DOCSLIB.ORG

Hierarchy of Hierarchies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Hierarchy of HIerarchies Michael Dine Department of Physics University of California, Santa Cruz Northeastern University, in Honor of Pran Nath, May, 2019 Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Princeton, 1982 Remember preprints? I won’t forget the arrival of a preprint at IAS by Arnowitt, Chamseddine and Nath, explaining how to think about supersymmetry and its breaking within the framework of supergravity. It was not aligned with my thinking at that moment, and I was very skeptical. On point after point, I was sure that they could not be correct, and each time, after some thought, I realized they were. That paper changed my understanding not just of supergravity but of the role of effective field theory in understanding loow energy effective field theory. From that time on, Pran has been a leader in the subject of supersymmetry, its phenomenology, and the study of its emergence in low energy effective field theories, and I want to acknowledge my debt to Pran today. Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies VOLUME 49, NUMBER 14 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS $ QCTOBER 1982 symmetry. Brodsky, to be published. (11) I ocal gauge theory exposes an intimate 4Apart from the (p. q) ~ factors the convection terms relationship between internal symmetry and space- are of order q while in the usual cases the spin and contact terms are linear in When Dirac or vector time. Null zones, including the ancient dipole re- q. particles encounter a derivative coupling involving sult, show another face of this relationship, lead- their own field, quadratic terms appear and generally ing to more equations involving the internal vari- these violate the theorem. An important exception ables (e.g. , charge) and space-time (e.g. , mass- occurs for the Y~&g-Mills vertex, where a cancellation es and angles). occurs due to the cyclic nature of the gauge coupling. One of us (R.W.B.) is grateful for the hospitality ~The appearance of the current differences is easy of the theory group at Fermilab and for the sup- to understand by a complementary version of the theo- port of the National Science Foundation. We are rem. Namely, suppose that all of the j;/p; q factors were then vanishes charge conserva- indebted to Ken Kowalski for his help with phys- equal, M~(Vz) by tion, if we define all particles as outgoing. and his suggestions for the manuscript. ics D. R. Yennie, Lectures on Strong and E/ectxomag- netic Interactions (Brandeis, Massachusetts, 1963); J. D. Jackson, C/assica/ E/ect~odynamics (Wiley, New &'~On leave from Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, York, 1975), Chap. 14 and 15. Stanford University, Stanford, Cal. 94305. YR. W. Brown, D. Sahdev, and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. & ~On leave from Case Western Reserve University, Rev. D 20, 1164 (1979). Cleveland, Ohio 44106. K. O. Mikaelian, M. A. Samuel, and D. Sahdev, Phys. We mean by this that the couplings involve no deriva- Rev. Lett. 43, 746 (1979). tives of Dirac fields and at most single derivatives of C. J. Goebel, F. Halzen, and J. P. Leveille, Phys. scalar and vector fields. Products of single derivatives Rev. D 23, 2682 (1981). Equation (8) can be shown to of distinct scalar fields are allowed. All vector deriva- agree with the factorization formula of this reference tive couplings must be of the Yang-Mills trilinear vari- for @=3, ety or products thereof. Such couplings include all re- Zhu Dorgpei, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2266 (1980). normalizable theories of current physical interest as "V. Bargmann, L. Michel, and V. L. Telegdi, Phys. weIl as an infinite class of nonrenormalizable theories Rev. Lett. 2, 435 (1959); S. J. Brodsky and J. R. Pri- corresponding to unrestricted numbers of fields. mack, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 52, 315 (1969). 2Attachments are made onto all charged lines and ' C. H. Llewellyn-Smith, Phys. Lett. 46B, 233 onto vertices with derivative couplings (seagulls). (1973); J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and T. Tiktopou- 3A much more detailed discussion will be presented los, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1268 (1978), and 31, 572(E) elsewhere: R. W. Brown, K. L. Kowalski, and S. J. (1973). Locally Snpersymmetric Grand Unification A. H. Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt, and Pran Nath Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts OZ115 (Received 12 July 1982) A locally supersymmetric grand unification program is proposed which couples the N = 1 supergravity multiplet to an arbitrary grand unified gauge group with any number of left-handed chiral multiplets and a gauge vector multiplet. A specific model is dis- cussed where it is shown that not only do the gravitational interactions eliminate the degeneracy of the vacuum state encountered in global supersymmetry, but simultaneous- ly they can. break both supersymmetry and SU(2) (3 U(1) down to a residual SU(3)'(m U(1) symmetry at 300 GeV. PA CS numbers: 12.10.En Recently much interest has been devoted to paper we propose a new type of supersymmetric supersymmetric grand unified theories. ' ' All grand unified model based on local supersym- existing supersymmetric grand unified models metry. We consider here N =1 supergravity' are based on global supersymmetry. In such coupled to left-handed chiral scalar' and gauge theories it is generally easy to break spontaneous- multiplets. ' We will see that the supergravity ly the internal, e.g. , SU(5), symmetry, but more couplings automatically produce a spontaneous difficult to break supersymmetry itself. In this breaking which removes the degeneracy of the 970 1982 The American Physical Society Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies The present moment: May, 2019 We have been obsessed with three hierarchy problems for several decades. 