arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 25 Jul 2003

Transcription

1 Te Road Aead ep-p/yymmnnn ILL-(TH)-03-5 NSF-KITP S. illenbrock 1,2 arxiv:ep-p/ v1 25 Jul Department of Pysics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, Green Street, Urbana, IL Kavli Institute for Teoretical Pysics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA willen@uiuc.edu Abstract. I describe te surrounding landscape on te road to te CERN Large Hadron Collider. I revisit te milestones of adron-collider pysics, and from tem draw lessons for te future. I recall te primary motivation for te journey understanding te mecanism of electroweak symmetry breaking and speculate tat even greater discoveries may await us. I review te pysics tat we know beyond te standard model dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino masses and discuss te status of grandunified teories. I list te reasons wy te Higgs boson is central to te standard model as well as to pysics beyond te standard model. PACS: t It s been a roug road for te adron-collider community over te past decade. e ve witnessed te deat of te Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), te big broter of te CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in e ve experienced delays in te scedules of bot te Fermilab Tevatron and te LHC. Te luminosity of Run II of te Tevatron as turned on more slowly tan desired. I m sure eac of you can add your own personal frustrations to tis list. In addition, some of te biggest discoveries ave occurred in oter areas of particle pysics, and wile we applaud tese advances, it s ard not to feel a twinge of jealousy. It s important to remember tat we ve also ad many successes, and tere are good reasons for optimism. Let s begin by looking backwards. 1 Te view in te rear-view mirror Te CERN Super proton antiproton Syncrotron (Sp ps) was designed in te mid 1970 s to discover te and Z bosons. It succeeded in doing so in 1983 [1, 2, 3, 4], earning te 1984 Nobel Prize in pysics for C. Rubbia [5] and S. van der Meer [6]. Te Fermilab Tevatron was designed to mass-produce and Z bosons, and tat it as done spectacularly well. Te -boson mass as been measured at te Tevatron to be M = ± GeV, an accuracy of less tan 0.1%. e anticipate an accuracy of 30 MeV or less in Run II of te Tevatron. In te case of bot te Sp ps and te Tevatron, we delivered wat we promised. From a teoretical perspective, we discovered te weak scale, M. At energies less tan M, te effective teory of te weak interaction is te Fermi teory, in wic four fermions interact at a point, as sown in Fig. 1(a). At energies above M, te effective teory of te weak interaction is a spontaneouslybroken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory, in wic fermions interact by excanging

2 Te Road Aead 2 E < M (a) E > M (b) Fig.1. (a) Te effective teory of te weak interaction at energies less tan te mass is te Fermi teory; (b) at energies above te mass, te effective teory is a spontaneously-broken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory. and Z bosons, sown in Fig. 1(b). However, te mecanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking is unspecified. It is appropriate to refer to M as te weak scale, because tat is te energy at wic one moves from one effective teory to anoter. e also delivered more tan we promised. Probably te most dramatic discovery at te Tevatron (tus far) is te top quark. e suspected tat te top quark exists ever since te discovery of te b quark in 1977 [7], but we did not know its mass. By 1980 we ad a lower bound of m t > 15 GeV, wic climbed to 23 GeV by 1984 [8]. At any given time it was commonly believed tat te top quark lies just a few GeV above te present lower bound. Te UA1 collaboration at te Sp ps reported a signal for a top quark of mass around 40 GeV in 1984, but it proved to be a red erring [9]. By 1987 we ad an upper bound of 200 GeV on te top-quark mass from precision electroweak data [10]. Te precision electroweak data became muc more precise in 1989 wit te advent of te CERN Large Electron-Positron (LEP) collider and te Stanford Linear Collider (SLC). I sow in Fig. 2 te top-quark mass extracted from precision electroweak analyses from 1989 to te present. As te data became more precise, and te lower bound from te Tevatron continued to increase, it became clear tat te top quark is muc eavier tan expected. Tis culminated in te discovery of te top quark in 1995 [12, 13] wit a mass around 175 GeV, in te range anticipated by precision electroweak analyses. Te top quark was not a central motivation for te Sp ps nor te Tevatron, but it proved to be one of te most important discoveries at tese macines. e anticipated te existence of te top quark, and we used precision electroweak data to successfully determine te allowed mass range. Tis was a great success, and was part of te reason te 1999 Nobel Prize was awarded to G. t Hooft [14] and M. Veltman [15]. However, te large mass of te top quark was a real surprise. Along te way, we developed new experimental tecniques tat could not ave been dreamt of wen te Sp ps and te Tevatron were being designed. For te top quark, te ability to tag b quarks using a silicon vertex detector (SVX) is

3 Te Road Aead 3 Fig. 2. ( ) Indirect bounds on te top-quark mass from precision electroweak data. ( ) orld-average direct measurement of te top-quark mass; ( ) CDF and ( ) D0 measurements. Lower bounds from p p (dased) and e + e (solid) colliders. Updated by C. Quigg from Ref. [11]. a very powerful tool. It wasn t until 1983 tat we discovered tat te b quark as a surprisingly long lifetime [16, 17] tat migt allow one to detect a secondary vertex from b decay. By te mid 1980 s it was well appreciated tat tis could be used to tag b jets at adron colliders, but te anticipated efficiency was quite low [18]. en te top quark was discovered in 1995, we learned tat te efficiency for SVX b-tagging is as muc as 50%, yet anoter surprise in te saga of te top quark. 2 Te LHC Te central motivation for te LHC is to discover te mecanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Recall tat tis mecanism is not specified in te spontaneouslybroken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory. Te amplitude for te scattering of bosons in tat teory is sown in Fig. 3(a). In te standard model, one introduces a Higgs field tat acquires a vacuum expectation value and breaks te electroweak symmetry. Tis results in a new particle in te teory, te Higgs boson. Tus tere is an additional diagram, involving te excange of te Higgs boson, tat contributes to te amplitude for -boson scattering, sown in Fig. 3(b). For energies less tan te Higgs-boson mass, te effective teory is te spontaneously-broken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory. Te effective teory above te Higgs-boson mass includes te Higgs field, wic provides te mecanism

4 Te Road Aead 4 E < m (a) E > m (b) Fig.3. (a) Te effective teory of te weak interaction at energies less tan te Higgs mass is te spontaneously-broken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory; (b) at energies above te Higgs mass, te effective teory is te standard model. for electroweak symmetry breaking. Tus it is appropriate to refer to te Higgsboson mass as te scale of electroweak symmetry breaking in te standard model. In te spontaneously-broken SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge teory witout a specific mecanism for symmetry breaking, te gauge symmetry is realized nonlinearly. en a specific mecanism is introduced, te gauge symmetry is realized linearly. Tus te general definition of te scale of electroweak symmetry breaking is te scale above wic te gauge symmetry of te effective teory is realized linearly. Te standard model is a specific example of tis general definition. Let s consider te possibility tat te standard Higgs model is correct. Just as precision electroweak data oned in on te allowed range of te top-quark mass, we can use tis data to determine te allowed range for te Higgs-boson mass. Te precision electroweak data are summarized on a plot of te mass vs. te top-quark mass, sown in Fig. 4. Lines of constant Higgs mass are drawn on tis plot. Te elongated ellipse represents te precision electroweak data, assuming te standard Higgs model. Te dased ellipse indicates te direct measurement of te mass and te top-quark mass. Te most striking ting about is plot is tat te two ellipses overlap near te lines of constant Higgs mass. Tis did not ave to appen: tese two ellipses could ave ended up anywere on tis plot (or even off of it), and tey did not ave to overlap. Tis indicates tat te standard Higgs model is at least a good approximation to reality. Furtermore, te ellipses overlap near te lines of constant Higgs mass corresponding to small values of te Higgs mass. Tis indicates tat te Higgs boson is not muc eavier tan te present lower bound of m > GeV [19]. Suc an intermediate-mass Higgs boson may be accessible in Run II at te Tevatron via te associated production of te Higgs boson and a weak vector boson, as sown in Fig. 5(a) [20]. Tis is remarkable because te Higgs boson was not at all a motivation for te Tevatron. Tis searc cannel only became feasible once we realized tat we could tag b jets wit ig efficiency, since

5 Te Road Aead LEP1, SLD Data LEP2, pp Data 68% CL m [GeV] α m H [GeV] Preliminary m t [GeV] Fig.4. Lines of constant Higgs mass on a plot of M vs. m t. Te dased ellipse is te 68% CL direct measurement of M and m t. Te solid ellipse is te 68% CL indirect measurement from precision electroweak data. From ttp://lepewwg.web.cern.c/lepeg. te Higgs boson decays dominantly to b b in te Higgs-mass region of interest. Te discovery of te Higgs boson via tis process requires a lot of integrated luminosity [21, 22]. However, we sould keep in mind tat our projections about te required luminosity for a given measurement are sometimes too conservative. A striking example is te projected accuracy in te measurement of te topquark mass made in te TeV-2000 study in 1996, δm t = 13 GeV (wit 70 pb 1 of data) [21]. Just two years later CDF and D0 measured te mass wit a combined accuracy of 5.1 GeV (wit 100 pb 1 of data) [23]. e greatly underestimated te sensitivity of te measurement, despite te fact tat at te time we probably tougt we were being optimistic. Te lesson is tat data make you smarter [24]. Studies also make you smarter. In te context of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson, tis is exemplified by te production of te Higgs boson via weak-vectorboson fusion, sown in Fig. 5(b). Tis process was originally tougt to be of interest primarily for a eavy Higgs boson, m > 2M [25]. However, in recent years it as been realized tat it is also very important for an intermediate-mass Higgs boson [26]. I sow in Fig. 6 te signal significance for an intermediate-mass Higgs boson at te LHC via a variety of production and decay cannels. Te importance of te weak-vector-boson cannels is evident from tis plot.

6 Te Road Aead 6 q q, Z, Z q q, Z, Z q q (a) (b) Fig. 5. Higgs-boson production (a) in association wit a weak vector boson, (b) via weak-vector-boson fusion. Signal significance 10 2 L dt = 30 fb -1 (no K-factors) ATLAS H γ γ tth (H bb) H ZZ (*) 4 l H (*) lνlν qqh qq (*) qqh qq ττ Total significance m H (GeV) Fig.6. S/ B for a variety of Higgs-boson production and decay cannels at te LHC vs. te Higgs mass.

7 Te Road Aead 7 Fig. 7. Temperature fluctuations in te cosmic microwave background as seen by MAP. From Ref. [27]. 3 Te view troug te sunroof Figure 7 sows te MAP data on te temperature fluctuations in te cosmic microwave background radiation [27]. Cosmological parameters can be extracted from tis data wit impressive precision. Te total energy density of te universe, in units of te critical density, is very close to unity, Ω TOT = Ω B + Ω DM + Ω Λ = 1.02 ± 0.02, were Ω B, Ω DM, Ω Λ are te baryon, dark-matter, and dark-energy densities in units of te critical density, Ω B = ± Ω DM = 0.22 ± 0.04 Ω Λ = 0.73 ± e ave known about te existence of dark matter for a long time, and now te dark-matter density is known wit good accuracy. Dark energy as come and gone trougout te decades, but now it looks like it is ere to stay. In addition, Ω TOT 1 and oter features of te data are consistent wit inflation. Could we find dark matter at te LHC? Te discovery of dark matter was not one of te original motivations for te LHC tere is no mention of it in te proceedings of te 1982 Snowmass study tat gave birt to te SSC [28] altoug it later became one of te goals of te project [29]. However, te discovery of dark matter, wic makes up 22% of te universe, is potentially more exciting tan understanding te mecanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Supersymmetry (SUSY) provides an attractive candidate for te dark matter, te neutralino, wic is a linear combination of te potino, Zino, and Higgsinos. If it is te ligtest supersymmetric particle, and R parity is conserved, ten it is stable. However, now tat we know te dark-matter density wit good

8 Te Road Aead 8 accuracy, it turns out tat supersymmetry generically produces too muc dark matter. Figure 8 sows te regions of SUSY parameter space tat are consistent wit te dark-matter density, before and after te MAP data. Before te MAP data, tere were large regions allowed, but after te data tere are only slivers of parameter space tat survive. Tis is noteworty because tese slivers represent regions in wic special coincidences occur tat allow te dark matter to anniilate. In te top two diagrams of Fig. 8, te slivers extending towards te rigt represent te case were te supersymmetric partner of te tau lepton is nearly degenerate wit te neutralino, so it is present in sufficient abundance for co-anniilation to occur (e.g., χ 0 τ 1 γτ). In te bottom two diagrams, te slivers correspond to te neutralino mass being close to alf te mass of a Higgs boson, suc tat anniilation occurs via te Higgs resonance. In te first of tese two diagrams, tere are two slivers in te funnel between tem, too muc dark matter is anniilated. Tis is te most natural solution; one must be close to a Higgs resonance, but not rigt on top of it, to get te correct relic abundance of dark matter. Anoter natural solution, at very large values of m 0 (not sown in te figures), is te focus-point region [31]. Dark energy is muc arder to explain tan dark matter. Like dark matter, dark energy was not anticipated. As far as we can tell, dark energy is a constant over space, and acts like a cosmological constant, Λ. It is ard to understand wy Λ M 2 P (M P is te Planck scale), or even wy Λ v 2 (v is te Higgs-field vacuum expectation value). For many years it was assumed tat Λ is exactly zero, and tat we would some day discover te mecanism tat ensures tat it vanises. Now we ave te arder problem of explaining wy it is so small and yet not exactly zero [32]. Anoter ting we learn by looking troug te sunroof is tat neutrinos, bot solar and atmosperic, oscillate. Tis implies tat neutrinos ave a small mass. Like dark matter and dark energy, tis is pysics beyond te standard model. I sow in Table 1 te fermions of te first generation. I ave added a rigtanded neutrino field, N R, wic is not present in te standard model. It is plausible tat suc a field exists wy sould all te oter left-anded fields ave rigt-anded partners, but not te neutrino? However, tis field is special, because it is te only one tat does not ave SU(2) L U(1) Y interactions it is completely inert. Unlike te oter fields, wic are forbidden from aving a mass by te SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge symmetry, te field N R is allowed to ave a mass, Table 1. Te fermions of te first generation. Te rigt-anded neutrino field, N R, is not present in te standard model. ( ) ul u Q L R d L d R L L ( νl e L ) N R e R

9 Te Road Aead tan β = 10, µ > tan β = 10, µ < m = 114 GeV 700 m = 114 GeV m 0 (GeV) m χ ± = 104 GeV m 0 (GeV) m 1/2 (GeV) m 1/2 (GeV) 1000 tan β = 35, µ < tan β = 50, µ > 0 m = 114 GeV m 0 (GeV) m 0 (GeV) 1000 m = 114 GeV m 1/2 (GeV) m 1/2 (GeV) Fig.8. Te (m 1/2, m 0 ) planes for (a) tanβ = 10, µ > 0, (b) tanβ = 10, µ < 0, (c) tanβ = 35, µ < 0, and (d) tanβ = 50, µ > 0 (A 0 = 0 in all cases). In eac panel, te region allowed by te older cosmological constraint 0.1 Ω χ as medium sading, and te region allowed by te newer cosmological constraint Ω χ as very dark sading. Te disallowed region were m τ1 < m χ as dark (red) sading. Te regions excluded by b sγ ave medium (green) sading. (Te regions of medium (pink) sading in panels (a,d), formerly favored by g µ 2, are now obsolete.) A dot-dased line in panel (a) delineates te LEP constraint on te ẽ mass and te contours m χ ± = 104 GeV (m = 114 GeV) are sown as near-vertical black dased (red dot-dased) lines in panel (a) (eac panel). From Ref. [30].

10 Te Road Aead 10 e L e R ν L N R ν L m e = y e v (a) m ν = y ν 2 v 2 M R (b) Fig.9. (a) Te electron acquires a Dirac mass via its coupling to te Higgs field, y e ; (b) te neutrino acquires a Majorana mass via te square of its coupling to te Higgs field, y ν, and an intermediate, eavy, rigt-anded neutrino. and terefore we expect tat it does. Te oter fields acquire a mass, via teir coupling to te Higgs field, only wen te SU(2) L U(1) Y gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken. Tis is illustrated in Fig. 9(a) for te electron, were te left- and rigt-anded electron fields togeter acquire a Dirac mass proportional to teir coupling to te Higgs field times te Higgs vacuum-expectation value. Since te rigt-anded neutrino field as a mass, it does not simply pair up wit te left-anded neutrino field to generate a Dirac mass. Instead, it generates a Majorana mass for te left-anded neutrino field, as sown in Fig. 9(b). Tis requires two interactions wit te Higgs field, so te neutrino mass is proportional to te square of te coupling to te Higgs field times te square of te Higgs vacuum-expectation value, divided by te mass of te rigt-anded neutrino field (wic enters via its propagator). If M R is muc greater tan v, ten te neutrino is very ligt. Taking M R to be around te scale of grand unification yields neutrino masses in te range ev [33], consistent wit wat we know from neutrino oscillation experiments. Tus we anticipated neutrino masses from grand unification. However, we did not anticipate te large observed mixing angles, θ 12 34, θ Like te top quark, tis is anoter example were we anticipated te general framework, but not te details. 4 Grand Unification Since neutrino masses support te framework of grand unification, let s consider te status of suc teories. Te standard model fits neatly into SU(5) [34], but te couplings fail to unify at te grand-unified scale. As is well know, coupling unification is successful if one extends te standard model to include supersymmetry in te minimal way [35, 36, 37], as sown in Fig. 10. at is less well known is tat tis is due entirely to te extension of Higgs sector to include a second Higgs doublet and te superpartners of te two Higgs doublets. To illustrate tis point, I sow in Fig. 11 te evolution of te gauge couplings obtained by adding just te second Higgs doublet and te Higgs superpartners. Exactly te same evolution is obtained in te standard model wit six Higgs doublets [38]. However, te unification scale is around GeV, wic implies rapid proton decay in te SU(5) model. One of te attractive features of supersymmetry

11 Te Road Aead α 1 50 α 1 i (µ) α 2 α µ (GeV) Fig. 10. Gauge coupling unification in te minimal supersymmetric standard model α 1 50 α 1 i (µ) α 2 α µ (GeV) Fig. 11. Gauge coupling unification in te standard model wit two Higgs doublets plus teir supersymmetric partners. Te same result is obtained in te standard model wit six Higgs doublets. From Ref. [38].

12 Te Road Aead 12 + Fig. 12. Quadratic divergences from loops of particles and teir supersymmetric partners cancel in supersymmetric teories, exemplified ere by Higgs and Higgsino loops. is tat it not only allows for coupling unification, it also puses te unification scale up to around GeV, making it safe from rapid proton decay [39]. Once we accept te existence of te rigt-anded neutrino field, N R, it is attractive to consider SO(10) as te grand-unified gauge group [40, 41]. Te fermions of a single generation fit into te representation of SU(5), were te 1 is te N R field, wic is simply tacked onto te teory. In contrast, te fermions of a single generation fill out te 16 representation of SO(10). Tus SO(10) is more unified tan SU(5). It is possible tat SO(10) is spontaneously broken to SU(5) at or above te grand-unified scale, in wic case we are led back to te SU(5) scenario discussed above. However, tere are oter possible symmetry-breaking patterns, wic do not necessarily require weak-scale supersymmetry. A non-supersymmetric example is SO(10) SU(4) c SU(2) L SU(2) R SM [42]. In order to acieve coupling unification, tere is an intermediate scale of symmetry breaking between te weak scale and te grand-unified scale [43]. Since tis intermediate scale is adjusted to yield coupling unification, we lose te prediction of te weak mixing angle tat is one of te successes of te supersymmetric SU(5) teory. Anoter reason weak-scale supersymmetry is attractive is tat it stabilizes te ierarcy m M U, were M U is te unification scale (altoug it does not explain wy te ierarcy exists). Tis stabilization results from te cancellation of quadratically-divergent corrections to te Higgs-boson mass from loops of particles and teir supersymmetric partners, as sown in Fig. 12 [44, 45, 46]. However, weak-scale supersymmetry fails to stabilize te ierarcy Λ v 2, so it seems we are still missing a big part of te picture. I believe tat SO(10) SU(5) SM wit weak-scale supersymmetry is te most attractive teory we ve got, but it is unlikely tat we ave anticipated all te details, just as we failed to anticipate te top-quark mass and te neutrino mixing angles. Te LHC will decide if weak-scale supersymmetry is really an outpost on te pat to grand unification, or simply a mirage. 5 Te Higgs Boson As I discussed above, te LHC was designed to discover te mecanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Te evidence suggests tat tis involves a Higgs field (or fields) tat acquires a vacuum-expectation value. Here I would like to

13 Te Road Aead 13 G s = 2 g, γ, Z, s = 1 s = 0 Fig.13. Like te graviton and te gauge bosons of te standard model, te Higgs boson mediates a fundamental force of nature. list te intellectual reasons wy te discovery of te Higgs boson (or bosons) is so important: e ave no experience in particle pysics wit a fundamental scalar field, nor wit a scalar field tat acquires a vacuum-expectation value. e do ave experience wit a composite field tat acquires a vacuum-expectation value in QCD, qq, were q is a quark field. Tis breaks te ciral symmetry of QCD down to isospin. Te analogue of tis mecanism for electroweak symmetry breaking is called Tecnicolor, and is an alternative to a fundamental scalar field [47, 48]. Te Higgs boson mediates a new force of nature, just as te graviton mediates te gravitational force and te gauge bosons of te standard model mediate te strong and electroweak forces, as sown in Fig. 13. Unlike te graviton, wic as spin 2, and te gauge bosons, wic ave spin 1, te Higgs boson as spin 0, since it is a scalar field. Te Higgs field is responsible CKM mixing and CP violation. Te quarks acquire mass via teir coupling to te Higgs field, L Y ukawa = Γ ij u Q i L ǫφ u j R + Γ ij d Q i L φdj R (Q L is defined in Table 1) were te indicies i, j = 1, 2, 3 indicate te generation. Te fact tat te Yukawa matrices Γ u, Γ d are nondiagonal leads

14 Te Road Aead 14 to CKM mixing, and te fact tat tey are complex yields CP violation. An analogous mecanism leads to MNS mixing in te lepton sector (evidenced via neutrino oscillations), as well as leptonic CP violation (yet to be observed). e would like to understand te curious pattern of fermion masses and mixing observed in nature. e don t understand wy te cosmological constant is so muc less tan te vacuum-expectation value of te Higgs field, Λ v 2. One migt imagine tat tere is some mecanism tat forces it to zero, but ten we ave to explain wy it is observed to be nonzero. Quintessence is anoter scalar field introduced to provide suc an explanation [32]. Te MAP measurements provide support for inflation, but we do not know te dynamics tat drive inflation. Yet anoter scalar field, te inflaton, as been proposed for tat purpose. As discussed above, gauge-coupling unification relies on te Higgs field (or fields). Tere may be yet more Higgs fields responsible for spontaneously breaking te grand-unified symmetry. Tese observations sow tat te Higgs boson is not only central to te standard model, it is central to pysics beyond te standard model. Te LHC promises to open up an entirely new capter in our quest to understand nature at a deeper level. 6 Te Road Aead e still ave a long road aead of us, but it is wort te wait. As we approac our destination, we will encounter a landscape tat is familiar in some ways, exotic in oters. Recall tat wen te CERN Sp ps first began operation, tere was a lot of confusion: monojets, a 40 GeV top quark, and so on. I believe tat wen we begin te operation of te LHC, te situation will be bot confusing and exilarating. It will require te best efforts of us all to make sense of it. Acknowledgments I am grateful for conversations and correspondence wit K. Babu, G. Bélanger, A. Belyaev, J. Ellis, T. Liss, K. Matcev, D. O Neil, C. Quigg, J. Ricman, M. Srednicki, and J. Taler. Tis researc was supported in part by te U. S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-91ER40677 and by te National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY References 1. G. Arnison et al. [UA1 Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 122, 103 (1983). 2. G. Arnison et al. [UA1 Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 126, 398 (1983). 3. M. Banner et al. [UA2 Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 122, 476 (1983).

15 Te Road Aead P. Bagnaia et al. [UA2 Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 129, 130 (1983). 5. C. Rubbia, Rev. Mod. Pys. 57, 699 (1985). 6. S. Van Der Meer, Rev. Mod. Pys. 57, 689 (1985). 7. S.. Herb et al., Pys. Rev. Lett. 39, 252 (1977). 8. H. J. Berend et al. [CELLO Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 144, 297 (1984). 9. G. Arnison et al. [UA1 Collaboration], Pys. Lett. B 147, 493 (1984). 10. U. Amaldi et al., Pys. Rev. D 36, 1385 (1987). 11. C. Quigg, Pys. Today 50N5, 20 (1997). 12. F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Pys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995) [arxiv:ep-ex/ ]. 13. S. Abaci et al. [D0 Collaboration], Pys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2632 (1995) [arxiv:ep-ex/ ]. 14. G. t Hooft, Rev. Mod. Pys. 72, 333 (2000) [Erratum-ibid. 74, 1343 (2003)]. 15. M. J. Veltman, Rev. Mod. Pys. 72, 341 (2000). 16. E. Fernandez et al., Pys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1022 (1983). 17. N. Lockyer et al., Pys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1316 (1983). 18. J. E. Brau, K. T. Pitts and L. E. Price, in Proceedings of te 1988 DPF Summer Study on Hig-energy Pysics in te 1990s (Snowmass 88), Snowmass, Colorado, 27 Jun - 15 Jul, 1988, ed. S. Jensen, p ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations, Te LEP orking Group for Higgs Boson Searces, CERN-EP/ A. Stange,. J. Marciano and S. illenbrock, Pys. Rev. D 49, 1354 (1994) [arxiv:ep-p/ ]. 21. D. Amidei et al. [TeV-2000 Study Group Collaboration], FERMILAB-PUB M. Carena et al. [Higgs orking Group Collaboration], arxiv:ep-p/ L. Demortier, R. Hall, R. Huges, B. Klima, R. Roser and M. Strovink [Te Top Averaging Group Collaboration], FERMILAB-TM D. Amidei and C. Brock, FERMINES 26, No. 1, p. 6 (January 17, 2003) [ttp:// 25. R. N. Can and S. Dawson, Pys. Lett. B 136, 196 (1984) [Erratum-ibid. B 138, 464 (1984)]. 26. D. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, JHEP 9712, 005 (1997) [arxiv:ep-p/ ]. 27. C. L. Bennett et al., arxiv:astro-p/ Proceedings of te 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary Particle Pysics and Future Facilities (Snowmass 82), Snowmass, Colorado, 28 Jun - 16 Jul, 1982, eds. R. Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige. 29. C. Quigg and R. F. Scwitters, Science 231, 1522 (1986). 30. J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. C. Spanos, arxiv:ep-p/ J. L. Feng, K. T. Matcev and F. ilczek, Pys. Lett. B 482, 388 (2000) [arxiv:ep-p/ ]. 32. S. M. Carroll, arxiv:astro-p/ P. Langacker, Pys. Rept. 72, 185 (1981). 34. H. Georgi and S. L. Glasow, Pys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974). 35. J. R. Ellis, S. Kelley and D. V. Nanopoulos, Pys. Lett. B 260, 131 (1991). 36. U. Amaldi,. de Boer and H. Furstenau, Pys. Lett. B 260, 447 (1991). 37. P. Langacker and M. Luo, Pys. Rev. D 44, 817 (1991). 38. S. illenbrock, Pys. Lett. B 561, 130 (2003) [arxiv:ep-p/ ]. 39. S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. ilczek, Pys. Rev. D 24, 1681 (1981). 40. H. Georgi, AIP Conf. Proc. 23, 575 (1975). 41. H. Fritzsc and P. Minkowski, Annals Pys. 93, 193 (1975). 42. J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Pys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974).

16 Te Road Aead N. G. Despande, E. Keit and P. B. Pal, Pys. Rev. D 46, 2261 (1993). 44. M. J. Veltman, Acta Pys. Polon. B 12, 437 (1981). 45. L. Maiani, in Proceedings of te Summer Scool on Particle Pysics, Gif-Sur- Yvette, 1979, edited by G. Altarelli (IN2P3, Paris, 1980), p E. itten, Nucl. Pys. B 188, 513 (1981). 47. S. einberg, Pys. Rev. D 19, 1277 (1979). 48. L. Susskind, Pys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979).