1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig,amsmath]{article}

2: \hoffset -0.4in 

3: \textwidth 6in

4: \textheight 8.5in

5: %\setcounter{page}{1} `

6: \parskip 7pt \openup1\jot \parindent=0.5in

7: %\topmargin -0.5in

8: 

9: %       the stuff below defines \eqalign and \eqalignno in such a

10: %       way that they will run on Latex

11: %	eqalignnoleft is eqalignno positioned flush left on the page

12: \newfont{\thiplo}{msbm10 scaled\magstep 2}

13: \newfont{\gothic}{eufb10 scaled\magstep 2}

14: \newfont{\unc}{eurb10} 

15: \newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt

16: \def\caja{\mathsurround=0pt}\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \caja

17:         \ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$

18:         \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}

19: \newif\ifdtup

20: \def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \caja

21:         \everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse

22:         \vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit

23:         \else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}

24: \def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous 

25:         \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$

26:         \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil 

27:         \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt

28:         \crcr#1\crcr}}\def\eqalignnoleft#1{\panorama \tabskip=0pt

29:         \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$

30:         \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil 

31:         \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt

32:         \crcr#1\crcr}}

33: %	\eqright causes display equation material between \eqright and \cr

34: %	to be positioned flush right on the page.  This is useful

35: %	in breaking long lines in a display equation.

36: %	\eqright is usually used in conjunction with \eqalignnoleft.

37: \def\eqright #1\cr{\noalign{\hfill$\displaystyle{{}#1}$}}

38: %	\eqleft causes display equation material between \eqleft and \cr

39: %	to be positioned flush left on the page.

40: \def\eqleft #1\cr{\noalign{\noindent$\displaystyle{{}#1}$\hfill}}

41: %       The oldref and fig macros are for formatting

42: %       references and figure lists at the end of the paper.

43: %       If you type \oldref{1}Dirac, P.A.M. you will get

44: %       [1] Dirac, P.A.M.

45: %       Same goes for \fig except you get Figure 2.1

46: \def\oldrefledge{\hangindent3\parindent}

47: \def\oldreffmt#1{\rlap{[#1]} \hbox to 2\parindent{}}

48: \def\oldref#1{\par\noindent\oldrefledge \oldreffmt{#1}

49:         \ignorespaces}

50: \def\figledge{\hangindent=1.25in}

51: \def\figfmt#1{\rlap{Figure {#1}} \hbox to 1in{}}

52: \def\fig#1{\par\noindent\figledge \figfmt{#1}

53:         \ignorespaces}

54: %

55: %       This defines et al., i.e., e.g., cf., etc.

56: \def\ie{\hbox{\it i.e.}{}}      \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}{}}

57: \def\eg{\hbox{\it e.g.}{}}      \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}{}}

58: \def\etal{\hbox{\it et al.}}

59: \def\dash{\hbox{---}}

60: %       common physics symbols

61: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}            

62: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

63: \def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}

64: \def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial~2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}

65: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}

66: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}

67: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}

68: \def\ME#1#2{\left\langle #1\right|\left. #2 \right\rangle}

69: \def\gdot#1{\rlap{$#1$}/}

70: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}

71: \def\pr#1{#1~\prime}

72: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}

73: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}

74: % \contract is a differential geometry contraction sign _|

75: \def\contract{\makebox[1.2em][c]{

76:         \mbox{\rule{.6em}{.01truein}\rule{.01truein}{.6em}}}}

77: %	The command \sectioneq produces numbering of equations by section

78: \def\holdtheequation{\arabic}

79: \def\sectioneq{\def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}{\let

80: \holdsection=\section\def\section{\setcounter{equation}{0}\holdsection}}}%

81: 

82: %	The commands \beginletts and \endletts delimit sections of

83: %	text in which successive equation numbers are distinguished by 

84: %	sequentially appending lower case letters 

85: \newcounter{holdequation}\def

86: 	\beginletts{\begingroup\setcounter

87: 	{holdequation}{\value{equation}}\addtocounter

88: 	{equation}{1}\edef

89: 	\holdtheequation{\theequation}\setcounter

90: 	{equation}{0}\def

91: 	\theequation{\holdtheequation\alph{equation}}}

92: \def\endletts{\endgroup\setcounter

93: 	{equation}{\value{holdequation}}\refstepcounter{equation}}

94: %	The command \num provides automatic numbering in LaTex when used in 

95: %	place of (equation number) in PlainTeX-style equations

96: \def\num{(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}

97: %	\auto is shorthand for \eqno\num

98: \def\auto{\eqno(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}

99: %	The commands \begineq and \endeq provide for one vertically 

100: %	centered automatic number for multiline equations

101: \def\begineq #1\endeq{$$ \refstepcounter{equation}\eqalign{#1}\eqno

102: 	(\theequation) $$}

103: %	The command \contlimit puts (a\rightarrow0) 

104: %	under \longrightarrow

105: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex

106: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}

107: %	The command \centeron#1#2 backs up #2 so that it is centered 

108: %	over #1.  \centerover and \centerunder work like \centeron,

109: %	except that they raise or lower #2 to place it over or under

110: %	#1.

111: \def\centeron#1#2{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim

112: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi

113: \copy0\kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1

114: \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}

115: %

116: \def\centerover#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox

117: 1=\hbox{#2}\raise\ht0\hbox{\raise\dp1\hbox{\copy1}}}}

118: %

119: \def\centerunder#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox

120: 1=\hbox{#2}\lower\dp0\hbox{\lower\ht1\hbox{\copy1}}}}

121: %	The commands \lsim and \gsim provide symbols for 

122: %	`less than of order' and `greater than of order'

123: \def\lsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox

124: {$\sim$}}\;}

125: \def\gsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox

126: {$\sim$}}\;}

127: %	The command \st (for stroke) puts a slash through the succeeding 

128: %	character in math mode

129: \def\st#1{\centeron{$#1$}{$/$}}

130: %	The command \newcases works like \cases except that 

131: %	the baselines and type size are the same as for

132: %	display equations

133: \def\newcases#1{\left\{\,\vcenter{\normalbaselines\openup1\jot \caja 

134: \ialign{\strut$\displaystyle{##}$\hfil

135: &\quad##\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\right.}

136: %	The command \super inserts the characters in its argument as a 

137: %	superscript with the correct spacefactor.

138: \def\super#1{\ifmmode \hbox{\textsuper{#1}}\else\textsuper{#1}\fi}

139: \def\textsuper#1{\newcount\holdspacefactor\holdspacefactor=\spacefactor

140: $^{#1}$\spacefactor=\holdspacefactor}

141: %	The command \supercite redefines \cite so that it makes superscripted 

142: %	citation numbers. It is to be used in conjunction with the 

143: %	\label command (for example, with one of the list-making 

144: %	environments).  The command \oldcite restores the original LaTeX 

145: %	\cite command.

146: \let\holdcite=\cite

147: \def\supercite{\def\cite{\newcite}}

148: \def\oldcite{\def\cite{\holdcite}}

149: \def\newcite#1{\super{\newcount\citenumber\citenumber=0\getcite#1,@, }}

150: \def\getcite#1,{\advance\citenumber by1

151: \def\getcitearg{#1}\def\lastarg{@}

152: \ifnum\citenumber=1

153: \ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\else\ifx\getcitearg\lastarg\let\next=\relax

154: \else ,\ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\fi\fi\next}

155: %	The command \nskip gives a vertical skip of the specified 

156: %	dimension (in braces) without including any extra \baselineskip 

157: %	or \parskip.

158: \def\nskip#1{\vbox{}\vskip-\baselineskip\vskip#1\vskip-\parskip\noindent}

159: %	The command \lskip skips vertically by one line, i.e., 

160: %	the current \baselineskip.  There is no indentation unless 

161: %	\indent is specified.

162: \def\lskip{\vskip\baselineskip\vskip-\parskip\noindent}

163: \def\np{Nucl.\ Phys.\ }

164: \def\pr{Phys.\ Rev.\ }

165: \def\prl{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }

166: \def\pl{Phys.\ Lett.\ }

167: \def\arnps{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ }

168: \def\mn{\mu\nu}

169: \def\epm{e^+e^-}

170: \def\pom{{\rm P\kern -0.53em\llap I\,}}

171: \def\spom{{\rm P\kern -0.36em\llap \small I\,}}

172: \def\sspom{{\rm P\kern -0.33em\llap \footnotesize I\,}}

173: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}

174: \def\mev{{\rm MeV}}

175: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}

176: \relax

177: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex

178: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}

179: \def\upon #1/#2 {{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}}

180: \relax

181: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} 

182: \def\srf#1{$^{#1}$\ }

183: \def\mainhead#1{\setcounter{equation}{0}\addtocounter{section}{1}

184:   \vbox{\begin{center}\large\bf #1\end{center}}\nobreak\par}

185: \sectioneq

186: \def\subhead#1{\bigskip\vbox{\noindent\bf #1}\nobreak\par}

187: \def\rf#1#2#3{{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

188: \def\autolabel#1{\auto\label{#1}}

189: %\def\til#1{\centeron{\hbox{$#1$}}{\lower 2ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}

190: %\def\tild#1{\centeron{\hbox{$\,#1$}}{\lower 2.5ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}

191: \def\sumtil{\centeron{\hbox{$\displaystyle\sum$}}{\lower

192: -1.5ex\hbox{$\widetilde{\phantom{xx}}$}}}

193: \def\sumtilt{\sum^{\raisebox{-.15mm}{\hspace{-1.75mm}$\widetilde{}$}}\ }

194: \def\gltext{$\raisebox{1mm}{\centerunder{$\scriptscriptstyle 

195: 	>$}{$\scriptscriptstyle <$}}$}

196: \def\intcent#1{\centerunder{$\displaystyle\int$}{\raisebox{-2.2mm}{$ #1 $}}}

197: \def\kbar{\underline{k}}

198: \def\qbar{\underline{q}}

199: \def\kbarsl{\underline{\st k}}

200: \def\qbarsl{\underline{\st q}}

201: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}

202: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}

203: \def\pbar{\underline{p}}

204: \def\pbarsl{\underline{\st p}}

205: \def\q{\unc q}

206: \def\p{\unc p}

207: \def\f{\footnotesize}

208: \def\n{\normalsize}

209: \def\s{\small}

210: \def\l{\large}

211: 

212: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

213: 

214: %\pagestyle{empty}

215: 

216: \begin{document} 

217: 

218: \begin{titlepage} 

219: 

220: \rightline{\vbox{\halign{&#\hfil\cr

221: % &ANL-HEP-CP-04-83\cr

222: &\today\cr}}} 

223: \vspace{0.5in} 

224: 

225: \begin{center} 

226:   

227: {\large\bf The ``Crisis in Fundamental Physics''

228: 

229: - Will the LHC Pomeron End it~?~\footnote{Presented at the 5th 

230: Manchester Forward Physics Workshop, Dec.~2007.}}

231: 

232: \vspace{0.25in}

233: 

234: Alan. R. White\footnote{arw@hep.anl.gov } 

235: 

236: \vskip 0.6cm

237:  

238: \centerline{Argonne National Laboratory}

239: \centerline{9700 South Cass, Il 60439, USA.}

240: \vspace{0.5cm}

241: 

242: \end{center}

243: 

244: \begin{abstract} 

245:  

246: SU(5) gauge theory

247: with massless left-handed fermions in the representation

248: ${\bf 5\oplus 15\oplus 40\oplus 45^*}~$ {\bf (QUD)} may have a bound-state

249: S-Matrix that, uniquely, contains

250: the asymptotically unitary Critical Pomeron and which

251: might also reproduce the full Standard Model.

252: If so, QUD would provide an underlying unification 

253: for the Standard Model in which very similar massless fermion anomaly 

254: dynamics is responsible for the physics of   

255: the strong and electroweak interactions and all particle masses are generated dynamically.

256: The color sextet quark sector, responsible for both

257: electroweak symmetry-breaking and dark matter in QUD, is predicted to produce

258: large cross-section effects at the LHC, with the pomeron as

259: a vital diagnostic - via TOTEM/CMS and FP420.

260: 

261: In this talk, the multi-regge construction 

262: of high-energy QUD amplitudes is outlined

263: as is, briefly, the LHC pomeron physics. Surrounding motivational 

264: issues (particularly outstanding QCD problems) and consequences

265: are also discussed. The S-Matrix anomaly physics

266: is conceptually and philosophically radical

267: with respect to the current theory paradigm. As a consequence, QUD 

268: could provide a welcome way out of

269: the current ``Crisis in Fundamental Physics'' with, potentially, it's

270: novel physical applicability resolving a variety of Standard

271: Model and, perhaps also, cosmology problems - it has zero vacuum energy.

272: 

273: \end{abstract} 

274: 

275:  

276: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \end{titlepage} 

277: 

278: %\setcounter{page}{2}

279: 

280: \mainhead{ 1. INTRODUCTION.}

281: 

282: As I suggested\cite{mct} at this meeting last year, SU(5) gauge theory

283: with massless left-handed fermions in the representation

284: $5\oplus 15\oplus 40\oplus 45^*$, which I refer to as

285: {\bf QUD\footnote{Quantum Uno/Unification/Unitary/Underlying Dynamics}},

286: may have a bound-state

287: S-Matrix that, uniquely, contains the Critical Pomeron and which

288: might also reproduce the full Standard Model. According to my arguments, strikingly simple

289: massless fermion anomaly physics would then provide a very special 

290: underlying unification of the strong and electroweak interactions. All particle masses 

291: would be dynamical and, remarkably, although there is an underlying SU(5) gauge symmetry 

292: there would be no new S-Matrix interactions beyond those of the Standard Model. 

293: 

294: That the Critical Pomeron 

295: uniquely satisfies all the constraints of t- and s-channel multiparticle

296: unitarity could, perhaps, imply that QUD is 

297: unique as a field theory generating a unitary massive 

298: particle S-Matrix. (Most likely, only the S-Matrix is  

299: well-defined non-perturbatively.)

300: In total, the implications of QUD's existence are so far reaching that, initially,

301: ``the willing suspension of disbelief''\cite{wsd} may be required

302: to even consider it. Almost certainly, experimental discovery 

303: will be required to produce the serious interest that I believe is merited.

304: Fortunately, if QUD does underly the Standard Model,

305: the color sextet quark sector producing both

306: electroweak symmetry-breaking and dark matter should be dramatically evident via 

307: large cross-section effects at the LHC - particularly in the double pomeron cross-section

308: that TOTEM/CMS and FP420 will measure.

309: 

310: As part of this talk\cite{t07}, 

311: I will outline the multi-regge construction that potentially relates

312: the QUD high-energy S-Matrix to the Standard Model. To carry through

313: the full program\cite{amtm} outlined is an enormous challenge  

314: that badly needs the extra participation that

315: experimental encouragement would surely bring.  

316: I will briefly review the relevant LHC pomeron

317: physics but will not discuss at all the related 

318: Cosmic Ray, Tevatron, and {\Large ${\scriptstyle S\bar{p}pS}$}

319: evidence that I have described elsewhere\cite{mct,arw05}.

320: 

321: A major focus of the talk will be on surrounding motivational

322: issues and consequences. In particular, why high-energy unitarity could be essential

323: in providing the key to new physics, will be clear from my discussion of 

324: existing problems in the formulation of QCD. The search for the unitary Critical

325: Pomeron then leads to the novel dynamics

326: which underlies the existence of the QUD high-energy S-Matrix - the central element

327: being the color compensation of perturbative reggeon exchanges

328: by anomalous wee gluons coupled to massless fermion anomalies. For the strong interaction

329: QCD sector the anomalies are infra-red, while in the electroweak sector 

330: the interactions remain effectively perturbative at low energy because the anomalies 

331: involve infinite fermion transverse momenta.

332: In general, the dynamics (the absence of a Higgs' field included) is both conceptually and

333: philosophically radical with respect to the current theory paradigm, which 

334: is (presumably) a major reason why QUD has not emerged in direct unification searches.

335: In fact, the current theory paradigm is actually in a {\it crisis mode} of 

336: serious self-doubt that 

337: QUD could provide a very welcome way out of. As I will describe, it is just 

338: because the physical applicability of QUD is at variance with conventional

339: wisdom that it could, potentially, resolve a wide range of existing puzzles in the Standard

340: Model (and cosmology - it has zero vacuum energy).

341: 

342: \mainhead{2. THE CRISIS}

343: 

344: Arguments by leading theorists (Weinberg\cite{swe}, Susskind\cite{lsu}, and 

345: others\cite{bsc}) 

346: have led to what Smolin\cite{lsm} has called a

347: {\bf ``Crisis in Fundamental Physics''}. The crisis is epitomized by asking the 

348: following question - based on the ``string-theory~landscape''.

349: \begin{center}

350: {\it `` With an infinity of universes 

351: proposed, and more than $10^{400}$ theories,

352: is experimental proof of physical laws still possible? ''}

353: \end{center}

354: A retreat to the {\it (end of science?)} 

355: ``anthropic principle'' - physical parameters are

356: determined by the existence of life - is a common response.

357: Adding to the bewilderment (says Smolin),  

358: in the 35 years since the formulation of the Standard Model, 

359: all proposals for ``new physics'', including

360:  {\it GUTS, supersymmetry, technicolor, string theory and

361: (most recently) extra dimensions,}

362: have failed to make any contact with experiment - even while

363: introducing a wide variety of interactions, particles, and new parameters.

364: (The last discovery of a new interaction

365: was, of course, much more than 35 years ago!) To quote Schroer's opening line\cite{bsc}

366: \begin{center}

367: {\it ``There can be no doubt that after almost a century of impressive success

368: fundamental physics is in the midst of a deep crisis.''} 

369: \end{center}  

370:  

371: Theoretically, there are

372: far too many (ill-defined) candidate new theories, while 

373: experimentally there are none! Searching for new theories via 

374: the symmetry-based aesthetics championed by much of the

375: theory community has not found a focus, even though there has been no shortage

376: of imagination! Doubling the number of particles to achieve 

377: supersymmetry, when not a single partner has been seen,

378: and adding extra dimensions that ``curl up''

379: out of our sight both seem far-fetched to ``real world'' 

380: theorists, as well as many experimenters. (If neither is discovered at the 

381: LHC, this will surely be the historical perspective~!) Indeed, all of the theoretical

382: constructs that lead to the epitome question above are pure speculation for which

383: there is no experimental evidence. In this sense, the ``crisis'' is entirely 

384: self-induced by

385: theorists. Apparently, there is insufficient constraint (either theoretical

386: or experimental) on the development of new 

387: ideas and there is much concern\cite{bsc,lsm} that a major change may be needed

388: in the paradigm underlying the current formulation of particle theory.

389: 

390: \mainhead{3. THE PARADIGM ?}

391: 

392: In 1999 Gross\cite{djg} discussed how 

393: the discovery process that led to QCD

394: invalidated the preceding attempt to obtain a strong interaction theory by 

395: bootstrapping a (supposed to be unique) unitary S-Matrix. He stated

396: a commonly held opinion. 

397: \begin{center}

398: {\it ``We now know that there are an infinite number of 

399: consistent S-Matrices that satisfy all the sacred principles. 

400: One can take any non-abelian gauge theory, with any 

401: gauge group, and many sets of fermions ... The hope for uniqueness must wait for a 

402: higher level of unification.''}

403: \end{center} 

404: In fact, this statement is ``breathtakingly misleading'' -

405: to use Bill Clinton's

406: phrase\cite{bcl}.

407: Gauge theory S-Matrices can only be calculated perturbatively. 

408: In D=4 the perturbation expansion for every field 

409: (and string) theory is wildly divergent and, almostly certainly, can not be

410: summed. There is no non-perturbative

411: formulation of any theory that can derive S-Matrix 

412: amplitudes - let alone discuss unitarity.

413: 

414: Nevertheless, it became accepted 

415: that general principles, including (most particularly) non-perturbative unitarity, are 

416: irrelevant in the search for a physical theory. The conventional wisdom 

417: developed that the Standard Model is a well-defined 

418: lagrangian quantum field theory, since it was assumed that once

419: perturbative renormalizability had been 

420: proved all the desired properties of a full, non-perturbative,

421: field theory would also be satisfied\footnote{\openup-1\jot{Even 

422: though it was acknowledged that a mathematical effort of unimaginable, herculean, 

423: \newline magnitude would be required to prove this\cite{jw}.}} - with a unitary S-Matrix 

424: automatically included. From this viewpoint,

425: the Standard Model fits the experimental data but, otherwise, is just one 

426: of an infinity of renormalizable field theories that nature could have chosen. Progress

427: beyond the Standard Model would only be determined by new experimental

428: phenomena that would have to be similarly fitted by an enlarged field theory. 

429: Since such phenomena had yet 

430: to be discovered and long distance physics was well understood via QCD, 

431: they would necessarily have to occur at a short distance not yet explored. 

432: Given the viewpoint expressed by Gross, 

433: theorists speculating about new physics that might appear 

434: were not fettered by any fear that the long-distance physics demand for

435: unitarity of the physical S-matrix could make any significant selection

436: amongst candidate theories.

437: 

438: The general assumption was that there should be

439: a unifying quantum field theory that would include the Standard Model

440: (and which, if the quantization of gravity is to be 

441: included, should embed in a string theory

442: - the search for which became, of course, the major preoccupation 

443: of the theory community over the last two decades, 

444: culminating in the epitome question of the last 

445: Section). The unifying field theory would be detected via the required

446: additional interactions. The extra, far from trivial, assumption had to be made 

447: that there would be no conflict

448: between the intrinsic non-perturbative applicability of QCD (involving 

449: confinement) and the perturbative applicability of the electroweak sector. 

450: Although there was no explicit understanding of how it could happen, it was believed

451: that a transition from perturbative to non-perturbative confinement 

452: physics would simply

453: be a consequence of the evolution of couplings with the scale involved.

454: 

455: Gross\cite{djg} also argued that the regge region had been given too much 

456: attention\footnote{Experimenters 

457: working on diffraction have lived with this attitude for a long time.}.

458: He said that short-distance experiments provide the most information

459: and that regge behavior is merely

460: \begin{center}

461: {\it ``an interesting, unsolved, and complicated problem for QCD''}

462: \end{center}

463: If the arguments that lead me to QUD are correct, this widely held 

464: view could not be further from the truth. The regge region is where, a priori, the 

465: connection between perturbative and non-perturbative physics should be explicitly 

466: evident (since a mixture of small and large momenta is involved). Indeed, 

467: regge-region (reggeon) unitarity is deeply related to 

468: other fundamental problems in the formulation of QCD (that I will discuss below)

469: and is central, I will argue, in the construction of a fully unitary gauge theory.

470: The viewpoint that the more difficult dynamical problems 

471: in QCD can be put aside because they are not fundamental for going beyond the 

472: Standard Model, has clearly been a major factor in allowing the unlimited

473: speculation that has produced the theory ``crisis''. It should be noted that the 

474: freedom of invention associated with 

475: the guiding principle/paradigm that progress will come via inspired guesses for missing  

476: short-distance physics, combined with experimental 

477: verification via related rare processes, has not yet received any 

478: experimental confirmation and, most importantly, there is no historical precedent

479: for assuming that it will.

480: 

481: Indeed, as we discuss next, the long distance and regge region physics of QCD 

482: is not well understood

483: and our argument will be that it is by getting this physics right that we are 

484: led directly to the underlying physics of the full Standard Model.

485: 

486: \mainhead{4. QCD PROBLEMS}

487: 

488: There are three interconnected, unresolved, 

489: problems for the standard formulation of QCD.

490: 

491: \subhead{1. The Spectrum of States}  

492: 

493: The conventional wisdom is that

494: the physical states are determined by the two principles of

495: color confinement and (when quarks are involved)

496: chiral symmetry breaking. Neither principle has been proved, although

497: there is also no experimental violation of either principle.

498: However, if color confinement is the only feature

499: constraining the field theory degrees of freedom appearing in  

500: physical states, then glueballs should be everywhere. As Chanowitz says\cite{mch},

501: \begin{center}

502: {\it ``Glueballs are a dramatic consequence of the local, unbroken, non-Abelian

503: symmetry that is the unique defining property of QCD. ... 

504: The prediction that glueballs exist is simple and fundamental but has proven 

505: difficult to verify''.}

506: \end{center}

507: In fact,

508: \begin{center}

509: {\it not a single glueball 

510: has been seen {\bf (unambiguously)} in any experiment\cite{kz}.}

511: \end{center}

512: Apparently, there is a major limitation

513: on the degrees of freedom - physical states must contain quarks ?? This problem

514: has received only limited theoretical attention, in part because there is no  

515: resolution within the standard formulation of QCD. 

516: 

517: \subhead{2. The Parton Model} 

518: 

519: Factorization theorems say that leading-twist perturbation theory

520: is consistent with the parton model - leading to 

521: the ``QCD-improved parton model''. However, even though

522: it is the basis of all perturbative applications, there is 

523: \begin{center}

524: {\it no derivation of the parton model in QCD.}

525: \end{center}

526: As elaborated on at length in \cite{arw84}, the true parton model envisaged

527: by Feynman requires that infinite momentum hadrons have 

528: quark/gluon wave functions. This is a very intricate requirement 

529: that has no reason to be true 

530: if there is a non-trivial, confining, vacuum. (Even though it is probably essential for 

531: asymptotic freedom to be maximally applicable.) 

532: 

533: For the desired

534: wave-functions to exist, the ``wee partons'' - with finite momentum in the

535: infinite-momentum frame (and zero momentum at finite momentum) 

536: - must play the role of the vacuum and so must be universal.

537: As illustrated, schematically, in Fig.~1, the wee partons in a hadron dominate

538: pomeron exchange. For wee partons to be universal, the pomeron

539: must have the factorization properties of a regge pole.

540: 

541: This problem has also not received much attention, presumably because the parton model, 

542: like confinement, works so well that (since QCD is obviously correct!!)

543: it can only be that it is indeed valid in QCD.

544: \begin{center}

545: \epsfxsize=3.5in

546: \epsffile{mc30.ps}

547: 

548: Figure 1. Wee Partons and the Pomeron

549: \end{center}

550: 

551: \subhead{3. The Pomeron} 

552: 

553: A priori, the perturbative  BFKL pomeron should appear at 

554: large $k_{\perp}$ - together with an odderon. However,

555: as Ewerz says\cite{ce},

556: \begin{center}

557: {\it 

558: ``QCD predicts the existence of the perturbative pomeron and of the odderon.

559: \newline Both of them appear to be rather difficult to observe experimentally.''}

560: \end{center}

561: In fact,

562: \begin{center}

563: {\it there is no {\bf (unambiguous)} 

564: evidence for the BFKL pomeron 

565: \newline and, essentially, zero evidence for the odderon.}

566: \end{center}

567: At small $k_{\perp}$, it is established experimentally that the pomeron

568: couples directly to quarks (c.f.~total cross-sections) 

569: and that it has the factorization properties of a regge pole.

570: 

571: Apparently, BFKL gluons (which would be directly related to a sub-set

572: of glueballs) could well be 

573: absent in physical high-energy amplitudes. Moreover,

574: quarks should be the essential elements of the high-energy states. The BFKL pomeron

575: has received so much attention and has produced such an enormous literature that there

576: is major resistance, by theorists, to acknowledging the

577: lack of experimental confirmation that is, nevertheless, well-known to experimenters. 

578: 

579: The BFKL pomeron also has serious theoretical problems. Firstly,

580: it violates both s- and t-channel multiparticle 

581: unitarity\cite{arw90}

582: (with higher-order corrections, very likely, making the problem worse).

583: Secondly, because it is not a regge pole,

584: wee parton factorization is absent and Reggeon Field Theory (RFT) can 

585: not be used to obtain higher-order contributions\cite{arw90,arw91} via reggeon unitarity.

586: 

587: That the gluonic degrees of freedom involved in the physical states and amplitudes of

588: QCD are more restricted than conventionally assumed, and that this 

589: may be related to the wee parton physics underlying the parton model, is the

590: vital, conceptually radical, message that will take us beyond the Standard Model to QUD.

591:  

592: \mainhead{5. THE CRITICAL POMERON AND QUD}

593: 

594: The Critical Pomeron\cite{cri} is obtained as a fixed-point

595: renormalization group solution of RFT and uniquely

596: satisfies both $s$- and $t$-channel multiparticle unitarity. It was originally formulated

597: as an elementary regge pole plus interactions for two reasons. Firstly, as noted above,

598: the pomeron is approximately a regge pole phenomenologically

599: and, secondly, $t$-channel reggeon unitarity is satisfied\cite{arw91} by the build-up of

600: the RFT interactions of a regge pole. As we noted in the last Section, a third reason 

601: is provided by requiring the factorization 

602: property needed for the existence of a parton model 

603: - for which the pomeron must be a {\bf single} regge

604: pole (plus interactions).  

605: 

606: In a gauge theory, and QCD in particular, reggeon diagrams (transverse momentum

607: diagrams containing ``reggeized'' gauge boson and fermion regge pole propagators) 

608: provide a well-established perturbative description of high-energy regge behavior.

609: If a QCD parton model can be derived then, a priori, 

610: these diagrams might be expected to provide the appropriate technology.

611: An immediate problem is that if confinement is to appear, it  

612: can only be via infra-red divergences. That

613: the Critical Pomeron, along with the wee partons required for 

614: the parton model, can indeed be obtained

615: from infra-red divergent reggeon diagrams is a highly non-trivial

616: construction that it has taken me many years to formulate. 

617: As I describe below, a very special version of QCD (QCD$_S$) 

618: is required, which then has to be embedded in a unique 

619: larger theory - QUD. Confinement is indeed part of the outcome, but there is a 

620: much stronger restriction, than simple zero color, on the gluon degrees of freedom.

621: 

622: It might be anticipated that a major restriction 

623: on field theory degrees of freedom would involve fermion anomalies. Moreover, 

624: only the anomalies of massless fermions have infra-red significance.

625: As we will see, it is novel massless fermion anomaly dynamics that strongly

626: restricts the physical degrees of freedom in both QCD$_S$ and QUD. Longitudinal 

627: gluon interactions allowed\cite{arw84} by the Gribov quantization ambiguity also play

628: a crucial role. My uncovering of this dynamics 

629: relates back to the controversy\cite{scrft} that occurred thirty years ago 

630: concerning the properties of a unitary supercritical RFT phase.

631: To satisfy reggeon unitarity

632: in this phase, a ``pomeron condensate'' has to be produced by the wee partons

633: in a hadron\cite{arw91}. Obtaining

634: this condensate from the infra-red divergences

635: of reggeon diagrams, is the key

636: to understanding the origin of the Critical Pomeron in both QCD$_S$ and QUD.

637:  

638: Before describing the dynamics, we first summarize the path that connects

639: the Critical Pomeron to QUD and describe the basic properties of this theory.

640: 

641: \newpage 

642: \subhead{5.1 The Path to QUD}

643: 

644: {\it \begin{enumerate}

645: \item{The first step is to match\cite{arw05} supercritical RFT with the 

646: superconducting phase of SU(3) gauge theory  

647: in which the color symmetry is reduced to SU(2).} 

648: \item{The next step is to show that the Critical Pomeron 

649: occurs in unbroken QCD when asymptotic freedom is ``saturated''. 

650: This is achieved with six color triplet quarks

651: plus two color sextet quarks - giving what we call ``QCD$_S$''.}

652: \item{Adding the electroweak sector, 

653: the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ eat the ``sextet pions'' 

654: and electroweak symmetry breaking occurs\cite{wm}

655: - with no new interaction! The electroweak scale is the QCD

656: sextet chiral scale - in agreement with Casimir scaling!}

657: \item{To cancel the electroweak short-distance anomaly and to generate masses, the sextet 

658: sector is embedded in a left-handed unified theory. Asking\cite{kw}

659: for the appropriate electroweak quantum numbers for the sextet sector, 

660: together with asymptotic freedom and anomaly cancelation, {\l \bf uniquely} selects

661: SU(5) gauge theory with the fermion representation

662: \begin{center} ${\l \bf 5\oplus 15\oplus 40\oplus 45^* ~\leftrightarrow ~QUD} $

663: \end{center}}

664: \end{enumerate}}

665: 

666: \subhead{5.2 SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) properties of QUD}

667: 

668: QUD contains QCD$_S$ and under 

669: $~SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ the SU(5) representations give

670: $$

671: {\openup-1\jot 

672: \eqalign{5&=(3,1,-\frac{1}{3})^{ \{3\}}

673: +(1,2,\frac{1}{2})^{\{2\}}~,\cr

674:  15&=(1,3,1)+

675: (3,2,\frac{1}{6})^{ \{1\}}+{\bf (6,1,-\frac{2}{3})}~,\cr

676: 40&=(1,2,-\frac{3}{2})^{ \{3\}}

677: +(3,2,\frac{1}{6})^{ \{2\}}+ (3^*,1,-\frac{2}{3})~+~(3^*,3,-\frac{2}{3})\cr

678: &~~~+

679: {\bf (6^*,2,\frac{1}{6})}+(8,1,1)~,\cr

680: 45^*&=(1,2,-\frac{1}{2})^{\{1\}}+(3^*,1,\frac{1}{3})

681: +(3^*,3,\frac{1}{3})+(3,1,-\frac{4}{3})

682: +(3,2,\frac{7}{6})^{\{3\}}\cr

683: &~~~+

684: {\bf (6,1,\frac{1}{3})}+(8,2,-\frac{1}{2})}}

685: $$

686: The requested sextet sector is shown in bold face.

687: The triplet quark and lepton sectors, {\it which were not asked for,} are 

688: amazingly close to the Standard Model ! There are three ``generations'', 

689: labeled by \{1\},\{2\} and \{3\}. 

690: The electroweak $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ quantum numbers are not quite right

691: and so to be physically relevant this sector, like the QCD sector,

692: can not be perturbative.

693: After the initial discovery\cite{kw} of QUD it was very frustrating

694: that no form of symmetry breaking appeared able to give the Standard Model directly.

695: Only after I fully understood the anomaly dynamics producing the QCD$_S$ S-Matrix, 

696: did I realise

697: that QUD could give the Standard Model S-Matrix via the same dynamics. 

698: For this, it is very important that the lepton anomaly is correct

699: and that there are three sets of triplet quark/antiquark pairs with charges 

700: $\pm \frac {2}{3}$ and $\pm \frac{1}{3}$. It is also crucial that, as can be seen

701: from the above representation decompositions, QUD is charge conjugate, and therefore

702: vector-like, only with respect to $SU(3)\otimes U(1)_{em}$.

703: 

704: It is surely remarkable that by simply asking for a sextet quark sector capable of

705: producing electroweak symmetry breaking, we are led to a minimal SU(5) theory that, via the

706: dynamics that I outline next, contains

707: just enough, and only enough, to produce all the states and interactions of the Standard

708: Model. As we will see, beyond the potential quark and lepton generations there is only

709: \begin{enumerate}{\it

710: \item{A sextet quark sector that, as a complex SU(3) representation

711: with a large color casimir, produces a new large mass strong interaction sector that is 

712: responsible for both electroweak symmetry breaking and dark matter.}

713: \item{A ``lepton-like'' octet quark sector that, as a real SU(3)

714: representation, provides a short-distance anomaly contribution which produces

715: SU(5) invariant leptons that have no strong interaction and that, together with similarly 

716: produced hadrons, form Standard Model generations.}

717: \item{Two exotically charged quarks that, apparently, have no dynamical

718: significance.}}

719: \end{enumerate}

720: 

721: 

722: \mainhead{6. STATES AND AMPLITUDES}

723: 

724: A priori, obtaining not only bound states but also their scattering amplitudes,

725: would be considered an impossible task in a gauge theory where there are (according

726: to our own assertion) no off-shell Green's functions. Fortunately, 

727: as we outline below, multi-regge theory (very specially)

728: allows us, in principle at least, to simultaneously construct bound-states and S-Matrix 

729: amplitudes, for both QCD$_S$ and QUD, using perturbative reggeon diagrams. 

730: Since multi-regge limits are defined, in effect, so that 

731: infinite momentum frame kinematics are  

732: introduced in some Lorentz frame for each state and interaction, in the special case

733: that ``vacuum properties'' are carried by ``universal wee partons'' as discussed

734: in Section 4, a perturbative starting point may be sufficient to

735: access multi-regge region ``non-perturbative'' physics.

736: In fact, this physics will emerge in a surprisingly simple manner. 

737: 

738: Although the ``infinite momentum'' description of physical states is likely to 

739: be quite different from descriptions at finite momentum there must, of course, 

740: be consistency.

741: In fact, since the infinite momentum (or regge) 

742: limit is where perturbative and non-perturbative physics must come together, the form

743: of the infinite momentum states can be viewed as a boundary condition determining

744: whether or not candidate bound-states, that appear to be present at finite momentum,

745: can be present when there is a matching with large momentum perturbation theory. 

746: 

747: The multi-regge formalism 

748: also allows us to systematically build up 

749: the effects of massless fermion anomalies at high energy. (We will not attempt to 

750: discuss what the corresponding finite energy phenomena might be.) As we will describe,

751: we start in a color-superconducting phase  in which all 

752: reggeons are massive (i.e the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken - completely). 

753: The reggeons are also gauge-invariant

754: and carry global representations of the gauge group. It is well-known that

755: in the massless limit, the reggeization exponentiation of infra-red 

756: divergences ``confines'' the global color - although color zero massless reggeon states

757: composed of massless gluons remain. In our construction, these states are removed

758: and true confinement is produced by an additional, 

759: non-exponentiating, ``anomaly divergence''. This divergence will also be the source

760: of the pomeron condensate that we are looking for.

761: 

762: There are two elements that combine to produce the anomaly divergence. 

763: The first is ``anomalous gluons'', which are configurations of 

764: gauge boson reggeons that (in a limited sense) are 

765: multi-reggeon generalizations of the well-known ``anomaly current''.

766: The second is ``reggeon vertex anomalies'' which occur in fermion loop effective

767: vertices and provide the couplings for anomalous gluons. As we will describe, 

768: when there is a transverse momentum cut-off an infra-red anomaly 

769: divergence occurs when the transverse momenta of all anomalous gluons in a 

770: multi-regge amplitude are scaled uniformly to zero. In the residue of the divergence,

771: therefore, all reggeons are actually on mass-shell

772: and carry zero transverse momentum. Consequently, they  

773: can be referred to simply as ``anomalous wee gluons''.

774: 

775: \subhead{6.1 Anomalous Gluons}

776: 

777: For vector reggeons, the signature ($\tau$) of a reggeon state

778: is simply the odd/even number of reggeons.

779: Signature is also related to charge conjugation (C) and parity (P).

780: When parity is conserved, the combination of incoming and outgoing

781: states to which a reggeon combination couples can be assigned a parity which is also

782: carried by the reggeon state. In this case $\tau$ is also the sign obtained by

783: a TCP transformation of the complete coupling. If the scattering particles are scalars,

784: then T simply 

785: interchanges the ingoing and outgoing particles, and so it must be that $\tau=CP~$. 

786: Initially, we define C and P perturbatively so that C includes color charge

787: conjugation.

788: 

789: ``Anomalous gluons'' are sets of gluon reggeons that carry color zero 

790: but have color charge conjugation 

791: parity C with $C\neq \tau$, implying that (when parity is conserved)

792: anomalous gluon couplings must carry $P=-1$. The absence of a d-tensor implies 

793: that for SU(2) color only odd signature anomalous gluons are possible. Also, for forward 

794: scattering $P= -1$ implies that there must be a 

795: perturbative\footnote{The ``vacuum'' presence of 

796: anomalous wee gluons in physical states, that we will describe, will modify 

797: the definition of charge conjugation and parity in the physical

798: S-Matrix.} parity change between the initial and the final scattering state. 

799: In a helicity-conserving massless 

800: vector theory, such a change can only come from

801: an anomaly vertex that contains a zero momentum chirality transition

802: -as we discuss next.

803: 

804: \subhead{6.2 Reggeon Vertex Anomalies}

805: 

806: Anomalies appear in ``effective triangle diagram''  

807: reggeon vertices that are generated when fermions in large 

808: loops are placed on-shell by a multi-regge limit. Examples, derived in my

809: papers, are shown in Fig.~2. 

810: \begin{center}

811: 

812: \epsfxsize=5.2in

813: \epsffile{mc4.ps}

814: \vspace{0.025in}

815: \epsfxsize=5in

816: \epsffile{mc1.ps}

817: 

818: \vspace{0.025in}

819: 

820: %\epsfxsize=1.4in

821: %\epsffile{fs2.ps}

822:  

823: \epsfxsize=4.3in

824: \epsffile{mc20.ps}

825: $~~~~~~$

826: 

827: Figure.~2 Reggeon Vertex Anomalies

828: \end{center}

829: The longitudinal gluon interactions shown are 

830: present in the color superconducting phase and their survival in the massless theory 

831: is allowed by the Gribov ambiguity. The anomalies occur only in

832: vertices that couple distinct reggeon channels. As a result,

833: when anomalous gluons are a sub-component of a multi-reggeon state they can

834: not have a zero transverse momentum perturbative reggeon interaction 

835: with the other (massive) reggeons in the state. This property prevents

836: the exponentiation of the anomaly divergence in a vector theory.

837: 

838: A priori, the effect 

839: of the anomalies is dependent on the color symmetry restoration and cut-off

840: removal procedure used. (The procedure we employ has the

841: major justification that it  

842: produces a unitary RFT description of the high-energy behavior

843: by exploiting the wee parton Gauss law ambiguity.)

844: It is the Ward identity violation produced by the $k_{\perp}$ cut-off in anomaly

845: vertices that causes the infra-red anomalous gluon divergence. 

846: It is crucial that the residue

847: of the divergence contains 

848: anomaly poles that are generated\cite{arw05} (within the anomaly vertices) 

849: by zero momentum chirality transitions. 

850: 

851: Anomaly poles have two distinct roles.

852: Poles associated with a flavor anomaly are Goldstone boson particle 

853: poles\footnote{The kinematics responsible for

854: the appearance of a Goldstone boson as an anomaly pole

855: at infinite momentum are detailed in \cite{arw02}.}.

856: As illustrated in the first example of Fig.~2, 

857: a Goldstone (pion) pole is produced when a set of anomalous ``wee'' gluons, with

858: $k_{\perp}=0$, couples via an effective triangle diagram to 

859: a quark-antiquark pair that also carries a light-like momentum. 

860: Poles associated with the U(1) anomaly do not contribute as particle poles but instead

861: contribute as $\delta$-functions that conserve the wee gluon transverse momenta

862: involved in anomaly divergences in distinct reggeon channels - as illustrated 

863: in the second example of Fig.~2. 

864: 

865: A chirality transition is essential for the generation of an anomaly pole. In effect,

866: these transitions, and the quantum numbers of the amplitudes in which they

867: appear, are a consequence of 

868: the initial reggeon mass generation. Since they are also, essentially, the

869: zero momentum propagator contribution to a condensate, they 

870: play an analagous role to condensates - {\it but only in the

871: S-Matrix}. In QCD$_S$ the chirality transitions do not conflict with

872: the global color symmetry. Instead, they break both color parity - producing 

873: a regge pole pomeron and confinement - and chiral symmetry. 

874: In QUD only the vector part of the color 

875: group is not in conflict with the chirality transitions and this is why Standard Model

876: interactions emerge.

877: 

878: A comprehensive and detailed analysis 

879: of the momentum and color structure of reggeon vertex anomalies is 

880: amongst the many areas where much more work will be needed even 

881: after we elaborate, in \cite{amtm}, the technical details behind the outline 

882: we give in the following. 

883: It is important that the chirality transitions appear only in the 

884: anomaly interactions and so they do not produce the range of off-shell phenomena that

885: condensates produce. In fact, because the reggeon masses decouple 

886: straightforwardly in all non-anomaly reggeon interactions,

887: the associated large $k_{\perp}$ perturbation theory is given by the massless theory.

888: Provided, therefore, that we {\it limit our discussion to the bound-state S-Matrix}

889: we can combine infra-red (effective) symmetry breaking via chirality

890: transitions with asymptotically-free, massless, perturbation theory. 

891: 

892: \subhead{6.3 Multi-Regge Amplitudes Via the Anomaly Divergence}

893: 

894: For both QCD$_S$ and QUD we start, as we already noted, with masses for 

895: all reggeons (both gauge bosons and fermions). With a $k_{\perp}$ cut-off in place, we can 

896: smoothly restore the 

897: gauge symmetry in steps, utilising complimentarity\cite{fs}, provided the masses

898: are generated by expectation values for fundamental representation scalars.

899: For QCD$_S$, SU(3) color is restored via the two steps

900: \begin{center}

901: $\to SU(2)~ \to SU(3)$

902: \end{center}

903: while to reach the 

904: SU(5) color symmetry of QUD requires the sequence of limits

905: \begin{center}

906: $\to SU(2)~ \to SU(3) ~\to SU(4)~ \to SU(5)$

907: \end{center}

908: (In fact, we go straight from SU(2) to SU(4).)

909: In both cases, we remove the $k_{\perp}$ cut-off before the last step 

910: (utilising the scalar field asymptotic freedom that results from

911: a very small $\beta$-function).

912: 

913: As the initial SU(2) symmetry is restored, bound-states and interactions emerge  

914: together in multi-regge amplitudes containing the anomaly divergence. The

915: simplest examples are ``di-triple-regge'' amplitudes\cite{arw91}

916: of the form illustrated in Fig.~3.

917: \begin{center}

918: \epsfxsize=3.4in

919: \epsffile{ms10.ps}

920: 

921: Figure.~3 A Di-Triple-Regge Amplitudes.

922: \end{center} 

923: Because the gluons involved are anomalous, 

924: there are no interactions to exponentiate the

925: divergence. The divergence will also survive\cite{arw02} self-interactions

926: amongst the anomalous gluons if color zero reggeon interactions have the scaling property

927: that holds when all fermions are massless and there is an infra-red fixed-point\cite{bz}, 

928: as is vitally the case in both massless QCD$_S$ and QUD.

929: 

930: Physical amplitudes are obtained by 

931: factoring off the anomaly divergence and interpreting it as 

932: an odd-signature anomalous wee gluon ``vacuum condensate'' that is universally

933: present in all states and interactions.

934: The amplitude given by Fig.~3 can be represented

935: diagramatically as in Fig.~4. 

936: \begin{center}

937: \epsfxsize=6in

938: \epsffile{mc8.ps}

939: 

940: $~$ \newline

941: Figure.~4 The Physical Amplitude, $T=$ Chirality Transition. 

942: \end{center}

943: The interaction that appears 

944: is simply the color zero combination of a finite transverse 

945: momentum gauge boson reggeon in the $k_{\perp}=0$ wee gluon condensate, but with  

946: an anomaly interaction coupling that contains a chirality transition as shown. This is

947: the origin of the pomeron in QCD$_S$ and of the pomeron and the 

948: electroweak interactions in QUD. The effect of the anomaly coupling is to produce

949: an even signature pomeron from an odd signature perturbative reggeon. 

950: At this stage, electroweak interactions are also even signature. 

951: They will become odd-signature as the full gauge symmetry is restored in QUD.

952: 

953: As is also illustrated in Fig.~4, the bound-states are 

954: anomaly poles that first appear after the initial SU(2) color restoration.

955: An anomaly pole will survive interactions if it is a Goldstone   

956: boson associated with the breaking of a chiral symmetry involving complex conjugate

957: representations of the color group. The bound-states can also be represented  

958: as color zero fermion/antifermion combinations in the anomalous wee gluon condensate. 

959: Within the effective triangle diagram the anomaly pole results from 

960: the production of a fermion pair, one of which is a zero

961: momentum hole state that undergoes the chirality transition to become physical

962: via the compensating anomalous wee gluon emission. 

963: Even though it becomes physical, the hole state remains ``soft'' while the initially 

964: physical fermion carries\cite{arw02} all the longitudinal momentum.  

965: As illustrated in Fig.~4, the hard

966: fermion then couples to the perturbative reggeon that carries the interaction

967: transverse momentum. 

968: 

969: According to this last description, the full bound-state interaction can be viewed as a 

970: hard perturbative interaction that is accompanied by a color-compensating 

971: wee parton ``vacuum condensate'' component whose coupling is responsible for

972: a ``zero-momentum shift of the Dirac sea'' in the scattering bound-states. 

973: Equivalently, we could drop the reference to the vacuum condensate 

974: exchange and instead talk only about a perturbative 

975: reggeon exchange that has ``vacuum produced''

976: color-compensating, shifts of the Dirac sea within the couplings 

977: so that the ``perturbative'' interaction involves zero color exchange.

978: 

979: \subhead{6.4 The Pomeron Condensate and the Critical Pomeron}

980: 

981: A very important consequence of  

982: the presence of the wee gluon condensate in bound-states is that, as illustrated 

983: in Fig.~5, it is directly responsible

984: for the ``vacuum production'' of pomerons in higher-order amplitudes

985: that is equivalent to the existence of a ``pomeron condensate''. 

986: This is the wee parton production of

987: the pomeron condensate that we anticipated in Section 5 would be the clue to the

988: origin of the supercritical pomeron. 

989: Indeed, the generated amplitudes are, apparently, just

990: those of supercritical RFT. If the mapping onto 

991: supercritical RFT is complete (much remains to be done to establish that it is),

992: the pomeron becomes 

993: critical as SU(3) color is restored. The pomeron condensate vertices will be

994: absorbed into regular RFT vertices as the reverse of the

995: process described in \cite{arw91}. 

996: The Critical Pomeron is then even signature and 

997: composed entirely of anomalous gluon configurations - including

998: those in the condensate - that do not include BFKL gluons.

999: \begin{center}

1000: \epsfxsize=4.5in

1001: \epsffile{mc7.ps}

1002: 

1003: Figure.~5 Pomeron Vacuum Vertices Produced by the Reggeon Condensate

1004: \end{center}

1005: 

1006: Relating the anomalous gluon emission from anomaly vertices to the (hole)

1007: displacement of the Dirac sea that produces the chirality transition, we can describe 

1008: it as gluon production via a ``Fermi surface fluctuation''.

1009: The fluctuation can then

1010: be viewed as the order parameter of the pomeron phase-transition. 

1011: In the supercritical phase it is a correlated wee parton

1012: ``vacuum condensate'' introduced by the color symmetry breaking. 

1013: At the critical point the Fermi surface fluctuations 

1014: become dynamical and uncorrelated (i.e. random within the SU(3) color group). 

1015: These fluctuations then combine

1016: with perturbative reggeon exchange to produce the color zero 

1017: long-range collective phenomenon that is the Critical Pomeron. In QUD, as we discuss

1018: further below,

1019: the Fermi surface anomalous wee gluon emission (and Critical Pomeron behaviour) 

1020: is limited to a non-abelian subgroup with vector-like couplings to the sea. Because QUD

1021: is vector-like with respect to an SU(3)xU(1) subgroup only, 

1022: the parity conserving SU(3) color strong interaction emerges.

