# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been much recent interest  in the possibility that the unification of the gauge couplings of the Standard Model could take place at a scale significantly below that of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). In the MSSM, with four dimensional gauge coupling running, the energy scale at which the gauge couplings unify is given by $`M_g^o13\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. However it is possible that unification could occur at a scale much lower than that of the MSSM through the presence of extra space-time dimensions  of a relatively large radius $`R`$ associated with an energy scale less than $`M_g^o`$. Extra space-time dimensions appear naturally in string theory, and therefore, such an idea has a strong mathematical motivation. The way this idea is implemented in practice is by introducing towers of Kaluza-Klein excitations associated with the gauge bosons, the Higgs fields and, possibly, with the generations of fermions. The exact details of how this is done and the difficulties encountered in this are to some extent model dependent. Here we consider the case of ref.  where such a model was presented in detail. We will restrict ourselves to the case that preserves supersymmetry as a main ingredient, although there are scenarios where the non-supersymmetric Standard Model is valid up to the scale of the extra space-time dimensions.

The purpose of this work is to analyse the implications of such models for the value of the unification scale and the strong coupling at the electroweak scale. The latter prediction provides one of the few quantitative tests of unification. While it is remarkably successful the MSSM prediction is now significantly above the upper experimental value. It is particularly interesting therefore to determine whether models with extra space-time dimensions can improve on this.

## 2 Results from the Renormalisation Group Evolution

In the following we present a two-loop renormalisation group calculation of the running of the gauge couplings to make predictions for the strong coupling at electroweak scale and the value $`\mu _0`$ of the mass scale at which the new extra space-time dimensions appear. The value of the unification scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is also computed. We also take into account the effect of low-energy supersymmetric thresholds on our predictions.

### 2.1 Previous results

First we present the equations derived in ref.  which describe the evolution of the couplings above the decompactification scale $`\mu _0`$. The equations were derived via an effective theory approach with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the ultraviolet cut-off. It denotes the scale at which physics (e.g. string excitations) beyond the higher dimensional theory must be included. The resulting evolution is given by 

$$\alpha _i^1(\mu _0)=\alpha _i^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\frac{b_i\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{4\pi }I(\mu _0,\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )$$
(1)   
Equation (1) gives the value of the gauge couplings at $`\mu _0`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _0`$. In this equation, $`b_i=(33/5,1,3)`$ are the usual MSSM beta functions. Also

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_i=(3/5,3,6)+\eta (4,4,4)$$
(2)   
The coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{b}_i`$ correspond to the contributions of the appropriate Kaluza-Klein states at each massive Kaluza-Klein excitations level. The effect of $`\eta `$ families of matter in complete $`SU(5)`$ vector-like representations is accounted for in $`\stackrel{~}{b}_i`$ by the term proportional to $`\eta `$. In the following, unless explicitly stated, we assume that $`\eta 0`$. We also have 

$$I(\mu _0,\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )=_{r\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{r\mu _0^2}\frac{dt}{t}\left[\vartheta _3(0,e^{t/R^2})\right]^\delta $$
(3)   
where 

$$\vartheta _3(u,q)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n=\mathrm{}}{}}q^{n^2}e^{i2nu}$$
(4)   
is the elliptic Jacobi theta function and 

$$r=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta /2)\right]^{2/\delta }$$
(5)   
Here $`\delta `$ represents the number of extra dimensions considered, $`\delta =D4`$, while $`R`$ represents the radius of the extra space-time dimensions which is identified  with the inverse of the mass scale $`\mu _0`$, $`R1/\mu _0`$. The integral of eq.(3) can also be written as

$$I(\mu _0,\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta )𝒥(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0,\delta )=_{r/(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0)^2}^r\frac{dx}{x}\left[\vartheta _3(0,e^x)\right]^\delta $$
(6)   
which therefore depends on the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$ only.

A useful approximation for the above integral is $`\vartheta _3(0,e^x)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{x}}`$ which gives

$$𝒥(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0,\delta )\frac{2X_\delta }{\delta }\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right)^\delta 1\right]$$
(7)   
with $`X_\delta `$ standing for the following quantity

$$X_\delta =\frac{\pi ^{\delta /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta /2)}$$
(8)   
The difference between the two quantities given in eq.(6) and eq.(7) respectively is small for $`\delta =1,2,3`$ and can be safely ignored (for $`\delta =1,2,3`$ it gives an error in $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ less than $`10^5`$ ). For larger $`\delta `$, the approximation of the Jacobi function introduces a larger error for $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ for the case of a large ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$.

To avoid this we will use in our calculation below the exact form for $`𝒥`$, the integral of Jacobi function, eq.(6). With the above observations, eq.(1) becomes 

$$\alpha _i^1(\mu _0)=\alpha _i^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\frac{b_i\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{2\pi }\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )$$
(9)   
### 2.2 Two-loop RGE results

We proceed now to derive the implications of the above model for the value of the strong coupling at electroweak scale and for the unification scale. We use the values of $`\alpha _i(\mu _0)`$ of eq.(9) as input for the equations which describe the running of the gauge couplings below the scale $`\mu _0`$ where a MSSM spectrum applies<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1By the MSSM spectrum we mean the quarks and leptons sector with their superpartners, the gauge plus gaugino sector and two $`SU(2)`$ Higgs doublets (no Higgs triplets) and their superpartners.. Below the scale $`\mu _0`$ we employ the two-loop RGE evolution for the gauge couplings

$$\alpha _i^1(M_z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\alpha _i^1(\mu _0)+\frac{b_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mu _0}{M_Z}\right]+\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\alpha _j(\mu _0)}{\alpha _j(M_Z)}\right]$$
(10)   
This is the integral form for the running of the gauge couplings below $`\mu _0`$ scale, valid in two-loop order, with a MSSM-like spectrum and standard model gauge symmetry. This can be easily derived by integrating the two-loop differential equations for the running of the gauge couplings with a MSSM-like spectrum below the scale $`\mu _0`$ and with upper values for the gauge couplings equal to $`\alpha _j(\mu _0)`$. The coefficients $`b_i`$ and $`b_{ij}`$ denote the one-loop and two-loop beta functions which are just those of the MSSM; $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ include the low-energy supersymmetric thresholds and $`\overline{MS}\overline{DR}`$ scheme conversion factors<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The scheme conversion factors will cancel in the calculation below as we compare our results to those of the MSSM model. The same applies to the low energy supersymmetric thresholds.. From eqs.(9),(10) we obtain

$$\alpha _i^1(M_z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1+\frac{b_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_Z}\right]+\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{2\pi }\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}+\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\alpha _j(\mu _0)}{\alpha _j(M_Z)}\right]$$
(11)   
where we have now imposed the unification of the gauge couplings at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

To predict $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ we input the well measured values for $`\alpha _1(M_Z)`$ and $`\alpha _2(M_Z).`$ However, to make detailed predictions we need some information about the low energy supersymmetric thresholds, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. These have been discussed in the context of the MSSM . Since these effects are associated with the low-energy structure of the theory, they remain the same in the models considered here. Thus we choose to eliminate them by relating the new predictions to those of the MSSM.

In the MSSM model (the MSSM variables are labelled with an “o” index to distinguish them from the model based on extra space-time dimensions)

$$\alpha _i^{o1}(M_z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\alpha _g^{o1}+\frac{b_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{M_g^o}{M_Z}\right]+\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\alpha _g^o}{\alpha _j^o(M_Z)}\right]$$
(12)   
with $`\alpha _g^o\alpha _j^o(M_g^o)`$. We substitute the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of eq.(12) into eq.(11). This gives the three equations presented below, where as mentioned, we take $`\alpha _1(M_z)=\alpha _1^o(M_z)`$ and $`\alpha _2(M_z)=\alpha _2^o(M_z)`$ from experiment. We have (i=1,2)

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\alpha _g^{o1}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_g^o}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}{2\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒥({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}},\delta )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}\right\}`$ (13)   
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{ij}}{b_j}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j(\mu _0)}{\alpha _g^o}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{i3}}{b_3}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3^o(M_z)}{\alpha _3(M_z)}}\right]`$   
$`\alpha _3^1(M_z)\alpha _3^{o1}(M_z)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\alpha _g^{o1}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_g^o}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_3}{2\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒥({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}},\delta )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}\right\}`$ (14)   
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{3j}}{b_j}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j(\mu _0)}{\alpha _g^o}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{33}}{b_3}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3^o(M_z)}{\alpha _3(M_z)}}\right]`$   
Equations (13) and (14) represent a system of three equations where the values for $`\alpha _j(\mu _0)`$ are taken from eq.(9) with $`\alpha _i(\mathrm{\Lambda })\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We consider as input parameters the values of $`\eta `$, $`\delta `$ and the ratio $`\rho \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0)`$. The output of these equations is represented by $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$, $`\mu _0`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The full numerical results following from these equations are given in Tables 1,2,3,4. We may see that $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ is systematically increased compared to the MSSM value, while the unification scale is decreased. We may understand the structure of these results analytically. From eqs.(13), subtracting the case $`i=1`$ and $`i=2`$, gives

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_g^o}=\frac{9}{14}\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}+Twoloopcontribution$$
(15)   
Imposing that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>M_z`$ gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_g^o>(1/3)\times 10^{14}`$ (with $`M_g^o3\times 10^{16}GeV`$), and we find the following (one-loop) upper limits to the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$ (independent of the value of $`\eta `$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}`$ $``$ $`28.5if\delta =1`$ (16)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}`$ $``$ $`5.9if\delta =2`$ (17)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}`$ $``$ $`3.4if\delta =3`$ (18)   
This means that the energy range between $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is relatively small. This is due to the steep behaviour in the evolution of the couplings, introduced by the power-law contribution (of function $`𝒥`$, see eq.(7)), which also has the effect of increasing $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ from the MSSM value as we will discuss later.

From eqs.(13) for $`i=1`$ and $`i=2`$ we also get that

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\alpha _g^{o1}+\frac{5156\eta }{28\pi }\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}+Twoloopcontribution$$
(19)   
or, using the approximation (7),

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\alpha _g^{o1}+\frac{5156\eta }{28\pi }\left\{\frac{X_\delta }{\delta }\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right)^\delta 1\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}+Twoloopcontribution$$
(20)   
This means that in the absence of the extra-matter ($`\eta =0`$) the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decreases as we increase (for fixed $`\delta `$) the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$. In the presence of the extra-matter ($`\eta 0`$) the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases with the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$. Two-loop terms can affect this observation, but not significantly, as may be seen from the full two loop results of Tables 1,2,3,4.

To analyse the implications for $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ we add together eq.(14) and eq.(13) for $`i=1`$ multiplied by $`(b_2b_3)/(b_1b_2)`$ and with eq.(13) for $`i=2`$ multiplied by $`(b_3b_1)/(b_1b_2)`$. This has the effect of eliminating the contributions from $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms to the difference $`\alpha _3^1(M_z)\alpha _3^{o1}(M_z)`$. The result obtained in this way is

$`\alpha _3^1(M_z)\alpha _3^{o1}(M_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{14\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒥({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}},\delta )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}}\right\}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\omega _j\mathrm{ln}\alpha _j(\mu _0)`$ (21)   
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{477}{70\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\alpha _g^o+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{14\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3^o(M_z)}{\alpha _3(M_z)}}`$   
with $`\omega _j`$ given by

$$\omega _j=\{\frac{2}{11\pi },\frac{15}{2\pi },\frac{17}{14\pi }\}_j$$
(22)   
with $`\alpha _3^o(M_z)0.126`$ and $`\alpha _g^o0.0433`$.

For large values of $`\mu _0`$, very close to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ scale, the two loop terms in the model with extra dimensions are close to those of the MSSM and they cancel in eq.(21), while the explicit (power-law) term in the same equation has a less important role. In this case the lhs of eq.(21) is close to 0. Thus, in the limit $`\mu _0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we get $`\alpha _3(M_z)=0.126`$ as in the MSSM. This can also be seen in the (full two-loop) results presented in Tables 1,2,3,4, obtained from solving numerically eqs.(13) and (14). As the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$ increases, the power-law correction of $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0,\delta )`$ in eq.(21) dominates, with the effect of increasing $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$. This effect can again be seen from the numerical results of Tables 1,2,3,4, for various input parameters $`\eta `$, $`\delta `$ and $`\rho \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0)`$.

For the case of lower values of $`\mu _0`$ we may get a first indication of the result by ignoring the last three subdominant (two-loop) terms in eq.(21). Then the right hand side of the above equation gives a negative contribution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu _o`$. (Note the behaviour of $`𝒥`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0`$, given in eq.(7)). Therefore, the value of the strong coupling at electroweak scale in the model with extra space-time dimensions is increased above its corresponding MSSM value. As we ignored the two-loop terms in the rhs of eq.(21), the lhs of this equation stands for a one-loop approximation, and thus, $`\alpha _3(M_z)|_{oneloop}>\alpha _3^o(M_z)|_{oneloop}0.117`$. In general, two-loop contributions tend to increase the prediction for the strong coupling from its one-loop value. To be more explicit consider eq.(21) again. The dominant contribution in the above equation is the curly bracket, and it increases $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ as discussed. The term $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _g^o`$ is also negative and it increases $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$. The term $`17/(14\pi )\mathrm{ln}(\alpha _3^o(M_z)/\alpha _3(M_z))`$ could lower the value of the strong coupling but its contribution is very small. The only contribution which has a lowering effect on the strong coupling comes from the term with $`j=2`$ under the sum over $`j`$, as $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _j(\mu _0)<0`$ and is insufficient to reduce $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ below the MSSM value. Note that $`\alpha _j(\mu _0)`$ can be further replaced by its expression given in eq.(9), and therefore the expression of the strong coupling given above depends on $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and on the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu _0>1`$ only.

What happens if we add extra-matter in complete $`SU(5)`$ representations<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 The effect of extra matter in complete $`SU(5)`$ representations is to increase $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$  due to two-loop terms. However, in the present model, above the scale $`\mu _0`$ where extra matter in vector-like representations is assumed to exist, there are no two loop contributions from extra-matter states because of the underlying $`N=2`$ symmetry.? The answer is easily obtained from eq.(9) which we write below in the following form (with $`\alpha _i(\mathrm{\Lambda })\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)

$$\alpha _i^1(\mu _0)=\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1+\frac{4\eta }{2\pi }\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}+\frac{b_i\stackrel{~}{b}_i(\eta =0)}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_i(\eta =0)}{2\pi }\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )$$
(23)   
The value of $`\alpha _i(\mu _0)`$ in eq.(23) remains unchanged in the presence of the extra-matter if we rescale $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\eta =0)\frac{4\eta }{2\pi }\left\{\frac{1}{2}𝒥(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0},\delta )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}$$
(24)   
or, using the approximation of eq.(7)

$$\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\eta =0)\frac{4\eta }{2\pi }\left\{\frac{X_\delta }{\delta }\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right)^\delta 1\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _0}\right\}$$
(25)   
If we apply the rescaling in eqs.(13) and (14), we obtain three equations similar in form to those in the absence of the extra-matter, but with a new $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The conclusion is that our numerical predictions for $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$, $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the case $`\eta =0`$ will remain the same when $`\eta 0`$, as can also be seen by comparing the results of Tables 1,2,3,4 for various values for $`\eta `$. The only effect is a change (increase) in the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by an amount given in equation (24). For the strong coupling, this effect can also be seen in eq.(21), where only $`\alpha _j(\mu _0)`$ depends on the presence of the extra-matter, and this dependence is re-absorbed into a redefinition of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The predictions we made in the presence of the extra-matter are valid as long as the extra-matter decouples at the scale $`\mu _0`$. However, extra matter does not necessarily decouple at the scale $`\mu _0`$ since these states, being vector-like under the Standard Model gauge group, are not protected by any chiral symmetry and are therefore very heavy, of mass $`M\mu _0`$. Introducing a new parameter $`M`$ for the mass of these vector-like states would make our analysis less tractable, and for this reason we restricted ourselves to the case when $`M=\mu _0`$ and various values for $`\eta `$.

Given the discrepancy between the predictions and experimental measurements<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4The experimental value  for $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ is $`0.118\pm 0.003`$. for $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$ one may ask whether there are effects that could reconcile the two. The value of the strong coupling at the electroweak scale is very sensitive to the thresholds for the various Kaluza Klein excitations. One may ask whether such threshold effects could be the origin of the discrepancy . Thus we now estimate how such threshold effects can accommodate a change of the strong coupling (at the $`M_z`$ scale) large enough to bring it close to the experimental value, within the experimental accuracy of $`\pm 0.003`$, with a unification scale in the region of few TeV. To do this, we allow for different threshold effects in $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=\{1,2,3\}`$, by introducing in eq.(11) different threshold scales $`\mu _{0;i}`$ with $`i=\{1,2,3\}`$. It is sufficient for our purposes to consider $`\mu _{0;3}`$ only, so that eq.(13) remains unchanged. The leading change in the strong coupling at the electroweak scale is then given by 

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _3^1(M_z)\frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_3}{2\pi }\frac{X_\delta }{\delta }\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu _{0;3}}\right]^\delta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}$$
(26)   
We note (see Table 1) that for $`\mu _0`$ in the region of few TeV the strong coupling is given by $`\alpha _3(M_z)0.17`$ (for $`\delta =1`$), so a change of 0.05 is needed to bring it to the experimentally measured value. This corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _3^1(M_z)3.47`$, giving

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}\frac{1}{14}$$
(27)   
The accuracy, $`\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}\right]_w,`$ to which this must hold to keep within the experimental error of $`0.003`$ requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{3w}^1(M_z)0.21`$. From eq.(26) we find

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}\right]_w\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}\right]^1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{3w}^1(M_z)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _3^1(M_z)}\frac{0.21}{3.47}\frac{1}{16}$$
(28)   
Thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{0;3}}{\mu _{0;3}}\frac{1}{14}\left(1\pm \frac{1}{16}\right)\frac{1}{14}\pm \frac{1}{224}$$
(29)   
This means that in order to keep the strong coupling within $`0.003`$ of $`0.12`$ for a unification scale in the region of few TeV, one must fine tune the thresholds to one part in 224.

## 3 Conclusions

We showed that to two-loop order the models of  with extra space-time dimensions associated with scales less than the unification scale increase the value of the strong coupling above the MSSM value. For a very low value of the decompactification scale the prediction is unacceptable. However this result is sensitive to the details of the Kaluza Klein thresholds associated with the opening up of the extra dimensions and an acceptable value for the strong coupling may be obtained if there are different thresholds for states carrying different gauge quantum numbers. For low values of the decompactification scale the prediction for the strong coupling is extremely sensitive to these Kaluza Klein thresholds. As a result the adjustment of thresholds needed to bring the strong coupling into agreement with experiment must be done very precisely to keep the strong coupling within the experimental limits. In this case the success of the simple unification prediction is lost and one needs a detailed model of the Kaluza Klein mass spectrum to recover a reliable prediction. For high values of the decompactification scale the unification prediction tends to the usual one. While there is still a dependence on unification scale thresholds, it is much milder so in this case an accurate prediction of the value of the strong coupling is possible.