1: \documentclass{cernrep}

2: \usepackage{graphicx,here,rotate,epsf,epsfig}

3: \usepackage{axodraw}

4:  

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{LIMITS OF THE STANDARD MODEL}

8:  

9: \author{John Ellis}

10:  

11: \institute{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}

12: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13: % If your printer does not reproduce dimensions exactly, it may be

14: % necessary to remove the % signs and adjust the dimensions in the

15: % following commands:

16: %

17: %     \setlength{\textheight}{24cm}

18: %     \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}

19: %

20: % Similarly for the following, if you need to adjust the positioning

21: % on the paper:

22: %

23: %         \setlength{\topmargin}{-1cm}

24: %         \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}

25: %         \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0pt}

26: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

27:  

28: \newcommand{\mycomm}[1]{\hfill\break{ \tt===$>$ \bf #1}\hfill\break}

29: 

30: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

31: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

32: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}

33: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}

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

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

36: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

37: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

38: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

39: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

40: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}

41: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}

42: \def\mpar{m_{\ss\|}^2}

43: \def\mpl{M_{\rm Pl}}

44: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}

45: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\chi} h^2}

46: \def\msn{m_{\tilde\nu}}

47: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}

48: \def\mstpl{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 1}}^2}

49: \def\mstpr{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 2}}^2}

50: 

51: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

52: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

53: \def\gyr{{\rm \, G\kern-0.125em yr}}

54: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}

55: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}

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

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

58: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

59: \def\scs{\scriptstyle}

60: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

61: \def\mst{m_{\tilde\tau_R}}

62: \def\mstop{m_{\tilde t_1}}

63: \def\msl{m_{\tilde{\ell}_1}}

64: \def\stau{\tilde \tau}

65: \def\stop{\tilde t}

66: \def\sbot{\tilde b}

67: \def\mchi{m_{\tilde \chi}}

68: \def\mxi{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}}

69: \def\mxj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0}}

70: \def\mchari{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^+}}

71: \def\mcharj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^+}}

72: \def\mgluino{m_{\tilde g}}

73: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

74: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}

75: \def\mtb{\overline{m}_{\ss t}}

76: \def\mbb{\overline{m}_{\ss b}}

77: \def\mfb{\overline{m}_{\ss f}}

78: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}

79: \def\gt{\gamma_t}

80: \def\gb{\gamma_b}

81: \def\gf{\gamma_f}

82: \def\thm{\theta_\mu}

83: \def\tha{\theta_A}

84: \def\thb{\theta_B}

85: \def\mgl{m_{\ss \tilde g}}

86: \def\cp{C\!P}

87: %\def\ohsq{\Omega_{\widetilde\chi}\, h^2}

88: \def\ch{{\widetilde \chi}} 

89: \def\st{{\widetilde \tau}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm 1}}

90: \def\sm{{\widetilde \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

91: \def\sel{{\widetilde e}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

92: \def\sl{{\widetilde \ell}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

93: \def\msn{m_{\ch}}

94: \def\tsq{|{\cal T}|^2}

95: \def\tcm{\theta_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle CM}}

96: \def\half{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}

97: \def\neq{n_{\rm eq}}

98: \def\qeq{q_{\rm eq}}

99: \def\slash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 1 mu /$}}#1}%

100: \def\mw{m_W}

101: \def\mz{m_Z}

102: \def\mhb{m_{H}}

103: \def\mhl{m_{h}}

104: \newcommand\f[1]{f_#1}

105: \def\nl{\hfill\nonumber\\&&} 

106: 

107: 

108: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}

109: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

110: 

111: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}

112: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

113: 

114: \def\Toprel#1\over#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}}}

115: \def\FF{\Toprel{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle(-)$}}\over{$\nu$}}

116: 

117: \newcommand{\Zee}{$Z^0$}

118: 

119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  my definitions  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

120: 

121: \def\Yi{\eta^{\ast}_{11} \left( \frac{y_{i}}{2} g' Z_{\chi 1} + 

122:         g T_{3i} Z_{\chi 2} \right) + \eta^{\ast}_{12} 

123:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}} Z_{\chi 5-i}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}}}

124: 

125: \def\Xii{\eta^{\ast}_{11} 

126:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}}Z_{\chi 5-i}^{\ast}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}} - 

127:         \eta_{12}^{\ast} e_{i} g' Z_{\chi 1}^{\ast}}

128: 

129: \def\Wi{\eta_{21}^{\ast}

130:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}}Z_{\chi 5-i}^{\ast}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}} -

131:         \eta_{22}^{\ast} e_{i} g' Z_{\chi 1}^{\ast}}

132: 

133: \def\Vi{\eta_{22}^{\ast} \frac{g m_{q_{i}} Z_{\chi 5-i}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}}

134:         + \eta_{21}^{\ast}\left( \frac{y_{i}}{2} g' Z_{\chi 1}

135:         + g T_{3i} Z_{\chi 2} \right)}

136: 

137: \def\zthree{\delta_{1i} [g Z_{\chi 2} - g' Z_{\chi 1}]}

138: 

139: \def\zfour{\delta_{2i} [g Z_{\chi 2} - g' Z_{\chi 1}]}

140: 

141: 

142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

143:  

144: \maketitle % this produces the title block

145: 

146: \begin{flushright}

147: CERN-TH/2002-320 \\

148: hep-ph/0211168

149: \end{flushright}

150:  

151: \begin{abstract}

152: 

153: Supersymmetry is one of the most plausible extensions of the Standard

154: Model, since it is well motivated by the hierarchy problem, supported by

155: measurements of the gauge coupling strengths, consistent with the

156: suggestion from precision electroweak data that the Higgs boson may be

157: relatively light, and provides a ready-made candidate for astrophysical

158: cold dark matter. In the first lecture, constraints on supersymmetric

159: models are reviewed, the problems of fine-tuning the electroweak scale and

160: the dark matter density are discussed, and a number of benchmark scenarios

161: are proposed. Then the prospects for discovering and measuring

162: supersymmetry at the LHC, linear colliders and in non-accelerator

163: experiments are presented. In the second lecture, the evidence for   

164: neutrino oscillations is recalled, and the parameter space of the seesaw

165: model is explained. It is shown how these parameters may be explored in a

166: supersymmetric model via the flavour-changing decays and electric dipole

167: moments of charged leptons. It is shown that leptogenesis does not relate

168: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe directly to CP violation in neutrino

169: oscillations. Finally, possible CERN projects beyond the LHC are

170: mentioned.

171: 

172: \end{abstract}

173: 

174: \begin{center}

175: {\it Lectures given at the PSI Summer School, Zuoz, August 2002}

176: \end{center}

177: 

178: \section{Supersymmetry}

179: 

180: \subsection{Parameters and Problems of the Standard Model}

181: 

182: The Standard Model agrees with all confirmed experimental data from

183: accelerators, but is theoretically very unsatisfactory~\cite{StAnd}. It

184: does not explain the particle quantum numbers, such as the electric charge

185: $Q$, weak isospin $I$, hypercharge $Y$ and colour, and contains at least

186: 19 arbitrary parameters. These include three independent gauge couplings

187: and a possible CP-violating strong-interaction parameter, six quark and

188: three charged-lepton masses, three generalized Cabibbo weak mixing angles

189: and the CP-violating Kobayashi-Maskawa phase, as well as two independent

190: masses for weak bosons.

191: 

192: As if 19 parameters were insufficient to appall you, at least nine more

193: parameters must be introduced to accommodate neutrino oscillations: three

194: neutrino masses, three real mixing angles, and three CP-violating phases,

195: of which one is in principle observable in neutrino-oscillation

196: experiments and the other two in neutrinoless double-beta decay

197: experiments. Even more parameters would be needed to generate masses for 

198: all the neutrinos~\cite{EHLR}, as discussed in Lecture 2.

199: 

200: The Big Issues in physics beyond the Standard Model are conveniently

201: grouped into three categories~\cite{StAnd}. These include the problem of

202: {\bf Mass}: what is the origin of particle masses, are they due to a Higgs

203: boson, and, if so, why are the masses so small, {\bf Unification}: is

204: there a simple group framework for unifying all the particle interactions,

205: a so-called Grand Unified Theory (GUT), and {\bf Flavour}: why are there

206: so many different types of quarks and leptons and why do their weak

207: interactions mix in the peculiar way observed? Solutions to all these

208: problems should eventually be incorporated in a Theory of Everything (TOE)

209: that also includes gravity, reconciles it with quantum mechanics, explains

210: the origin of space-time and why it has four dimensions, etc. String

211: theory, perhaps in its current incarnation of M theory, is the best

212: (only?) candidate we have for such a TOE~\cite{TOE}, but we do not yet

213: understand it well enough to make clear experimental predictions.

214: 

215: Supersymmetry is thought to play a r\^ole in solving many of these

216: problems beyond the Standard Model. The hierarchy of mass scales in

217: physics, and particularly the fact that $m_W \ll m_P$, appears to require

218: relatively light supersymmetric particles: $M \lappeq 1$~TeV for its

219: stabilization~\cite{hierarchy}. As discussed later, GUT predictions for

220: the unification of gauge couplings work best if the effects of relatively

221: light supersymmetric particles are included~\cite{GUTs}.  Finally,

222: supersymmetry seems to be essential for the consistency of string

223: theory~\cite{GSW}, although this argument does not really restrict the

224: mass scale at which supersymmetric particles should appear.

225: 

226: Thus there are plenty of good reasons to study

227: supersymmetry~\cite{CHschool}, so this is the subject of Lecture~1, and it

228: reappears in Lecture~2 in connection with the observability of

229: charged-lepton flavour violation.

230: 

231: \subsection{Why Supersymmetry?}

232: 

233: The main theoretical reason to expect supersymmetry at an accessible

234: energy scale is provided by the {\it hierarchy problem}~\cite{hierarchy}:  

235: why is $m_W \ll m_P$, or equivalently why is $G_F \sim 1 / m_W^2 \gg G_N =

236: 1 / m_P^2$? Another equivalent question is why the Coulomb potential in an

237: atom is so much greater than the Newton potential: $e^2 \gg G_N m^2 = m^2

238: / m_P^2$, where $m$ is a typical particle mass?

239: 

240: Your first thought might simply be to set $m_P \gg m_W$ by hand, and 

241: forget about the problem. Life is not so simple, because quantum 

242: corrections to $m_H$ and hence $m_W$ are quadratically divergent in the 

243: Standard Model:

244: \begin{equation}

245: \delta m_{H,W}^2 \; \simeq \; {\cal O}({\alpha \over \pi}) \Lambda^2,

246: \label{Qdgt}

247: \end{equation}

248: which is $\gg m_W^2$ if the cutoff $\Lambda$, which represents the scale 

249: where new physics beyond the Standard Model appears, is comparable to the 

250: GUT or Planck scale. For example, if the 

251: Standard Model were to hold unscathed all the way up the Planck mass $m_P 

252: \sim 10^{19}$~GeV, the radiative correction (\ref{Qdgt}) would be 36 

253: orders of magnitude greater than the physical values of $m_{H,W}^2$! 

254: 

255: In principle, this is not a problem from the mathematical point of view of

256: renormalization theory. All one has to do is postulate a tree-level value

257: of $m_H^2$ that is (very nearly) equal and opposite to the `correction'

258: (\ref{Qdgt}), and the correct physical value may be obtained. However,

259: this fine tuning strikes many physicists as rather unnatural: they would

260: prefer a mechanism that keeps the `correction' (\ref{Qdgt}) comparable at

261: most to the physical value~\cite{hierarchy}.

262: 

263: This is possible in a supersymmetric theory, in which there are equal numbers 

264: of bosons and fermions with identical couplings. Since bosonic and fermionic 

265: loops have opposite signs, the residual one-loop correction is of the form

266: \begin{equation}

267: \delta m_{H,W}^2 \; \simeq \; {\cal O}({\alpha \over \pi}) (m_B^2 - 

268: m_F^2),

269: \label{susy}

270: \end{equation}

271: which is $\lappeq m_{H,W}^2$ and hence naturally small if the 

272: supersymmetric partner bosons $B$ and fermions $F$ have similar masses:

273: \begin{equation}

274: |m_B^2 - m_F^2| \; \lappeq \; 1~{\rm TeV}^2.

275: \label{natural}

276: \end{equation}

277: This is the best motivation we have for finding supersymmetry at 

278: relatively low energies~\cite{hierarchy}.

279: In addition to this first supersymmetric miracle of removing (\ref{susy})

280: the quadratic divergence (\ref{Qdgt}), many logarithmic divergences are

281: also absent in a supersymmetric theory~\cite{noren}, a property that also 

282: plays a r\^ole in the construction of supersymmetric GUTs~\cite{StAnd}. 

283: 

284: Could any of the known particles in the Standard Model be paired up

285: in supermultiplets? Unfortunately, none of the known fermions $q, \ell$

286: can be paired with any of the `known' bosons $\gamma, W^\pm Z^0, g, H$,

287: because their internal quantum numbers do not match~\cite{Fayet}. For

288: example, quarks $q$ sit in triplet representations of colour, whereas the

289: known bosons are either singlets or octets of colour. Then again, leptons

290: $\ell$ have non-zero lepton number $L = 1$, whereas the known bosons have

291: $L = 0$. Thus, the only possibility seems to be to introduce new

292: supersymmetric partners (spartners) for all the known particles: quark

293: $\to$ squark, lepton $\to$ slepton, photon $\to$ photino, Z $\to$ Zino, W

294: $\to$ Wino, gluon $\to$ gluino, Higgs $\to$ Higgsino. The best that one

295: can say for supersymmetry is that it economizes on principle, not on

296: particles!

297: 

298: \subsection{Hints of Supersymmetry}

299: 

300: There are some phenomenological hints that supersymmetry may, indeed,

301: appear at the Tev scale. 

302: One is provided by the strengths of the different gauge

303: interactions, as measured at LEP~\cite{GUTs}. These may be run up to high

304: energy scales using the renormalization-group equations, to see whether

305: they unify as predicted in a GUT. The answer is no, if supersymmetry is

306: not included in the calculations. In that case, GUTs would require

307: \begin{equation} 

308: \sin^2 \theta_W \; = \; 0.214 \pm 0.004, 

309: \label{GUT}

310: \end{equation} 

311: whereas the experimental value of the effective neutral

312: weak mixing parameter at the $Z^0$ peak is $\sin^2 \theta = 0.23149 \pm

313: 0.00017$~\cite{LEPEWWG}. On the other hand, minimal supersymmetric GUTs

314: predict 

315: \begin{equation} 

316: \sin^2 \theta_W \; \simeq \; 0.232,

317: \label{susyGUT} 

318: \end{equation} 

319: where the error depends on the assumed

320: sparticle masses, the preferred value being around 1~TeV~\cite{GUTs}, as 

321: suggested completely independently by the naturalness of the electroweak mass

322: hierarchy. 

323: 

324: A second hint is the fact that precision electroweak data prefer a

325: relatively light Higgs boson weighing less than about

326: 200~GeV~\cite{LEPEWWG}. This is perfectly consistent with calculations in

327: the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), in

328: which the lightest Higgs boson weighs less than about

329: 130~GeV~\cite{susyHiggs}.

330: 

331: 

332: A third hint is provided by the astrophysical necessity of cold dark

333: matter. This could be provided by a neutral, weakly-interacting particle

334: weighing less than about 1~TeV, such as the lightest supersymmetric

335: particle (LSP) $\chi$~\cite{EHNOS}.

336: 

337: \subsection{Building Supersymmetric Models}

338: 

339: Any supersymmetric model is based on a Lagrangian that contains a

340: supersymmetric part and a supersym- metry-breaking 

341: part~\cite{FF,CHschool}:

342: \begin{equation}

343: {\cal L} \; = \; {\cal L}_{susy} \; + \; {\cal L}_{susy \times}.

344: \label{twobits}

345: \end{equation}

346: We concentrate here on the supersymmetric part ${\cal

347: L}_{susy}$. The minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model

348: (MSSM) has the same gauge interactions as the Standard Model, and Yukawa

349: interactions that are closely related. They are based on a superpotential

350: $W$ that is a cubic function of complex superfields corresponding to

351: left-handed fermion fields. Conventional left-handed lepton and quark

352: doublets are denoted $L, Q$, and right-handed fermions are introduced via

353: their conjugate fields, which are left-handed, $e_R \to E^c, u_R \to U^c,

354: d_R \to D^c$. In terms of these,

355: \begin{equation}

356: W \; = \; \Sigma_{L,E^c} \lambda_L L E^c H_1 \; + \; \Sigma_{Q, U^c} 

357: \lambda_U Q U^c H_2 \; + \; \Sigma_{Q, D^c} \lambda_D Q D^c H_1 \; 

358: + \mu H_1 H_2.

359: \label{SMW}

360: \end{equation}

361: A few words of explanation are warranted. The first three terms in

362: (\ref{SMW}) yield masses for the charged leptons, charge-$(+2/3)$ quarks

363: and charge-$(-1/3)$ quarks respectively. All of the Yukawa couplings

364: $\lambda_{L,U,D}$ are $3 \times 3$ matrices in flavour space, whose

365: diagonalizations yield the mass eigenstates and Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa

366: mixing angles for quarks.

367: 

368: Note that two distinct Higgs doublets $H_{1,2}$ have been introduced, for

369: two important reasons. One reason is that the superpotential must be an

370: analytic polynomial: it cannot contain both $H$ and $H^*$, whereas the

371: Standard Model uses both of these to give masses to all the quarks and

372: leptons with just a single Higgs doublet. The other reason for introducing

373: two Higgs doublets $H_{1,2}$ is to cancel the triangle anomalies that

374: destroy the renormalizability of a gauge theory. Ordinary Higgs boson

375: doublets do not contribute to these anomalies, but the fermions in Higgs

376: supermultiplets do, and pairs of doublets are required to cancel each

377: others' contributions. Once two Higgs supermultiplets have been

378: introduced, there must in general be a bilinear term $\mu H_1 H_2$

379: coupling them together.

380: 

381: In general, the supersymmetric partners of the $W^\pm$ and charged Higgs

382: bosons $H^\pm$ (the `charginos' $\chi^\pm$) mix, as do those of the

383: $\gamma, Z^0$ and $H^0_{1,2}$ (the `neutralinos' $\chi^0_i$):

384: see~\cite{StAnd}. The lightest neutralino $\chi$ is a likely candidate 

385: to be the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP), and hence constitute the 

386: astrophysical cold dark matter~\cite{EHNOS}.

387: 

388: Once the MSSM superpotential (\ref{SMW}) has been specified, the effective

389: potential is also fixed:

390: \begin{equation}

391: V \; = \; \Sigma_i |F^i|^2 \; + \; 

392: {1 \over 2} \Sigma_a (D^a)^2: \; \; 

393: F^*_i \equiv {\partial W \over \partial \phi^i}, \; 

394: D^a \equiv g_a \phi^*_i (T^a)^i_j \phi^j,

395: \label{SMV}

396: \end{equation}

397: where the sums

398: run over the different chiral fields $i$ and the $SU(3), SU(2)$ and $U(1)$

399: gauge-group factors $a$. Thus, the quartic terms in the effective Higgs 

400: potential are completely fixed, which leads to the prediction that the 

401: lightest Higgs boson should weigh $\lappeq 130$~GeV~\cite{susyHiggs}.

402: 

403: In addition to the supersymmetric part ${\cal L}_{susy}$ of the lagrangian

404: (\ref{twobits}) above, there is also the superym- metry-breaking piece

405: ${\cal L}_{susy \times}$. The origin of this piece is unclear, and in

406: these lectures we shall just assume a suitable phenomenological

407: parameterization. In order not to undo the supersymmetric miracles

408: mentioned above, the breaking of supersymmetry should be `soft', in the

409: sense that it does not reintroduce any unwanted quadratic or logarithmic

410: divergences. The candidates for such soft superymmetry breaking are

411: gaugino masses $M_{a}$ for each of the gauge group factors $a$ in

412: the Standard Model, scalar masses-squared $m_{0}^2$ that should be 

413: regarded as matrices in the flavour index $i$ of the

414: matter supermultiplets, and trilinear scalar couplings $A_{ijk}$

415: corresponding to each of the Yukawa couplings $\lambda_{ijk}$ in the 

416: Standard Model.

417: 

418: There are very many such soft superymmetry-breaking terms. Upper limits on 

419: flavour-changing neutral interactions suggest~\cite{FCNI} that the scalar 

420: masses-squared $m_{0}^2$ are (approximately) independent of generation 

421: for particles with the same quantum numbers, e.g., sleptons, and that the 

422: $A_{ijk}$ are related to the $\lambda_{ijk}$ by a universal constant of 

423: proportionality $A$. In these lectures, for definiteness, we assume 

424: universality at the input GUT scale for all the gaugino masses:

425: \begin{equation}

426: M_{a} \; = \; m_{1/2},

427: \end{equation}

428: and likewise for the scalar masses-squared and trilinear parameters:

429: \begin{equation}

430: m_{0}^2 \; = m_{0}^2 \delta^i_j, \; A_{ijk} \; = \; A \lambda_{ijk}.

431: \end{equation}

432: This is known as the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). The values of the soft

433: supersymmetry-breaking parameters at observable energies $\sim 1$~TeV are

434: renormalized by calculable factors~\cite{softren}, in a similar manner to

435: the gauge couplings and fermion masses. These renormalization factors are

436: included in the subsequent discussions, and play a key r\^ole in 

437: Lecture~2.

438: The physical value of $\mu$ is fixed up to a sign in the CMSSM, as is the

439: pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$, by the electroweak vacuum conditions.

440: 

441: 

442: \subsection{Constraints on the MSSM}

443: 

444: Important experimental constraints on the MSSM parameter space are

445: provided by direct searches at LEP and the Tevatron collider, as compiled

446: in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for different values of $\tan \beta$ and

447: the sign of $\mu$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}. One of these is the limit

448: $m_{\chi^\pm} \gappeq$ 103.5 GeV provided by chargino searches at

449: LEP~\cite{LEPsusy}, where the fourth significant figure depends on other

450: CMSSM parameters. LEP has also provided lower limits on slepton masses, of

451: which the strongest is $m_{\tilde e}\gappeq$ 99 GeV \cite{LEPSUSYWG_0101},

452: again depending only sightly on the other CMSSM parameters, as long as

453: $m_{\tilde e} - m_\chi \gappeq$ 10 GeV. The most important constraints on

454: the $u, d, s, c, b$ squarks and gluinos are provided by the FNAL Tevatron

455: collider: for equal masses $m_{\tilde q} = m_{\tilde g} \gappeq$ 300 GeV.

456: In the case of the $\tilde t$, LEP provides the most stringent limit when

457: $m_{\tilde t} - m_\chi$ is small, and the Tevatron for larger $m_{\tilde

458: t} - m_\chi$~\cite{LEPsusy}.

459: 

460: 

461: \begin{figure}

462: \vskip 0.5in

463: \vspace*{-0.75in}

464: %\hspace*{-.70in}

465: \begin{minipage}{8in}

466: \epsfig{file=john10N.eps,height=3.3in}

467: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

468: \epsfig{file=john10P.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

469: \end{minipage}

470: %\vspace*{-3in}

471: %\hspace*{-.70in}

472: \begin{minipage}{8in}

473: %\hskip -1.40in

474: %\vskip -.75in

475: \epsfig{file=john35N.eps,height=3.3in}

476: %\hspace*{-0.2in}

477: \epsfig{file=john50P.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

478: \end{minipage}

479: %\vskip 2.5in

480: \caption{

481: {\it Compilations of phenomenological constraints on the CMSSM for

482: (a) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu < 0$,  (b) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0$, (c)

483: $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0$ and (d)  $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0$, assuming

484: $A_0 = 0, m_t = 175$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}}_{SM} = 4.25$~GeV

485: \cite{EFGOSi}.  The near-vertical lines are the LEP limits

486: $m_{\chi^\pm} = 103.5$~GeV (dashed and black)~\cite{LEPsusy}, shown in

487: (b) only, and

488: $m_h = 114$~GeV (dotted and red)~\cite{LEPHWG}. 

489: Also, in the lower left corner of (b), we show the $m_{\tilde e} = 99$

490: GeV contour \protect\cite{LEPSUSYWG_0101}.  In the dark (brick red)

491: shaded regions, the LSP is the charged

492: ${\tilde

493: \tau}_1$, so this region is excluded. The light (turquoise) shaded areas

494: are the cosmologically preferred regions with

495: \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq\ohsq\leq 0.3$}~\cite{EFGOSi}. The medium (dark

496: green) shaded regions that are most prominent in panels (a) and (c) are

497: excluded by $b \to s \gamma$~\cite{bsg}. The shaded (pink) regions in the 

498: upper right regions show the $\pm 2 \, \sigma$ ranges of $g_\mu -

499: 2$. For $\mu > 0$, the $\pm 2 (1) \, \sigma$ contours are also shown as 

500: solid (dashed) black lines~\cite{EOSnew}.

501: }}

502: \label{fig:CMSSM}

503: \end{figure}

504: 

505: Another important constraint is provided by the LEP lower limit on the

506: Higgs mass: $m_H > $ 114.4 GeV \cite{LEPHWG}. This holds in the

507: Standard Model, for the lightest Higgs boson $h$ in the general MSSM for

508: $\tan\beta

509: \lappeq 8$, and almost always in the CMSSM for all $\tan\beta$, at least

510: as long as CP is conserved~\footnote{The lower bound on the lightest MSSM

511: Higgs boson may be relaxed significantly if CP violation feeds into the

512: MSSM Higgs sector~\cite{CEPW}.}. Since $m_h$ is sensitive to sparticle

513: masses, particularly $m_{\tilde t}$, via loop corrections:

514: \begin{equation}

515: \delta m^2_h \propto {m^4_t\over m^2_W}~\ln\left({m^2_{\tilde t}\over

516: m^2_t}\right)~ + \ldots

517: \label{nine}

518: \end{equation}

519: the Higgs limit also imposes important constraints on the soft 

520: supersymmetry-breaking CMSSM parameters,

521: principally $m_{1/2}$~\cite{EGNO} as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}. The 

522: constraints are here

523: evaluated using {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{FeynHiggs}, which is estimated to 

524: have a residual uncertainty of a couple of GeV in $m_h$.

525: 

526: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} is the constraint imposed by

527: measurements of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$~\cite{bsg}. These agree with the

528: Standard Model, and therefore provide bounds on MSSM particles, such as

529: the chargino and charged Higgs masses, in particular. Typically, the

530: $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ constraint is more important for $\mu < 0$, as seen

531: in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}a and c, but it is also relevant for $\mu > 0$,

532: particularly when $\tan\beta$ is large as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}d.

533: 

534: The final experimental constraint we consider is that due to the

535: measurement of the anomolous magnetic moment of the muon. Following its

536: first result last year~\cite{BNL1}, the BNL E821 experiment has recently

537: reported a new measurement~\cite{BNL2} of $a_\mu\equiv {1\over 2} (g_\mu

538: -2)$, which deviates by 3.0 standard deviations from the best available

539: Standard Model predictions based on low-energy $e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons

540: data~\cite{Davier}. On the other hand, the discrepancy is more like 1.6 

541: standard

542: deviations if one uses $\tau \to $ hadrons data to calculate the Standard

543: Model prediction. Faced with this confusion, and remembering the chequered

544: history of previous theoretical calculations~\cite{lightbylight}, it is

545: reasonable to defer judgement whether there is a significant discrepancy

546: with the Standard Model. However, either way, the measurement of $a_\mu$

547: is a significant constraint on the CMSSM, favouring $\mu > 0$ in general,

548: and a specific region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane if one accepts the

549: theoretical prediction based on $e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons 

550: data~\cite{susygmu}. The regions

551: preferred by the current $g-2$ experimental data and the $e^+ e^- \to $

552: hadrons data are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}.

553: 

554: Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} also displays the regions where the supersymmetric 

555: relic density $\rho_\chi = \Omega_\chi \rho_{critical}$ falls within the 

556: preferred range

557: \begin{equation}

558: 0.1 < \Omega_\chi h^2 < 0.3

559: \label{ten}

560: \end{equation}

561: The upper limit on the relic density is rigorous, since astrophysics and 

562: cosmology tell us that

563: the total matter density $\Omega_m \lappeq 0.4$~\cite{density}, 

564: and the Hubble expansion

565: rate $h \sim 1/\sqrt{2}$ to within about 10 \% (in units of 100 km/s/Mpc). On

566: the other hand, the lower limit in (\ref{ten}) is optional, since there

567: could be other important contributions to the overall matter 

568: density. Smaller values of $\Omega_\chi h^2$ correspond to 

569: smaller values of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$, in general.

570: 

571: As is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}, there are generic regions of the CMSSM

572: parameter space where the relic density falls within the preferred range

573: (\ref{ten}). What goes into the calculation of the relic density? It is

574: controlled by the annihilation cross section~\cite{EHNOS}:

575: \begin{equation}

576: \rho_\chi = m_\chi n_\chi \, , \quad n_\chi \sim {1\over

577: \sigma_{ann}(\chi\chi\rightarrow\ldots)}\, ,

578: \label{eleven}

579: \end{equation}

580: where the typical annihilation cross section $\sigma_{ann} \sim 1/m_\chi^2$.

581: For this reason, the relic density typically increases with the relic

582: mass, and this combined with the upper bound in (\ref{ten}) then leads to

583: the common expectation that $m_\chi \lappeq {\cal O}(1)$~GeV. 

584: 

585: However, there are various ways in which the generic upper bound on

586: $m_\chi$ can be increased along filaments in the $(m_{1/2},m_0)$ plane.

587: For example, if the next-to-lightest sparticle (NLSP) is not much heavier

588: than $\chi$: $\Delta m/m_\chi \lappeq 0.1$, the relic density may be

589: suppressed by coannihilation: $\sigma (\chi + $NLSP$ \rightarrow \ldots

590: )$~\cite{coann}.  In this way, the allowed CMSSM region may acquire a

591: `tail' extending to larger sparticle masses. An example of this

592: possibility is the case where the NLSP is the lighter stau: $\tilde\tau_1$

593: and $m_{\tilde\tau_1} \sim m_\chi$, as seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}(a)

594: and (b) and extended to larger $m_{1/2}$ in

595: Fig.~\ref{fig:coann}(a)~\cite{ourcoann}. Another example is coannihilation

596: when the NLSP is the lighter stop~\cite{stopco}, $\tilde t_1$, and

597: $m_{\tilde t_1} \sim m_\chi$, which may be important in the general MSSM

598: or in the CMSSM when $A$ is large, as seen in

599: Fig.~\ref{fig:coann}(b)~\cite{EOS}. In the cases studied, the upper limit

600: on $m_\chi$ is not affected by stop coannihilation.

601: 

602: Another mechanism for extending the allowed CMSSM region to large $m_\chi$

603: is rapid annihilation via a direct-channel pole when $m_\chi \sim {1\over

604: 2} m_{Higgs, Z}$~\cite{funnel,EFGOSi}. This may yield a `funnel' extending

605: to large $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ at large $\tan\beta$, as seen in panels (c)

606: and (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}~\cite{EFGOSi}. Yet another allowed region

607: at large $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ is the `focus-point' region~\cite{focus},

608: which is adjacent to the boundary of the region where electroweak symmetry

609: breaking is possible, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:focus}. The lightest

610: supersymmetric particle is relatively light in this region.

611: 

612: 

613: \begin{figure}

614: \vskip 0.5in

615: \vspace*{-0.75in}

616: %\hspace*{-.70in}

617: \begin{minipage}{8in}

618: \epsfig{file=coannstau.eps,height=3.3in}

619: \hspace*{-0.17in}

620: \epsfig{file=coannstop.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

621: \end{minipage}

622: \caption[]{\it (a) The large-$m_{1/2}$ `tail' of the $\chi - {\tilde 

623: \tau_1}$ 

624: coannihilation region 

625: for $\tan \beta = 10$, $A = 0$ and $\mu < 0$~\cite{ourcoann}, superimposed 

626: on the disallowed dark (brick red) shaded region where $m_{\tilde

627: \tau_1} < m_\chi$, and (b) the $\chi - {\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation region

628: for $\tan \beta = 10$, $A = 2000$~GeV and $\mu > 0$~\cite{EOS}, exhibiting 

629: a large-$m_0$ `tail', again with a dark (brick red) shaded region 

630: excluded because the LSP is charged.}

631: \label{fig:coann}

632: \end{figure}

633: 

634: \begin{figure}

635: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

636: \hspace*{-.40in}

637: \begin{minipage}{8in}

638: \epsfig{file=fp10p.eps,height=3.3in}

639: \hspace*{-0.17in}

640: \epsfig{file=fp50p.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

641: \end{minipage}

642: \caption[]{\it An expanded view of the $m_{1/2} - m_0$ parameter plane

643: showing the focus-point regions \protect\cite{focus} at large $m_0$ for 

644: (a) $tan \beta

645: = 10$, and (b) $\tan \beta = 50$~\cite{EOSnew}. In the shaded (mauve) 

646: region in the 

647: upper

648: left corner, there are no solutions with proper electroweak symmetry 

649: breaking, so these are

650: excluded in the CMSSM.  Note that we have chosen $m_t = 171$ GeV, in 

651: which case the focus-point region is at lower $m_0$ than when $m_t = 175$ 

652: GeV, as assumed in the other figures. The position of this region

653: is very sensitive to $m_t$. The black contours (both dashed and solid)

654: are as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:CMSSM}, we do not shade the preferred

655: $g-2$ region. }

656: \label{fig:focus}

657: \end{figure}

658: 

659: 

660: 

661: 

662: \subsection{Fine Tuning}

663: 

664: The above-mentioned filaments extending the preferred CMSSM parameter 

665: space are clearly

666: exceptional in some sense, so it is important to understand the sensitivity

667: of the relic density to input parameters, unknown higher-order effects, 

668: etc. One proposal is the relic-density fine-tuning measure~\cite{EO}

669: \beq

670: \Delta^\Omega \equiv \sqrt{\sum_i ~~\left({\partial\ln (\Omega_\chi h^2)\over

671: \partial

672: \ln a_i}\right)^2 }

673: \label{twelve}

674: \eeq

675: where the sum runs over the input parameters, which might include

676: (relatively) poorly-known Standard Model quantities such as $m_t$ and

677: $m_b$, as well as the CMSSM parameters $m_0, m_{1/2}$, etc. As seen in

678: Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}, the sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ (\ref{twelve}) is 

679: relatively small

680: in the `bulk' region at low $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, and $\tan\beta$. However, it

681: is somewhat higher in the $\chi - \tilde\tau_1$ coannihilation `tail', and

682: at large $\tan\beta$ in general. The sensitivity measure $\Delta^\Omega$

683: (\ref{twelve}) is particularly high in the rapid-annihilation `funnel' and

684: in the `focus-point' region. This explains why published relic-density

685: calculations may differ in these regions~\cite{otherOmega}, whereas they 

686: agree well when

687: $\Delta^\Omega$ is small: differences may arise because of small

688: differences in the values and treatments of the inputs.

689: 

690: \begin{figure}

691: \vskip 0.5in

692: \vspace*{-0.75in}

693: \hspace*{-.20in}

694: \begin{minipage}{8in}

695: \epsfig{file=cft10P.eps,height=3.3in}

696: \hspace*{+0.10in}

697: \epsfig{file=cft35N.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

698: \end{minipage}

699: %\vspace*{-3in}

700: %\hspace*{-.70in}

701: \hspace*{-.20in}

702: \begin{minipage}{8in}

703: %\hskip -1.40in

704: %\vskip -.75in

705: \epsfig{file=cft50P.eps,height=3.3in}

706: %\hspace*{-0.10in}

707: \epsfig{file=Cft171.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

708: \end{minipage}

709: %\vskip 2.5in 

710: \caption{\label{fig:overall}

711: {\it Contours of the total sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ (\ref{twelve}) of 

712: the relic density in the

713: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for (a) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0, m_t =

714: 175$~GeV, (b) $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, (c)

715: $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, and (d) $\tan \beta =

716: 10, \mu > 0, m_t = 171$~GeV, all for $A_0 = 0$~\cite{EO}. The light 

717: (turquoise)

718: shaded areas are the cosmologically preferred regions with

719: \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq\ohsq\leq 0.3$}. In the dark (brick red) shaded

720: regions, the LSP is the charged ${\tilde \tau}_1$, so these regions are

721: excluded. In panel (d), the medium shaded (mauve) region is excluded by

722: the electroweak vacuum conditions. }}

723: \end{figure}  

724: 

725: 

726: \begin{figure}

727: \vskip 0.5in

728: \vspace*{-0.75in}

729: \hspace*{-.20in}

730: \begin{minipage}{8in}

731: \epsfig{file=eft10P.eps,height=3.3in}

732: \hspace*{+0.10in}

733: \epsfig{file=eft35N.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

734: \end{minipage}

735: %\vspace*{-3in}

736: %\hspace*{-.70in}

737: \hspace*{-.20in}

738: \begin{minipage}{8in}

739: %\hskip -1.40in

740: %\vskip -.75in

741: \epsfig{file=eft50P.eps,height=3.3in}

742: \hspace*{-0.10in}

743: \epsfig{file=Eft171.eps,height=3.3in} \hfill

744: \end{minipage}

745: %\vskip 2.5in 

746: \caption{\label{fig:EWFT}

747: {\it Contours of the electroweak fine-tuning measure $\Delta$ 

748: (\ref{thirteen}) in the

749: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for (a) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0, m_t =

750: 175$~GeV, (b) $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, (c)

751: $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, and (d) $\tan \beta =

752: 10, \mu > 0, m_t = 171$~GeV, all for $A_0 = 0$~\cite{EOSnew}. The light 

753: (turquoise)

754: shaded areas are the cosmologically preferred regions with

755: \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq\ohsq\leq 0.3$}. In the dark (brick red) shaded

756: regions, the LSP is the charged ${\tilde \tau}_1$, so this region is

757: excluded. In panel (d), the medium shaded (mauve) region is excluded by

758: the electroweak vacuum conditions. }}

759: \end{figure}  

760: 

761: It is important to note that the relic-density fine-tuning measure

762: (\ref{twelve}) is distinct from the traditional measure of the fine-tuning

763: of the electroweak scale~\cite{EENZ}:

764: \beq

765: \Delta = \sqrt{\sum_i ~~\Delta_i^{\hspace{0.05in} 2}}\, , \quad \Delta_i \equiv

766: {\partial \ln

767: m_W\over \partial \ln a_i}

768: \label{thirteen}

769: \eeq

770: Sample contours of the electroweak fine-tuning measure are shown 

771: (\ref{thirteen}) are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:EWFT}~\cite{EOS}.

772: This electroweak fine tuning is logically different from

773: the cosmological fine tuning, and values

774: of $\Delta$ are not necessarily related to values of

775: $\Delta^\Omega$, as is apparent when comparing the contours in 

776: Figs.~\ref{fig:overall} and \ref{fig:EWFT}.  Electroweak fine-tuning is 

777: sometimes used as a 

778: criterion

779: for restricting the CMSSM parameters. However, the interpretation of 

780: $\Delta$ (\ref{thirteen}) is unclear. How large a value of $\Delta$ is

781: tolerable? Different people may well have different pain thresholds.

782: Moreover, correlations between input parameters may reduce its value in

783: specific models, and the regions allowed by the different constraints can 

784: become very different when we relax some of the CMSSM assumptions,

785: e.g., the universality between the input Higgs masses and those of the 

786: squarks and sleptons, a subject beyond the scope of these Lectures.

787: 

788: \subsection{Benchmark Supersymmetric Scenarios}

789: 

790: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}, all the experimental, cosmological and

791: theoretical constraints on the MSSM are mutually compatible. As an aid to

792: understanding better the physics capabilities of the LHC, various $e^+e^-$

793: linear collider designs and non-accelerator experiments, a set of

794: benchmark supersymmetric scenarios have been proposed~\cite{Bench}. 

795: Their distribution in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane is sketched in 

796: Fig.~\ref{fig:Bench}. These benchmark scenarios

797: are compatible with all the accelerator constraints mentioned above,

798: including the LEP searches and $b \to s \gamma$, and yield relic densities

799: of LSPs in the range suggested by cosmology and astrophysics. The

800: benchmarks are not intended to sample `fairly' the allowed parameter

801: space, but rather to illustrate the range of possibilities currently

802: allowed.

803: 

804: \begin{figure}

805: \begin{centering}

806: \hspace{2cm}

807: \epsfig{figure=bench.eps,width=4in}

808: \end{centering}

809: \hglue3.5cm   

810: \caption[]{\it The locations of the benchmark points proposed 

811: in~\cite{Bench} in the region of the

812: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane where $\ohsq$ falls within the range preferred by 

813: cosmology (shaded blue). Note that the filaments of the allowed parameter 

814: space extending to large $m_{1/2}$ and/or $m_0$ are sampled.}

815: \label{fig:Bench}

816: \end{figure}  

817: 

818: In addition to a number of benchmark points falling in the `bulk' region

819: of parameter space at relatively low values of the supersymmetric particle

820: masses, as see in Fig.~\ref{fig:Bench}, we also proposed~\cite{Bench} some

821: points out along the `tails' of parameter space extending out to larger

822: masses. These clearly require some degree of fine-tuning to obtain the

823: required relic density and/or the correct $W^\pm$ mass, and some are also

824: disfavoured by the supersymmetric interpretation of the $g_\mu - 2$

825: anomaly, but all are logically consistent possibilities.

826: 

827: \subsection{Prospects for Discovering Supersymmetry}

828: 

829: In the CMSSM discussed here, there are just a few prospects for

830: discovering supersymmetry at the FNAL {\it Tevatron

831: collider}~\cite{Bench}, but these could be increased in other

832: supersymmetric models~\cite{BenchKane}. Fig.~\ref{fig:Paige1} shows the

833: physics reach for observing pairs of supersymmetric particles at the {\it

834: LHC}. The signature for supersymmetry - multiple jets (and/or leptons)  

835: with a large amount of missing energy - is quite distinctive, as seen in

836: Fig.~\ref{fig:Paige3}~\cite{Tovey,Paige}. Therefore, the detection of the

837: supersymmetric partners of quarks and gluons at the LHC is expected to be

838: quite easy if they weigh less than about 2.5~TeV~\cite{CMS}. Moreover, in 

839: many

840: scenarios one should be able to observe their cascade decays into lighter

841: supersymmetric particles, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Paige4}~\cite{Rurua}.  

842: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Manhattan}, large fractions of the supersymmetric

843: spectrum should be seen in most of the benchmark scenarios, although there

844: are a couple where only the lightest supersymmetric Higgs boson would be

845: seen~\cite{Bench}, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Manhattan}.

846: 

847: \begin{figure}

848: \begin{centering}

849: \hspace{1.5cm}

850: \epsfig{figure=Paige1.eps,width=5in}

851: \end{centering}

852: %\hglue3.5cm   

853: \caption[]{\it The regions of the $(m_0, m_{1/2})$ plane that can be 

854: explored by the LHC with various integrated luminosities~\cite{CMS}, using 

855: the 

856: missing energy + jets signature~\cite{Paige}.}

857: \label{fig:Paige1}

858: \end{figure}  

859: 

860: \begin{figure}

861: \begin{centering}

862: \hspace{2cm}

863: \epsfig{figure=Paige3.eps,width=4in}

864: \end{centering}

865: \hglue3.5cm   

866: \caption[]{\it The distribution expected at the LHC in the variable 

867: $M_{\rm eff}$ that combines the jet energies with the missing 

868: energy~\cite{HP,Tovey,Paige}.}

869: \label{fig:Paige3}

870: \end{figure}  

871: 

872: \begin{figure}

873: \begin{centering}

874: \hspace{2cm}

875: \epsfig{figure=Paige4.eps,width=4in}

876: \end{centering}

877: \hglue3.5cm   

878: \caption[]{\it The dilepton mass distributions expected at the LHC due to 

879: sparticle decays in two different supersymmetric 

880: scenarios~\cite{HP,CMS,Paige}.}

881: \label{fig:Paige4}

882: \end{figure}  

883: 

884: \begin{figure}

885: \begin{centering}

886: \hspace{2cm}

887: \epsfig{figure=Manhattan.eps,width=4in}

888: \end{centering}

889: \hglue3.5cm   

890: \caption[]{\it The numbers of different sparticles expected to be 

891: observable at the LHC and/or linear $e^+ e^-$ colliders with various 

892: energies, in each of the proposed benchmark 

893: scenarios~\cite{Bench}, 

894: ordered by their 

895: difference from the present central experimental value of $g_\mu - 2$.} 

896: \label{fig:Manhattan} 

897: \end{figure}  

898: 

899: {\it Electron-positron colliders} provide very clean experimental

900: environments, with egalitarian production of all the new particles that

901: are kinematically accessible, including those that have only weak

902: interactions. Moreover, polarized beams provide a useful analysis tool,

903: and $e \gamma$, $\gamma \gamma$ and $e^- e^-$ colliders are readily

904: available at relatively low marginal costs.

905: 

906: The $e^+ e^- \to {\bar t} t$ threshold is known to be at $E_{\rm CM} \sim

907: 350$~GeV. Moreover, if the Higgs boson indeed weighs less than 200~GeV, as

908: suggested by the precision electroweak data, its production and study

909: would also be easy at an $e^+ e^-$ collider with $E_{\rm CM} \sim

910: 500$~GeV. With a luminosity of $10^{34}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ or more, many

911: decay modes of the Higgs boson could be measured very accurately, and one

912: might be able to find a hint whether its properties were modified by

913: supersymmetry~\cite{TESLA,EHOW2}.

914: 

915: However, the direct production of supersymmetric particles at such a

916: collider cannot be guaranteed~\cite{EGO}.

917: We do not yet know what the supersymmetric threshold energy may be (or

918: even if there is one!). We may well not know before the operation of the

919: LHC, although $g_\mu - 2$ might provide an indication~\cite{susygmu}, if

920: the uncertainties in the Standard Model calculation can be reduced.

921: 

922: If an $e^+ e^-$ collider is above the supersymmetric threshold, it will be

923: able to measure very accurately the sparticle masses. By comparing their

924: masses with those of different sparticles produced at the LHC, one would

925: be able to make interesting tests of string and GUT models of

926: supersymmetry breaking, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:BPZ}~\cite{BPZ}. However,

927: independently from the particular benchmark scenarios proposed, a linear

928: $e^+ e^-$ collider with $E_{\rm CM} < 1$~TeV would not cover all the

929: supersymmetric parameter space allowed by cosmology~\cite{EGO,Bench}.

930: 

931: \begin{figure}

932: \hspace{2.5cm}

933: \epsfig{figure=BPZ.eps,width=7in}

934: \hglue3.5cm

935: \vspace{-10cm}   

936: \caption[]{\it Measurements of sparticle masses at the LHC and a 

937: linear $e^+ e^-$ linear collider will enable one to check their 

938: universality at some input GUT scale, and check possible models of 

939: supersymmetry breaking~\cite{BPZ}. Both axes are labelled in GeV units.} 

940: \label{fig:BPZ} 

941: \end{figure}  

942: 

943: Nevertheless, there are compelling physics arguments for such a linear

944: $e^+ e^-$ collider, which would be very complementary to the LHC in terms

945: of its exploratory power and precision~\cite{TESLA}. It is to be hoped

946: that the world community will converge on a single project with the widest

947: possible energy range.

948: 

949: CERN and collaborating institutes are studying the possible following step

950: in linear $e^+ e^-$ colliders, a multi-TeV machine called

951: CLIC~\cite{CLIC,CLICphys}. This would use a double-beam technique to 

952: attain

953: accelerating gradients as high as 150~MV/m, and the viability of

954: accelerating structures capable of achieving this field has been

955: demonstrated in the CLIC test facility~\cite{CTF3}. Parameter sets have

956: been calculated for CLIC designs with $E_{\rm CM} = 3, 5$~TeV and

957: luminosities of $10^{35}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ or more~\cite{CLIC}.

958: 

959: In many of the proposed benchmark supersymmetric scenarios, CLIC would be

960: able to complete the supersymmetric spectrum and/or measure in much more

961: detail heavy sparticles found previously at the LHC, as seen in

962: Fig.~\ref{fig:Manhattan}~\cite{Bench}. CLIC produces more beamstrahlung

963: than lower-energy linear $e^+ e^-$ colliders, but the supersymmetric

964: missing-energy signature would still be easy to distinguish, and accurate

965: measurements of masses and decay modes could still be made, as seen in

966: Fig.~\ref{fig:Battaglia}~\cite{Battaglia}.

967: 

968: \begin{figure}

969: \begin{centering}

970: \hspace{2.5cm}

971: \epsfig{figure=Battaglia.eps,width=10cm}

972: \end{centering}

973: \hglue3.5cm   

974: \caption[]{\it Like lower-energy $e^+ e^-$ colliders, CLIC enables 

975: very accurate measurements of sparticle masses to be made, in this case the

976: supersymmetric partner of the muon and the lightest

977: neutralino $\chi^0$~\cite{Battaglia}.}

978: \label{fig:Battaglia}

979: \end{figure}  

980: 

981: \subsection{Searches for Dark Matter Particles}

982: 

983: In the above discussion, we have paid particular attention to the region

984: of parameter space where the lightest supersymmetric particle could

985: constitute the cold dark matter in the Universe~\cite{EHNOS}. How easy

986: would this be to detect? Fig.~\ref{fig:DM} shows rates for the elastic

987: spin-independent scattering of supersymmetric relics~\cite{EFFMO},

988: including the projected sensitivities for CDMS II~\cite{Schnee:1998gf} and

989: CRESST~\cite{Bravin:1999fc} (solid) and GENIUS~\cite{GENIUS} (dashed).

990: Also shown are the cross sections calculated in the proposed benchmark

991: scenarios discussed in the previous section, which are considerably below

992: the DAMA \cite{DAMA} range ($10^{-5} - 10^{-6}$~pb), but may be within

993: reach of future projects. The prospects for detecting elastic

994: spin-independent scattering are less bright, as also shown in

995: Fig.~\ref{fig:DM}. Indirect searches for supersymmetric dark matter via

996: the products of annihilations in the galactic halo or inside the Sun also

997: have prospects in some of the benchmark scenarios~\cite{EFFMO}, as seen in

998: Fig.~\ref{fig:indirectDM}.

999: 

1000: 

1001: \begin{figure}

1002: \vskip 0.75in

1003: \vspace*{-0.75in}

1004: \hspace*{-.40in}

1005: \begin{minipage}{8in}

1006: \epsfig{file=sigmaP_scalar.eps,height=2.5in}

1007: \hspace*{-0.17in}

1008: \epsfig{file=spin.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

1009: \end{minipage}

1010: \caption[]{\it Left panel: elastic spin-independent scattering  

1011: of supersymmetric relics on protons calculated in 

1012: benchmark scenarios~\cite{EFFMO}, compared with the 

1013: projected sensitivities for CDMS

1014: II~\cite{Schnee:1998gf} and CRESST~\cite{Bravin:1999fc} (solid) and

1015: GENIUS~\cite{GENIUS} (dashed).

1016: The predictions of the {\tt SSARD} code (blue

1017: crosses) and {\tt Neutdriver}\cite{neut} (red circles) for

1018: neutralino-nucleon scattering are compared.

1019: The labels A, B, ...,L correspond to the benchmark points as shown in 

1020: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:Bench}. Right panel: prospects for detecting 

1021: elastic spin-independent scattering in the benchmark scenarios, which are 

1022: less bright.}

1023: \label{fig:DM}

1024: \end{figure}  

1025: 

1026: \begin{figure}

1027: \vskip 0.75in

1028: \vspace*{-0.75in}

1029: \hspace*{-.40in}

1030: \begin{minipage}{8in}

1031: \epsfig{file=gamma.eps,height=2.5in}

1032: \hspace*{-0.17in}

1033: \epsfig{file=musun.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

1034: \end{minipage}

1035: \caption[]{\it Left panel: prospects for detecting photons with energies 

1036: above 

1037: 1~GeV 

1038: from annihilations in the centre of the galaxy, assuming a moderate 

1039: enhancement there of the overall halo density, and right panel: prospects 

1040: for detecting 

1041: muons from energetic solar neutrinos produced by relic annihilations in 

1042: the Sun, as calculated~\cite{EFFMO} in the benchmark scenarios using {\tt 

1043: Neutdriver}\cite{neut}.}

1044: \label{fig:indirectDM}

1045: \end{figure}  

1046: 

1047: \section{Lepton Flavour Violation}

1048: 

1049: \subsection{Why not?}

1050: 

1051: There is no good reason why either the total lepton number $L$ or the

1052: individual lepton flavours $L_{e, \mu, \tau}$ should be

1053: conserved~\cite{Marciano}. We have learnt that the only conserved quantum

1054: numbers are those associated with exact gauge symmetries, just as the

1055: conservation of electromagnetic charge is associated with $U(1)$ gauge

1056: invariance. On the other hand, there is no exact gauge symmetry associated

1057: with any of the lepton numbers.

1058: 

1059: Moreover, neutrinos have been seen to oscillate between their different

1060: flavours~\cite{SK,SNO}, showing that the separate lepton flavours $L_{e,

1061: \mu, \tau}$ are indeed not conserved, though the conservation of total

1062: lepton number $L$ is still an open question. The observation of such

1063: oscillations strongly suggests that the neutrinos have different masses.

1064: Again, massless particles are generally associated with exact gauge

1065: symmetries, e.g., the photon with the $U(1)$ symmetry of the Standard

1066: Model, and the gluons with its $SU(3)$ symmetry. In the absence of any

1067: leptonic gauge symmetry, non-zero lepton masses are to be expected, in

1068: general.

1069: 

1070: The conservation of lepton number is an accidental symmetry of the 

1071: renormalizable terms in the Standard Model lagrangian. However, one could 

1072: easily add to the Standard Model non-renormalizable terms that would 

1073: generate neutrino masses, even without introducing a `right-handed' 

1074: neutrino field. For example, a non-renormalizable term of the 

1075: form~\cite{BEG}

1076: \begin{equation}

1077: {1 \over M} \nu H \cdot \nu H,

1078: \label{nonren}

1079: \end{equation}

1080: where $M$ is some large mass beyond the scale of the Standard Model, would 

1081: generate a neutrino mass term:

1082: \begin{equation}

1083: m_\nu \nu \cdot \nu:

1084: \; m_\nu \; = \; {\langle 0 \vert H \vert 0 \rangle^2 \over M}.

1085: \label{smallm}

1086: \end{equation}

1087: Of course, a non-renormalizable interaction such as (\ref{nonren}) seems

1088: unlikely to be fundamental, and one should like to understand the origin 

1089: of the large mass scale $M$.

1090: 

1091: The minimal renormalizable model of neutrino masses requires the

1092: introduction of weak-singlet `right-handed' neutrinos $N$. These will in

1093: general couple to the conventional weak-doublet left-handed neutrinos via

1094: Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ that yield Dirac masses $m_D \sim m_W$. In

1095: addition, these `right-handed' neutrinos $N$ can couple to themselves via

1096: Majorana masses $M$ that may be $\gg m_W$, since they do not require 

1097: electroweak summetry breaking. Combining the two types of

1098: mass term, one obtains the seesaw mass matrix~\cite{seesaw}:

1099: \begin{eqnarray}

1100: \left( \nu_L, N\right) \left(

1101: \begin{array}{cc}

1102: 0 & M_{D}\\ 

1103: M_{D}^{T} & M

1104: \end{array}

1105: \right)

1106: \left(

1107: \begin{array}{c}

1108: \nu_L \\

1109: N

1110: \end{array}

1111: \right),

1112: \label{seesaw}

1113: \end{eqnarray}

1114: where each of the entries should be understood as a matrix in generation 

1115: space.

1116: 

1117: In order to provide the two measured differences in neutrino

1118: masses-squared, there must be at least two non-zero masses, and hence at

1119: least two heavy singlet neutrinos $N_i$~\cite{Frampton,Morozumi}.  

1120: Presumably, all three light neutrino masses are non-zero, in which case

1121: there must be at least three $N_i$. This is indeed what happens in simple

1122: GUT models such as SO(10), but some models~\cite{fSU5} have more singlet

1123: neutrinos~\cite{EGLLN}. In this Lecture, for simplicity we consider just

1124: three $N_i$.

1125: 

1126: As we discuss in the next Section, this seesaw model can accommodate the

1127: neutrino mixing seen experimentally, and naturally explains the small

1128: differences in the masses-squared of the light neutrinos. By itself, it

1129: would lead to unobservably small transitions between the different

1130: charged-lepton flavours. However, supersymmetry may enhance greatly the

1131: rates for processes violating the different charged-lepton flavours,

1132: rendering them potentially observable, as we discuss in subsequent

1133: Sections.

1134: 

1135: \subsection{Neutrino Masses and Mixing in the Seesaw Model}

1136: 

1137: The effective mass matrix for light neutrinos in the seesaw model may be 

1138: written as:

1139: \begin{equation}

1140: {\cal M}_\nu \; = \; Y_\nu^T {1 \over M} Y_\nu v^2 \left[ \sin^2 \beta 

1141: \right]

1142: \label{seesawmass}

1143: \end{equation}

1144: where we have used the relation $m_D = Y_\nu v \left[ \sin \beta \right]$

1145: with $v \equiv \langle 0 \vert H \vert 0 \rangle$, and the factors of 

1146: $\sin \beta$ appear in the supersymmetric version of the seesaw model. It 

1147: is convenient to work in the field basis where the charged-lepton masses 

1148: $m_{\ell^\pm}$ and the heavy singlet-neutrino mases $M$ are real and 

1149: diagonal. The seesaw neutrino mass matrix ${\cal M}_\nu$ 

1150: (\ref{seesawmass}) may then be diagonalized by a unitary transformation 

1151: $U$:

1152: \begin{equation}

1153: U^T {\cal M}_\nu U \; = \; {\cal M}_\nu^d.

1154: \label{diag}

1155: \end{equation}

1156: This diagonalization is reminiscent of that required for the quark mass 

1157: matrices in the Standard Model. In that case, it is well known that one 

1158: can redefine the phases of the quark fields~\cite{EGN} so that the mixing 

1159: matrix 

1160: $U_{CKM}$ has just one CP-violating phase~\cite{KM}. However, in the 

1161: neutrino case, 

1162: there are fewer independent field phases, and one is left with three 

1163: physical CP-violating parameters:

1164: \begin{equation}

1165: U \; = \; {\tilde P}_2 V P_0: \; P_0 \equiv {\rm Diag} \left( 

1166: e^{i\phi_1},  

1167: e^{i\phi_2}, 1 \right).

1168: \label{MNSP}

1169: \end{equation}

1170: Here ${\tilde P}_2 = {\rm Diag} \left( e^{i\alpha_1}, e^{i\alpha_2}, 

1171: e^{i\alpha_3} \right)$ contains three phases that can be removed by 

1172: phase rotations and are unobservable in 

1173: light-neutrino physics, $V$ is the light-neutrino mixing matrix 

1174: first considered by Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata (MNS)~\cite{MNS}, and $P_0$ 

1175: contains 2 observable CP-violating 

1176: phases $\phi_{1,2}$. The MNS matrix describes neutrino oscillations

1177: \begin{eqnarray}

1178: V \; = \; \left(

1179: \begin{array}{ccc}

1180: c_{12} & s_{12} & 0 \\

1181: - s_{12} & c_{12} & 0 \\

1182: 0 & 0 & 1

1183: \end{array}

1184: \right)

1185: \left(

1186: \begin{array}{ccc}

1187: 1 & 0 & 0 \\

1188: 0 & c_{23} & s_{23} \\

1189: 0 & - s_{23} & c_{23}

1190: \end{array}

1191: \right)

1192: \left(

1193: \begin{array}{ccc}

1194: c_{13} & 0 & s_{13} \\

1195: 0 & 1 & 0 \\

1196: - s_{13} e^{- i \delta} & 0 & c_{13} e^{- i \delta}

1197: \end{array}

1198: \right).

1199: \label{MNSmatrix}

1200: \end{eqnarray}

1201: The Majorana phases $\phi_{1,2}$ are in principle observable in 

1202: neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay, whose matrix element is proportional to

1203: \begin{equation}

1204: \langle m_\nu \rangle_{ee} \; \equiv \; \Sigma_i U_{ei}^* m_{\nu_i} 

1205: U_{ie}^\dagger.

1206: \label{doublebeta}

1207: \end{equation}

1208: Later we discuss how other observable quantities might be sensitive 

1209: indirectly to the Majorana phases.

1210: 

1211: The first matrix factor in (\ref{MNSmatrix}) is measurable in solar 

1212: neutrino

1213: experiments. As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:SNO}, the recent data from SNO 

1214: \cite{SNO} and

1215: Super-Kamiokande~\cite{SKsolar} prefer quite strongly the

1216: large-mixing-angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino problem with

1217: $\Delta m_{12}^2 \sim 6 \times 10^{-5}$~eV$^2$, though the LOW solution

1218: with lower $\delta m^2$ cannot yet be ruled out. The data favour large but

1219: non-maximal mixing: $\theta_{12} \sim 30^o$. The second matrix factor in

1220: (\ref{MNSmatrix}) is measurable in atmospheric neutrino experiments. As 

1221: seen 

1222: in Fig.~\ref{fig:SK}, the data

1223: from Super-Kamiokande in particular~\cite{SK} favour maximal mixing of

1224: atmospheric neutrinos:  $\theta_{23} \sim 45^o$ and $\Delta m_{23}^2 \sim

1225: 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$. The third matrix factor in (\ref{MNSmatrix}) 

1226: is basically unknown, with experiments such as Chooz~\cite{Chooz} and

1227: Super-Kamiokande only establishing upper limits on $\theta_{13}$, and {\it

1228: a fortiori} no information on the CP-violating phase $\delta$.

1229: 

1230: \begin{figure}

1231: \hspace{2.5cm}

1232: \epsfig{figure=SNO.eps,width=10cm}

1233: \hglue3.5cm   

1234: \caption[]{\it A global fit to solar neutrino data, following the SNO 

1235: measurements of

1236: the total neutral-current reaction rate, the energy spectrum and the

1237: day-night asymmetry, favours large mixing and $\Delta m^2 \sim 6 \times

1238: 10^{-5}$~eV$^2$~\cite{SNO}.}

1239: \label{fig:SNO}

1240: \end{figure}  

1241: 

1242: \begin{figure}

1243: \hspace{2cm}

1244: \epsfig{figure=SK.eps,width=10cm}

1245: \hglue3.5cm   

1246: \caption[]{\it A fit to the Super-Kamiokande data on atmospheric

1247: neutrinos~\cite{SK} indicates near-maximal $\nu_\mu - \nu_\tau$ mixing

1248: with $\Delta m^2 \sim 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$.}

1249: \label{fig:SK}

1250: \end{figure}  

1251: 

1252: The phase $\delta$ could in principle be measured by comparing the 

1253: oscillation 

1254: probabilities for neutrinos and antineutrinos and computing the 

1255: CP-violating asymmetry~\cite{DGH}:

1256: \begin{eqnarray}

1257: P \left( \nu_e \to \nu_\mu \right) - P \left( {\bar \nu}_e \to 

1258: {\bar \nu}_\mu \right) \; & & = \; 

1259: 16 s_{12} c_{12} s_{13} c^2_{13} s_{23} c_{23} \sin \delta \\ \nonumber

1260: & & \sin \left( {\Delta m_{12}^2 \over 4 E} L \right)

1261: \sin \left( {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 4 E} L \right)

1262: \sin \left( {\Delta m_{23}^2 \over 4 E} L \right),

1263: \label{CPV}

1264: \end{eqnarray}

1265: as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cpnu}~\cite{golden,Frejus}.

1266: This is possible only if $\Delta m_{12}^2$ and $s_{12}$ are large enough -

1267: as now suggested by the success of the LMA solution to the solar neutrino 

1268: problem, and if $s_{13}$ is large enough - which remains an open question.

1269: 

1270: \begin{figure}

1271: \hspace{2cm}

1272: \epsfig{figure=cpnu.eps,width=10cm}

1273: \hglue3.5cm   

1274: \caption[]{\it Correlations in a simultaneous fit of $\theta_{13}$ and

1275: $\delta$,

1276: using a neutrino energy threshold of about 10 GeV.

1277: Using a single baseline correlations are very strong, but can be 

1278: largely reduced by combining information from different baselines and 

1279: detector techniques~\cite{golden}, enabling the CP-violating phase 

1280: $\delta$ to be extracted.}

1281: \label{fig:cpnu}

1282: \end{figure}  

1283: 

1284: We have seen above that the effective low-energy mass matrix for the light

1285: neutrinos contains 9 parameters, 3 mass eigenvalues, 3 real mixing angles

1286: and 3 CP-violating phases. However, these are not all the parameters in

1287: the minimal seesaw model. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:map}, this model has a

1288: total of 18 parameters~\cite{Casas,EHLR}. Most of the rest of this Lecture

1289: is devoted to understanding better the origins and possible manifestations

1290: of the remaining parameters, many of which may have controlled the

1291: generation of matter in the Universe via leptogenesis~\cite{FY} and may be

1292: observable via renormalization in supersymmetric

1293: models~\cite{DI,EHLR,EHRS,EHRS2}.

1294: 

1295: \begin{figure}[t]

1296: \begin{center}

1297: \begin{picture}(400,300)(-200,-150)

1298: \Oval(0,0)(30,60)(0)

1299: \Text(-25,13)[lb]{ ${\bf Y_\nu}$  ,  ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}

1300: \Text(-40,-2)[lb]{{\bf 15$+$3 physical}}

1301: \Text(-30,-15)[lb]{{\bf parameters}}

1302: \EBox(-70,90)(70,150)

1303: \Text(-55,135)[lb]{{\bf Seesaw mechanism}}  

1304: \Text(-8,117)[lb]{${\bf {\cal M}_\nu}$}

1305: \Text(-65,100)[lb]{{\bf 9 effective parameters}}

1306: \EBox(-200,-140)(-60,-80)

1307: \Text(-167,-95)[lb]{{\bf Leptogenesis}}

1308: \Text(-165,-113)[lb]{ ${\bf Y_\nu Y_\nu^\dagger}$ , ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}

1309: \Text(-175,-130)[lb]{{\bf 9$+$3 parameters}}

1310: \EBox(60,-140)(200,-80)

1311: \Text(80,-95)[lb]{{\bf Renormalization}}

1312: \Text(95,-113)[lb]{${\bf Y_\nu^\dagger L Y_\nu}$ , ${\bf M_{N_i}}$}

1313: \Text(80,-130)[lb]{{\bf 13$+$3 parameters}}

1314: \LongArrow(0,30)(0,87)

1315: \LongArrow(-45,-20)(-130,-77)

1316: \LongArrow(45,-20)(130,-77)

1317: \end{picture}

1318: \end{center}

1319: \caption{\it

1320: Roadmap for the physical observables derived from $Y_\nu$ and 

1321: $N_i$~\cite{ER}.

1322: }

1323: \label{fig:map}

1324: \end{figure}

1325: 

1326: To see how the extra 9 parameters appear~\cite{EHLR}, we reconsider the 

1327: full lepton sector, assuming that we have diagonalized the charged-lepton mass 

1328: matrix:

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: \left( Y_\ell \right)_{ij} \; = \; Y^d_{\ell_i} \delta_{ij},

1331: \end{equation}

1332: as well as that of the heavy singlet neutrinos:

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: M_{ij} \; = M^d_i \delta_{ij}.

1335: \label{diagM}

1336: \end{equation}

1337: We can then parametrize the neutrino Dirac coupling matrix $Y_\nu$ in 

1338: terms of its real and diagonal eigenvalues and unitary rotation matrices:

1339: \begin{equation}

1340: Y_\nu \; = \; Z^* Y^d_{\nu_k} X^\dagger,

1341: \label{diagYnu}

1342: \end{equation}

1343: where $X$ has 3 mixing angles and one CP-violating phase, just like the 

1344: CKM matrix, and we can write $Z$ in the form

1345: \begin{equation}

1346: Z \; = \; P_1 {\bar Z} P_2,

1347: \label{PZP}

1348: \end{equation}

1349: where ${\bar Z}$ also resembles the

1350: CKM matrix, with  3 mixing angles and one CP-violating phase, and the 

1351: diagonal matrices $P_{1,2}$ each have two CP-violating phases:

1352: \begin{equation}

1353: P_{1,2} \; = \; {\rm Diag} \left( e^{i\theta_{1,3}}, e^{i\theta_{2,4}}, 1 

1354: \right). 

1355: \label{PP}

1356: \end{equation}

1357: In this parametrization, we see explicitly that the neutrino 

1358: sector has 18 parameters: the 3 heavy-neutrino mass eigenvalues 

1359: $M^d_i$, the 3 real eigenvalues of $Y^D_{\nu_i}$, the $6 = 3 + 3$ real 

1360: mixing angles in $X$ and ${\bar Z}$, and the $6 = 1 + 5$ CP-violating 

1361: phases in $X$ and ${\bar Z}$~\cite{EHLR}.

1362: 

1363: As we discuss later in more detail, leptogenesis~\cite{FY} is proportional 

1364: to the product

1365: \begin{equation}

1366: Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \; = \; P_1^* {\bar Z}^* \left( Y^d_\nu \right)^2 

1367: {\bar Z}^T P_1,

1368: \label{leptog}

1369: \end{equation}

1370: which depends on 13 of the real parameters and 3 CP-violating phases, 

1371: whilst the leading renormalization of soft supersymmetry-breaking masses 

1372: depends on the combination

1373: \begin{equation}

1374: Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu \; = \; X \left( Y^d_\nu \right)^2 X^\dagger,

1375: \label{renn}

1376: \end{equation}

1377: which depends on just 1 CP-violating phase, with two 

1378: more phases appearing in higher orders, when one allows the heavy singlet 

1379: neutrinos to be non-degenerate~\cite{EHRS}.

1380: 

1381: In order to see how the low-energy sector is embedded in this full 

1382: parametrization, we first recall that the 3 phases in ${\tilde P}_2$ 

1383: (\ref{MNSP}) become observable when one also considers high-energy 

1384: quantities. Next, we introduce a complex orthogonal matrix

1385: \begin{equation}

1386: R \; \equiv \; \sqrt{M^d}^{-1} Y_\nu U \sqrt{M^d}^{-1} \left[ v \sin \beta 

1387: \right],

1388: \label{defR}

1389: \end{equation}

1390: which has 3 real mixing angles and 3 phases: $R^T R = 1$. These 6 

1391: additional parameters may be used to characterize $Y_\nu$, by inverting 

1392: (\ref{defR}):

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: Y_\nu \; = \; {\sqrt{M^d} R \sqrt{M^d} U^\dagger \over \left[ v \sin \beta 

1395: \right]},

1396: \label{invertY}

1397: \end{equation}

1398: giving us the same grand total of $18 = 9 + 3 +6$ parameters~\cite{EHLR}.

1399: The leptogenesis observable (\ref{leptog}) may now be written in the form

1400: \begin{equation}

1401: Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \; = \; { \sqrt{M^d} R {\cal M}^d_\nu R^\dagger 

1402: \sqrt{M^d} \over \left[ v^2 \sin^2 \beta \right]},

1403: \label{newleptog}

1404: \end{equation}

1405: which depends on the 3 phases in $R$, but {\it not} the 3 low-energy 

1406: phases $\delta, \phi_{1,2}$, {\it nor} the 3 real MNS mixing 

1407: angles~\cite{EHLR}!

1408: Conversely, the leading renormalization observable (\ref{renn}) may be 

1409: written in the form

1410: \begin{equation}

1411: Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \; = \; U {\sqrt{{\cal M}^d_\nu} R^\dagger M^d R 

1412: \sqrt{{\cal M}^d_\nu} \over \left[ v^2 \sin^2 \beta \right]} U^\dagger,

1413: \label{newrenn}

1414: \end{equation}

1415: which depends explicitly on the MNS matrix, including the 

1416: CP-violating phases $\delta$ and $\phi_{1,2}$, but only one of the three 

1417: phases in ${\tilde P}_2$~\cite{EHLR}.

1418: 

1419: \subsection{Renormalization of Soft Supersymmetry-Breaking Parameters}

1420: 

1421: Let us now discuss the renormalization of soft supersymmetry-breaking 

1422: parameters $m_0^2$ and $A$ in more detail, assuming that the input values 

1423: at the GUT scale are flavour-independent. If they are not, there will be 

1424: additional sources of flavour-changing processes, beyond those discussed 

1425: in this and subsequent sections~\cite{FCNI,Masiero}. In the 

1426: leading-logarithmic 

1427: approximation, and assuming degenerate heavy singlet neutrinos, one finds

1428: the following radiative corrections to the soft 

1429: supersymmetry-breaking terms for sleptons:

1430: \begin{eqnarray}

1431: \left( \delta m_{\tilde L}^2 \right)_{ij} \; &=& \;

1432: - { 1 \over 8 \pi^2} \left( 3 m_0^2 + A_0^2 \right) \left( Y_\nu^\dagger 

1433: Y_\nu \right)_{ij} {\rm Ln} \left( {M_{GUT} \over M} \right), \nonumber \\

1434: \left( \delta A_\ell \right)_{ij} \; &=& \;

1435: - { 1 \over 8 \pi^2} A_0 Y_{\ell_i} \left( Y_\nu^\dagger 

1436: Y_\nu \right)_{ij} {\rm Ln} \left( {M_{GUT} \over M} \right),

1437: \label{leading}

1438: \end{eqnarray}

1439: where we have intially assumed that the heavy singlet neutrinos are 

1440: approximately degenerate with $M \ll M_{GUT}$. In this case, there is a 

1441: single analogue of the Jarlskog invariant of the Standard 

1442: Model~\cite{Jarlskog}:

1443: \begin{equation}

1444: J_{\tilde L} \; \equiv \; {\rm Im} \left[ \left( m_{\tilde L}^2 

1445: \right)_{12} \left( m_{\tilde L}^2

1446: \right)_{23} \left( m_{\tilde L}^2

1447: \right)_{31} \right],

1448: \label{J}

1449: \end{equation}

1450: which depends on the single phase that is observable in this 

1451: approximation. There are other Jarlskog invariants defined analogously in 

1452: terms of various combinations with the $A_\ell$, but these are all 

1453: proportional~\cite{EHLR}.

1454: 

1455: There are additional contributions if the heavy singlet neutrinos are not 

1456: degenerate:

1457: \begin{equation}

1458: \left( {\tilde \delta} m_{\tilde L}^2 \right)_{ij} \; = \;

1459: - { 1 \over 8 \pi^2} \left( 3 m_0^2 + A_0^2 \right) \left( Y_\nu^\dagger

1460: L Y_\nu \right)_{ij}: \; L \equiv {\rm Ln} \left( {{\bar M} \over M_i} 

1461: \right) \delta_{ij},

1462: \label{morerenn}

1463: \end{equation}

1464: where ${\bar M} \equiv {^3}\sqrt{M_1 M_2 M_3}$, with $\left( {\tilde 

1465: \delta} A_\ell \right)_{ij}$ being defined analogously. These new 

1466: contributions contain the matrix factor

1467: \begin{equation}

1468: Y^\dagger L Y \; = \; X Y^d P_2 {\bar Z}^T L {\bar Z}^* P_2^* y^d 

1469: X^\dagger,

1470: \label{YLY}

1471: \end{equation}

1472: which introduces dependences on the phases in ${\bar Z} P_2$, though not 

1473: $P_1$. In this way, the renormalization of the soft supersymmetry-breaking 

1474: parameters becomes sensitive to a total of 3 CP-violating 

1475: phases~\cite{EHRS}.

1476: 

1477: \subsection{Exploration of Parameter Space}

1478: 

1479: Now that we have seen how the 18 parameters in the minimal supersymmetric

1480: seesaw model might in principle be observable, we would like to explore

1481: the range of possibilities in this parameter space. This requires

1482: confronting two issues: the unwieldy large dimensionality of the parameter

1483: space, and the inclusion of the experimental information already obtained

1484: (or obtainable) from low-energy studies of neutrinos. Of the 9 parameters 

1485: accessible to these experiments: $m_{\nu_1}, m_{\nu_2}, m_{\nu_3}, 

1486: \theta_{12}, \theta_{23}, \theta_{31}, \delta, \phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, we 

1487: have measurements of 4 combinations: $\Delta m_{12}^2, \Delta 

1488: m_{23}^2, \theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$, and upper limits on 

1489: the overall light-neutrino mass scale, $\theta_{13}$ and the 

1490: double-$\beta$ decay observable (\ref{doublebeta}).

1491: 

1492: The remaining 9 parameters not measurable in low-energy neutrino physics 

1493: may be characterized by an auxiliary Hermitean matrix of the following 

1494: form~\cite{DI,EHRS2}:

1495: \begin{equation}

1496: H \; \equiv \; Y^\dagger_\nu D Y_\nu,

1497: \label{defH}

1498: \end{equation}

1499: where $D$ is an arbitrary real and diagonal matrix. Possible choices for 

1500: $D$ include ${\rm Diag}( \pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1)$ and the logarithmic matrix 

1501: $L$ defined in (\ref{morerenn}). Once one specifies the 9 parameters in 

1502: $H$, either in a statistical survey or in some definite model, one can 

1503: calculate

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: H^\prime \; \equiv \; \sqrt{{\cal M}^d_\nu} U^\dagger H U \sqrt{{\cal 

1506: M}^d_\nu},

1507: \label{defHprime}

1508: \end{equation}

1509: which can then be diagonalized by a complex orthogonal matrix $R^\prime$:

1510: \begin{equation}

1511: H^\prime \; = \; {R^\prime}^\dagger {\cal M}^{\prime d} R^\prime: \; 

1512: {R^\prime}^T R^\prime = 1.

1513: \label{defRprime}

1514: \end{equation}

1515: In this way, we can calculate all the remaining physical parameters:

1516: \begin{equation}

1517: ( {\cal M}_\nu, H) \to ( {\cal M}_\nu, {\cal M}^{\prime d}, R^\prime) \to 

1518: (Y_\nu, M_i)

1519: \label{procedure}

1520: \end{equation}

1521: and then go on to calculate leptogenesis, charged-lepton violation, 

1522: etc~\cite{DI,EHRS2}.

1523: 

1524: A freely chosen model will in general violate the experimental upper limit 

1525: on $\mu \to e \gamma$~\cite{PDG}. It is easy to avoid this problem using 

1526: the parametrization (\ref{defH})~\cite{EHRS2}. If one chooses $D = L$ and 

1527: requires the 

1528: entry $H_{12} = 0$, the leading contribution to $\mu \to e \gamma$ from 

1529: renormalization of the soft supersymmetry-breaking masses will be 

1530: suppressed. To suppress $\mu \to e \gamma$ still further, one may impose 

1531: the constraint $H_{13} H_{23} = 0$. This condition evidently has two 

1532: solutions: either $H_{13} = 0$, in which case $\tau \to e \gamma$ is 

1533: suppressed but not $\tau \to \mu \gamma$, or alternatively $H_{23} = 0$, 

1534: which favours $\tau \to e \gamma$ over $\tau \to \mu \gamma$. Thus we may 

1535: define two generic textures $H^1$ and $H^2$:

1536: \begin{eqnarray}

1537: H^1 \; \equiv \; \left(

1538: \begin{array}{ccc}

1539: a & 0 & 0 \\

1540: 0 & b & d \\

1541: 0 & d^\dagger & c

1542: \end{array}

1543: \right), \; H^2 \; \equiv \; \left(

1544: \begin{array}{ccc}

1545: a & 0 & d \\

1546: 0 & b & 0 \\

1547: d^\dagger & 0 & c

1548: \end{array}

1549: \right).

1550: \label{H1H2}

1551: \end{eqnarray}

1552: We use these as guides in the following, whilst recalling that they 

1553: represent extremes, and the truth may not favour one $\tau \to \ell 

1554: \gamma$ decay mode so strongly over the other.

1555: 

1556: \subsection{Leptogenesis}

1557: 

1558: In addition to the low-energy neutrino constraints, we frequently employ

1559: the constraint that the model parameters be compatible with the

1560: leptogenesis scenario for creating the baryon asymmetry of the

1561: Universe~\cite{FY}.  We recall that the baryon-to-entropy ratio $Y_B$ in

1562: the Universe today is found to be in the range $10^{-11} < Y_B < 3 \times

1563: 10^{-10}$. This is believed to have evolved from a similar asymmetry in

1564: the relative abundances of quarks and antiquarks before they became

1565: confined inside hadrons when the temperature of the Universe was about

1566: $100$~MeV. In the leptogenesis scenario~\cite{FY}, non-perturbative

1567: electroweak interactions caused this small asymmetry to evolve out of a

1568: similar small asymmetry in the relative abundances of leptons and

1569: antileptons that had been generated by CP violation in the decays of heavy

1570: singlet neutrinos.

1571: 

1572: The total decay rate of such a heavy neutrino $N_i$ may be written in the 

1573: form

1574: \begin{equation}

1575: \Gamma_i \; = \; {1 \over 8 \pi} \left( Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \right)_{ii} 

1576: M_i.

1577: \label{gammai}

1578: \end{equation}

1579: One-loop CP-violating diagrams involving the exchange of heavy 

1580: neutrino $N_j$ would generate an asymmetry in $N_i$ decay of the form:

1581: \begin{equation}

1582: \epsilon_{ij} \; = \; {1 \over 8 \pi} {1 \over \left( Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu 

1583: \right)_{ii}} {\rm Im} \left( \left( Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \right)_{ij} 

1584: \right)^2 f \left( {M_j \over M_i} \right),

1585: \label{epsilon}

1586: \end{equation}

1587: where $f ( M_j / M_i )$ is a known kinematic function.

1588: 

1589: As already remarked, the relevant combination

1590: \begin{equation}

1591: \left( Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \right) \; = \; \sqrt{M^d} R {\cal M}^d 

1592: R^\dagger \sqrt{M^d}

1593: \label{YY}

1594: \end{equation}

1595: {\it is independent of $U$ and hence of the light neutrino mixing angles 

1596: and 

1597: CP-violating phases}. The basic reason for this is that one makes a 

1598: unitary 

1599: sum over all the light lepton species in evaluating the 

1600: asymmetry $\epsilon_{ij}$. It is easy to derive a compact expression for 

1601: $\epsilon_{ij}$ in terms of the heavy neutrino masses and the complex 

1602: orthogonal matrix $R$:

1603: \begin{equation}

1604: \epsilon_{ij} \; = \; {1 \over 8 \pi} M_j f \left( {M_j \over M_i} \right)

1605: { {\rm Im} \left( \left( R {\cal M}_\nu^d R^\dagger \right)_{ij} \right)^2 

1606: \over \left( R {\cal M}_\nu^d R^\dagger \right)_{ii} }.

1607: \label{epsilonR}

1608: \end{equation}

1609: This depends explicitly on the extra phases in $R$: how can we measure 

1610: them?

1611: 

1612: The basic principle of a strategy to do this is the

1613: following~\cite{EHLR,EHRS,EHRS2}. The renormalization of soft

1614: supersymmetry-breaking parameters, and hence flavour-changing interactions

1615: and CP violation in the lepton sector, depend on the leptogenesis

1616: parameters as well as the low-energy neutrino parameters $\delta,

1617: \phi_{1,2}$. If one measures the latter in neutrino experiments, and the

1618: discrepancy in the soft supersymmetry-breaking determines the leptogenesis

1619: parameters.

1620: 

1621: An example how this could work is provided by the two-generation version 

1622: of the supersymmetric seesaw model~\cite{EHLR}. In this case, we have 

1623: ${\cal M}^d_\nu 

1624: = {\rm Diag}(m_{\nu_1}, m_{\nu_1})$ and $M^d = {\rm Diag}(M_1, M_2)$, and 

1625: we may parameterize

1626: \begin{eqnarray}

1627: R \; = \; \left(

1628: \begin{array}{cc}

1629: \cos (\theta_r + i \theta_i ) & \sin (\theta_r + i \theta_i ) \\

1630: - \sin (\theta_r + i \theta_i ) & \cos (\theta_r + i \theta_i )

1631: \end{array}

1632: \right).

1633: \label{twodR}

1634: \end{eqnarray}

1635: In this case, the leptogenesis decay asymmetry is proportional to

1636: \begin{equation}

1637: {\rm Im} \left( \left( Y_\nu Y^\dagger_\nu \right)^{21} \right)^2 \; = \;

1638: { \left( m^2_{\nu_1} - m^2_{\nu_2} \right) M_1 M_2 \over 2 v^4 \sin^4 

1639: \beta} {\rm sinh} 2 \theta_i sin 2 \theta_r.

1640: \label{leptog2}

1641: \end{equation}

1642: We see that this is related explicitly to the CP-violating phase and 

1643: mixing angle in $R$ (\ref{twodR}), and is independent of the low-energy 

1644: neutrino parameters. Turning now to the renormalization of the soft 

1645: supersymmetry-breaking parameters, assuming for simplicity maximal mixing 

1646: in the MNS matrix $V$ and setting the diagonal Majorana phase matrix $P_0 

1647: = {\rm Diag}(e^{-i \phi}, 1)$, we find that

1648: \begin{eqnarray}

1649: {\rm Re} \left[ \left( Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \right)^{12} \right] \; &=& \;

1650: - { (m_{\nu_2} - m_{\nu_1} ) \over 4 v^2 \sin^2 \beta} (M_1 + M_2) {\rm 

1651: cosh} 2 \theta_i \; + \; \cdots, \nonumber \\

1652: {\rm Im} \left[ \left( Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \right)^{12} \right] \; &=& \;

1653: {\sqrt{m_{\nu_2} m_{\nu_1}} \over 2 v^2 \sin^2 \beta} (M_1 + M_2) {\rm 

1654: sinh} 2 \theta_i \cos \phi \; + \; \cdots.

1655: \label{twodYY}

1656: \end{eqnarray}

1657: In this case, the strategy for relating leptogenesis to low-energy 

1658: observables would be: (i) use double-$\beta$ decay to determine $\phi$,

1659: (ii) use low-energy observables sensitive to ${\rm Re, Im} \left[ \left( 

1660: Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \right)^{12} \right]$ to determine $\theta_r$ and 

1661: $\theta_i$ (\ref{twodYY}), which then (iii) determine the leptogenesis 

1662: asymmetry (\ref{leptog2}) in this two-generation model.

1663: 

1664: In general, one may formulate the following strategy for calculating 

1665: leptogenesis in terms of laboratory observables:

1666: \begin{itemize}

1667: \item{Measure the neutrino oscillation phase $\delta$ and the Majorana 

1668: phases $\phi_{1,2}$,}

1669: \item{Measure observables related to the renormalization of soft 

1670: supersymmetry-breaking parameters, that are functions of $\delta, 

1671: \phi_{1,2}$ and the leptogenesis phases,}

1672: \item{Extract the effects of the known values of $\delta$ and 

1673: $\phi_{1,2}$, and isolate the leptogenesis parameters.}

1674: \end{itemize}

1675: In the absence of complete information on the first two steps above, we 

1676: are currently at the stage of preliminary explorations of the 

1677: multi-dimensional parameter space. As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:nodelta}, the 

1678: amount of the leptogenesis asymmetry is explicitly independent of 

1679: $\delta$~\cite{ER}. An important observation is that there is a 

1680: non-trivial lower 

1681: bound on the mass of the lightest heavy singlet neutrino $N$:

1682: \begin{equation}

1683: M_{N_1} \; \gappeq \; 10^{10}~{\rm GeV}

1684: \label{normal}

1685: \end{equation}

1686: if the light neutrinos have the conventional hierarchy of masses, and

1687: \begin{equation}   

1688: M_{N_1} \; \gappeq \; 10^{11}~{\rm GeV}

1689: \label{inverted}

1690: \end{equation}

1691: if they have an inverted hierarchy of masses~\cite{ER}. This observation 

1692: is 

1693: potentially important for the cosmological abundance of gravitinos, which 

1694: would be problematic if the cosmological temperature was once high enough 

1695: for leptogenesis by thermally-produced singlet neutrinos weighing as much 

1696: as (\ref{normal}, \ref{inverted})~\cite{gravitino}. However, these bounds 

1697: could be relaxed 

1698: if the two lightest $N_i$ were near-degenerate, as seen in 

1699: Fig.~\ref{fig:ERY}~\cite{ERY}. Striking aspects of this scenario include 

1700: the 

1701: suppression of $\mu \to e \gamma$, the relatively large value of $\tau \to 

1702: \mu \gamma$, and a preferred value for the neutrinoless double-$\beta$ 

1703: decay observable:

1704: \begin{equation}

1705: \langle m \rangle_{ee} \; \sim \; \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{solar}} \sin^2 

1706: \theta_{12}.

1707: \end{equation}

1708: 

1709: \begin{figure}

1710: \begin{centering}

1711: \hspace{2.5cm}

1712: \epsfig{figure=nodelta.eps,width=10cm}

1713: \end{centering}

1714: \hglue3.5cm   

1715: \caption[]{\it Heavy singlet neutrino decay may exhibit a CP-violating 

1716: asymmetry, leading to leptogenesis and hence baryogenesis, even if the 

1717: neutrino oscillation phase $\delta$ vanishes~\cite{ER}.} 

1718: \label{fig:nodelta}

1719: \end{figure}  

1720: 

1721: \begin{figure}

1722: \begin{centering}

1723: \hspace{2.5cm}

1724: \epsfig{figure=ERY.eps,width=10cm}

1725: \end{centering}

1726: \hglue3.5cm   

1727: \caption[]{\it The lower limit on the mass of the lightest heavy singlet 

1728: neutrino may be significantly reduced if the two lightest singlet 

1729: neutrinos are almost degenerate~\cite{ERY}.} 

1730: \label{fig:ERY}

1731: \end{figure}  

1732: 

1733: \subsection{Flavour-Violating Decays of Charged Leptons}

1734: 

1735: Several such decays can be studied within this framework, including

1736: $\mu \to e \gamma, \tau \to e \gamma, \tau \to \mu \gamma, \mu \to 3 e$, 

1737: and $\tau \to 3 \mu/e$~\cite{others}.

1738: 

1739: The effective Lagrangian for $\mu \to e \gamma$ and $\mu \to 3 e$ can be 

1740: written in the form~\cite{effL,EHLR}:

1741: \begin{eqnarray}

1742: {\cal L} &=& -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\{

1743:         {m_{\mu }}{A_R}\overline{\mu_{R}}

1744:         {{\sigma }^{\mu \nu}{e_L}{F_{\mu \nu}}}

1745:        + {m_{\mu }}{A_L}\overline{\mu_{L}}

1746:         {{\sigma }^{\mu \nu}{e_R}{F_{\mu \nu}}} \nonumber \\

1747:     &&   +{g_1}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{e_L})

1748:               (\overline{{e_R}}{e_L}) 

1749:        + {g_2}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{e_R})

1750:               (\overline{{e_L}}{e_R}) \nonumber \\

1751:     &&   +{g_3}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_R})

1752:               (\overline{{e_R}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_R})

1753:        + {g_4}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_L})

1754:               (\overline{{e_L}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_L})  \nonumber \\

1755:     &&   +{g_5}(\overline{{{\mu }_R}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_R})

1756:               (\overline{{e_L}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_L})

1757:        + {g_6}(\overline{{{\mu }_L}}{{\gamma }^{\mu }}{e_L})

1758:               (\overline{{e_R}}{{\gamma }_{\mu }}{e_R})

1759:        +  h.c. \}.

1760: \label{effL}

1761: \end{eqnarray}

1762: The decay $\mu \to e \gamma$ is related directly to the coefficients 

1763: $A_{L,R}$:

1764: \begin{equation}

1765: {Br}(\mu^{+} \rightarrow e^{+}\gamma)=384 \pi^2

1766: \left(|A_L|^2+|A_R|^2 \right),

1767: \label{muegamma}

1768: \end{equation}

1769: and the branching ratio for $\mu \to 3 e$ is given by

1770: \begin{equation}

1771: B(\mu \to e \gamma) \; = \; 2(C_1 + C_2) + C_3 + C_4 + 

1772: 32\left( {\rm ln} {m_\mu^2 \over m_e^2} - {11 \over 4} \right) (C_5 + C_6) 

1773: \nonumber \\

1774: + 16(C_7 + C_8) + 8(C_9 + C_{10}),

1775: \label{mu3e}

1776: \end{equation}

1777: where

1778: \begin{eqnarray}

1779: && C_{1} = \frac{|g_{1}|^{2}}{16} + |g_{3}|^{2},~

1780: C_{2} = \frac{|g_{2}|^{2}}{16} + |g_{4}|^{2},~ \nonumber 

1781: \\

1782: && C_{3} = |g_{5}|^{2},~ C_{4} = |g_{6}|^{2},C_{5} = 

1783: |eA_{R}|^{2},~

1784: C_{6}   =   |eA_{L}|^{2},~

1785:  C_{7}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{R}g_{4}^{*}), \nonumber \\

1786: &&C_{8}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{L}g_{3}^{*}),~

1787: C_{9}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{R}g_{6}^{*}),~

1788: C_{10}   =   {\rm Re}(eA_{L}g_{5}^{*})\,.

1789: \label{Cintermsofg}.

1790: \end{eqnarray}

1791: These coefficients may easily be calculated using the 

1792: renormalization-group equations for soft supersymmetry-breaking 

1793: parameters~\cite{EHLR,EHRS2}.

1794: 

1795: Fig.~\ref{fig:muegamma} displays a scatter plot of $B(\mu \to e \gamma)$ 

1796: in the texture $H^1$ mentioned earlier, as a function of the 

1797: singlet neutrino mass $M_{N_3}$. We see that $\mu \to e \gamma$ may 

1798: well have a branching ratio close to the present experimental upper limit, 

1799: particularly for larger $M_{N_3}$. Predictions 

1800: for $\tau \to \mu \gamma$ and $\tau \to e \gamma$ decays are shown in 

1801: Figs.~\ref{fig:taumugamma} and \ref{fig:tauegamma} for the textures $H^1$ 

1802: and $H^2$, 

1803: respectively. As advertized earlier, the $H^1$ texture favours $\tau \to 

1804: \mu \gamma$ and the $H^2$ texture favours $\tau \to e \gamma$. We see that 

1805: the branching ratios decrease with increasing sparticle masses, but that 

1806: the range due to variations in the neutrino parameters is considerably 

1807: larger than that due to the sparticle masses. The present 

1808: experimental upper limits on $\tau \to \mu \gamma$, in particular,

1809: already exclude significant numbers of parameter choices.

1810: 

1811: \begin{figure}

1812: \hspace{2cm}

1813: \epsfig{figure=muegamma.eps,width=10cm}

1814: \hglue3.5cm   

1815: \caption[]{\it Scatter plot of the branching ratio for $\mu \to e \gamma$ 

1816: in the supersymmetric seesaw model for various values of its unknown 

1817: parameters~\cite{EHRS2}.} 

1818: \label{fig:muegamma}

1819: \end{figure}  

1820: 

1821: \begin{figure}

1822: \begin{centering}

1823: \hspace{2cm}

1824: \epsfig{figure=taumugamma.eps,width=10cm}

1825: \end{centering}

1826: \hglue3.5cm   

1827: \caption[]{\it Scatter plot of the branching ratio for $\tau \to \mu 

1828: \gamma$ in one variant of the supersymmetric seesaw model for various 

1829: values of its unknown parameters~\cite{EHRS2}.}

1830: \label{fig:taumugamma}

1831: \end{figure}  

1832: 

1833: \begin{figure}

1834: \begin{centering}

1835: \hspace{2cm}

1836: \epsfig{figure=tauegamma.eps,width=10cm}

1837: \end{centering}

1838: \hglue3.5cm   

1839: \caption[]{\it Scatter plot of the branching ratio for $\tau \to e

1840: \gamma$ in a variant the supersymmetric seesaw model for various values of 

1841: its unknown parameters~\cite{EHRS2}.}

1842: \label{fig:tauegamma}

1843: \end{figure}  

1844: 

1845: The branching ratio for $\mu \to 3 e$ is usually dominated by the photonic

1846: penguin diagram, which contributes the $C_{5,6}$ terms in (\ref{mu3e}),

1847: yielding an essentially constant ratio for $B(\mu \to 3 e) / B(\mu \to e

1848: \gamma)$. However, if $\mu \to e \gamma$ decay is parametrically

1849: suppressed, as it may have to be in order to respect the experimental

1850: upper bound on this decay, then other diagrams may become important in

1851: $\mu \to 3 e$ decay. In this case, the ratio $B(\mu \to 3 e)  / B(\mu \to

1852: e \gamma)$ may be enhanced, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mu3e}. 

1853: 

1854: \begin{figure}

1855: \begin{centering}

1856: \hspace{2cm}

1857: \epsfig{figure=mu3e.eps,width=10cm}

1858: \end{centering}

1859: \hglue3.5cm   

1860: \caption[]{\it The branching ratio for $\mu \to e \gamma$ may be 

1861: suppressed for some particular values of the model parameters, in 

1862: which case the branching ratio for $\mu \to 3e$ gets significant

1863: contributions form other diagrams besides the photonic penguin 

1864: diagram~\cite{EHLR}.} 

1865: \label{fig:mu3e} 

1866: \end{figure}  

1867: 

1868: As a result, interference between the photonic penguin diagram and the

1869: other diagrams may in principle generate a measurable T-odd asymmetry in 

1870: $\mu \to 3

1871: e$ decay. This is sensitive to the CP-violating parameters in the 

1872: supersymmetric seesaw model, and is in principle observable in polarized 

1873: $\mu^+ \to e^+ e^- e^+$ decay: 

1874: \begin{equation}

1875: A_T (\mu^+ \to e^+ e^- e^+) = {3 \over 2 {\cal B}} \left( 2.0 C_{11} - 1.6 

1876: C_{12} 

1877: \right),

1878: \label{AT}

1879: \end{equation}

1880: where

1881: \begin{equation}

1882: C_{11} = {\rm Im} \left( e A_R g_4^* + e A_L g_3^* \right),

1883: C_{12} = {\rm Im} \left( e A_R g_6^* + e A_L g_5^* \right),

1884: \label{C1112}

1885: \end{equation}

1886: and ${\cal B}$ is the $\mu \to 3 e$ branching ratio with an optimized 

1887: cutoff for the more energetic positron:

1888: \begin{equation}

1889: {\cal B} = 1.8 (C_1+C_2)+0.96 (C_3+C_4) + 88 (C_5+C_6)

1890: +14 (C_7+C_8) +8 (C_9+C_{10}).

1891: \label{calB}

1892: \end{equation}

1893: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:AT}, the T-odd asymmetry is 

1894: enhanced in regions of parameter space where $B(\mu \to e \gamma)$ is 

1895: suppressed~\cite{EHLR}. If/when $\mu \to e \gamma$ and/or $\mu \to 3 e$ 

1896: decays are 

1897: observed, measuring $A_T$ (\ref{AT}) may provide an interesting window on 

1898: CP violation in the seesaw model.

1899: 

1900: \begin{figure}

1901: \begin{centering}

1902: \hspace{2cm}

1903: \epsfig{figure=AT.eps,width=10cm}

1904: \end{centering}

1905: \hglue3.5cm   

1906: \caption[]{\it The T-violating asymmetry $A_T$ in $\mu \to 3 e $ 

1907: decay is enhanced in the regions of parameter space shown in 

1908: Fig.~\ref{fig:mu3e} where the branching ratio for $\mu \to e 

1909: \gamma$ is suppressed, and different diagrams may interfere in the 

1910: $\mu \to 3 e $ decay amplitude~\cite{EHLR}.} 

1911: \label{fig:AT} 

1912: \end{figure}  

1913: 

1914: \subsection{Lepton Electric Dipole Moments}

1915: 

1916: This CP violation may also be visible in electric dipole moments for the

1917: electron and muon $d_e$ and $d_\mu$~\cite{dedmu}. It is usually thought 

1918: that these are

1919: unobservably small in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, and that

1920: $|d_e/d_\mu| = m_e/m_\mu$. However, $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ may be strongly

1921: enhanced if the heavy singlet neutrinos are not degenerate~\cite{EHRS}, 

1922: and depend on new phases that contribute to leptogenesis~\footnote{This 

1923: effect makes lepton electric dipole moments possible even in a 

1924: two-generation model.}. The leading 

1925: contributions to $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ in the presence of non-degenerate  

1926: heavy-singlet neutrinos are produced by the following terms in the 

1927: renormalization of soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters:

1928: \begin{eqnarray}

1929: \left( {\tilde \delta} m^2_{\tilde L} \right)_{ij} &=& {18 \over (4 

1930: \pi)^4} \left( m^2_0 + A_e^2 \right) \{ Y^\dagger_\nu L Y_\nu, 

1931: Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \}_{ij} {\rm ln} \left( {M_{GUT} \over {\bar M}} 

1932: \right), \nonumber \\

1933: \left( {\tilde A_e} \right)_{ij} &=& {1 \over (4 \pi)^4} A_0 \left[ 11

1934: \{ Y^\dagger_\nu L Y_\nu, Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu \}  + 7 [ 

1935: Y^\dagger_\nu L Y_\nu, Y^\dagger_\nu Y_\nu ] \right]_{ij} {\rm ln} 

1936: \left( {M_{GUT} \over 

1937: {\bar M}} \right),

1938: \label{nondeg}

1939: \end{eqnarray}

1940: where the mean heavy-neutrino mass ${\bar M} \equiv {^3}\sqrt{M_1 M_2 

1941: M_3}$ and the matrix $L \equiv 

1942: {\rm ln}({\bar M} / M_i) \delta_{ij}$ were introduced in 

1943: (\ref{morerenn}).

1944: 

1945: It should be emphasized that non-degenerate heavy-singlet 

1946: neutrinos are actually expected in most models of neutrino masses. 

1947: Typical examples are texture models of the form

1948: \begin{eqnarray}

1949: Y_\nu \sim Y_0 \left(

1950: \begin{array}{ccc}

1951: 0 & c \epsilon_\nu^3 & d \epsilon_\nu^3 \nonumber \\

1952: c \epsilon_\nu^3 & a \epsilon_\nu^2 & b \epsilon_\nu^2 \nonumber \\

1953: d \epsilon_\nu^3 & b \epsilon_\nu^2 & e^{i\psi}

1954: \end{array}

1955: \right),

1956: \label{hierarchymodel}

1957: \end{eqnarray}

1958: where $Y_0$ is an overall scale, $\epsilon_\nu$ characterizes the 

1959: hierarchy, $a, b, c$ and $d$ are ${\cal O}(1)$ complex numbers, and $\psi$ 

1960: is an arbitrary phase. For example, there is an SO(10) GUT model of this 

1961: form with $d = 0$ and a flavour SU(3) model with $a=b$ and $c=d$. The 

1962: hierarchy of heavy-neutrino masses in such a model is

1963: \begin{equation}

1964: M_1 : M_2 : M_3 \; = \; \epsilon_N^6 :  \epsilon_N^4 : 1,

1965: \label{ratios}

1966: \end{equation}

1967: and indicative ranges of the hierarchy parameters are

1968: \begin{equation}

1969: \epsilon_\nu \sim \sqrt{{\Delta m^2_{solar} \over \Delta m^2_{atmo}}} \; , 

1970: \; \epsilon_N \sim 0.1 ~ {\rm to} ~ 0.2.

1971: \label{values}

1972: \end{equation}

1973: Fig.~\ref{fig:increase} shows how much $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ may be increased 

1974: as soon as the degeneracy between the heavy neutrinos is broken:

1975: $\epsilon \ne 1$. We also see that $|d_\mu / d_e| \gg m_\mu / m_e$ when 

1976: $\epsilon_N \sim 0.1 ~ {\rm to} ~ 0.2$. Scatter plots of $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ 

1977: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dedmu}, where we see that values as large as 

1978: $d_\mu \sim 10^{-27}$~e.cm and $d_e \sim 3 \times 10^{-30}$~e.cm are 

1979: possible. For comparison, 

1980: the present experimental upper limits are $d_e < 1.6 \times 

1981: 10^{-27}$~e.cm~\cite{de} 

1982: and $d_\mu < 10^{-18}$~e.cm~\cite{BNL1}. An ongoing series of experiments 

1983: might be able to reach $d_e < 3 \times 10^{-30}$~e.cm, and a type of 

1984: solid-state experiment 

1985: that might 

1986: be sensitive to $d_e \sim 10^{-33}$~e.cm has been 

1987: proposed~\cite{Lamoreaux}. Also, $d_\mu 

1988: \sim 10^{-24}$~e.cm might be accessible with the PRISM experiment proposed 

1989: for the JHF~\cite{PRISM}, and $d_\mu \sim 5 \times 10^{-26}$~e.cm might be 

1990: attainable 

1991: at the front end of a neutrino factory~\cite{nufact}. It therefore seems 

1992: that $d_e$ 

1993: might be measurable with foreseeable experiments, whilst $d_\mu$ would 

1994: present more of a challenge.

1995: 

1996: \begin{figure}

1997: \begin{centering}

1998: \hspace{2.5cm}

1999: \epsfig{figure=increase.eps,width=10cm}

2000: \end{centering}

2001: \hglue3.5cm   

2002: \caption[]{\it The electric dipole moments of the electron and 

2003: muon, $d_e$ and $d_\mu$, may be enhanced if the heavy singlet 

2004: neutrinos are non-degenerate. The horizontal axis parameterizes 

2005: the breaking of their degeneracy, and the vertical strip indicates 

2006: a range favoured in certain models~\cite{EHRS}.} 

2007: \label{fig:increase} \end{figure}  

2008: 

2009: \begin{figure}

2010: \hspace{1cm}

2011: \epsfig{figure=dmu.eps,width=7cm}

2012: \epsfig{figure=de.eps,width=7cm}

2013: \hglue3.5cm   

2014: \caption[]{\it Scatter plots of $d_e$ and $d_\mu$ in variants of 

2015: the supersymmetric seesaw model, for different values of the 

2016: unknown parameters~\cite{EHRS2}.} 

2017: \label{fig:dedmu}

2018: \end{figure}  

2019: 

2020: \subsection{(Not so) Rare Sparticle Decays}

2021: 

2022: The suppression of rare lepton-flavour-violating (LFV) $\mu$ and $\tau$ 

2023: decays in the supersymmetric

2024: seesaw model is due to loop effects and the small masses of the leptons

2025: relative to the sparticle mass scale. The intrinsic slepton mixing may not

2026: be very small, in which case there might be relatively large amounts of

2027: LFV observable in sparticle decays. An example that might be detectable at

2028: the LHC is $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \ell^\pm \ell^{\prime \mp}$, where $\chi_1

2029: (\chi_2)$ denotes the (next-to-)lightest neutralino~\cite{HPLFV}. The

2030: largest LFV effects might be in $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm \mu^{\mp}$ and

2031: $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm e^{\mp}$~\cite{CEGLR}, though $\chi_2 \to

2032: \chi_1 e^\pm \mu^{\mp}$ would be easier to detect.

2033: 

2034: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CEGLR}~\cite{CEGLR}, these decays are likely to

2035: be enhanced in a region of CMSSM parameter space complementary to that

2036: where $\tau \to e/\mu \gamma$ decys are most copious. This is because the

2037: interesting $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm \mu^{\mp}$ and $\chi_2 \to \chi_1

2038: \tau^\pm e^{\mp}$ decays are mediated by slepton exchange, which is

2039: maximized when the slepton mass is close to $m_{\chi_1}$. This happens in

2040: the coannihilation region where the LSP relic density may be in the range

2041: preferred by astrophysics and cosmology, even if $m_{\chi_1}$ is

2042: relatively large. Thus searches for LFV $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm

2043: \mu^{\mp}$ and $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm e^{\mp}$ decays are quite

2044: complementary to those for $\tau \to e/\mu \gamma$.

2045: 

2046: \begin{figure}

2047: \begin{centering}

2048: \hspace{2.5cm}

2049: \epsfig{figure=CEGLR.eps,width=10cm}

2050: \end{centering}

2051: \hglue3.5cm   

2052: \caption[]{\it Contours of the possible ratio of the branching ratios for 

2053: $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \tau^\pm \mu^{\mp}$ and $\chi_2 \to \chi_1 \mu^\pm

2054: \mu^{\mp}$ (black lines) and of the branching ratio for $\tau \to \mu 

2055: \gamma$ (near-vertical grey/blue lines).~\cite{CEGLR}.}

2056: \label{fig:CEGLR}

2057: \end{figure}  

2058: 

2059: \subsection{Possible CERN Projects beyond the LHC}

2060: 

2061: What might come after the LHC at CERN? One possibility is the LHC itself,

2062: in the form of an energy or luminosity upgrade~\cite{upgrade}. It seems

2063: that the possibilities for the former are very limited: a substantial

2064: energy upgrade would require a completely new machine in the LHC tunnel,

2065: with even higher-field magnets and new techniques for dealing with

2066: synchrotron radiation. On the other hand, a substantial increase in

2067: luminosity seems quite feasible, though it would require some rebuilding

2068: of (at least the central parts of) the LHC detectors.

2069: 

2070: The mainstream project for CERN after the LHC is CLIC, the multi-TeV

2071: linear $e^+ e^-$ collider~\cite{CLIC}. CERN is continuing R\&D on this

2072: project, with a view to being able to assess its feasibility when the LHC

2073: starts to produce data, e.g., specifying the energy scale of supersymmetry

2074: or extra dimensions. CLIC would complement the work of the LHC and any

2075: first-generation sub-TeV linear $e^+ e^-$ collider, e.g., by detailed

2076: studies of heavier sparticles such as heavier charginos, neutralinos and

2077: strongly-interacting sparticles~\cite{Battaglia,CLICphys}.

2078: 

2079: A possible alternative that has attracted considerable enthusiasm in

2080: Europe is to develop neutrino physics beyond the current CNGS

2081: project~\cite{CNGS}. A first step might be an off-axis experiment in the

2082: CNGS beam, which could have interesting sensitivity to

2083: $\theta_{13}$~\cite{offaxis}. A second might be a super-beam produced by

2084: the SPL~\cite{SPL} at CERN and sent to a large detector in the Fr\'jus

2085: tunnel~\cite{Frejus}. A third step could be a storage ring for unstable

2086: ions, whose decays would produce a `$\beta$ beam' of pure $\nu_e$ or

2087: ${\bar \nu}_e$ neutrinos that could also be observed in a Fr\'ejus

2088: experiment. These experiments might be able to measure $\delta$ via CP

2089: and/or T violation in neutrino oscillations~\cite{betabeam}. A fourth step

2090: could be a full-fledged neutrino factory based on a muon storage ring,

2091: which would produce pure $\nu_\mu$ and ${\bar \nu}_e$ (or $\nu_e$ and

2092: ${\bar \nu}_\mu$ beams and provide a greatly enhanced capability to search

2093: for or measure $\delta$ via CP violation in neutrino

2094: oscillations~\cite{nufact}. Further steps might then include $\mu^+ \mu^-$

2095: colliders with various centre-of-mass energies, from the mass of the

2096: lightest Higgs boson, through those of the heavier MSSM Higgs bosons $H,

2097: A$, to the multi-TeV energy frontier~\cite{mucoll}.

2098: 

2099: This is an ambitious programme that requires considerable R\&D. CERN

2100: currently does not have the financial resources to support this, but it is

2101: hoped that other European laboratories and the European Union might

2102: support a network of interested physicists. Such an ambitious neutrino

2103: programme would also require wide support in the physics community. In

2104: addition to the neutrino physics itself, many might find enticing the

2105: other experimental possibilities offered by the type of intense proton

2106: driver required. These could include some of the topics discussed in this

2107: Lecture, including rare decays of slow or stopped muons~\cite{nufact},

2108: such as $\mu \to e \gamma$ and anomalous $\mu \to e$ conversion on a

2109: nucleus, measurements of $g_\mu -2$ and $d_\mu$, rare K

2110: decays~\cite{Buchalla}, short-baseline deep-inelastic neutrino experiments

2111: with very intense beams~\cite{Mangano}, muonic atoms, etc., etc..

2112: Physicists interested in such a programme, which nicely complements the

2113: `core business' of the neutrino factory, should get together and see how a

2114: coalition of interested parties could be assembled.  A large investment in

2115: neutrino physics will require a broad range of support.

2116: 

2117: 

2118: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2119: 

2120: \bibitem{StAnd}

2121: J.~R.~Ellis, Lectures at 1998 CERN Summer School, St. Andrews, {\it Beyond 

2122: the Standard Model for Hillwalkers},

2123: arXiv:hep-ph/9812235.

2124: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812235;%%

2125: 

2126: \bibitem{EHLR}

2127: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, S.~Lola and M.~Raidal,

2128: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621}, 208 (2002)

2129: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109125].

2130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109125;%%

2131: 

2132: \bibitem{TOE}

2133: J.~R.~Ellis,

2134: {\it The Superstring: Theory Of Everything, Or Of Nothing?},

2135: Nature {\bf 323} (1986) 595.

2136: %%CITATION = NATUA,323,595;%%

2137: 

2138: \bibitem{hierarchy}

2139: L.~Maiani, {\it Proceedings of the 1979 Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School On

2140: Particle

2141: Physics}, 1;

2142: G.~'t Hooft, in {\it Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, Proceedings

2143: of the Nato Advanced Study

2144: Institute, Cargese, 1979}, eds. G.~'t Hooft {\it et al.}, (Plenum Press,

2145: NY, 1980); E.~Witten,

2146: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 105} (1981) 267.

2147: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B105,267;%%

2148: 

2149: \bibitem{GUTs}

2150: J.~Ellis, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2151: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 131;

2152: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,131;%%

2153: U.~Amaldi, W.~de Boer and H.~Furstenau,

2154: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 447;

2155: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,447;%%

2156: P.~Langacker and M.~x.~Luo,

2157: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 817;

2158: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,817;%%

2159: C.~Giunti, C.~W.~Kim and U.~W.~Lee,

2160: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6} (1991) 1745.

2161: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A6,1745;%%

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{GSW}

2164: M.~B.~Green, J.~H.~Schwarz and E.~Witten,

2165: {\it Superstring Theory},

2166: (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

2167: 

2168: \bibitem{CHschool}

2169: J.~R.~Ellis, Lectures at 2001 CERN Summer School, Beatenberg,

2170: {\it Supersymmetry for Alp hikers},

2171: arXiv:hep-ph/0203114.

2172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203114;%%

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{noren}

2175: S.~Ferrara, J.~Wess and B.~Zumino,

2176: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 51} (1974) 239;

2177: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B51,239;%%

2178: S.~Ferrara, J.~Iliopoulos and B.~Zumino,

2179: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 77} (1974) 413.

2180: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B77,413;%%

2181: 

2182: \bibitem{Fayet}

2183: P.~Fayet, as reviewed in

2184: {\it Supersymmetry, Particle Physics And Gravitation},

2185: CERN-TH-2864,

2186: published in {\it Proc. of Europhysics Study Conf. on Unification of 

2187: Fundamental Interactions}, Erice, Italy, Mar 17-24, 1980, eds. S.

2188: Ferrara, J. Ellis, P. van Nieuwenhuizen (Plenum Press, 1980).

2189: 

2190: \bibitem{LEPEWWG}

2191: LEP Electroweak Working Group,\\

2192: {\tt http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/Welcome.html}.

2193: 

2194: \bibitem{susyHiggs}

2195: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

2196: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 85} (1991) 1;

2197: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%

2198: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,

2199: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257} (1991) 83;

2200: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%

2201: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,

2202: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 66} (1991) 1815.

2203: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%

2204: 

2205: \bibitem{EHNOS}

2206: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive

2207: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 238} (1984) 453; see also

2208: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.

2209: %%CITATION = PRLTA,50,1419;%%

2210: 

2211: \bibitem{FF}

2212: For an early review, see:

2213: P.~Fayet and S.~Ferrara,

2214: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 32} (1977) 249;

2215: %%CITATION = PRPLC,32,249;%%

2216: see also:

2217: H.~P.~Nilles,

2218: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 110} (1984) 1;

2219: %%CITATION = PRPLC,110,1;%%

2220: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane,

2221: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 117} (1985) 75.

2222: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%

2223: 

2224: \bibitem{FCNI}

2225: J.~R.~Ellis and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2226: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) 44;

2227: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,44;%%

2228: R.~Barbieri and R.~Gatto,

2229: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) 211.

2230: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B110,211;%%

2231: 

2232: \bibitem{softren}

2233: K.~Inoue, A.~Kakuto, H.~Komatsu and S.~Takeshita,

2234: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 68} (1982) 927

2235: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 70} (1982) 330];

2236: %%CITATION = PTPKA,68,927;%%

2237: L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.G.~Ross, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) {215};

2238: L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 118} (1982) {73};

2239: J.~Ellis, D.V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

2240: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 121} (1983) {123};

2241: J.~Ellis, J. Hagelin, D.V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

2242: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 125} (1983) {275};

2243: L.~Alvarez-Gaum\'e, J.~Polchinski, and M.~Wise,

2244: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 221} (1983) {495}.   

2245: 

2246: \bibitem{LEPsusy}

2247: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group,

2248: {\it Combined LEP Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV}, \\

2249: {\tt http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos{\_}moriond01/}

2250: {\tt charginos{\_}pub.html}.

2251: 

2252: \bibitem{LEPSUSYWG_0101}

2253: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group, %\\

2254: {\it Combined LEP

2255: Selectron/Smuon/Stau Results, 183-208 GeV}, \\

2256: {\tt http://alephwww.cern.ch/\~{}ganis/SUSYWG/SLEP/sleptons{\_}2k01.html}.

2257: 

2258: \bibitem{EFGOSi}

2259: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

2260: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 236

2261: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098].

2262: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

2263: 

2264: \bibitem{LEPHWG}

2265: LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collaboration,

2266: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

2267: Collaboration,

2268: {\it Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP},

2269: ALEPH-2001-066, DELPHI-2001-113, CERN-L3-NOTE-2699, OPAL-PN-479,

2270: LHWG-NOTE-2001-03, CERN-EP/2001-055, arXiv:hep-ex/0107029;

2271: {\it Searches for the neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM: Preliminary

2272: combined results using LEP data collected at energies up to 209 GeV},

2273: LHWG-NOTE-2001-04, ALEPH-2001-057, DELPHI-2001-114, L3-NOTE-2700,

2274: OPAL-TN-699, arXiv:hep-ex/0107030.

2275: 

2276: \bibitem{bsg}

2277: M.S. Alam et al., [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} 

2278: (1995) 2885 as updated in

2279: S.~Ahmed et al., {CLEO CONF 99-10};

2280: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0003, contribution to the 30th 

2281: International conference on High-Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000.

2282: See also

2283: K.~Abe {\it et al.},  [Belle Collaboration],

2284: [arXiv:hep-ex/0107065];

2285: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107065;%%

2286: L.~Lista  [BaBar Collaboration],

2287: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110010];

2288: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110010;%%

2289: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

2290: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

2291: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

2292: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

2293: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

2294: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003].

2295: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

2296: 

2297: \bibitem{EOSnew}

2298: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

2299: %``Constraining supersymmetry,''

2300: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (2002) 32

2301: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202110].

2302: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202110;%%

2303: 

2304: \bibitem{CEPW}

2305: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~Wagner,

2306: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586} (2000) 92

2307: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003180],

2308: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003180;%%

2309: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 155

2310: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009212];

2311: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009212;%%

2312: and references therein.

2313: 

2314: \bibitem{EGNO}

2315: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ganis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

2316: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502} (2001) 171

2317: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009355].

2318: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009355;%%

2319: 

2320: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

2321: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

2322: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124}, 76 (2000)

2323: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];

2324: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

2325: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

2326: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 343 

2327: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].

2328: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

2329: 

2330: \bibitem{BNL1}

2331: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

2332: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001)

2333: [arXiv:hep-ex/0102017].

2334: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%% 

2335: 

2336: \bibitem{BNL2}

2337: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

2338: %``Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7 

2339: ppm,''

2340: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 101804

2341: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 129903]

2342: [arXiv:hep-ex/0208001].

2343: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%

2344: 

2345: \bibitem{Davier}

2346: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,

2347: %``Confronting spectral functions from e+ e- annihilation and tau decays:  

2348: arXiv:hep-ph/0208177; see also

2349: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208177;%%

2350: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

2351: %``The SM prediction of g-2 of the muon,''

2352: arXiv:hep-ph/0209187;

2353: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209187;%%

2354: F.~Jegerlehner, unpublished, as reported in

2355: M.~Krawczyk,

2356: arXiv:hep-ph/0208076.

2357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208076;%%

2358: 

2359: \bibitem{lightbylight}

2360: %\bibitem{Knecht:2001qf}

2361: M.~Knecht and A.~Nyffeler,

2362: %``Hadronic light-by-light corrections to the muon g-2: 

2363: %  The pion-pole  contribution,''

2364: arXiv:hep-ph/0111058;

2365: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111058;%%

2366: %\bibitem{Knecht:2001qg}

2367: M.~Knecht, A.~Nyffeler, M.~Perrottet and E.~De Rafael,

2368: %``Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon g-2: 

2369: %  An  effective field theory approach,''

2370: arXiv:hep-ph/0111059;

2371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111059;%%

2372: %\bibitem{Hayakawa:2001bb}

2373: M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita,

2374: %``Comment on the sign of the pseudoscalar pole contribution to the muon  

2375: %  g-2,''

2376: arXiv:hep-ph/0112102;

2377: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112102;%%

2378: %\bibitem{Blokland:2001pb}

2379: I.~Blokland, A.~Czarnecki and K.~Melnikov,

2380: %``Pion pole contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering and muon  

2381: %  anomalous magnetic moment,''

2382: arXiv:hep-ph/0112117;

2383: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112117;%%

2384: %\bibitem{Bijnens:2001cq}

2385: J.~Bijnens, E.~Pallante and J.~Prades,

2386: %``Comment on the pion pole part of the light-by-light contribution to the  

2387: %  muon g-2,''

2388: arXiv:hep-ph/0112255.

2389: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112255;%%

2390: 

2391: \bibitem{susygmu}

2392: L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,

2393: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3484 (2001)

2394: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102145];

2395: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%% 

2396: J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,

2397: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3480 (2001)

2398: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102146];

2399: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%

2400: %\bibitem{Baltz:2001ts}

2401: E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,   

2402: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5004 (2001)

2403: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102147];

2404: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%

2405: %\bibitem{Chattopadhyay:2001vx}

2406: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,

2407: %``Upper limits on sparticle masses from g-2 and the possibility for

2408: % discovery of SUSY at colliders and in dark matter searches,''

2409: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5854 (2001)

2410: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102157];

2411: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%

2412: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,

2413: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 93 (2001)

2414: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102204];

2415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%

2416: J.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

2417: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508} (2001) 65

2418: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102331];

2419: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%

2420: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,

2421: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505} (2001) 177  

2422: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102344]

2423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%

2424: %\bibitem{Martin:2001st}

2425: S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells,

2426: %``Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in supersymmetric theories,''

2427: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035003 (2001)

2428: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103067];

2429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%

2430: %\bibitem{Baer:2001kn}

2431: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,

2432: %``Impact of muon anomalous magnetic moment on supersymmetric models,''

2433: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035004 (2001)

2434: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103280].

2435: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%

2436: 

2437: \bibitem{density}

2438: N.~A.~Bahcall, J.~P.~Ostriker, S.~Perlmutter and P.~J.~Steinhardt,

2439: Science {\bf 284} (1999) 1481

2440: [arXiv:astro-ph/9906463].

2441: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906463;%%

2442: 

2443: \bibitem{coann}

2444: S.~Mizuta and M.~Yamaguchi,

2445: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 298} (1993) 120

2446: [arXiv:hep-ph/9208251];

2447: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208251;%%

2448: J.~Edsjo and P.~Gondolo,

2449: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 1879

2450: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704361].

2451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704361;%%

2452: 

2453: \bibitem{ourcoann}

2454: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf

2455: 444} (1998) 367 [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360];  

2456: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

2457: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 13} (2000) 181 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481];

2458: M.~E.~G\'omez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,

2459: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 123512 

2460: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907261]

2461: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%

2462: and

2463: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487} (2000) 313 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004028];

2464: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004028;%%

2465: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso, 

2466: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 606} (2001) 59 [arXiv:hep-ph/0102181].

2467: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

2468: 

2469: \bibitem{stopco}

2470: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,

2471: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 035012  

2472: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911496].

2473: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911496;%%

2474: 

2475: \bibitem{EOS} J. Ellis, K.A. Olive and Y. Santoso,

2476: arXiv:hep-ph/0112113.

2477: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112113;%%

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{funnel}

2480: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

2481: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 376 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234];

2482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207234;%%

2483: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

2484: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 597 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321] 

2485: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

2486: and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 567 [arXiv:hep-ph/9706509];

2487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706509;%%

2488: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante, P.~Quintana

2489: and X.~Tata,

2490: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005027];

2491: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%

2492: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

2493: Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 16} (2001) 1229 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009065].

2494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009065;%%

2495: 

2496: \bibitem{focus}

2497: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

2498: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 2322 (2000)

2499: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908309];

2500: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%

2501: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

2502: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 075005 (2000)

2503: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334];

2504: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%

2505: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

2506: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 388 (2000)

2507: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004043].

2508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004043;%%

2509: 

2510: \bibitem{EO}

2511: J.~R.~Ellis and K.~A.~Olive,

2512: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 114

2513: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105004].

2514: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105004;%%

2515: 

2516: \bibitem{otherOmega}

2517: For other recent calculations, see, for example:

2518: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

2519: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 94

2520: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107151];

2521: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107151;%%

2522: %\bibitem{Barger:2001yy}

2523: V.~Barger and C.~Kao,

2524: %``Implications of new CMB data for neutralino dark matter,''

2525: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 117 (2001)

2526: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189];

2527: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106189;%%

2528: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,

2529: %``New cosmological and experimental constraints on the CMSSM,''

2530: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 024 (2001)

2531: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334];

2532: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%

2533: %\bibitem{Djouadi:2001yk}

2534: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

2535: %``Constraints on the minimal supergravity model and prospects for SUSY  particle production at future linear e+ e- colliders,''

2536: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 055 (2001)

2537: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107316].

2538: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%

2539: 

2540: \bibitem{EENZ}

2541: J.~Ellis, K.~Enqvist, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and F.~Zwirner,

2542: %``Observables In Low-Energy Superstring Models,''

2543: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 1}, 57 (1986);

2544: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A1,57;%%

2545: R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice,

2546: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 306} (1988) 63.

2547: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B306,63;%%

2548: 

2549: \bibitem{Bench}

2550: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 535

2551: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].

2552: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%

2553: 

2554: \bibitem{BenchKane}

2555: G.~L.~Kane, J.~Lykken, S.~Mrenna, B.~D.~Nelson, L.~T.~Wang and T.~T.~Wang,

2556: arXiv:hep-ph/0209061.

2557: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209061;%%

2558: 

2559: \bibitem{Tovey}

2560: D.~R.~Tovey, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 498} (2001) 1 [arXiv:hep-ph/0006276].

2561: 

2562: \bibitem{Paige}

2563: F.~E.~Paige, hep-ph/0211017.

2564: 

2565: \bibitem{CMS}

2566: ATLAS Collaboration, {\it ATLAS detector and physics

2567: performance

2568: Technical Design Report}, CERN/LHCC 99-14/15 (1999);

2569: S.~Abdullin {\it et al.}  [CMS Collaboration],

2570: arXiv:hep-ph/9806366;

2571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806366;

2572: S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles,

2573: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 547} (1999) 60 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811402];

2574: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811402;%%

2575: CMS Collaboration, Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-38 (1994).

2576: 

2577: \bibitem{Rurua}

2578: D.~Denegri, W.~Majerotto and L.~Rurua, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 

2579: 035008.

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{HP}

2582: I.~Hinchliffe, F.~E.~Paige, M.~D.~Shapiro, J.~Soderqvist and W.~Yao,

2583: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 5520;

2584: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610544;%%

2585: 

2586: \bibitem{TESLA}

2587: TESLA Technical Design Report, DESY-01-011,

2588: Part III, {\it Physics at an $e^+e^-$ Linear Collider} (March 2001).

2589: 

2590: \bibitem{EHOW2}

2591: J.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein, preprint 

2592: CERN--TH/2002-289, in preparation.

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{EGO}

2595: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ganis and K.~A.~Olive,

2596: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474} (2000) 314

2597: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912324].

2598: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912324;%%

2599: 

2600: \bibitem{BPZ}

2601: G.~A.~Blair, W.~Porod and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2602: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 017703

2603: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007107];

2604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007107;%%

2605: arXiv:hep-ph/0210058.

2606: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210058;%%

2607: 

2608: \bibitem{CLIC}

2609: R.~W.~Assmann {\it et al.} [CLIC Study Team], {\it A 3-TeV

2610: $e^+e^-$ Linear Collider

2611: Based on CLIC Technology}, ed. G.~Guignard, CERN 2000-08;

2612: for more information about this project, see: \\

2613: {\tt http://ps-div.web.cern.ch/ps-div/CLIC/Welcome.html}.

2614: 

2615: \bibitem{CLICphys}

2616: CLIC Physics Study Group, \\

2617: {\tt http://clicphysics.web.cern.ch/CLICphysics/}.

2618: 

2619: \bibitem{CTF3}

2620: For more information about this project, see: \\

2621: {\tt http://ctf3.home.cern.ch/ctf3/CTFindex.htm}.

2622: 

2623: \bibitem{Battaglia}

2624: M.~Battaglia, private communication.

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{EFFMO}

2627: J.~Ellis, J.~L.~Feng, A.~Ferstl, K.~T.~Matchev and K.~A.~Olive, 

2628: arXiv:astro-ph/0110225.

2629: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0110225;%%

2630: 

2631: \bibitem{Schnee:1998gf}

2632: CDMS Collaboration, R.~W.~Schnee {\it et al.},

2633: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 307}, 283 (1998).

2634: %%CITATION = PRPLC,307,283;%%

2635: 

2636: \bibitem{Bravin:1999fc}

2637: CRESST Collaboration, M.~Bravin {\it et al.},

2638: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 12}, 107 (1999)

2639: [arXiv:hep-ex/9904005].

2640: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9904005;%%

2641: 

2642: \bibitem{GENIUS}

2643: %\bibitem{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2000eq}

2644: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,

2645: %``New underground neutrino observatory - GENIUS - in the new 

2646: %millenium:  For solar neutrinos, dark matter and double beta decay,''

2647: arXiv:hep-ph/0104028.

2648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104028;%%

2649: 

2650: \bibitem{DAMA}

2651: DAMA Collaboration, R.~Bernabei {\it et al.},

2652: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436} (1998) 379.

2653: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B436,379;%%

2654: 

2655: \bibitem{neut}

2656: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,

2657: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 267}, 195 (1996)

2658: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506380];

2659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506380;%%

2660: {\tt http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/jungman/neut-package.html}.

2661: 

2662: \bibitem{Marciano}

2663: See also the lectures at this school by W.~J.~Marciano.

2664: 

2665: \bibitem{SK}

2666: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

2667: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998)

2668: [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003].

2669: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807003;%%

2670: 

2671: \bibitem{SNO}

2672: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration], 

2673: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 011301

2674: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008];

2675: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%

2676: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 011302

2677: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009].

2678: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%

2679: 

2680: \bibitem{BEG}

2681: R.~Barbieri, J.~R.~Ellis and M.~K.~Gaillard,

2682: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90} (1980) 249.

2683: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B90,249;%%

2684: 

2685: \bibitem{seesaw}

2686: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Proceedings of

2687: the Supergravity Stony Brook Workshop, New York, 1979, eds. P. Van

2688: Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North-Holland, Amsterdam);

2689: T. Yanagida, Proceedings of

2690: the  Workshop  on Unified  Theories  and  Baryon  Number in the

2691: Universe,  Tsukuba,  Japan 1979 (edited by A.  Sawada and A.

2692: Sugamoto, KEK Report No.  79-18, Tsukuba);

2693: R.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

2694: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912.

2695: 

2696: \bibitem{Frampton}

2697: P.~H.~Frampton, S.~L.~Glashow and T.~Yanagida,

2698: arXiv:hep-ph/0208157.

2699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208157;%%

2700: 

2701: \bibitem{Morozumi}

2702: T.~Endoh, S.~Kaneko, S.~K.~Kang, T.~Morozumi and M.~Tanimoto,

2703: arXiv:hep-ph/0209020.

2704: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209020;%%

2705: 

2706: \bibitem{fSU5}

2707: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2708: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 311} (1988) 1.

2709: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B311,1;%%

2710: 

2711: \bibitem{EGLLN}

2712: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~E.~G\'omez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2713: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 319.

2714: 

2715: \bibitem{EGN}

2716: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2717: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 109} (1976) 213.

2718: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B109,213;%%

2719: 

2720: \bibitem{KM}

2721: M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa,

2722: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 49} (1973) 652.

2723: %%CITATION = PTPKA,49,652;%%

2724: 

2725: \bibitem{MNS}

2726: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata,

2727: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28} (1962) 870.

2728: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%

2729: 

2730: \bibitem{SKsolar}

2731: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

2732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539} (2002) 179

2733: [arXiv:hep-ex/0205075].

2734: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205075;%%

2735: 

2736: \bibitem{Chooz}

2737: Chooz Collaboration,

2738: Phys.\ Lett. B {\bf 420} (1998) 397.

2739: 

2740: \bibitem{DGH}

2741: A. De R\'ujula, M.B. Gavela and P. Hern\'andez,  

2742: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B547} (1999) 21, hep-ph/9811390.

2743: 

2744: \bibitem{golden}

2745: A.~Cervera {\em et al.},

2746: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 579}, 17 (2000)

2747: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 593}, 731 (2001)].

2748: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002108;%%

2749: 

2750: \bibitem{Frejus}

2751: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.},

2752: {\it Oscillation physics with a neutrino factory}, arXiv:hep-ph/0210192;

2753: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210192;%%

2754: and references therein.

2755: 

2756: \bibitem{Casas}

2757: J.~A.~Casas and A.~Ibarra,

2758: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 618} (2001) 171

2759: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103065].

2760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%

2761: 

2762: \bibitem{FY}

2763: M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

2764: Phys. Lett. {\bf B174}, 45 (1986).

2765: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

2766: 

2767: \bibitem{DI}

2768: S.~Davidson and A.~Ibarra,

2769: JHEP {\bf 0109} (2001) 013.

2770: 

2771: \bibitem{EHRS}

2772: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,

2773: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 528}, 86 (2002)

2774: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111324].

2775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111324;%%

2776: 

2777: \bibitem{EHRS2}

2778: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~Hisano, M.~Raidal and Y.~Shimizu,

2779: arXiv:hep-ph/0206110.

2780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206110;%%

2781: 

2782: \bibitem{ER}

2783: J.~R.~Ellis and M.~Raidal,

2784: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 229

2785: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206174].

2786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206174;%%

2787: 

2788: \bibitem{Masiero}

2789: A.~Masiero and O.~Vives,

2790: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (2002) 4.

2791: %%CITATION = 00226,4,4;%%

2792: 

2793: \bibitem{Jarlskog}

2794: C.~Jarlskog,

2795: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 55} (1985) 1039;

2796: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,1039;%%

2797: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 29} (1985) 491.

2798: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C29,491;%%

2799: 

2800: \bibitem{PDG}

2801: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

2802: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.

2803: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%

2804: 

2805: \bibitem{gravitino}

2806: R.~Cyburt, J.~R.~Ellis, B.~Fields and K.~A.~Olive, preprint 

2807: CERN-TH/2002-207, in preparation, and references therein.

2808: 

2809: \bibitem{ERY}

2810: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~Raidal and T.~Yanagida,

2811: arXiv:hep-ph/0206300.

2812: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206300;%%

2813: 

2814: \bibitem{others}

2815: Y. Kuno and  Y. Okada,

2816: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 73} (2001) 151;

2817: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe and M.~Yamaguchi,

2818: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 2442;

2819: J.~Hisano, D.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida,   

2820: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437} (1998) 351;

2821: J.~Hisano and D.~Nomura,

2822: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116005;

2823: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and F.~Vissani,

2824: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 171;

2825: M.~E.~G\'omez, G.~K.~Leontaris, S.~Lola and J.~D.~Vergados,

2826: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 116009;

2827: W.~Buchm\"uller, D.~Delepine and L.~T.~Handoko,

2828: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 576} (2000) 445;

2829: J.~L.~Feng, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shadmi,

2830: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 113005;

2831: J.~Sato and K.~Tobe,

2832: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 116010;

2833: J.~Hisano and K.~Tobe,

2834: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 197;   

2835: D. Carvalho, J. Ellis, M. G\'omez and S. Lola,

2836: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515} (2001) 323;

2837: S.~Baek, T.~Goto, Y.~Okada and K.~Okumura,

2838: hep-ph/0104146;

2839: S. Lavignac, I. Masina and C.A. Savoy,

2840: hep-ph/0106245.

2841: 

2842: \bibitem{effL}

2843: Y.~Okada, K.~Okumura and Y.~Shimizu,

2844: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 051901;

2845: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 094001.

2846: 

2847: \bibitem{dedmu}

2848: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,

2849: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 478

2850: [Erratum - {\it ibid.} {\bf 58} (1998) 019901];

2851: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

2852: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 151;

2853: S.~Abel, D.~Bailin, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

2854: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504} (2001) 241.

2855: 

2856: \bibitem{de}

2857: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,

2858: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} (2002) 071805.

2859: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%

2860: 

2861: \bibitem{Lamoreaux}

2862: S.~K.~Lamoreaux, arXiv:nucl-ex/0109014.

2863: 

2864: \bibitem{PRISM}

2865: M. Furusaka {\it et al.}, JAERI/KEK Joint Project Proposal

2866: {\it The Joint Project for High-Intensity Proton Accelerators},

2867: KEK-REPORT-99-4, JAERI-TECH-99-056.

2868: 

2869: \bibitem{nufact}

2870: J. \"Ayst\"o {\it et al.}, {\it Physics with Low-Energy Muons at a

2871: Neutrino Factory Complex}, CERN-TH/2001-231, hep-ph/0109217;

2872: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109217;%%  

2873: and references therein.

2874: 

2875: \bibitem{HPLFV}

2876: I.~Hinchliffe and F.~E.~Paige,

2877: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 115006

2878: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010086].

2879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010086;%%

2880: 

2881: \bibitem{CEGLR}

2882: D.~F.~Carvalho, J.~R.~Ellis, M.~E.~G\'omez, S.~Lola and J.~C.~Romao,

2883: arXiv:hep-ph/0206148.

2884: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206148;%%

2885: 

2886: \bibitem{upgrade}

2887: F.~Gianotti {\it et al.},

2888: {\it Physics potential and experimental challenges of the LHC luminosity  

2889: upgrade}, arXiv:hep-ph/0204087.

2890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204087;%%

2891: 

2892: \bibitem{CNGS}

2893: For more information about this project, see: \\

2894: {\tt http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/};

2895: for the experiments, see: \\

2896: OPERA Collaboration,

2897: {\tt http://operaweb.web.cern.ch/operaweb/index.shtml}; \\

2898: ICARUS Collaboration,

2899: {\tt http://www.aquila.infn.it/icarus/}.

2900: 

2901: \bibitem{offaxis}

2902: F. Dydak, private communication.

2903: 

2904: \bibitem{SPL}

2905: B. Autin {\it et al.}, CERN report CERN-2000-012 (2000).

2906: 

2907: \bibitem{betabeam}

2908: P. Zucchelli, Phys. Lett. {\bf B532} 166 (2002).

2909: 

2910: \bibitem{mucoll}

2911: Neutrino Factory and Muon Collider Collaboration, \\

2912: {\tt http://www.cap.bnl.gov/mumu/mu{\_}home{\_}page.html}; \\

2913: European Muon Working Groups, \\

2914: {\tt http://muonstoragerings.cern.ch/Welcome.html}.

2915: 

2916: \bibitem{Buchalla}

2917: A.~Belyaev {\it et al.}  [Kaon Physics Working Group Collaboration],

2918: {\it Kaon physics with a high-intensity proton 

2919: driver}, arXiv:hep-ph/0107046.

2920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107046;%%

2921: 

2922: \bibitem{Mangano}

2923: M.~L.~Mangano {\it et al.},

2924: {\it Physics at the front-end of a neutrino factory: A quantitative  

2925: appraisal}, arXiv:hep-ph/0105155.

2926: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105155;%%

2927: 

2928: \end{thebibliography}

2929: 

2930: \end{document}

2931: 

2932: 

2933: \bibitem{EFGOS}

2934: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Schmitt,

2935: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 095002

2936: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801445].

2937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801445;%%

2938: 

2939: \bibitem{UNO}

2940: C.~K.~Jung,

2941: arXiv:hep-ex/0005046;

2942: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005046;%%

2943: Y.~Suzuki {\it et al.}  [TITAND Working Group Collaboration],

2944: arXiv:hep-ex/0110005.

2945: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110005;%%

2946: 

2947: \bibitem{Ellis}

2948: J. Ellis, talk at this meeting, see also

2949: arXiv:hep-ph/0110192.

2950: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110192;%%

2951: 

2952: \bibitem{ISOLDE}

2953: For a listing of ISOLDE experiments, see:

2954: {\tt http://greybook.cern.ch/}, under the ISOLDE rubric.

2955: 

2956: \bibitem{Hbar}

2957: The production of antihydrogen atoms was first reported in 

2958: G.~Baur {\it et al.}  [PS210 Collaboration],

2959: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 368}, 251 (1996);

2960: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B368,251;%%

2961: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 391}, 201 (1997);

2962: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A391,201;%%

2963: and subsequently in

2964: G.~Blanford, D.~C.~Christian, K.~Gollwitzer, M.~Mandelkern, C.~T.~Munger, 

2965: J.~Schultz and G.~Zioulas [E862 Collaboration],

2966: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 80}, 3037 (1998).

2967: %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,3037;%%

2968: 

2969: \bibitem{AD}

2970: For a listing of AD experiments, see:

2971: {\tt http://greybook.cern.ch/}, under the PS rubric.

2972: 

2973: \bibitem{COMPASS}

2974: The home page of this experiment is:

2975: {\tt http://wwwcompass.cern.ch/}.

2976: 

2977: \bibitem{NA48}

2978: The home page of this experiment is:

2979: {\tt http://na48.web.cern.ch/NA48/}.

2980: 

2981: \bibitem{epsprime}

2982: V.~Fanti {\it et al.}  [NA48 Collaboration],

2983: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 465}, 335 (1999)

2984: [arXiv:hep-ex/9909022];

2985: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9909022;%%

2986: A.~Lai {\it et al.}  [NA48 Collaboration],

2987: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22}, 231 (2001)

2988: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110019];

2989: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110019;%%

2990: see also

2991: A.~Alavi-Harati {\it et al.}  [KTeV Collaboration],

2992: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 22 (1999)

2993: [arXiv:hep-ex/9905060].

2994: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9905060;%%

2995: 

2996: \bibitem{CAST}

2997: The home page of this experiment is:

2998: {\it http://axnd02.cern.ch/CAST/}.

2999: 

3000: \bibitem{Raffelt}

3001: For a review, see:

3002: G.~Raffelt,

3003: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 77}, 456 (1999)

3004: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806506].

3005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806506;%%

3006: 

3007: \bibitem{EXPLORER}

3008: For information about this and other experiments recognized at CERN, see:

3009: {\tt http://greybook.cern.ch/}, under the `Recognized Experiments' rubric.

3010: 

3011: \bibitem{LISA}

3012: The home page of this experiment is:

3013: {\tt http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/}.

3014: 

3015: \bibitem{AMS}

3016: The home page of this experiment is:

3017: {\tt http://hpl3tri1.cern.ch/}.

3018: 

3019: \bibitem{albedo}

3020: J. Alcaraz {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],

3021: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 472}, 215 (2000);

3022: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 484}, 10 (2000).

3023: 

3024: \bibitem{Hebar}

3025: J. Alcaraz {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],

3026: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 461}, 387 (1999).

3027: 

3028: \bibitem{PAMELA}

3029: The home page of this experiment is: \\

3030: {\tt http://wizard.roma2.infn.it/pamela/fram{\underline ~}des.htm}.

3031: 

3032: \bibitem{GLAST}

3033: The home page of this experiment is:

3034: {\tt http://www-glast.stanford.edu/}.

3035: 

3036: \bibitem{ANTARES}

3037: The home page of this experiment is:

3038: {\tt http://antares.in2p3.fr/}.

3039: 

3040: \bibitem{NESTOR}

3041: P.~K.~Grieder  [NESTOR Collaboration],

3042: Nuovo Cim.\  {\bf 24C}, 771 (2001).

3043: %%CITATION = NUCIA,24C,771;%%

3044: 

3045: \bibitem{L3+C}

3046: The home page of this experiment is: \\

3047: {\tt http://l3cosmics.cern.ch:8000/l3cosmics/index.htm}.

3048: 

3049: \bibitem{AUGER}

3050: The home page of this experiment is:

3051: {\tt http://www.auger.org/auger.html}.

3052: 

3053: \bibitem{Watson}

3054: A. Watson, talk at this meeting.

3055: 

3056: \bibitem{AGASA}

3057: N.~Hayashida {\it et al.},

3058: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 522}, 225 (1999)

3059: [arXiv:astro-ph/0008102].

3060: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008102;%%

3061: 

3062: \bibitem{GZK}

3063: K.~Greisen,

3064: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 16}, 748 (1966);

3065: %%CITATION = PRLTA,16,748;%%

3066: G.~T.~Zatsepin and V.~A.~Kuzmin,

3067: JETP Lett.\  {\bf 4}, 78 (1966)

3068: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 4}, 114 (1966)].

3069: %%CITATION = JTPLA,4,78;%%

3070: 

3071: \bibitem{BEN}

3072: K.~Benakli, J.~R.~Ellis and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

3073: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 047301 (1999)

3074: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803333].

3075: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803333;%%

3076: 

3077: \bibitem{others}

3078: The home pages of other long-baseline experiments include: \\

3079: K2K, {\tt http://neutrino.kek.jp/}; \\

3080: NUMI-MINOS, {\tt http://www-numi.fnal.gov/}.

3081: 

3082: \bibitem{Velasco}

3083: G.~Barenboim, A.~De Gouvea, M.~Szleper and M.~Velasco,

3084: arXiv:hep-ph/0204208.

3085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204208;%%

3086: 

3087: \bibitem{LHC}

3088: For more information about this project, see: \\

3089: {\tt http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-new-homepage/}.

3090: 

3091: \bibitem{TDRs}

3092: ATLAS Collaboration, \\

3093: {\tt http://atlasinfo.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/TDR/access.html};

3094: CMS Collaboration, \\

3095: {\tt http://cmsinfo.cern.ch/Welcome.html/CMSdocuments/CMSdocuments.html};

3096: F. Gianotti, talk at this meeting.

3097: 

3098: \bibitem{inflation}

3099: A.~H.~Guth,

3100: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 347 (1981).

3101: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,347;%%

3102: 

3103: 

3104: \bibitem{RV}

3105: D.~A.~Ross and M.~J.~Veltman,

3106: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 95} (1975) 135.

3107: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B95,135;%%

3108: 

3109: \bibitem{H}

3110: P.~W.~Higgs,

3111: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf 12} (1964) 132;

3112: %%CITATION = PHLTA,12,132;%%

3113: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 13} (1964) 508.

3114: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,508;%%

3115: 

3116: \bibitem{BE}

3117: F.~Englert and R.~Brout,

3118: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 13} (1964) 321.

3119: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,321;%%

3120: 

3121: \bibitem{topcolour}

3122: C.~T.~Hill,

3123: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 266} (1991) 419;

3124: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B266,419;%%

3125: for a recent review, see:

3126: C.~T.~Hill and E.~H.~Simmons,

3127: arXiv:hep-ph/0203079.

3128: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203079;%%

3129: 

3130: \bibitem{TC}

3131: For a historical reference, see:

3132: E.~Farhi and L.~Susskind,

3133: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 74} (1981) 277.

3134: %%CITATION = PRPLC,74,277;%%

3135: 

3136: \bibitem{ETC}

3137: S.~Dimopoulos and L.~Susskind,

3138: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 155} (1979) 237;

3139: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B155,237;%%

3140: E.~Eichten and K.~Lane,

3141: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90} (1980) 125.

3142: 

3143: \bibitem{Tpi}

3144: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and P.~Sikivie,

3145: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 182} (1981) 529.

3146: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B182,529;%%

3147: 

3148: \bibitem{DE}

3149: S.~Dimopoulos and J.~R.~Ellis,

3150: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 182} (1982) 505.

3151: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B182,505;%%

3152: 

3153: \bibitem{STU}

3154: G.~Altarelli and R.~Barbieri,

3155: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 253} (1991) 161;

3156: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,161;%%

3157: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

3158: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 65} (1990) 964.

3159: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%

3160: 

3161: \bibitem{EFL}

3162: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~L.~Fogli and E.~Lisi,

3163: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 343} (1995) 282.

3164: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B343,282;%%

3165: 

3166: \bibitem{epsilons}

3167: G.~Altarelli, F.~Caravaglios, G.~F.~Giudice, P.~Gambino and G.~Ridolfi,

3168: JHEP {\bf 0106} (2001) 018

3169: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106029].

3170: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106029;%%

3171: 

3172: \bibitem{Lane}

3173: For a recent reference, see:

3174: K.~Lane,

3175: {\it Two lectures on technicolor},

3176: arXiv:hep-ph/0202255.

3177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202255;%%

3178: 

3179: \bibitem{walk}

3180: B. Holdom, 

3181: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24} (1981) 1441.

3182: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,1441;%%

3183: 

3184: \bibitem{Erler}

3185: J.~Erler,

3186: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 071301

3187: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010153].

3188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010153;%%

3189: 

3190: \bibitem{ER}

3191: J.~R.~Ellis and D.~Ross,

3192: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506} (2001) 331

3193: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012067].

3194: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012067;%%

3195: 

3196: \bibitem{HR}

3197: For a review, see:

3198: T.~Hambye and K.~Riesselmann,

3199: arXiv:hep-ph/9708416.

3200: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708416;%%

3201: 

3202: \bibitem{Strumia}

3203: G.~Isidori, G.~Ridolfi and A.~Strumia,

3204: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 609} (2001) 387

3205: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104016].

3206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104016;%%

3207: 

3208: \bibitem{CM}

3209: S.~R.~Coleman and J.~Mandula,

3210: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 159} (1967) 1251.

3211: %%CITATION = PHRVA,159,1251;%%

3212: 

3213: \bibitem{GL}

3214: Y.~A.~Golfand and E.~P.~Likhtman,

3215: JETP Lett.\  {\bf 13} (1971) 323

3216: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 13} (1971) 452].

3217: %%CITATION = JTPLA,13,323;%%

3218: 

3219: \bibitem{NS}

3220: A.~Neveu and J.~H.~Schwarz,

3221: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 31} (1971) 86.

3222: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B31,86;%%

3223: 

3224: \bibitem{R}

3225: P.~Ramond,

3226: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 3} (1971) 2415.

3227: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D3,2415;%%

3228: 

3229: \bibitem{VA}

3230: D.~V.~Volkov and V.~P.~Akulov,

3231: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 46} (1973) 109.

3232: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B46,109;%%

3233: 

3234: \bibitem{WZ1}

3235: J.~Wess and B.~Zumino,

3236: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 49} (1974) 52;

3237: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B49,52;%%

3238: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 70} (1974) 39.

3239: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B70,39;%%

3240: 

3241: \bibitem{WZ2}

3242: J.~Wess and B.~Zumino,

3243: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 78} (1974) 1.

3244: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B78,1;%%

3245: 

3246: \bibitem{sugra}

3247: D.~Z.~Freedman, P.~van Nieuwenhuizen and S.~Ferrara,

3248: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13} (1976) 3214;

3249: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,3214;%%

3250: S.~Deser and B.~Zumino,

3251: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 62} (1976) 335.

3252: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B62,335;%%

3253: 

3254: \bibitem{Hawk}

3255: S.~W.~Hawking,

3256: {\it Is The End In Sight For Theoretical Physics?}

3257: Phys.\ Bull.\  {\bf 32} (1981) 15.

3258: %%CITATION = PHSBB,32,15;%%

3259: 

3260: \bibitem{HLS}

3261: R.~Haag, J.~T.~Lopuszanski and M.~Sohnius,

3262: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 88} (1975) 257.

3263: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B88,257;%%

3264: 

3265: \bibitem{Iachello}

3266: F.~Iachello,

3267: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 44} (1980) 772.

3268: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,772;%%

3269: 

3270: \bibitem{A}

3271: I.~Antoniadis, Lectures at this school;

3272: for a recent phenomenological review, see:

3273: I.~Antoniadis and K.~Benakli,

3274: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 15} (2000) 4237

3275: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007226].

3276: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007226;%%

3277: 

3278: \bibitem{CDEO}

3279: B.~A.~Campbell, S.~Davidson, J.~R.~Ellis and K.~A.~Olive,

3280: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 256} (1991) 457;

3281: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B256,457;%%

3282: W.~Fischler, G.~F.~Giudice, R.~G.~Leigh and S.~Paban,

3283: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 258} (1991) 45.

3284: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B258,45;%%

3285: 

3286: \bibitem{DG}

3287: S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,

3288: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193} (1981) 150;

3289: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,150;%%

3290: N.~Sakai,

3291: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 11} (1981) 153.

3292: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C11,153;%%

3293: 

3294: \bibitem{FI}

3295: P.~Fayet and J.~Iliopoulos,

3296: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 51} (1974) 461.

3297: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B51,461;%%

3298: 

3299: \bibitem{DSW}

3300: M.~Dine, N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,

3301: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 289} (1987) 589.

3302: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B289,589;%%

3303: 

3304: \bibitem{FO}

3305: L.~O'Raifeartaigh,

3306: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 96} (1975) 331;

3307: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B96,331;%%

3308: P.~Fayet,

3309: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 58} (1975) 67.

3310: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B58,67;%%

3311: 

3312: \bibitem{Polonyi}

3313: J.~Polonyi,

3314: Hungary Central Inst. Res. preprint KFKI-77-93 (1977).

3315: 

3316: \bibitem{Fetal}

3317: E.~Cremmer, B.~Julia, J.~Scherk, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello and P.~van 

3318: Nieuwenhuizen,

3319: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147} (1979) 105.

3320: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,105;%%

3321: 

3322: \bibitem{LEtheory}

3323: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~A.~Savoy,

3324: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 119} (1982) 343;

3325: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B119,343;%%

3326: A.~H.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

3327: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 49} (1982) 970.

3328: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,970;%%

3329: 

3330: \bibitem{noscale}

3331: E.~Cremmer, S.~Ferrara, C.~Kounnas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

3332: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 133} (1983) 61;

3333: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B133,61;%%

3334: J.~R.~Ellis, A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

3335: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 134} (1984) 429;

3336: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B134,429;%%

3337: J.~R.~Ellis, C.~Kounnas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

3338: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 241} (1984) 406.

3339: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B241,406;%%

3340: 

3341: \bibitem{W}

3342: E.~Witten,

3343: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155} (1985) 151.

3344: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,151;%%

3345: 

3346: 

3347: \end{document}

3348: 

3349: