1: \hoffset=-.55truein

2: \voffset=-0.3truein

3: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

4: \textwidth 16.5cm

5: \textheight 22.5cm

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: 

9: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}\def\etc{{\it etc.}}

10: \def\etal{{\it etal.}}

11: 

12: \def\lsim{{\buildrel < \over\sim}}

13: \def\gsim{{\buildrel > \over\sim}}

14: %

15: \def\MSbar{\overline{\rm MS}}

16: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

18: \def\bear{\begin{eqnarray*}}

19: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

20: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

21: \def\eear{\end{eqnarray*}}

22: \def\to{\rightarrow}

23: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

24: \def\anti{\overline}

25: \def\pbi{~{\rm pb}^{-1}}

26: \def\fbi{~{\rm fb}^{-1}}

27: \def\fb{~{\rm fb}}

28: \def\pb{~{\rm pb}}

29: \def\ev{\,{\rm eV}}

30: \def\mev{\,{\rm MeV}}

31: \def\gev{\,{\rm GeV}}

32: \def\tev{\,{\rm TeV}}

33: \def\wh{\widehat}

34: \def\wt{\widetilde}

35: \def\lra{\leftrightarrow}

36: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

37: \def\mhalf{m_{1/2}}

38: \def\gl{\wt g}

39: \def\mt{m_t}

40: \def\mb{m_b}

41: \def\mz{m_Z}

42: \def\mw{m_W}

43: \def\mgut{M_U}

44: \def\mstring{M_S}

45: \def\wp{W^+}

46: \def\wm{W^-}

47: \def\wpm{W^{\pm}}

48: \def\wmp{W^{\mp}}

49: \def\q{$q$}

50: \def\qbar{$\bar{q}$}

51: \def\g{$g$}

52: \def\dc{$\delta_c$}

53: \def\as{\alpha_s}

54: \def\AmS{{\protect\the\textfont2

55:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

57: %physical particles

58: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}

59: \newcommand{\PB}{\mathswitchr B}

60: \newcommand{\PW}{\mathswitchr W}

61: \newcommand{\PZ}{\mathswitchr Z}

62: \newcommand{\Pg}{\mathswitchr g}

63: \newcommand{\PH}{\mathswitchr H}

64: \newcommand{\Pe}{\mathswitchr e}

65: \newcommand{\Pne}{\mathswitch \nu_{\mathrm{e}}}

66: \newcommand{\Pane}{\mathswitch \bar\nu_{\mathrm{e}}}

67: \newcommand{\Pnmu}{\mathswitch \nu_\mu}

68: \newcommand{\Pd}{\mathswitchr d}

69: \newcommand{\Pf}{f}

70: \newcommand{\Ph}{\mathswitchr h}

71: \newcommand{\Pl}{l}

72: \newcommand{\Pu}{\mathswitchr u}

73: \newcommand{\Ps}{\mathswitchr s}

74: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathswitchr b}

75: \newcommand{\Pc}{\mathswitchr c}

76: \newcommand{\Pt}{\mathswitchr t}

77: \newcommand{\Pp}{\mathswitchr p}

78: \newcommand{\Pq}{\mathswitchr q}

79: \newcommand{\Pep}{\mathswitchr {e^+}}

80: \newcommand{\Pem}{\mathswitchr {e^-}}

81: \newcommand{\Pepm}{\mathswitchr {e^\pm}}

82: \newcommand{\Pmum}{\mathswitchr {\mu^-}}

83: \newcommand{\PWp}{\mathswitchr {W^+}}

84: \newcommand{\PWm}{\mathswitchr {W^-}}

85: \newcommand{\PWpm}{\mathswitchr {W^\pm}}

86: 

87: % particle masses

88: \def\mathswitch#1{\relax\ifmmode#1\else$#1$\fi}

89: \newcommand{\MB}{\mathswitch {M_\PB}}

90: \newcommand{\Mf}{\mathswitch {m_\Pf}}

91: \newcommand{\Ml}{\mathswitch {m_\Pl}}

92: \newcommand{\Mq}{\mathswitch {m_\Pq}}

93: \newcommand{\MV}{\mathswitch {M_\PV}}

94: %\newcommand{\MW}{\mathswitch {M_\PW}}

95: \newcommand{\MW}{\mathswitch {M_W}}

96: \newcommand{\hMW}{\mathswitch {\hat M_\PW}}

97: \newcommand{\MWpm}{\mathswitch {M_\PWpm}}

98: \newcommand{\MWO}{\mathswitch {M_\PWO}}

99: \newcommand{\MA}{\mathswitch {\lambda}}

100: %\newcommand{\MZ}{\mathswitch {M_\PZ}}

101: \newcommand{\MZ}{\mathswitch {M_Z}}

102: \newcommand{\MH}{\mathswitch {M_\PH}}

103: \newcommand{\Me}{\mathswitch {m_\Pe}}

104: \newcommand{\Mmy}{\mathswitch {m_\mu}}

105: \newcommand{\Mpi}{\mathswitch {m_\pi}}

106: \newcommand{\Mta}{\mathswitch {m_\tau}}

107: \newcommand{\Md}{\mathswitch {m_\Pd}}

108: \newcommand{\Mu}{\mathswitch {m_\Pu}}

109: \newcommand{\Ms}{\mathswitch {m_\Ps}}

110: \newcommand{\Mc}{\mathswitch {m_\Pc}}

111: \newcommand{\Mb}{\mathswitch {m_\Pb}}

112: \newcommand{\Mt}{\mathswitch {m_\Pt}}

113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

114: %\input newcom

115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

116: \catcode`@=11

117: \def\Biggg#1{\hbox{$\left#1\vbox to 22.5\p@{}\right.\n@space$}}

118: \catcode`@=12

119: \newcommand\refq[1]{$^{#1}$}

120: \newcommand\ind[1]{_{\rm #1}}

121: \newcommand\aopi{\frac{\as}{\pi}}

122: \newcommand\oot{\frac{1}{2}}

123: \newcommand\sinsthw{\sin^2(\theta_{\rm W})}

124: \newcommand\logmu{\log(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}

125: \newcommand\Lfb{\Lambda^{(5)}}

126: \newcommand\Lfc{\Lambda^{(4)}}

127: \newcommand\Lf{\Lambda_5}

128: \newcommand\epem{\ifmmode e^+e^- \else $e^+e^-$ \fi}

129: \newcommand\mupmum{ \mu^+\mu^- }

130: \newcommand\msbar{\ifmmode{\overline{\rm MS}}\else $\overline{\rm MS}$\ \fi}

131: \newcommand\Q[1]{_{\rm #1}}

132: \newcommand\pplus[1]{\left[\frac{1}{#1}\right]_+}

133: \newcommand\plog[1]{\left[\frac{\log(#1)}{#1}\right]_+}

134: \newcommand\sh{\hat{s}}

135: \newcommand\epbar{\overline\epsilon}

136: \newcommand\nf{\alwaysmath{{n_{\rm f}}}}

137: 

138: \newcommand{\aem}{\alpha_{\rm em}}

139: \newcommand{\nlf}{\alwaysmath{{n_{\rm lf}}}}

140: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

141: \newcommand{\aop}{\frac{\as}{2 \pi}}

142: \newcommand{\Tf}{{T_{\rm f}}}

143: \newcommand{\mub}{\ifmmode \mu{\rm b} \else $\mu{\rm b}$ \fi}

144: \newcommand\alwaysmath[1]{\ifmmode #1 \else $#1$ \fi}

145: \newcommand{\TeV}{{\rm TeV}}

146: \newcommand{\GeV}{{\rm GeV}}

147: \newcommand{\MeV}{{\rm MeV}}

148: \newcommand{\LQCD}{\ifmmode \Lambda_{\rm QCD} \else $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ \fi}

149: \newcommand{\LMSB}{\ifmmode \Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}} \else

150:           $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$ \fi}

151: \newcommand{\qb}{\overline{q}}

152: \def\pp{\ifmmode p\bar{p} \else $p\bar{p}$ \fi}

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

154: \def\LMSb{\ifmmode \Lambda_{\rm \overline{MS}} \else

155: $\Lambda_{\rm \overline{MS}}$ \fi}

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

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

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

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

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

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

162: 

163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

164:  

165: \begin{titlepage}

166: \begin{flushright}

167: ETH-TH/2000-05\\

168: March 1999

169: \end{flushright}

170: \begin{center}

171: \vspace*{2.5cm}

172: {\Large\bf

173: Electroweak Physics, Theoretical Aspects

174: } 

175: \vskip 1cm

176: {\large Z. Kunszt} \\

177: \vskip 0.2cm

178: {\it 

179: Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETHZ\\

180:  CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland

181: } \

182: 

183:  

184: \vskip 4cm

185: \end{center}

186:  

187: \begin{abstract}

188: \noindent

189: I discuss two aspects of the electroweak interactions:

190: the status of the precision measurement of the electroweak

191: parameters and their impact on the Higgs search at future

192: colliders.

193: 

194: \end{abstract}

195: 

196: 

197:  

198: \vfill

199: \noindent\hrule width 3.6in\hfil\break

200: { Plenary Talk at the UK Phenomenology

201: Workshop on Collider Physics, Durham, 1999}

202: \hfil\break

203: 

204: \end{titlepage}

205: %%%%%%%%%%

206: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

207:  

208: \newpage

209:  

210: 

211: \section{Precision calculations}

212: 

213: During the last decade we witnessed an impressive progress

214:  at LEP, SLC and Tevatron achieved by collecting an enormous amount of 

215: electroweak data on the  Z and W  bosons  and their interactions \cite{Swartz:1999xv,Sirlin:1999zc}.

216: This allows  for  an unprecedented precision test

217:  of the Standard Model at the level of the per mil accuracy.

218: At this precision  one

219:  and two-loop

220: quantum fluctuations give measurable contributions and  an interesting 

221: upper limit on 

222: the mass of the Higgs-boson can be obtained.

223: 

224: \subsection{Input values}

225: 

226: In the Standard Model at tree level  the gauge bosons

227: $\gamma,W,Z$ and  their interactions 

228: are described in terms of three parameters:

229:  the two gauge coupling constants  $g,g^{\prime}$ and

230:  the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs-field $v$.  We need to know their values

231: as precisely as possible.

232: They have to be fitted to  the three  best measured physical quantities

233: of    smallest 

234: experimental error: 

235:  $G_{\mu},\MZ$ and $\alpha$. The muon coupling 

236: $G_{\mu}$ is extracted from the precise measurement of the muon life-time

237: using   the theoretical expression 

238: \begin{equation}\label{Gmu}

239: \frac{1}{\tau_{\mu}}=\frac{G^2_{\mu}m_{\mu}^5}{192\pi^3}\left(1-\frac{8m_e^2}

240: {m^2_{\mu}}\right)\\ \nonumber

241: \left[1+1.810\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right) + 

242: (6.701\pm 0.002)\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2+ ...\right]

243: \end{equation}

244: It is crucial

245:  that   that the  electromagnetic

246: corrections  to the muon life time are finite and that 

247: they are known up to next-to-leading order accuracy.

248: The ${\cal O}(\aopi)$ term

249: has been obtained   by van Ritbergen and Stuart only very recently \cite{vanRitbergen:1999fi},

250: it lets  reduce   the theoretical

251: error with factor of two. 

252: Equation \ref{Gmu}  gives  a unique correspondence between the muon

253: life-time

254:  and $G_{\mu}$ since the non-photonic corrections are 

255: all  lumped into its definition. As a result  

256: $G_{\mu}$ can be considered as a  physical quantity.

257: Using the measured value \cite{PDGcaso} we get

258: \begin{equation}

259: G_{\mu}=(1.16637\pm 0.00001)\times 10^{-5}\gev^{-2}\,.

260: \end{equation}

261: The  value of $\MZ$

262:  is extracted  from the line shape measurement at the $Z$-pole.

263: There are subtleties in the theoretical definition of the mass

264: and the width at higher order associated with the truncation

265: of the perturbative series and gauge invariance. The latest best value

266: is \cite{EWWG2000}

267: \begin{equation}

268: \MZ=(91.1871\pm 0.0021)\gev\,.

269: \end{equation}

270: Finally, the best value of $\alpha$ is extracted 

271:  from the precise measurement of the electron anomalous

272: magnetic moment $(g_{\rm e}-2)$~\cite{PDGcaso}

273: \begin{equation}

274: {1}/{\alpha }=137.03599959\pm 0.00000038\,.

275: \end{equation}

276: I recall the  leading order relations 

277: \begin{equation}

278: G_{\mu}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}v}\,,\quad 

279: \MZ=\frac{1}{2\cos\theta_W}gv\,,\quad 

280: \alpha=\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\sin^2\theta_W\,,\quad  

281: \tan\theta_W=\frac{g^{\prime 2}}{g^2}\,.

282: \end{equation}

283: Additional  physical quantities

284: like the mass of the W-boson $\MW$, the lepton asymmetries at the

285: Z-pole, the leptonic width of the Z-boson $\Gamma_{\rm l}$ \etc

286: are derived quantities.

287: At the level of the per mil accuracy the predictions

288: obtained in Born approximations for derived

289: quantities, however, fail significantly.

290: 

291: \subsection{Quantum corrections}

292: 

293: The precision test of the Standard Model

294: is obtained by confronting the measured values of

295:  derived quantities with the precise

296: prediction of the theory.

297: Since the Standard Model

298: is a renormalizable quantum field theory \cite{tHV} 

299: the theoretical 

300:  predictions of the theory can be improved systematically 

301: by calculating   higher order corrections.

302: In particular, the recent  precision of the data

303:  requires  the study  

304: of the complete  next-to-leading

305: order corrections,  resummation of  large logarithmic

306: contributions  and  a number of 

307:  two loop corrections. 

308:  At higher order 

309: the derived quantities  show sensitivity also to  

310: the values of the mass parameters  $\mt,\MH, \mb$ and the QCD

311: coupling constant

312: $\alpha_s$.

313: From direct measurements one obtains 

314: $\alpha_s=0.119\pm0.002$,

315: $\mt=173.8\pm5.0\gev$ and $m_b=4.7\pm 0.2\gev$, $\MH \ge 102\GeV$.

316: The error bars give    parametric

317: uncertainties in the predictions and  limit our

318: ability to extract a   precise value of the Higgs mass.

319: The calculation of the higher orders requires 

320:  a choice of the renormalization scheme.

321: The on-shell scheme 

322: can be regarded as the  extension of the well-known  scheme

323: of renormalization in QED, it 

324: uses as input $\alpha$, 

325: $\MZ$, $\MW$, 

326: $\MH$ and $m_f$. 

327:  In the

328:  $\overline{\rm MS}$-scheme the measured values of

329: $\alpha$, $G_{\mu}$, $\MZ$, $m_f$, $\as$

330:  are used to fix the input parameters of the theory with  $\MH$  as free parameter.

331: The $\MSbar$ gauge couplings evaluated 

332: at the scale of $\MZ$ 

333: are denoted as $\hat{e}$ and $

334: \hat{s}^2 =\sin^2\hat{\theta}_W(\MZ)$.

335:  The on-shell

336: definition of the mixing angle  

337: $s^2=\sin^2\theta$

338:  is given by  the tree level relation

339: $s^2=1-\MW^2/\MZ^2$ and, therefore, it is a physical quantity. 

340: The renormalized parameters $\hat{s

341: }^2$, $\hat{e}^2$ can be completely

342: calculated  in terms of $G_{\mu}$, $\alpha$ and $\MZ$.

343: It is customary to define auxiliary dimensionless parameters.

344:  $r_W$ is defined by the relation 

345: \be

346: s^2c^2\equiv \frac{\pi\alpha}{\sqrt{2}G_{\mu}\MZ^2(1-\Delta r_W)}\,.

347: \ee

348: It is  a physical quantity and gives the radiative corrections

349: to the $\MW$.

350: The asymmetries measured at the Z-pole are 

351: given in term of the effective mixing angle

352: \be

353: \sin^2\theta^{eff}_W=\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\frac{\bar{g}_{Vl}}{\bar{g}_{Al}}\right)

354: =s^2(1+\Delta k^{'}) 

355: \,,\quad 

356: A_{\rm FB}^l\equiv \frac{3\bar{g}^{2}_{Vl}\bar{g}^{2}_{Al}}{

357: (\bar{g}^{2}_{Vl}+\bar{g}^{2}_{Al})^2}

358: \ee

359: where the dimensionless parameter $\delta k^{'}$ is again

360: defined in terms of physical quantities.

361: The leptonic width depends on the vector axial vector

362: coupling and on the  corrections to the

363: $Z$-propagator. This requires the introduction of the so called

364:  $\rho$-parameter

365: \be

366: \Gamma_l=

367: \frac{G_{\mu}\MZ^3 }

368: {6\pi\sqrt{2}}\left(\bar{g}_{Vl}^2+\bar{g}_{Al}^2\right)

369: \rho

370: \ee

371: These type of auxiliary functions can be calculated 

372: in  different renormalization schemes.

373: The corrections $\Delta r_W$,  $\Delta k'$, $\Delta \rho$  

374:     (and a number of

375: additional useful dimensionless quantities) are known in various 

376: schemes and play an important role in the analysis of

377: electroweak physics, because they give  the 

378: precise predictions of the theory for simple observables as 

379: $\MW$, the leptonic

380: asymmetries \etc in terms of $\alpha,G_{\mu}$ and $\MZ$.

381: It is very useful to have the results 

382: in different schemes since it allows for cross-checking

383: the correctness of the result  and to  estimate

384:  the remaining theoretical errors given by the missing higher order

385: contributions.  

386: The electroweak radiative corrections are dominated by two leading

387: contributions: the running of the electromagnetic

388: coupling and large  

389: $\mt$ effects to $\rho$

390: $( \Delta \rho_t\approx 3G_{\mu}\mt^2/(8\pi^2\sqrt{2}))$.

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: \subsection{Running electromagnetic coupling}

395: 

396: Because of  gauge invariance the running of $\alpha$ is completely

397: given by the photon self-energy contributions

398: \begin{equation}

399: \alpha(\MZ)=\frac{\alpha}{1-\Delta\alpha}

400: \end{equation}

401: where

402: \begin{equation}

403: \Delta\alpha=

404: -{\rm Re}\left({\hat\Pi}^{\gamma}(\MZ^2)\right)=

405: -{\rm Re}\left({\Pi}^{\gamma}(\MZ^2)\right)+

406: {\rm Re}\left({\Pi}^{\gamma}(0)\right)\,.

407: \end{equation}

408: The self-energy contribution is large

409: ($\approx 6\%$). It can be split into leptonic

410: and hadronic contributions

411: \begin{equation}

412: \Delta\alpha=\Delta\alpha_{\rm lept}

413: +\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}

414: \end{equation}

415: The leptonic part is known up to three loop 

416: \begin{equation}

417: \Delta\alpha_{\rm lept}=314.97687(16)\times 10^{-4}

418: \end{equation}

419: and the remaining theoretical error is completely negligible.

420: The hadronic contribution is more problematic since it  

421: can not be calculated theoretically with the required precision

422: since the light quark loop contributions have non-perturbative

423: QCD effects. One can extract it, however, from the data using the

424: relation

425: \bea

426: \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}&=&\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\MZ^2{\rm Re}

427: \int_{4m^2_{\pi}}^{\infty}\frac{R_{\epem}(s^{\prime)}}{s^{\prime}(

428: s^{\prime}-\MZ^2-i\epsilon)}\nonumber\\

429: R_{\epem}(s)&=&\frac{

430: \sigma(

431: \epem\to\ \gamma^*\to \ {\rm hadrons})}

432: {\sigma(

433: \epem\to\ \mupmum)}

434: \eea

435: Conservatively,  one calculates the high energy $\sqrt{s}\ge 40\gev$

436: contribution using perturbative QCD and  the low energy contribution

437:  $\sqrt{s}\le 40\gev$

438: is estimated using data \cite{Jegerlehner:1999hg}.

439:  Unfortunately, the precision 

440: of the low energy data is not good enough and the error  from this

441: source  dominates the error of the theoretical predictions

442: \be

443: \Delta^{(5)}\alpha_{\rm had}=0.02804\pm0.00064\,,\\

444: \alpha^{-1}(\MZ)=128.89\pm0.09\,.

445: \ee

446: One can, however,  achieve a factor of three

447: reduction of the estimated error

448: assuming that the theory can be used 

449: down to $\sqrt{s}=m_{\tau}$ when

450: quark mass effects can be included up to three loops.

451:   Such an analysis

452: is quite well motivated  by  the successful

453: results on the   tau life-time. In the hadronic vacuum polarization

454:  the non-perturbative power corrections appear to be  suppressed

455: and the unknown  higher order perturbative

456: contributions are relatively small. In this theory

457: driven approach the error is reduced 

458: to an acceptable $0.25\% $ value

459: \be

460: \alpha^{-1}(\MZ)=128.905\pm0.036\,.

461: \ee

462: It is unlikely that the low energy hadronic total 

463: cross section will be measured in the

464: foreseeable future 

465: with a precision leading to essential improvement.

466: 

467: \subsection{Comment on the muon  anomalous magnetic moment}

468: 

469: I note that  the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution

470: to the muon anomalous magnetic moment

471: $a_{\mu}\equiv (g_{\mu}-2)/2$

472:  is more problematic as a result of 

473:  a different weight factor in the dispersion integral

474: \bea

475: a_{\mu}^{\rm had}&=&

476: \left(\frac{\alpha \Mmy}{3\pi}\right)

477: \Biggl[

478: \int^{E^2_{\rm cut}}_{4\Mpi^2}\frac{R_{\epem}(s)^{\rm data}(s)K(s)}{s^2}

479: \nonumber \\

480: &&+\int^{\infty}_{E^2_{\rm cut}}\frac{R_{\epem}(s)^{\rm pQCD}(s)K(s)}{s^2}

481: \Biggr]

482: \eea

483: where we splitted the perturbative and low energy contributions. $K(s)$

484:  is a kinematical weight factor which together with $1/s^2$

485:  enhances

486: the low energy contributions. As a result

487: the experimental error of the measured

488: value of the  hadronic vacuum polarization contribution

489: leads   more than  $1\%$ error in the theoretical prediction.

490: It is expected that high statistics 

491: data collected in ${\rm DA}\Phi{\rm NE}$ in the future will 

492: reduce this error with a factor of two. Such an improvement is

493: very well motivated in view of the experimental 

494: effort of  the ongoing Brookhaven

495: experiment which will  achieve a precision of

496:  $\approx 40 \times 10^{-11}$, a significant reduction

497: in comparison with the present error of $\approx 730 \times 10^{-11}$ 

498: (see \cite{Czarnecki:1998nd} and references therein).

499: Note, however, that the hadronic contribution from light-to-light scattering

500:   diagrams cannot be measured and the  theoretical estimates have

501: large uncertainties leading to a 

502: theoretical error of $\approx 40 \times 10^{-11}$. 

503: Accepting this estimate with the precise measurement of 

504: $a_{\mu}$ it will  be possible to test for the present of

505: anomalous coupling (SUSY) contributions provided they are large

506: ( $\approx 100 \times 10^{-11}$ or larger).

507: It is unlikely that one gets improvements over the existing

508: LEP limits. 

509: 

510: 

511: 

512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

513: \begin{figure}[htbp]

514:    \vspace{-3.8cm}

515:    \epsfysize=16cm

516:    \epsfxsize=16cm

517:    \centerline{\epsffile{swartz.eps}}

518:    \vspace*{-2.0cm}

519: \caption[dummy] { \ \ 

520: Summary of all the determinations of 

521:   $\sin^2\theta_W^{\rm eff}$ \cite{Swartz:1999xv}.

522:    \label{fig:diag1} }

523: \end{figure}

524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

525: 

526: 

527: \subsection{Higher order corrections to $\MW$ and the mixing angle }

528: 

529: As we noted above, the simplest physical observables for  

530: precise test of the Standard Model are

531: $\MW$ and the $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W$. 

532: It is convenient to consider the radiative corrections

533: in the $\MSbar$ scheme where with good accuracy

534: $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W\approx \hat{s}^2$.

535: It is given in terms of the input parameters

536: via the relation

537: \be

538: \hat{s}^2\hat{c}^2=\frac{\pi\alpha(\MZ)}{\sqrt{2}G_{\mu}\MZ(1-\hat{r}_w)}

539: \ee

540: where  $\hat{r}_w=0$ in leading order. Using the measured value of

541: $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W,\MZ$ and $G_{\mu}$ we obtain a value

542: $\hat{r}_{W}=0.0058\pm 0.000480$  different from zero at the

543: $12\sigma$

544: level. If one carries out a similar analysis for $\MW$ the evidence for

545: the presence of subleading corrections  is even better.

546:  The radiative correction 

547: $\hat{r}_W$ does not contain the large

548: effect from the running $\alpha$ but it receives  large

549: custodial symmetry  violating corrections because of  the large

550: top-bottom mass splitting

551: \be

552: \Delta \hat{r}_W|_{\rm top}

553: =-c^2/s^2\Delta \rho \approx  

554: 0.0096  \pm 0.00095

555: \ee

556: Subtracting this value we get   about $6\sigma$ difference coming

557: from the  the loops involving the bosonic

558: sector (W,Z,H) and subleading fermionic contributions. 

559: At this level of

560: accuracy many other corrections start to become important and  the

561: the size of  errors coming from the errors in the input parameters

562: leads to effects of the same order. In particular, we get some

563: sensitivity to 

564: the value of the Higgs-mass. 

565:  Beyond the complete one

566: loop corrections it was possible to evaluate    

567: all  important two loop corrections: 

568:   ${\cal O}(\alpha^2\ln(\MZ/\Mf)$ corrections 

569:  with light fermions, mixed electroweak QCD corrections

570: of ${\cal O}(\alpha\alpha_s)$,

571:  two loop electroweak corrections

572:  enhanced by top mass effects of

573:   ${\cal O}(\alpha^2(\mt^2/\MW^2)^2)$ together with 

574:  the subleading parts of  

575:  ${\cal O}(\alpha\alpha_s^2 \mt^2/\MW^2)$ and

576: the very difficult subleading correction

577:  of  ${\cal O}(\alpha^2 \mt^2/\MW^2)$.

578:  It is remarkable that last  contribution proved to be

579:  important in several respect \cite{Degrassi:1999jd}.

580: Its inclusion reduced significantly

581:  the scheme dependence of the results and lead to a  significant  

582:  reduction of the upper limit on the Higgs mass.

583: 

584: \subsection{Global fits}

585:  This summer the LEP experiments and SLD could finalize their results

586:  on the electroweak precision data. The most important development

587:  is that the final value of SLD on the leptonic polarization asymmetry was reported

588:  which implies $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W=0.23119\pm 0.00020$.

589:  A nice summary of the results is given in Figure 1 \cite{Swartz:1999xv}\,.

590: According to a recent analysis of the EWWW working group \cite{EWWG2000}

591: the new world average is

592: \be

593: \sin^2\theta^{eff}_W=0.23151\pm 0.00017 {\rm \ \ \ with\ \ \ }

594:  \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f=13.3/7} \,.

595: \ee

596:  This gives only rather low  confidence level of $6.4\%$.

597:  The origin of this unsatisfactory result is the $2.9\sigma$ discrepancy

598:  between the values  $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W$ derived from the SLAC 

599:  leptonic polarization asymmetry data and from the forward backward asymmetry

600:  in the b-b channel at LEP and SLC.

601:  The results obtained from a

602:  global fit to all data give somewhat better result but there we are hampered

603:  with the problem that the polarization asymmetry parameters

604:  disagree with each other with $2.7\sigma$, therefore, the $\chi^2$ is

605:  relatively large.

606: 

607: \subsection{The weak charge of the atomic Cesium}

608: Recently, a new determination of the weak charge of the atomic

609: Cesium (via studying the $6s\to 7s$ parity violating tensor transition)

610: has been presented \cite{Wood:1999xx}

611: \be

612: Q_W(^{133}_{\ 55} Cs)=-72.06\pm (0.28)_{exp}\pm(0.34)_{th}

613: \ee

614: with considerable improvement with respect to earlier

615: results

616: \be

617: Q_W(^{133}_{\ 55} Cs)=-71.04\pm (1.58)_{exp}\pm(0.88)_{th}\,.

618: \ee

619: In the theory, $Q_W$ measures the product

620: of the vector and axial vector neutral current coupling

621: of the u and the d quarks $C_{1u},C_{1d}$

622: \be

623: Q_W=-2\left[C_{1u}(2Z+N)+C_{1d}(Z+2n)\right]

624: \ee

625: A crucial feature of this test is that

626: it constrains the value of  the parameter $\epsilon_3$ \cite{altbarb}

627: \be

628: Q_W=-72.87\pm0.13-102\epsilon_3^{\rm SM}

629: \ee

630: with $\epsilon_3^{\rm SM}=0.0053 \pm 0.0013$

631: for $\MH=70-1000\gev$. According to the data \cite{Casalbuoni:1999yy}

632: \be

633: Q_W^{exp}-Q_W^{th}=1.28\pm 0.46

634: \ee

635: a three standard deviation effect. 

636: One should accept this result with some care

637: in view of the 

638:  significant reduction of the experimental error.

639: It would be important to cross-check this result with 

640: with other independent experiments. 

641: Also the estimate of the theoretical uncertainties

642: coming from atomic physics calculation may be too optimistic.

643: In ref.  \cite{Casalbuoni:1999yy}

644:  the deviation was attributed

645: to the existence of a non-sequential $Z^{'}$-boson.

646: and the data have been used to constraint its properties.

647: 

648: \section{Constraints on the Higgs mass}

649: 

650: \subsection{Upper limit from the measured value of $\MW$}

651:  The final  results of the electroweak radiation

652:  corrections for $\MW$ and $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W$

653:  can be parameterized 

654:   in terms of the input parameters

655:  including their errors in simple approximate analytic form 

656: \cite{Degrassi:1999jd}.

657:  For example in the $\overline{MS}$-scheme one obtains for the W-mass

658: \bea\label{MWcorrfit}

659: \MW&=&80.3827-0.0579\ln (\frac{\MH}{100})

660:            -0.008\ln^2 (\frac{\MH}{100})\nonumber\\

661:           && -0.517\left(\frac{\delta\alpha_h^{(5)}}{0.0280}-1\right)

662:            +0.543\left[\left(\frac{\mt^2}{175}-1\right)\right]\nonumber\\

663:           && -0.085 \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\MZ)}{0.118}-1\right)

664: \eea

665: where $\mt$, $\MH$ and $\MW$  are in $\gev$ units.

666:  This formula accurately reproduce the result obtained with 

667:  numerical evaluation of all corrections in the range 

668:  $75\gev \le \MH \le 350 \gev$ with  maximum deviation of less than

669: $1\mev$. Using  the world average of the

670: measured values  of the W-boson mass $\MW=80.394\pm  0.042\gev$ \cite{monig}

671: (with input parameters $\alpha_s=0.119\pm 0.003$, $\mt=174.3\pm 5.1\gev$,

672: $\delta\alpha^{(5)}=0.02804\pm 0.00065$

673:  one  obtains at $95\%$ confidence level an allowed range for

674: the Higgs mass of $73\gev \le \MH\le 294\gev$.

675:  Similar results exists also for $\sin^2\theta^{ eff}_W$ extracted from

676:  the asymmetry measurements at the Z-pole with somewhat better (95\% confidence

677:  ) limits

678:  of $95\gev \le \MH\le 260\gev$.

679:  Without global fits we got a semi-analytic insight on  the sensitivity 

680:  of the precision tests to the

681: Higgs mass. We also see that the precise measurements 

682: of $\MW$

683: have already provided us with

684:  competitive values  in comparison with the those obtained

685: from the measurement of  $\sin^2\theta^{ eff}_W$.

686: 

687: \subsection{Results from global fits}

688: It is interesting that the values of the Higgs mass obtained

689: in a recent global fit \cite{D'Agostini:2000ws}

690:  are in good agreement  with the simple analysis based on the value of

691: of $\MW$ or $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W$  as described above.

692: From the global fit one obtains an expected value

693: for the Higgs boson of $160-170\gev$ with error of $ \pm 50-60 \gev$.

694: The 95\% confidence level upper limit is about

695: $260-290\gev$.

696: 

697: \subsection{Can the Higgs-boson be heavy?}

698: 

699: The precision data can not rule out yet 

700:  dynamical symmetry breaking with some heavy Higgs-like

701: scalar and vector resonances.

702: The minimal model to describe this alternative  is obtained

703: by assuming that the new particles are heavy (more than 0.5 \tev)

704:  and the linear $\sigma$-model Higgs-sector

705: of the Standard Model is replaced 

706:  by the non-renormalizable

707: non-linear $\sigma$-model. It  can  be derived  also as

708:  an effective chiral vector-boson Lagrangian with non-linear 

709: realization of the gauge-symmetry \cite{ApBe80, longhitano:81}.

710: How can we reconcile this more phenomenological

711: approach  with the precision

712: data?

713: Removing the

714: Higgs boson from the Standard Model while keeping

715: the gauge invariance is a  relatively mild

716: change.  Although the model

717: becomes non-renormalizable, but at the one-loop

718: level  the radiative effects grow only logarithmically with the cut-off

719: at which new interactions should appear.

720: In equation (\ref{MWcorrfit}) the Higgs-mass is replaced by

721: this  cut-off 

722:  The logarithmic terms

723: are universal, therefore, their coefficients

724: must remain the same. The  constant terms, however, can be different

725: from those of the Standard Model. The one loop

726: corrections of the effective  theory

727: require the  introduction of  new free parameters which

728: influence the value of the constant terms. 

729: The data, unfortunately, do not have sufficient precision

730: to significantly  constrain  

731: the constant term appearing in $M_W$, $\sin^2\theta^{eff}_W$

732: and $\Gamma_l$ (or alternatively in the parameters 

733:  $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3$~\cite{altbarb} or $S,T,U$~\cite{pestak} ).

734: In a recent analysis ~\cite{Bagger:1999te} 

735: it has been

736:  found that due to the screening

737: of the symmetry breaking sector \cite{veltman},

738:  alternative theories with dynamical 

739: symmetry breaking and heavy scalar and vector bosons 

740: still can be in 

741:  agreement  with  the precision data 

742: up to a cut-off scale of $3\TeV$.

743: 

744: 

745: 

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: 

750: 

751: %\section*{References}

752: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

753: \parskip 0pt

754: \itemsep=0pt

755: 

756: \def\np#1#2#3  {{Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

757: \def\nc#1#2#3  {{Nuovo. Cim. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

758: \def\pl#1#2#3  {{Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

759: \def\pr#1#2#3  {{Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

760: \def\prl#1#2#3  {{Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

761: \def\prep#1#2#3 {{Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

762: \def\zp#1#2#3  {{Z. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

763: \def\rmp#1#2#3  {{Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

764: 

765: %\cite{Swartz:1999xv}

766: \bibitem{Swartz:1999xv}

767: M.~L.~Swartz,

768: %``Precision electroweak physics at the Z,''

769: hep-ex/9912026 and references therein.

770: 

771: \bibitem{Sirlin:1999zc}

772: A.~Sirlin,

773: %``Ten years of precision electroweak physics,''

774: hep-ph/9912227  and references therein.

775: 

776: 

777: %\cite{vanRitbergen:1999fi}

778: \bibitem{vanRitbergen:1999fi}

779: T.~van Ritbergen and R.~G.~Stuart,

780: %``On the precise determination of the Fermi coupling constant from the  muon lifetime,''

781: hep-ph/9904240; 

782: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82} (1999) 488

783: [hep-ph/9808283].

784: 

785: \bibitem{PDGcaso}

786: C.~Caso {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C3}, 1 (1998).

787: 

788: 

789: \bibitem{EWWG2000}

790: LEP and SLD  Electroweak Working Group, preprint CERN EP/2000-16,

791: 

792: \bibitem{tHV}

793: G. `t Hooft, \np{B35}{167}{71};

794: G. `t Hooft and M. Veltman, \np{B44}{189}{72};

795: 

796: 

797: 

798: %\cite{Jegerlehner:1999hg}

799: \bibitem{Jegerlehner:1999hg}

800: F.~Jegerlehner,

801: %``Hadronic effects in (g-2)(mu) and alpha(QED)(M(Z)): Status and  perspectives,''

802: hep-ph/9901386.

803: 

804: 

805: \bibitem{Degrassi:1999jd}

806: G.~Degrassi and P.~Gambino,

807: %``Two-loop heavy top corrections to the Z0 boson partial widths,''

808: hep-ph/9905472.

809: 

810: 

811: %\cite{Czarnecki:1998nd}

812: \bibitem{Czarnecki:1998nd}

813: A.~Czarnecki and W.~J.~Marciano,

814: %``Lepton anomalous magnetic moments: A theory update,''

815: hep-ph/9810512.

816: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810512;%%

817: 

818: 

819: 

820: %\cite{Wood:1999xx}

821: \bibitem{Wood:1999xx}

822: C.~S.~Wood, S.~C.~Bennett, J.~L.~Roberts, D.~Cho and C.~E.~Wieman,

823: %``Precision measurement of parity nonconservation in cesium,''

824: Can.\ J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 77} (1999) 7.

825: 

826: %\newcommand{\wwwspires}{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www}

827: %\cite{Casalbuoni:1999yy}

828: \bibitem{Casalbuoni:1999yy}

829: R.~Casalbuoni, S.~De Curtis, D.~Dominici and R.~Gatto,

830: %``Bounds on new physics from the new data on parity violation in atomic  cesium,''

831: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B460} (1999) 135

832: [hep-ph/9905568].

833: 

834: \bibitem{altbarb}

835: G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri and F. Caravaglios,

836: \np{B405}{3}{93}

837: 

838: \bibitem{monig}

839: K. M\"onig, these proceedings

840: 

841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905472;%%

842: \bibitem{D'Agostini:2000ws}

843: G.~D'Agostini and G.~Degrassi,

844: %``Constraining the Higgs boson mass through the combination of direct  search and precision measurement results,''

845: hep-ph/0001269

846: 

847: \bibitem{ApBe80}

848:  T. Appelquist and C. Bernard Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D22}  200  (1980).

849: 

850: \bibitem{longhitano:81}

851: A. Longhitano, Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D22},  1166 (1980), 

852: \ Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B188}, 118 (1981).

853: 

854: \bibitem{Bagger:1999te}

855: J.~A.~Bagger, A.~F.~Falk and M.~Swartz, hep-ph/9908327.

856: %\cite{Sirlin:1999zc}

857: \bibitem{veltman}

858: M. Veltman,  Act.\ Phys.\ Pol.\ {\bf B8}, 475 (1977).

859: 

860: \bibitem{pestak}

861: M. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, \prl{65}{2963}{90} .

862: 

863: 

864: \end{thebibliography}

865: 

866: \end{document}

867: 

868: