# Untitled Document

ELECTRIC CHARGE, EARLY UNIVERSE AND THE SUPERSTRING THEORIES 

AFSAR ABBAS

Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar-751005, India

(e-mail : afsar@iopb.res.in)

Abstract

Very recently, it has been shown by the author that the Standard Model Higgs cannot be a physical particle. Here, on most general grounds it is established that as per the Standard Model there is no electric charge above the electro-weak phase transition temperature. Hence there was no electric charge present in the early universe. The Superstring Theories are flawed in as much as they are incompatible with this requirement. Hence the Superstring Theories are inconsistent with this basic structure and requirement of the Standard Model.

Contrary to earlier expectations, it has recently been demonstrated that electric charge is quantized in the Standard Model (SM) \[ 1,2 \]. This quantization requires complete machinery of the SM including the Higgs. If one or more conditions are not properly taken care of it may lead to problems \[ 2 \]. For example, analyses of the property of the electric charge quantization in the SM, have led some authors to conclude that millicharged particles are permitted by the SM. This is erroneous and was pointed out recently by the author \[ 3 \].

Besides other built-in features of the SM that go into the demonstration of the electric charge quantization, one crucial feature was spontaneous symmetry breaking through a Higgs doublet \[ 1,2 \]. Using this property, it was shown that when the electro-weak symmetry is restored there is no electric charge \[ 4 \]. Hence there was no electric charge in the early universe. In this demonstration one needs a Higgs doublet, as is present in the SM.

Very recently \[ 5 \], the author has shown that the SM Higgs is not a physical particle. It is a manifestation of the ‘vacuum’ which gives the basic structure to the SM. In this demonstration \[ 5 \] the Higgs was not a doublet but had unconstrained isospin and hypercharge representations (see \[ 5 \] for details ). Here we ask the question, with this generalized picture what happens to the electric charge when the symmetry is restored. How does this result reflect upon the well studied and the ever-promising Superstring Theories ?

It has been shown by the author \[ 5 \] that in SM $`SU(N_C)SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ for $`N_C=3`$ spontaneous symmetry breaking by a Higgs of weak hypercharge $`Y_\varphi `$ and general isospin T where $`T_3^\varphi `$ component develops the vacuum expectation value $`<\varphi >_0`$, fixes ‘h’ in the electric charge definition $`Q=T_3+hY`$ to give

$$Q=T_3\frac{T_3^\varphi }{Y_\varphi }Y$$
(1)   
where Y is the hypercharge for doublets and singlets for a single generation. For each generation renormalizability through triangular anomaly cancellation and the requirement of the identity of L- and R-handed charges in $`U(1)_{em}`$ one finds that all unknown hypercharges are proportional to $`\frac{Y_\varphi }{T_3^\varphi }`$. Hence correct charges (for $`N_C=3`$ ) fall through as below

$`Q(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_C}})`$   
$`Q(d)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_C}})`$   
$`Q(e)=1`$   
$`Q(\nu )=0`$ (2)   
In this demonstration of charge quantization the isospin and the hypercharge of Higgs were left completely unconstrained \[ 5 \]. It was then shown that the complete structure of the Standard Model was reproduced without specifying any quantum numbers of the Higgs. Thus Higgs is unlike any particle known to us. Hence it was predicted \[ 5 \] by the author that the Higgs is not a physical particle.

Note that the expression for Q in (1) arose due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of $`SU(N_C)SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ (for $`N_C=3`$ ) to $`SU(N_C)\times U(1)_{em}`$ through the medium of a Higgs with arbitrary isospin T and hypercharge $`Y_\varphi `$. What happens when at higher temperature, as for example found in the early universe, the $`SU(N_C)SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ symmetry is restored ? Then the parameter ‘h’ in the electric charge definition remains undetermined. Note that ‘h’ was fixed as in (1) due to spontaneous symmetry breaking through Higgs. Without it ‘h’ remains unknown.

Earlier \[ 4 \] we had found this for a Higgs doublet. Now we find that for a Higgs with any arbitrary isospin and hypercharge, this is still true. As ‘h’ is not defined, the electric charge is not defined. Hence when the electroweak symmetry is restored, irrespective of the Higgs isospin and hypercharge the electric charge disappears as a physical quantity. Hence here too we find that there was no electric charge in the early universe.

In fact the property that there was no electric charge in the early universe can be understood this way. The fact that L-charges were equal to the R-charges is a property of $`U(1)_{em}`$. This property need not hold if $`U(1)_{em}`$ is not present. And indeed when the symmetry is restored to $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ (at higher temperatures and/or early universe) the L-charges and the R-charges (if they exist at all) need not be equal to each other. If different, how different ? These lead to self-contradictions. These contradictions can be prevented only if there were no charges present when $`U(1)_{em}`$ was not present. And this is what has been consistently demonstrated here on most general grounds.

Let us now look at the Superstring Theories. What is the structure of electric charge in Superstring Theories and how does it relate to the Standard Model discussed above and in addition to Refs \[ 1-5 \].

The appearances of color neutral string states carrying fractional electric charge (eg. $`q=\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{3}`$) is a well known problem in string theory \[ 6,7 \]. This appears to be generic in string theories. In string theory, in fact, there are always fractionally charged states unless the group ‘levels’ obey the condition \[ 8 \]

$$3k_1+3k_2+4k_3=0mod12$$
(3)   
This condition is indeed obeyed by the standard GUT choice $`k_1=\frac{5}{3},k_2=k_3=1`$. However, at low energy one would require the SM group $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ to survive. Here this does not happen. An exact $`SU(5)`$ symmetry survives down to low energies and this is unwelcome. Thus, one has the following possibilities (1) One accepts the canonical possible values of the $`k_i`$’s and try to justify the existence of fractionally charged states at low energies. This is in conflict with some experimental constraints on terrestrial fractional charges. (2) One tries to choose non-canonical $`k_i`$’s. This idea then runs into conflict with other established ideas of extensions beyond the SM. (3) One chooses the canonical value for the $`k_i`$’s and fractionally charged particles are shunted to very high mass states. Hence present experiments cannot touch them.

All these are well known problems of the electric charge in the Superstring Theories \[ 9 \]. However here attention is drawn to the fact that all putative extensions of the Standard Model should reduce smoothly and consistently to the Standard Model at low energies. Not only that, all these extensions should be consistent with the predictions of the Standard Model at very high temperatures. Contrary to naive expectations, the SM does make specific predictions at very high temperatures too. For example one clear-cut prediction of the Standard Model as shown here and also shown earlier \[ 4 \], is that at high enough temperatures (as in the early universe) when the unbroken $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ symmetry is restored, there is no electric charge. GUTs and other standard extensions of the SM are incompatible with this requirement \[ 3,4 \].

What about Superstring Theories ? Quite clearly generically in Superstring Theories electric charge exists right up to the Planck Scale. Hence as per this theory the electric charge, as an inherent property of matter, has existed right from the beginning. This is not correct in the SM. As shown here and earlier \[ 4 \] the electric charge came into existence at a later stage in the evolution of the Universe when the $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ group was spontaneously broken to $`U(1)_{em}`$. It was never there all the time. This is because electric charge is a derived quantity \[ 4 \]. Hence we find that in this regard the Superstring Theories are inconsistent with the SM.

We have shown that the structure of the electric charge and its quantization property in the Standard Model are very restrictive. It turns out that even more demanding and restrictive is the property that there was no electric charge before the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electro-weak group. Any theory which is incompatible with this requirement cannot be a valid theory of nature. Along with most (all ?) extensions of the SM \[ 3,4 \], Superstring Theories also fall in this category. In spite of their promise, the Superstring Theories have this fatal flaw built into them.

REFERENCES 

1. A. Abbas, Phys. Lett.  B 238 (1990) 344

2. A. Abbas, J. Phys. G.  16  (1990) L163

3. A. Abbas, Physics Today , July 1999, p.81-82

4. A. Abbas, ‘Phase transition in the early universe and charge quantization’; hep-ph/9503496

5. A. Abbas, ‘What is the Standard Model Higgs ?’ ; hep-ph/9912243

6. X. G. Wen and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys.  B 261 (1985) 651

7. G. Athanasiu, J.Atick, M.Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Letts. B 214 (1988) 55

8. A. N. Schellekens, Phys. Letts. B 237 (1990) 363

9. J. Polchinski, ‘String Theory’, Cambridge University Press, 1998