1 The weak scale hierarchy 2 The cosmological constant problem 3 The strong CP problem Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies There are other problems, which might fit in this list: Origin of the dark matter. Could be tied to one of the other problems (e.g. WIMPs in susy, axions for strong CP). Inflation: slow roll requires surprisingly light fields; possibly new, finely tuned scale; fine tuning to obtain sufficiently flat potential. Perhaps supersymmetry or compositeness? Alternatively, these might introduce their own independent hierarchies. We will not focus on these in this talk. Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies For each of these problems, proposed solutions: 1 Weak scale hierarchy: supersymmetry, dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking (technicolor, and variations), warped spaces, little Higgs, twin Higgs; dynamical explanations (“relaxion") 2 The strong CP problem: axions, mu = 0, Spontaneous CP violation (Nelson-Barr mechanism) 3 Cosmological constant problem: anthropic explanation, others(?) Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Hierarchical ordering of hierarchies: Operator dimension. Lower dimension ) more finely tuned: 1 Cosmological constant: Dimension 0 2 Higgs mass: Dimension 2 3 FF~: Dimension 4 Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Anthropic Hierarchy Given that the anthropic principle has raised its ugly head, it’s interesting to consider: which of these problems might most plausibly be solved by anthropic considerations: Ranking of problems by their potential anthropic significance: 1 Cosmological constant: must be small (everything else fixed) to satisfy the most primitive conditions for intelligent observers (existence of structure in the universe) 2 Weak scale hierarchy: might be solved anthropically, perhaps by demand of details required for carbon-based life (e.g. stellar processes) (Dimopoulos et al: “atomic principle") 3 θ: Hard to see significant consequence for existence of observers. θ ∼ 0:1 little consequence for stellar processes, nuclear physics,...(Ubaldi). I will discuss a recent suggestion of Kaloper/Terning. Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Experimental Access to Natural Solutions Again, a hierarchy of how accessible these problems and their natural solutions might be to experimental test: 1 Cosmological constant: no compelling natural solution. Not clear what to search for. 2 Weak scale hierarchy: If susy, and if not significantly tuned, accessible to accelerators. At this point, much of parameter space excluded. Higgs mass troubling. In a simple-minded approach, points to scale of order 30 TeV or so. Probably have to live with significant tuning if SUSY plays any role. Alternatives to SUSY don’t fare much better. 3 Strong CP: Challenging. If dark matter produced in simplest cosmology, may be accessible to ADMX, other experiments. Lighter axions: proposals for search strategies. ADMX; other proposed searches will gradually sweep out parts of the parameter space. Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Outline and plan: 1 The biggest problem: the c.c. Landscape/anthropic solutions. 2 Challenges to the traditional view of the electroweak hierarchy. Frame mainly in terms of supersymmetry. 3 Supersymmetry in a landscape – arguments against. 4 Supersymmetry in a landscape – an argument for. 5 Strong CP: a challenge to the landscape program Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies The Cosmological Constant Problem Within our hierarchy of hierarchies, the cosmological constant problem stands at the top. Because it involves contributions to the unit operator, it exhibits the most severe tuning. Because without (unbroken) supersymmetry, no known symmetry protects the cosmological constant, no (compelling) natural solution has been put forward. With supersymmetry, vanishing cosmological constant results from supersymmetry if: 1 Supersymmetry is unbroken 2 There is an unbroken R symmetry. In nature, supersymmetry is clearly badly broken. It is hard to see how supersymmetry can account naturally for a cosmological constant as small as we observe. Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Anthropic solution of the cosmological constant: Weinberg with some updating Suppose the underlying theory (string theory(?)) possesses a vast number of (metastable) ground states. Among these, the cosmological constant is a random variable. Other constants of nature also presumably vary (“scan"). Consider that set where all other constants are as we observe, but the c.c. varies. Somehow (cosmologically) the universe samples all of these “vacua". Michael Dine Hierarchy of HIerarchies Weinberg (1987): Most of these universes will not contain intelligent observers.
Recommended publications
  • Symmetry and Gravity

    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.

  • 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.
  • The Pev-Scale Split Supersymmetry from Higgs Mass and Electroweak Vacuum Stability

    The Pev-Scale Split Supersymmetry from Higgs Mass and Electroweak Vacuum Stability

    The PeV-Scale Split Supersymmetry from Higgs Mass and Electroweak Vacuum Stability Waqas Ahmed ? 1, Adeel Mansha ? 2, Tianjun Li ? ~ 3, Shabbar Raza ∗ 4, Joydeep Roy ? 5, Fang-Zhou Xu ? 6, ? CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, P. R. China ~School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing 100049, P. R. China ∗ Department of Physics, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi 75300, Pakistan Institute of Modern Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China Abstract The null results of the LHC searches have put strong bounds on new physics scenario such as supersymmetry (SUSY). With the latest values of top quark mass and strong coupling, we study the upper bounds on the sfermion masses in Split-SUSY from the observed Higgs boson mass and electroweak (EW) vacuum stability. To be consistent with the observed Higgs mass, we find that the largest value of supersymmetry breaking 3 1:5 scales MS for tan β = 2 and tan β = 4 are O(10 TeV) and O(10 TeV) respectively, thus putting an upper bound on the sfermion masses around 103 TeV. In addition, the Higgs quartic coupling becomes negative at much lower scale than the Standard Model (SM), and we extract the upper bound of O(104 TeV) on the sfermion masses from EW vacuum stability. Therefore, we obtain the PeV-Scale Split-SUSY. The key point is the extra contributions to the Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) running from arXiv:1901.05278v1 [hep-ph] 16 Jan 2019 the couplings among Higgs boson, Higgsinos, and gauginos.
  • Naturalness and New Approaches to the Hierarchy Problem

    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.
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    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.
  • Solving the Hierarchy Problem

    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.
  • 2018 APS Prize and Award Recipients

    2018 APS Prize and Award Recipients

    APS Announces 2018 Prize and Award Recipients The APS would like to congratulate the recipients of these APS prizes and awards. They will be presented during APS award ceremonies throughout the year. Both March and April meeting award ceremonies are open to all APS members and their guests. At the March Meeting, the APS Prizes and Awards Ceremony will be held Monday, March 5, 5:45 - 6:45 p.m. at the Los Angeles Convention Center (LACC) in Los Angeles, CA. At the April Meeting, the APS Prizes and Awards Ceremony will be held Sunday, April 15, 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Columbus, OH. In addition to the award ceremonies, most prize and award recipients will give invited talks during the meeting. Some recipients of prizes, awards are recognized at APS unit meetings. For the schedule of APS meetings, please visit http://www.aps.org/meetings/calendar.cfm. Nominations are open for most 2019 prizes and awards. We encourage members to nominate their highly-qualified peers, and to consider broadening the diversity and depth of the nomination pool from which honorees are selected. For nomination submission instructions, please visit the APS web site (http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/index.cfm). Prizes 2018 APS MEDAL FOR EXCELLENCE IN PHYSICS 2018 PRIZE FOR A FACULTY MEMBER FOR RESEARCH IN AN UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION Eugene N. Parker University of Chicago Warren F. Rogers In recognition of many fundamental contributions to space physics, Indiana Wesleyan University plasma physics, solar physics and astrophysics for over 60 years.
  • What Is Not the Hierarchy Problem (Of the SM Higgs)

    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.
  • Gravity Waves and Proton Decay in a Flipped SU(5) Hybrid Inflation Model

    Gravity Waves and Proton Decay in a Flipped SU(5) Hybrid Inflation Model

    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 97, 123522 (2018) Gravity waves and proton decay in a flipped SU(5) hybrid inflation model † ‡ Mansoor Ur Rehman,1,* Qaisar Shafi,2, and Umer Zubair2, 1Department of Physics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan 2Bartol Research Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA (Received 10 April 2018; published 14 June 2018) We revisit supersymmetric hybrid inflation in the context of the flipped SUð5Þ model. With minimal superpotential and minimal Kähler potential, and soft supersymmetry (SUSY) masses of order (1–100) TeV, compatibility with the Planck data yields a symmetry breaking scale M of flipped SUð5Þ close to ð2–4Þ × 1015 GeV. This disagrees with the lower limit M ≳ 7 × 1015 GeV set from proton decay searches by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration. We show how M close to the unification scale 2 × 1016 GeV can be reconciled with SUSY hybrid inflation by employing a nonminimal Kähler potential. Proton decays into eþπ0 with an estimated lifetime of order 1036 years. The tensor to scalar ratio r in this case can approach observable values ∼10−4–10−3. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123522 I. INTRODUCTION flipped SUð5Þ gauge group see [9] where each of two hybrid fields is shown to realize inflation. For no-scale The supersymmetric (SUSY) hybrid inflation model 5 – SUSY flipped SUð Þ models of inflation see [10,11]. [1 5] has attracted a fair amount of attention due to its 5 ≡ 5 1 The flipped SUð Þ SUð Þ × Uð ÞX model [12,13] simplicity and elegance in realizing the grand unified exhibits many remarkable features and constitutes an attrac- theory (GUT) models of inflation [5].
  • Grand Unification and Proton Decay

    Grand Unification and Proton Decay

    Grand Unification and Proton Decay Borut Bajc J. Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 0 Reminder This is written for a series of 4 lectures at ICTP Summer School 2011. The choice of topics and the references are biased. This is not a review on the sub- ject or a correct historical overview. The quotations I mention are incomplete and chosen merely for further reading. There are some good books and reviews on the market. Among others I would mention [1, 2, 3, 4]. 1 Introduction to grand unification Let us first remember some of the shortcomings of the SM: • too many gauge couplings The (MS)SM has 3 gauge interactions described by the corresponding carriers a i Gµ (a = 1 ::: 8) ;Wµ (i = 1 ::: 3) ;Bµ (1) • too many representations It has 5 different matter representations (with a total of 15 Weyl fermions) for each generation Q ; L ; uc ; dc ; ec (2) • too many different Yukawa couplings It has also three types of Ng × Ng (Ng is the number of generations, at the moment believed to be 3) Yukawa matrices 1 c c ∗ c ∗ LY = u YU QH + d YDQH + e YELH + h:c: (3) This notation is highly symbolic. It means actually cT αa b cT αa ∗ cT a ∗ uαkiσ2 (YU )kl Ql abH +dαkiσ2 (YD)kl Ql Ha +ek iσ2 (YE)kl Ll Ha (4) where we denoted by a; b = 1; 2 the SU(2)L indices, by α; β = 1 ::: 3 the SU(3)C indices, by k; l = 1;:::Ng the generation indices, and where iσ2 provides Lorentz invariants between two spinors.
  • Atomic Electric Dipole Moments and Cp Violation

    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.
  • TASI Lectures on Emergence of Supersymmetry, Gauge Theory And

    TASI Lectures on Emergence of Supersymmetry, Gauge Theory And

    TASI Lectures on Emergence of Supersymmetry, Gauge Theory and String in Condensed Matter Systems Sung-Sik Lee1,2 1Department of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., Hamilton ON L8S4M1, Canada 2Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St. N., Waterloo ON N2L2Y5, Canada Abstract The lecture note consists of four parts. In the first part, we review a 2+1 dimen- sional lattice model which realizes emergent supersymmetry at a quantum critical point. The second part is devoted to a phenomenon called fractionalization where gauge boson and fractionalized particles emerge as low energy excitations as a result of strong interactions between gauge neutral particles. In the third part, we discuss about stability and low energy effective theory of a critical spin liquid state where stringy excitations emerge in a large N limit. In the last part, we discuss about an attempt to come up with a prescription to derive holographic theory for general quantum field theory. arXiv:1009.5127v2 [hep-th] 16 Dec 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Emergent supersymmetry 2 2.1 Emergence of (bosonic) space-time symmetry . .... 3 2.2 Emergentsupersymmetry . .. .. 4 2.2.1 Model ................................... 5 2.2.2 RGflow .................................. 7 3 Emergent gauge theory 10 3.1 Model ....................................... 10 3.2 Slave-particletheory ............................... 10 3.3 Worldlinepicture................................. 12 4 Critical spin liquid with Fermi surface 14 4.1 Fromspinmodeltogaugetheory . 14 4.1.1 Slave-particle approach to spin-liquid states . 14 4.1.2 Stability of deconfinement phase in the presence of Fermi surface... 16 4.2 Lowenergyeffectivetheory . .. .. 17 4.2.1 Failure of a perturbative 1/N expansion ...............