SLED phenomenology: curvature vs. volume

Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Abstract

We assess the question whether the SLED (Supersymmetric Large Extra Dimensions) model admits phenomenologically viable solutions with 4D maximal symmetry. We take into account a finite brane width and a scale invariance (SI) breaking dilaton-brane coupling, both of which should be included in a realistic setup. Provided that the brane tension and the microscopic size of the brane take generic values set by the fundamental bulk Planck scale, we find that either the 4D curvature or the size of the extra dimensions is unacceptably large. Since this result is independent of the dilaton-brane couplings, it provides the biggest challenge to the SLED program.

In addition, to quantify its potential with respect to the cosmological constant problem, we infer the amount of tuning on model parameters required to obtain a sufficiently small 4D curvature. A first answer was recently given in [1], showing that 4D flat solutions are only ensured in the SI case by imposing a tuning relation, even if a brane-localized flux is included. In this companion paper, we find that the tuning can in fact be avoided for certain SI breaking brane-dilaton couplings, but only at the price of worsening the phenomenological problem.

Our results are obtained by solving the full coupled Einstein-dilaton system in a completely consistent way. The brane width is implemented using a well-known ring regularization. In passing, we note that for the couplings considered here the results of [1] (which only treated infinitely thin branes) are all consistently recovered in the thin brane limit, and how this can be reconciled with the concerns about their correctness, recently brought up in [2].

Keywords

Large Extra Dimensions Effective field theories Supersymmetric Effective Theories 

References

  1. [1]
    F. Niedermann and R. Schneider, Fine-tuning with brane-localized flux in 6D supergravity, JHEP 02 (2016) 025 [arXiv:1508.01124] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C.P. Burgess, R. Diener and M. Williams, A problem with delta-functions: stress-energy constraints on bulk-brane matching (with comments on arXiv:1508.01124), JHEP 01 (2016) 017 [arXiv:1509.04201].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Aghababaie, C.P. Burgess, S.L. Parameswaran and F. Quevedo, Towards a naturally small cosmological constant from branes in 6D supergravity, Nucl. Phys. B 680 (2004) 389 [hep-th/0304256] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1 [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    C.P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, Technically natural cosmological constant from supersymmetric 6D brane backreaction, Phys. Dark Univ. 2 (2013) 1 [arXiv:1108.0345] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    C.P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, Large dimensions and small curvatures from supersymmetric brane back-reaction, JHEP 04 (2011) 078 [arXiv:1101.0152] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    C.P. Burgess, R. Diener and M. Williams, EFT for vortices with dilaton-dependent localized flux, JHEP 11 (2015) 054 [arXiv:1508.00856] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Peloso, L. Sorbo and G. Tasinato, Standard 4D gravity on a brane in six dimensional flux compactifications, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 104025 [hep-th/0603026] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    C.P. Burgess, D. Hoover, C. de Rham and G. Tasinato, Effective field theories and matching for codimension-2 branes, JHEP 03 (2009) 124 [arXiv:0812.3820] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C.P. Burgess, R. Diener and M. Williams, Self-tuning at large (distances): 4D description of runaway dilaton capture, JHEP 10 (2015) 177 [arXiv:1509.04209] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C.P. Burgess, R. Diener and M. Williams, The gravity of dark vortices: effective field theory for branes and strings carrying localized flux, JHEP 11 (2015) 049 [arXiv:1506.08095] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    G.W. Gibbons, R. Güven and C.N. Pope, 3-branes and uniqueness of the Salam-Sezgin vacuum, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 498 [hep-th/0307238] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry through dimensional reduction, Phys. Lett. B 82 (1979) 60 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Randjbar-Daemi, A. Salam and J. Strathdee, Spontaneous compactification in six-dimensional einstein-maxwell theory, Nucl. Phys. B 214 (1983) 491.ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    C.P. Burgess, L. van Nierop and M. Williams, Gravitational forces on a codimension-2 brane, JHEP 04 (2014) 032 [arXiv:1401.0511] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    C.M. Will, The confrontation between general relativity and experiment, Living Rev. Rel. 9 (2006) 3 [gr-qc/0510072] [INSPIRE].MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    D.J. Kapner et al., Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law below the dark-energy length scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 021101 [hep-ph/0611184] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Planck collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16 [arXiv:1303.5076] [INSPIRE].
  19. [19]
    N. Kaloper and D. Kiley, Charting the landscape of modified gravity, JHEP 05 (2007) 045 [hep-th/0703190] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. Eglseer, F. Niedermann and R. Schneider, Brane induced gravity: ghosts and naturalness, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 084029 [arXiv:1506.02666] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical PhysicsLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunichGermany
  2. 2.Excellence Cluster UniverseGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations