ReviewsNo Access

$H \to γ γ$ $H \to γ γ$ , gauge invariance, and the hierarchy problem

Jennifer Kile

Centro de Física Teórica de Partículas, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

E-mail Address: jennifer.kile@cftp.tecnico.ulisboa.pt

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X16300465Cited by:3 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

The calculation of $H \to γ γ$ $H \to γ γ$ displays interesting behavior which depends on the regulator used in the integration over loop momenta. If calculated using a gauge-invariant regulator, such as dimensional regularization, the calculation yields a unique, finite, gauge-invariant result. If four-dimensional symmetric regulation is used without finite subtractions, additional pieces occur which spoil QED gauge invariance. In both cases, a finite result is obtained, but the particular finite result depends on the regulator utilized in the calculation.

While gauge-invariant regulators such as dimensional regularization are normally used, four-dimensional symmetric integration is also physically motivated. Also, the gauge-invariance-violating terms that arise using four-dimensional symmetric integration are of the same form for the fermionic, scalar, and the SM $W^{\pm}$ $W^{\pm}$ loop calculated in renormalizable gauge. This presents an interesting possibility. Inspired by anomaly cancellation, we ask if it is possible that these gauge-invariance-violating terms may cancel in certain models when contributions from all diagrams are included.

Here, we calculate the regulator-dependent contributions to $H \to γ γ$ $H \to γ γ$ arising from generic fermion and scalar loops, as well as the Standard Model $W^{\pm}$ $W^{\pm}$ loop contribution, which we evaluate in renormalizable gauge for general $ξ$ $ξ$ . We find that a cancellation between such terms is possible, and derive the cancellation condition. Additionally, we find that this cancellation condition ensures QED gauge invariance without finite subtractions for any regulator used, not just for four-dimensional symmetric integration.

We additionally relate the regulator-dependent terms in $H \to γ γ$ $H \to γ γ$ to the behavior of quadratically-divergent Higgs tadpole diagrams under shifts of internal loop momentum. Thus, the cancellation condition for the gauge-invariance-violating terms in $H \to γ γ$ $H \to γ γ$ implies a relation between the quadratic divergences in Higgs tadpole diagrams; this has consequences for hypothesized solutions to the hierarchy problem. Lastly, we find that the MSSM obeys our cancellation condition.

Keywords:

PACS: 14.80.Bn, 11.30.-j, 12.60.-i, 11.30.Pb

You currently do not have access to the full text article.
Recommend the journal to your library today!

References

1. CMS Collab. (S. Chatrchyan et al.), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
2. ATLAS Collab. (G. Aad et al.), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
3. ATLAS and CMS Collabs. (G. Aad et al.), arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]. Google Scholar
4. J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 106, 292 (1976). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
5. M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 30, 711 (1979) [Yad. Fiz. 30, 1368 (1979)]. Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 22, 178 (1980) [Addendum: ibid. 22, 1824 (1980)]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
7. B. L. Ioffe and V. A. Khoze, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 9, 50 (1978) [Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 9, 118 (1978)]. Google Scholar
8. L. Resnick, M. K. Sundaresan and P. J. S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D 8, 172 (1973). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
9. R. Jackiw, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 2011 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9903044. Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
10. A. de Gouvea, J. Kile and R. Vega-Morales, arXiv:1306.5767 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
11. H. Fukuda and Y. Miyamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 4, 347 (1949). Crossref, ADS, Google Scholar
12. H. Fukuda, Y. Miyamoto, T. Miyazima, S. Ôneda, S. Ozaki, S. Sasaki and S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 4, 477 (1949). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
13. J. Steinberger, Phys. Rev. 76, 1180 (1949). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
14. J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
15. I. S. Gerstein and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. 181, 1955 (1969). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
16. F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
17. A. Barroso, M. A. Doncheski, H. Grotch, J. G. Korner and K. Schilcher, Phys. Lett. B 261, 123 (1991), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91336-T. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
18. R. Gastmans, S. L. Wu and T. T. Wu, arXiv:1108.5872 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
19. R. Gastmans, S. L. Wu and T. T. Wu, arXiv:1108.5322 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
20. M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013015 (2012), arXiv:1109.1785 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
21. D. Huang, Y. Tang and Y.-L. Wu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 57, 427 (2012), arXiv:1109.4846 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
22. W. J. Marciano, C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 85, 013002 (2012), arXiv:1109.5304 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
23. F. Jegerlehner, arXiv:1110.0869 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
24. H.-S. Shao, Y.-J. Zhang and K.-T. Chao, J. High Energy Phys. 1201, 053 (2012), arXiv:1110.6925 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
25. B. A. Campbell, J. Ellis and K. A. Olive, J. High Energy Phys. 1203, 026 (2012), arXiv:1111.4495 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
26. F. Bursa, A. Cherman, T. C. Hammant, R. R. Horgan and M. Wingate, Phys. Rev. D 85, 093009 (2012), arXiv:1112.2135 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
27. F. Piccinini, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Chin. Phys. C 37, 043102 (2013), arXiv:1112.4764 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. A. Dedes and K. Suxho, arXiv:1210.0141 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
29. A. Donati and R. Pittau, J. High Energy Phys. 1304, 167 (2013), arXiv:1302.5668 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
30. A. L. Cherchiglia, L. A. Cabral, M. C. Nemes and M. Sampaio, Phys. Rev. D 87, 065011 (2013), arXiv:1210.6164 [hep-th]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
31. A. L. Cherchiglia, A. R. Vieira, B. Hiller, A. P. Baêta Scarpelli and M. Sampaio, Ann. Phys. 351, 751 (2014), doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.10.002, arXiv:1410.1063 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
32. E. Christova and I. Todorov, Bulg. J. Phys. 42, 296 (2015), arXiv:1410.7061 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
33. K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 93, 053015 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.053015, arXiv:1601.00406 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
34. A. M. Donati and R. Pittau, EPJ Web Conf. 60, 12014 (2013), doi:10.1051/epjconf/20136012014, arXiv:1306.6785 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
35. G. Cynolter and E. Lendvai, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 9, 1237 (2011), arXiv:1002.4490 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
36. G. Cynolter and E. Lendvai, arXiv:1509.07407 [hep-ph]. Google Scholar
37. V. Elias, G. McKeon and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 28, 1978 (1983). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
38. M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B 12, 437 (1981). Web of Science, Google Scholar
39. S. Weinzierl, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1430015 (2014), doi:10.1142/S0217732314300158, arXiv:1402.4407 [hep-ph]. Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
40. J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane and S. Dawson, Front. Phys. 80, 1 (2000). Web of Science, Google Scholar
41. A. Khare, J. Phys. G 3, 1019 (1977). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
42. Y. Liang and A. Czarnecki, Can. J. Phys. 90, 11 (2012), arXiv:1111.6126 [hep-ph]. Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar