4.7 Article

A novel string-derived Z′ with stable proton, light neutrinos and R-parity violation

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 421-428

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0469-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The standard model indicates the realization of grand unified structures in nature, and it can only be viewed as an effective theory below a higher energy cutoff. While the renormalizable standard model forbids proton decay mediating operators due to accidental global symmetries, many extensions of the standard model introduce such dimension 4, 5 and 6 operators. Furthermore, quantum gravity effects are expected to induce proton instability, indicating that the higher energy cutoff scale must be above 10(16) GeV. Quasi-realistic heterotic string models provide the arena to explore how perturbative quantum gravity affects the particle physics phenomenology. An appealing explanation for the proton longevity is provided by the existence of an Abelian gauge symmetry that suppresses the proton decay mediating operators. Additionally, such a low scale U(1) symmetry should feature the following: it should allow for the suppression of the left-handed neutrino masses by a seesaw mechanism; allow for fermion Yukawa couplings to the electroweak Higgs doublets; be anomaly free; and finally be family universal. These requirements render the existence of such U(1) symmetries in quasi-realistic heterotic string models highly non-trivial. We demonstrate the existence of a U(1) symmetry that satisfies all of the above requirements in a class of left-right symmetric heterotic string models in the free fermionic formulation. The existence of the extra Z' in the energy range accessible to future experiments is motivated by the requirement of adequate suppression of proton decay mediation. We further show that, while the extra U(1) forbids dimension 4 baryon number violating operators, it allows dimension 4 lepton number violating operators and R-parity violation.

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

4.7
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