetism. The reader should notice the dependence COHERENT-STATE APPROACH of nquanta on the weak mixing angle, in contrast to the case of [25], based on the conventional ’tHP monopole, According to the qualitative arguments of [25], a com- 1 for which nquanta α . This feature of the monopole posite monopole state, such as the ’tHP monopole [14, 15] is exclusive to the model∼ of [7]. Upon recalling [25] that or that in the model of [7] that we study here, consists the number (27) is also of the same order of magnitude as ± of nquantaVc coherent states of Higgs and gauge quanta, the number of charged gauge quanta W , each of which where Vc is the volume of a sphere of radius equal to carries a charge e, then we obtain the total charge, i.e., the radius of the monopole core Rc, and nquanta denotes the collective coupling (25) of the monopole to photons, the density of the Higgs or gauge quanta (these number in our model: densities are of the same order of magnitude, as argued 2 in [25]). The quanta corresponding to the electrically- γ sin θW gcoll = nquanta e e . (30) charged gauge states (W ) with charge e, couple to the ∼ α electromagnetic photon with a collective coupling As discussed previously (c.f. (14)), the BγZ magnetic 2 sin θW γ γZ field corresponds to a magnetic charge Q = e gcoll nquanta e, (25) γ γZ γ ∼ ∼ gcoll, in order of magnitude. However, B = sin θW B + Z γ Following the arguments of [25] for our case, the number cos θW B . So the true magnetic field B corresponds γZ sin θW density of the extra scalar triplet Higgs quanta is to a magnetic charge gM = Q / sin θW = e (c.f. (15)). In this case, the collective coupling (30) is linked n m v2 . (26) to g via gγ 4πg sinθ . quanta ∼ “H” M M coll ∼ M W 6

Far from the core, this monopole behaves like a Dirac v1. As discussed in [27], the monopoles and anti- monopole and the DQC applies: egM = m/2, m Z. monopoles of mass v1/e from SU(3)/SU(2) U(1) are Upon comparing with the above result (30), we obtain∈ bound to each other by flux tubes and do not× survive 2 (24), i.e., sin θW =1/4. below v1. Only the lighter ones of mass v2/e survive in From the above discussion it follows that the topolog- that model. ical chargeg ˜ of the ’tHP or the monopole of [7], and This is a quite different scenario from the electroweak in general of non-Abelian composite monopoles charac- monopole model of [7] discussed here. The VEV of the terised by groups with non-trivial homotopy leading to a real triplet vM is comparable in value to the other VEVs topological quantization rule (6), can be identified with (doublets, complex triplet), so the hierarchical scenario the collective coupling of the constituent coherent-state discussed in [27] does not apply. Moreover, as indi- charged gauge quanta to photons (25) [25]. cated above, in the paragraph following (13), the short- We speculate that a rigorous proof of this relation range Z-magnetic field becomes subdominant relative to might be provided by extending the (1+1)-dimensional the long-range magnetic field already inside the core of −1 prototype study of [26] to four-dimensional composite size R (gvM ) and, outside the core, only the long- monopoles, of finite energy, including that of [7] stud- range true∼ magnetic field is present. These considera- ied here, which are topological solitons. It was recog- tions imply that the monopoles are not confined with nised in [26], considering a quantum coherent state of a their antimonopoles, and hence the condition (22) ap- (1+1)-dimensional topological soliton soliton as a ten- plies. There are no long-range magnetic fluxes binding | i sor product state of an infinity of constituent coherent a monopole with an anti-monopole in our model, due to states ακ corresponding to momentum k, the short-range nature of the Z-magnetic field, unlike the | i example discussed above. There, the breaking pattern is soliton = ακ , H =SU(2) U(1) H =U(1) at v , where H SU(2) | i Y | i 1 2 2 2 ⊗ k and the U(1)× magnetic→ fluxes are confined, binding∈ the that the topological charge arises from the Noether heavy monopoles and anti-monopoles of mass v1/e. charges of the microscopic constituent coherent states, which thus explains the conservation of the topological charge from basic properties of the constituent coherent RENORMALIZATION EFFECTS states. Specifically, the topological charge arises from an infinite occupation number of zero momentum quanta, which in the (1+1)-dimensional model flow in one di- The DQC (22) is a discrete consistency condition that rection. In the composite monopole case, the Noether should be understood as applying to the electric charge charge is the electric charge, whilst the topological (mag- in the large-distance (IR) limit and the monopole charge netic) charge is the collective coupling (25) of the coher- measured at the monopole mass (9). There is no renor- ent constituent W quanta to photons. malization of the monopole charge below this scale, as there are no magnetically-charged objects with masses 2 below (9). On the other hand, as sin θW is related to ABSENCE OF CONFINEMENT the SU(2) and U(1)Y couplings, it is in general subject to scale-dependent renormalization in the non-magnetic Some important comments are in order at this point, sector where experiments are performed. This is a well- concerning the relation (22), from which our main result understood effect that has been studied in detail in many (23) follows. The implicit assumption underlying such GUT models such as SU(5) [2, 6]. a relation is that free monopoles exist after spontaneous We have made leading-logarithmic one-loop calcula- 2 symmetry breaking in the model. In fact, one could have tions of the renormalization of sin θW from the monopole thought of avoiding the imposition of the DQC by consid- mass scale MM down to the Z-boson mass MZ for dif- ering monopoles either confined with their antimonopoles ferent values of MM , the numbers of light families F (in- by magnetic flux strings, in which case there is no con- cluding both SM and mirror fermions), light Higgs dou- straint between magnetic and electric charges, or con- blets nH , real triplets n3 and complex tripletsn ¯3 with fined in groups of a certain fixed number, which would masses below MM that enter the evolution. We use the 2 2 lead to a much weaker quantisation condition than (22). notation xW sin θW (MZ ) and assume that, at MM , 2 2 ≡ ′2 2 ′2 ′ Such cases are discussed, for instance, in the review of sin θW (MM )= g /[g + g ]=1/4 giving α = (1/3)α2, [27]. and the following one-loop renormalization formula In Section 5.1 of that work, the author discuses mag- netic monopoles arising from a toy model characterised α′ 4πα x [1 + 2 ( α′b′ + α b ) ln(M 2 /M 2 )] by the following pattern of spontaneous gauge-symmetry W α′ + α α′ + α 2 2 Z M v1 v2 ≈ 2 2 − breaking: SU(3) SU(2) U(1) U(1), via appropri- −→ × −→ 1 ′ 3 2 2 ate Higgs vacuum expectation values (VEVs) with v (1/4)[1 + 4πα2( b + b2) ln(MZ /MM )] , (31) 2 ≪ ≈ −4 4 7

where gνR 1. The search for charged mirror quarks and lep- tons,∼ which are long-lived particles in this model, have 2 22 4 1 2 b2 = (1/16π )[ F nH n3] (32) been discussed in [12]. A detailed analysis of this and 3 − 3 − 6 − 3 other aspects of the model are beyond the scope of this and article and will be given elsewhere.

′ 2 20 1 We thank T. Vachaspati for discussions. The work b = (1/16π )[ F + nH +¯n3] . (33) − 9 6 of J.E. and NEM and is supported in part by the UK The scalar contributions to Eqs. (32,33) come from Science and Technology Facilities (STFC) under the re- search grant ST/P000258/1, and J.E. is also supported (1/3)TS with TS = 1/2, 2 (doublets and triplets) for − 2 in part by an Estonian Research Council Mobilitas Pluss b2 and (1/3) (YS/2) with YS/2 = 1/2, 1 (doublet and complex triplet)P for b′. Tabulated below are some grant. J.E. and N.E.M. participate in the COST Associ- ation Action CA18108 “Quantum Gravity Phenomenol- examples of spectra with MM in the range (10) that ogy in the Multimessenger Approach (QG-MM)”. NEM yield 0.230 < xW < 0.233, to be compared with the also acknowledges a scientific associateship (“Doctor Vin- experimental central value xW = 0.23121 in the MS prescription [5] (one should allow for higher-order culado”) at IFIC-CSIC, Valencia University, Valencia, uncertainties in the renormalization calculation). Spain.

MM (TeV) F nH n3 n¯3 xW 2.3 3 1 0 0 0.232 3 3 3 0 0 0.2314 [1] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438- 3 3 1 1 1 0.2318 441 (1974). [2] H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 3 4 1 0 0 0.2328 Lett. 33, 451-454 (1974). We note that cases with F = 5, 6 are disfavoured ex- [3] W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 20, 274 (1979). [4] S. Raby and A. Wingerter, Phys. Rev. D 76, 086006 perimentally, as they yield sin2θ (M 2 ) > 0.233. Also W Z (2007) [arXiv:0706.0217 [hep-th]]. disfavoured are scenarios such as nH = 2, n3 =1,n ¯3 =1 [5] P.A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. light Higgs fields below MM . Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020). The EW-νR model we have studied here has many in- [6] J. Ellis, S. Kelley and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. teresting properties. In addition to containing a seesaw B260, 131 (1991); U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Furste- scenario for neutrino masses that predicts several pos- nau, Phys. Lett. B260, 447 (1991); P. Langacker and M. sibilities for new particles that could be detected at the Luo, Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991); C. Giunti, C. W. Kim and U. W. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A6, 1745 (1991). LHC, it also predicts the existence of an electroweak mag- [7] P. Q. Hung, Nucl. Phys. B 962, 115278 (2021) netic monopole with mass . 3 TeV, light enough to be de- doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115278 [arXiv:2003.02794 tected in principle by the MoEDAL experiment [28, 29]. [hep-ph]]. Remarkably, as we have shown in this paper, the Dirac [8] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1494 Quantization Condition needed for the quantum consis- (1972). Magnetic monopoles tency of the EW-νR model imposes a specific value of the [9] Y. M. Shnir, , (Berlin, Germany: 2 Springer (2005)) weak mixing parameter sin θW = 1/4 at the monopole [10] N. E. Mavromatos and V. A. Mitsou, Int. mass scale. Plausible choices of the monopole mass and J. Mod. Phys. A 35, no.23, 2030012 (2020) the numbers of fermions and Higgs bosons with masses doi:10.1142/S0217751X20300124 [arXiv:2005.05100 below that of the monopole yield predictions for the [hep-ph]], and references therein. 2 2 renormalized weak mixing parameter sin θW (MZ ) that [11] A similar situation arises in effective low-energy string are consistent with experimental measurements, within theories involving extra triplet scalar fields and Kalb- the theoretical uncertainties. The success of this predic- Ramond axion fields carrying an axion charge ζ with tion has interesting implications on the Majorana masses a U(1) Abelian monopole solution: N. E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.10, 104025 (2017) of right-handed neutrinos, since both quantities depend [arXiv:1607.01315 [hep-th]]. In that case the DQC leads on the Higgs triplet VEV vM , as well as the spectra of to quantisation of the axion charge, as well as the asso- light new particles. With Majorana masses of the EW- ciated monopole magnetic charge, which is proportional νR model being MR = gνR vM , Eq. (9) gives an inter- to ζ. esting relation between the monopole and right-handed [12] P. Q. Hung, Phys. Lett. B 649, 275 (2007) 4π 2 neutrino Majorana masses MM = f(λ/g )MR. [hep-ph/0612004]. Papers relevant for this article are g gνR listed below. S. Chakdar, K. Ghosh, V. Hoang, Electroweak-scale non-sterile νR could be discovered via P. Q. Hung and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 3, like-sign dilepton events with displaced vertices, and give 035007 (2016) [arXiv:1508.07318 [hep-ph]]; S. Chak- a range for the monopole mass: 19 MR . MM . 34 MR dar, K. Ghosh, V. Hoang, P. Q. Hung and S. Nandi, for f(λ/g2) = 1, 1.78, with g 0.65 and assuming Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 1, 015014 (2017); P. Q. Hung, ∼ 8

arXiv:1712.09701 [hep-ph]; P. Q. Hung, arXiv:1905.09918 [arXiv:hep-ph/9405285 [hep-ph]]. [hep-ph]. [22] T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 107, 365 (1976) [13] M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Phys. Lett. 165B, 105 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(76)90143-7 (1985); H. Georgi and M. Machacek, Nucl. Phys. B 262, [23] J. J. Thomson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin 463 (1985). Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 8, 331 [14] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl.Phys. B79 (1974) 276-284 CERN-TH- (1904). 1876. [24] An alternative way to understand the necessity of (23) [15] A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194-195, Pisma stems from the fact that, if one uses (13), then from Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz. 20 (1974) 430-433 PRINT-74-1566 the long-distance expression (14) for the γ − Z magnetic (LANDAU-INST). field, one observes that the magnetic charge of this field 2 [16] The heavy mirror fermions with chiralities opposite to sin θW sinθW isg ˜ = e = g , i.e., g g˜ = sinθW . Comparing with SM fermions are present because of the global symme- the quantization condition (6), we then obtain (23). × tries U(1)SM U(1)MF needed for the seesaw mechanism [25] A. K. Drukier and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 102 in [12]. (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.102 [17] Y. M. Cho and D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B 391, 360 (1997). [26] G. Dvali, C. Gomez, L. Gruending and [18] Y. M. Cho, K. Kim and J. H. Yoon, Eur. Phys. J. C T. Rug, Nucl. Phys. B 901, 338-353 (2015) 75, no. 2, 67 (2015); J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.10.017 [arXiv:1508.03074 T. You, Phys. Lett. B 756, 29 (2016); S. Arunasalam [hep-th]]. and A. Kobakhidze, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.7, 444 (2017) [27] J. Preskill, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 34, 461-530 (1984) [arXiv:1702.04068 [hep-ph]]. doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.34.120184.002333 [19] M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. [28] B. Acharya et al. [MoEDAL Collaboration], Phys. Rev. 35 (1975), 760-762. Lett. 123, no.2, 021802 (2019) [arXiv:1903.08491 [hep- [20] Y. Nambu, Nucl. Phys. B 130, 505 (1977) ex]]. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90252-8 [29] Production mechanisms and potential suppression due to [21] T. Vachaspati, Nucl. Phys. B 439, 79- monopole structure [25] are reviewed in [10]. 90 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)00562-S