Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Is the Standard Model in the Swampland? Consistency Requirements from Gravitational Scattering

Katsuki Aoki1, Tran Quang Loc2, Toshifumi Noumi3, and Junsei Tokuda3

  • 1Center for Gravitational Physics, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan
  • 2Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom
  • 3Department of Physics, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan

Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091602 – Published 25 August, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.091602

Abstract

We study compatibility of the standard model of particle physics and general relativity by means of gravitational positivity bounds, which provide a necessary condition for a low-energy gravitational theory to be UV completable within the weakly coupled regime of gravity. In particular, we identify the cutoff scale of the standard model coupled to gravity by studying consistency of light-by-light scattering. While the precise value depends on details of the Pomeron effects in QCD, the cutoff scale reads 1016  GeV if the single-Pomeron exchange picture works well up to this scale. We also demonstrate that the cutoff scale is lowered to 1013  GeV if we consider the electroweak theory without the QCD sector.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (45)

  1. C. Vafa, The string landscape and the swampland, arXiv:hep-th/0509212.
  2. T. Banks and L. J. Dixon, Constraints on string vacua with space-time supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B307, 93 (1988).
  3. T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Symmetries and strings in field theory and gravity, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084019 (2011).
  4. D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity, Commun. Math. Phys. 383, 1669 (2021).
  5. N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2007) 060.
  6. T. D. Brennan, F. Carta, and C. Vafa, The string landscape, the swampland, and the missing corner, Proc. Sci., TASI20172017 (2017) 015 [arXiv:1711.00864].
  7. E. Palti, The swampland: Introduction and review, Fortschr. Phys. 67, 1900037 (2019).
  8. M. van Beest, J. Calderón-Infante, D. Mirfendereski, and I. Valenzuela, Lectures on the swampland program in string compactifications, arXiv:2102.01111.
  9. A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2006) 014.
  10. Y. Hamada, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051601 (2019).
  11. J. Tokuda, K. Aoki, and S. Hirano, Gravitational positivity bounds, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2020) 054.
  12. M. Herrero-Valea, R. Santos-Garcia, and A. Tokareva, Massless positivity in graviton exchange, arXiv:2011.11652.
  13. See Refs. [14, 15, 16, 17] for related discussions on positivity bounds in gravitational theories. Also, see Refs. [10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26] for earlier applications of positivity bounds to the swampland program.

  14. B. Bellazzini, M. Lewandowski, and J. Serra, Positivity of Amplitudes, Weak Gravity Conjecture, and Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251103 (2019).
  15. L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, Positivity bounds and the massless spin-2 pole, Phys. Rev. D 102, 125023 (2020).
  16. N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-T. Huang, The EFT-hedron, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 259.
  17. S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Sharp boundaries for the swampland, arXiv:2102.08951.
  18. C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Infrared consistency and the weak gravity conjecture, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2014) 087.
  19. W.-M. Chen, Y.-T. Huang, T. Noumi, and C. Wen, Unitarity bounds on charged/neutral state mass ratios, Phys. Rev. D 100, 025016 (2019).
  20. G. J. Loges, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, Thermodynamics of 4D dilatonic black holes and the weak gravity conjecture, Phys. Rev. D 102, 046010 (2020).
  21. S. Andriolo, T.-C. Huang, T. Noumi, H. Ooguri, and G. Shiu, Duality and axionic weak gravity, Phys. Rev. D 102, 046008 (2020).
  22. G. J. Loges, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, Duality and supersymmetry constraints on the weak gravity conjecture, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2020) 008.
  23. L. Aalsma, A. Cole, G. J. Loges, and G. Shiu, A new spin on the weak gravity conjecture, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 085.
  24. S. Cremonini, C. R. T. Jones, J. T. Liu, B. McPeak, and Y. Tang, A NUT charge weak gravity conjecture from dimensional reduction, Phys. Rev. D 103, 106011 (2021).
  25. L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, QED positivity bounds, Phys. Rev. D 103, 125020 (2021).
  26. S. Andriolo, D. Junghans, T. Noumi, and G. Shiu, A tower weak gravity conjecture from infrared consistency, Fortschr. Phys. 66, 1800020 (2018).
  27. A similar cutoff Λ∼meMPl/e is implied from positivity in the presence of a hidden sector that is coupled to photon only through gravity [26].

  28. These properties are indeed satisfied in known amplitudes in perturbative string theory. Furthermore, the analyticity and the mild behavior are inferred from causality and locality at least for a gapped system, so in the literature these properties are sometimes called “axioms”.

  29. B. Bellazzini, Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2017) 034.
  30. C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Massive Galileon positivity bounds, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2017) 072.
  31. The same order-estimate was performed in [10], but the recent work [11] refined the bound more explicitly in terms of f(t), α′, and α′′. Also, more recently, the paper [25] considers the gravitational positivity bounds without assuming the mild high-energy behavior in the Regge limit, and argues that the negativity of the rhs may be allowed from the EFT perspective. In this case, however, the order of magnitude of the rhs cannot be determined.

  32. The one-loop diagrams are calculated by using the Mathematica packages feynarts [33] and feyncalc [34], and the loop integrals are evaluated by package-x [35]. As a consistency check, we confirm the desired crossing symmetries, the relation (8), and the agreement with two different gauge choices, the Feynman-’t Hooft gauge and the unitary gauge.

  33. T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001).
  34. V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107478 (2020).
  35. H. H. Patel, Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 276 (2015).
  36. The inclusion of a charged spin-0 particle does not change the situation as well. See Ref. [25] for the analysis in scalar QED.

  37. M. Kłusek-Gawenda, P. Lebiedowicz, and A. Szczurek, Light-by-light scattering in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron collider, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044907 (2016).
  38. We use the same references cited by [37]. First, the transition constants are Cγ→ρ2=(α/2.54), Cγ→ω2=(α/20.5), Cγ→ϕ2=(α/11.7), taken from [39]. Adopting [40], the Pomeron exchange contribution grows as s1.08 and the overall factor is chosen such that ImAVV→VV=8.56  mb s(s/s0)0.08 [41].

  39. B. L. Ioffe, V. A. Khoze, and L. N. Lipatov, Phenomenology, quark parton model, in Hard Process (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), Vol. 1.
  40. A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Total cross-sections, Phys. Lett. B 296, 227 (1992).
  41. M. Klusek, W. Schafer, and A. Szczurek, Exclusive production of ρ0 ρ0 pairs in gamma gamma collisions at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 674, 92 (2009).
  42. M. Froissart, Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation, Phys. Rev. 123, 1053 (1961).
  43. Also note that we have assumed a weakly coupled UV completion where the graviton is Reggeized below the Planck scale. Our precise statement is if the SM coupled to GR is UV completed at a scale below the Planck scale, the scale should be less than 1016  GeV. It would be interesting to generalize our argument to strongly coupled UV completion of gravity. For this, one would need to first carefully reconsider the standard assumptions of positivity bounds such as locality and unitarity because super-Planckian physics such as black hole creation cannot be ignored.

  44. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Nat. Phys. 13, 852 (2017).
  45. D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez, and F. Marchesano, Intersecting brane models of particle physics and the Higgs mechanism, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2002) 022.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation