text:
# Scaling behavior in land markets

## 1 Introduction

Power law scaling consists of universal properties that characterize collective phenomena that emerge from complex systems composed of many interacting units. Power law scaling has been observed not only in physical systems, but also in economic and financial systems \[1-22\]. The discovery of this scaling behavior in economic and financial systems has shed new light on economics, and, in recent years, has led to the establishment of a new scientific field bridging economics and physics. Market economy land is one of the most important assets in capitalism. The movement of land prices has a strong influence on the economic behavior of individuals and firms . Over the past few decades, a considerable number of studies have been conducted on the scaling behavior in economic systems. Nevertheless, no studies have ever tried to study the scaling behavior in a land market. Here, we introduce power law statistics in the distributions of land prices and of the relative price, as a new example of power law scaling in economic systems.

## 2 Empirical Results

### 2.1 The data

In most other countries, land price is a residual of property price, calculated by the income approach: net income divided by yield, minus building cost. However, in Japan, property price, including that for income producing properties, usually comprises land price plus building price, which are calculated separately. Land prices are normally determined by market comparisons utilizing land price indices prepared by the Government; such as the assessed value of land by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, whilst building prices are normally determined in the market through the cost approach. The assessed value of land is a price of a centare of a place as of January 1, evaluated by two real estate valuers . The investigation is undertaken throughout the land once a year. We analyze a database of the assessed value of land covering the 6-year period between 1995-2000. The data for each of the 6 annual intervals contains the land prices in approximately 30,000 points.

### 2.2 The distribution of the land price

We first study the probability distribution of land price. In Fig.1, we plot the cumulative probability distribution of land price (S) of 30,600 points in the year 1998, which is the log-log plot of the cumulative probability as a function of land price. The ordinate shows the cumulative probability in a log scale, that is, the probability of finding land of a price equal to, or higher than, x. It is apparent that this plot tends towards becoming a linear function in the high price range. We find that the tail of the cumulative probability distribution of the land price is described by a power law distribution,

$$P(S>x)x^\alpha .$$
(1)
The solid line in Fig. 1 represents this function. In the range of land prices higher than $`2\times 10^5`$ yen, the probability distribution follows a power low with exponent $`\alpha =1.7\pm 0.02`$ $`(R^2=0.99)`$, as determined by ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in log-log coordinates. Here, $`R^2`$ denotes the coefficient of determination. The distribution fits the power law (1) very accurately in the high price range but it gradually deviates from (1) as the price becomes lower. As a further test of the strength of this result, I repeated the same analyses for the data of land prices for each of the periods between 1995 - 2000. The power law exponents were in the range of $`(1.53,1.76)`$. The results are represented in Table 1. Overall, the power law distribution of land prices is very strong.

### 2.3 The distribution of the relative land price

We next analyze the probability distribution of the relative price of land. The relative price is, by definition, $`r=S(t+1)/S(t)`$ where $`S(t)`$ and $`S(t+1)`$ are the prices of a given point in the years $`t`$ and $`t+1`$, respectively. Fig.2 shows the probability distribution of the relative price ($`r`$) from 1997 to 1998, which is plotted on the log-log coordinates. Note that the horizontal axis denotes the relative price change that is defined as $`(\mathrm{ln}r)`$. As seen from the figure, the probability distribution of relative prices is consistent with a scaling power law asymptotic behavior,

$$P(r)|r|^\beta $$
(2)
Using ordinary least squares regression in Fig. 2, we obtain estimates for the asymptotic slope

$$\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 26.11\pm 0.47& \text{for }r<r^{}(R^2=0.99),\hfill \\ \hfill 112.37\pm 6.02& \text{for }r^{}(R^2=0.98)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`r^{}=1.005`$. As a further test of the strength of these results, we repeated these analyses for 6-year periods between 1995 and 2000. Similar results were obtained for each year back through 1995 (Table 2).

Fig. 2, which indicates the probability distribution of relative prices from 1997 to 1998, contains a long tail to the left, so the negative observations extend over a wide range, but the positive do not. The average of the Japanese land prices continued to rise after World War II. Particularly in the period of the bubble economy in Japan (1987-1991), the land prices had extraordinarily risen. However, the average price peaked in 1992, and started to decline continuously thereafter. The land prices have fallen during the period of the collapse of the bubble economy. That is why the distribution function of relative prices in the years 1997 and 1998 is skewed to the left. Furthermore, this suggests that the distribution function of the relative prices was skewed to the right during the bubble economy period, in which the land prices rose rapidly. A more credible hypothesis is that the slant of the probability distribution of the relative prices was a response to the changes in the economic environment and over time.

Here, we analyze the distributions of the relative price in more detail, in order to examine the effect of price. To this aim, we partition the points into three price-ranges, low, medium, and high, according to the logarithm of price $`s=\mathrm{ln}S(t)`$. Fig. 3a indicates the conditional probability density functions on a log-log scale. The figure and Table 3 show clearly that points that belong to the high price-range have a higher standard deviation than points that belong to the low price range. Thus the conditional probability density functions, $`P(r|s)`$, have different standard deviations, for the log price.

To quantify the fact that the standard deviations of the relative prices vary by the price-ranges, we next calculated the standard deviation $`\sigma (s)`$ of the relative prices as a function of a price. Fig. 3b shows how the standard deviation of the relative price increases linearly with the logarithm of price. Using the ordinary least squares method on the data, the standard deviation $`\sigma (s)`$ is estimated as

$$\sigma (s)=a+bs$$
(4)
with $`a=0.05\pm 0.002`$ and $`b=0.0064\pm 0.0002`$ $`R^2=0.996)`$. The reason why the price fluctuations depend on the price level is probably as follows. The land prices in urban areas are on average higher than in rural areas, and, furthermore, trades take place more actively in urban areas than in rural ones, so that the price fluctuations are generally higher in urban areas than in rural areas. As a consequence, the price fluctuations in the high price-range are higher than the price fluctuations in the low price-range.

Finally, we standardized the relative prices in order to find a form of the probability distribution of the relative prices that does not depend on the price-range. We standardized the relative price that comes into each price-range by dividing by the estimated standard deviation given a price-range. In Fig. 3c, we plot the logarithm of the probability density $`P(z|s)`$ as a function of the logarithm of the standardized relative price $`z=(r\overline{r}(s))/\sigma (s)`$, where $`\overline{r}(s)`$ denotes the mean. After standardizing, the resulting empirical probability distributions appear identical for the observations drawn from different points grouped by the price-range. We found that the conditional probability distributions could be expressed by power law distributions

$$P(z|s)|z|^\lambda $$
(5)
Using the ordinary least squares regression method in Fig. 3c, we obtained estimates for the asymptotic slope

$$\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0.93\pm 0.02& \text{for }z<z^{}(R^2=0.98),\hfill \\ \hfill 2.29\pm 0.36& \text{for }zz^{}(R^2=0.73).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`z^{}=1.76`$. To test if these results for the conditional probability distributions held for the data of the other years, we analyzed the data of each year of the 6-year period between 1995-2000. Similar quantitative behavior was found for the conditional probability distributions.

## 3 Conclusion

We have shown that the prices and the relative prices of land are very well described by the power law distributions. Our empirical results give the conditions that any empirically accurate theories of land market have to satisfy. Since no model so far has successfully satisfied the statistical properties demonstrated in this paper, the next step is to model the behavior in land markets. In modeling land markets, we should notice that land markets are complex systems compromised of many interacting agents. In land markets, participants meet randomly and negotiated trade takes place when an agent willing to buy land meets an agent willing to sell land. The price formation in land markets is generated through this random matching process. Thus, it is likely that the methods of Statistical Physics developed to study complex systems, from which power law scaling emerges, will be useful to describe behavior in land markets.

A further important point to note is that land are a very important real asset, and the movement of land price strongly affect decision-making by consumers and firms . Therefore, the investigation of the relationship between land prices and other economic variables such as consumption and investment will lead us further into a new understanding of the dynamics of the macro-economy, which is a complex system that is composed of many interacting subsystems, each with a complex internal structure comprising many interacting agents.

## 4 Acknowledgement

I am indebted to Michiyo Kaizoji for her assistance in collecting the data, to Yoshi Fujiwara and Takuya Yamano for his helpful suggestions. This research was supported in part by a grant from the land institute of Japan.


format: text

text:
# Electric/magnetic flux tube on the background of magnetic/electric field

## I Introduction

One of the more fascinating aspects of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a quark confinement. The phenomenon of the confinement of quarks is connected with a hypothesized flux tube filled with the color electric field and stretched between quark and antiquark. This situation is in contrast with the electron and positron pair where the force lines in the whole space are spread. The confinement is a non-perturbative effect, it means that it can not be derived using traditional theoretical methods of the quantum field theory, i.e. Feynman diagram technique. The main problem for the derivation of confinement from the first principles is the absence of quantization methods for such strongly nonlinear field theories as SU(3) gauge field. The lattice simulations confirm the point of view that in QCD there is such phenomenon as the flux tube filled with a chromoelectric field. Another confirmation of this point of view is a dual QCD baker  where the electric and magnetic fields switch places and a dual Meissner effect with respect to the chromoelectric force lines takes place. In this theory there is a famous Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solution no  filled with longitudinal magnetic field which can imitate the flux tube stretched between quark and antiquark.

Evidently one of the most essential problems in the confinement phenomenon is the derivation of a field distribution for the flux tube from first principles. At first, similar problem was set up by Heisenberg heis : he has calculated some characteristics of a quantized nonlinear spinor field. His basic idea is that the fundamental equation for the quantized nonlinear spinor field is the corresponding classical equation where the classical spinor field is replaced by an operator of the spinor field. This equation is applied for the derivation of an infinite equations set for Green’s functions which give us all information relevant for quantized spinor field.

The idea presented here is the same vdsin1 : we assume that the fundamental equations in QCD is Yang-Mills equations where the gauge potential $`A_\mu ^a`$ is replaced by an operator $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^a`$. Later, according to Heisenberg, we derive equations for field correlators that is similar to ideas proposed in Ref. giacomo . In the first approximation we will assume that $`Q|f(A_\mu ^a)|Q=f(Q|A_\mu ^a|Q)`$ here $`|Q`$ is a quantum state. But this is not all : we assume that the non-linearity of the SU(2) gauge theory leads to symmetry breaking, i.e. to the appearance of some additional terms in the Yang-Mills equations. We presuppose that these terms is like to $`(m^2(a)A_\mu ^a)`$ (here the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ are omitted). This assumption is similar to a Coleman-Veinberg mechanism coleman  in $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory. The essence of the Coleman-Veinberg mechanism is that the nonlinear terms like $`\phi ^4`$ produce some corrections by such a way that a spontaneously spontaneously breakdown occurs. In the present letter we explicitly incorporate mass terms of some components of the gauge potential into the SU(2) Yang-Mills equations to describe dynamics of the flux tube gauge fields in the presence of an external field. In Ref. deguchi  similar idea is presented to derive an effective Abelian gauge theory of a modified SU(2) gluodynamics. Although the mass-generation mechanism is not well understood analytically at present we accept the mass generation as true in the beginning of our discussion without questioning its mechanism. We expect that the mass terms of gauge potential are dynamically induced by a non-perturbative effect of gluodynamics.

In the next section we will obtain equations set (7)-(10) which describes a cylindrically symmetric distribution of the SU(2) gauge field coupled with the Higgs scalar field. These equations contain the abelian Nielsen-Olesen flux tube : (9)-(10) equations with $`f=v=0`$. One can hope that these equations can involve another interesting flux tube solutions with non-abelian gauge fields. In this note we do the first step in this direction: we show that these equations actually have solutions which can be interpreted as electric/magnetic flux tube on the background of magnetic/electric field. We hope that there is the next step on which we will obtain the more complicated flux tube solutions with longitudinal non-abelian chromoelectric field which is absent in the Nielsen-Olesen flux tube.

Therefore the main goal of this letter is to show that spontaneously symmetry breakdown of the SU(2) gauge theory coupled with the Higgs scalar field leads to a variant of the SU(2) flux tube filled with electric/magnetic field surrounded by an external magnetic/electric field.

## II Ansatz and equations

The equations for the SU(2) gauge potential $`A_\mu ^a`$ are

$`D_\nu F^{a\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`eϵ^{abc}\varphi ^bD^\mu \varphi ^cm^2(a)A^{a\mu },`$ (1)
$`D_\mu D^\mu \varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \varphi ^a\left(\varphi ^b\varphi ^b\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2\right)`$ (2)
here $`e`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ are some constants; $`D_\mu (\mathrm{})^a=_\mu (\mathrm{})^a+eϵ^{abc}A_\mu ^b(\mathrm{})^c`$ is the covariant derivative; $`\varphi ^a`$ is a scalar field which is by analogy with the Nielsen-Olesen flux tube. Let us remind that the term $`m^2(a)A_\mu ^a`$ is the consequence of the quantization (which leads to a gauge symmetry breadown) and equations (1), (2) are some approximation for the calculation of the averaged gauge potential $`A_\mu ^a`$. We consider the cylindrically symmetric case and consequently ansatz for the gauge potential we choose in the form Obukhov:1996ry

$`A_t^1(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\rho )}{e}},`$ (3)
$`A_z^2(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v(\rho )}{e}},`$ (4)
$`A_\phi ^3(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho w(\rho )}{e}},`$ (5)
$`\varphi ^1(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\rho )}{e}},`$ (6)
here $`\rho ,z`$ and $`\phi `$ are the cylindrical coordinates. The corresponding equations are

$`f^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`f\left(v^2+w^2\right)m^2f,`$ (7)
$`v^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{v^{}}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`v\left(f^2+w^2+\varphi ^2\right)m^2v,`$ (8)
$`w^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\rho ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`w\left(f^2+w^2+\varphi ^2\right),`$ (9)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \left(v^2+w^2\right)+\lambda \varphi \left(\varphi ^2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2\right),`$ (10)
here we have replaced $`e\varphi \varphi `$, $`\lambda /e^2\lambda `$, $`e\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`m(1)=m(2)=m`$, $`m(3)=0`$. The condition $`m_3=0`$ means that the U(1) gauge symmetry remains unbroken. Noticing that the system (7)-(10) is close to that of the spherically symmetric case in the Prasad-Sommerfeld limit prasad , we look for the general solution for $`f,v,\varphi `$ in the form Obukhov:1996ry

$$v(\rho )=K(\rho ),\varphi (\rho )=K(\rho )\mathrm{cosh}\gamma ,f(\rho )=K(\rho )\mathrm{sinh}\gamma $$
(11)
here $`\gamma `$ is an arbitrary constant. Additionally we will consider the limit

$$\lambda 0,\text{but}\lambda \varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2=m^2.$$
(12)
After which we have the following equations

$`K^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`Kw^2+K\left(K^2m^2\right),`$ (13)
$`w^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\rho ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2wK^2.`$ (14)
Let us introduce the dimensionless coordinate $`x=\rho m\sqrt{2}`$ and replace $`K/mK`$, $`w/(m\sqrt{2})w`$

$`K^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`Kw^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K\left(K^2m^2\right),`$ (15)
$`w^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{w}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`wK^2.`$ (16)
This is the famous Nielsen-Olesen equations for the flux tube and with special choice of $`\lambda =1/2`$. These equations are good investigated, see for example Ref’s. n-o . It is well known that (15) and (16) equations are equivalent to the first order equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_\pm }{2}}\left(K^21\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`K^{}+s_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{FK}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
here $`F=xw`$ and $`s_\pm =\pm 1`$. These equations are some special case of BPS strings which describe flux tube solutions in dual SU(N) theories kneipp .

## III Magnetic and electric flux tubes on the background of electric and magnetic fields

It is well known that equations (17)-(18) describe the Nielsen-Olesen flux tube. This solution at the origin is

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}}+\mathrm{},`$ (19)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`bx+\mathrm{},`$ (20)
$`s_{}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (21)
here $`b`$ is an arbitrary constant. The asymptotical behavior is

$`F(x)|_x\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (22)
$`K(x)|_x\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`1.`$ (23)
This solution describes the magnetic field localized in a tube. Both functions are presented on Fig. 2. The flux of magnetic field is quantized which means that the solution exists only for a special choice of $`b0.6031985`$.

But our interpretation of this solution for the SU(2) gauge theory with symmetry breaking is different. In our case we have the following color fields

$`E_z^3=F_{tz}^3=eϵ^{3bc}A_t^bA_z^c={\displaystyle \frac{fv}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma }{e}},`$ (24)
$`H_z^3=\rho F^{3\rho \phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{\rho }}.`$ (25)
$`H_\phi ^2=F^{2\rho z}=_\rho A_z^2={\displaystyle \frac{v^{}}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{e}},`$ (26)
$`E_\phi ^2=F^{2t\phi }=A_t^1A_\phi ^3=\rho fw`$ $`=`$ $`\rho wK\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,`$ (27)
$`E_\rho ^1=F_{\rho z}^1=_\rho A_t^1={\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{e}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}\mathrm{sinh}\gamma }{e}},`$ (28)
$`H_\rho ^1=\rho F^{1z\phi }=vw`$ $`=`$ $`Kw.`$ (29)
For us interesting is only $`E_z`$ and $`H_z`$ fields which are presented on Fig.2.

The second type of solution has the following form at the origin

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1K_0^2\right)x^2+\mathrm{},`$ (30)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`K_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K_0\left(1K_0^2\right)x^2+\mathrm{},`$ (31)
$`s_+`$ $`=`$ $`+1`$ (32)
here $`K_0^2<1`$ is an arbitrary constant. The solution has the following asymptotical behavior

$`F(x)|_x\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4}},`$ (33)
$`K(x)|_x\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`K_{\mathrm{}}e^{\frac{x^2}{8}}.`$ (34)
here $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ is some constant. In contrast with the Nielsen-Olesen flux tube this solution describes a flux of electric field on the background of the magnetic field. The solution exists for arbitrary $`K_0^2<1`$ and this means that the flux of electric field is non-quantized. The typical solution is presented on Fig.4. On Fig.4 the electric and magnetic fields are plotted.

We see that in both cases one field (electric/magnetic) pushes out another one (magnetic/electric).

## IV Discussion and conclusions

Our interpretation of presented solutions is the following : we have obtained the flux tube filled with the longitudinal electric/magnetic field on the background of the longitudinal external magnetic/electric field. The word ”external“ demands an explanation. The non-Abelian gauge theories are nonlinear and consequently an external field must be a part of the solution of Yang-Mills equations which describes simultaneously the flux tube and external fields. Thus presented solutions is a nonlinear superposition of the flux tube and external fields.

We have shown that spontaneously symmetry breakdown probably is an essential ingredient of a quantum gauge theory leading to a flux tube field distribution. The question about the mechanism of this phenomenon is very complicated. The origin of symmetry breakdown can be connected with the non-linearity of non-Abelian theories, ghost condensation dudal  or maybe even with properties of an algebra of field operators dzhun .

We have mentioned above that every electric/magnetic field in the flux tube pushes out the external magnetic/electric field. It can be connected with the fact that we group together $`A_t^a,A_z^a`$ components of the gauge potential and the scalar field $`\varphi ^a`$. From the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole and Nielsen-Olesen flux tube we know that the scalar field pushes out the gauge fields. Thus in our case it may be that the separation of the flux tube and external fields is connected with the bundle (11) of some gauge potential components and scalar field. Probably that the breakdown of the bundle (11) will lead to a flux tube without any external gauge field and it should be the next step of the investigation in this direction.

In closing I want to underline that this consideration is not pure classical one as we add the mass term which is connected with the quantization of such non-linear theory as the SU(2) gauge theory.

## V Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the ISTC grant KR-677 for the financial support.


text:
# Quiver Gauge Theory and Unification at About 4 TeV

## 1 Quiver Gauge Theory

The relationship of the Type IIB superstring to conformal gauge theory in $`d=4`$ gives rise to an interesting class of gauge theories. Choosing the simplest compactification on $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ gives rise to an $`N=4`$ SU(N) gauge theory which is known to be conformal due to the extended global supersymmetry and non-renormalization theorems. All of the RGE $`\beta `$functions for this $`N=4`$ case are vanishing in perturbation theory. It is possible to break the $`N=4`$ to $`N=2,1,0`$ by replacing $`S_5`$ by an orbifold $`S_5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2),SU(3),SU(3)`$ respectively.

In building a conformal gauge theory model , the steps are: (1) Choose the discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; (2) Embed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(4)`$; (3) Choose the $`N`$ of $`SU(N)`$; and (4) Embed the Standard Model $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ in the resultant gauge group $`SU(N)^p`$ (quiver node identification). Here we shall look only at abelian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_p`$ and define $`\alpha =exp(2\pi i/p)`$. It is expected from the string-field duality that the resultant field theory is conformal in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, and will have a fixed manifold, or at least a fixed point, for $`N`$ finite.

Before focusing on $`N=0`$ non-supersymmetric cases, let us first examine an $`N=1`$ model first put forward in the work of Kachru and Silverstein. The choice is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_3`$ and the 4 of $`SU(4)`$ is 4 = $`(1,\alpha ,\alpha ,\alpha ^2)`$. Choosing N=3 this leads to the three chiral families under $`SU(3)^3`$ trinification

$$(3,\overline{3},1)+(1,3,\overline{3})+(\overline{3},1,3)$$
(1)
In this model it is interesting that the number of families arises as 4-1=3, the difference between the 4 of SU(4) and $`N=1`$, the number of unbroken supersymmetries. However this model has no gauge coupling unification; also, keeping $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is against the spirit of the conformality approach. We now present an example which accommodates three chiral families, break all supersymmetries ($`N=0`$) and possess gauge coupling unification, including the correct value of the electroweak mixing angle.

Choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_7`$, embed the 4 of SU(4) as $`(\alpha ^2,\alpha ^2,\alpha ^3,\alpha ^1)`$, and choose N=3 to aim at a trinification $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_H`$.

The seven nodes of the quiver diagram will be identified as C-H-W-H-H-H-W.

The behavior of the 4 of SU(4) implies that the bifundamentals of chiral fermions are in the representations

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{7}{}}[2(N_j,\overline{N}_{j+2})+(N_j,\overline{N}_{j3})+(N_j,\overline{N}_{j1})]$$
(2)
Embedding the C, W and H SU(3) gauge groups as indicated by the quiver mode identifications then gives the seven quartets of irreducible representations

$$\begin{array}{c}[3(3,\overline{3},1)+(3,1,\overline{3})]_1+\hfill \\ +[3(1,1,1+8)+(\overline{3},1,3)]_2+\hfill \\ +[3(1,3,\overline{3})+(1,1+8,1)]_3+\hfill \\ +[(2(1,1,1+8)+(1,\overline{3},3)+(\overline{3},1,3)]_4+\hfill \\ +[2(1,1,1+8)+2(1,\overline{3},3)]_5+\hfill \\ +[2(\overline{3},1,3)+(1,1,1+8)+(1,\overline{3},3)]_6+\hfill \\ +[4(1,3,\overline{3})]_7\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Combining terms gives, aside from (real) adjoints and overall singlets

$$3(3,\overline{3},1)+4(\overline{3},1,3)+(3,1,\overline{3})+7(1,3,\overline{3})+4(1,\overline{3},3)$$
(4)
Cancelling the real parts (which acquire Dirac masses at the conformal symmetry breaking scale) leaves under trinification $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_H`$

$$3[(3,\overline{3},1)+(1,3,\overline{3})+(\overline{3},1,3)]$$
(5)
which are the desired three chiral families.

Given the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in SU(4) it follows that the 6 of SU(4) transforms as $`(\alpha ^4,\alpha ,\alpha ,\alpha ^1,\alpha ^1,\alpha ^4)`$. The complex scalars therefore transform as

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{7}{}}[(N_j,\overline{N}_{j\pm 4})+2(N_j,\overline{N}_{j\pm 1})]$$
(6)
These bifundamentals can by their VEVS break the symmetry $`SU(3)^7`$ = $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W^2\times SU(3)_H^4`$ down to the appropriate diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_H`$.

Now to the final aspect of this model which is its motivation, the gauge coupling unification. The embedding in $`SU(3)^7`$ of $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W^2\times SU(3)_H^4`$ means that the couplings $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ are in the ratio $`\alpha _1/\alpha _2/\alpha _3=1/2/4`$. Using the phenomenological data given at the beginning, this implies that $`sin^2\theta =0.231`$. On the other hand, the QCD coupling is $`\alpha _3=0.0676`$ which is too low unless the conformal scale is at least 10TeV.

## 2 Gauge Couplings.

An alternative to conformality, grand unification with supersymmetry, leads to an impressively accurate gauge coupling unification. In particular it predicts an electroweak mixing angle at the Z-pole, $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚒𝚗}^2\theta =0.231`$. This result may, however, be fortuitous, but rather than abandon gauge coupling unification, we can rederive $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚒𝚗}^2\theta =0.231`$ in a different way by embedding the electroweak $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ in $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ to find $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚒𝚗}^2\theta =3/130.231`$. This will be a common feature of the models in this paper.

