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

2: \textheight 9.0in

3: \textwidth 6.0in

4: \voffset -0.4in

5: \hoffset -0.2in

6: \def \As{\not \! \! A}

7: \def \ba{\bar \alpha}

8: \def \bam{{\bf A}_\mu}

9: \def \ban{{\bf A}_\nu}

10: \def \bAs{\not \! \! {\bf A}}

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

12: \def \Bee{{\cal B}_{e^+ e^-}}

13: \def \bD{{\bf D}}

14: \def \bDm{{\bf D}_\mu}

15: \def \bDM{{\bf D}^\mu}

16: \def \bDn{{\bf D}_\nu}

17: \def \bDs{\not \! \! {\bf D}}

18: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}

19: \def \bFmn{{\bf F}_{\mu \nu}}

20: \def \bg{\bar{g}}

21: \def \bo{B^0}

22: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}

23: \def \bT{{\bf T}}

24: \def \cB{{\cal B}}

25: \def \cft{\cos^4 \theta}

26: \def \cH{{\cal H}}

27: \def \cL{{\cal L}}

28: \def \cM{{\cal M}}

29: \def \cst{\cos^2 \theta}

30: \def \dm{\partial_\mu}

31: \def \dM{\partial^\mu}

32: \def \Dm{D_\mu}

33: \def \DM{D^\mu}

34: \def \dn{\partial_\nu}

35: \def \ds{\not \! \partial}

36: \def \dst{\not \! \! \partial}

37: \def \Ds{\not \! \! D}

38: \def \dz{D^0}

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

40: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}

41: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

42: \def \ew{SU(2) $\otimes$ U(1)}

43: \def \g{{\rm~GeV}}

44: \def \gf{\gamma_5}

45: \def \gm{\gamma_\mu}

46: \def \gM{\gamma^\mu}

47: \def \gmn{g_{\mu \nu}}

48: \def \gn{\gamma_\nu}

49: \def \gN{\gamma^\nu}

50: \def \gz{(g^2 + {g'}^2)^{1/2}}

51: \def \hc{{\rm h.c.}}

52: \def \hp{\hat{p}}

53: \def \im{{\rm Im}}

54: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}

55: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}

56: \def \ko{K^0}

57: \def \ks{\not \! k}

58: \def \m{{\rm MeV}}

59: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}

60: \def \MSb{\overline{\rm MS}}

61: \def \nb{\bar \nu}

62: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}

63: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}

64: \def \of{\overline{f}}

65: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}

66: \def \ot{\overline{t}}

67: \def \pb{\overline{\psi}}

68: \def \Pmn{\Pi_{\mu \nu}}

69: \def \pr{\parallel}

70: \def \ps{\not \! p}

71: \def \qs{\not \! q}

72: \def \re{{\rm Re}}

73: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}

74: \def \sef{\sin^2 \theta^{\rm eff}}

75: \def \sft{\sin^4 \theta}

76: \def \sst{\sin^2 \theta}

77: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}

78: \def \SUL{SU(2)$_L$}

79: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}

80: \def \tcm{\theta_{\rm c.m.}}

81: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}

82: \def \U1Y{U(1)$_Y$}

83: \def \vev#1{\langle #1 \rangle}

84: \def \Zs{\not \! Z}

85: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}

86: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}

87: \begin{document}

88: %

89: \centerline {\bf ROLE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE ATOMIC PARITY VIOLATION}

90: \centerline{\bf EXPERIMENTS IN PRECISION ELECTROWEAK TESTS

91: \footnote{Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 01-43, hep-ph/0109239.

92: To be submitted to Physical Review D.}}

93: \bigskip

94: 

95: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}

96: \centerline {\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}

97: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}

98: \medskip

99: \centerline{(Received )}

100: \medskip

101: 

102: \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}

103: \begin{quote}

104: Recent reanalyses of the atomic physics effects on the weak charge

105: in cesium have led to a value in much closer agreement with predictions of

106: the Standard Model.  We review precision electroweak tests, their implications

107: for upper bounds on the mass of the Higgs boson, possible ways in which these

108: bounds may be circumvented, and the requirements placed upon accuracy of

109: future atomic parity violation experiments by these considerations.

110: \end{quote}

111: 

112: \leftline{PACS Categories: 11.30.Er, 12.15.Ji, 12.15.Mm, 12.60.Cn}

113: \bigskip

114: 

115: The successful unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions

116: \cite{GWS} has been tested to the level of radiative corrections affected by

117: the mass of the Higgs boson \cite{WM00}.  However, Peskin and Wells

118: \cite{PW01} have noted several contexts in which assumptions about electroweak

119: symmetry breaking can be relaxed, leading to looser bounds on the Higgs boson

120: mass.  As one example, a small vacuum expectation value of a Higgs triplet

121: \cite{FRW} can permit a Higgs boson mass in excess of 1 TeV.  Specific models

122: (e.g., \cite{PW01,HHT}) with this property have been constructed.  Other

123: related discussions may be found in \cite{DoH,CGG,MEP01}.

124: 

125: Among the electroweak observables that play a role in precise tests of

126: the radiative corrections in the theory, atomic parity violation plays a

127: special role.  Many types of new physics affect what are known as ``oblique

128: corrections,'' through vacuum polarization of the photon, $Z$, and $W$ bosons.

129: These effects have been described by Peskin and Takeuchi \cite{PT} in terms of

130: two parameters $S$ and $T$, upon which various observables depend linearly,

131: with $S = T = 0$ corresponding to ``no new physics,'' given nominal values of

132: the top quark and Higgs boson masses.  The weak charge $Q_W$ measured in

133: parity-violation experiments in such atoms as cesium \cite{Cs97,Cs99}, bismuth

134: \cite{Bi}, lead \cite{Pb}, and thallium \cite{TlS,TlO} is mainly sensitive to

135: the variable $S$, with very small dependence on $T$ \cite{MR,PGS,JR90}.  Thus,

136: atomic parity violation experiments can shed unique light on certain types of

137: new physics which contribute to the parameter $S$ \cite{APV95,APV97,APV99}.

138: 

139: Atomic physics calculations have been carried out for such systems

140: as cesium \cite{Csth} and thallium \cite{Tlth}.  In 1999 the JILA-Boulder

141: group reported measurements in cesium \cite{Cs99} that reduced uncertainties in

142: previous calculations.  This led to a resulting weak charge, $Q_W({\rm Cs})

143: = - 72.06 \pm 0.28_{\rm expt} \pm 0.34_{\rm theor} = - 72.06 \pm 0.46$ which

144: represented a considerable improvement with respect to previous values in this

145: and other atoms.  It was also more than two standard deviations away from

146: the Standard Model prediction \cite{MR,TLG} $Q_W({\rm Cs}) = -73.19 \pm 0.13$,

147: leading to speculations \cite{APV99,Cas,EL} about possible sources of the

148: discrepancy such as $Z'$ bosons \cite{LRR,LR} in extended gauge theories.  No

149: such bosons have been seen up to masses of about 600 GeV/$c^2$ \cite{CDFZp}.

150: 

151: Several recent contributions \cite{Der,Koz,Dzu,Sush} have re-evaluated atomic

152: physics corrections in cesium, paying particular attention to the Breit

153: interaction \cite{Br}.  Our working average for these determinations will be

154: $Q_W({\rm Cs}) = -72.2 \pm 0.8$.  In the present paper

155: we review the main electroweak

156: observables affecting the mass of the Higgs boson, some possible ways in which

157: upper bounds on this mass may be circumvented, and requirements placed upon

158: accuracy of future atomic parity violation experiments by these considerations.

159: 

160: We begin with a brief review of the formalism of \cite{PT}.  Electroweak

161: radiative corrections may be divided into ``oblique'' and ``direct''

162: contributions.  Oblique corrections (sensitive to all forms of new physics)

163: enter through gauge boson vacuum polarization terms, and direct corrections

164: include all other terms such as vertex and self-energy modifications.

165: At lowest order,

166: the $W$ mass $M_W$, the $Z$ mass $M_Z$, the electroweak couplings $g$ and $g'$,

167: the electric charge $e$, the weak mixing angle $\theta$, the Higgs doublet

168: vacuum expectation value $v$, and the Fermi

169: coupling constant $G_F = 1.16637(1) \times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ are related by

170: \beq

171: e = g \sin \theta = g' \cos \theta~~,~~~

172: \frac{G_F}{\s} = \frac{g^2}{8M_W^2} = \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{8 M_Z^2}

173: = \frac{1}{2 v^2}~~~

174: \eeq

175: under the assumption that the only contribution to electroweak symmetry

176: breaking comes from one or more Higgs doublets with vacuum expectation values

177: $v_i$ satisfying $\sum_i v_i^2 = v^2$.  With $\alpha \equiv e^2/4 \pi$

178: one then has

179: \beq

180: M_W = \frac{(\pi \alpha/\s G_F)^{1/2}}{\sin \theta}~~,~~~

181: M_Z = M_W/\cos \theta~~~.

182: \eeq

183: Photon vacuum polarization effects change $\alpha^{-1}$ from its value of

184: $\sim 137.036$ at $q^2 = 0$ to $128.933 \pm 0.021$ at $q^2 = M_Z^2$ \cite{DH}.

185: This important oblique correction is

186: sensitive to all charged particles with masses less than ${\cal O}(M_Z/2)$.

187: 

188: The next-most-important oblique correction arises from the large splitting

189: between the top and bottom quark masses \cite{MV77}, violating

190: a {\it custodial SU(2)} symmetry \cite{PS80} responsible for preserving

191: the tree-level relation $M_W = M_Z \cos \theta$.  As a result,

192: an effect is generated equivalent to a Higgs {\it triplet}

193: vacuum expectation value.

194: The vacuum polarization diagrams with $W^+ \to t \bar b \to W^+$ and

195: $Z \to (t \bar t, b \bar b) \to Z$ lead to a modification of the

196: relation between $G_F$, coupling constants, and $M_Z$ for neutral-current

197: exchanges:

198: \beq \label{eqn:GFr}

199: \frac{G_F}{\s} = \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{8 M_Z^2} ~~~\to~~~

200: \frac{G_F}{\s} \rho = \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{8 M_Z^2}~~~,~~

201: \rho \simeq 1 + \frac{3 G_F m_t^2}{8 \pi^2 \s}~~~.

202: \eeq

203: The $Z$ mass is now related to the weak mixing angle by

204: \beq

205: M_Z^2 = \frac{\pi \alpha}{\s G_F \rho \sst \cst}~~~,

206: \eeq

207: where we have omitted some small terms logarithmic in $m_t$.  A precise

208: measurement of $M_Z$ now specifies $\theta$ only if $m_t$ is known, so

209: $\theta = \theta(m_t)$ and hence $M_W^2 = \pi \alpha/(\s G_F \sst)$ is also

210: a function of $m_t$.

211: 

212: To display dependence of electroweak observables on such quantities as

213: the top quark and Higgs boson masses $m_t$ and $M_H$, we expand the

214: observables about nominal values \cite{WM00} calculated for specific $m_t$

215: and $M_H$.  We thereby isolate the dependence on $m_t,~M_H$, and new physics

216: arising from oblique corrections associated with loops in the $W$ and $Z$

217: propagators.

218: For $m_t = 174.3$ GeV, $M_H = 100$ GeV, the measured value of $M_Z$ leads to a

219: nominal expected value of $\sin^2 \theta_{\rm eff} = 0.23140$.  In what follows

220: we shall interpret the effective value of $\sin^2 \theta$ as that measured via

221: leptonic vector and axial-vector couplings: $\sef \equiv

222: (1/4)(1 - [g_V^{\ell}/g_A^{\ell}])$.

223: 

224: Defining the parameter $T$ by $\Delta \rho \equiv \alpha T$, we find

225: \beq \label{eqn:Teq}

226: T \simeq \frac{3}{16 \pi \sin^2 \theta} \left[ \frac{m_t^2 - (174.3

227: ~{\rm GeV})^2}{M_W^2} \right] - \frac{3}{8 \pi \cos^2 \theta}

228: \ln \frac{M_H}{100~{\rm GeV}} ~~~.

229: \eeq

230: The weak mixing angle $\theta$, the $W$ mass, and other electroweak observables

231: now depend on $m_t$ and $M_H$.

232: 

233: The weak charge-changing and neutral-current interactions are probed under a

234: number of different conditions, corresponding to different values of momentum

235: transfer.  In order to account for such effects we may replace the

236: lowest-order relations between $G_F$, couplings, and masses by

237: \beq

238: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{g^2}{8 M_W^2} \left( 1 + \frac{\alpha S_W}{4

239: \sin^2 \theta} \right)~~~,~~~

240: \frac{G_F \rho}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{8M_Z^2} \left( 1 + \frac{\alpha

241: S_Z}{4 \sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \theta} \right)~~~,

242: \eeq

243: where $S_W$ and $S_Z$ are coefficients representing variation with momentum

244: transfer. Together with $T$, they express a wide variety of electroweak

245: observables in terms of quantities sensitive to new physics.  (The presence of

246: such corrections was noted in \cite{MV77}.)  The variable $U$

247: defined in \cite{PT} is equal to $S_W - S_Z$, while $S \equiv S_Z$.

248: 

249: Expressing the new physics effects in terms of deviations from nominal

250: values of top quark and Higgs boson masses, we have the expression

251: (\ref{eqn:Teq}) for $T$, while contributions of Higgs bosons and of possible

252: doublets of new degenerate fermions $U$ and $D$ to $S_W$

253: and $S_Z$, in a leading-logarithm approximation, are \cite{KL90}

254: \beq \label{eqn:sz}

255: S_W = S_Z = \frac{1}{6 \pi} \left [ \ln \frac{M_H}{100~\g/c^2} + \sum N_c

256:  \right ] ~~~,

257: \eeq

258: where $N_c$ is the number of colors of the new fermions, and the sum is taken

259: over all such doublets.  (See \cite{KL90} for the case $m_U \ne m_D$.)

260: 

261: A degenerate heavy fermion doublet

262: with $N_c$ colors thus contributes $\Delta S_Z = \Delta S_W = N_c/6 \pi$.

263: For example, in a minimal dynamical symmetry-breaking (``technicolor'')

264: scheme, with a single doublet of $N_c = 4$ fermions, one will have $\Delta S =

265: 2/3 \pi \simeq 0.2$.  This will turn out to be marginally acceptable under

266: the condition that a small impurity of Higgs-triplet symmetry breaking

267: is admitted, while many non-minimal schemes, with larger numbers of doublets,

268: will be ruled out.

269: 

270: The prediction $M_Z = M_W/\cos \theta$ is specific to the assumption that only

271: Higgs doublets of \SUL~ exist.  [SU(2)$_L$ singlets which are neutral also

272: have $Y=0$, and do not affect $W$ and $Z$ masses.]  For a complex $Y=2$ triplet

273: of the form

274: \beq

275: \Phi \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{c} \Phi^{++} \\ \Phi^+ \\ \Phi^0

276: \end{array} \right]~~,~~~  I_{3L} = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} +1 \\ 0 \\ -1

277: \end{array} \right.~~~,

278: \eeq

279: the contribution of $\vev{\Phi^0} = V_{1,-1}/\s$ to gauge boson masses

280: (see, e.g., \cite{StA}) is

281: \beq

282: M_W^2 = \frac{g^2}{4}(v^2 + 2 V^2_{1,-1})~~,~~~

283: M_Z^2 = \left( \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{4} \right) (v^2 + 4 V^2_{1,-1})~~~,

284: \eeq

285: so the ratio $\rho = (M_W/M_Z \cos \theta)^2$ is no longer 1, but becomes

286: \beq

287: \rho = \frac{v^2 + 2 V^2_{1,-1}}{v^2 + 4 V^2_{1,-1}}~~~.

288: \eeq

289: This type of Higgs boson thus leads to $\rho < 1$.

290: 

291: In the $Y=0$ triplet

292: \beq

293: \Phi \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{c} \Phi^+ \\ \Phi^0 \\

294: \Phi^- \end{array} \right]~~~,~~

295:  I_{3L} = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} +1 \\ 0 \\ -1

296: \end{array} \right.~~~,

297: \eeq

298: if $\vev{\Phi^0} = V_{1,0}/\s$, we find by a similar calculation that

299: \beq

300: M_W^2 = \frac{g^2}{4}(v^2 + 4 V^2_{1,0})~~,~~~

301: M_Z^2 = \left( \frac{g^2 + {g'}^2}{4} \right) v^2~~~.

302: \eeq

303: Here we predict

304: \beq

305: \rho = 1 + \frac{4 V_{1,0}^2}{v^2}~~~,

306: \eeq

307: so this type of Higgs boson leads to $\rho > 1$.

308: 

309: We now present a simplified analysis of present electroweak data in the $S$,

310: $T$ framework which captures the essential elements.  (See, e.g., \cite{MS01}

311: for a more complete version.) We shall assume $S_W = S_Z = S$.

312: The present analysis is an update of \cite{APV99}, which may be consulted for

313: further references.  (See also \cite{PW01}.)  We include

314: atomic parity violation in cesium and thallium (as in \cite{APV99}),

315: the observed values of $M_W$ as measured at the Fermilab Tevatron and LEP-II,

316: the leptonic width of the $Z$, the value of $\sin^2 \theta_{\rm eff}$ as

317: measured in various asymmetry experiments at the $Z$ pole in $e^+ e^-$

318: collisions, and the recent measurement by the NuTeV Collaboration \cite{NuTeV}

319: of a combination of neutrino and antineutrino neutral-current

320: to charged-current cross section ratios $R_\nu$ and $R_{\bar \nu}$.

321: 

322: The inputs, their nominal

323: values for $m_t = 174.3$ GeV and $M_H = 100$ GeV, and their dependences on $S$

324: and $T$ are shown in Table \ref{tab:ST}.  The value of $Q_W({\rm Cs})$

325: in this table has been distilled from those in Table \ref{tab:QWCs}. On the

326: basis of the comment in Ref.\ \cite{Sush} that other determinations have

327: ignored a strong-field correction, we have taken as a central value that

328: implied by Ref.\ \cite{Sush}.  The NuTeV data may be expressed as an effective

329: measurement of the $W$ mass, with small corrections quoted in Ref.\

330: \cite{NuTeV}.  We use these corrections to arrive at the $S$ and $T$

331: dependences of ``$M_W$''.  These supersede those quoted in Ref.~\cite{APV99},

332: which were incorrectly inferred from an earlier NuTeV report \cite{NuTeV99}.

333: 

334: % This is Table 1

335: \begin{table}[t]

336: \begin{center}

337: \caption{Electroweak observables described in fit. \label{tab:ST}}

338: \medskip

339: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline

340: Quantity      &   Experimental   &   Theoretical \\

341:               &      value       &    value      \\ \hline

342: $Q_W({\rm Cs})$ & $-72.2 \pm 0.8^{~a)}$ & $-73.19^{~b)} - 0.800 S - 0.007 T$ \\

343: $Q_W({\rm Tl})$ & $-115.0 \pm 4.5^{~c)}$ & $-116.8^{~d)} - 1.17S - 0.06T$ \\

344: $M_W~(\g/c^2)$ & $80.451 \pm 0.033^{~e)}$  & $80.385^{~f)} -0.29S + 0.45T$ \\

345: $\Gamma_{\ell\ell}(Z)$ (MeV) & $83.991 \pm 0.087^{~g)}$ & $84.011^{~f)} -0.18S

346: + 0.78T$ \\

347: $\sef$ & $0.23152 \pm 0.00017^{~g)}$ & $0.23140^{~f)}

348:  + 0.00362 - 0.00258T$ \\

349: ``$M_W$'' (GeV/$c^2$) & $80.136 \pm 0.084^{~h)}$ & 

350:  $80.385^{~f)} -0.27S + 0.56T$ \\ \hline

351: \end{tabular}

352: \leftline{$^{a)}$ Weak charge in cesium \cite{Cs97,Cs99} incorporating

353: recalculated atomic physics}

354: \leftline{\qquad corrections \cite{Der,Koz,Dzu,Sush}.}

355: \leftline{$^{b)}$ Calculation \cite{MR} incorporating electroweak corrections,

356: updated in \cite{TLG}.}

357: \leftline{$^{c)}$ Weak charge in thallium \cite{TlS,TlO} incorporating

358: atomic physics corrections \cite{Tlth}.}

359: \leftline{$^{d)}$ Calculation incorporating electroweak corrections \cite{PSBL}

360: .}

361: \leftline{$^{e)}$ Ref.\ \cite{DC01} $^{f)}$ Ref.\ \cite{WM00}. $^{g)}$ Ref.\

362: \cite{LEW01}.}

363: \leftline{$^{h)}$ Based on NuTeV measurement of ratios $R_\nu$ and $R_{\bar

364:  \nu}$ (see text) \cite{NuTeV}.}

365: \end{center}

366: \end{table}

367: 

368: We do not constrain the top quark mass; we shall display its effect on

369: $S$ and $T$ explicitly.  Each observable specifies a pair of parallel lines

370: in the $S-T$ plane.  The leptonic width mainly constrains $T$; $\sef$

371: provides a good constraint on $S$ with some $T$-dependence; and direct

372: measurements of $M_W$ or values of ``$M_W$'' implied by the NuTeV data lie

373: in between.  The atomic parity violation experiments constrain $S$ almost

374: exclusively, but we shall see that they have little impact at their present

375: level of sensitivity.  Since the slopes are very different, the resulting

376: allowed region is an ellipse, shown in Figure \ref{fig:STapv} (with

377: the atomic parity violation data).  The corresponding figure with those data

378: omitted is almost identical, but shifted in central values

379: by $+0.01$ unit in each of $S$ and $T$.  The fits with and without the atomic

380: parity violation data are compared in Table \ref{tab:fits}.

381: 

382: % This is Table 2

383: \begin{table}

384: \begin{center}

385: \caption{Values of $Q_W({\rm Cs})$ used to obtain the average in Table

386: \ref{tab:ST}. \label{tab:QWCs}}

387: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline

388: Author(s) & Reference & $Q_W({\rm Cs})$ \\ \hline

389: Derevianko & \cite{Der} & $-72.61 \pm 0.28_{\rm expt} \pm 0.73_{\rm theor}$ \\

390: Kozlov \ite & \cite{Koz} & $-72.5 \pm 0.7$ \\

391: Dzuba \ite & \cite{Dzu} & $-72.42 \pm 0.28_{\rm expt} \pm 0.74_{\rm theor}$ \\

392: Milstein and Sushkov & \cite{Sush} & $\simeq -72.2$ \\ \hline

393: \end{tabular}

394: \end{center}

395: \end{table}

396: 

397: % This is Table 3

398: \begin{table}

399: \caption{Comparison of fits with and without atomic parity violation data.

400: \label{tab:fits}}

401: \begin{center}

402: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline

403:             & $S_0$ & $T_0$ \\ \hline

404: APV data    & $0.01 \pm 0.15$ & $0.00 \pm 0.15$ \\

405: No APV data & $0.02 \pm 0.15$ & $0.01 \pm 0.15$ \\ \hline

406: \end{tabular}

407: \end{center}

408: \end{table}

409: 

410: Figure \ref{fig:STapv} also shows predictions \cite{PW01}

411: of the standard electroweak theory.  Nearly vertical lines correspond, from

412: left to right, to Higgs boson masses $M_H = 100,$ 200, 300, 500, 1000 GeV;

413: drooping curves correspond, from top to bottom, to $+1 \sigma$, central, and

414: $-1 \sigma$ values of $m_t = 174 \pm 5.1$ GeV.

415: 

416: % This is Figure 1

417: \begin{figure}

418: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4in \epsffile {ST1123lines.ps}}

419: \caption{Regions of 68\% (inner ellipse) and 90\% (outer ellipse) confidence

420: level values of $S$ and $T$ based on the comparison of the theoretical and

421: experimental electroweak observables shown in Table \ref{tab:ST}, including

422: atomic parity violation data (first two lines).  Diagonal bands bounded by

423: dashed lines correspond to $\pm 1 \sigma$ constraints associated with

424: direct $M_W$ measurements (upper left) and with NuTeV measurements \cite{NuTeV}

425: of $R_\nu$ and $R_{\bar \nu}$ (lower right).  Standard model predictions

426: (solid nearly vertical lines and drooping curves) are explained in text.

427: \label{fig:STapv}}

428: \end{figure}

429: 

430: In the standard model, the combined constraints of electroweak observables

431: such as those in Table \ref{tab:ST} and the top quark mass favor a very light

432: Higgs boson, with most analyses favoring a value of $M_H$ so low that the

433: Higgs boson should already have been discovered.  The standard model prediction

434: for $S$ and $T$ curves down quite sharply in $T$ as $M_H$ is increased,

435: quickly departing from the region allowed by the fit to electroweak

436: data.  (Useful analytic expressions for the contribution of a Higgs boson

437: to $S$ and $T$ are given by \cite{FRW}.)  However, if a small amount of

438: triplet symmetry breaking is permitted, the agreement with the electroweak

439: fit can be restored.  As an example, a value of $V_{1,0}/v$ slightly

440: smaller than 3\% permits

441: satisfactory agreement even for $M_H = 1$ TeV, as shown by the vertical

442: line in the Figure.

443: 

444: If electroweak-symmetry-breaking vacuum expectation values are not due to a

445: fundamental Higgs boson but rather to higher-dimension operators, one might

446: well expect both Higgs doublet and Higgs triplet contributions, with their

447: ratio indicating a geometric hierarchy of symmetry-breaking mass scales.  (See

448: \cite{LeRR,LeR} for some early examples of this behavior.)  One might then

449: expect Higgs singlets of various types to have characteristic vacuum

450: expectation values of $V_0 \simeq v^2/V_{1,0} \simeq 246~{\rm GeV}/0.03

451: \simeq 8$ TeV.  It is questionable whether the CERN Large Hadron Collider

452: (LHC), with a total $pp$ center-of-mass energy of 14 TeV, could shed light

453: on this mass scale.

454: 

455: What atomic-parity violation measurement would have a noticeable effect on the

456: fit shown in Figure 1?  The present error of $\pm 0.8$ on $Q_W({\rm Cs})$ is

457: equivalent to $\Delta S = \pm 1$.  To match the error of $\pm 0.15$ on $S$ from

458: the fits, one would have to determine $Q_W({\rm Cs})$ a factor of between 6 and

459: 7 more precisely than at present.  The most significant ($>3 \sigma$)

460: discrepancies in present electroweak fits are (a) the difference between

461: values of $\sef$ measured using asymmetries of quarks and those using

462: leptons \cite{LEW01}, and (b) the the difference between directly measured

463: $M_W$ values and those inferred from the neutral-current data of NuTeV

464: \cite{NuTeV}.  Reduction of theoretical uncertainties associated with atomic

465: physics calculations will be needed before one can claim similar discrepancies

466: in atomic parity violation.

467: 

468: The need for determining $S$ independently of $T$

469: is highlighted by the Higgs-triplet example we have quoted.  If a small

470: Higgs-triplet contribution is present, one should be prepared to

471: determine $S$ to an accuracy of better than $\pm 0.1$ if one wishes to

472: pinpoint the Higgs boson mass via this indirect method.  Of course, there is

473: no substitute for direct searches, which the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN

474: Large Hadron Collider will provide in due course.  It is also seen from

475: Figure 1 that a minimal ``technicolor'' contribution of $\Delta S

476: = 0.2$ cannot be excluded at the 90\% confidence-level limit if one is

477: prepared to admit a Higgs-triplet contribution and a very heavy Higgs boson.

478: 

479: We thank Z. Luo for discussions regarding the $S$ and $T$ dependence of the

480: NuTeV measurement, K. S. McFarland, O. P. Sushkov, and G. P. Zeller for helpful

481: comments, and Michael Peskin for communicating the curves of Ref.\ \cite{PW01}

482: quoted in Fig.\ 1.  This work was supported in part by the United States

483: Department of Energy under Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560. 

484: 

485: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references

486: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.~J.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

487: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.~Phys.~(N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

488: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.~Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

489: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.~Rev.~Nucl.~Part.~Sci.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

490: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.~Part.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

491: \def \cn{Collaboration}

492: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,

493: Singapore, 1989)}

494: \def \dpfa{{\it The Albuquerque Meeting: DPF 94} (Division of Particles and

495: Fields Meeting, American Physical Society, Albuquerque, NM, Aug.~2--6, 1994),

496: ed. by S. Seidel (World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1995)}

497: \def \dpff{{\it The Fermilab Meeting: DPF 92} (Division of Particles and Fields

498: Meeting, American Physical Society, Batavia, IL., Nov.~11--14, 1992), ed. by

499: C. H. Albright \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore, 1993)}

500: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No. EFI}

501: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.~Phys.~J.~C~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

502: \def \epl#1#2#3{Europhys.~Lett.~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

503: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and

504: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by

505: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,

506: Batavia, IL, 1979}

507: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and

508: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel

509: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.~Phys.~B, Proc.~Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,

510: Amsterdam, 1988)}

511: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}

512: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

513: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High

514: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,

515: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,

516: IL, 1972)}

517: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

518: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}

519: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.~Phys.~B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

520: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of

521: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --

522: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,

523: 1987)}

524: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and

525: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.

526: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}

527: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.~Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

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

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

530: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP Lett.

531: {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}

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

533: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

534: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

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

536: \def \pra#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

537: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

538: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

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

540: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.~Rep.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

541: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

542: \def \ptps#1#2#3{Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~Suppl.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

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

544: \def \sci#1#2#3{Science {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

545: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,

546: Aug. 2-8, 1990}

547: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of

548: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),

549: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}

550: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on

551: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.

552: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}

553: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary

554: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.

555: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}

556: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the

557: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),

558: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}

559: \def \tasi90{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990

560: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,

561: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker

562: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}

563: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.~Fiz.~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf #1},

564: #4 (#3)]}

565: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.~Eksp.~Teor.~Fiz.~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. Phys. -

566: JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}

567: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.~Phys.~C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

568: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.~Phys.~D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}

569: 

570: \newpage

571: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

572: 

573: \bibitem{GWS} S. L. Glashow, \np{22}{579}{1961}; S. Weinberg,

574: \prl{19}{1264}{1967}; A. Salam, in {\it Proceedings of the Eighth Nobel

575: Symposium}, edited by N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm; Wiley, New

576: York, 1978), p.\ 367. 

577: 

578: \bibitem{WM00} W. J. Marciano, Brookhaven National Laboratory Report No.\

579: BNL-HET-00/04, hep-ph/0003181, to be published in Proceedings of MuMu99 --

580: 5th International Conference on Physics Potential and Development of

581: $\mu^\pm \mu^-$ Colliders, San Francisco, CA, Dec.\ 1999.

582: 

583: \bibitem{PW01} M. E. Peskin and J. D. Wells, Stanford Linear Accelerator

584: Center Report No.\ SLAC-PUB-8763, hep-ph/0101342, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.

585: 

586: \bibitem{FRW} J. R. Forshaw, D. A. Ross, and B. E. White,

587: University of Manchester report MC-TH-01/07, hep-ph/0107232 (unpublished).

588: 

589: \bibitem{HHT} H.-J. He, C. T. Hill, and T. M. P. Tait, Univ.\ of Texas Report

590: No.\ UTEXAS-HEP-01-013, hep-ph/0108041 (unpublished);

591: H. J. He, N. Polonsky, and S. Su, \prd{64}{053004}{2001}.

592: 

593: \bibitem{DoH} B. Dobrescu and C. T. Hill, \prl{81}{2634}{1998}.

594: 

595: \bibitem{CGG} H. Collins, A. K. Grant, and H. Georgi, \prd{61}{055002}{2000}.

596: 

597: \bibitem{MEP01} M. E. Peskin, ``Interpretation of Precision

598: Electroweak Data, or Should We Really Believe There is a Light Higgs

599: Boson?'', seminar at Snowmass 2001 Workshop, July, 2001 (unpublished).

600: 

601: \bibitem{PT} M. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, \prl{65}{964}{1990}; \prd{46}{381}

602: {1992}. 

603: 

604: \bibitem{Cs97} C. S. Wood \ite, \sci{275}{1759}{1997}.

605: 

606: \bibitem{Cs99} S. C. Bennett and C. E. Wieman, \prl{82}{2484}{1999}.

607: 

608: \bibitem{Bi} M. J. D. Macpherson, K. P. Zetie, R. B. Warrington, D. N. Stacey,

609: and J. P. Hoare, \prl{67}{2784}{1991}.

610: 

611: \bibitem{Pb} D. M. Meekhof, P. Vetter, P. K. Majumder, S. K. Lamoureaux, and

612: E. N. Fortson, \prl{71}{3442}{1993}.

613: 

614: \bibitem{TlS} P. A. Vetter, D. M. Meekhof, P. K. Majumder, S. K. Lamoreaux,

615: and E. N. Fortson, \prl{74}{2658}{1995}.

616: 

617: \bibitem{TlO} N. H. Edwards, S. J. Phipp, P. E. G. Baird, and S. Nakayama,

618: \prl{74}{2654}{1995}.

619: 

620: \bibitem{MR} W. Marciano and J. L. Rosner, \prl{65}{2963}{1990}; \ibj{68}

621: {898(E)}{1992}.

622: 

623: \bibitem{PGS} P. G. H. Sandars, \jpb{23}{L655}{1990}.

624: 

625: \bibitem{JR90} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3107}{1990}.

626:  

627: \bibitem{APV95} J. L. Rosner, \prd{53}{2724}{1996}.

628: 

629: \bibitem{APV97} J. L. Rosner, \cmts{22}{205}{1998}.

630: 

631: \bibitem{APV99} J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{016006}{1999}.

632: 

633: \bibitem{Csth} V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and O. P. Sushkov, \pla{141}{147}

634: {1989}; S. A. Blundell, W. R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein, \prl{65}{1411}{1990};

635: \prd{45}{1602}{1992}.

636: 

637: \bibitem{Tlth} V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, P. G. Silvestrov, and O. P.

638: Sushkov, \jpb{20}{3297}{1987}.

639: 

640: \bibitem{TLG} T. Takeuchi, W. Loinaz, and A. Grant, Virginia Tech report

641: VPI-IPPAP-99-03, hep-ph/9904207, presented by T. Takeuchi at {\it Hadron

642: Collider Physics 13}, Mumbai, India, January 14--20, 1999 (unpublished).

643: 

644: \bibitem{Cas} R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici, and R. Gatto,

645: \plb{460}{135}{1999}.

646: 

647: \bibitem{EL} J. Erler and P. Langacker, \plb{456}{68}{1999}.

648: 

649: \bibitem{LRR} P. G. Langacker, R. Robinett, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{30}{1470}

650: {1984}.

651: 

652: \bibitem{LR} D. London and J. L. Rosner, \prd{34}{1530}{1986}.

653: 

654: \bibitem{CDFZp} CDF \cn, F. Abe \ite, \prl{79}{2192}{1997}.

655: 

656: \bibitem{Der} A. Derevianko, \prl{85}{1618}{2000}; University of Nevada at

657: Reno Report, physics/0108033 (unpublished).

658: 

659: \bibitem{Koz} M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, \prl{86}{3260}

660: {2001}.

661: 

662: \bibitem{Dzu} V. A. Dzuba, C. Harabati, W. R. Johnson, and M. S. Safronova,

663: \pra{63}{044103}{2001}.

664: 

665: \bibitem{Sush} A. I. Milstein and O. P. Sushkov, preprint hep-ph/0109257

666: (unpublished).

667: \bibitem{Br} G. Breit, \pr{34}{553}{1929}; \ibj{36}{383}{1930};

668: \ibj{39}{616}{1932}.

669: 

670: \bibitem{DH} M. Davier M and A. H\"ocker, \plb{419}{419}{1998}; \ibj{435}{427}

671: {1998}.

672: 

673: \bibitem{MV77} M. Veltman, \np{B123}{89}{1977}; \app{B8}{475}{1977}.

674: 

675: \bibitem{PS80} P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M. B. Voloshin, and V. Zakharov,

676: \np{B173}{189}{1980}.

677: 

678: \bibitem{KL90} D. C. Kennedy and P. G. Langacker, \prl{65}{2967}{1990};

679: \ibj{66}{395(E)}{1991}.

680: 

681: \bibitem{StA} J. L. Rosner, \efi 01-34, hep-ph/0108195, lectures at the 55th

682: Scottish Universities' Summer School in Particle Physics, St.\ Andrews,

683: Scotland, August 7-23, 2001.  Proceedings to be published by the Institute

684: of Physics (U.K.).

685: 

686: \bibitem{MS01} M. Swartz, lecture at Snowmass 2001 Workshop,

687: transparencies available at http://pha.jhu.edu/~morris/higgs.pdf.

688: 

689: \bibitem{NuTeV} NuTeV \cn, G. P. Zeller \ite, preprint hep-ex/0110059,

690: submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ Letters.

691: 

692: \bibitem{NuTeV99} NuTeV \cn, G. P. Zeller \ite, preprint hep-ex/9906024,

693: published in Proceedings of American Physical Society (APS) Meeting of the

694: Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 99), Los Angeles, CA, 5--9 Jan 1999.

695:  

696: \bibitem{PSBL} P. G. H. Sandars and B. W. Lynn, \jpb{27}{1469}{1994}.

697: 

698: \bibitem{DC01} D. Charlton, plenary talk at International Europhysics

699: Conference on High Energy Physics, Budapest, Hungary, July 12--18, 2001.

700: 

701: \bibitem{LEW01} LEP Electroweak Working Group; see web page

702: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG for periodic updates.

703: 

704: \bibitem{LeRR} C. N. Leung, R. W. Robinett, and J. L. Rosner,

705: in {\em Proceedings of the Neutrino Mass Mini-Conference}, Telemark,

706: WI., Sept. 23-25, 1982, edited by Vernon Barger and David Cline, American

707: Institute of Physics, New York, 1983, p. 202.

708: 

709: \bibitem{LeR} C. N. Leung and J. L. Rosner, \prd{29}{2132}{1984}.

710: 

711: \end{thebibliography}

712: \end{document}

713: #!/bin/csh -f

714: # this uuencoded Z-compressed  file created by csh script  uufiles

715: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

716: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:

717: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., ST1123lines.uu

718: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

719: # then say        csh ST1123lines.uu

720: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

721: #    uudecode ST1123lines.uu ;   uncompress ST1123lines.ps.Z ;

722: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the

723: # filename in "begin" line below to ST1123lines.ps_Z , then execute

724: #    uudecode ST1123lines.uu

725: #    compress -d ST1123lines.ps_Z

726: #

727: uudecode $0

728: chmod 644 ST1123lines.ps.Z

729: uncompress ST1123lines.ps.Z

730: rm $0

731: exit

732: 

733: