1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,aps,preprint]{revtex}

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: 

4: \def\sl{\llap{$/$}}

5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

7: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}

8: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

9: \newcommand{\bqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\eqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: \tightenlines \draft

14: \title{Top quark, heavy fermions and the composite Higgs boson}

15: \author{Bin Zhang and Hanqing Zheng}

16: \address{Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871,\\

17: People's Republic of China} \maketitle

18: 

19: \begin{abstract}

20: We study the properties of heavy fermions in the vector-like

21: representation of the electro-weak gauge group $SU(2)_W\times

22: U(1)_Y$ with Yukawa couplings to the standard model Higgs boson.

23: Applying the renormalization group analysis, we discuss the

24: effects of  heavy fermions to the vacuum stability bound and the

25: triviality bound on the mass of the Higgs boson. We also discuss

26: the interesting possibility that the Higgs particle is composed of

27: the top quark and heavy fermions. The bound on the composite Higgs

28: mass is estimated using the method of Bardeen, Hill and

29: Lindner~\cite{BHL91}, $150$GeV$\leq m_H\leq$ $450$GeV.

30: \end{abstract}

31: 

32: \pacs{PACS numbers: 12.60.-i; 12.60.Fr; 11.10.Hi}

33: 

34: 

35: Enormous efforts have been made in searching for physics beyond

36: the standard model but up to now a crucial, direct experimental

37: indication is still illusive. One of the most important motivation

38: to study the property of heavy fermions above the energy scale

39: accessible by current accelerators is to look for extra building

40: blocks of nature beyond the three families of the standard model.

41: For this purpose it may be adequate to study fermions in

42: vector-like representations of the electro-weak gauge group with a

43: large bare mass term, rather than the conventional chiral

44: fermions. The main reason for this is from the strong experimental

45: constraints on the S parameter~\cite{peskin}. While experiments

46: favor a negative value of S~\cite{exp}, a standard chiral doublet

47: of heavy fermions (degenerate in mass) contributes to the S

48: parameter as $1/6\pi $. On the contrary, for fermions in the

49: vector-like representation of the electro-weak gauge group, a

50: large bare fermion mass M completely changes the low energy

51: properties of the heavy fermions. As a consequence of the

52: decoupling theorem, heavy fermions' contribution to the oblique

53: corrections of the standard processes are suppressed by

54: ${\frac{1}{M^2}}$. Especially, their contribution to the S

55: parameter is still positive definite but much smaller in magnitude

56: than the ordinary chiral fermions. Furthermore the heavy fermion

57: contributes to the vacuum expectation value of electroweak

58: symmetry breaking as~{\cite{zheng}},

59: \begin{equation}

60: \delta (f_\pi ^2)=\delta v^2\simeq {\frac{m^2N_c}{2\pi ^2}}(\log

61: {\frac{ \Lambda ^2}{M^2}}),  \label{dv}

62: \end{equation}

63: where where $m$ is the mass generated by the Yukawa coupling and

64: $\Lambda $ is the cutoff scale of the effective theory. It is

65: interesting to compare the above expression to that of the pion

66: decay constant obtained in the QCD effective action

67: approach~\cite{rafael}, $f_\pi^2={\frac{N_c}{4\pi ^2}}M_Q^2\ln

68: ({\frac{\Lambda _{QCD}^2}{M_Q^2}})$, where $ M_Q$ is the

69: constitute quark mass which is similar to $m$ in our present

70: discussion. We notice that if in the above Eq.~({\ref{dv}) $m\sim

71: O(v)$ then several of these heavy fermions would be enough to

72: induce the electroweak symmetry breaking. Therefore if there is a

73: strong attractive forces in the appropriate channel to cause the

74: heavy fermion condensation then they may place the role similar to

75: techniquarks in the technicolor model. This way of dynamical

76: electroweak symmetry breaking, if possible, is remarkable.

77: Contrary to the technicolor model, it avoids the dangerous low

78: energy consequences which may contradict experiments.} Also it can

79: be  demonstrated~\cite{vhiggs} that the composite Higgs boson's

80: mass is proportional to the dynamically generated fermion mass and

81: completely decouples from the bare one, even though the Higgs

82: particle is ``composed of'' the heavy fermions. This is a

83: consequence of  symmetry and be model independent, at least in a

84: system with second order phase transition.

85: 

86: {\ }Heavy fermions may have many other interesting role in physics beyond

87: the standard model either. For example, they may be responsible for a

88: dynamical generation of light fermion mass matrix~\cite{nielsen}; they

89: appear in the ``vector--like extension'' of the standard model\cite{fuji};

90: they are natural consequences of many grand unification models, and of the

91: super-symmetric preon model~\cite{pati}. Therefore it is important to

92: investigate the fundamental properties of the heavy vector-like fermions

93: thoroughly.

94: 

95: There have been continuous interests in understanding the

96: structure of the standard model at high energies, even up to

97: Planck scale~(see for example, \cite{stab,CEQ,vac,HS,kang} and the

98: most recent review which contains many materials,

99: Ref.~\cite{fhs}).  A powerful tool is to use the renormalization

100: group equations to trace the evolution of the coupling constant of

101: the $\lambda \phi ^4$ self-interaction of the Higgs particle.

102: Assuming the standard model remains valid up to certain scale

103: $\Lambda $, an upper bound (the triviality bound, obtained by

104: requiring $\lambda $ not to blow up below $\Lambda $) of the Higgs

105: boson mass, $m_H$, can be obtained. Meanwhile, requiring the

106: stability of the electro-weak vacuum, we can also obtain a lower

107: bound on $m_h$. For the later purpose, in principle one needs to

108: consider the renormalization group improved effective

109: potential~\cite{sher} and require it be bounded from below. But in

110: practice this turns out to be equivalent to the requirement that

111: the Higgs self-interaction coupling constant $\lambda $ does not

112: become negative, below the given scale (see \cite{stab} and ref.

113: therein). It is remarkable that for the given experimental value

114: of the top quark mass (here we use $m_t=174$GeV), there is an

115: allowed range for the Higgs boson mass, $130\hbox {GeV}\leq

116: $$m_H$$\leq 200\hbox{GeV}$~\cite{stab}, for which the standard

117: model may remain valid up to Planck scale.

118: 

119: In this paper we devote to study heavy fermions' influence to the

120: vacuum stability bound and the triviality bound on the Higgs boson

121: mass. Furthermore, assuming that the Higgs boson is a composite

122: particle, we use the method developed in Ref.~\cite{BHL91} to

123: estimate the range of the Higgs boson's mass\footnote{ This paper

124: replaces and is an extension of  Ref.~\cite{heaven}.}. We find

125: that the top quark also place an important role in the

126: compositeness picture and the composite Higgs boson can be viewed

127: as a mixture of $\bar tt$ pair and heavy fermion pair. The larger

128: the hierarchy is the more top quark content the composite Higgs

129: boson contains and vise--versa.

130: 

131: We start with the following general Lagrangian for heavy fermions,

132: \[

133: {\cal L}=\bar Q(i{\Delta \llap{$/$}}_d-M)Q+\bar U(i{\Delta \llap{$/$}}%

134: _s-M)U+\bar D(i{\Delta \llap{$/$}}_s-M)D+g_d\bar Q_L\phi D_R+g_u\bar

135: Q_L\tilde \phi U_R

136: \]

137: \begin{equation}

138: +g_d^{\prime }\bar Q_R\phi D_L+g_u^{\prime }\bar Q_R\tilde \phi U_L+h.c.\ .

139: \label{L2}

140: \end{equation}

141: In above $Q$ is the $SU(2)_W$ doublet and $U$ and $D$ are singlets with weak

142: hypercharge $Y_Q$, $Y_U$ and $Y_D$, respectively (with the selection rule $%

143: Y_U-Y_Q=Y_Q-Y_D=Y_\phi $). We assume they participate in strong

144: interactions and are in fundamental representations of $SU(3)_C$.

145: The subscript $d$ ($s$) in the covariant derivatives denotes that

146: the corresponding fermion is a $ \hbox{SU(2)}_W$ doublet (singlet)

147: and $\phi $ denotes the standard Higgs doublet. We further expect

148: the Yukawa couplings to be of order 1. For simplicity we take all

149: the bare fermion masses to be equal. Also we do not discuss the

150: mixing between heavy fermions and the ordinary fermions here.

151: 

152: As is well known, because of the negative sign, fermions turn to

153: destabilize the vacuum. After including heavy fermions the

154: structure of our world changes drastically at high scales, even

155: though vector-like fermions are essentially decoupling below their

156: threshold. At scales much higher than the threshold whether the

157: fermion field is chiral or vector-like does not make any

158: qualitative difference. The only thing matters is the number of

159: independent Yukawa couplings and their strength. The relevant one

160: loop RGEs are listed as below\footnote{ Due to a careless mistake,

161: the Yukawa coupling RGEs given in Ref.~\cite {heaven} contain an

162: error. The top quark effects were not considered correctly.},

163: 

164: \begin{equation}  \label{l}

165: 16\pi^2{\frac{d\lambda}{dt}}= 24\lambda^2+12\lambda A

166: -6A^{\prime}-(9g_2^2+3g_1^2)\lambda \\

167: +{\frac{9}{8}}g_2^4+{\frac{3}{4}}g_2^2g_1^2 +{\frac{3}{8}}g_1^4\ ,

168: \end{equation}

169: 

170: \begin{equation}  \label{rgeh}

171: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_u}{dt}}= \{ {\frac{3}{2}}(g_ug_u^\dagger-g_dg_d^\dagger)+3A

172: -8g_s^2-{\frac{9}{4}}g_2^2-3(Y_Q^2+Y_U^2)g_1^2\}g_u\ ,

173: \end{equation}

174: 

175: \begin{equation}

176: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_d}{dt}}= \{ {\frac{3}{2}}(g_dg_d^\dagger-g_ug_u^\dagger)+3A

177: -8g_s^2-{\frac{9}{4}}g_2^2-3(Y_Q^2+Y_D^2)g_1^2\}g_d\ ,

178: \end{equation}

179: 

180: \begin{equation}  \label{rget}

181: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_t}{dt}}= \{ {\frac{3}{2}}g_t^2+3A

182: -8g_s^2-{\frac{9}{4}} g_2^2-{\frac{17}{12}}g_1^2\}g_t\ ,

183: \end{equation}

184: where,

185: \begin{equation}

186: A=\hbox{tr} \{g_ug_u^\dagger+g_dg_d^\dagger+ g^{\prime}_u

187: (g^{\prime}_u)^\dagger+g^{\prime}_d(g^{\prime}_d)^\dagger\} +g_t^2\ ,

188: \end{equation}

189: \begin{equation}

190: A^{\prime}=\hbox{tr} \{ (g_ug_u^\dagger)^2+(g_dg_d^\dagger)^2+

191: (g^{\prime}_u(g^{\prime}_u)^\dagger)^2+(g^{\prime}_d(g^{\prime}_d)^%

192: \dagger)^2\}+g_t^4\ ,

193: \end{equation}

194: and

195: \begin{equation}

196: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_s}{dt}}= (-7+ {\frac{2}{3}}(2N_Q+N_U+N_D)\theta )g_s^3\ ,

197: \end{equation}

198: \begin{equation}

199: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_2}{dt}}= (-{\frac{19}{6}} +2N_Q\theta)g_2^3\ ,

200: \end{equation}

201: \begin{equation}

202: 16\pi^2{\frac{dg_1}{dt}}= ({\frac{41}{6}}+ 4(2N_QY_Q^2+N_UY_U^2+N_DY_D^2

203: )\theta)g_1^3\ ,

204: \end{equation}

205: where the trace doesn't sum over color space and $g^{\prime}_u$

206: and $g^{\prime}_d$ obey similar equations. In general these Yukawa

207: couplings can be matrices in the flavor space if there are many

208: heavy fermions, and $g_t$ is the Yukawa coupling of the top quark

209: ($g_t=\sqrt{2}m_t/v$). The symbols $N_Q$, $N_U$ and $N_D$ refer to

210: the number of Q, U and D type of quarks, respectively. We use a

211: simple step function $\theta=\theta(t-log(M/M_z))$ to model the

212: heavy fermion threshold effects. All the Yukawa couplings in above

213: renormalization group equations are understood as multiplied by

214: $\theta$.  Applications using two loop RGEs in the standard model

215: case and beyond was considered in Ref.~\cite{PZ} and it was found

216: that the two loop effects are very small below Planck scale.

217: 

218: In the following qualitative discussion, we set $Y_Q=1/6$, $Y_U=2/3$ and $%

219: Y_D=-1/3$. For simplicity we take $N_Q=N_U=N_D$ ($\equiv N$) and

220: all the Yukawa couplings (after the diagonalization of the

221: coupling matrices) in the initial boundary conditions being

222: identical~\footnote{The `up' and `down' type quarks evolve

223: differently because of different $ U(1)_Y$ charge, however the

224: isospin splitting is very small for the standard values of the

225: hypercharge.}. In fig.~\ref{fig1} we plot the vacuum stability

226: bound and the triviality bound on the Higgs mass as a function of

227: the scale $\Lambda $ for some typical values of the parameters of

228: the heavy fermions. We see that the inclusion of heavy fermions

229: drastically change the Standard model structure at high energies

230: even though they decouple from the low energy world. They tighten

231: the bound on the mass of the Higgs boson as a function of the

232: cutoff scale $\Lambda $. Notice that (in terms of one loop

233: renormalization equations) the upper line (triviality bound) and

234: the lower line (vacuum stability bound) never meet each other.

235: Because the upper line is drawn by requiring $\lambda $ not to

236: blow up and the lower line is drawn by requiring $\lambda \geq 0$.

237: Between them is the ultra-violet unstable fixed point of $\lambda

238: $, so the two lines get close to each other rapidly.

239: 

240: We now study the interesting possibility of considering the Higgs particle

241: as a composite object of the heavy vector-like fermions. Applying the above

242: renormalization group analysis to the composite model leads to some

243: interesting results which we present below. We follow the method proposed by

244: Bardeen, Hill and Lindner (BHL) \cite{BHL91} originally developed for the

245: top quark condensate model. The basic idea of the BHL method is the

246: following: Using the collective field method the four--fermi interaction

247: Lagrangian can be rewritten into an effective Higgs--Yukawa interaction

248: Lagrangian at the cutoff scale $\Lambda $. The effective Yukawa interaction

249: Lagrangian is identical to the standard model at the cutoff scale $\Lambda $%

250: , but with vanishing wave function renormalization constant of the

251: Higgs field ($Z_H=0$) and vanishing Higgs self-coupling ($\lambda

252: =0$). Below $ \Lambda $ the model is equivalent to the standard

253: model and therefore the coupling constants of the effective theory

254: run according to the standard model renormalization group

255: equations. However the vanishing of $Z_H$ at the scale $\mu

256: =\Lambda $ leads to the following boundary conditions of the

257: renormalization group equations:

258: \begin{equation}

259: g_Y^r\to \infty \ ,\,\,\,\,\lambda ^r/(g_Y^r)^4\to 0\ ,

260: \end{equation}

261: where $\lambda ^r$ and $g_Y^r$ are the renormalized Higgs self-coupling and

262: Yukawa coupling, respectively. With the renormalization group equations and

263: boundary conditions, one can predict the mass of the Higgs boson and the

264: fermion mass (or the Yukawa couplings) at the infra-red fixed point. In the

265: present case, of course, the ``standard model'' often refers to the standard

266: model plus heavy fermions and the ``infra-red fixed point'' value of $g_Y$

267: refers to its value at the threshold.

268: 

269: The minimal top quark condensate model has already been ruled out by

270: experiments. In order to generate the electroweak symmetry breaking scale $v$%

271: , the top quark mass is required to be at least as large as

272: 218~GeV (corresponding to $\Lambda =10^{19}$~GeV, i.e., Planck

273: scale). The experimental value of the top quark mass indicates

274: that the top quark Yukawa coupling does not diverge up to Planck

275: scale in the standard model and therefore does not meet the

276: compositeness condition of BHL. This can be clearly seen from

277: fig.~\ref{fig2}. However, in the present model, since there is no

278: strict experimental constraint on the heavy fermions, the

279: compositeness condition is easily and naturally achievable, that

280: $g_t$ blows up below Planck scale with the aid of the heavy

281: fermions. From Eqs.~(\ref{rgeh}), (\ref{rget}) we see that the

282: evolution of the Yukawa couplings are correlated to each other and

283: one `blows up' leads the another to blow up too.

284: 

285: When both the top quark and heavy fermions are involved, the

286: situation is more complicated than the simple top condensate

287: model. Running the RGEs down from certain scale, one must take

288: good care of $g_t$ to ensure that it reaches the experimental

289: value at the infra-red fixed point. This means that a certain

290: fine-tuning is needed on the initial boundary conditions of the

291: Yukawa coupling RGEs. The composite Higgs boson is now a mixture

292: of $\bar tt$ pairs and the heavy quark pairs. Fig.~\ref{fig3} and

293: fig.~\ref{fig4} show two typical examples of such a situation. In

294: the situation of fig.~\ref{fig3} the Higgs particle is mainly

295: composed of heavy fermions while in fig.~\ref {fig4} the top quark

296: becomes the major component. Notice that for a given ratio of

297: $g_Y/g_t$ in the compositeness boundary condition (for fixed M and

298: N), the composite scale $\Lambda $ is no longer free, rather it is

299: determined by $g_t^{exp}$.

300: 

301: In fig.~\ref{fig5} we plot the composite Higgs particle's

302: mass\footnote{ The Higgs mass in these figures is the renormalized

303: mass at $\mu=M_Z$. The renormalized mass is close to the pole mass

304: of the Higgs boson.} as a function of the composite scale,

305: $\Lambda $. We chose $N\leq 3$ to avoid the problem with the

306: non-asymptotic freedom of $g_s$. From fig.~\ref{fig5} we see that

307: the allowed range for the Higgs mass is rather narrow against the

308: wide range of the cutoff scale, the bare fermion mass and the

309: number of heavy fermions, except when the heavy fermion bare mass

310: $M$ is close to the cutoff $\Lambda $. A lower bound on the Higgs

311: mass can be obtained: $m_H\geq 150$~GeV. When $M$ is getting close

312: to the cutoff scale our results become unstable and are sensitive

313: to the input numerical values of the boundary conditions. In such

314: a situation the scale is not large enough for the couplings to

315: reach the infra-red stable point. It is estimated that the Higgs

316: mass will not exceed 450~GeV, otherwise the whole mechanism become

317: unnatural (in the sense that the Yukawa coupling constant at

318: electroweak scale also becomes substantially larger than 1).

319: 

320: In fig.~\ref{fig6} we plot a typical example of the Higgs mass for

321: a given cutoff scale $\Lambda _c$ and $N$. We also plot the

322: triviality bound and the vacuum stability bound using the value of

323: the Yukawa coupling constant at the infrared fixed-point, which is

324: determined uniquely by the parameters $M$, $\Lambda _c$ and $N$ in

325: the compositeness picture, as the initial boundary condition. It

326: is very interesting to notice that $m_H$ and $\Lambda $ take the

327: values where the curves of triviality bound and vacuum stability

328: bound (practically) meet each other. This is the unique feature of

329: BHL compositeness picture. The reason behind this is very simple:

330: The infra-red attractive fixed point corresponds to the

331: ultra-violet unstable fixed point. In the sense of

332: Ref.~\cite{hasen}, this picture can be disturbed. However in most

333: cases the infra-red--ultra-violet fixed point structure is

334: influential and rather stable against perturbation.

335: 

336: In above we presented an analysis on the properties of heavy

337: fermions in vector-like representations of the standard model

338: gauge group. We pointed out earlier~\cite{vhiggs} that if they can

339: place the role to break the electro-weak symmetry dynamically the

340: theory has some distinguishable properties: the low energy theory

341: is asymptotically renormalizable and returns to the standard

342: model. From the above RG analysis we realize that the top quark

343: also places an important role in the dynamical symmetry breaking

344: scenario and our model can be viewed as a natural generalization

345: to the top condensate model of BHL. We found that the composite

346: Higgs boson's mass ranges from 150GeV to 450GeV, and the lighter

347: the Higgs boson is the more top quark content it contains, and

348: vice versa. Our prediction to the mass of the Higgs boson will be

349: testable by  LHC and the model will be ruled out if $m_H$ is found

350: to be below 150GeV.

351: 

352: {\it Acknowledgment}: The work of H.Z.

353:  is supported in part by the National

354: Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No.~19775005.

355: 

356: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

357: \bibitem{BHL91}W.~A.~Bardeen, C.~T.~Hill and M.~Lindner, Phys. Rev. {\bf

358: D41} (1990) 1647.

359: 

360: \bibitem{peskin}M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46} (1992)

361: 381.

362: 

363: \bibitem{exp}  for experimental constraints on the S parameter, see

364: for example, K.~Hagiwara, {\it Talk presented at XVII International

365: Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies, 10-15 August

366: 1995, Beijing, China}, Preprint KEK-TH-95-184.

367: 

368: \bibitem{zheng}  H.~Zheng, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51} (1995)251.

369: 

370: \bibitem{rafael} D.~Espriu, E.~de Rafael and J.~Taron, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B345

371: } (1990) 22.

372: 

373: \bibitem{vhiggs}  H.~Zheng, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52} (1995) 6500.

374: 

375: \bibitem{nielsen}  C.~D.~Froggatt and H.~B.~Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}

376: (1979) 277.

377: 

378: \bibitem{fuji}  K.~Fujikawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 92}, 1149(1994).

379: 

380: \bibitem{pati}  J.~Pati, Phys. Lett. {\bf B228}, 228(1989).

381: 

382: \bibitem{stab}  G.~Altarelli and G.~Isidori, Phys. Lett. {\bf B337} (1994)

383: 141.

384: 

385: \bibitem{CEQ}  J.~A.~ Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett {\bf %

386: B342} (1995) 171.

387: 

388: \bibitem{vac}  M.~A.~Diaz, T.~A.~ter Veldhuis and T.~J.Weiler, Phys. Rev.

389: Lett. {\bf 74} (1995) 2876.

390: 

391: \bibitem{HS}  P.~Q.~Hung and M.~ Sher, Phys. Lett. {\bf B374} (1996) 138.

392: 

393: \bibitem{kang}D. Dooling, K. Kang and S. K. Kang, preprint hep-ph9710258.

394: \bibitem{fhs}P.~Frampton, P.~Q.~Hung and M.~Sher, hep-ph/9903387.

395: \bibitem{sher}M.~ Sher, Phys. Rep. {\bf 179} (1989) 273.

396: \bibitem{heaven}  H.~Zheng, Phys. Lett. {\bf B370} (1996) 201;

397: Erratum {\bf B382} (1996) 448.

398: \bibitem{PZ}Yu.~F.~Pirogov, O.~V.~Zenin, Eur.~Phys.~J. {\bf

399: C10} (1999) 629.

400: \bibitem{hasen}  A.~Hasenfratz, P.~Hasenfratz, K.~Jansen, J.~Kuti and

401: Y.~Shen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B365}, 79(1991); J. Zinn-Justin, Nucl.

402: Phys. {\bf B367}, 105(1991).

403: \end{thebibliography}

404: 

405: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

406: \begin{center}

407: \vspace*{-20mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig1.ps}}

408: \vspace*{0mm} \caption{\label{fig1}

409:  Vacuum stability and

410: triviality bounds on the Higgs mass as a function of $\Lambda$.

411: The solid lines are the standard model case The dashed (dotted)

412: lines correspond to $N=1$ ($N=3$), the Yukawa coupling $g_Y=1$.}

413: \end{center}

414: \end{figure}

415: 

416: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

417: \begin{center}

418: \vspace*{-10mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig2.ps}}

419: \vspace*{0mm} \caption{ \label{fig2} The solid line: Infra-red

420: fixed point value of $g_t$ as a function of the compositeness

421: scale according to the standard model RGEs. The dotted line

422: indicates the experimental value of $g_t$. }

423: \end{center}

424: \end{figure}

425: 

426: 

427: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

428: \begin{center}

429: \vspace*{-10mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig3.ps}}

430: %\vspace*{10mm}

431: \caption{ \label{fig3}%

432: Infra-red fixed

433: point value of $g_t$ (solid line) and $g_Y$ (dashed line).

434: The dotted line

435: indicates $g_t^{exp}$. M=$10^8$~GeV, N=1. The correct value of the

436: composite scale is at where the solid line cross the dotted line.}

437: \end{center}

438: \end{figure}

439: 

440: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

441: \begin{center}

442: \vspace*{-10mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig4.ps}}

443: \vspace*{10mm}

444: \caption{ \label{fig4}%

445: Infra-red fixed

446: point value of $g_t$ (solid line) and $g_Y$ (dashed line).

447: The dotted line

448: indicates $g_t^{exp}$. M=$10^8$~GeV, N=1.

449: Here there are more top quark content in the composite Higgs boson.

450: }

451: \end{center}

452: \end{figure}

453: 

454: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

455: \begin{center}

456: \vspace*{-10mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig5.ps}}

457: \vspace*{10mm}

458: \caption{ \label{fig5}%

459: IR fixed point

460: value (at $M_Z$) of $M_H$

461: %and $g_Y$

462: as a function of

463: the compositeness scale.

464: The solid line: $N=3$, $M=10^{15}$~GeV;

465: the dashed  line: $N=3$, $M=10^8$~GeV;

466: the dotted line: $N=1$, $M=10^3$~GeV;

467: the dot-dashed line: $N=3$, $M=10^3$~GeV. }

468: \end{center}

469: \end{figure}

470: 

471: \begin{figure}[hbtp]

472: \begin{center}

473: \vspace*{-10mm} \mbox{\epsfysize=70mm\epsffile{fig6.ps}}

474: \vspace*{10mm} \caption{ \label{fig6}

475:  IR--UV fixed point structure

476: and compositeness. N=3, M=$10^3$~GeV, $\Lambda_C=10^{11}$.}

477: \end{center}

478: \end{figure}

479: 

480: \end{document}

481: