Fermion masses and mixing in extended technicolor models

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2004, Pages

  Appelquist, Thomas ^a   Piai, Maurizio ^b   Shrock, Robert ^b  

^a Yale University   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1342324211     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.015002     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1277 (1979)
2. Phys. Rev. DL. Susskind, 20, 2619 (1979).
3. S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B155, 237 (1979)
4. E. Eichten and K. Lane, Phys. Lett. 90B, 125 (1980).
5. P. Sikivie, M. Shifman, M. Voloshin, and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B173, 189 (1980).
6. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 150B, 301 (1985)
7. K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, and K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1335 (1986)
8. Phys. Rev. Lett.T. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, 57, 957 (1986)
9. T. Appelquist and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D 35, 774 (1987)
10. Phys. Rev. DT. AppelquistL. C. R. Wijewardhana36, 568 (1987).
11. T. Appelquist and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 50, 2116 (1994).
12. Recent reviews of dynamical symmetry breaking are R. S. Chivukula, hep-ph/0011264
13. K. Lane, hep-ph/0202255
14. C. Hill and E. Simmons, Phys. Rep. 381, 235 (2003).
15. T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 548, 204 (2002).
16. T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, in Proceedings of SCGT02, the International Workshop on Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories and Effective Field Theories, Nagoya, Japan, 2002, edited by M. Harada, Y. Kikukawa, and K. Yamawaki (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), p. 266.
17. T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201801 (2003).
18. T. Appelquist and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B 315, 139 (1993)
19. T. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1214 (1996)
20. Phys. Rev. Lett.T. AppelquistJ. TerningL. C. R. Wijewardhana79, 2767 (1997).
21. T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 59, 067702 (1999)
22. Phys. Rev. DT. AppelquistF. Sannino60, 116007 (1999).
23. Although we require our model to yield small S, we note that electroweak fits to precision electroweak data are complicated by the NuTeV anomaly reported in G. P. Zeller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091802 (2002).
24. The conclusion that fits using just the S and T parameters do not yield good values of (Formula presented) per degree of freedom has been reported, e.g., in S. Davidson, S. Forte, P. Gambino, N. Rius, and A. Strumia, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 037 (2002)
25. W. Loinaz, N. Okamura, T. Takeuchi, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D 67, 073012 (2003).
26. For a vectorial (Formula presented) theory with (Formula presented) fermions in the fundamental representation, an approximate infrared-stable fixed point of the renormalization group equations may occur for (Formula presented) values in the range of interest here. Assuming that a two-loop beta function calculation may be used to obtain the value of this approximate IRFP and applying the criticality condition 14, one infers that the theory should exist in a confining phase with spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking if (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) and in a non-Abelian Coulomb phase if (Formula presented) For (Formula presented) we estimate (Formula presented) but there is much theoretical uncertainty in this value because of the strong-coupling nature of the problem. For a review of attempts at nonperturbative lattice studies of these properties, see R. Mawhinney, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 83, 57 (2000).
27. In the approximation of a single-gauge-boson exchange, the critical coupling for chiral fermions transforming according to the representations (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) to form a condensate transforming as (Formula presented) in an (Formula presented) gauge theory is given by the condition (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) is the quadratic Casimir invariant.
28. Recall that the number of fermion doublets of SU(2) must be even to avoid a global anomaly.
29. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rep. 87, 77 (1982)
30. H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 94, 108 (2001).
31. For recent lattice measurements of light quark masses, see, e.g., the following, and references therein: A. Ali Khan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4674 (2000)
32. J. Garden, Nucl. Phys. B571, 237 (2000)
33. M. Gockeler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 054504 (2000)
34. M. Wingate, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 585 (2001)
35. L. Giusti, C. Hoelbling, and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114508 (2001)
36. Phys. Rev. DS. Aoki, 67, 034503 (2003)
37. D. Becirevic, V. Lubicz, and C. Tarantino, Phys. Lett. B 558, 69 (2003).
38. This value of (Formula presented) is the current quark mass, i.e., the mass measured at a scale well above (Formula presented) We use the value (Formula presented) 17 in conjunction with the current algebra result (Formula presented) 16 to obtain (Formula presented)
39. T. Appelquist, T. Takeuchi, M. Einhorn, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Lett. B 220, 223 (1989)
40. T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2697 (1989)
41. Phys. Rev. DT. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, 44, 871 (1991), and references therein.
42. See also B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1233 (1988).
43. C. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 345, 483 (1995)
44. Phys. Lett. BK. Lane and E. Eichten, 352, 382 (1995)
45. K. Lane, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2204 (1996)
46. K. LanePhys. Lett. B 433, 96 (1998).
47. It is plausible that the fact that this inequality is different for the first generation, where (Formula presented) is due to the dominant effect of off-diagonal entries in the up- and down-quark mass matrices in determining the respective lightest up- and down-quark masses.
48. N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963)
49. M. Kobayashi and M. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).
50. Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870 (1962) (Formula presented) matrix);see Ref. 24 for (Formula presented) matrix.
51. B. W. Lee, S. Pakvasa, R. Shrock, and H. Sugawara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 937 (1977).
52. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 974 (1976)
53. M. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B175, 197 (1980)
54. Nucl. Phys.J. Preskill, B177, 21 (1981). The TC theory forms condensates (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) (Formula presented) E, N, but not, e.g., (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) or, for (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) The excluded condensates would incur an energy price due to gauge boson mass generation when the (weaker) gauge symmetries are broken.
55. Y. Fukuda, Phys. Lett. B 433, 9 (1998)
56. Y. FukudaPhys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)
57. Phys. Rev. Lett.Y. Fukuda82, 2644 (1999)
58. Y. FukudaPhys. Lett. B 467, 185 (1999)
59. Y. FukudaPhys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3999 (2000) (SuperK) and data from Kamiokande, IMB, Soudan-2, and MACRO experiments.Published fits to this data explain it via (Formula presented) oscillations with (Formula presented) and a maximal value of the associated mixing angle factor (Formula presented) The most recent SuperK data analysis leads to a slightly smaller value (Formula presented) as reported by K. Lesko at the European Physical Society Meeting, Aachen, 2003. (The sign of (Formula presented) is not determined by this data and is not yet known.)
60. M. Ahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 041801 (2003).
61. S. Fukuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5651 (2001)
62. Phys. Rev. Lett.S. Fukuda86, 5656 (2001)
63. S. FukudaPhys. Lett. B 539, 179 (2002) (SuperK)
64. Q. Ahmad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001)
65. Phys. Rev. Lett.Q. Ahmad89, 011301 (2002)
66. Phys. Rev. Lett.Q. Ahmad89, 011302 (2002) (SNO).Other data is from the Homestake, Kamiokande, GALLEX, and SAGE experiments. The optimal fit to this data involves (Formula presented) oscillations into (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) with (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) and a relatively large associated mixing angle (Formula presented)
67. K. Eguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003).
68. In addition to (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) the (Formula presented) truncation) of the lepton mixing matrix depends on a rotation angle (Formula presented) and a CP-violating phase δ (together with two Majorana phases that cannot be measured in neutrino oscillation experiments). The CHOOZ experiment [M. Apollonio, Phys. Lett. B 420, 397 (1998)
69. Phys. Lett. BM. Apollonio466, 415 (1999)] yields the bound (Formula presented)
70. Discussions of options for measurements of (Formula presented) and δ include V. Barger, hep-ph/0103052
71. Y. Itow, hep-ex/0106019
72. D. Ayres, hep-ex/0210005
73. H. Minakata, Phys. Rev. D 68, 033017 (2003)
74. P. Huber, M. Lindner, T. Schwetz, and W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. B665, 487 (2003)
75. S. Choubey, S. Petcov, and M. Piai, Phys. Rev. D 68, 113006 (2003).
76. M. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992).
77. See http://pdg.lbl.gov for current data and limits.
78. R. S. Chivukula, S. Selipsky, and E. Simmons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 575 (1992)
79. R. S. Chivukula, E. Gates, E. Simmons, and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B 311, 157 (1993)
80. G.-H. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4137 (1995).
81. R. Appel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2450 (2000).This experiment has analyzed additional data, which could decrease the upper limit on (Formula presented) somewhat [M. Zeller (private communication), spokesman of BNL E865].
82. D. Ambrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5734 (1998).
83. For a recent review and references, see, e.g., F. Parodi, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 115, 212 (2003);http://cern.ch/ckm-workshop
84. For a recent review, see N. Yamada, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 119, 93 (2003).
85. A.J. Buras, S. Jager, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B605, 600 (2001).
86. B. W. Lee and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1444 (1977).
87. R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. 96B, 159 (1980)
88. R. ShrockPhys. Rev. D 24, 1232 (1981).
89. S. Adler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2204 (1997)
90. Phys. Rev. Lett.S. Adler84, 3768 (2000)
91. Phys. Rev. Lett.S. Adler88, 041803 (2002).
92. L. Littenberg (private communication), cospokesman of BNL E787.
93. R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1275 (1981)
94. R. ShrockPhys. Lett. 112B, 382 (1982).
95. An alternate definition for (Formula presented) is the antineutrino that is emitted in a nuclear beta decay of the form (Formula presented) and similarly for (Formula presented) as the neutrino emitted in the decay (Formula presented) or the electron-capture process (Formula presented)
96. Implications for measurements of weak interaction quantities such as (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) decays are discussed in 3940.
97. For recent reviews, see, e.g., S. Elliott and P. Vogel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52, 115 (2002)
98. O. Cremonesi, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 118, 287 (2003);S. Elliott, in Proceedings of the YITP Conference on Neutrinos and Implications for Physics Beyond the Standard Model, edited by R. Shrock (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), p. 351.
99. [We also note that a positive signal has been claimed in H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2409 (2001)
100. H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaushep-ph/0201231.]
101. L. Littenberg and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 443 (1992)
102. L. LittenbergR. ShrockPhys. Rev. D 46, R892 (1992)
103. L. LittenbergR. ShrockPhys. Lett. B 491, 285 (2000)
104. Phys. Lett. BC. Dib, 493, 82 (2000).
105. J. Kneller, R. Scherrer, G. Steigman, and T. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123506 (2001)
106. K. Olive, G. Steigman, and T. Walker, Phys. Rep. 333, 389 (2000);G. G. Raffelt, in http://pdg.lbl.gov, op. cit.
107. For recent limits, see e.g., CDMS Collaboration, D.S. Akerib, Phys. Rev. D 68, 082002 (2003).
108. G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976)
109. G. ’t HooftPhys. Rev. D 14, 3432 (1978).
110. Parenthetically, we note the values of the exponential coupling-dependent factor. To obtain these we use the fact that at a given energy scale μ the ETC coupling (Formula presented) satisfies the approximate criticality relation 14 (Formula presented). Solving the criticality relation for (Formula presented) and substituting in the expression for (Formula presented) we obtain (Formula presented) at each particular ETC scale. In sequence 1 we have (Formula presented) for the condensation at (Formula presented), whence (Formula presented) by similar means we have (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) The power-law prefactor also contributes to the dimensionless coefficient. As indicated in the text, because of the strong-coupling nature of the ETC theory at the relevant scales, we will simply use an effective-field theory approach of approximating this dimensionless coefficient as roughly unity.
111. See Raffelt 48.
112. T. Appelquist and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D 36, 568 (1987).
113. Y. Chikashige, R. Mohapatra, and R. Peccei, Phys. Lett. 98B, 265 (1981)
114. G. Gelmini, S. Nussinov, and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B219, 31 (1983).