1023: 

1024: Note that, because only global color symmetries (and not gauge symmetries) are involved

1025: in our reggeon diagram constructions,

1026: it is straightforward for color zero reggeon states to be formed from reggeons carrying

1027: very distinct transverse momentum (including zero for condensate reggeons).

1028: 

1029: 

1030: \mainhead{7. Massless QCD$_S$}

1031: 

1032: The physical states of QCD$_S$ correspond to the Goldstone bosons of the 

1033: superconducting theory in which only SU(2) color is restored.

1034: This includes both quark/antiquark mesons and\cite{kog} quark/quark ``nucleons''.

1035: The nucleons aquire an extra quark as SU(3) color is restored. 

1036: We have yet to provide a  description of how this takes place in reggeon diagrams, but we 

1037: anticipate that the additional quark will be ``soft'' and similar, if not identical,

1038: to the hole produced quark that is already present. 

1039: This would produce the additive quark model for

1040: total cross-sections and would also imply that both meson and nucleon reggeization

1041: are a consequence of quark reggeization.

1042: 

1043: The only new states that appear, in addition to triplet mesons and nucleons, 

1044: are sextet ``pions'' and ``nucleons'' ($P_6$ and $N_6$).

1045: There are no hybrid sextet/triplet quark states and 

1046: \begin{center}

1047: {\l \it no glueballs}.

1048: \end{center}

1049: (This spectrum is consistent with, but much less than would be obtained by simply

1050: imposing confinement 

1051: and chiral symmetry breaking.)

1052: If the sextet pions are eaten by $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ vector bosons, the only

1053: remaining new states are sextet nucleons. 

1054: The $N_6$ will be stable\cite{arw05} and dominate 

1055: ultra high-energy cross-sections. Sextet neutron matter provides a

1056: perfect candidate for  dark matter.

1057: 

1058: As we have already described, the interaction is the 

1059: Critical Pomeron. In the color superconducting theory (and before interactions

1060: in QCD$_S$) the pomeron 

1061: is a regge pole produced by reggeized gluon exchange

1062: in the anomalous wee gluon condensate. This provides the basic interaction

1063: which builds up the universal wee partons

1064: needed for the parton model. Compared to conventional QCD, the QCD$_S$ states are 

1065: fewer and the interaction is simpler - in agreement with experiment!

1066: \begin{center}

1067: {\l \it There is no BFKL pomeron, and no odderon.}

1068: \end{center}

1069: As part of our solution of the wee parton problem,

1070: the non-perturbative physics of confinement and chiral 

1071: symmetry breaking has a very simple 

1072: ``infinite momentum'' diagrammatic representation - supplemented

1073: by an RFT critical phenomenon. 

1074: Correspondingly, the transition from short-distance perturbation theory to

1075: the regge region is also simple. In particular, the regge behavior of both the pomeron

1076: and hadrons, which is very well established experimentally, is a direct

1077: consequence of the regge behavior of gluons and quarks, which is similarly

1078: well established theoretically.

1079: 

1080: We can not apply QCD$_S$, in isolation, to hadronic physics because

1081: adding triplet quark masses 

1082: would destroy the dynamics. Also, there will be a large

1083: number of massless triplet quark mesons, which may well threaten the 

1084: existence of an S-Matrix. 

1085: The only way, that we know of, to add (effective) quark masses without destroying

1086: the dynamics is to embed QCD$_S$ in QUD. Of course, as we have already described,

1087: this embedding is also required by the addition of the electroweak interaction.

1088: 

1089: \mainhead{8. QUD } 

1090: 

1091: The construction of the bound-states and amplitudes of QUD is considerably

1092: more complicated than the QCD$_S$ construction. The most essential new element of the

1093: construction is the presence of

1094: {\it fermion loop reggeon interactions} (without an anomaly)

1095: that are {\it parity violating}. With a $k_{\perp}$-~cut-off, these interactions 

1096: {\it exponentiate all anomaly divergences involving left-handed reggeon couplings}.

1097: The conjugacy properties of QUD then imply that an anomaly divergence can occur only in 

1098: an SU(3) subgroup and also that only the corresponding chirality transitions can be present.

1099: Equivalently, the Dirac sea fluctuations producing wee gluon emissions are 

1100: necessarily confined to a subgroup with charge conjugate 

1101: fermion couplings. The result is the

1102: {\it emergence of an SU(3) color singlet strong interaction}. The obvious question is,

1103: of course, how is SU(5) invariance maintained? As we will see, the essential element

1104: is the presence of the real SU(3) representation octet quarks

1105: (which in going from QCD$_S$ to QUD seem, at first sight, to be unwanted!)

1106: 

1107: We follow the construction process described in Section 6.

1108: Using the notation $SU(3)_C\otimes SU_L(2)\otimes U(1)$ to denote the decomposition 

1109: of subsection {\bf 5.2}, we identify the various SU(5) subgroups as in Fig.~6. 

1110: SU(3)$_C$ is, therefore, chosen to be a vector interaction. 

1111: We restore the SU(2)$_C$ symmetry first, followed by the SU(4) symmetry.

1112: Restoring the SU(3)$_C$ symmetry then coincides with the 

1113: final restoration of the full SU(5) symmetry.

1114: 

1115: Because SU(2)$_C$ is a vector symmetry, it's restoration produces an

1116: anomaly divergence which plays the central role

1117: of selecting (what will eventually become) the physical states. As in QCD$_S$, 

1118: these states are identified as anomaly pole Goldstone bosons ($~\pi_C$'s~)

1119: with respect to some chiral symmetry that is present at this stage. 

1120: These will be $~qq$, $\bar{q}\bar{q}$, and $q\bar{q}$ pairs 

1121: in an SU(2)$_C$ condensate, 

1122: where the $q$'s are {\bf 3's, 6's,} \& {\bf 8's} under SU(3)$_C$. Very importantly,

1123: {\bf 8's} are real with respect to 

1124: SU(3)$_C$, but contain complex doublets with respect to 

1125: SU(2)$_C$ that will have the chiral symmetry required to produce anomaly pole

1126: Goldstone bosons.

1127: \begin{center} 

1128: \epsfxsize=2.5in

1129: \epsfbox{mc5.ps}

1130: 

1131: Figure 6. SU(5) subgroups

1132: \end{center}

1133: 

1134: An obvious interaction that will be SU(3)$_C$ invariant (after this symmetry is restored)

1135: is an SU(2)$_L \otimes$U(1) singlet vector boson

1136: in the SU(2)$_C$ condensate. This will become the pomeron. Interactions that

1137: will similarly become SU(3)$_C$ invariant are the SU(2)$_L \otimes$U(1) electroweak

1138: bosons - also in the condensate. The SU(2)$_C$ condensate additionally produces 

1139: wee gluon anomaly interactions, of the kind illustrated as the last example

1140: in Fig.~2, that 

1141: \begin{center}

1142: {\l \it give a mass to the left-handed electroweak bosons, 

1143: \newline i.e. the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$. $~~~~~~~~~~~$ } 

1144: \end{center}

1145: This process is equivalent

1146: to a mixing with the $\pi_C$ states that, after the restoration of SU(3)$_C$, 

1147: will be dominantly sextet pions. In the process, the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$

1148: aquire an anomaly-based flavor symmetry that protects them from an exponentiation that

1149: would otherwise destroy the condensate that accompanies their exchange.

1150: 

1151: Restoring SU(4) symmetry 

1152: involves only left-handed and abelian vector

1153: bosons and so all new divergences exponentiate, leaving only   

1154: states and interactions that are SU(4) invariant.

1155: The  SU(2)$_C$ condensate can now be regarded as summed (or averaged) over all

1156: SU(2) subgroups within SU(4), with SU(2)$_L$ defined always as the 

1157: corresponding orthogonal SU(2) group. ``Leptons'' are present 

1158: as reggeon bound states of ``elementary leptons'' and ``octet pions''

1159: ($\pi_C$'s composed of {\bf 8's})). ``Hadrons'' containing a triplet 

1160: ``pion'', or a triplet ``nucleon'', combined with octet quark pions

1161: will also be present, as will the analagous sextet states.

1162: The  SU(2)$_L \otimes$U(1) quantum numbers of octet $\pi$'s are such that 

1163: the elementary lepton components must have (modulo gauge boson contributions) 

1164: the generation structure of the Standard Model.

1165: At this stage, both leptons and hadrons are formed via the same infra-red anomaly dynamics

1166: and have essentially the same properties.

1167: 

1168: The restoration of SU(5) symmetry is an elaborate phenomenon

1169: that, as yet, I only partially understand. 

1170: In outline, the following is what I think happens. Firstly,

1171: the pomeron becomes critical - as an SU(3) subgroup interaction

1172: that is summed over subgroups. (Again, it is important that the color 

1173: symmetries discussed 

1174: here are global symmetries, and not gauge symmetries.) As in QCD$_S$, the 

1175: lowest-order pomeron

1176: is a vector reggeon exchange accompanied by a color-compensating (reggeon

1177: condensate) shift in the Dirac sea 

1178: within an SU(2) subgroup. To avoid divergence exponentiation,

1179: the interactions that build up the Critical Pomeron are

1180: necessarily confined to the same SU(3) subgroup.

1181: 

1182: As I currently understand it, the anomaly role of the octet quarks is at infinite momentum. 

1183: With SU(3)$_C$ restored, the octet $\pi$'s 

1184: no longer produce infra-red anomaly pole Goldstone bosons. Instead, as a consequence

1185: of our cut-off manipulation, they 

1186: contribute to bound-states as (what would normally be unphysical) zero mass anomaly

1187: poles generated by on-shell quark/antiquark pairs which have infinite,

1188: but opposite sign, energies. The cancelation of infra-red Goldstone boson 

1189: effects has the consequence that the

1190: chirality transition is transferred to infinite momentum. As a result, the creation of

1191: SU(5) invariant physical states involves shifts of the 

1192: Dirac sea at both infinite momentum (for SU(3) octets) and zero momentum 

1193: (for SU(3) triplets and sextets). Therefore, as 

1194: will be elaborated on in much more detail in \cite{amtm}, the

1195: interplay between ultra-violet

1196: and infra-red contributions to the triangle anomaly plays a crucial role in

1197: the emergence of SU(5) invariance.

1198: 

1199: SU(3)$_C$ reality of the octet representation also 

1200: implies that the octet $\pi$'s have no infra-red (anomaly) coupling to the 

1201: pomeron and so leptons\footnote{A detailed description of lepton states is given

1202: in my Fermilab talk listed in \cite{mct}.}

1203:  have no strong interaction and no infra-red SU(3)$_C$ 

1204: mass generation. With the octet $\pi$'s at large $k_{\perp}$,

1205: the SU(2)$_L$ symmetry will appear, via the low $k_{\perp}$ components

1206: of states, as the SU(2) flavor symmetry of the sextet sector. 

1207: The quantum numbers of the octet $\pi$'s

1208: should then produce the singlet/doublet structure of the Standard model.

1209: If the bound-state lepton contribution

1210: to the infra-red SU(2)$_L\otimes$U(1) anomaly has to be equal to the perturbative

1211: contribution, the existence of three generations of leptons would be implied.

1212: Anomaly cancelation would then

1213: require three generations of quark hadrons that similarly

1214: contain the octet pions.

1215: 

1216: After SU(3)$_C$ restoration the SU(2)$_C$ vacuum condensate contribution to

1217: $\gamma,W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ exchange becomes an even signature 

1218: ``condensate'' effect that couples only to the large momentum

1219: octet component of the states. (The infra-red

1220: coupling to hadrons will be part of the interaction in which the

1221: pomeron is exchanged along with the $\gamma,W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$.)

1222: There will also be a condensate coupling

1223: to the octet quark component of the states

1224: that will be part of the pomeron. Hence, the SU(5) invariant 

1225: electroweak and strong interactions have very similar origins.

1226: \begin{itemize}{\it 

1227: \item{The electroweak interactions are perturbative reggeon exchanges

1228: together with an orthogonal SU(3) singlet anomalous wee gluon exchange that 

1229: couples via an octet Dirac sea shift at infinite momentum. Apart from

1230: the mass generation, therefore, these interactions will effectively be perturbative

1231: at low-energy.}

1232: \item{The elementary pomeron (underlying the Critical Pomeron phenomenon)

1233: is perturbative reggeon exchange together with

1234: anomalous wee gluon exchange, both within an SU(3) subgroup, 

1235: that couples via a triplet or sextet Dirac sea shift at

1236: zero momentum and an octet shift

1237: at infinite momentum.}}

1238: \end{itemize}

1239: 

1240: The mass spectrum will be 

1241: generated by a combination of

1242: perturbative reggeization effects, 

1243: color factors which (via the high mass sector, in particular) will emphasize the 

1244: SU(3) strong interaction and

1245: anomaly interactions  (analagous to that 

1246: generating the $W$ and $Z$ masses) which will mix 

1247: all the reggeon states. A wide range of scales will clearly emerge.

1248: Without a better understanding of the anomaly interactions

1249: and the related wee gluon distributions it is unclear, however, how many parameters 

1250: may be involved.  

1251: Although CP violation could be a consequence of

1252: the anomaly dominance of interactions, with our current very limited

1253: understanding of QUD it is certainly not obvious

1254: that it is necessary. Nevertheless, given the absence of any conflicting symmetry,

1255: there appears to be no reaon why the physical mass spectrum could not emerge.

1256: 

1257: \mainhead{9. A RADICAL PARADIGM CHANGE}

1258: 

1259: That the anomaly-dominated bound-state S-Matrix

1260: of a very small coupling ($\alpha_u$ 

1261: \raisebox{0.5mm}{${\scriptstyle <<}$} 1/50), massless, fixed-point, field theory 

1262: is the origin of the Standard Model

1263: is a radical proposal that could  

1264: have many desirable consequences, if it is correct. We anticipate that the full field 

1265: theory exists only perturbatively (at short distance) and that the S-Matrix  

1266: scattering amplitudes are the only well-defined non-perturbative elements of the theory

1267: (apart, perhaps, from the induced gravity referred to below). As we discuss next, it is 

1268: essential for the physical applicability of our proposal that this be the case. 

1269: The theoretical focus on the 

1270: construction of a unitary particle S-Matrix within a perturbative field theory, 

1271: rather than on the construction of a full

1272: non-perturbative quantum field theory, could also be the change 

1273: in paradigm that has been said

1274: to be needed to end the ``crisis in fundamental physics''.

1275: A priori, since massless fields and fermion anomalies are a crucial feature of the

1276: dynamics of QUD, it would not be surprising if off-shell fields can not be constructed

1277: for the bound-states we have described. 

1278: The reggeon vertex anomalies that are at the core of our

1279: amplitude construction are an S-Matrix phenomenon and, indeed, the general multi-regge

1280: formalism has no off-shell parallel. Without this formalism, of course, 

1281: there would be no possibility to discover the existence of a bound-state S-Matrix

1282: 

1283: In the current theory paradigm where, as described in Section 3, it is assumed

1284: that (off-shell) field theory amplitudes are the essential elements of a gauge theory, 

1285: both QCD$_S$ and QUD lie in what is referred to as the ``conformal window''. 

1286: Within this window, the existence of an infra-red fixed-point

1287: is anticipated\cite{asv}

1288: to produce Green's functions with infra-red conformal properties that

1289: would be inconsistent with a massive 

1290: particle spectrum. It is presumably crucial, therefore, that QUD violate

1291: the assumed paradigm by having no non-perturbative off-shell amplitudes. As a bonus(?),

1292: the enormous theoretical 

1293: challenge\cite{jw} of constructing a four-dimensional

1294: non-perturbative off-shell gauge field theory would, of course, be avoided. Since 

1295: physical masses and symmetries are bound-state S-Matrix properties, there is also

1296: no need for a Higgs' field to generate masses or to break symmetries\footnote{As we 

1297: have described, it is the chirality transitions in the anomaly vertices that, 

1298: in effect, break symmetries in the S-Matrix.}. 

1299: Therefore, the particular difficulty of constructing an asymptotically-free theory 

1300: containing scalar fields is similarly avoided. One of the

1301: lessons learnt from the focus on the S-Matrix during the bootstrap period 

1302: was that (in the absence of quantized gravity, at least) 

1303: the full physics content of a particle theory is contained within the S-Matrix\cite{hs}. 

1304: Therefore, asymptotically-free perturbation theory 

1305: together with a unitary bound-state S-Matrix 

1306: within which an infinite momentum parton model is valid, could be

1307: sufficient for all physical applications of QUD. Non-perturbative

1308: off-shell amplitudes are a luxury that, from our perspective,

1309: are not obviously necessary for any physical reason. 

1310: Indeed, their absence may be a major factor

1311: in unraveling many of the mysteries of the Standard Model.

1312: 

1313: \mainhead{10. CONSEQUENCES}

1314: 

1315: Obviously, an enormous part of the picture I have outlined 

1316: remains to be established and it would be truly 

1317: incredible if the Standard Model has the 

1318: underlying simplicity that I am proposing. However, all the

1319: necessary ingredients do seem to be present in QUD and, in strong contrast

1320: with the epitome question of Section 2, it is

1321: a unique theory which can not be added to or modified

1322: in any way. If it is wrong, there is no 

1323: fallback position and the conclusion has to be that the 

1324: pursuit of a unitary S-Matrix, along the path I have 

1325: followed, has simply been misguided. 

1326: 

1327: Although it will surely take a long time

1328: to develop an in-depth understanding of all aspects 

1329: of QUD, if my argumentation (or something not too different)

1330: can be followed through it is a self-contained theory - with  

1331: only Standard Model interactions. Assuming this is the case, there would be many 

1332: benefits and many puzzles would be resolved.

1333: \begin{enumerate} {\openup-0.5\jot \it

1334: \item{The physics of the strong interaction (including confinement)

1335: and the electroweak interaction is,

1336: essentially, the same. Infinite momentum

1337: non-perturbative physics 

1338: is very close to perturbation theory and so

1339: has a simple diagrammatic representation - with regge behavior 

1340: emerging straightforwardly.}

1341: \item{Parity conservation by the strong interaction and

1342: parity violation by the weak interaction are naturally explained by the structure

1343: of the anomaly interactions that result from the conjugacy properties of

1344: the elementary fermion spectrum. (A mass is generated by anomaly interactions only for

1345: left-handed gauge bosons.)}

1346: \item{The only new physics is the strong interaction color sextet 

1347: sector. This sector simultaneously explains the two major mysteries of the Standard Model, 

1348: namely the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking and the nature of dark matter. 

1349: The sextet meson and baryon sectors separately provide what 

1350: is, surely, a remarkably economic resolution of these two mysteries. 

1351: There is

1352: already suggestive experimental evidence\cite{mct,arw05}

1353: that this is, indeed, the right ``new physics''.}

1354: \item{The underlying gauge symmetry implies that there will be unification of the

1355: couplings. The presence of the high-mass strong interaction sector allows

1356: this to be achieved without supersymmetry!} 

1357: \item{The mass spectrum is not simply determined by elementary masses and the

1358: scale evolution of the couplings. Wee parton

1359: anomaly interactions mix the reggeon states and, presumably, 

1360: introduce parameters. The color factors involved will produce a wide range of 

1361: scales and masses that could very well produce the Standard Model spectrum, since

1362: there is no conflicting symmetry.}

1363: \item{The smallness of the lightest particle (neutrino) masses should be a direct

1364: reflection of the small coupling in the underlying field theory.}

1365: \item{There is no proton decay, but 

1366: the experimentally

1367: attractive SU(5) Weinberg angle should hold!}

1368: \item{Because QUD is an asymptotically free, massless, fixed-point theory, 

1369: it has no vacuum energy and (in the absence of the quantization of gravity)

1370: would\cite{bh} (perturbatively) induce Einstein gravity with 

1371: zero cosmological constant.}}

1372: \end{enumerate}

1373: It should be mentioned that reggeon unitarity could be an insuperable problem

1374: for the quantization of gravity. If  

1375: the graviton appears as a reggeized particle in an S-Matrix, reggeon unitarity implies that

1376: the exchange of arbitrary numbers of reggeized gravitons would produce non-polynomially

1377: bounded S-Matrix amplitudes (a non-local theory?). 

1378: This is, perhaps, a major argument against the quantization of gravity.

1379: 

1380: An underlying field theory for the Standard Model

1381: in which no fields have mass is surely attractive, both

1382: theoretically and aesthetically. With regard to the possible origin of the QUD

1383: fermion representation it could be significant that it is contained in a single 

1384: anomaly-free SO(10) representation - the {\bf 144}. 

1385: 

1386: \mainhead{11. WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN AT THE LHC?}

1387: 

1388: Since our proposal is so radical, it is fortunate that there are major experimental

1389: predictions for the LHC, for some of 

1390: which it will be hard not to acknowledge their significance - if they are seen.  

1391: Large cross-section effects are expected that should 

1392: make the emergence of the sextet sector obvious. If these effects are not seen then

1393: either my understanding of QUD is wrong or the theory is irrelevant!

1394: The following is a very brief review of what is discussed in 

1395: much more detail in \cite{arw05} and is also discussed in \cite{mct}. 

1396: 

1397: Most immediately, multiple vector boson and jet x-sections will be

1398: much, much, larger than expected, with $<p_{\perp}>$  

1399: approaching the electroweak scale. For these phenomena

1400: there will, however, be competing explanations, e.g. black holes, sphalerons, etc.

1401: 

1402: A priori, $N_6\bar{N}_6$ pair production (dark matter) should be seen - with 

1403: $m_{N_6} \sim 500 ~GeV$ ? But, missing energies of several hundred GeV will be common

1404: and the low energy $N_6$ hadronic 

1405: cross-section (in a calorimeter) is probably small.

1406: $P_6\bar{P}_6$  pair production should be seen

1407: (if the $P_6$ is not too unstable). Again, though, will

1408: a massive charged particle with a large production x-section be seen as

1409: direct evidence for the sextet sector? 

1410: 

1411: The double pomeron cross-section could provide 

1412: the most definitive early evidence for the sextet sector.

1413: With the pomerons detected via Roman pots, the environment is clean.

1414: $W$ and $Z$ pairs will be produced in the double pomeron 

1415: cross-section via sextet pion anomaly poles and so, 

1416: as pion pairs dominate the double pomeron

1417: cross-section at low mass, so $W$ and $Z$ pair production will dominate the

1418: cross-section at the electroweak mass scale.

1419: 

1420: When $|k_{\perp}|$ is electroweak scale,

1421: the double-pomeron $ W$ and $Z$ pair amplitude for producing jets is comparable

1422: with a standard jet amplitude that has, apart from anomaly

1423: loops that are presumably O(1), the same propagators and couplings. This suggests

1424: that the jet cross-section from double-pomeron $W$ and $Z$ pairs, produced as 

1425: illustrated in Fig.~5,

1426: \begin{center} 

1427: \epsfxsize=4in

1428: \epsfbox{mc6.ps}

1429: 

1430: Figure 7. Double Pomeron Amplitudes 

1431: \end{center}

1432:  will be comparable with the non-diffractive jet

1433: cross-sections predicted by standard QCD.

1434: While the $~\pom~ W^+W^-~\pom~$ and $~\pom~ Z^0Z^0~\pom~$

1435: vertices appearing in Fig.~5 should vary only slowly with $k_{\perp}$, the $pp~\pom~$ 

1436: vertices have strong $ k_{\perp}$-dependence. This implies there should be

1437: an extremely large x-section at small $t$. 

1438: 

1439: In the initial low luminosity running, an ``extremely large x-section''

1440: could be detected by TOTEM/CMS.

1441: There could be spectacular events in which protons are tagged and only (a multitude of)

1442: large $E_T$ charged leptons are seen in the central detector.

1443: FP420 will take over during the high luminosity running 

1444: and should surely see an enhanced cross-section, even if it is too small 

1445: to have been seen by CMS/TOTEM. Most likely,

1446: the $W$ and $Z$ pair cross-section will overwhelm all other physics.

1447: 

1448: A large double-pomeron cross-section for $W$ and $Z$ pairs

1449: implies that the longitudinal components of the $W$ and the $Z$  

1450: have direct strong interactions. The only known possibility for this

1451: is the existence of the sextet sector and, as we have discussed, to give a well-defined 

1452: theory this sector has to be embedded in QUD !

1453: 

1454: After $\pom$, $W/Z$, and jet physics has established that 

1455: sextet quark physics is definitively discovered, 

1456: the search for ``dark matter'' will become all important.

1457: The cross-section for double-pomeron production

1458: of stable $N_6\bar{N}_6$ pairs (with a pair mass

1459: $~ \centerunder{\raisebox{0.5mm}{${\scriptstyle >}$}}{${\scriptstyle \sim}$}

1460: ~1~TeV$) 

1461: could be large enough that it will be definitively seen by the forward pot

1462: experiments. It will be a spectacular process to look for - via the following.

1463: \begin{enumerate}

1464: \item {The tagged protons determine

1465: a very massive state is produced.}

1466: \item {No charged particles are seen

1467: in any of the detectors.}

1468: \item{Having low energy, the $N_6$ hadronic 

1469: cross-section will, probably, be small

1470: but some hadronic activity may be seen in the central calorimeter.}

1471: \item {Charged lepton comparison would 

1472: allow a separation with respect to the multiple $Z^0$ production of neutrinos.}

1473: \end{enumerate}

1474: If the $P_6$ is relatively stable, 

1475: and not too different in mass from the $N_6$ it would, of course, be much simpler

1476: to first detect $P_6\bar{P}_6$ pairs.

1477: 

1478: In \cite{arw05} we gave a lengthy discussion of the possibility that deep-inelastic

1479: diffractive $Z^0$ production (via the longitudinal sextet pion

1480: component of the $Z^0$) could be responsible for events with very large $x$

1481: and $Q^2$ at HERA. DIS diffractive $Z^0$ production could also be\cite{mga} an important

1482: discovery process for the sextet sector at the LHC and, perhaps, even at the Tevatron.

1483: 

1484: 

1485: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1486: 

1487: \bibitem{mct} ``Could the LHC Pomeron be the Key to Everything?'' - 

1488: www.fp420.com/conference/dec2006/talks/mastms.pdf.

1489: A fuller, but still non-technical, account can

1490: be found in my talk at the Fermilab Small-x workshop - arXiv:0708.1306.

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{cri}  A.~A.~Migdal, A.~M.~Polyakov and K.~A.~Ter-Martirosoyan, 

1493: {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor.  Fiz.} {\bf 67}, 84 (1974); 

1494: H.~D.~I.~Abarbanel and J.~B.~Bronzan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 2397 (1974).

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{wsd} S.~M.~Coleridge, ``Biographia Literaria'' (1817);

1497: H.~R.~Clinton, in response to the Iraq testimony of General Petraeus -

1498: www.nysun.com/article/62426.

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{t07} http://gate.hep.anl.gov/arw/mastmc.pdf

1501: 

1502: \bibitem{amtm} A.~R.~White, ``A Massless Theory of Matter''. This paper is

1503: in preparation but, a very large amout of material is involved and the paper 

1504: will not appear for some time. I have 

1505: decided that, in the meantime, an expanded written version of \cite{t07} could be valuable, 

1506: even though the workshop has no formal proceedings.

1507: 

1508: \bibitem{arw05} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D72}, 036007 (2005).

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{swe} S.~Weinberg, ``Living in the Multiverse'' -  hep-th/0511037.

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{lsu} L.~Susskind, ``The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory'' -

1513: hep-th/0302219.

1514: 

1515: \bibitem{bsc} See B.~Schroer, ``String Theory and the Crisis in Particle Physics''

1516: - arXiv:physics/0603112 for a lengthy discussion.

1517: 

1518: \bibitem{lsm} L.~Smolin, ``A Crisis in Fundamental Physics'' - NYAS magazine,

1519: Jan/Feb 2006.

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{djg} D.~J.~Gross, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 74}, 426 (1999).

1522: 

1523: \bibitem{bcl} \{``Breathtakingly misleading''. That's what former president Bill Clinton 

1524: called a question Tim Russert asked his wife at this week's Democratic presidential 

1525: candidates' debate. And boy was he mad.\}

1526: - http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/124945.asp.

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{jw} ``Quantum Yang-Mills Theory'',

1529: A.~M.~Jaffe, E.~Witten, Clay Mathematics Institute Millenium Prize Problem (2000).

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{mch} M.~S.~Chanowitz, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A21} 5535, (2006). 

1532: (e-Print: hep-ph/0609217).

1533: 

1534: \bibitem{kz} E.~Klempt and A.~Zaitsev {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 454}, 1-202 (2007).

1535: 

1536: \bibitem{arw84} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D29}, 1435 (1984).

1537: 

1538: \bibitem{ce} C.~Ewerz, ``The Perturbative Pomeron and the Odderon: Where 

1539: Can We Find Them?'' hep-ph/0403051, see also hep-ph/0511196.

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{arw90} A.~R.~ White, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 12}, 190-200 (1990).

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{scrft} See

1544: M.~Le Bellac, Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Tokyo 

1545: (1978) and my following talk. Although many

1546: RFT theorists favored the alternative (non-unitary!) solution, Gribov thought 

1547: my solution was correct.

1548:  

1549: \bibitem{arw91} A.~R.~White, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A11}, 1859 (1991).

1550: 

1551: \bibitem{wm} W.~J.~Marciano, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D21}, 2425 (1980);

1552: E.~Braaten, A.~R.~White and C.~R.~Willcox, {\it Int. J. Mod. 

1553: Phys.}, {\bf A1}, 693 (1986).

1554: 

1555: \bibitem{kw} K.~Kang and A.~R.~White, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A2},

1556: 409 (1987).

1557: 

1558: \bibitem{arw02} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66}, 056007 (2002).

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{bz} T.~Banks and A.~Zaks, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B196}, 189 (1982).

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{fs} E.~Fradkin and S.~H.~ Shenker, Phys. Rev. {\bf D19}, 3682 (1979);

1563: T.~Banks and E.~Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B160}, 349 (1979).

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{kog} J.~B.~ Kogut, M.~A.~Stephanov, D.~Toublan, 

1566: J.~J.~M.~ Verbaarschot and A.~Zhitnitsky, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B582},

1567: 477 (2000).

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{hs} H.~P.~ Stapp, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D3}, 1303 (1971).

1570: 

1571: \bibitem{asv} A.~Armoni, M.~Shifman and G.~Veneziano, hep-th/0403071.

1572: 

1573: \bibitem{bh} B.~Holdom, arXiv:0708.1057.

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{mga} M.~G.~Albrow - private communication.

1576: 

1577: \end{thebibliography}

1578: 

1579: \end{document}

1580: 

1581: