DOCSLIB.ORG

New Solutions to the Hierarchy Problem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Solutions to the Hierarchy Problem Gustavo Burdman 1 New Solutions to the Hierarchy Problem∗ Gustavo Burdman Instituto de F´ısica, Universidade de S˜ao Paulo Cidade Universitaria, S˜ao Paulo SP 05508-900, Brazil (Received on 2 of June, 2006) After summarizing the status of the Standard Model, we focus on the Hierarchy Problem and why we believe this strongly suggests the need for new physics at the TeV scale. We then concentrate on theories with extra dimensions and their possible manifestations at this scale. Keywords: beyond the standard model, electroweak bymmetry breaking, extra dimensions I. INTRODUCTION short range inside a superconductor, by getting an effective photon mass. The Standard Model (SM) is a very successful description The first question is: at what scale should this phase transi- of particle physics up to the weak scale. It agrees with all the tion occur ? In order to answer this question within the SM, experimental data we have our disposal today. However, it we can look –for instance– at the scattering of massive gauge has several shortcomings. We do not know the origin of the bosons. These amplitudes (without including the Higgs) grow fermion masses, which in the SM arise from the Yukawa in- like teractions with the Higgs doublet. These are extremely varied, s 2 (1) with a Yukawa coupling for the top of order one, and for the MW electron about 106 times smaller. This constitutes the fermion mass hierarchy problem. Its solution might lie at high energy violate unitarity unless something happens before 1 TeV. In scales so that experimentsat the TeV scale might not necessar- the contextof the SM, this means that we need mh < O(1) TeV ily explore it. Another question unanswered by the SM, refers to restore unitarity. to the so called gauge hierarchy problem: why is the weak The SM introduces the scalar doublet which has a La- scale so much smaller than the Planck scale. We believe that grangian: the answer to this problem is at the TeV scale and therefore † µ L = (DµΦ) (D Φ) V(Φ) (2) accessible to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). We will first − briefly summarize the status of the SM in Section II. In Sec- tion III we will expose the gauge hierarchy problem in more with the covariant derivative of the scalar doublet is given by detail. In Section IV we will presents a review of solutions to ig the gauge hierarchy problem involving compact extra spatial D Φ = ∂ + igtaW a + ′ B Φ (3) µ µ µ 2 µ dimensions. The vacuum expectation value (VEV) ΦT = (0 v/√2) h i breaks the SM gauge group down to U(1)EM, leaving the pho- II. THE STANDARD MODEL ton massless and giving the weak gauge bosons masses: gv g2 + g′2 v arXiv:hep-ph/0703194v1 19 Mar 2007 The SM gauge group, SU(2) U(1) , must be sponta- M = ; M = (4) L Y W 2 Z 2 neously broken to electromagnetism.× This is achieved through p the Higgs mechanism. The spontaneous breaking results in The minimization of the Higgs potential results in mh = a set of 3 Nambu-Goldstone Bosons (NGB), which are not √2λv, with λ the Higgs boson self-coupling. physical states since in the unitary gauge they are gauged + + away and appear as the longitudinal components of the W ± W W 0 W+ W+ and the Z . Within the SM, a complex scalar doublet, corre- W+ W+ sponding to 4 degrees of freedom, results in one of them be- γ ing left out, while the other are the NGBs. But in general, we γ can think of this as analogous to superconductivity: the Higgs − W − W mechanism results in a superconducting phase, where the or- W − W − − der parameter of the phase is a scalar field, which may or may W W − not be an elementary particle. As a result, the weak interac- tions become short range, just as electromagnetism becomes FIG. 1: Contributions to WW scattering amplitude. It violates uni- tarity at about 1 TeV The SM has been extremely successful when compared ∗Presented at the First Latin American Workshop on High Energy Phe- with experiment. The discovery of neutral currents in the 70’s, nomenology, Porto Alegre, December 3-5 2005 and the discovery of the W and Z gauge bosons, where just the 2 Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 37, 2A, June, 2007 prelude to the spectacularly precise tests started in the 90’s at LEP and SLAC. A large number of electroweak observables 6 are predicted with the input of only three parameters. The fun- Theory uncertainty ∆α(5) = damental parameters of the theory, g, g and v, can be traded had ′ 5 ± by quantities that are more accurately known, typically M , α 0.02758 0.00035 Z 0.02749±0.00012 and GF . In Figure (2) we see a sample of the observables and 4 incl. low Q2 data the agreement with the SM fit is very good. The precision of 2 3 ∆χ 2 Measurement Fit |Omeas−Ofit|/σmeas 0 1 2 3 ∆α(5) ± had(mZ) 0.02758 0.00035 0.02767 1 [ ] ± mZ GeV 91.1875 0.0021 91.1874 Γ [GeV] 2.4952 ± 0.0023 2.4959 Excluded Z 0 σ0 [ ] ± had nb 41.540 0.037 41.478 30100 300 R 20.767 ± 0.025 20.742 l m [GeV] 0,l ± H Afb 0.01714 0.00095 0.01643 ± Al(Pτ) 0.1465 0.0032 0.1480 ± Rb 0.21629 0.00066 0.21579 ± FIG. 3: The Higgs mass constraint in the SM. Rc 0.1721 0.0030 0.1723 0,b ± Afb 0.0992 0.0016 0.1038 0,c ± Afb 0.0707 0.0035 0.0742 ± Ab 0.923 0.020 0.935 baryon asymmetry in the universe, or of dark matter and dark A 0.670 ± 0.027 0.668 c energy? Why is the cosmologicalconstantso small ? So there A (SLD) 0.1513 ± 0.0021 0.1480 l is no shortage of shortcomings. However, we do not know at sin2θlept(Q ) 0.2324 ± 0.0012 0.2314 eff fb what energy scales these questions are answered. It could be [ ] ± mW GeV 80.410 0.032 80.377 Γ [ ] ± that the physics associated with them lies at a scale unreach- W GeV 2.123 0.067 2.092 [ ] ± able experimentally, at least for the moment. mt GeV 172.7 2.9 173.3 0 1 2 3 III. THE HIERARCHY PROBLEM FIG. 2: Comparison of electroweak observables with the SM fit (Summer 2005) However, the question that requires physics beyond the SM at the TeV, is the so called gauge hierarchy problem. the measurementshas reach the sub-percentlevel, and in order One way to state it is simply by asking: why is the weak to make predictions matching this one needs to go to one loop scale ( 100 GeV) so much smaller than the Planck scale calculations. This means that the measurements are sensitive ( 1019≃ GeV)? The weak scale is given by the VEV of to heavy physics running around loops. The most important the∼ Higgs, v 246 GeV, the only dimensionfull parameter example is the Higgs itself. Since it has not been observed, in the SM. However,≃ it is not naturally stable under radia- been sensitive to its loop effects is very interesting. The sensi- tive corrections. If we consider the radiative corrections to tivity of the electroweak observables to the Higgs mass is only the Higgs mass, coming from its couplings to gauge bosons, logarithmic. Yet, the precision is enough to turn this sensitiv- Yukawa couplings to fermions and its self-couplings, result in ity into a bound on the Higgs mass. In Figure (3) we show a quadratic sensitivity to the ultraviolet cutoff. Thus, if the χ2 the latest fit of the Higgs mass in the SM. The has a mini- SM were valid up to the Planck scale, then mh and therefore mum at around 100 GeV, although the direct search bound is the minimum of the Higgs, potential, v, would be driven to the mh > 114 GeV. The indirect limit implies that mh 246 GeV Planck scale by the radiative corrections. To avoid this, one ≤ at 95% C.L. Thus, we conclude that the SM is in very good has to adjust the Higgs bare mass in the SM Lagrangianto one agreement with experiment and that the Higgs must be light. part in 1017. This is quite unnatural, and is what we call the Then why do we want to have physics beyond the SM ? gauge hierarchy problem. The SM leaves many questions unanswered, and its answers In order for physics beyond the SM to regulate the Higgs to others are not very satisfactory. For instance, in the SM mass, and restore naturalness, its energy scale must be around fermion masses arise as a consequence of Yukawa couplings the TeV. Several alternative theories are potential candidates to the Higgs. But since there is a huge hierarchy of masses to do this job. Most of them, imply that new physics will be 6 (e.g. me/mt 10− ), then there should be a huge hierarchy of discoveredat the LHC. One of the most popularcandidate the- Yukawa couplings.≃ This is the fermion mass hierarchy prob- ories is weak scale supersymmetry. The superpartners of the lem. The SM gauge group being a product group, plus the SM particles, having different statistics, contribute to the ra- fact that the couplings get quite close to each other at high diative corrections to the Higgs mass with the opposite sign. energies, suggest grand unification.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Symmetry and Gravity
    universe Article Making a Quantum Universe: Symmetry and Gravity Houri Ziaeepour 1,2 1 Institut UTINAM, CNRS UMR 6213, Observatoire de Besançon, Université de Franche Compté, 41 bis ave. de l’Observatoire, BP 1615, 25010 Besançon, France; [email protected] or [email protected] 2 Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking GU5 6NT, UK Received: 05 September 2020; Accepted: 17 October 2020; Published: 23 October 2020 Abstract: So far, none of attempts to quantize gravity has led to a satisfactory model that not only describe gravity in the realm of a quantum world, but also its relation to elementary particles and other fundamental forces. Here, we outline the preliminary results for a model of quantum universe, in which gravity is fundamentally and by construction quantic. The model is based on three well motivated assumptions with compelling observational and theoretical evidence: quantum mechanics is valid at all scales; quantum systems are described by their symmetries; universe has infinite independent degrees of freedom. The last assumption means that the Hilbert space of the Universe has SUpN Ñ 8q – area preserving Diff.pS2q symmetry, which is parameterized by two angular variables. We show that, in the absence of a background spacetime, this Universe is trivial and static. Nonetheless, quantum fluctuations break the symmetry and divide the Universe to subsystems. When a subsystem is singled out as reference—observer—and another as clock, two more continuous parameters arise, which can be interpreted as distance and time. We identify the classical spacetime with parameter space of the Hilbert space of the Universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Kaluza-Klein Covariance
    CONSEQUENCES OF KALUZA-KLEIN COVARIANCE Paul S. Wesson Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada Space-Time-Matter Consortium, http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson PACs: 11.10Kk, 11.25Mj, 0.45-h, 04.20Cv, 98.80Es Key Words: Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity, Relativity, Higher Di- mensions Addresses: Mail to Waterloo above; email: [email protected] Abstract The group of coordinate transformations for 5D noncompact Kaluza-Klein theory is broader than the 4D group for Einstein’s general relativity. Therefore, a 4D quantity can take on different forms depending on the choice for the 5D coordinates. We illustrate this by deriving the physical consequences for several forms of the canonical metric, where the fifth coordinate is altered by a translation, an inversion and a change from spacelike to timelike. These cause, respectively, the 4D cosmological ‘constant’ to be- come dependent on the fifth coordinate, the rest mass of a test particle to become measured by its Compton wavelength, and the dynamics to become wave-mechanical with a small mass quantum. These consequences of 5D covariance – whether viewed as positive or negative – help to determine the viability of current attempts to unify gravity with the interactions of particles. 1. Introduction Covariance, or the ability to change coordinates while not affecting the validity of the equations, is an essential property of any modern field theory. It is one of the found- ing principles for Einstein’s theory of gravitation, general relativity. However, that theory is four-dimensional, whereas many theories which seek to unify gravitation with the interactions of particles use higher-dimensional spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalness and New Approaches to the Hierarchy Problem
    Naturalness and New Approaches to the Hierarchy Problem PiTP 2017 Nathaniel Craig Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 No warranty expressed or implied. This will eventually grow into a more polished public document, so please don't disseminate beyond the PiTP community, but please do enjoy. Suggestions, clarifications, and comments are welcome. Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.0.1 The proton mass . .3 1.0.2 Flavor hierarchies . .4 2 The Electroweak Hierarchy Problem 5 2.1 A toy model . .8 2.2 The naturalness strategy . 13 3 Old Hierarchy Solutions 16 3.1 Lowered cutoff . 16 3.2 Symmetries . 17 3.2.1 Supersymmetry . 17 3.2.2 Global symmetry . 22 3.3 Vacuum selection . 26 4 New Hierarchy Solutions 28 4.1 Twin Higgs / Neutral naturalness . 28 4.2 Relaxion . 31 4.2.1 QCD/QCD0 Relaxion . 31 4.2.2 Interactive Relaxion . 37 4.3 NNaturalness . 39 5 Rampant Speculation 42 5.1 UV/IR mixing . 42 6 Conclusion 45 1 1 Introduction What are the natural sizes of parameters in a quantum field theory? The original notion is the result of an aggregation of different ideas, starting with Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis (\Any two of the very large dimensionless numbers occurring in Nature are connected by a simple mathematical relation, in which the coefficients are of the order of magnitude unity" [1]), which was not quantum in nature, to Gell- Mann's Totalitarian Principle (\Anything that is not compulsory is forbidden." [2]), to refinements by Wilson and 't Hooft in more modern language.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Discoverable Matter: an Optimist’s View of Dark Matter and How to Find It Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sv8b4x5 Author Mcgehee Jr., Robert Stephen Publication Date 2020 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Discoverable Matter: an Optimist’s View of Dark Matter and How to Find It by Robert Stephen Mcgehee Jr. A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Hitoshi Murayama, Chair Professor Alexander Givental Professor Yasunori Nomura Summer 2020 Discoverable Matter: an Optimist’s View of Dark Matter and How to Find It Copyright 2020 by Robert Stephen Mcgehee Jr. 1 Abstract Discoverable Matter: an Optimist’s View of Dark Matter and How to Find It by Robert Stephen Mcgehee Jr. Doctor of Philosophy in Physics University of California, Berkeley Professor Hitoshi Murayama, Chair An abundance of evidence from diverse cosmological times and scales demonstrates that 85% of the matter in the Universe is comprised of nonluminous, non-baryonic dark matter. Discovering its fundamental nature has become one of the greatest outstanding problems in modern science. Other persistent problems in physics have lingered for decades, among them the electroweak hierarchy and origin of the baryon asymmetry. Little is known about the solutions to these problems except that they must lie beyond the Standard Model. The first half of this dissertation explores dark matter models motivated by their solution to not only the dark matter conundrum but other issues such as electroweak naturalness and baryon asymmetry.
    [Show full text]
  • ``Topcolor''; Invited Talk Presented At" Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories
    FERMILAB-Conf-97/032-T TOPCOLOR1 CHRISTOPHER T. HILL Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois, 60510, USA We review a class of dynamical models in which top condensation occurs at the weak scale, giving rise to the large top quark mass and other phenomena. This typically requires a color embedding, SU(3) SU(3)1 SU(3)2, ergo “Topcolor.” Topcolor suggests c → × a novel route to technicolor models in which sequential quarks condense under the Topcolor interaction to break electroweak symmetries. 1 Top Quark Condensation 1.1 Preliminary The top quark has arrived with a mass of 175 GeV. This is remarkably ∼ large in comparison to all other known fundamental particles, and coin- cidently equals the natural scale of electroweak interactions, 1/ 2√2GF . The top quark mass may be dynamically generated, analogousq to a con- stituent quark mass in QCD. Then the relevant question becomes: “Are arXiv:hep-ph/9702320v1 12 Feb 1997 there new strong interactions that are revealing themselves through the large top mass?” If the answer is no, then the most sensible scenario for physics beyond the standard model is something like the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). In this case the top quark mass is given by the infra–red renormalization group fixed point [1], and many of the successful predictions of unification are tied to this fact [2]. By itself, this is remarkable, because the infra–red renormalization group fixed point is really a consequence of the approximate scale invariance of the unified theory over the range of 1Invited Talk presented at Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories ‘96, Nagoya, Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Hierarchy Problem
    solving the hierarchy problem Joseph Lykken Fermilab/U. Chicago puzzle of the day: why is gravity so weak? answer: because there are large or warped extra dimensions about to be discovered at colliders puzzle of the day: why is gravity so weak? real answer: don’t know many possibilities may not even be a well-posed question outline of this lecture • what is the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model • is it really a problem? • what are the ways to solve it? • how is this related to gravity? what is the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model? • discuss concepts of naturalness and UV sensitivity in field theory • discuss Higgs naturalness problem in SM • discuss extra assumptions that lead to the hierarchy problem of SM UV sensitivity • Ken Wilson taught us how to think about field theory: “UV completion” = high energy effective field theory matching scale, Λ low energy effective field theory, e.g. SM energy UV sensitivity • how much do physical parameters of the low energy theory depend on details of the UV matching (i.e. short distance physics)? • if you know both the low and high energy theories, can answer this question precisely • if you don’t know the high energy theory, use a crude estimate: how much do the low energy observables change if, e.g. you let Λ → 2 Λ ? degrees of UV sensitivity parameter UV sensitivity “finite” quantities none -- UV insensitive dimensionless couplings logarithmic -- UV insensitive e.g. gauge or Yukawa couplings dimension-full coefs of higher dimension inverse power of cutoff -- “irrelevant” operators e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Composite Higgs Doublets: Is It the Low Energy Limit of A
    Two Composite Higgs Doublets: Is it the Low Energy Limit of a Natural Strong Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Sector ? Alfonso R. Zerwekh∗ Centro de Estudios Subat´omicos and Instituto de F´ısica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia,Chile Abstract In this paper, we propose an effective model scheme that describes the electroweak symmetry breaking sector by means of composite Higgs- like scalars, following the ideas of Minimal Walking Technicolor (MWT). We argue that, because of the general failure of Extended Technicolor (ETC) to explain the mass of the top quark, it is necessary to introduce two composite Higgs bosons: one of them originated by a MWT-ETC sector and the other one produced by a Topcolor sector. We focus on the phenomenological differences between the light composite Higgs present in our model and the fundamental Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model and their production at the LHC. We show that in this scheme the main production channel of the lighter Higgs boson are the associated production with a gauge boson and WW fusion but not the gluon-gluon fusion channel which is substantially suppressed. 1 Introduction arXiv:0907.4690v3 [hep-ph] 25 Dec 2009 High Energy Physics is at the dawn of a new era. In the very near future the LHC will allow us to explore, for the first time, the physics responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking. We are quite sure that something different to the minimal Higgs sector of the Standard Model will be found, but the conjectured alternatives, far from being unique, are varied and very different among them, going from Higgsless models to Supersymmetry.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Not the Hierarchy Problem (Of the SM Higgs)
    What is not the hierarchy problem (of the SM Higgs) Matěj Hudec Výjezdní seminář ÚČJF Malá Skála, 12 Apr 2019, lunchtime Our ecological footprint he FuFnu wni twhit th the ggs AbAebliealina nH iHiggs mmodoedlel ký MM. M. Maalinlinsský 5 (2013) EEPPJJCC 7 733, ,2 244115 (2013) 660 aarrXXiivv::11221122..44660 12 pgs. 2 Our ecological footprint the Aspects of FuFnu wni twhith the Aspects of ggs renormalization AbAebliealina nH iHiggs renormalization of spontaneously mmodoedlel of spontaneously broken gauge broken gauge theories theories ký MM. M. Maalinlinsský MASTER THESIS MASTER THESIS M. H. M. H. 5 (2013) supervised by M.M. EEPPJJCC 7 733, ,2 244115 (2013) supervised by M.M. iv:1212.4660 2016 aarrXXiv:1212.4660 2016 12 pgs. 56 pgs. 3 Our ecological footprint Aspects of Fun with the H Fun with the Aspects of ierarchy and n Higgs renormalization AbAebliealian Higgs renormalization dHecoup of spontaneously ierarclhing mmodoedlel of spontaneously y and broken gauge decoup broken gauge ling theories theories M. Hudec, M. Malinský M M. Malinský MASTER THESIS .M M. alinský MASTER THESIS Hudec, M. M M. H. alinský M. H. (hopeful 5 (2013) supervised by M.M. ly EPJC) EEPPJJCC 7 733, ,2 244115 (2013) supervised by M.M. arX (hopef iv:190u2lly. 0EPJ 12.4660 2016 4C4) 70 aarrXXiivv::112212.4660 a 2016 rXiv:190 2.04470 12 pgs. 56 pgs. 17 pgs. 4 Hierarchy problem – first thoughts 5 Hierarchy problem – first thoughts In particle physics, the hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. 6 Hierarchy problem – first thoughts In particle physics, the hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Higgs Bosons Strongly Coupled to the Top Quark
    CERN-TH/97-331 SLAC-PUB-7703 hep-ph/9711410 November 1997 Higgs Bosons Strongly Coupled to the Top Quark Michael Spiraa and James D. Wellsb aCERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland bStanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309† Abstract Several extensions of the Standard Model require the burden of electroweak sym- metry breaking to be shared by multiple states or sectors. This leads to the possibility of the top quark interacting with a scalar more strongly than it does with the Stan- dard Model Higgs boson. In top-quark condensation this possibility is natural. We also discuss how this might be realized in supersymmetric theories. The properties of a strongly coupled Higgs boson in top-quark condensation and supersymmetry are described. We comment on the difficulties of seeing such a state at the Tevatron and LEPII, and study the dramatic signatures it could produce at the LHC. The four top quark signature is especially useful in the search for a strongly coupled Higgs boson. We also calculate the rates of the more conventional Higgs boson signatures at the LHC, including the two photon and four lepton signals, and compare them to expectations in the Standard Model. CERN-TH/97-331 SLAC-PUB-7703 hep-ph/9711410 November 1997 †Work supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. 1 Introduction Electroweak symmetry breaking and fermion mass generation are both not understood. The Standard Model (SM) with one Higgs scalar doublet is the simplest mechanism one can envision. The strongest arguments in support of the Standard Model Higgs mechanism is that no experiment presently refutes it, and that it allows both fermion masses and electroweak symmetry breaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Model-Independent Constraints on Topcolor from Rb
    MADPH-97-984 TUM-HEP-267/97 hep-ph/9702265 Model-independent Constraints on Topcolor from Rb Gustavo Burdman∗ Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA and Dimitris Kominis† Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit¨at M¨unchen, James-Franck-Straße, 85748 Garching, Germany Abstract arXiv:hep-ph/9702265v2 8 May 1997 We identify and compute the main corrections to Rb in Topcolor theories. They are due to the top-pions, the pseudo-Goldstone bosons associated with the chiral symmetry breaking responsible for the top quark mass, and amount to (1 4)%, − − independent of the details of the Topcolor model. We show that the cancellation of this effect against the contributions from Topcolor vector and scalar resonances is unlikely, given the inherently distinct character of the two scales governing the potentially cancelling terms. The resulting value of Rb leads to severe constraints on Topcolor theories. ∗e-mail address: [email protected] †e-mail address: [email protected] 1 Introduction The large value of the top-quark mass has led to speculation that the properties of the top quark may be fundamentally different from those of the other known fermions. In theories of top condensation, for example, a new strong gauge interaction (Topcolor), which couples to the t-quark and perhaps to other fermions as well, drives the formation of a tt¯ condensate and imparts a large dynamical mass to the top quark. In the process, h i the chiral symmetries associated with the strongly interacting fermions are spontaneously broken and at least three Goldstone bosons emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Electric Dipole Moments and Cp Violation
    261 ATOMIC ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS AND CP VIOLATION S.M.Barr Bartol Research Institute University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 USA Abstract The subject of atomic electric dipole moments, the rapid recent progress in searching for them, and their significance for fundamental issues in particle theory is surveyed. particular it is shown how the edms of different kinds of atoms and molecules, as well Inas of the neutron, give vital information on the nature and origin of CP violation. Special stress is laid on supersymmetric theories and their consequences. 262 I. INTRODUCTION In this talk I am going to discuss atomic and molecular electric dipole moments (edms) from a particle theorist's point of view. The first and fundamental point is that permanent electric dipole moments violate both P and T. If we assume, as we are entitled to do, that OPT is conserved then we may speak equivalently of T-violation and OP-violation. I will mostly use the latter designation. That a permanent edm violates T is easily shown. Consider a proton. It has a magnetic dipole moment oriented along its spin axis. Suppose it also has an electric edm oriented, say, parallel to the magnetic dipole. Under T the electric dipole is not changed, as the spatial charge distribution is unaffected. But the magnetic dipole changes sign because current flows are reversed by T. Thus T takes a proton with parallel electric and magnetic dipoles into one with antiparallel moments. Now, if T is assumed to be an exact symmetry these two experimentally distinguishable kinds of proton will have the same mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Outlook Post-Higgs
    Outlook Post-Higgs Christopher T. Hill Fermilab UCLA Higgs Workshop March 22, 2013 A dynamical “Higgs” mechanism was supposed to explain the origin of electroweak mass A dynamical “Higgs” mechanism was supposed to explain the origin of electroweak mass We now know that, evidently, a fundamental Higgs Boson exists and explains the masses of quarks, leptons, W and Z A dynamical “Higgs” mechanism was supposed to explain the origin of electroweak mass We now know that, evidently, a fundamental Higgs Boson exists and explains the masses of quarks, leptons, W and Z The Higgs Boson does NOT explain the origin of the electroweak mass-scale A dynamical “Higgs” mechanism was supposed to explain the origin of electroweak mass We now know that, evidently, a fundamental Higgs Boson exists and explains the masses of quarks, leptons, W and Z The Higgs Boson does NOT explain the origin of the electroweak mass-scale i.e., what is the origin of the Higgs Boson mass itself? A dynamical “Higgs” mechanism was supposed to explain the origin of electroweak mass We now know that, evidently, a fundamental Higgs Boson exists and explains the masses of quarks, leptons, W and Z The Higgs Boson does NOT explain the origin of the electroweak mass-scale i.e., what is the origin of the Higgs Boson mass itself? This may present opportunities for a deeper understanding QCD beautifully explains the origin of strong mass : The magnificent scale anomaly: The scale current: = 0 in a scale invariant theory The magnificent scale anomaly: The scale current: = 0 in a scale invariant
    [Show full text]