4.4 Article

Gauged flavor group with left-right symmetry

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)093

关键词

Beyond Standard Model; Quark Masses and SM Parameters

资金

  1. EU [PIEF-GA-2009-251871]
  2. NSF [PHY-0968854]
  3. U.S Department of Energy [DE-FG02-93ER-40762]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Physics [968854] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We construct an anomaly-free extension of the left-right symmetric model, where the maximal flavor group is gauged and anomaly cancellation is guaranteed by adding new vectorlike fermion states. We address the question of the lowest allowed flavor symmetry scale consistent with date. Because of the mechanism recently pointed out by Grinstein et al. tree-level flavor changing neutral currents turn out to play a very weak constraining role. The same occurs, in our model, for electroweak precision observables. The main constraint turns out to come form W-R-mediated flavor changing neutral current box diagrams, primarily K - (K) over bar mixing. In the case where discrete parity symmetry is present at the TeV scale, this constraint implies lower bounds on the mass of vectorlike fermions and flavor bosons of 5 and 10 TeV respectively. However, these limits are weakened under the condition that only SU(2)(R)xU(1)(B-L) is restored at the TeV scale, but not parity. For example, assuming the SU(2) guage couplings in the ratio gR/gL approximate to 0.7 allows the above limits to go down by half for both vectorlike fermions and flavor bosons. Our model provides a framework for accommodating neutrino masses and, in the parity symmetric case, provides a solution to the strong CP problem. The bound on the lepton flavor gauging scale is somewhat stronger, because of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints. We argue, however, that the applicability of these constraints depends on the mechanism at work for the generation of neutrino masses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据