arXiv:2106.07181v3 [hep-ph] 2 Sep 2021 lcrwa cl tblzto navleo bu 100 about of parameter value of negative a problem The on the GeV. and stabilization parameter scale this electroweak with associated prob- hierarchy lem the theory, the into introduced artificially at arwn h ag fprmtr rcoigsome physics. closing new or for parameters variants although impor- of possible negative, extremely range the still are narrowing are themselves tant, manifestations LHC results for the negative new search at what these the physics course, of of new results closest or, of The the physics, either new is. know, of physics not scale do SM we the ac- Today to new and, the with gone. discovered, of boson is been magnitude Higgs scale the has The about GeV TeV. argument 125 the 1 cordingly, about of of order physics mass the new a of of appearance scale the a and on regime suffi- of smaller a change mass a of a or with existence two boson the Higgs only light either ciently that possible: asserted were unitarity, situations perturbative require- the of and ment bosons longitudinal SM electroweak of massive of amplitudes of analysis scattering modes the an of on behavior based the which, [6–9], unclear. EW No-Lose-Theorem remain corresponding GeV the 100 of of order magnitude the the of as scale ori- well its but as electroweak [3–5]), gin spontaneous BEH (mechanism of breaking mechanism symmetry the of alization h rbe ftengtv asparameter mass negative the of problem the matter, dark neu- etc. and of trinos, oscillations energy and mass dark asym- constant, cosmological lepton Universe, observed small and of the baryon number in as a metries such explain nature, to de- in unable How- phenomena in is known. SM SM well the the are ever, of experiments in successes space decay and and The production terrestrial particle 2]. of processes bo- [1, the Higgs LHC scribing the the of discovery at the son with conclusion reached logical symmetry, its electroweak of breaking spontaneous eaewl wr htteei tlatoesaethat scale one least at is there that aware well are We so-called the was there LHC, the of launch the Before hr r oeitra rbeso h M uhas such SM, the of problems internal some are There with theory field gauge quantum Model, Standard The kblsnIsiueo ula hsc,LmnsvMoscow Lomonosov Physics, Nuclear of Institute Skobeltsyn hsseai rmmte ed noeo osbysvrlin several possibly or one one. on lowest coefficient fields and mixing one matter the from electrow to scenario the and proportional this scale thi factors Planck In small mod the several portals. simple example scalar a for using present symmetr scales, levels We energy induced the levels. between subsequent mixing the several small between a of mixtures is chain small breaking a by symmetry to spontaneous leads scenario, which of type this In h ril icse cnrobsdo h dao induced of idea the on based scenario a discusses article The INTRODUCTION nue pnaeu ymtybekn chain breaking symmetry spontaneous Induced µ 2 sncsayfrtere- the for necessary is µ ∼ 2 0 GeV, 700 = −| dadBoos Eduard µ 2 | , ssgicnl agrta h lcrwa cl.Ti is This scale. scale electroweak Planck the the than larger significantly is nteseswmcaim h scale the based mechanism, particular, in see-saw physics, the or neutrino on of equal models become In constants close. coupling strong and troweak ymti rsrn oiae eeaiain,predict generalizations, super- scale motivated the their string models, or Unification symmetric Grand inter- other of scales. presence mediate the predict Model Standard the of akmte D)wtotcnrdcigeitn data existing describe contradicting to without one allow (DM) SM, matter the sim- dark of the extensions being portal portals, scalar plest with Models portals. scalar chain). the in (links theories levels between intermediate parameters (EW) at to mixing proportional small electroweak coefficient of the a product by say the related are level, SM the lowest of the scale of scale the etePac cl,teei eaiems parameter mass can negative it a scale, is highest there the µ scale, at be Planck can theory the transitions the be phase in of Only chain In a realized. scenario, breaking. of symmetry type spontaneous this induced of idea the very remains scales smaller oc- to transitions large the unclear. from phase move to how we answer and 10 as cur what the of exactly However, order of the admissible. question with of quite models are scales in TeV dimensions, or models space-time supersymmetric extra In appears. fteter ttelws ee.I hsseai,the scale scenario, Plank this the In say level, level. highest lowest the the of particles at scale the is theory with chain interact the the scale the- of intermediate in the this of link at particles certain far- ory hypothetical a the the weaker that link the fact lowest located, the the to the pa- lead from chain on mixing ther the (theories Small in links scales) nearest mixing. nearest two small the rather between a through rameters scale) with nearest the to portal at connects a theory scale) given (i.e. a link at adjacent theory an chain transition (i.e. a link this in one high- which and transitions in subsequent this occurs, causes At transition mixing phase through gravity. a quantum scale, of est effects nonlinear to 2 h etscinpeet ipemdlbsdon based model simple a presents section next The hssotlte rpssasml cnrobsdon based scenario simple a proposes letter short This osbytengtv ino hsprmtri due is parameter this of sign negative the Possibly . ∗ prah h ag ieec between difference large the approach, s .Dr atrfilscnb omdin formed be can fields matter Dark s. tt nvriy 191 Moscow,Russia 119991, University, State a cl,ocr u otepoutof product the to due occurs scale, eak emdaelvl ewe h highest the between levels termediate ∼ smda oehgeteeg level, energy highest some at ssumed iltosa oe eescaused levels lower at violations y 10 li hc h dai elzdby realized is idea the which in el pnaeu ymtybreaking. symmetry spontaneous 15 ÷ ∼ 10 10 16 19 e,o hc h unn elec- running the which on GeV, e.Nt htmn extensions many that Note GeV. ∼ 10 11 ÷ M 10 l P 12 GeV and 2
2 and theoretical bounds in certain areas of the parameter case, due to the mixing, the induced parameter µN−1 = 2 space of these models [10–36]. For a detailed overview of −kN−1N vN /2 appears at the previous step of the chain. the Higgs portal model in connection with DM, includ- With a positive mixing coefficient kN−1,N at thise level ing various experimental restrictions, see [34]. Higgs and spontaneous breaking occurs, the boson hN−1 gets mass scalar portals, their DM and cosmological implications 2 2 kN−1N 2 are summarized in the recent review [37]. In the pre- mN−1 ≃ kN−1N vN ≃ mN , (4) sented scenario with a chain of scalar portal models with 2λN spontaneously induced symmetry breaking, there can ob- 2 and the parameter µN−2 is induced being proportional viously be candidates for dark matter particles, possibly to the mixing coefficient kN−2N−1 between levels N − 1 from different levels of the chain, due to the larger num- and N − 2 of the chain.e This process continues and, as ber of parameters in hand that are usually discussed. a result, at the first step of the chain, the h1-boson mass appears
SIMPLE MODEL 2 k12 k23 kN−1N 2 m1 ≃ ... mN (5) 2λ2 2λ3 2λN Consider the Lagrangian of a model that describes a with the induced vacuum expectation value chain of complex scalar fields with mixing between the nearest neighbors: 2 k12 k23 kN−1N 2 v1 ≃ ... vN (6) 2λ1 2λ2 2λN−1
(1) † (1)ν 2 † † 2 As one can see, the vacuum expectation value v1 and the L = (Dν H1) (D H1) − µ1H1 H1 − λ1(H1 H1) (1) † † Higgs mass m1 can be significantly smaller than the scale + LF ields(1) + k12(H H1)(H H2) 1 2 vN and the mass mN , respectively, due to the product (2) † (2)ν 2 † † 2 +(Dν H2) (D H2) − µ2H2 H2 − λ2(H2 H2) of a number of factors proportional to small mixing co- † † efficients. This observation could explain the hierarchy + LF ields(2) + k23(H2 H2)(H3 H3) between a small scale of the order of v1 and a very large ... scale of the order of vN . The scalar field potentials before (N−1) † (N−1)ν 2 † +(Dν HN−1) (D HN−1) − µN−1HN−1HN−1 and after spontaneous symmetry breaking corresponding † 2 to the discussed scenario are illustrated in Fig. 1. −λN−1(H HN−1) N−1 If we match the smallest vacuum expectation value † † + LF ields(N−1) + kN−1,N (HN−1HN−1)(HN HN ) v1 in the chain with the vacuum expectation value of (N) † (N)ν 2 † † 2 the Standard Model vSM (v1 = vSM ) , the mass m1 + (Dν HN ) (D HN ) − µN HN HN − λN (HN N) of the boson h1 with the SM Higgs boson mass MhSM + LF ields(N), (m1 = MhSM ), and the coupling λ1 with the SM quartic (l) coupling λSM (λ1 = λSM ), the SM relation must take where H1, ..., HN are the complex scalar fields, Dν = (l) (l) (l) place: ∂ν − ig Vν is the covariant derivative, Vν is a gauge field interacting with the scalar field H , and L is 2 2 l F ields(l) MhSM = 2λSM vSM . (7) the Lagrangian of some other fields at the level or link with number l =1,...,N. It is easy to see that, if we divide the left- and right-hand 2 sides of eq. (5) by the left- and right-hand sides of eq. (6), Suppose all coefficients µl except one are equal to zero 2 2 2 correspondingly, then taking into account eq. (7) we get µ1 = µ2 = ... = µN−1 = 0 and only the last coefficient is nonzero µ2 6= 0 and has a negative value µ2 = − | µ2 |. N N N m2 Let also all mixing parameters between the theories at N 2λN = 2 , the adjacent levels (links in the chain) be small, namely: vN
k k k k kN N kN N which exactly matches eq. (3), as it should. 12 , 12 , 23 , 23 , ..., −1 −1 ≪ 1. (2) λ1 λ2 λ2 λ3 λN−1 λN Suppose that the largest scale in the chain vN and the corresponding mass m are of the order of Planck scale The exact formulas for the case of two generations as N ∼ 1019 GeV. Then the product of the factors well as a proof of the diagonalization of the mass matrix
N × N are given in the Appendix. ε12 · ε23 ... · εi i+1 ... · εN−1 N , (8) The boson hN at the last step of the chain acquires the mass ki i+1 −17 −16 where εi i+1 = 2λi , should be about 10 ÷10 as- 2 2 m ≃ 2λN v , (3) suming that theq scale v1 is of the order of the electroweak N N 2 2 scale ∼ 10 GeV. 2 |µN | where vN = λN as a result of the usual mechanism The model (1) is renormalizable if the Lagrangians of spontaneous symmetry breaking BEH [3–5]. In this LF ields(i), i=1,...,N involve the operators with dimension 3 "Plank"
φN φN
vN
φN-1 φN-1
vN-1 ≈ εN-1N vN
"EW"
φ1 φ1
v1 ≈ ε12 v2
FIG. 1. Illustrative form of potentials before and after spontaneous symmetry breaking induced at the lower levels by symmetry breaking at the highest level. The lowest level corresponds to the smallest scale, and is designated conventionally as electroweak (”EW”). The uppermost level corresponds to the largest scale, and is conventionally designated as the Planck scale (”Plank”).
4 or less. On may expect a serious hierarchy problem CONCLUSION appearing in the model. Indeed, the correction to the mass squared of the scalar h1 from the loop contribution In this short letter, we discuss a scenario in which a of the scalar hi is proportional to spontaneous symmetry breaking or spontaneous phase transition occurs at some large energy scale. Due to a 2 2 2 mi · log(mi /m1) low mixing, such a phase transition leads to an induced symmetry breaking at some smaller induced scale, which, in turn, due to the next mixing leads to the next induced leading to a very large shift. However in the model symmetry breaking at an even smaller scale, and so on. (1) after the diagonalization the interaction vertex of The result is a chain of induced spontaneous symmetry the scalars h1 and hi contains the coupling constant breaking scales. In such a scenario, the large difference ε12 · ... · εi−1 i. Therefore, the loop contribution is pro- between the largest and smallest scales is due to the prod- portional to uct of several small factors proportional to the small mix- ing coefficients, but each of these factors may not be that k12 ki−1i 2 2 2 2 2 2 small. ... · mi · log(mi /m1) ≃ m1 · log(mi /m1), 2λ2 2λN In each level of induced symmetry breaking there might be its own gauge theory. Obviously that the interactions demonstrating that the little hierarchy problem does not of particles at some level with particles at the lowest level show up in the model under consideration. The same ar- will be smaller and smaller for higher and higher levels gument also holds for the case with possible loop contri- being proportional to smaller and smaller mixing coeffi- butions to the scalar h1 mass parameter related to some cients. Once the interactions get small enough particles other fields from LF ields(i) when the potentially large cor- at the corresponding level may play a role of Dark matter rection is suppressed by the product of small mixing pa- particles. rameters. We give an example of a very simple model in which 4 small mixing between the levels in a chain of spontaneous for the masses squared of eigenstates: gauge symmetry breaking is due to scalar portals. As m2 = (12) some speculation, an example is given that the difference 1,2 between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale can 2 2 k12 k12 k12 k12 2 be due to about nine or five induced spontaneous transi- λ2 + ∓ λ2 1 − + 2 v2. 2 s 2λ2 2λ1 λ tions, assuming the same order of small coefficients 10−2 2 −4 and 10 , respectively. Assuming Obviously, that having several levels weaker and k k weaker interacting with the first level associated with 12 , 12 ≪ 1 the SM, Dark matter might be easily accumulated at far λ1 λ2 enough levels with small enough couplings to the SM via one gets the following values for the masses: such a multi-portal scenario. 2 2 2 2 We considered an example of a chain with mixing be- m2 =2λ2v2 , m1 = k12 v2 (13) tween the nearest neighbors, i.e. theories at the adjacent in complete agreement with the eqs. (3) and (4). levels connected by mixing through scalar portals. Of The mixing matrix corresponding to the above exam- course, one can think about more complex mixing not ple with two levels looks as follows: only with the nearest neighbors and not only through scalar portals. In this case, more complex chains with branching and more complex mixing arise. 2 2λ1v1 −k12v1v2 −k v v 2λ v2 12 1 2 2 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is easily generalized to the model given in (1). The mixing matrix has the following form: I am grateful to Sergey Keyzerov and Igor Volobuev for useful discussions. The study was supported by RFBR and CNRS grant 20-52-15005. The research has been done in the framework of the Interdisciplinary Scientific x11 x12 00 0 ... 0 x x x 0 0 ... 0 and Educational School of Moscow University ”Funda- 21 22 23 mental and Applied Space Research”. 0 x32 x33 x34 0 ... 0 ...... 0 0 ... 0 xN N xN N xN N −2 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 0 0 ... 0 xNN−1 xNN APPENDIX ,
Let the chain contains two levels only as given by the 2 where x11 =2λ1v1, x12 = x21 = −k12v1v2, eq. (9) 2 x22 = λ2v2, x23 = x32 = −k23v2v3, 2 L = (D(1)H )†(D(1)ν H ) − µ2H†H − λ (H†H )2 (9) x33 =2λ3v3 , x34 = x43 = −k34v3v4, ν 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x = 2λ v2 , x = x = † † N−1N−1 N−1 N−1 N−2N−1 N−1N−2 + k12(H1 H1)(H2 H2) −kN−2N−1vN−2vN−1, (2) † (2)ν 2 † † 2 2 + (Dν H2) (D H2) − µ2H2 H2 − λ2(H2 H2) , xNN =2λN vN , xN−1N = xNN−1 = −kN−1N vN−1vN . Such a N×N matrix can be diagonalized using the 2 where we set µ1 equal to zero (µ1 = 0). In the unitary product of rotation matrices that sequentially lead to a gauge on both levels the quadratic form of the scalar diagonal form of the 2×2 matrix blocks: fields reads as follows: cosθ1 sinθ1 0 0 0 ... 0 2 2 2 2 2λ1v1h1 − 2k12v1v2h1h2 +2λ2v2h2 (10) −sinθ1 cosθ1 0 0 ... 0 0 0 100 ... 0 × where ...... f ff f 0 0 ... 0010 2 k12 4λ1 | µ2 | 0 00 ... 0 0 1 v1 = v2, v2 = 2 (11) r2λ1 s4λ1λ2 − k12 1 0 000 ... 0 0 cosθ sinθ 0 0 ... 0 2 2 and the mixing coefficient k12 as well as the quartic cou- 0 −sinθ cosθ 0 0 ... 0 2 2 × plings λ1 and λ2 are chosen to be positive. Rotation from ...... the unphysical fields h1 and h2 to physical fields h1 and 0 0 ... 0010 h2 with definite masses leads to the following expressions 0 0 0 ... 0 0 1 f f 5
... the large hadron collider, arXiv:hep-ph/0509242 (2005). [16] B. Patt and F. Wilczek, Higgs-field portal into hidden 10000 ... 0 sectors, arXiv:hep-ph/0605188 (2006). 01000 ... 0 [17] M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Discover- 00100 ... 0 ing the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices, , Phys. Lett. B 661, 263 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0605193. ...... [18] M. Bowen, Y. Cui, and J. D. Wells, Narrow trans-TeV 0 0 ... 0 0 cosθN sinθN Higgs bosons and H —> hh decays: Two LHC search 0 0 0 ... 0 −sinθN cosθN 03 paths for a hidden sector Higgs boson, JHEP , 036, arXiv:hep-ph/0701035. where θ , i = 1...N are the rotation angles. Under [19] V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. i Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, LHC Phe- conditions (2) and (3) one gets expressions (4) and (5) nomenology of an Extended Standard Model with for the mass eigenstates. a Real Scalar Singlet, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035005 (2008), arXiv:0706.4311 [hep-ph]. [20] V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey- Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015018 (2009), ∗ [email protected], [email protected] arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]. [1] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of a new par- [21] X.-G. He, T. Li, X.-Q. Li, J. Tandean, and H.-C. Tsai, ticle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs Constraints on Scalar Dark Matter from Direct Ex- boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, perimental Searches, Phys. Rev. D 79, 023521 (2009), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. arXiv:0811.0658 [hep-ph]. [2] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of a New [22] S. Bock, R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, D. Zer- Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Ex- was, and P. M. Zerwas, Measuring Hidden periment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), Higgs and Strongly-Interacting Higgs Scenarios, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]. Phys. Lett. B 694, 44 (2011), arXiv:1007.2645 [hep-ph]. [3] P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of [23] C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas, and P. M. Zerwas, Ex- Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964). ploring the Higgs portal, Phys. Lett. B 703, 298 (2011), [4] F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symme- arXiv:1106.3097 [hep-ph]. try and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, [24] O. Lebedev and H. M. Lee, Higgs Por- Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964). tal Inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1821 (2011), [5] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kib- arXiv:1105.2284 [hep-ph]. ble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles, [25] Y. Mambrini, Higgs searches and singlet scalar Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964). dark matter: Combined constraints from XENON [6] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, The Strength of 100 and the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 84, 115017 (2011), Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies and the Higgs arXiv:1108.0671 [hep-ph]. Boson Mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977). [26] G. Belanger, K. Kannike, A. Pukhov, and M. Raidal, [7] B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Weak Inter- Z3 Scalar Singlet Dark Matter, JCAP 01, 022, actions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs arXiv:1211.1014 [hep-ph]. Boson Mass, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977). [27] J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, and [8] M. S. Chanowitz, Universal W , Z Scattering Theorems C. Weniger, Update on scalar singlet dark matter, and No Lose Corollary for the SSC, in 23rd International Phys. Rev. D 88, 055025 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D Conference on High-Energy Physics (1986). 92, 039906 (2015)], arXiv:1306.4710 [hep-ph]. [9] D. A. Dicus and V. S. Mathur, Upper bounds [28] E. Gabrielli, M. Heikinheimo, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, on the values of masses in unified gauge theories, M. Raidal, and C. Spethmann, Towards Complet- Phys. Rev. D 7, 3111 (1973). ing the Standard Model: Vacuum Stability, EWSB [10] V. Silveira and A. Zee, SCALAR PHANTOMS, and Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 89, 015017 (2014), Phys. Lett. B 161, 136 (1985). arXiv:1309.6632 [hep-ph]. [11] J. McDonald, Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter, [29] A. Falkowski, C. Gross, and O. Lebedev, A sec- Phys. Rev. D 50, 3637 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/0702143. ond Higgs from the Higgs portal, JHEP 05, 057, [12] C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veld- arXiv:1502.01361 [hep-ph]. huis, The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark mat- [30] T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Higgs ter: A Singlet scalar, Nucl. Phys. B 619, 709 (2001), Singlet Extension of the Standard Model af- arXiv:hep-ph/0011335. ter LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 104 (2015), [13] H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li, and H. Mu- arXiv:1501.02234 [hep-ph]. rayama, The New minimal standard model, [31] V. Mart´ın Lozano, J. M. Moreno, and C. B. Park, Phys. Lett. B 609, 117 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0405097. Resonant Higgs boson pair production in the hh → − [14] R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, A Minimal spon- bb WW → bbℓ+νℓ ν decay channel, JHEP 08, 004, taneously broken hidden sector and its impact on arXiv:1501.03799 [hep-ph]. Higgs boson physics at the large hadron collider, [32] J. A. Casas, D. G. Cerde˜no, J. M. Moreno, and J. Quilis, Phys. Rev. D 72, 093007 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509209. Reopening the Higgs portal for single scalar dark matter, [15] R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire, and L. J. Hall, Mirror world at JHEP 05, 036, arXiv:1701.08134 [hep-ph]. [33] P. Athron et al. (GAMBIT), Status of the scalar sin- 6
glet dark matter model, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 568 (2017), arXiv:2010.09718 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1705.07931 [hep-ph]. [36] B. D´ıaz S´aez, K. M¨ohling, and D. St¨ockinger, Two Real [34] G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, Dark Mat- Scalar WIMP Model in the Assisted Freeze-Out Scenario, ter through the Higgs portal, Phys. Rept. 842, 1 (2020), arXiv:2103.17064 [hep-ph] (2021). arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]. [37] O. Lebedev, The Higgs portal to cosmol- [35] K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, and M. Raidal, Prin- ogy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103881 (2021), ciple of Multiple Point Criticality in Multi-Scalar arXiv:2104.03342 [hep-ph]. Dark Matter Models, Nucl. Phys. B 968, 115441 (2021),