The conformal theories will be finite without quadratic or logarithmic divergences. This requires appropriate equal number of fermions and bosons which can cancel in loops and which occur without the necessity of space-time supersymmetry. As we shall see in one example, it is possible to combine spacetime supersymmetry with conformality but the latter is the driving principle and the former is merely an option: additional fermions and scalars are predicted by conformality in the TeV range, but in general these particles are different and distinguishable from supersymmetric partners. The boson-fermion cancellation is essential for the cancellation of infinities, and will play a central role in the calculation of the cosmological constant (not discussed here). In the field picture, the cosmological constant measures the vacuum energy density.

What is needed first for the conformal approach is a simple model.

Here we shall focus on abelian orbifolds characterised by the discrete group $`Z_p`$. Non-abelian orbifolds will be systematically analysed elsewhere.

The steps in building a model for the abelian case (parallel steps hold for non-abelian orbifolds) are:

* (1) Choose the discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Here we are considering only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_p`$. We define $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/p)`$.
* (2) Choose the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(4)`$ by assigning $`\mathrm{𝟒}=(\alpha ^{A_1},\alpha ^{A_2},\alpha ^{A_3},\alpha ^{A_4})`$ such that $`_{q=1}^{q=4}A_q=0(\mathrm{mod}p)`$. To break $`N=4`$ supersymmetry to $`N=0`$ ( or $`N=1`$) requires that none (or one) of the $`A_q`$ is equal to zero (mod p).
* (3) For chiral fermions one requires that $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝟒}^{}`$ for the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`SU(4)`$.

The chiral fermions are in the bifundamental representations of $`SU(N)^p`$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=p}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{q=4}{}}(N_i,\overline{N}_{i+A_q})$$
(7)
If $`A_q=0`$ we interpret $`(N_i,\overline{N}_i)`$ as a singlet plus an adjoint of $`SU(N)_i`$.
* (4) The 6 of $`SU(4)`$ is real 6 = $`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ with $`a_1=A_1+A_2`$, $`a_2=A_2+A_3`$, $`a_3=A_3+A_1`$ (recall that all components are defined modulo p). The complex scalars are in the bifundamentals

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=p}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{j=3}{}}(N_i,\overline{N}_{i\pm a_j})$$
(8)
The condition in terms of $`a_j`$ for $`N=0`$ is $`_{j=1}^{j=3}(\pm a_j)0(\mathrm{mod}p)`$.
* (5) Choose the $`N`$ of $`_iSU(Nd_i)`$ (where the $`d_i`$ are the dimensions of the representrations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). For the abelian case where $`d_i1`$, it is natural to choose $`N=3`$ the largest $`SU(N)`$ of the standard model (SM) gauge group. For a non-abelian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`d_i1`$ the choice $`N=2`$ would be indicated.
* (6) The $`p`$ quiver nodes are identified as color (C), weak isospin (W) or a third $`SU(3)`$ (H). This specifies the embedding of the gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_HSU(N)^p`$.

This quiver node identification is guided by (7), (8) and (9) below.
* (7) The quiver node identification is required to give three chiral families under Eq.(7) It is sufficient to make three of the $`(C+A_q)`$ to be W and the fourth H, given that there is only one C quiver node, so that there are three $`(3,\overline{3},1)`$. Provided that $`(\overline{3},3,1)`$ is avoided by the $`(CA_q)`$ being H, the remainder of the three family trinification will be automatic by chiral anomaly cancellation. Actually, a sufficient condition for three families has been given; it is necessary only that the difference between the number of $`(3+A_q)`$ nodes and the number of $`(3A_q)`$ nodes which are W is equal to three.
* (8) The complex scalars of Eq. (8) must be sufficient for their vacuum expectation values (VEVs) to spontaneously break $`SU(3)^pSU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_HSU(3)_C\times SU(2)_W\times U(1)_YSU(3)_C\times U(1)_Q`$.

Note that, unlike grand unified theories (GUTs) with or without supersymmetry, the Higgs scalars are here prescribed by the conformality condition. This is more satisfactory because it implies that the Higgs sector cannot be chosen arbitrarily, but it does make model building more interesting
* (9) Gauge coupling unification should apply at least to the electroweak mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =g_Y^2/(g_2^2+g_Y^2)0.231`$. For trinification $`Y=3^{1/2}(\lambda _{8W}+2\lambda _{8H})`$ so that $`(3/5)^{1/2}Y`$ is correctly normalized. If we make $`g_Y^2=(3/5)g_1^2`$ and $`g_2^2=2g_1^2`$ then $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =3/130.231`$ with sufficient accuracy.

We now answer all these steps for the choice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_p`$ for successive $`p=2,3\mathrm{}`$ up to $`p=7`$.

* p = 2

In this case $`\alpha =1`$ and therefore one cannot costruct any complex 4 of $`SU(4)`$ with $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝟒}^{}`$. Chiral fermions are therefore impossible.
* p = 3

The only possibilities are $`A_q=(1,1,1,0)`$ or $`A_q=(1,1,1,1)`$. The latter is real and leads to no chiral fermions. The former leaves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry and is a simple three-family model by the quiver node identification C - W - H. The scalars $`a_j=(1,1,1)`$ are sufficient to spontaneously break to the SM. Gauge coupling unification is, however, missing since $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =3/8`$, in bad disagreement with experiment.
* p = 4

The only complex $`N=0`$ choice is $`A_q=(1,1,1,1)`$. But then $`a_j=(2,2,2)`$ and any quiver node identification such as C - W - H - H has 4 families and the scalars are insufficient to break spontaneously the symmetry to the SM gauge group.
* p = 5

The two inequivalent complex choices are $`A_q=(1,1,1,2)`$ and $`A_q=(1,3,3,3)`$. By drawing the quiver, however, and using the rules for three chiral families given in (7) above, one finds that the node identification and the prescription of the scalars as $`a_j=(2,2,2)`$ and $`a_j=(1,1,1)`$ respectively does not permit spontaneous breaking to the standard model.
* p = 6

Here we can discuss three inequivalent complex possibilities as follows:

(6A) $`A_q=(1,1,1,3)`$ which implies $`a_j=(2,2,2)`$.

Requiring three families means a node identification C - W - X - H - X - H where X is either W or H. But whatever we choose for the X the scalar representations are insufficient to break $`SU(3)^6`$ in the desired fashion down to the SM. This illustrates the difficulty of model building when the scalars are not in arbitrary representations.

(6B) $`A_q=(1,1,2,2)`$ which implies $`a_j=(2,3,3)`$.

Here the family number can be only zero, two or four as can be seen by inspection of the $`A_q`$ and the related quiver diagram. So (6B) is of no phenomenological interest.

(6C) $`A_q=(1,3,4,4)`$ which implies $`a_j=(1,1,4)`$.

Requiring three families needs a quiver node identification which is of the form either C - W - H - H - W - H or C - H - H - W - W - H. The scalar representations implied by $`a_j=(1,1,4)`$ are, however, easily seen to be insufficient to do the required spontaneous symmetry breaking (S.S.B.) for both of these identifications.
* p =7

Having been stymied mainly by the rigidity of the scalar representation for all $`p6`$, for $`p=7`$ there are the first cases which work. Six inequivalent complex embeddings of $`Z_7SU(4)`$ require consideration.

(7A) $`A_q=(1,1,1,4)a_j=(2,2,2)`$

For the required nodes C - W - X - H - H - X - H the scalars are insufficient for S.S.B.

(7B) $`A_q=(1,1,2,3)a_j=(2,3,3)`$

The node identification C - W - H - W - H - H - H leads to a successful model.

(7C) $`A_q=(1,2,2,2)a_j=(3,3,3)`$

Choosing C - H - W - X - X - H - H to derive three families, the scalars fail in S.S.B.

(7D) $`A_q=(1,3,5,5)a_j=(1,1,3)`$

The node choice C - W - H - H - H - W - H leads to a successful model. This is Model A of .

(7E) $`A_q=(1,4,4,5)a_j=(1,2,2)`$

The nodes C - H - H - H - W - W - H are successful.

(7F) $`A_q=(2,4,4,4)a_j=(1,1,1)`$

Scalars insufficient for S.S.B.

The three successful models (7B), (7D) and (7E) lead to an $`\alpha _3(M)0.07`$. Since $`\alpha _3(1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})0.10`$ it suggests a conformal scale $`M10`$ TeV. The above models have less generators than an $`E(6)`$ GUT and thus $`SU(3)^7`$ merits further study. It is possible, and under investigation, that non-abelian orbifolds will lead to a simpler model.

For such field theories it is important to establish the existence of a fixed manifold with respect to the renormalization group. It could be a fixed line but more likely, in the $`N=0`$ case, a fixed point. It is known that in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit the theories become conformal, but although this ’t Hooft limit is where the field-string duality is derived we know that finiteness survives to finite N in the $`N=4`$ case and this makes it plausible that at least a conformal point occurs also for the $`N=0`$ theories with $`N=3`$ derived above.

The conformal structure cannot by itself predict all the dimensionless ratios of the standard model such as mass ratios and mixing angles because these receive contributions, in general, from soft breaking of conformality. With a specific assumption about the pattern of conformal symmetry breaking, however, more work should lead to definite predictions for such quantities.

## 3 4 TeV Grand Unification

Conformal invariance in two dimensions has had great success in comparison to several condensed matter systems. It is an interesting question whether conformal symmetry can have comparable success in a four-dimensional description of high-energy physics.

Even before the standard model (SM) $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ electroweak theory was firmly established by experimental data, proposals were made  of models which would subsume it into a grand unified theory (GUT) including also the dynamics of QCD. Although the prediction of SU(5) in its minimal form for the proton lifetime has long ago been excluded, ad hoc variants thereof  remain viable. Low-energy supersymmetry improves the accuracy of unification of the three 321 couplings and such theories encompass a “desert” between the weak scale $`250`$ GeV and the much-higher GUT scale $`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, although minimal supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ is by now ruled out.

Recent developments in string theory are suggestive of a different strategy for unification of electroweak theory with QCD. Both the desert and low-energy supersymmetry are abandoned. Instead, the standard $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge group is embedded in a semi-simple gauge group such as $`SU(3)^N`$ as suggested by gauge theories arising from compactification of the IIB superstring on an orbifold $`AdS_5\times S^5/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the abelian finite group $`Z_N`$. In such nonsupersymmetric quiver gauge theories the unification of couplings happens not by logarithmic evolution over an enormous desert covering, say, a dozen orders of magnitude in energy scale. Instead the unification occurs abruptly at $`\mu =M`$ through the diagonal embeddings of 321 in $`SU(3)^N`$. The key prediction of such unification shifts from proton decay to additional particle content, in the present model at $`4`$ TeV.

Let me consider first the electroweak group which in the standard model is still un-unified as $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. In the 331-model where this is extended to $`SU(3)\times U(1)`$ there appears a Landau pole at $`M4`$ TeV because that is the scale at which $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mu )`$ slides to the value $`\mathrm{sin}^2(M)=1/4`$. It is also the scale at which the custodial gauged $`SU(3)`$ is broken in the framework of .

Such theories involve only electroweak unification so to include QCD I examine the running of all three of the SM couplings with $`\mu `$ as explicated in e.g. . Taking the values at the Z-pole $`\alpha _Y(M_Z)=0.0101,\alpha _2(M_Z)=0.0338,\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.003`$ (the errors in $`\alpha _Y(M_Z)`$ and $`\alpha _2(M_Z)`$ are less than 1%) they are taken to run between $`M_Z`$ and $`M`$ according to the SM equations

$`\alpha _Y^1(M)`$ $`=`$ $`(0.01014)^1(41/12\pi )\mathrm{ln}(M/M_Z)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`98.6191.0876y`$
$`\alpha _2^1(M)`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0338)^1+(19/12\pi )\mathrm{ln}(M/M_Z)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`29.586+0.504y`$
$`\alpha _3^1(M)`$ $`=`$ $`(0.118)^1+(7/2\pi )\mathrm{ln}(M/M_Z)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`8.474+1.114y`$
where $`y=\mathrm{log}(M/M_Z)`$.

The scale at which $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M)=\alpha _Y(M)/(\alpha _2(M)+\alpha _Y(M))`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M)=1/4`$ is found from Eqs.(9,10) to be $`M4`$ TeV as stated in the introduction above.

I now focus on the ratio $`R(M)\alpha _3(M)/\alpha _2(M)`$ using Eqs.(10,11). I find that $`R(M_Z)3.5`$ while $`R(M_3)=3`$, $`R(M_{5/2})=5/2`$ and $`R(M_2)=2`$ correspond to $`M_3,M_{5/2},M_2400\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},4\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},\mathrm{and}140\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ respectively. The proximity of $`M_{5/2}`$ and $`M`$, accurate to a few percent, suggests strong-electroweak unification at $`4`$ TeV.

There remains the question of embedding such unification in an $`SU(3)^N`$ of the type described in . Since the required embedding of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ into an $`SU(3)`$ necessitates $`3\alpha _Y=\alpha _H`$ the ratios of couplings at $`4`$ TeV is: $`\alpha _{3C}:\alpha _{3W}:\alpha _{3H}::5:2:2`$ and it is natural to examine $`N=12`$ with diagonal embeddings of Color (C), Weak (W) and Hypercharge (H) in $`SU(3)^2,SU(3)^5,SU(3)^5`$ respectively.

To accomplish this I specify the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_{12}`$ in the global $`SU(4)`$ R-parity of the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry of the underlying theory. Defining $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/12)`$ this specification can be made by $`\mathrm{𝟒}(\alpha ^{A_1},\alpha ^{A_2},\alpha ^{A_3},\alpha ^{A_4})`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }A_\mu =0(\mathrm{mod12})`$ and all $`A_\mu 0`$ so that all four supersymmetries are broken from $`N=4`$ to $`N=0`$.

Having specified $`A_\mu `$ I calculate the content of complex scalars by investigating in $`SU(4)`$ the $`\mathrm{𝟔}(\alpha ^{a_1},\alpha ^{a_2},\alpha ^{a_3},\alpha ^{a_3},\alpha ^{a_2},\alpha ^{a_1})`$ with $`a_1=A_1+A_2,a_2=A_2+A_3,a_3=A_3+A_1`$ where all quantities are defined (mod 12).

Finally I identify the nodes (as C, W or H) on the dodecahedral quiver such that the complex scalars

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{i=3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha =1}^{\alpha =12}(N_\alpha ,\overline{N}_{\alpha \pm a_i})$$
(12)
are adequate to allow the required symmetry breaking to the $`SU(3)^3`$ diagonal subgroup, and the chiral fermions

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu =1}^{\mu =4}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha =1}^{\alpha =12}(N_\alpha ,\overline{N}_{\alpha +A_\mu })$$
(13)
can accommodate the three generations of quarks and leptons.

It is not trivial to accomplish all of these requirements so let me demonstrate by an explicit example.

For the embedding I take $`A_\mu =(1,2,3,6)`$ and for the quiver nodes take the ordering:

$$CWHCW^4H^4$$
(14)
with the two ends of (14) identified.

The scalars follow from $`a_i=(3,4,5)`$ and the scalars in Eq.(12)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{i=3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha =1}^{\alpha =12}(3_\alpha ,\overline{3}_{\alpha \pm a_i})$$
(15)
are sufficient to break to all diagonal subgroups as

$$SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W\times SU(3)_H$$
(16)
The fermions follow from $`A_\mu `$ in Eq.(13) as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu =1}^{\mu =4}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha =1}^{\alpha =12}(3_\alpha ,\overline{3}_{\alpha +A_\mu })$$
(17)
and the particular dodecahedral quiver in (14) gives rise to exactly three chiral generations which transform under (16) as

$$3[(3,\overline{3},1)+(\overline{3},1,3)+(1,3,\overline{3})]$$
(18)
I note that anomaly freedom of the underlying superstring dictates that only the combination of states in Eq.(18) can survive. Thus, it is sufficient to examine one of the terms, say $`(3,\overline{3},1)`$. By drawing the quiver diagram indicated by Eq.(14) with the twelve nodes on a “clock-face” and using $`A_\mu =(1,2,3,6)`$ in Eq.(7) I find five $`(3,\overline{3},1)`$’s and two $`(\overline{3},3,1)`$’s implying three chiral families as stated in Eq.(18).

After further symmetry breaking at scale $`M`$ to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ the surviving chiral fermions are the quarks and leptons of the SM. The appearance of three families depends on both the identification of modes in (14) and on the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(4)`$. The embedding must simultaneously give adequate scalars whose VEVs can break the symmetry spontaneously to (16). All of this is achieved successfully by the choices made. The three gauge couplings evolve according to Eqs.(9,10,11) for $`M_Z\mu M`$. For $`\mu M`$ the (equal) gauge couplings of $`SU(3)^{12}`$ do not run if, as conjectured in  there is a conformal fixed point at $`\mu =M`$.

The basis of the conjecture in  is the proposed duality of Maldacena which shows that in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit $`N=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$gauge theory, as well as orbifolded versions with $`N=2,1`$ and $`0`$ become conformally invariant. It was known long ago  that the $`N=4`$ theory is conformally invariant for all finite $`N2`$. This led to the conjecture in  that the $`N=0`$ theories might be conformally invariant, at least in some case(s), for finite $`N`$. It should be emphasized that this conjecture cannot be checked purely within a perturbative framework. I assume that the local $`U(1)`$’s which arise in this scenario and which would lead to $`U(N)`$ gauge groups are non-dynamical, as suggested by Witten, leaving $`SU(N)`$’s.

As for experimental tests of such a TeV GUT, the situation at energies below 4 TeV is predicted to be the standard model with a Higgs boson still to be discovered at a mass predicted by radiative corrections  to be below 267 GeV at 99% confidence level.

There are many particles predicted at $`4`$ TeV beyond those of the minimal standard model. They include as spin-0 scalars the states of Eq.(15). and as spin-1/2 fermions the states of Eq.(17), Also predicted are gauge bosons to fill out the gauge groups of (16), and in the same energy region the gauge bosons to fill out all of $`SU(3)^{12}`$. All these extra particles are necessitated by the conformality constraints of  to lie close to the conformal fixed point.

One important issue is whether this proliferation of states at $`4`$ TeV is compatible with precision electroweak data in hand. This has been studied in the related model of  in a recent article. Those results are not easily translated to the present model but it is possible that such an analysis including limits on flavor-changing neutral currents could rule out the entire framework.

As alternative to $`SU(3)^{12}`$ another approach to TeV unification has as its group at $`4`$ TeV $`SU(6)^3`$ where one $`SU(6)`$ breaks diagonally to color while the other two $`SU(6)`$’s each break to $`SU(3)_{k=5}`$ where level $`k=5`$ characterizes irregular embedding. The triangular quiver $`CWH`$ with ends identified and $`A_\mu =(\alpha ,\alpha ,\alpha ,1)`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$, preserves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. I have chosen to describe the $`N=0`$ $`SU(3)^{12}`$ model in the text mainly because the symmetry breaking to the standard model is more transparent.

The TeV unification fits $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and $`\alpha _3`$, predicts three families, and partially resolves the GUT hierarchy. If such unification holds in Nature there is a very rich level of physics one order of magnitude above presently accessible energy.

Is a hierarchy problem resolved in the present theory? In the non-gravitational limit $`M_{Planck}\mathrm{}`$ I have, above the weak scale, the new unification scale $`4`$ TeV. Thus, although not totally resolved, the GUT hierarchy is ameliorated.

## 4 Predictivity

The calculations have been done in the one-loop approximation to the renormalization group equations and threshold effects have been ignored. These corrections are not expected to be large since the couplings are weak in the entrire energy range considered. There are possible further corrections such a non-perturbative effects, and the effects of large extra dimensions, if any.

In one sense the robustness of this TeV-scale unification is almost self-evident, in that it follows from the weakness of the coupling constants in the evolution from $`M_Z`$ to $`M_U`$. That is, in order to define the theory at $`M_U`$, one must combine the effects of threshold corrections ( due to O($`\alpha (M_U)`$) mass splittings ) and potential corrections from redefinitions of the coupling constants and the unification scale. We can then impose the coupling constant relations at $`M_U`$ as renormalization conditions and this is valid to the extent that higher order corrections do not destabilize the vacuum state.

We shall approach the comparison with data in two different but almost equivalent ways. The first is ”bottom-up” where we use as input that the values of $`\alpha _3(\mu )/\alpha _2(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mu )`$ are expected to be $`5/2`$ and $`1/4`$ respectively at $`\mu =M_U`$.

Using the experimental ranges allowed for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)=0.23113\pm 0.00015`$, $`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.1172\pm 0.0020`$ and $`\alpha _{em}^1(M_Z)=127.934\pm 0.027`$  we have calculated  the values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_U)`$ and $`\alpha _3(M_U)/\alpha _2(M_U)`$ for a range of $`M_U`$ between 1.5 TeV and 8 TeV. Allowing a maximum discrepancy of $`\pm 1\%`$ in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_U)`$ and $`\pm 4\%`$ in $`\alpha _3(M_U)/\alpha _2(M_U)`$ as reasonable estimates of corrections, we deduce that the unification scale $`M_U`$ can lie anywhere between 2.5 TeV and 5 TeV. Thus the theory is robust in the sense that there is no singular limit involved in choosing a particular value of $`M_U`$.

Another test of predictivity of the same model is to fix the unification values at $`M_U`$ of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_U)=1/4`$ and $`\alpha _3(M_U)/\alpha _2(M_U)=5/2`$. We then compute the resultant predictions at the scale $`\mu =M_Z`$.

The results are shown for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)`$ in Fig. 1 with the allowed range $`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.1172\pm 0.0020`$. The precise data on $`\mathrm{sin}^2(M_Z)`$ are indicated in Fig. 1 and the conclusion is that the model makes correct predictions for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)`$. Similarly, in Fig 2, there is a plot of the prediction for $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ versus $`M_U`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)`$ held with the allowed empirical range. The two quantities plotted in Figs 1 and 2 are consistent for similar ranges of $`M_U`$. Both $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)`$ and $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ are within the empirical limits if $`M_U=3.8\pm 0.4`$ TeV.

The model has many additional gauge bosons at the unification scale, including neutral $`Z^{^{}}`$’s, which could mediate flavor-changing processes on which there are strong empirical upper limits.

A detailed analysis wll require specific identification of the light families and quark flavors with the chiral fermions appearing in the quiver diagram for the model. We can make only the general observation that the lower bound on a $`Z^{^{}}`$ which couples like the standard $`Z`$ boson is quoted as $`M(Z^{^{}})<1.5`$ TeV  which is safely below the $`M_U`$ values considered here and which we identify with the mass of the new gauge bosons.

This is encouraging to believe that flavor-changing processes are under control in the model but this issue will require more careful analysis when a specific identification of the quark states is attempted.

Since there are many new states predicted at the unification scale $`4`$ TeV, there is a danger of being ruled out by precision low energy data. This issue is conveniently studied in terms of the parameters $`S`$ and $`T`$ introduced in  and designed to measure departure from the predictions of the standard model.

Concerning $`T`$, if the new $`SU(2)`$ doublets are mass-degenerate and hence do not violate a custodial $`SU(2)`$ symmetry they contribute nothing to $`T`$. This therefore provides a constraint on the spectrum of new states.

According to , a multiplet of degenerate heavy chiral fermions gives a contribution to $`S`$:

$$S=C\underset{i}{}\left(t_{3L}(i)t_{3R}(i)\right)^2/3\pi $$
(19)
where $`t_{3L,R}`$ is the third component of weak isopspin of the left- and right- handed component of fermion $`i`$ and $`C`$ is the number of colors. In the present model, the additional fermions are non-chiral and fall into vector-like multiplets and so do not contribute to Eq.(19).

Provided that the extra isospin multiplets at the unification scale $`M_U`$ are sufficiently mass-degenerate, therefore, there is no conflict with precision data at low energy.

## 5 Discussion

The plots we have presented clarify the accuracy of the predictions of this TeV unification scheme for the precision values accurately measured at the Z-pole. The predictivity is as accurate for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ as it is for supersymmetric GUT models. There is, in addition, an accurate prediction for $`\alpha _3`$ which is used merely as input in SusyGUT models.

At the same time, the accurate predictions are seen to be robust under varying the unification scale around $`4TeV`$ from about 2.5 TeV to 5 TeV.

In conclusion, since this model ameliorates the GUT hierarchy problem and naturally accommodates three families, it provides a viable alternative to the widely-studied GUT models which unify by logarithmic evolution of couplings up to much higher GUT scales.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Office of High Energy, US Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-97ER41036.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1.

Plot of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_Z)`$ versus $`M_U`$ in TeV, assuming $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_U)=1/4`$ and $`\alpha _3/\alpha _2(M_U)=5/2`$.

Fig.2.

Plot of $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ versus $`M_U`$ in TeV, assuming $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M_U)=1/4`$ and $`\alpha _3/\alpha _2(M_U)=5/2`$.