Can the supersymmetric flavor problem be solved by decoupling?

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 56, Issue 11, 1997, Pages R6733-R6737

  Arkani Hamed, Nima ^a   Murayama, Hitoshi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001564554     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.R6733     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B189, 575 (1981);
2. C. Nappi and B. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. 113B, 175 (1982);
3. M. Dine and W. Fischler, Nucl. Phys. B204, 346 (1982);
4. L. Alvarez-Gaumé, M. Claudson, and M. Wise, B207, 96 (1982).
5. V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993).
6. M. Dine, R. Leigh, and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4269 (1993);
7. P. Pouliot and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 318, 169 (1993);
8. D. B. Kaplan and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3741 (1994);
9. L. J. Hall and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3985 (1995);
10. C. D. Carone, L. J. Hall, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6281 (1996);
11. R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, S. Raby, and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B493, 3 (1997);
12. N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, and L. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2242 (1996).
13. Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 309, 337 (1993).
14. M. Dine, A. Kagan, and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 243, 250 (1990).
15. S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 357, 573 (1995).
16. A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B466, 3 (1996).
17. A. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 388, 599 (1996).
18. P. Binétruy and E. Dudas, Nucl. Phys. B442, 21 (1995);
19. P. Binétruy, M. K. Gaillard, and Y.-Y. Wu, hep-th/9702105.
20. G. Dvali and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3728 (1996).
21. F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B477, 321 (1996). In all of the loop integrals, they replace the mass eigenvalues of the first two generations with (Formula presented) This is a conservative choice: any single contribution to (Formula presented) mixing involves the 1-2 propagator, which is (in Euclidean space) (Formula presented) where (Formula presented), (Formula presented) are the squark mass eigenvalues. However, note that (Formula presented) (Formula presented) with the arithmetic mean (Formula presented), and so replacing (Formula presented) by (Formula presented) in the loop integral minimizes the effect of any single contribution. Fortunately, (Formula presented) is the same combination which appears in the RGE analysis later.
22. This is of course a natural consequence of a field-theoretical grand unification. Our analysis does not depend on the mechanism to make the scalars within the SU(5)-multiplets degenerate. (Formula presented) may cancel in other ways as well, see 17 for examples.
23. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn, and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5481 (1994).
24. It is not clear at what scale (Formula presented) one should decouple the heavy scalars in the RGE; an explicit study of the threshold corrections is necessary to determine this scale. However, (Formula presented) should lie between (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) In order to obtain conservative constraints, we decouple the scalars at a very high mass scale 10 TeV from the RGE.
25. R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988).
26. R. N. Mohapatra and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1138 (1997);
27. 55, 4262 (1997).
28. A. E. Nelson and D. Wright, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1598 (1997).
29. R.-J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 402, 101 (1997).
30. This class of models predicts small gaugino masses which make the situation worse.
31. This charge assignment introduces a fine-tuning problem in generating the hierarchy (Formula presented)