# 1 Anomalous 𝑈⁢(1) in Four–Dimensional String Models

## 1 Anomalous $`U(1)`$ in Four–Dimensional String Models

One of the underlying themes of this conference is possible generalizations to minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) physics resulting from Lorentz and CPT violating effects. There have been very nice talks discussing how strings (or $`M`$–theory higher dimensional objects) could produce such symmetry breaking effects. At this time I would like to focus on another type of symmetry breaking that, as the six dimensions are compactified in string models, often accompanies the reduction of ten–dimensional Lorentz symmetry to four–dimensional Lorentz symmetry. I am referring to the appearance of an anomalous local $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ , for which there is a non–zero charge trace over the massless states in the effective low energy field theory,

$$\mathrm{Tr}Q^{(A)}0.$$
(1.1)   
In ten uncompactified dimensions, all local $`U(1)`$ symmetries in heterotic strings are embedded in either $`E_8\times E_8`$ or $`SO(32)`$ gauge groups and, therefore, are necessarily non–anomalous. However, producing the SM group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ from either of these larger groups via compactification also frees several $`U(1)_i`$ (orthogonal to the SM group) from their $`E_8\times E_8`$ or $`SO(32)`$ embeddings and allows them to become anomalous. Additionally, any of the six $`U(1)_i`$ corresponding to the compactified dimensions may also become anomalous. If more than one $`U(1)_i`$ is initially anomalous (which is the general case), a unique rotation,

$$U(1)_\mathrm{A}c_\mathrm{A}\underset{i}{}\{\mathrm{Tr}Q^{(i)}\}U(1)_i,$$
(1.2)   
with $`c_A`$ a normalization coefficient, places the entire anomaly into a single Abelian group, referred to here as $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$. All of the Abelian combinations orthogonal to $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ become traceless. From hereon I will assume this rotation has been performed and will denote the traceless combinations as $`U(1)_j^{^{}}`$.

When an anomalous $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ appears in a string model, there is a mechanism (aptly called the standard anomaly cancellation mechanism ) whereby the $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ is broken near the string scale. In the process, a Fayet–Iliopoulos (FI) $`D`$–term,

$$ϵ\frac{g_s^2M_P^2}{192\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}Q^{(A)},$$
(1.3)   
is generated in the effective Lagrangian, with $`g_s`$ the string coupling and $`M_P`$ the reduced Planck mass, $`M_PM_{Planck}/\sqrt{8\pi }2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV. The FI–term will break spacetime supersymmetry near the string scale unless a set of scalar VEVs, $`\{\phi _m\}`$, of fields $`\phi _m`$ carrying anomalous charges $`Q_m^{(\mathrm{A})}`$, can contribute a compensating $`D`$–term, $`D_A(\phi _m)_\alpha Q_m^{(A)}|\phi _m|^2`$, to cancel the FI–term, i.e.,

$$D_A=\underset{m}{}Q_m^{(A)}|\phi _m|^2+ϵ=0.$$
(1.4)   
A set of scalar VEVs satisfying eq. (1.4) is also constrained to maintain $`D`$–flatness for all non–anomalous Abelian $`U(1)_j^{^{}}`$ symmetries as well,<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*I am only considering flat directions involving non–Abelian singlet fields solely. In cases where non–trivial non–Abelian representations are also allowed VEVs, generalized non–Abelian $`D`$–flat constraints must also be imposed.

$$D_j=\underset{m}{}Q_m^{(j)}|\phi _m|^2=0.$$
(1.5)   
Each superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ (containing the scalar field $`\phi _m`$ and chiral superpartner) in the superpotential imposes further constraints on the set of scalar VEVs. $`F`$–flatness will be broken (thereby again destroying spacetime supersymmetry) at the scale of the VEVs unless,

$$F_m=\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}=0;W=0.$$
(1.6)   
Appearance of an anomalous $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ in a string model can have profound effects. An FI–term cancelling (and therefore supersymmetry restoring) flat direction of VEVs can drastically alter the phenomenology of a model in two ways. First, the typical scalars taking on VEVs in a flat direction also carry charges of several non–anomalous $`U(1)_j^{}`$. Through a generalized Higgs effect, the scalars give near string–scale mass to the respective generators of these gauge fields. The standard anomaly cancellation mechanism thereby causes not just the anomalous $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ to be broken, but several non–anomalous $`U(1)_j^{}`$ as well. Second, a non–renormalizable superpotential term, $`\frac{\lambda }{M_\mathrm{S}^{n3}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, formed from $`n>3`$ superfields produces a new effective mass term, $`\frac{\lambda }{M_\mathrm{S}^{n3}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, if $`n2`$ of the fields take on VEVs, or produces a new effective Yukawa term, $`\frac{\lambda }{M_\mathrm{S}^{n3}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$, if $`n3`$ take on VEVs. ($`\lambda `$ is a generic non–renormalizable coupling coefficient.)

## 2 Three Generation $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times _iU(1)_i`$ String Models

As mentioned, in four dimensions, a quasi–realistic three generation $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ heterotic string model has several additional Abelian group factors, $`U(1)_i`$, along with a hidden sector non–Abelian gauge group $`G_{\mathrm{hid}}`$. When this type of string model is compactified from ten to four dimensions via a Calabi–Yau (CY) manifold or $`N=2`$ minimal model, all of the extra $`U(1)_i`$ remain non–anomalous. On the other hand, when this compactification occurs through bosonic lattices, orbifolds, or free fermions, an anomalous $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ generically appears. Thus, while CY and $`N=2`$ compactified models can be thought of as “What you see is what you get” models, lattice, orbifold, and free fermion models cannot be regarded as such. For the latter classes of models, the massless spectrum and gauge groups before anomaly cancellation may be very different from the corresponding ones after a flat direction set of VEVs is chosen (non–perturbatively).

These dynamical, FI–term induced string model transformations may, in fact, be a very valuable tool for producing phenomenologically viable string models. The reason for this relates to a problematic aspect of generic three generation $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ string models. Exotic MSSM states, many carrying fractional electric charge, seem an ubiquitous feature of such models . Most of these exotics, if they remain massless down to the electroweak scale, signify unphysical phenomenology, thereby disallowing a model containing them. Enhancing the probability of this occurring are the “string–selection rules.” These are additional constraints on superpotential terms beyond standard gauge invariance. String selection rules often forbid superpotential terms, otherwise allowed by gauge invariance, that could generate large mass for an exotic via couplings with flat direction VEVs . This generally makes decoupling of all dangerous exotic fields from the low energy effective field theory difficult.

## 3 A String Derived MSSM

Recently a free fermionic string model constructed several years ago  was found to contain certain flat (that is, $`D`$– and $`F`$–flat to all finite orders in the superpotential ) directions of near string scale magnitude that simultaneously cancel the FI $`D`$–term and give (near) string scale mass to all exotics (including those with fractional electric charge) . Prior to VEVs being turned on, the gauge group of this model is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_A\times _{j=1}^{10}U(1)_j^{^{}}\times SU(3)_H\times SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_H^{}`$. Under any of these special flat directions, exactly three $`U(1)_j^{^{}}`$ survive. The gauge group thus reduces to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times _{j^{}=1}^3U(1)_j^{}^{^{}}\times SU(3)_H\times SU(2)_H\times SU(2)_H^{}`$.

In the pre–VEV stage, the model contains several massless MSSM exotics: one $`SU(3)_C`$ vector–like pair of triplets with electric charges $`Q_{elec}=\pm \frac{1}{3}`$; ten $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets, four of which carry $`Q_{elec}=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$; and 16 $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L`$ singlets, eight with $`Q_{elec}=+\frac{1}{2}`$ and eight with $`Q_{elec}=\frac{1}{2}`$; one vector–like pair of hidden sector $`SU(2)_H`$ doublets with $`Q_{elec}=\frac{1}{2}`$, and a similar pair of $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ doublets. The specific flat directions generate mass through unsuppressed renormalizable superpotential terms for all of the exotics, except for the $`SU(3)_C`$ vector–like triplet pair. The $`SU(3)`$ triplet pair receives mass through a suppressed fifth order term and, thus, its mass scale should be suppressed a bit below that of the other states. The FI–term induced mass scale of the fields was found to be of the order $`7\times 10^{16}`$ GeV.

One physical characteristic distinguishing between these various flat directions is the set of additional non–Abelian singlets and hidden sector non–Abelian non–singlets that take on (near) string–scale mass. Typically, slightly less than half of the remaining 47 singlets become massive. For the example flat direction discussed in ref. , the number is 19, with the corresponding mass terms being unsuppressed for 15 of these. Four singlets receive (suppressed) mass terms at fifth order. Slightly more than half of the hidden sector non–singlets also receive induced masses. For these non-singlets, more masses are generated through higher order terms than through the renormalizable terms. When the flat direction of ref.  is applied, 18 of the remaining 30 hidden sector non–singlet states become near string scale massive. Eight of these 18 states gain mass through renormalizable terms, six from fourth order terms, and four via fifth order terms.

## 4 String and MSSM Scale Unification

Assuming the spectrum of the MSSM above the electroweak scale, unification of the $`SU(3)_C`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ running couplings occurs at a scale $`M_\mathrm{U}=M_{\mathrm{MSSM}}2.5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. However, for several years  the general perturbative string prediction of the scale at which all gauge couplings merge has been on the order of $`M_\mathrm{S}5\times 10^{17}`$ GeV. Several perturbative solutions have been proposed  to resolve the apparent factor of 20 inequity between the two scales, $`M_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{S}`$. Typically these proposals attempt to (i) raise the $`SU(3)_C`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ unification scale $`M_\mathrm{U}`$ above the MSSM scale $`M_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$ through the effects of intermediate scale MSSM exotics on the running couplings, (ii) lower the string scale $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ to the MSSM scale $`M_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$ via threshold effects from the infinite tower of massive string states, (iii) run a unified MSSM coupling to the string scale via a grand unification theory, or (iv) various combinations of (i) through (iii). However, Witten has recently suggested an $`M`$–theory mechanism that offers a non–perturbative resolution to the apparent scale misalignment . This conjecture maintains the successful MSSM prediction and equates the string scale to the MSSM scale, $`M_\mathrm{S}=M_{\mathrm{MSSM}}2.5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. Thus, this conjecture suggests that the observable gauge group just below the string scale should be $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ and the spectrum of the observable sector should consist solely of the MSSM spectrum. The model of  appears to be the first realization of an actual string–derived MSSM.

Detailed analysis of this model is underway and will be presented in forthcoming papers . In particular, for each MSSM–generating flat direction, we will examine the variations in (i) the textures of the MSSM mass matrices, (ii) the non–Abelian singlet and hidden sector non–singlet low energy spectrums, and (iii) the hidden sector effective Yukawa and non–renormalizable terms.

## 5 Acknowledgements

G.C. thanks the coordinator of CPT ’98, Alan Kostelecký, and his staff for organizing a very enjoyable and educational conference. G.C. also thanks his collaborators Alon Faraggi and Dimitri Nanopoulos for valuable discussions. This work is supported in part by DOE Grant No. DE–FG–0395ER40917.