1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig,amsmath]{article}
2: \hoffset -0.2in
3: \textwidth 6in
4: \textheight 8.5in
5: %\setcounter{page}{1} `
6: \parskip 7pt \openup1\jot \parindent=0.5in
7: \topmargin -0.5in
8:
9: % the stuff below defines \eqalign and \eqalignno in such a
10: % way that they will run on Latex
11: \newfont{\thiplo}{msbm10 scaled\magstep 2}
12: \newfont{\gothic}{eufb10 scaled\magstep 2}
13: \newfont{\unc}{eurb10}
14: \newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
15: \def\caja{\mathsurround=0pt}
16: \def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \caja
17: \ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
18: \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
19: \newif\ifdtup
20: \def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \caja
21: \everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
22: \vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
23: \else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
24: \def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
25: \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
26: \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
27: \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
28: \crcr#1\crcr}}
29: % eqalignnoleft is eqalignno positioned flush left on the page
30: \def\eqalignnoleft#1{\panorama \tabskip=0pt
31: \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
32: \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
33: \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
34: \crcr#1\crcr}}
35: % \eqright causes display equation material between \eqright and \cr
36: % to be positioned flush right on the page. This is useful
37: % in breaking long lines in a display equation.
38: % \eqright is usually used in conjunction with \eqalignnoleft.
39: \def\eqright #1\cr{\noalign{\hfill$\displaystyle{{}#1}$}}
40: % \eqleft causes display equation material between \eqleft and \cr
41: % to be positioned flush left on the page.
42: \def\eqleft #1\cr{\noalign{\noindent$\displaystyle{{}#1}$\hfill}}
43: % The oldref and fig macros are for formatting
44: % references and figure lists at the end of the paper.
45: % If you type \oldref{1}Dirac, P.A.M. you will get
46: % [1] Dirac, P.A.M.
47: % Same goes for \fig except you get Figure 2.1
48: \def\oldrefledge{\hangindent3\parindent}
49: \def\oldreffmt#1{\rlap{[#1]} \hbox to 2\parindent{}}
50: \def\oldref#1{\par\noindent\oldrefledge \oldreffmt{#1}
51: \ignorespaces}
52: \def\figledge{\hangindent=1.25in}
53: \def\figfmt#1{\rlap{Figure {#1}} \hbox to 1in{}}
54: \def\fig#1{\par\noindent\figledge \figfmt{#1}
55: \ignorespaces}
56: %
57: % This defines et al., i.e., e.g., cf., etc.
58: \def\ie{\hbox{\it i.e.}{}} \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}{}}
59: \def\eg{\hbox{\it e.g.}{}} \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}{}}
60: \def\etal{\hbox{\it et al.}}
61: \def\dash{\hbox{---}}
62: % common physics symbols
63: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}
64: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
65: \def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}
66: \def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial~2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}
67: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}
68: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}
69: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}
70: \def\ME#1#2{\left\langle #1\right|\left. #2 \right\rangle}
71: \def\gdot#1{\rlap{$#1$}/}
72: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
73: \def\pr#1{#1~\prime}
74: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
75: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
76: % \contract is a differential geometry contraction sign _|
77: \def\contract{\makebox[1.2em][c]{
78: \mbox{\rule{.6em}{.01truein}\rule{.01truein}{.6em}}}}
79: % The command \sectioneq produces numbering of equations by section
80: \def\holdtheequation{\arabic}
81: \def\sectioneq{\def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}{\let
82: \holdsection=\section\def\section{\setcounter{equation}{0}\holdsection}}}%
83:
84: % The commands \beginletts and \endletts delimit sections of
85: % text in which successive equation numbers are distinguished by
86: % sequentially appending lower case letters
87: \newcounter{holdequation}\def
88: \beginletts{\begingroup\setcounter
89: {holdequation}{\value{equation}}\addtocounter
90: {equation}{1}\edef
91: \holdtheequation{\theequation}\setcounter
92: {equation}{0}\def
93: \theequation{\holdtheequation\alph{equation}}}
94: \def\endletts{\endgroup\setcounter
95: {equation}{\value{holdequation}}\refstepcounter{equation}}
96: % The command \num provides automatic numbering in LaTex when used in
97: % place of (equation number) in PlainTeX-style equations
98: \def\num{(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}
99: % \auto is shorthand for \eqno\num
100: \def\auto{\eqno(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}
101: % The commands \begineq and \endeq provide for one vertically
102: % centered automatic number for multiline equations
103: \def\begineq #1\endeq{$$ \refstepcounter{equation}\eqalign{#1}\eqno
104: (\theequation) $$}
105: % The command \contlimit puts (a\rightarrow0)
106: % under \longrightarrow
107: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex
108: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}
109: % The command \centeron#1#2 backs up #2 so that it is centered
110: % over #1. \centerover and \centerunder work like \centeron,
111: % except that they raise or lower #2 to place it over or under
112: % #1.
113: \def\centeron#1#2{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim
114: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi
115: \copy0\kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1
116: \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}
117: %
118: \def\centerover#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox
119: 1=\hbox{#2}\raise\ht0\hbox{\raise\dp1\hbox{\copy1}}}}
120: %
121: \def\centerunder#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox
122: 1=\hbox{#2}\lower\dp0\hbox{\lower\ht1\hbox{\copy1}}}}
123: % The commands \lsim and \gsim provide symbols for
124: % `less than of order' and `greater than of order'
125: \def\lsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox
126: {$\sim$}}\;}
127: \def\gsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox
128: {$\sim$}}\;}
129: % The command \st (for stroke) puts a slash through the succeeding
130: % character in math mode
131: \def\st#1{\centeron{$#1$}{$/$}}
132: % The command \newcases works like \cases except that
133: % the baselines and type size are the same as for
134: % display equations
135: \def\newcases#1{\left\{\,\vcenter{\normalbaselines\openup1\jot \caja
136: \ialign{\strut$\displaystyle{##}$\hfil
137: &\quad##\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\right.}
138: % The command \super inserts the characters in its argument as a
139: % superscript with the correct spacefactor.
140: \def\super#1{\ifmmode \hbox{\textsuper{#1}}\else\textsuper{#1}\fi}
141: \def\textsuper#1{\newcount\holdspacefactor\holdspacefactor=\spacefactor
142: $^{#1}$\spacefactor=\holdspacefactor}
143: % The command \supercite redefines \cite so that it makes superscripted
144: % citation numbers. It is to be used in conjunction with the
145: % \label command (for example, with one of the list-making
146: % environments). The command \oldcite restores the original LaTeX
147: % \cite command.
148: \let\holdcite=\cite
149: \def\supercite{\def\cite{\newcite}}
150: \def\oldcite{\def\cite{\holdcite}}
151: \def\newcite#1{\super{\newcount\citenumber\citenumber=0\getcite#1,@, }}
152: \def\getcite#1,{\advance\citenumber by1
153: \def\getcitearg{#1}\def\lastarg{@}
154: \ifnum\citenumber=1
155: \ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\else\ifx\getcitearg\lastarg\let\next=\relax
156: \else ,\ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\fi\fi\next}
157: % The command \nskip gives a vertical skip of the specified
158: % dimension (in braces) without including any extra \baselineskip
159: % or \parskip.
160: \def\nskip#1{\vbox{}\vskip-\baselineskip\vskip#1\vskip-\parskip\noindent}
161: % The command \lskip skips vertically by one line, i.e.,
162: % the current \baselineskip. There is no indentation unless
163: % \indent is specified.
164: \def\lskip{\vskip\baselineskip\vskip-\parskip\noindent}
165: \def\np{Nucl.\ Phys.\ }
166: \def\pr{Phys.\ Rev.\ }
167: \def\prl{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }
168: \def\pl{Phys.\ Lett.\ }
169: \def\arnps{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ }
170: \def\mn{\mu\nu}
171: \def\epm{e^+e^-}
172: \def\pom{{\rm P\kern -0.53em\llap I\,}}
173: \def\spom{{\rm P\kern -0.36em\llap \small I\,}}
174: \def\sspom{{\rm P\kern -0.33em\llap \footnotesize I\,}}
175: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}
176: \def\mev{{\rm MeV}}
177: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}
178: \relax
179: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex
180: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}
181: \def\upon #1/#2 {{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}}
182: \relax
183: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
184: \def\srf#1{$^{#1}$\ }
185: \def\mainhead#1{\setcounter{equation}{0}\addtocounter{section}{1}
186: \vbox{\begin{center}\large\bf #1\end{center}}\nobreak\par}
187: \sectioneq
188: \def\subhead#1{\bigskip\vbox{\noindent\bf #1}\nobreak\par}
189: \def\rf#1#2#3{{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}
190: \def\autolabel#1{\auto\label{#1}}
191: \def\til#1{\centeron{\hbox{$#1$}}{\lower 2ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}
192: \def\tild#1{\centeron{\hbox{$\,#1$}}{\lower 2.5ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}
193: \def\sumtil{\centeron{\hbox{$\displaystyle\sum$}}{\lower
194: -1.5ex\hbox{$\widetilde{\phantom{xx}}$}}}
195: \def\sumtilt{\sum^{\raisebox{-.15mm}{\hspace{-1.75mm}$\widetilde{}$}}\ }
196: \def\gltext{$\raisebox{1mm}{\centerunder{$\scriptscriptstyle
197: >$}{$\scriptscriptstyle <$}}$}
198: \def\intcent#1{\centerunder{$\displaystyle\int$}{\raisebox{-2.2mm}{$ #1 $}}}
199: \def\kbar{\underline{k}}
200: \def\qbar{\underline{q}}
201: \def\kbarsl{\underline{\st k}}
202: \def\qbarsl{\underline{\st q}}
203: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}
204: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
205: \def\pbar{\underline{p}}
206: \def\pbarsl{\underline{\st p}}
207: \def\q{\unc q}
208: \def\p{\unc p}
209:
210: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
211:
212: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}
213: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}
214: \newcommand{\cl}{\centerline}
215: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
216: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
217: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
218: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
219:
220: %\pagestyle{empty}
221:
222: \begin{document}
223:
224: \begin{titlepage}
225:
226: \rightline{\vbox{\halign{&#\hfil\cr
227: %&ANL-HEP-PR-04-??\cr
228: &\today\cr}}}
229: \vspace{0.25in}
230:
231: \begin{center}
232:
233: {\large\bf THE PHYSICS OF A SEXTET QUARK SECTOR}\footnote{Work
234: supported by the U.S.
235: Department of Energy under Contract
236: W-31-109-ENG-38}
237:
238: \medskip
239:
240:
241: Alan. R. White\footnote{arw@hep.anl.gov }
242:
243: \vskip 0.6cm
244:
245: \centerline{Argonne National Laboratory}
246: \centerline{9700 South Cass, Il 60439, USA.}
247: \vspace{0.5cm}
248:
249: \end{center}
250:
251: \begin{abstract}
252:
253: Electroweak symmetry breaking may be a consequence of
254: color sextet quark chiral symmetry breaking.
255: A special solution of QCD is involved, with
256: a high-energy S-Matrix that can be constructed ``semi-perturbatively''
257: via the chiral anomaly and reggeon diagrams. An infra-red fixed point
258: and color superconductivity are crucial components of the
259: construction.
260: Infinite momentum physical states contain both quarks and
261: a universal ``anomalous wee gluon'' component, and the spectrum is more limited
262: than is required by confinement and chiral symmetry breaking.
263: The pomeron is approximately
264: a regge pole and the Critical Pomeron describes asymptotic
265: cross-sections.
266:
267: The strong coupling of the pomeron to the electroweak sector
268: could produce large $x$ and $Q^2$ events at HERA, and
269: vector boson pairs at Fermilab. Further evidence for the sextet sector
270: at Fermilab would be a large $E_T$ jet excess, due in part to
271: the non-evolution of ${\alpha}_s$, and other
272: phenomena related to the possibility that top quark production is due
273: to the $\eta_6$.
274:
275: The sextet proton and neutron are the only new baryonic states.
276: Sextet states dominate high energy hadronic cross-sections and
277: stable sextet neutrons could produce both dark matter
278: and ultra high energy cosmic rays. The
279: cosmic ray spectrum knee suggests the effective sextet threshold
280: is between Fermilab and LHC energies, with
281: large cross-section effects expected at the LHC. Jet and vector
282: boson cross-sections will be very
283: much larger than expected, and sextet baryons should also be produced.
284: Double pomeron produced states could provide definitive evidence for the
285: existence of the sextet sector in the initial low luminosity
286: running.
287:
288:
289:
290: \end{abstract}
291:
292:
293: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \end{titlepage}
294:
295: %\setcounter{page}{2}
296:
297: \mainhead{1. INTRODUCTION}
298:
299: The initial pursuit\cite{arw77,arw78}, nearly thirty years ago, of a
300: particular solution of supercritical Reggeon Field Theory (RFT) has led us
301: to first associate the Critical Pomeron\cite{cri} with a special high-energy
302: S-Matrix solution of QCD, then to connect this QCD solution to a very particular
303: form of electroweak symmetry breaking\cite{wm,bww}. If this is the
304: symmetry breaking and solution of QCD chosen by nature then, as
305: outlined in \cite{arw04}, \cite{arw041} and \cite{mga},
306: we anticipate that there is a major change in the strong
307: interaction above the electroweak scale. A new color sextet
308: sector appears, with electroweak scale masses, that at high enough energies
309: should become responsible for the major part of the total cross-section. The
310: existence of this sector offers a natural explanation for the dominance
311: of dark matter and
312: in fact, an interaction change of just this kind
313: could be responsible for the apparent ``knee'' in the cosmic ray spectrum
314: that occurs just above the Tevatron energy. Other
315: cosmic ray phenomena, that occur above the knee energy,
316: also appear to be clear evidence for the same interaction change.
317: That the knee is associated with the
318: effective energy threshold for the sextet sector would be natural if
319: inclusive pomeron exchange has to be involved when
320: sextet states are produced, with large cross-section, from initial
321: triplet states.
322:
323: We should emphasize that
324: it could be (even though we consider it unlikely)
325: that the knee is not associated with sextet physics.
326: If it is, however, then large cross-section effects have to appear very rapidly as
327: the energy increases and they should be apparent
328: at the LHC, with dramatic and exciting physics involved.
329: In particular, jet cross-sections
330: and electroweak vector boson cross-sections will be overwhelmingly large,
331: with pomeron exchange cross-sections containing the most
332: distinctive signals.
333: Some indication of this physics could be observable at the Tevatron,
334: or even at HERA. Hints of what is to come, that may already have been seen, could be
335: the large $E_T$ jet excess at the Tevatron and large $x$ and $Q^2$ events at HERA.
336:
337: We will use $QCD_S$ to denote\footnote{The suffix can be thought of as denoting
338: ``special'', or ``sextet'', or ``saturated'' - the asymptotic freedom constraint is
339: ``saturated''. The ``special'' nature of the S-Matrix will become evident.}
340: the S-Matrix solution of
341: QCD with six color triplet and two color sextet quarks that we will describe.
342: Within $QCD_S$, sextet chiral symmetry breaking gives a triplet
343: of ``sextet pions'' ($\Pi^{\pm}$, $\Pi^0$) and also, at first sight,
344: a ``higgs-like'' particle - the $\eta_6$. When the electroweak sector of
345: the Standard Model is added, the ``sextet higgs mechanism'' takes place.
346: By ``eating'' the $\Pi$'s, the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ aquire masses
347: that are a manifestation of the QCD sextet chiral scale.
348: Thus, electroweak symmetry breaking is accomplished without any
349: new interaction being added to the established
350: $SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)$
351: gauge interactions of the Standard Model. (We will only briefly
352: discuss how an $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$
353: anomaly is avoided since a special
354: unification, requiring additional discussion,
355: is most likely involved\cite{kw,arw05}.)
356: Furthermore, the electroweak scale is a new QCD scale and
357: the symmetry breaking is connected
358: with the major change in the strong interaction discussed above.
359:
360: We obtain the $QCD_S$ high-energy S-Matrix via the powerful technology of reggeon
361: diagrams\cite{fkl}-\cite{arw93}. While this S-Matrix
362: has some important distinctive properties relative to conventional QCD, we believe
363: that it is consistent with all the (experimentally established)
364: properties of QCD below the electroweak scale.
365: A crucial distinctive property is, however,
366: the limitation on the spectrum of states compared
367: to what would be anticipated from just color confinement and chiral
368: symmetry breaking. As we will describe, the S-Matrix is constructed as a
369: reggeon critical phenomenon by starting within a ``color
370: superconducting'' phase of $QCD_S$
371: (in which SU(3) color is broken to SU(2)). This starting
372: point introduces reggeon ``anomaly interactions'' that are a key physical ingredient.
373: These interactions produce divergences which have the consequence that
374: the physical states of $QCD_S$ are directly related to the chiral
375: Goldstone bosons of the superconducting theory. This implies that,
376: in the normal hadronic sector, both glueballs and quark
377: resonances (such as the $\rho$) are directly excluded as asymptotic states.
378:
379: In general, because of the central role played by anomaly couplings, only a very
380: limited sub-set of the gluon degrees of freedom contribute to the
381: $QCD_S$ high-energy S-Matrix.
382: (Presumably, there is a corresponding limitation in the finite energy S-Matrix.)
383: As a result, there is no BFKL pomeron and no odderon.
384: We are not aware of any experimental evidence against this. Rather,
385: strong experimental evidence that this should be the case is, surely,
386: provided by the (almost total) absence of glueballs in the resonance
387: spectrum, the absence of the odderon\cite{ce} in experiments at HERA,
388: and the lack\cite{ce} of any definitive evidence for the BFKL pomeron.
389:
390: The spectrum of states involving sextet quarks is, perhaps, the deepest
391: consequence of the construction of the spectrum of $QCD_S$ via the anomaly
392: interactions of the superconducting phase.
393: Because there are no chiral symmetries linking the sextet and triplet
394: quarks, there are no hybrid sextet/triplet states and the only new sextet states,
395: in addition to the sextet pions and the $\eta_6$,
396: are a ``sextet proton'' (the $P_6$)
397: and the ``sextet neutron'' (the $N_6$), both of which will have electroweak
398: scale masses that could be, we will suggest,
399: as low as $500 ~GeV$. Because of the conservation of
400: sextet quark baryon number, one of the sextet nucleons must be absolutely stable.
401: The absence of sextet current quark masses (that is necessary for
402: electroweak symmetry breaking) implies that the stable state
403: must be the $N_6$. Therefore, at the ultra-high energies relevant for the early
404: universe, the production of stable, neutral, sextet neutrons
405: will dominate over the production of stable, charged, triplet protons.
406: Consequently, we have a very natural explanation for the dominance of dark matter
407: - formed (as nuclei, clumps, etc.) from sextet neutrons. Furthermore,
408: because neutral, massive, $N_6$'s will avoid the GZK cut-off they could also
409: be the mysterious, ultra-high energy, cosmic rays.
410: Since they would simply be very high energy dark matter their origin would,
411: presumably, be much less of a mystery than is currently believed.
412:
413: The purpose of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, we want to lay out
414: what we believe we know about $QCD_S$ and why we think we know it.
415: Secondly, we will outline experimental consequences that we expect
416: from the combination of $QCD_S$ with the sextet higgs mechanism.
417: While we have discussed high-energy phenomena that
418: $QCD_S$ could produce in the past\cite{arw94,arw97},
419: we did not have the detailed understanding that we now have
420: of how the chiral anomaly produces high-energy states and amplitudes. As a result,
421: the emphasis in this paper will be very different to that of our earlier
422: papers\footnote{Most notably we
423: believe our discussion of instanton interactions and dynamical
424: masses is irrelevant in the, infinite momentum,
425: S-Matrix formulation within which we now
426: work.}. Particularly important will be
427: the strong coupling of the pomeron to sextet states that follows
428: from the anomaly pole method that we develop to estimate cross-sections
429: for hard diffraction. Predictions can then be made for soft diffraction
430: by combining the hard diffractive estimates with pomeron regge theory.
431:
432: If pomeron exchange amplitudes are large, then
433: cut-pomeron amplitudes should also be large.
434: This leads to the prediction of large inclusive cross-sections
435: for sextet states (multiple $W$'s and $Z$'s, in particular)
436: across most of the rapidity axis, that we
437: expect to be the major characteristic of $QCD_S$ physics above the
438: electroweak scale.
439: There will also be ``non-diffractive'' consequences of the sextet sector
440: that we will discuss. At current energies, these include
441: the non-evolution of ${\alpha}_s$ above the electroweak scale and
442: the possibility that top production is due to the $\eta_6$.
443:
444: While our papers have suggested a link for some time, we believe that
445: the arguments presented in this paper make it clear
446: that the sextet higgs mechanism is inextricably tied to the
447: pomeron and infinite momentum hadron states that have
448: emerged from our work on the regge limit of $QCD_S$.
449: If this were not the case then, as we discuss again below,
450: the $\eta_6$ would be\cite{cllr} a light axion-like state
451: that is not seen experimentally and the sextet Higg's mechanism would be
452: ruled out as a realistic possibility.
453: We will emphasize (see Appendix C in particular) the
454: likelihood that the left-handed vector nature of the electroweak sector
455: of the Standard Model plays an important role with respect to
456: inducing the special $QCD_S$ S-Matrix.
457:
458: That the high-energy behavior can be constructed by starting from
459: the reggeon diagrams of $CSQCD_S$ (``color superconducting'' $QCD_S$) is the
460: most crucial property of $QCD_S$. The original motivation for this starting point
461: came from a correspondence between supercritical pomeron
462: RFT and $CSQCD_S$. This correspondence is referred to indirectly above and the
463: arguments for it
464: are described in Appendix C - where we outline our full multi-regge
465: program. There is, however, an important
466: technical reason why the construction can be carried through.
467: $CSQCD_S$ can be obtained from $QCD_S$ by introducing
468: an asymptotically free scalar field. (This would not be possible if the number of
469: quarks was any fewer!) Asymptotic freedom implies that
470: this field can be smoothly decoupled in the ultra-violet region.
471: In the infra-red region the only remnant of
472: the decoupling is the ``anomaly contribution'' of unphysical
473: longitudinal wee gluons that provides the all important
474: mechanism that produces a non-perturbative spectrum out of perturbative
475: diagrams, as we discuss next.
476:
477: The presence of massive gluons in $CSQCD_S$ produces\cite{arw03}-\cite{arw021}
478: triangle diagram anomalies
479: in the effective vertices of reggeon diagrams. The contribution of the anomalies
480: is (not surprisingly) strongly dependendent on
481: ultra-violet and infra-red cut-offs and so
482: different ``solutions'' of the theory can be obtained, depending on how
483: such cut-offs are handled. The essential part of our reggeon diagram
484: analysis (described in Appendix C) is
485: the initial imposition of a transverse momentum cut-off.
486: This cut-off produces a violation of gauge invariance Ward identities for
487: the anomaly vertices. As a result, infra-red transverse momentum
488: divergences appear which, when the quarks involved are massless,
489: produce residue amplitudes that contain ``anomaly poles'' resulting from
490: infra-red chirality transitions. (An anomaly pole is produced,
491: in part, by a pinching of massless particle
492: and antiparticle poles in the same zero momentum propagator and so, automatically,
493: involves a chirality transition.) The identification of anomaly poles
494: as chiral Goldstone boson particle poles provides a crucial
495: mechanism for a bound-state, confining and chiral symmetry breaking, spectrum
496: (and the appropriate amplitudes) to appear
497: via the contribution of anomalies and transverse momentum infra-red divergences.
498:
499: Because our starting point is perturbative reggeon
500: diagrams, the final amplitudes we obtain are not very far from perturbation theory.
501: Very complicated multiparticle diagrams are involved and
502: there is an elaborate phenomenon of cut-off dependent
503: infra-red divergences coupled to triangle diagram anomalies. Nevertheless,
504: both confinement
505: and chiral symmetry breaking have a diagrammatic description. The primary
506: reason that the physics involved stays perturbative
507: is the existence of an infra-red fixed point due to the large
508: number of quarks. By preventing the infra-red growth of $\alpha_s$,
509: the infra-red fixed point also
510: produces infra-red scaling properties for reggeon interaction kernels
511: that are vital for the emergence of physical scattering amplitudes
512: via infra-red divergences.
513:
514: Because both the infra-red fixed-point and
515: infra-red effects of the chiral anomaly are crucial, it is essential that
516: all quarks, including the sextet sector, are massless (initially).
517: In this paper, we will discuss only how
518: vector boson masses are generated by the sextet higgs mechanism.
519: This mass generation is responsible for raising all effects of the sextet
520: sector to momenta at or above the electroweak scale.
521: This is necessary, of course, to obtain normal QCD at low energies since, within
522: massless $QCD_S$, $\alpha_s$ remains less than it's fixed point value
523: ($\approx 1/34$). The familiar, larger, value of $\alpha_s$ is obtained
524: only after an effective low-energy theory is obtained by integrating
525: out the sextet sector. In addition, to be physically
526: applicable, triplet quark effective masses must also be
527: added to the S-Matrix of $QCD_S$.
528: We will not discuss the origin of effective quark masses.
529: This is related to the unification of $QCD_S$ and the electroweak sector
530: of the Standard Model in a larger theory\cite{kw} and we will discuss this
531: in forthcoming papers\cite{arw05}. Fortunately, for most of
532: our discussion in this paper, only vector boson masses are relevant and so the issue
533: can be avoided.
534:
535: The transition from $CSQCD_S$ to $QCD_S$ is to be
536: achieved via supercritical RFT and the
537: phase transition appearance of the Critical Pomeron\cite{cri}.
538: If this can be carried through in full detail, the regge behavior
539: of $QCD_S$, together with the infinite momentum hadron states,
540: will be obtained from the much simpler infra-red divergence and
541: anomaly structure that appears in $CSQCD_S$. In particular,
542: within (infinite momentum) $QCD_S$,
543: confinement and chiral symmetry breaking will be understood
544: as resulting from dynamical infra-red chirality transitions produced by wee gluon
545: interaction anomalies. However, as we already emphasized above,
546: the spectrum of physical states will be significantly
547: limited compared to that normally anticipated. Only
548: states that correspond to Goldstone bosons in $CSQCD_S$ will be present.
549: These states (and only these) have, as a consequence of the flavor anomaly,
550: a wee gluon content that produces the infra-red divergent amplitudes
551: giving the, eventual, physical amplitudes.
552: Pions and nucleons are included amongst such states, but flavor singlet Goldstone
553: bosons, unstable resonances and glueballs,
554: are all excluded (as asymptotic states). As we have already emphasized,
555: the absence of hybrid sextet/triplet baryons in $QCD_S$
556: is crucial for the stability of the $N_6$ and, hence, for our
557: explanation of the origin of dark matter.
558:
559: In conventional QCD, the only non-conserved axial U(1) charge
560: is that coupling to the short-distance topological
561: anomaly. If this were the case in $QCD_S$, the
562: U(1) symmetry (essentially the sextet symmetry)
563: associated with the $\eta_6$ would be unbroken. In addition to being the
564: analog of the usual higgs scalar, the $\eta_6$ would be
565: a light axion of the kind that is ruled out experimentally.
566: In our solution of $QCD_S$ the anomaly vertices that are initially obtained
567: by imposing a cut-off, and that are responsible for
568: the dynamical ``wee gluon'' component of infinite momentum physical states,
569: break both the sextet and triplet U(1) symmetries and so there is no light axion.
570: Consequently, although the $\eta_6$ appears, at first, to be a Goldstone
571: boson of the appropriate kind to appear as a physical state, there is
572: a multigluon regge exchange (a daughter of the pomeron) that
573: mixes with it. This mixing, presumably, generates a large (electroweak scale) mass
574: for the $\eta_6$. The $\eta_6$ also couples to the triplet sector via the gluon
575: intermediate state and if it has an electroweak scale mass
576: the mixing will be primarily with the $t\bar{t}$ state. Consequently,
577: as we will briefly discuss, the $\eta_6$ could actually be responsible for top
578: production at the Tevatron.
579:
580: Clearly, that the infra-red anomaly contributions persist,
581: via longitudinal wee gluons, after the removal
582: of the large $k_{\perp}$ cut-off and the restoration of SU(3) gauge symmetry,
583: is a central element of our construction of $QCD_S$.
584: It is well-known that the contribution of longitudinal wee gluons is an,
585: a priori unresolved, ambiguity in the infinite
586: momentum quantization of $QCD$ which is closely related to
587: the well-known Gribov problem\cite{gm} and, therefore, to
588: the choice of vacuum at finite momentum. In effect, therefore,
589: we resolve this ambiguity
590: in $QCD_S$ by constructing the high-energy behavior via $CSQCD_S$.
591:
592: It is well-known that
593: both $s$-channel and $t$-channel unitarity (via reggeon unitarity)
594: impose very strong constraints on the behavior of a theory
595: in multi-regge limits.
596: A solution of QCD in all such limits necessarily determines how
597: unitarity, the physical spectrum, and the validity of perturbation theory
598: all coexist. Obtaining such a solution is, therefore, likely to be almost
599: as difficult as solving the full theory. As we have said,
600: according to our arguments the
601: multi-regge limits of $QCD_S$ are described by
602: the Critical Pomeron\cite{cri}, which is known
603: to satisfy all unitarity requirements. In addition,
604: we are able to give a diagrammatic construction
605: in which the connection between perturbation theory, the pomeron,
606: and the physical bound state spectrum is clear.
607: If everything goes through as we describe, it will be apparent that
608: $QCD_S$ is a version of QCD that, perhaps uniquely,
609: satisfies all general requirements.
610:
611: On the lattice, it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
612: to introduce the co-ordinated infra-red dynamical fluctuations of
613: longitudinal wee gluons and the Dirac sea that provide the anomaly couplings,
614: and consequent infra-red divergences that lead to the
615: infinite momentum $QCD_S$ S-Matrix. Not surprisingly, perhaps, within the lattice
616: framework, the infra-red fixed-point that we have discussed
617: is generally believed\cite{irfp} to be associated with a non-confining
618: continuum theory and there is no sign of the confining
619: ``anomaly-driven'' S-Matrix that we have discovered.
620:
621: Similarly, there are general arguments\cite{asv}
622: that the infra-red fixed-point in $QCD_S$ will produce
623: Green's functions that are conformally invariant in the infra-red region
624: and do not contain any particle-like physical states. In fact this is,
625: essentially, the infra-red scaling property of reggeon kernels which
626: plays a central role in our analysis. Clearly, it is a subtle challenge to find
627: the asymptotic states and S-Matrix amplitudes that emerge from our construction.
628: They do not appear within quark or gluon Green's functions. Indeed,
629: their existence depends crucially on S-Matrix fermion anomalies that also
630: do not appear in off-shell Green's functions. For the reasons that we
631: elaborate on in Appendix C,
632: it may be necessary to consider the (on-shell) scattering of vector bosons
633: with left-handed couplings to quarks, to see the emergence of the
634: desired amplitudes.
635:
636: Section 2 is devoted to the high-energy solution of $CSQCD_S$. Our essential aim
637: is to focus on the physics that underlies this solution. To this end, we
638: keep the discussion at a fairly broad level and
639: supplement it with Appendices. In Appendix A
640: we describe the formal infra-red and ultra-violet $\beta$-function properties that
641: are needed to connect $CSQCD_S$ to $QCD_S$. We do not use (in Section 2)
642: the full multi-regge theory that is necessary to actually derive the solution
643: that we describe.
644: Instead, we use the anomaly-pole vertex method developed in \cite{arw02}.
645: Needed properties of the triangle anomaly and the contribution of
646: the anomaly pole are described in Appendix B.
647: In Appendix C we outline our full multi-regge program and,
648: as part of our description, we include (very briefly) the historical development
649: which led to our association of the Critical Pomeron with $QCD_S$. Since
650: many of the
651: details of how the transition from $CSQCD_S$ to $QCD_S$ is described by the
652: Critical Pomeron have still to be worked out we give, in Section 3, only a
653: brief outline of the features that are relevant for the purposes of this paper.
654:
655: We begin the process of combining the electroweak sector with $QCD_S$
656: in Section 4. In particular, we show how masses for the electroweak bosons
657: are generated by anomaly interactions that result from the presence of
658: wee gluons in infinite momentum physical states. This is the infinite
659: momentum S-Matrix analog of vacuum generation of the masses. Most importantly, we see
660: that the mass scale is determined by the coupling of wee gluons to sextet
661: quarks. We can then carry the knowledge of this coupling over to the coupling of
662: the pomeron to sextet quark states and, in particular, to multiple
663: $Z^0$ and $W^{\pm}$ states.
664:
665: In Sections 5 and 6 we discuss processes that might
666: be seen (or may have already been seen) at
667: current accelerators and could provide evidence for the existence of the sextet
668: sector. In Section 5 we discuss diffractive deep-inelastic scattering and suggest
669: that the most dramatic
670: large $x$ and $Q^2$ event presented\cite{ZEUS} by ZEUS, may have been diffractive
671: production of a $Z^0$.
672: Sextet quark physics that might be seen at the Tevatron is the focus of
673: Section 6. We describe a number of small cross-section effects that might
674: be seen in diffractive, and diffractive related, processes involving
675: $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ vector bosons. We also suggest
676: that $t\bar{t}$ production could
677: originate from the $\eta_6$, even though this process
678: can be understood perturbatively. The interpretation of the top quark mass
679: would be different and non-perturbative decay modes should also be seen, at some level.
680: A jet excess at large $E_T$ would provide
681: supporting evidence for this proposal since, in this case,
682: $\alpha_s$ evolution should stop at $E_T \sim ~m_{top}$.
683:
684: If the sextet sector exists, the LHC will most probably
685: be the discovery machine. Sections 7 and 8 are devoted to explaining why we expect
686: that dramatic effects will be seen. In Section 7 we discuss
687: dark matter and the cosmic ray phenomena that tell us that the sextet sector
688: could appear at the LHC.
689: We discuss the specifics of what we expect to see at the LHC in Section 8.
690: While jet cross-sections and cross-sections
691: for multiple vector boson production will be orders of magnitude
692: larger than expected,
693: the double pomeron cross-section for electroweak vector boson pairs,
694: which can be studied (in part) during the initial low luminosity running,
695: may well be the most definitive early evidence that is seen.
696: There could be spectacular events
697: in which the forward protons are tagged and only
698: large $E_T$ leptons are seen in the central detector.
699: ``Dark matter'', in the form of sextet neutron/antineutron pairs,
700: should have significant inclusive cross-sections and may even
701: be produced in double pomeron exchange. If so, this would be really
702: dramatic!
703:
704: \newpage
705:
706: \mainhead{2. COLOR SUPERCONDUCTING $QCD_S$}
707:
708: \subhead{2.1 Symmetry Breaking, Reggeization, and Infinite Momentum States}
709:
710: The breaking of the SU(3) color symmetry of $QCD_S$ to SU(2)
711: can be achieved with an asymptotically free, complex color triplet, scalar field.
712: (This is discussed in more detail in Appendix A.)
713: As a consequence of the symmetry breaking, $CSQCD_S$
714: contains an SU(2) triplet of massless gluons,
715: plus two SU(2) doublets (with mass $\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}M$)
716: and one singlet (with mass $M$) of massive gluons.
717: Each SU(3) triplet quark gives one complex SU(2) doublet and one singlet quark.
718: Each SU(3) sextet quark gives one complex SU(2)
719: triplet, one complex doublet, and one singlet quark. Reflecting the absence of any
720: corresponding chiral symmetry in $QCD_S$, there is obviously
721: no chiral symmetry relating the, sextet originating, SU(2) complex triplet to either
722: of the SU(3) triplet originating representations.
723:
724: All quarks and gluons (massive or not) are reggeized,
725: but only the SU(2) singlets have infra-red finite regge trajectory functions.
726: The infra-red scaling behavior of various
727: ``transverse momentum kernels'' that describe the interactions
728: of reggeized quarks and gluons will be an essential ingredient of the following
729: analysis.
730: The scalar particle produced by the scalar field does not reggeize and
731: so at the non-leading power level $CSQCD_S$ is, presumably, a non-unitary
732: theory - implying that only the leading
733: high-energy behavior of $QCD_S$ can be constructed via $CSQCD_S$.
734:
735: The status of the full program that we have developed to construct
736: the multi-regge behavior of $CSQCD_S$ is outlined in
737: Appendix C. We believe that this program, as it is now formulated,
738: would give the high-energy behavior of $QCD_S$ unambiguously
739: if pursued to completion. However, we can arrive much more
740: simply at the physics involved if we utilise
741: the approach that we developed in \cite{arw02}. In that paper, we introduced
742: a procedure that was designed to bypass the multi-regge construction and
743: instead obtain directly the $CSQCD_S$ scattering amplitudes
744: for infinite momentum states. This procedure is what we now describe.
745:
746: We note, before we start, that if high-energy states and amplitudes
747: can be derived from perturbative reggeon diagrams, then the
748: parton model must have a broad validity, well
749: beyond leading-twist perturbation theory. For this to be the case,
750: the ``naive'' validity of the
751: perturbative vacuum at infinite momentum must hold for deeper reasons. This
752: can be so if infinite momentum
753: states have a universal ``wee parton'' component that carries the
754: finite momentum ``properties of the vacuum''. (Note that, although it is not
755: directly relevant at this point, regge pole factorization
756: properties for the pomeron are, most probably, a pre-requisite for
757: a universal wee parton distribution in hadrons.) As we shall see, it is indeed
758: a universal wee gluon component of infinite momentum states that determines our
759: solution of $CSQCD_S$.
760:
761: \subhead{2.2 Pion Anomaly Pole Vertices}
762:
763: The primary assumption
764: in \cite{arw02} was that the wee gluon properties of the physical states
765: could be obtained\footnote{We expect this
766: to be an outcome of the full multi-regge program
767: and we emphasized in \cite{arw02} that if
768: the assumptions made appeared to be ad-hoc this was, in large part,
769: because of our deliberate efforts to avoid the full complexity of multi-regge theory.}
770: from properties of the chiral anomaly and ``anomaly
771: pole'' vertices. It is well-known that an anomaly pole appears, in particular
772: kinematic circumstances, in a three-point vertex of
773: local currents when the triangle diagram anomaly is present and when the fermions
774: producing the anomaly are massless. When
775: the vertex involves an axial current that is the generator of a chiral symmetry
776: that is spontaneously-broken, this pole can be directly interpreted
777: as a Goldstone boson particle pole associated with the symmetry breaking.
778:
779: The invariant functions of a triangle
780: diagram depend on the invariants $k_1^2$, $k_2^2$, and $q^2$,
781: where, as shown in Fig.~1(a), $k_1, k_2$ and $q$ are the momenta
782: entering at each of the vertices.
783: \begin{center}
784: \epsfxsize=5.5in
785: \epsffile{dp010.ps}
786:
787: Fig.~1 (a) Triangle momenta (b) How wee gluons give a pion anomaly pole.
788: \end{center}
789: The pole is present when either
790: $$
791: k_1^2~=~k_2^2~=~0, ~~~q^2 ~\to ~0~, ~~~~~~~ \hbox{or}
792: ~~~~~~~ k_1~=~0, ~~~k_2^2~=~q^2 ~\to ~0
793: \auto\label{akin}
794: $$
795: and the residue is determined by the anomaly.
796: (Some details of how the pole is generated are given in Appendix B.)
797:
798: We anticipate that the occurrence of anomaly poles in
799: regge limit effective triangle diagrams will be a widespread phenomenon in the
800: full multi-regge analysis of $CSQCD_S$.
801: They appear whenever components of the relevant currents
802: (not the full currents) appear as effective vertices in a triangle diagram.
803: Poles associated with a flavor anomaly current component are Goldstone
804: boson particle poles that are, in effect, dynamically generated.
805: As illustrated in Fig.~1(b), the kinematics
806: producing a Goldstone (pion) pole can occur when a set of wee gluons produces a
807: divergence at $k_1^2=0$ and couples via an effective triangle diagram to
808: a quark-antiquark pair that carries a light-like momentum $k_2$.
809: In this Section,
810: we will refer to all quark/antiquark (triplet or sextet) Goldstone bosons in
811: $CSQCD_S$ as ``pions'' and, when we need to, will refer to quark/quark or
812: antiquark/antiquark Goldstone bosons\cite{kog}
813: as ``nucleons''. Effectively, all of our
814: discussion of pions will also apply to nucleons, even though we will not
815: usually say so explicitly. Poles
816: associated with the U(1) anomaly do not contribute as particle poles but instead
817: contribute as $\delta$-functions that conserve wee gluon transverse momenta
818: during an interaction.
819:
820: The underlying calculations needed
821: to demonstrate the existence of the initial anomaly pole vertices we require
822: can now be found in \cite{arw03}.
823: In calculations carried out after \cite{arw02} was published,
824: we showed explicitly how,
825: in the scattering of electroweak vector bosons,
826: effective vertices containing a
827: triangle diagram are generated by the contraction of larger loop diagrams,
828: in the channel with pion exchange quantum numbers.
829: As a result, we can anticipate that in general
830: scattering processes involving an infinite momentum vector boson, if a transverse
831: momentum cut-off is imposed, a pion anomaly pole will indeed appear with the wee gluon
832: couplings we assumed to exist. This should be sufficient to show that
833: a massless on-shell pion carrying light-cone momentum $k_+$ has a coupling
834: to wee gluons (carrying total light-cone momentum $k_-$, with $k_-/k_+ \to 0$)
835: given by the anomaly pole residue of a triangle diagram
836: that is generated as illustrated in Fig.~2. (The use of vector boson scattering
837: states is explained in Appendix C.)
838: \begin{center}
839: \epsfxsize=4.8in
840: \epsffile{dp101.ps}
841: %\epsfxsize=6in
842: %\epsffile{dp161.ps}
843:
844: Fig.~2 Anomaly pole generation in an effective triangle diagram.
845: (The hatched lines are on mass-shell.)
846: \end{center}
847:
848: The coupling shown in Fig.~2 involves a massless quark-antiquark pair
849: that has a vector-like helicity
850: and any number of ``wee gluons'', that are also in a vector-like state.
851: The dashed line in the triangle diagram is a zero momentum quark propagator
852: that, as discussed in Appendix B,
853: generates the anomaly pole and also produces a chirality transition.
854: According to (\ref{imf}), in an ``infinite momentum''
855: frame reached via a boost $a_3(\zeta)$, the momentum dependence of the
856: anomaly pole coupling is
857: $$
858: [~k_+ k_- \sinh{\zeta}~]
859: \auto\label{ifc}
860: $$
861: which is finite when $k_- \to 0$, if $ k_- \cosh{\zeta}~$ is kept finite.
862: It is important that (as we will discuss further later)
863: it is the longitudinal component of the massive gluon that
864: is responsible for the quark/antiquark vertex of the triangle diagram.
865:
866: As we develop a complete dynamical picture in the following,
867: we will introduce
868: a variety of anomaly pole effective vertices whose existence is a
869: natural extrapolation of existing vertices but, for which, the underlying
870: (very complicated) multi-regge calculations still need to be performed.
871:
872: \subhead{2.3 Transverse Momentum Kernels and Infra-Red Divergences}
873:
874: In \cite{arw02} we also argued that, because the anomaly pole is generated by
875: a light-cone internal momentum region within the triangle diagram, we could
876: use transverse momentum diagrams to discuss wee gluon
877: interactions within the infinite momentum pion state. (Again, this should,
878: straightforwardly, be the case in the multi-regge framework of Appendix C.)
879: The coupling (\ref{ifc}) is defined at $k_{\perp}=0$, where $k_{\perp}$ is
880: the transverse momentum of the wee gluons. That it is non-zero is correlated
881: with the fact that, for $k_{\perp} \neq 0$, the
882: anomaly pole contribution to the effective triangle diagram
883: violates the wee gluon Ward identity (for reasons discussed in Appendix B).
884: A direct consequence is that infra-red divergences appear in the transverse
885: momentum diagrams and dominate the physical
886: pion scattering amplitude.
887: (In the multi-regge framework, a transverse momentum cut-off is initially
888: responsible for the failure of Ward identities
889: that then leads to the occurrence of divergences and the correlated
890: appearance of anomaly pole couplings.)
891:
892: To describe the infra-red divergences that occur, we must first describe
893: the infra-red properties of the transverse momentum kernels that are
894: involved. These kernels are defined in more detail in Section IIIB of
895: \cite{arw02}, where a detailed review of elastic scattering
896: reggeon diagrams is also given.
897: We begin with the kernels $K^I_N(\underline{k},\underline{k}')$
898: that involve only the SU(2) triplet of massless gluons.
899: ($I$ denotes SU(2) color.) When the
900: color of the multigluon state is non-zero, infra-red divergences
901: give (in a sense explained in \cite{arw02})
902: \newline \parbox{0.5in}{$~$}
903: \parbox{1.8in}{
904: \begin{center}
905: \epsfxsize=1.4in
906: \epsffile{dp32.ps}
907: \end{center}
908: }
909: \parbox{3.6in}{
910: $$
911: =~K^I_N(\underline{k},\underline{k}')~\to ~\infty~,~~~Q^2, I \neq ~0
912: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
913: \auto\label{kin}
914: $$}
915: As a result,
916: the sum of all gluon transverse momentum diagrams in any colored
917: channel exponentiates to zero.
918:
919: When $I=0$ and $Q^2 ~\neq 0$, the kernels $ ~K^0_N(\underline{k},\underline{k}')$
920: are finite and have an important scaling property, as described in \cite{arw02}.
921: As a result, there is no
922: exponentiation of divergences in color zero gluon channels. However,
923: the disappearance of all colored multigluon states is not
924: confinement since gluon poles remain in the color zero diagrams.
925: Confinement is produced when the remaining $Q^2 = 0$ singularity in color zero
926: channels is absorbed into a ``condensate'', as we describe below.
927:
928: The most
929: important contribution of the $K^0_N$ kernels comes when a color zero set of
930: massless gluons accompanies another SU(2) color
931: zero transverse momentum state, as can be the case
932: in states produced by the pion anomaly
933: pole couplings. In Fig.~3 we show the kernel
934: $K_R(\hat{k},\underline{k},\hat{k}',\underline{k}')$
935: describing the interactions of
936: massless gluons with the massive (SU(2) singlet) reggeized gluon and the kernel
937: $~K_Q(\hat{k},\underline{k},\hat{k}',\underline{k}')$
938: describing the analagous interaction with
939: an SU(2) singlet quark-antiquark pair.
940: \begin{center}
941: \epsfxsize=4in
942: \epsffile{dp33.ps}
943:
944: Fig.~3 Kernels for massless gluon interactions with (a) a massive reggeized gluon
945: (b) a quark-antiquark pair.
946: \end{center}
947: Ward identities require that both $K_R$ and $K_Q$ vanish when either
948: $\underline{k} \to 0$ with $\underline{k}'$ fixed
949: or when $\underline{k}' \to 0$ with $\underline{k}$ fixed.
950: But, because these kernels have a dimension of $[$momentum$]^2$ and
951: additional non-zero mass and momentum scales (i.e. $M^2$
952: and $\hat{k}^2$) are present,
953: we expect that these kernels neither vanish, nor have an infra-red scaling property,
954: when $\underline{k} \sim \underline{k}' \to 0$.
955: As a result, whenever the interactions of Fig.~3 exist, infra-red
956: divergences again cause the sum of all diagrams to exponentiate to zero.
957:
958: However, as illustrated in Fig.~4(a),
959: \begin{center}
960: \epsfxsize=5.5in
961: \epsffile{dp34.ps}
962:
963: (a)\hspace{2.7in}(b)
964:
965: Fig.~4 Reggeon states without interaction kernels.
966: \end{center}
967: because of helicity conservation in
968: the massless quark and gluon sector, there is no transverse momentum
969: kernel describing the interaction of negative signature, color zero,
970: massless gluons with the massive reggeized gluon. This is because
971: a multigluon state containing an odd number of gluons and carrying SU(2) color
972: zero necessarily has ``anomalous color charge parity'', i.e. the color charge
973: parity is necessarily positive and can not be equal to the negative signature.
974: Similarly, as illustrated
975: in Fig.~4(b), for a massless quark-antiquark state
976: that carries negative signature, color zero,
977: and normal color charge parity, there is also no interaction.
978:
979: Related to the lack of interactions, transverse momentum states of the kind
980: shown in Fig.~4 will couple only
981: through anomalies. As a result, there will be no exponentiation of divergences
982: in reggeon channels with these quantum numbers. Instead, the scaling property
983: of the massless gluon kernels leads to an overall divergence.
984:
985: \subhead{2.4 Pion Scattering Amplitudes Via Infra-Red Divergences}
986:
987: In \cite{arw02} we considered feynman diagram contributions to
988: the particular transverse momentum diagram shown
989: in Fig.~5, in which there are three wee gluons in each of the pion
990: channels and also in the pomeron channel.
991: \begin{center}
992: \epsfxsize=3.3in
993: \epsffile{dp5.ps}
994:
995: Fig.~5 A transverse momentum diagram for pion scattering.
996: \end{center}
997: (The notation in Fig.~5 is the same as for Fig.~2.)
998: Because of the foregoing discussion, this diagram is amongst the
999: simplest, describing pion scattering, that contain a transverse momentum
1000: divergence that does not exponentiate to zero. In \cite{arw02}
1001: we carried out a detailed infra-red analysis to extract the resulting amplitude.
1002:
1003: We will not reproduce the analysis of \cite{arw02} here
1004: but, rather, will elaborate on features of the underlying physics that we did not
1005: discuss in \cite{arw02}. For this purpose we need to describe, briefly,
1006: the kinematics involved in the analysis. The kinematics were chosen
1007: so that each of the initial and final state pions
1008: was in an infinite momentum frame, reached by an appropriate boost, such that
1009: an anomaly pole residue corresponding to (\ref{ifc}) could give
1010: the contribution of each of the four external pion couplings $F_i$.
1011: To also produce internal triple-regge anomaly
1012: interactions, the wee gluons in the outgoing pions were associated with
1013: light-cones whose space direction is orthogonal to that of the incoming
1014: wee gluon light-cones. We, therefore, introduced distinct Lorentz frames as follows.
1015: We calculated the left-hand part of Fig.~5 in a
1016: ``left-hand finite momentum frame'' in which $p_1$ and $p_2$ have the
1017: form\footnote{The notation is straightforward in that ${k}^{1^+}$ is
1018: a vector with raised index component along the light-cone defined by the
1019: positive $\{1\}$ - axis (and all other othogonal components are
1020: zero). Simiilarly ${q}^{1^-}$ is a vector with raised
1021: index component along the light-cone defined by the
1022: negative $\{1\}$ - axis.
1023: The same vectors can be labeled via lowered index components as usual.}
1024: $$
1025: \eqalign{p_1 ~&=~{k}^{1^+}~+~{q}^{1^-} ~~=~{k}_{1^-}~+~{q}_{1^+} \cr
1026: &=({k \over \sqrt{2}},{k \over \sqrt{2}},0,0)~
1027: +~({q \over \sqrt{2}},- {q \over \sqrt{2}},0,0 )}
1028: \auto\label{kin1l}
1029: $$
1030: $$
1031: \eqalign{p_2 ~&=~- ~{k}^{2^+}~-~{q}^{2^-} ~~=~- ~{k}_{2^-}~-~{q}_{2^+} \cr
1032: &= ~- ({k \over \sqrt{2}},0,{k \over \sqrt{2}},0)
1033: ~-~({q \over \sqrt{2}},0,-{q \over \sqrt{2}},0)}
1034: \auto\label{kin2l}
1035: $$
1036: where ${q}^{1^-}$ and ${q}^{2^-}$ are, respectively, the wee gluon momenta in
1037: $F_1$ and $F_2$. For simplicity, we took the scale of
1038: the light-cone momenta for all on-shell pions to be $k$ and the scale of
1039: all wee gluon (longitudinal)
1040: momenta to be $q$ although, as we discuss further below, this is
1041: clearly not essential. Since
1042: $$
1043: p_1^2 ~= ~p_2^2~=~2kq
1044: \auto\label{kin021l}
1045: $$
1046: $q$ is both the wee gluon scale and the scale which puts pions on-shell
1047: as it vanishes.
1048:
1049: The right-hand part of Fig.~5 was calculated
1050: in a ``right-hand finite momentum frame'' in which
1051: $$
1052: \eqalign{p_3 ~&=~{k}^{2^+}~+~{q}^{2^-} \cr
1053: &=({k \over \sqrt{2}},0,{k \over \sqrt{2}},0)
1054: ~+~({q \over \sqrt{2}},0,{- q \over \sqrt{2}},0)}
1055: \auto\label{kin5}
1056: $$
1057: $$
1058: \eqalign{p_4 ~&=~-~{k}^{1^+}~-~{q}^{1^-} \cr
1059: &=~- ({k \over \sqrt{2}},{k \over \sqrt{2}},0,0)
1060: ~-~({q \over \sqrt{2}},-{q \over \sqrt{2}},0,0)}
1061: \auto\label{kin6}
1062: $$
1063: and so we also have
1064: $$
1065: p_3^2 ~= ~p_4^2~=~2kq
1066: \auto\label{kin21r}
1067: $$
1068:
1069: The full scattering amplitude for Fig.~5 was calculated
1070: in the ``infinite momentum frame'' in which
1071: $$
1072: \eqalign{p_1 ~&=~ \bigl(~C ~{k +q \over \sqrt{2}},~{k -q\over
1073: \sqrt{2}},~0,~S~{k+q \over \sqrt{2}}~\bigr) \cr
1074: p_2 ~&=~ - ~\bigl(~C~ {k +q \over \sqrt{2}},~0,
1075: ~{k -q \over \sqrt{2}},~S~{k+q \over \sqrt{2}}~\bigr) \cr
1076: p_3 ~&=~ \bigl(~C ~{k +q \over \sqrt{2}},~0,~{k-q \over \sqrt{2}},
1077: ~-S~{k+q \over \sqrt{2}}~\bigr) \cr
1078: p_4 ~&=~-~ \bigl(~C~ {k +q \over \sqrt{2}},~{k-q \over \sqrt{2}},~0,
1079: ~-S~{k+q \over \sqrt{2}}~\bigr)}
1080: \auto\label{kin4r}
1081: $$
1082: where $C=cosh~ \zeta$, $S=sinh~\zeta$, and so
1083: $$
1084: \eqalign{s~&=~(p_1+p_3)^2
1085: ~\centerunder{$\longrightarrow$}{\raisebox{-5mm}{
1086: $q \to 0$}}
1087: ~~(C^2 + S^2)k^2 ~
1088: \centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-5mm}{
1089: $C \to \infty$}} ~2C^2 k^2 \cr
1090: t~&=~(p_1+p_2)^2 ~\centerunder{$\longrightarrow$}{\raisebox{-5mm}{
1091: $q \to 0$}}
1092: ~ ~- k^2 }
1093: \auto\label{kin6r}
1094: $$
1095: We combined the mass-shell limit $q\to 0$ and the regge limit
1096: $ s/t \to \infty$ by taking
1097: $$
1098: q ~\sim ~1 / C ~\to ~0
1099: \auto\label{sca4}
1100: $$
1101: Note that, as is apparent from (\ref{kin4r}), the wee gluon momentum $q$
1102: is exchanged only as a zero transverse momentum contribution in the infinite
1103: momentum frame.
1104:
1105: The internal couplings $U_L$ and $U_R$ appearing in Fig.~5
1106: are anomaly pole contributions
1107: from effective vertices of the form shown in Fig.~6
1108:
1109: \begin{center}
1110: \epsfxsize=2.2in
1111: \epsffile{dp17.ps}
1112: \hspace{0.6in}
1113: \epsfxsize=1.7in
1114: \epsffile{dp40.ps}
1115:
1116: Fig.~6 An anomaly pole coupling.
1117: \end{center}
1118: (These vertices are illustrated in more detail in Fig.~C6).
1119: Because the anomaly poles are integrated over, they
1120: contribute as ``anomaly $\delta$-functions'' that produce a separate
1121: conservation of transverse momentum
1122: for the massless gluon interactions. This separate momentum
1123: conservation allows these interactions
1124: to be factorized off from the remaining ``hard interaction''.
1125: As a result, the diagram of Fig.~5 has an overall logarithmic divergence
1126: from the region where the transverse momenta of all massless gluons are
1127: scaled uniformly to zero. After this divergence is
1128: factorized off (as a zero transverse momentum
1129: ``reggeon condensate'') and the pion poles in each channel are also extracted,
1130: the amplitude obtained has the form
1131: $$
1132: \eqalign{ A_{\pi\pi\pi\pi} ~\sim&~\prod_i\{F_i~ \hbox{anomaly pole coupling}\}~
1133: \{\hbox {quark $k_{i\perp}$ integrals}\}\cr
1134: & \times ~~\prod_{j=L,R} \{U_j~ \hbox{anomaly amplitude} \}
1135: ~\{\hbox{massive gluon propagator}\} \cr
1136: \sim&~ \biggl\{~{k~ C~q \over M^2}~\biggr\}^4~
1137: \biggl\{~{(k C)\over M^2}~{(kCq ) \over M^2 }~\biggr\}^2~
1138: ~\biggl\{~C~q ~\biggr\}^4~
1139: ~~\biggl\{~\frac{1}{t + M^2 }~\biggr\} }
1140: \auto\label{phamp0}
1141: $$
1142: Writing $t \sim k^2$ and $s \sim C^2 k^2 ~$,
1143: (\ref{phamp0}) can be rearranged to give
1144: $$
1145: A_{\pi\pi\pi\pi} ~\sim ~\bigl[~{C~q \over M}~ \bigr]^8 ~~
1146: \bigl[~{s~q^2 \over M^4}~ \bigr]~~
1147: \bigl[~{t \over M^2}~ \bigr]^2~~
1148: \bigl[~{s \over t+M^2}~ \bigr]
1149: \auto\label{phamp}
1150: $$
1151:
1152: Since the first two square brackets in (\ref{phamp}) are finite constants
1153: when the limit (\ref{sca4}) is taken, the kinematic
1154: structure of the pion
1155: scattering amplitude we obtain is, essentially, that of massive gluon
1156: exchange, i.e.
1157: $$
1158: A_{\pi\pi\pi\pi}(s,t)~=~ \bigl[~{t \over M^2}~ \bigr]^2~~
1159: \bigl[~{s \over t+M^2}~ \bigr]
1160: \auto\label{psca}
1161: $$
1162: (Note that this result is obtained for $t >> M^2$.)
1163: In higher-orders the massive gluon will
1164: reggeize, with an infra-red finite trajectory $\alpha_g(t)$ that satisfies
1165: $\alpha_g(M^2)=1$. But, since the exchange of
1166: four reggeized gluons is involved, as we add all diagrams and go to
1167: higher-orders, only the even signature amplitude will survive. As a result,
1168: reggeization of the massive gluon will give
1169: $$
1170: \bigl[~{s \over t+M^2}~ \bigr] ~\to~ \bigl[~{s^{\alpha_g(t)} ~+~
1171: (-s)^{\alpha_g(t)}
1172: \over t+M^2}~ \bigr]
1173: \auto\label{hor}
1174: $$
1175: That is, reggeized gluon
1176: exchange will provide the leading contribution to the pomeron but
1177: there will be no gluon pole at $-t=M^2$.
1178:
1179: \subhead{2.5 Momentum Flows and Wee Gluon Couplings}
1180:
1181: The general dynamical structure of the diagrammatic
1182: contributions to $A_{\pi\pi\pi\pi}$ is illustrated in
1183: Fig.~7. Where there is a broken quark line (and a $T$)
1184: there is a chirality transition of a zero momentum massless quark.
1185: Wee gluon couplings, that we will discuss shortly, are denoted
1186: by a circle containing a $w$.
1187: \begin{center}
1188: \epsfxsize=3.7in
1189: \epsffile{dp60.ps}
1190: %\epsffile{dp11.ps}
1191:
1192: Fig.~7 Dynamical structure of the scattering amplitude.
1193: \end{center}
1194: Using the origin of the anomaly pole described in Appendix B,
1195: the scattering process can be interpreted as follows.
1196: A ``pion'' is created by the product of a physical
1197: quark field and a zero momentum ``unphysical'' antiquark
1198: field in which the Dirac sea is shifted.
1199: The antiquark becomes physical, via a chirality transition, that introduces
1200: an accompanying ``semiclassical'' anomalous wee gluon field (condensate)
1201: that effectively
1202: moves the sea back to it's perturbative location.
1203: In the scattering process, the wee gluon field of an incoming pion is transformed
1204: into that of the outgoing pion by an anomaly coupling that
1205: involves a further rearrangement of the Dirac sea. The final state pions are
1206: created via a final shift of the Dirac sea that absorbs the anomalous wee
1207: gluon field.
1208:
1209: The flow of large momentum ($\sim k$ in the finite momentum frame)
1210: through the left side of Fig.~7 is shown in Fig.~8(a),
1211: \begin{center}
1212: \epsfxsize=4.5in
1213: \epsffile{dp38.ps}
1214:
1215: (a)\hspace{2.2in}(b)\hspace{2.2in}(c)
1216:
1217: Fig.~8 Momentum flows.
1218: \end{center}
1219: while the flow
1220: of wee gluon longitudinal momentum ($\sim Cq$ in the infinite momentum frame)
1221: is, as shown in Fig.~8(b), along an (almost) orthogonal set of lines. Note that
1222: the large momentum flows along either the quark or the antiquark, but not both.
1223: The remaining momentum scale is the relative transverse momentum ($\sim q_{\perp}$)
1224: of the quark-antiquark pair which simply flows around a loop, as illustrated in
1225: Fig.~8(c). In the finite momentum frame (``inside the pion'')
1226: the wee gluon limit $q \to 0$ gives the
1227: zero momentum required for the first and last
1228: chirality transitions. In the infinite momentum frame
1229: $Cq$ provides the light-cone momentum flowing around the
1230: triangle diagram giving the anomaly $\delta$-function. The ``zero momentum'' line
1231: in the $\delta$-function triangle
1232: therefore has momenta much smaller than $q$ in the finite momentum frame.
1233:
1234: There are eight wee gluon couplings that originate from the
1235: chirality transitions. As we already noted, they are denoted
1236: by a circle containing a $w$ in Fig.~7. A factor of $Cq$
1237: for each wee gluon coupling gives
1238: the factor of $[Cq/M]^8$ in (\ref{phamp}). The other two factors in (\ref{phamp}),
1239: apart from (\ref{hor}), arise from the integrations over the
1240: quark-antiquark relative transverse momenta.
1241: All of the factors in (\ref{phamp}), apart from (\ref{hor}),
1242: are scaled by the vector boson mass $M$.
1243: The overall factor of $M^{-16}$
1244: can be traced back to the eight contributions of longitudinal massive gluon
1245: exchange. Four appear via anomaly pole vertices of the form appearing
1246: in Fig.~2, and are represented by small circles in Fig.~7.
1247: The other four appear in the two vertices, of the form shown in Fig.~6,
1248: represented by large circles in Fig.~7. In each case the
1249: longitudinal contribution of the on-shell massive gluon gives a contribution
1250: of the form
1251: \newline \parbox{5.5in}{
1252: {\Large $\raisebox{2mm}{``}$
1253: $~\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\nu}}{M^2}~~$$\raisebox{2mm}{''}$} $\leftrightarrow$
1254: [wee~gluon~momentum/M~$]_{\mu}$~[quark~transverse~momentum/M~$]_{\nu}$}
1255: \parbox{0.4in}{$~$
1256: \newline $~$
1257: $$
1258: ~
1259: \auto\label{lint}$$}
1260: \newline $~$
1261: \newline The existence of the amplitude (\ref{phamp0})
1262: depends entirely on this interaction which, it is important to note,
1263: couples wee gluon related chirality transitions and
1264: small transverse momentum quark dynamics. Also,
1265: the appearance of a wee gluon momentum
1266: scale in the amplitude is
1267: crucially dependent on the presence of such transitions.
1268:
1269: Clearly we need not have taken the wee gluon momentum scales of both scattering
1270: pions to be equal. In general the factor of
1271: $[Cq/M]^8$ in (\ref{phamp}) would be replaced by a separate factor
1272: of $[(Cq)^2/M^2]^2$ for each scattering pion. Furthermore, we anticipate
1273: that if we were to carry through the complete multi-regge calculation
1274: of Appendix C, the wee gluon factor for each pion would be replaced by the
1275: (integrated) contribution of a wee gluon distribution $w(Cq/M)$ so that, in the
1276: pion amplitude,
1277: $$
1278: \bigl[{C q \over M} \bigr]^8\to \prod_{i=1,2}
1279: ~\biggl[\int~d(Cq_i/M)~(Cq_i/M)~w(C q_i/M)\biggr]^2
1280: \equiv~\bigl[\frac{C}{M}\bigr]^8~ \prod_{i=1,2}~
1281: \biggl[\int dq_i~q_i~w(q_i)\biggr]^2
1282: \auto\label{wgd}
1283: $$
1284:
1285: \subhead{2.6 Higher-Order Diagrams}
1286:
1287: Consider now the higher-order diagrams that will add to that of Fig.~5.
1288: As we noted
1289: above, and discuss in more detail in \cite{arw02}, adding interactions amongst the
1290: wee gluons will not change the nature of the overall divergence.
1291: Similarly there will be no change if
1292: the three wee gluons in the pomeron, and
1293: in each pion channel, are replaced by infinite sums
1294: over arbitrary (allowably different in each channel), odd,
1295: numbers of massless gluons that similarly have zero transverse momentum,
1296: carry overall SU(2) color zero, and have
1297: (anomalous) positive color charge parity. Again such wee gluons
1298: will have self-interactions but will not interact with
1299: the quark/antiquark pairs in the pions, or the
1300: SU(2) singlet reggeized, massive, gluon in the pomeron. The same discussion
1301: would also apply if the single massive gluon is replaced by
1302: any number of massive gluons (giving multiple pomeron exchange).
1303:
1304: \subhead{2.7 Pomeron Production Vertices}
1305:
1306: In the remainder of this Section,
1307: and the following Sections, we will go far beyond
1308: the explicit calculations of \cite{arw03} and \cite{arw02}. We will introduce
1309: effective vertices for which the underlying (in general, multi-regge)
1310: calculations have not, as yet,
1311: been carried out but whose existence is a natural extrapolation of the
1312: vertices that we have already discussed.
1313: We begin by considering, briefly, a set of
1314: effective vertices which are responsible for
1315: the vacuum production of pomerons that is one of the defining features of
1316: supercritical RFT.
1317:
1318: A priori, it might appear that the anomaly
1319: $\delta$ function vertex of Fig.~6 could give rise to simple
1320: ``vacuum production'' of
1321: massive reggeized gluon pairs by wee gluons, as illustrated in Fig.~9(a).
1322: \begin{center}
1323: \parbox{1.8in}{
1324: \epsfxsize=1.65in
1325: \epsffile{dp181.ps}}\parbox{1in}{$$
1326: \st{\to}~ \hbox{anomaly}$$}\hspace{0.3in}
1327: \parbox{1.8in}{
1328: \epsfxsize=1.65in
1329: \epsffile{dp182.ps}}\parbox{1in}{$$
1330: \to~ \hbox{anomaly}$$}
1331:
1332: (a)$~~~~~~$\hspace{3in}(b)
1333:
1334: Fig.~9 Wee gluon vertices (a) that do not give an anomaly (b) that give
1335: an anomaly.
1336: \end{center}
1337: In fact, to have the axial vector structure for the anomaly,
1338: both gluons can not have the polarization needed
1339: to be exchanged in the scattering process. Instead, as illustrated in Fig.~9(b)
1340: one gluon must have a different polarization. Since the
1341: interaction can, nevertheless, take place some distance across the rapidity
1342: axis it leads to particle pole interactions within pomeron
1343: vertices.
1344:
1345: The most general pomeron vacuum production vertices are generated as illustrated
1346: in Fig.~10. When these vertices are included,
1347: we reproduce the complete range of pomeron vertices that arise from
1348: the ``vacuum production of pomerons'' due to the pomeron condensate
1349: in the supercritical pomeron phase\cite{arw91}.
1350: A more detailed study is needed to determine that
1351: the non-exchanged massive gluon in Figs.~9 and 10 is
1352: longitudinal.
1353: \begin{center}
1354: \epsfxsize=3.5in
1355: \epsffile{dp19.ps}
1356:
1357: Fig.~10 Generation of pomeron vacuum vertices.
1358: \end{center}
1359:
1360: \subhead{2.8 The Complete Set of Amplitudes and States}
1361:
1362: While it remains to be shown that the high-energy behavior of $CSQCD_S$ maps
1363: completely on to supercritical RFT, we will assume,
1364: in this paper, that the connection is established. Our major purpose, here,
1365: has been to elaborate the physics that is involved. As we have seen,
1366: the essential physics of $CSQCD_S$ is
1367: that a wee gluon condensate is produced by chirality transitions that are part
1368: of anomaly interactions introduced by the massive vector mesons.
1369: We can view the condensate as originating
1370: from a shift of the Dirac sea that
1371: produces states, and an
1372: S-Matrix, in which
1373: SU(2) color confinement and chiral symmetry breaking
1374: completely determine the spectrum.
1375: The wee gluon condensate has no connection with instantons. It is a
1376: ``semi-classical'' infra-red effect that, as we discuss in the next
1377: Section, becomes a dynamical effect in $QCD_S$. Note also that,
1378: since the anomalous wee gluons in a pion
1379: can not be produced from the perturbative quark/antiquark component
1380: by normal perturbative interactions (without an anomaly-related
1381: chirality transition), we can say that there is no simple quark/antiquark component
1382: in the infinite momentum pion ``wave function''.
1383:
1384: We expect the complete set of (infinite momentum)
1385: physical scattering
1386: amplitudes in $CSQCD_S$ to be produced via a logarithmic divergence, as in our
1387: discussion of the amplitude obtained from Fig.~5. If this is the case, then any
1388: physical amplitude must involve initial and final scattering states that
1389: contain anomalous wee gluons. If such gluons appear only via
1390: anomaly pole vertices then, according to our discussion, all physical states must be
1391: color zero Goldstone bosons. Unfortunately, we
1392: have only been able to study on-shell pion
1393: amplitudes. If we were to carry through the multi-regge program of Appendix C,
1394: then we would obtain amplitudes for off mass-shell reggeized pions to scatter.
1395: This would give us much more information about how a pion appears as
1396: an anomaly pole
1397: and would, perhaps, allow us to determine the role played by chiral symmetry in
1398: ensuring that such a pole is present. For the present we assume that an
1399: anomaly pole occurs if and only if there is a chiral symmetry that can be
1400: broken spontaneously. We also assume that the anomaly pole
1401: mechanism provides the only possibility for the dynamical formation of bound state
1402: Goldstone bosons.
1403:
1404: We can refer to the Goldstone bosons as created by a product of quark/antiquark
1405: operators alone provided we
1406: remember that the wee gluon component can be eliminated only by a shift of the
1407: Dirac sea in one of the operators. If we denote SU(3)
1408: color triplet quarks, generically,
1409: by {\large $q$} and SU(3) color sextet quarks, generically, by {\large $Q$},
1410: the Goldstone boson states of $CSQCD_S$ obviously include
1411: all flavor non-neutral {\large $q\bar{q}$} and {\large $Q\bar{Q}$}
1412: pseudoscalar mesons. (There will be two separate $Q\bar{Q}$ states
1413: formed from SU(2) color triplets and doublets.) In Section 5,
1414: we will discuss how the flavor neutral mesons (the $\eta_6$ and the $\eta_3$)
1415: mix with pure gluon states and, hence, do not appear as Goldstone bosons.
1416: Because of the equivalence of quark and antiquark representations
1417: when the gauge symmetry is SU(2), there are also {\large $qq$},
1418: {\large $\bar{q}\bar{q}$}, {\large $QQ$},
1419: and {\large $\bar{Q}\bar{Q}$} states that are Goldstone boson mesons
1420: in $CSQCD_S$ but will become baryons, by aquiring an additional quark (or
1421: antiquark) in $QCD_S$. Such states reflect real chiral symmetries\cite{kog}
1422: of $CSQCD_S$. (Again, the $QQ$ states will appear as separate states formed
1423: from SU(2) color triplets and doublets.)
1424:
1425: We will not
1426: discuss the dynamics of baryon formation in this paper,
1427: although we will briefly discuss the spectrum
1428: in the next Section. To discuss dynamics we need to know the full role
1429: of the SU(2) singlet quarks and gluons in $CSQCD_S$. According to the
1430: above argument, since they are not Goldstone bosons, they can not be
1431: physical states. If they are, nevertheless, ``physical'',
1432: it must be that they appear as regge exchanges, without
1433: producing physical states.
1434: For example, within $CSQCD_S$ there can be a regge
1435: exchange involving the combination of a
1436: Goldstone boson ``nucleon'' and an SU(2) reggeized quark
1437: that can become a normal, reggeized, nucleon
1438: in $CSQCD$, as SU(3) color is restored.
1439:
1440: \subhead{2.9 Background Wee Gluon Interactions}
1441:
1442: A more subtle question is the role played by the SU(2) singlet gluon. In particular,
1443: is there an odd-signature amplitude involving only exchange of the SU(2)
1444: singlet gluon reggeon? A divergent amplitude can be
1445: produced by background wee gluon anomaly interactions, as illustrated
1446: in Fig.~11.
1447: \begin{center}
1448: \epsfxsize=3.5in
1449: \epsffile{dp23.ps}
1450:
1451: Fig.~11 Background Wee Gluon Interactions Accompanying Reggeon Exchange
1452: \end{center}
1453: In general, we would expect that there should be (multiple)
1454: chirality violating interactions that involve just wee gluons,
1455: accompanying all interactions and contributing to the overall divergence.
1456: As we will see in Section 5, the existence of wee gluon interactions
1457: of this kind is essential
1458: for adding the electroweak sector of the Standard Model to $CSQCD_S$. Unfortunately,
1459: to establish the existence and nature of such interactions requires
1460: elaborate multi-regge calculations that have yet to be carried out.
1461: The interaction of Fig.~11
1462: must contain anomaly effective vertices generated by the orthogonality of the
1463: $\gamma$-matrices involved, as illustrated in Fig.~12.
1464: \begin{center}
1465: \epsfxsize=3.6in
1466: \epsffile{dp231.ps}
1467:
1468: Fig.~12 A Background Effective Vertex Containing an Anomaly
1469: \end{center}
1470: If there is no anomaly,
1471: there will be an exponentiation of the divergences via even signature (BFKL)
1472: gluon interactions with the reggeon, as illustrated in
1473: Fig.~13, that will produce a zero amplitude. The anomaly vertex of Fig.~12
1474: necessarily couples directly to the wee gluons
1475: in the scattering state, and so avoids the exponentiation.
1476: \begin{center}
1477: \epsfxsize=3.5in
1478: \epsffile{dp232.ps}
1479:
1480: Fig.~13 Potential Exponentiation of the Wee Gluon Interaction
1481: \end{center}
1482:
1483: As SU(3) symmetry is restored, the background wee gluon interaction should
1484: become SU(3) symmetric. As a result, the non-zero SU(3)
1485: color of the reggeon in Fig.~11
1486: should lead to the vanishing of this amplitude. However, when the reggeon is
1487: replaced by
1488: an electroweak vector boson which does not carry color, as we discuss in Section
1489: 5, the corresponding amplitude will not vanish.
1490:
1491: \newpage
1492:
1493: \mainhead{3. THE CRITICAL POMERON IN $QCD_S$}
1494:
1495: If the high-energy behavior of
1496: $CSQCD_S$ is mapped onto supercritical RFT, as discussed in the last
1497: Section (and in Appendix C), SU(3) color will be restored
1498: via the Critical Pomeron phase transition.
1499: As part of this transition, the SU(2) singlet gluon will become massless and
1500: decouple. Simultaneously, the wee gluon condensate will disappear
1501: and a corresponding dynamical degree of freedom will appear. That is, the
1502: shifting of the Dirac sea will become dynamical.
1503: Dynamical, gauge-invariant, infinite
1504: number),wee gluon combinations carrying octet color, will produce the chirality
1505: transitions illustrated in Fig.~7 (and many more).
1506: For this to happen, the longitudinal
1507: vector meson interactions, which at first sight should decouple as the
1508: color symmetry breaking is removed, must still be present - at zero light-cone
1509: momentum.
1510:
1511: In fact, the role
1512: of zero light-cone momentum, longitudinal, gluons is a major ambiguity of
1513: light-cone quantization\cite{arw84}. When we discuss wee gluons in a pion, as we
1514: did in the previous Section, we are essentially invoking light-cone quantization
1515: in a frame in which the pion carries light-cone momentum
1516: $k_+$. For the dynamical wee
1517: gluon processes that we are discussing to be present the longitudinal, zero
1518: light-cone momentum, gluons must provide the interactions, of the form
1519: of (\ref{lint}), that are responsible for the occurrence of the
1520: chirality transitions (and anomaly poles) in Fig.~7. There is, of course,
1521: no vector gluon mass ``$M$'' in $QCD_S$. Consequently, there must be
1522: an intrinsic momentum scale $\mu$ that is generated as part of the symmetry
1523: restoration process that will
1524: provide the scale for dynamical wee gluon contributions in a hadron.
1525: Whether, or not, this scale should simply be identified with the normal
1526: dynamical scale of $QCD_S$ remains to be determined. In any case,
1527: by constructing the high-energy behavior of $QCD_S$ via $CSQCD_S$ we are,
1528: effectively, fixing the ambiguity of the
1529: role of zero light-cone momentum, longitudinal gluons.
1530:
1531: The dynamical shifting of the Dirac sea produced by wee gluon interactions will,
1532: as we said above, no longer correspond to the introduction of a semi-classical
1533: gauge field, or condensate, in a fixed direction of the SU(3) color group. Rather,
1534: the chirality transitions, which will be many in any scattering process, will
1535: correspond to random gauge field fluctuations within the color group. The
1536: transition from a fixed ``magnetization'' for the gauge field associated
1537: with Dirac sea shifts to a randomized, fluctuating, field, characterizes the
1538: nature of the ``critical phenomenon'' that is associated with the high-energy
1539: behavior of $QCD_S$. The shifting of the Dirac sea is the ``order parameter'' of
1540: the transition. In the supercritical phase this degree of freedom is ordered into
1541: a single, semi-classical, wee gluon gauge field contribution,
1542: while in the sub-critical phase it is random.
1543:
1544: It is obviously essential for the quarks to be massless if the
1545: physics of the Critical Pomeron is to be as we have just described it.
1546: The chirality transitions can take place in
1547: a ``perturbative manner'' (i.e. within effective vertex
1548: triangle diagrams) only if the quarks are massless. We would expect, however, that
1549: the high-energy behavior is independent of the physical states aquiring masses and
1550: therefore would expect that the Critical Pomeron remains, at high-energy, even when
1551: effective quark masses are added to $QCD_S$. To add such masses and preserve the
1552: physics involved would appear, nevertheless, to be non-trivial. It would appear
1553: that the Dirac sea would have to undergo major shifts
1554: (as envisaged by Gribov\cite{dd}) in a random
1555: dynamical manner, as part of any scattering process and as part of the creation
1556: of asymptotic states. In fact, it now seems likely that the solution
1557: to this obviously complex problem is provided by the
1558: embedding of $QCD_S$ and the electroweak sector of the Standard Model in
1559: ``very special'' unified theory\cite{kw,arw05}. This unified theory should also
1560: answer the question of how the short-distance electroweak anomaly due to
1561: the sextet quarks is canceled.
1562:
1563: The large transverse momentum (``short distance'')
1564: pomeron will be the least sensitive to the wee gluon phase transition. At large
1565: transverse momentum, therefore, the $QCD_S$ pomeron will be approximately
1566: a short-distance (gauge-invariant) reggeized
1567: gluon combined with a color compensating dynamical, anomalous,
1568: wee gluon contribution. Also, at large transverse momentum,
1569: both triplet and sextet pions will have a
1570: wee gluon component that is the same as the pomeron,
1571: but with a short-distance quark-antiquark pair replacing the
1572: reggeized gluon. It can be shown that
1573: the quark-antiquark state in a pion reggeizes and so becomes
1574: gauge-invariant, like the reggeized gluon in the pomeron, but we will not
1575: discuss it in this paper. (Note that we expect that at large transverse momentum
1576: the quark and antiquark in a reggeized
1577: pion have equal dynamical status while, in an on-shell
1578: pion one or the other carries, essentially, all of the corresponding
1579: light-like momentum.)
1580:
1581: As we said in the last Section, we also
1582: will not attempt to follow the formation of
1583: baryons as SU(3) color is restored. However, there is one very importent
1584: feature of baryon formation which is clear. Namely,
1585: there are no ``hybrid states'' formed, for example, by a sextet quark
1586: {\large $Q$} combining with
1587: a {\large $\bar{q}\bar{q}$} triplet
1588: state that is a ``nucleon'' in $CSQCD_S$. This combination
1589: is possible in principle, but the Goldstone boson nucleon will have the wrong
1590: symmetry properties to combine with the SU(2) singlet component of a sextet quark.
1591: In addition, for the complete SU(3) invariant
1592: state to be formed it would be necessary to also have a {\large $\bar{q}Q$}
1593: state in $CSQCD_S$ combining with an SU(2) singlet {\large $\bar{q}$}
1594: (as the symmetry is restored) and, as is clear from the previous Section, this
1595: is prevented by the complex SU(2) triplet component of the $Q$.
1596: We conclude, therefore, that the only new baryon states formed by the sextet
1597: sector are the sextet proton - the $P_6$, and the sextet neutron - the $N_6$.
1598: The importance of this conclusion will become apparent in later Sections.
1599:
1600: We can enumerate the formation of the asymptotic states
1601: of $QCD_S$ from those of $CSQCD_S$, as follows.
1602: \begin{enumerate}
1603: \item{``pions'' $\leftrightarrow$
1604: \{{\large $q\bar{q}$} + wee gluons\} $\to$ normal meson spectrum in $QCD_S$}
1605: \item{``Pions'' $\leftrightarrow$
1606: \{{\large $Q\bar{Q}$} + wee gluons\} $\to$ $\Pi^{\pm},\Pi^0,$ in $QCD_S$ }
1607: \item{``nucleons'' $\leftrightarrow$
1608: \{{\large $qq~/~\bar{q}\bar{q}$} + wee gluons\} + \{{\large $q~/~\bar{q}$}\},
1609: $\to$ SU(3) color singlet
1610: \newline $\to$ normal nucleon spectrum in $QCD_S$ }
1611: \item{``Nucleons'' $\leftrightarrow$
1612: \{{\large $QQ~/~\bar{Q}\bar{Q}$} + wee gluons\} + \{{\large $Q~/~\bar{Q}$}\},
1613: $\to$ $N_6$, $P^{\pm}_6$ in $QCD_S$ }
1614: \end{enumerate}
1615:
1616: In Section 5 we will discuss hard diffractive interactions of the pomeron
1617: with either a photon or an electroweak vector boson.
1618: In these interactions the wee gluon component has only a limited role and,
1619: most importantly, there are no wee gluon interactions. In these circumstances,
1620: we can continue to represent the wee gluon component as a
1621: zero transverse momentum ``condensate''. Even though, in reality, it is
1622: a much more complicated dynamical contribution of wee gluons
1623: over a range of infra-red transverse momenta. As we will see,
1624: the effective vertices involved will
1625: not contain a longitudinal vector interaction and so, as a consequence,
1626: the scale of wee gluon couplings will be an important effect. It will be crucial that,
1627: as we determine from the electroweak mass scale in the next Section,
1628: the wee gluon couplings
1629: for triplet and sextet quarks are very different. This will
1630: be represented by distinct condensate couplings for triplets and sextets.
1631:
1632: With the wee gluons treated as semi-classical, we will be able to use
1633: the anomaly pole mechanism to obtain a
1634: limited understanding of the production
1635: of sextet pions and the resultant production of $W$'s and $Z$'s in
1636: hard diffractive processes. Not surprisingly,
1637: the minimal representation of the dynamics of the
1638: wee gluon component will have major limitations.
1639: Most significantly, we will be able to apply the ``condensate anomaly mechanism''
1640: only at large $k_{\perp}$ and then, directly, only
1641: to the production of an ``on-shell'' sextet pion carrying light-like momentum.
1642: Dynamical wee gluons can, presumably, produce
1643: sextet pions at both small $k_{\perp}$ and off-shell,
1644: but we will not try to discuss this explicitly.
1645: Instead, we first use the kinematic form given directly by
1646: the anomaly amplitude to go ``off-shell''. This leads to
1647: rough order-of-magnitude
1648: estimates and (some) qualitative kinematic features
1649: of hard diffractive phenomena. We can then combine the knowledge
1650: of hard diffraction that we obtain, with regge theory,
1651: to discuss expectations for soft
1652: diffraction. We will argue that, at the LHC,
1653: the most immediate place to see that new physics is in evidence is
1654: likely to be the double pomeron exchange cross-section!
1655:
1656: \newpage
1657:
1658: \mainhead{4. ELECTROWEAK VECTOR BOSONS AND THE SEXTET QCD SCALE}
1659:
1660: We consider, now, the addition of the electroweak vector boson sector
1661: to $QCD_S$. We first add a triplet $\{W^{\pm},W^0\}$ of
1662: massless SU(2) gauge bosons with Standard Model left-handed
1663: couplings (with coupling constant $g_w$) to both triplet and sextet quarks. Later
1664: we will add a
1665: massless hypercharge gauge field $Y$ (with coupling constant $g_y$) that
1666: also has Standard Model couplings to all quarks. We define ``Standard Model''
1667: couplings for sextet quarks by recognizing that sextet antiquarks have the
1668: same SU(3) triality as triplet quarks. It is natural, therefore, for
1669: sextet antiquarks (quarks) to have
1670: the same electroweak couplings as triplet quarks (antiquarks). In
1671: fact, this is also what occurs when both kinds of quarks originate from an
1672: underlying unified theory\cite{kw}. In massless $QCD_S$ there will be three
1673: flavor doublets of color triplet quarks that each produce a triplet of
1674: ``pions'' that have the quantum numbers to couple directly to the $W$'s.
1675: The triplet of Pions produced by the single sextet doublet
1676: similarly has the quantum numbers to couple directly to the $W$'s.
1677: We begin in $CSQCD_S$, however, because
1678: this will enable us to understand the generation of a vector boson mass in terms
1679: of anomaly pole pions and Pions. We will see how the
1680: wee gluon component of a scattering, infinite momentum,
1681: pion generates a mass for an exchanged
1682: vector boson, as we would expect if the universal wee gluon component of
1683: infinite momentum states is able to reproduce vacuum properties.
1684:
1685: \subhead{4.1 Background Wee Gluon Interactions}
1686:
1687: To obtain an infra-red divergent scattering amplitude involving W exchange,
1688: there must be a wee gluon
1689: exchange accompanying (but not interacting with)
1690: the $W$, as illustrated in Fig.~14.
1691: \begin{center}
1692: \epsfxsize=2.5in
1693: \epsffile{dp350.ps}
1694:
1695: Fig.~14 Scattering via $W$ exchange.
1696: \end{center}
1697: (Apart from the exchanged vector boson, the notation is the same as in Section 2.)
1698: However, because of the left-handed coupling, there will be interaction kernels,
1699: analagous to that of Fig.~3, for the $W$ to interact with multi-gluon states that
1700: carry both normal and anomalous color charge parity. As a consequence, all infra-red
1701: divergent amplitdes will be exponentiated to zero, except for those produced by
1702: background wee gluons. Although the underlying multi-regge calculations remain
1703: to be carried out, we expect that
1704: there will be amplitudes analagous to that of Fig.~11, but
1705: with the gluon reggeon replaced by a (reggeized) vector boson. In this case,
1706: we expect that the full
1707: anomaly vertices, of the kind illustrated in Fig.~12, will not survive the
1708: exponentiation analagous to Fig.~13. Instead,
1709: the left-handed component of the axial-vector
1710: coupling shown in Fig.~12 will, because of the left-handed $W$ coupling, contribute
1711: to an exponentiation of the form of Fig.~13. Implying that perturbative $W$ exchange
1712: will be accompanied by a background, ``right-handed'', wee gluon interaction. In
1713: $QCD_S$, with SU(3) color restored, this background interaction will be SU(3)
1714: symmetric.
1715:
1716: \subhead{4.2 $W$ Mass Generation}
1717:
1718: A priori, we anticipate that the existence of Goldstone boson $\Pi$'s
1719: will lead to the $W$'s aquiring a mass via the mixing
1720: illustrated schematically in Fig.~15.
1721: \begin{center}
1722: \epsfxsize=4in
1723: \epsffile{dp22.ps}
1724:
1725: Fig.~15 The Anticipated Mass Generation.
1726: \end{center}
1727: We will show that, in the regge limit, the first interaction term is produced
1728: (when $q^2_{\perp} \to 0$ ) by wee gluons in one, or the other,
1729: of the scattering pions. The wee gluon anomaly interactions
1730: involved are illustrated in
1731: Fig.~16.
1732: \begin{center}
1733: \epsfxsize=2in
1734: \epsffile{dp360.ps}
1735: \epsfxsize=2in
1736: \epsffile{dp361.ps}
1737:
1738: Fig.~16 Anomaly interactions.
1739: \end{center}
1740: For the moment, the quark loop involved
1741: can be either sextet or triplet. We will not attempt to identify the higher-order
1742: terms in Fig.~15. Identifying the first term will give us sufficient information
1743: for our purposes.
1744:
1745: With the wee gluon kinematics used in Section 2, the first interaction
1746: in Fig.~16 gives, as $q^2_{\perp} \to 0$,
1747: the anomaly pole contribution shown in Fig.~17.
1748: \begin{center}
1749: \epsfxsize=3.5in
1750: \epsffile{dp370.ps}
1751:
1752: Fig.~17 The anomaly pole contribution.
1753: \end{center}
1754: (Again the notation is the same
1755: as in previous diagrams, except that we have introduced $\gamma_L = 1 + \gamma_5$.)
1756: The $g_w \gamma_L\gamma_{3^{\pm}}$ couplings appear because
1757: the $W$ is exchanged over a large rapidity interval. The $\gamma_{1^-}$
1758: and $\gamma_{2^-}$ couplings are similarly determined by the wee gluon
1759: kinematics.
1760:
1761: If we add the two diagrams shown in Fig.~16, and integrate over the
1762: wee gluon momentum $k_3$, we produce a $W$ mass of the form
1763: $$
1764: M_W^2 ~\sim~ \frac{q_1^2 + q_2^2}{q_{\perp}^2} ~ g_W^2 ~\int dk_3 ~k_3
1765: ~=~ g_W^2 ~\int dk_3 ~k_3
1766: \auto\label{mw}
1767: $$
1768: That there is actually no pole at $q_{\perp}^2 = 0$ is consistent with
1769: our argument in Section 2 (and Appendix B) that the on-shell residue of an
1770: anomaly pole is finite only in an infinite momentum frame. Nevertheless, the
1771: quantum numbers at each vertex of the triangle diagram producing the denominator
1772: pole are identical to those of the
1773: effective triangle diagrams discussed in Section 2.
1774: Therefore, the masss generation can be interpreted as due to the direct coupling
1775: of a $W$ to a Pion (or pion) just as anticipated in Fig.~15.
1776:
1777: As discussed in the previous two Sections, wee gluon momentum factors
1778: are generally scaled by a mass factor
1779: ($M$ in $CSQCD_S$ or $\mu$ in $QCD_S$). However,
1780: because the diagrams of Fig.~16 contain only perturbative $W$
1781: vertices in addition to the wee gluon couplings (with no
1782: longitudinal interaction of the form of (\ref{lint}) ), the wee gluon momentum
1783: factor produced by the coupling to the anomaly diagram is not scaled by
1784: such a mass factor. As a result, the mass (\ref{mw}) that is
1785: obtained is a direct reflection of the wee gluon momenta involved together
1786: with an overall normalization factor that will be
1787: determined by the color factors associated
1788: with the sum over all wee gluon couplings to the quark loop involved.
1789: Since this color factor will be
1790: different for triplets and sextets, we can write the mass obtained
1791: from all quark loop interactions of the form of Fig.~16 as
1792: $$
1793: M_W~=~ g_w^2~F_{\Pi}^2 ~+~ \Sigma_{\pi 's} ~ g_w^2~F_{\pi}^2
1794: \auto\label{mass}
1795: $$
1796: and consider this to be a definition, for our purposes, of
1797: both $F_{\Pi}$ and $F_{\pi}$.
1798:
1799: We will discuss the relative magnitude of $F_{\Pi}$ and $F_{\pi}$ shortly.
1800: First, however, we note that the mass (\ref{mass}) appears only
1801: for vector bosons with a purely left-handed coupling.
1802: The ``LLV'' structure of the triangle
1803: diagram in Fig.~17 gives an anomaly, whereas if
1804: the $W$ couplings were purely vector we would have
1805: a ``VVV'' structure and no
1806: anomaly. Similarly, if the coupling were purely axial vector we would have an
1807: ``AAV'' structure and, again, no anomaly. Hence,
1808: if we now introduce the Standard Model hypercharge gauge field $Y$,
1809: with couplings as discussed above,
1810: the above mass generation mechanism will apply also to
1811: the left-handed component of $Y$. We, therefore, obtain exactly the mass
1812: generation pattern of the Standard Model and there is no mass for the photon.
1813: (Note that photon exchange exchange will be accompanied by a background
1814: axial vector wee gluon interaction.)
1815:
1816: To discuss the contribution of wee gluon color
1817: factors to $F_{\Pi}$ and $F_{\pi}$, it will be simpler to
1818: make the transition from $CSQCD_S$ to $QCD_S$. As we have discussed in the previous
1819: Section,
1820: the wee gluons will no longer be a simple condensate and the $W$ mass generated
1821: by wee gluon interactions will be a much more complicated dynamical effect.
1822: Nevertheless, we can continue to define $F_{\Pi}$ and
1823: $F_{\pi}$ by (\ref{mass}).
1824:
1825: The large sextet color factors surely imply that $F_{\Pi}$ is much larger
1826: than $F_{\pi}$. A common expectation,
1827: based on Feynman graph color factors, is that
1828: triplet and sextet quark momentum scales for gluon interactions
1829: will be related (approximately) by the ``Casimir Scaling'' rule.
1830: This rule would say that $F_{\Pi}$ and $F_{\pi}$
1831: should be related by
1832: $$
1833: C(6)~\alpha_s (F_{\Pi}^2)~\sim ~C(3) ~\alpha_s(F_{\pi}^2)
1834: \auto\label{cas}
1835: $$
1836: where $C(3)$ and $C(6)$ are Casimirs for triplet and sextet quarks respectively.
1837: For SU(3) there are two Casimir operators which are (representation
1838: dependent) multiples of the identity.
1839: In terms of the generators $G_a$, these operators can be
1840: written as
1841: $$
1842: C_2~=~G^2~ \sim ~f_{abc}G_aG_bG_c ~,~~~~ C_3~\sim~d_{abc}G_aG_bG_c
1843: \auto\label{cas1}
1844: $$
1845: and since
1846: $$
1847: C_2(6)/C_2(3)~=~ 5/2~, ~~~~ C_3(6)/C_3(3)~=~ 7/2
1848: \auto\label{cas2}
1849: $$
1850: we can say
1851: $$
1852: C(6)/C(3) ~\approx~ 3
1853: \auto\label{cas3}
1854: $$
1855:
1856: To apply (\ref{cas}) to the real world
1857: we must use the physical $\alpha_s$ that is defined via ``low-energy''
1858: QCD, with the sextet sector
1859: integrated out and with the physical quark masses in place.
1860: In this case, if $\alpha_s$ evolves as slowly as is commonly believed
1861: (e.g. $\alpha_s (F_{\pi}^2)
1862: \sim 0.4~$), the order of magnitude of $F_{\Pi}$ will indeed
1863: be the electroweak scale! We conclude, also, that the sextet quark Pions will
1864: dominate the mass generation for $W$ bosons, as anticipated in Fig.~15,
1865: and we can effectively ignore the triplet quark contribution.
1866:
1867: We can look at the Casimir scaling rule (\ref{cas}) in two complimentary ways.
1868: We can use it, as we just did, to obtain directly the relative magnitude of triplet
1869: and sextet factors with a momentum dimension, on the basis that this is entirely
1870: controlled by the evolution of $\alpha_s$. More directly,
1871: we can say that in going
1872: from triplet to sextet graphical
1873: contributions, $\alpha_s$ is effectively replaced by
1874: $\{C(6)/C(3)\}~ \alpha_s$. (An explicit example of this is provided by the
1875: $\beta$-function calculations described in Appendix A.) In this case, we
1876: can say that the large
1877: factor of $F_{\Pi}^2$ that appears in the $W$ mass results from the color
1878: factors associated with the product of the two
1879: wee gluon couplings, in the diagrams of Fig.~16,
1880: to the sextet quark loop involved.
1881: Since, essentially, the same color factors and wee gluon interactions will
1882: be involved, we conclude that the wee gluon coupling
1883: that provides the coupling of
1884: the wee gluon component of the pomeron to a sextet quark loop (in an
1885: anomaly pole amplitude) similarly,
1886: has the order of magnitude of $F_{\Pi}$. This tells us,
1887: as we shall see explicitly in the following, that the pomeron will couple
1888: very strongly to the electroweak sector, even though the states are very massive.
1889:
1890: \newpage
1891:
1892: \mainhead{5. SEXTET PIONS AT HERA}
1893:
1894: We begin our discussion of
1895: the hard diffractive production of vector bosons ($W$'s and $Z$'s) via sextet
1896: pions by discussing deep-inelastic diffractive scattering in this Section.
1897: As we anticipated in the previous Section, the strong coupling
1898: of the sextet sector to wee gluons will be directly evident in the coupling of this
1899: sector to the pomeron and, as we show below, we can begin
1900: to estimate cross-sections by utilising the generation
1901: of a sextet pion via an anomaly pole. Because the produced vector
1902: boson carries a large longitudinal momentum and it
1903: is longitudinally polarized it has, as we will explain below,
1904: an enhanced probability (compared to a
1905: transversely polarized vector boson) for decay to a jet pair
1906: that are sufficiently close together, in phase space, to appear
1907: as a single massive jet.
1908: In the kinematical situation at HERA, this is particularly
1909: difficult to detect unambiguously. We are encouraged, nevertheless, by the
1910: fact that the features of the most dramatic
1911: large $x$ and $Q^2$ event presented\cite{ZEUS} by ZEUS, in the original paper
1912: highlighting such events, are such that we are able to argue that
1913: a $Z^0$ may, indeed, have been produced.
1914:
1915: \subhead{5.1 Diffractive Hard Interactions }
1916:
1917: A sextet pion can be directly produced via a
1918: hard interaction of the pomeron with a color neutral $ \gamma$, $Z^0$ or $W^{\pm}$.
1919: When no pomeron self-interactions are
1920: involved, it should be reasonable to treat the wee gluon component
1921: of the pomeron as a condensate, as discussed in Section 3.
1922: In this case, as illustrated in Fig.~18, the pomeron can provide directly
1923: the wee gluon component that is needed for the sextet pion to appear via
1924: an anomaly pole.
1925: \begin{center}
1926: \epsfxsize=4.7in
1927: \epsffile{hm8.ps}
1928:
1929: Fig.~18 Hard diffractive interactions.
1930: \end{center}
1931: (We use the same diagrammatic notation as in Section 2.)
1932:
1933: At moderate and low $Q^2$, deep-inelastic scattering
1934: is dominated by photon exchange.
1935: To see the sextet pion process, we will require
1936: large $x$ and $Q^2$ and, in fact, $Q^2$ will be sufficiently large that
1937: $Z^0$ exchange, in the neutral current, and $W$ exchange, in the charged
1938: current will give equally large (or even larger) contributions.
1939: In the following we will specifically discuss interactions initiated by a photon
1940: and only occasionally refer to the fact that the photon could equally well be
1941: a $W^{\pm}$ or a $Z^0$.
1942:
1943: The simplest photon interaction
1944: that is effectively pointlike at large $k_{\perp}$ and has the right
1945: $\gamma$ - matrix structure to produce an anomaly pole, is shown in Fig.~19(a).
1946: \begin{center}
1947: \epsfxsize=2.2in
1948: \epsffile{dp27.ps}
1949: \hspace{0.9in}
1950: \epsfxsize=1.2in
1951: \epsffile{dp26.ps}
1952:
1953: (a)\hspace{2.5in}(b)
1954:
1955: Fig.~19 (a) The hard interaction (b) the anomaly pole diagram.
1956: \end{center}
1957: ($M_6 $ is a dynamical sextet quark mass that we take to be $\sim F_{\Pi}$.)
1958: The resulting anomaly pole diagram is shown in Fig.~19(b).
1959: We will see that, in addition to the large $k_{\perp}$,
1960: the hard gluon in the pomeron must also carry a large light-like momentum.
1961:
1962: To obtain an anomaly pole amplitude via a finite on-shell residue we
1963: should, in principle, go to the infinite momentum frame of the produced pion.
1964: In addition, the anomaly pole description is valid only when
1965: when the $\Pi$ is on mass-shell, with zero mass. However, to produce
1966: a $Z^0$, and not a $\Pi$ on mass-shell, it should
1967: be reasonable to use the finite
1968: momentum anomaly pole amplitude, initially defined close to the Pion mass-shell,
1969: and continue that towards the $Z^0$ pole.
1970:
1971: \subhead{5.2 Diffractive Deep-Inelastic Scattering}
1972:
1973: The anomaly amplitude shown in Fig.~19(b) gives the contribution
1974: to deep-inelastic diffractive jet production illustrated in Fig.~20.
1975: \begin{center}
1976: \epsfxsize=1.7in
1977: \epsffile{sp101.ps}
1978: \epsfxsize=1.7in
1979: \epsffile{sp102.ps}
1980:
1981: Fig.~20 Deep-inelastic diffractive jet production.
1982: \end{center}
1983: Using the kinematic notation shown in Fig.~19(b) and Fig.~20, we initially
1984: take $\hat{P}= Q+k$ to be light-like ($= \hat{P}_+$, as in Fig.~19(b) )
1985: but very importantly, because $Q$ is spacelike, the light-cone is not parallel
1986: to that defining $P_+$ and $P_-$. In this case,
1987: with the $\gamma$-matrix couplings appearing
1988: in Fig.~19(b), the anomaly amplitude has a contribution with the kinematic form
1989: $$
1990: \Gamma_{\perp \hat{n}_- -} ~\sim ~ \frac{\hat{P}_+P_-\hat{P}_+}{P_-
1991: \hat{P}_+} ~= ~\hat{P}+
1992: \auto\label{spa}
1993: $$
1994: where $\hat{n}_-$ is the light-cone vector orthogonal (in the euclidean sense)
1995: to $\hat{P}_+$. Again there is no anomaly pole. Instead, the
1996: effect of this pole is that the amplitude is independent of the wee gluon
1997: momentum $P_-$.
1998: Therefore, the anomaly pole wee gluon coupling
1999: will produce a simple integral over the wee gluon
2000: distribution that, for the reasons discussed in the last Section,
2001: we take to be $\sim ~ F_{\Pi}$. Combining (\ref{spa})
2002: with this coupling
2003: and with the $Z^0$ propagator and vertices $g_w$, and extrapolating away from
2004: $\hat{P}^2=0$ by introducing $\hat{P}_-$, as a component of $Q+k$, gives
2005: $$
2006: F_{\Pi}
2007: \hat{P}_+ g_w^2~ \frac{(g_{-\nu} - \hat{P}_-\hat{P}_{\nu}/M^2)}{
2008: (\hat{P}^2-M^2)}
2009: ~=~- \frac{\hat{P}_-}{F_{\Pi}}\frac{\hat{P}^2}{\hat{P}^2 -M^2}
2010: \delta_{-, \nu}
2011: ~- ~\frac{\hat{P}_+}{F_{\Pi}}\delta_{+, \nu}
2012: \auto\label{fspa}
2013: $$
2014: where $M$ is now $M_{Z^0}$ (but would be $M_W$ if we were discussing $W$ production)
2015: and we have used $M= g_w F_{\Pi}$. (All light-cone co-ordinates are
2016: now defined relative to the $\hat{P}$ light-cone.)
2017: The first term in (\ref{fspa}) is present as soon as $\hat{P}^2 \neq 0$.
2018: It produces a physical, longitudinal, $Z^0$.
2019:
2020: The second term in (\ref{fspa}) has no pole, but it is
2021: of comparable magnitude away from the pole and (when $\hat{P}_-$ is small)
2022: it gives a direct coupling
2023: to fermion final states that is proportional to their mass.
2024: Note that there is no explicit $g_w$ dependence in
2025: (\ref{fspa}) and when $\hat{P}_+ \sim \hat{P}_- \sim F_{\Pi}$ both terms are
2026: $O(1)$. Therefore, at the electroweak scale, the anomaly
2027: amplitude produces electroweak final states with no electroweak suppression.
2028:
2029: \subhead{5.3 Comparison With a Jet Amplitude}
2030:
2031: At first sight, as illustrated in Fig.~19(a), the hard interaction that
2032: helps produce the anomaly amplitude gives a suppression $O(1/F_{\Pi})$
2033: at the electroweak scale.
2034: However, as we discuss now, this is the
2035: natural order of magnitude for a normal two jet amplitude
2036: that does not involve sextet pion production.
2037:
2038: We consider the two jet amplitude involving gluon exchange shown in Fig.~21(a),
2039: and consider the two production vertices shown in Fig.~21(b).
2040: (Once again the photon could be replaced by either a $Z^0$ or a $W^{\pm}$.)
2041: The first vertex shown is a lowest-order amplitude
2042: involving quark exchange. The second is a loop amplitude that gives
2043: the lowest-order triplet sector vertex for $Z^0$ production.
2044: Considering (\ref{fspa}) to simply give a factor that is O(1), if we compare the
2045: the quark exchange amplitude with the
2046: anomaly amplitude of Fig.~20, the first difference is that in the
2047: jet amplitude a triplet quark propagator,
2048: carrying momentum $P_j$, replaces the hard interaction
2049: in the triangle diagram amplitude. However, provided $|P_j|\sim |k_{\perp}|$,
2050: this will simply give the ``natural'' order of magnitude for a jet amplitude that we
2051: referred to above.
2052: \begin{center}
2053: \epsfxsize=1.6in
2054: \epsffile{dp290.ps}
2055: \hspace{0.4in}
2056: \epsfxsize=3.1in
2057: \epsffile{dp291.ps}
2058:
2059: (a)\hspace{2.5in}(b)$~~~~~~~~$
2060:
2061: Fig.~21 (a) A two jet amplitude (b) production vertices
2062: \end{center}
2063:
2064: The second
2065: difference between the jet amplitude and the anomaly
2066: amplitude is that a regular gluon (parton) vertex
2067: replaces the pomeron vertex (that is the reggeized gluon plus wee gluons vertex),
2068: giving a reduction by a factor of $\approx 1/3$ in the amplitude.
2069: This will be compensated, in part, by the appearance of a
2070: sextet quark coupling (relative to a triplet coupling). Therefore, when all the
2071: momenta involved are electroweak scale in magnitude, the diffractive production
2072: of jet pairs via $Z^0$ production will give a comparable cross-section to that for
2073: conventional (non-diffractive) two jet production.
2074:
2075: To emphasize the (relatively) large magnitude of the diffractive production
2076: amplitude we are discussing, we
2077: consider corresponding cross-sections for $Z^0$ production when only the triplet
2078: sector is present. First, we consider the anomaly pole mechanism. In this case,
2079: the factor of $F_{\Pi}$ in the numerator of the left side of (\ref{fspa}) is
2080: replaced by $F_{\pi}$ and there is a reduction in cross-section of
2081: $~ \centerunder{\raisebox{1mm}{$ >$}}{$\sim$}
2082: ~O(10^6)$. If we instead consider
2083: the one loop production vertex of Fig.~21(b), the
2084: factor of $F_{\Pi}\hat{P}_+$ in the left side of (\ref{fspa}) is
2085: replaced by a factor of $\mu^2$, where $\mu$ is the triplet sector momentum
2086: scale, leading to a much greater reduction of the cross-section.
2087:
2088: \subhead{5.4 The Angular Distribution of Produced Jets and Leptons}
2089:
2090: A high momentum longitudinal $Z^0$ (as, potentially, produced at HERA)
2091: is more likely, than a transversely
2092: polarized $Z^0$, to produce a jet or lepton pair
2093: that are sufficiently close together, in phase space, to appear
2094: as a single massive jet. We will show this by
2095: comparing infinite momentum limits in the two cases.
2096:
2097: If we denote the (four-) momentum vectors of the produced fermions
2098: by $X$ and $Y$, then if the $Z^0$ momentum is
2099: $$
2100: P_{Z^0}~=~(P_+ + P_-,~ P_+ - P_- ,~ 0,~ 0)~, ~~~~ where ~~~ 4P_+P_-~ =~M^2
2101: \auto\label{mz0}
2102: $$
2103: the most general form for $X$ and $Y$ is
2104: $$
2105: \eqalign{X~&=~ (\lambda P_+ + (1-\lambda)P_-,~
2106: \lambda P_+ - (1-\lambda)P_-,~ p_{\perp},~0) \cr
2107: Y~&=~ ((1-\lambda) P_+ + \lambda P_-,~
2108: (1- \lambda) P_+ - \lambda P_-,- p_{\perp},~0)
2109: }
2110: \auto\label{XY}
2111: $$
2112: where $0 \leq \lambda \leq 1$. The mass of both fermions is given by
2113: $$
2114: m_f^2~=~ 4 \lambda (1-\lambda) P_+ P_- ~- ~p_{\perp}^2
2115: = \lambda (1-\lambda)~M^2 ~- ~p_{\perp}^2
2116: \auto\label{mf}
2117: $$
2118: This notation will be convenient for our purposes, even though it
2119: obscures the fact that we could obtain all momenta via
2120: a boost from the rest frame of the $Z^0$. In this frame, the only variable would be
2121: the angle between the transverse momenta of the fermion pair and the
2122: direction in which the $Z^0$ is to be boosted. This is, of course, why
2123: $p_{\perp}$ and $\lambda$ are related via (\ref{mf}).
2124:
2125: We consider first a transverse coupling which, for the purpose of
2126: $\gamma$-matrix manipulations, we write in the form
2127: $$
2128: <Y|n_{\perp}. \gamma_{\perp}|X>
2129: \auto\label{XYp}
2130: $$
2131: where $n_{\perp}$ is a unit transverse vector. Suppose, first, that
2132: $P_+$ is so large that both $P_-$ and $p_{\perp}$ can be neglected.
2133: Using the Dirac equation for $|X>$ then gives
2134: $$
2135: <Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X> ~
2136: \sim~ \frac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}~<Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X>
2137: \auto\label{XYp1}
2138: $$
2139: $$
2140: \implies ~~<Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X> ~=~0
2141: \auto\label{XYp2}
2142: $$
2143: except, possibly, when $\lambda= (1-\lambda) = 1/2 $.
2144: Not surprisingly, we have to add transverse momentum in order to get
2145: substantial information about how a transversely polarized $Z^0$ will decay.
2146:
2147: If we repeat the above
2148: manipulation keeping the transverse momentum dependence we obtain
2149: $$
2150: \eqalign{<Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X>&\sim ~ <Y|~n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}
2151: (\lambda \gamma_- P_+ + \gamma_{\perp}.p_{\perp})/m_f~|X> \cr
2152: &\sim \frac{\lambda}{(1-\lambda)}<Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X>
2153: + \frac{(1-2\lambda)}{(1-\lambda)}<Y|p_{\perp}~n_{\perp}|X>/m_f + \cdots
2154: }
2155: \auto\label{XYp3}
2156: $$
2157: The additional terms cancel if we add the corresponding equation obtained by
2158: reversing the roles of $\lambda$ and $(1-\lambda)$.
2159: (Note that $(1-2\lambda)$ changes sign under
2160: $\lambda \leftrightarrow (1- \lambda)$ but, also, $m_f \leftrightarrow -m_f$.)
2161: We then obtain the simple result
2162: $$
2163: <Y|n_{\perp}.\gamma_{\perp}|X> ~\sim ~-~
2164: <Y|p_{\perp}.n_{\perp}|X>/m_f
2165: \auto\label{XYp4}
2166: $$
2167:
2168: We learn from (\ref{XYp4}) that a transverse $Z^0$ decays to fermions with
2169: transverse momenta determined by the polarization. The amplitude is a maximum
2170: when $|p_{\perp}|$ is a maximum which, from (\ref{mf}) occurs when
2171: $\lambda = 1/2$. In this case, the fermions symmetrically carry one half of the
2172: light cone momenta of the $Z^0$. It is a smooth maximum, however, and so there
2173: is a significant probability that the $Z^0$ will decay into an asymmetric
2174: configuration.
2175:
2176: If we repeat the above discussion for the longitudinal polarization we obtain a
2177: non-zero contribution already in the first manipulation, i.e.
2178: $$
2179: \eqalign{<Y|~\gamma_+~|X>~&\sim ~ <Y|~\gamma_+
2180: \lambda \gamma_- P_+ /m_f~|X> \cr
2181: & \sim~ \frac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}~<Y|~\gamma_+|X>
2182: ~- ~2\lambda ~<Y|~P_+~|X>/m_f
2183: }
2184: \auto\label{XYp5}
2185: $$
2186: giving
2187: $$
2188: <Y|~\gamma_-~|X>~\sim ~ - \frac{2\lambda (1-\lambda)}{m_f(1-2\lambda)} <Y|~P_+ ~|X>
2189: \auto\label{XYp6}
2190: $$
2191: Now the symmetric case, with $\lambda =1/2$, is strongly enhanced. Although,
2192: because terms that are non-leading as $P_+ \to \infty$ will also be singular as
2193: $\lambda \to 1/2$, we
2194: can use (\ref{XYp6}) only if we stay away from $\lambda =1/2$. It is,
2195: nevertheless, sufficient for us to conclude that, at large momentum,
2196: the symmetric configuration with two jets (or leptons) close together in
2197: phase space is enhanced for a longitudinal $Z^0$ decay, compared to the transverse
2198: case. In general, the final result may often look
2199: like a broad single jet.
2200:
2201: \subhead{5.5 HERA Kinematics}
2202:
2203: For most of our discussion we will
2204: take both the proton and the positron to be massless.
2205: We denote the momentum of the proton beam by $E_p$ and the momentum
2206: of the positron beam by $E_e$. If we write the photon (or $Z^0$, or $W^{\pm}$)
2207: momentum as
2208: $$
2209: Q~=~(Q_+ + Q_-,~ Q_+ - Q_-,~ Q_{\perp})
2210: \auto\label{Qcp}
2211: $$
2212: then the light-cone components
2213: $Q_+$ and $Q_-$ are determined, at fixed $x$ and $Q^2$,
2214: by the mass-shell condition for the scattered positron, i.e.
2215: $$
2216: 0~=~ 4 p_- Q_+ ~- ~ Q^2
2217: \auto\label{mse}
2218: $$
2219: and
2220: $$
2221: x~=~ \frac{Q^2}{4 P_+ Q_- }
2222: \auto\label{xQ2}
2223: $$
2224: Solving for $Q_{\perp}^2$, we obtain
2225: $$
2226: Q_{\perp}^2~=~Q^2 ~-~\frac{Q^4}{Sx}~=~(1-y)Q^2
2227: \auto\label{qpr}
2228: $$
2229: where $S = 4 P_+ p_-$ and $xyS=Q^2$.
2230:
2231: (\ref{qpr}) shows
2232: that large $Q_{\perp}$ requires both large $x$ and $Q^2$.
2233: With $E_p = 820$ GeV and $E_e = 27.5$ GeV (the original HERA values)
2234: we can obtain $~ Q_{\perp} \sim ~ 100~ GeV$ with
2235: $Q^2 ~\sim ~ 30,000~GeV^2$ and $~x~\sim ~ 0.5$.
2236: However, if (in the notation of Fig.~20)
2237: we also require that $k_{\perp} \sim~ 100~ GeV~$
2238: and $~\hat{P}^2 ~\sim ~M_{Z^0}^2~ $ then, not surprisingly, it is
2239: very difficult to have all conditions satisfied. First, it is necessary
2240: for $k$ to have a very large light-cone component to put the
2241: $Z^0$ on-shell. We then find that to keep the diffractively excited proton state
2242: physical we must have
2243: $ |k^2|~=~|t|~ \centerunder{$>$}{$\sim $} ~2k_{\perp}^2~ \sim~ 20,000~GeV^2$.
2244: In this case, the jet cross-section we are comparing with
2245: will be far too small to be observable.
2246:
2247: \subhead{5.6 Small $t$ Scattering}
2248:
2249: We can extend the foregoing discussion with an argument that we will also
2250: apply to other diffractive amplitudes in later Sections. According to
2251: our analysis, the $QCD_S$ pomeron is essentially a regge pole and so has,
2252: approximately, the factorization properties of a regge pole all the way from
2253: electroweak scale values of $|t|$ down to $|t| \sim 0$. The regge behavior is
2254: manifest at large $|t|$ via the reggeized gluon that gives the kinematic
2255: properties of
2256: the hard pomeron that we have been discussing and this will match smoothly
2257: with a soft pomeron regge pole as $|t|$ decreases.
2258: (Note that $t$ can be small
2259: even though a large light-like momentum is exchanged.) Since we anticipate
2260: that the ``non-perturbative''
2261: $\gamma Z^0~ \pom~$ vertex is entirely due to electroweak scale dynamics it should
2262: vary only slowly with $|t|$ (with a
2263: scale determined by $F_{\Pi}$). However, the proton/pomeron coupling will be the
2264: normal hadronic coupling and will increase exponentially fast as
2265: $|t|$ decreases. It is difficult to know how large this increase will be, since
2266: there are no measurements of this coupling for $|t| \sim ~20,000 ~GeV^2~ !$
2267: We do know that
2268: the cross-section for proton elastic scattering, which involves the square of
2269: the coupling that we are interested in,
2270: decreases by five orders of magnitude between zero and
2271: $|t| \sim ~1~GeV^2$, and by another five orders of magnitude between
2272: $|t| \sim ~1~GeV^2$ and $|t| \sim ~10~GeV^2 $.
2273: The mass-shell condition for the proton to scatter elastically, with a large
2274: longitudinal momentum exchanged, is $|t|~\centerunder{$<$}{$\sim$} ~2-3 ~GeV^2$.
2275: With the
2276: increase by orders of magnitude as $|t|$ decreases, if we are also close
2277: to the $Z^0$ pole, the resulting cross-section may well be observable.
2278:
2279: \subhead{5.7 What Can be Seen at HERA ?}
2280:
2281: In the original ZEUS paper\cite{ZEUS} five events were highlighted which all had
2282: relatively large $x$ and $Q^2$.
2283: We have identified an electroweak scale $|Q_{\perp}|$
2284: as necessary for sextet pion $Z^0$ production and four events had $|Q_{\perp}|
2285: \centerunder{$>$}{$\sim$} 100$ GeV. Although subsequent ZEUS data\cite{ZEUSa}
2286: appear to show that the $e^+p$ cross-section
2287: at large $x$ and $Q^2$ (up to, and including, $Q^2 = ~30,000~GeV^2$)
2288: is not substantially above that predicted by the Standard Model, H1 data
2289: give a different impression.
2290: The published H1 cross-section\cite{H1a} for the neutral current
2291: at $Q^2 = ~30,000~GeV^2$ (and the charged current at lower $Q^2$) seems to be
2292: significantly above the Standard Model value. Therefore,
2293: it remains possible that some fraction
2294: of the original five ZEUS events (particularly at
2295: $Q^2> ~30,000~GeV^2 $) and, presumably, subsequently observed events, are due
2296: to a non Standard model process. In fact, as we now discuss,
2297: only the largest $Q^2$ event clearly has a high
2298: probability to have resulted from $Z^0$ production.
2299:
2300: In each event there is a clear jet and the
2301: essential question is whether it could have been
2302: a massive jet produced by a $Z^0$. We will make use of the fact
2303: that two, a priori independent, reconstruction
2304: methods are used to measure both $Q^2$ and $x$
2305: and the results from both are quoted separately for each event.
2306: The first method,
2307: called the ``double-angle'' (DA) method uses only the measured angles of the jet
2308: ($\gamma$) and the electron ($\theta_e$), together with the formulae
2309: $$
2310: x_{DA}~=~ \frac{E_e}{E_p}\frac{sin \gamma}{(1-cos \gamma)}
2311: \frac{sin \theta_e}{(1-cos \theta_e)}~,~~
2312: y_{DA}~=~\frac{sin\theta_e (1-cos \gamma)}{sin \gamma
2313: + sin \theta_e -sin(\gamma + \theta_e)}~,
2314: \auto\label{dba}
2315: $$
2316: and $~Q^2_{DA}= s x_{DA} y_{DA}~$.
2317: The other ``positron'' method uses only the measured positron energy $E_e'$ and
2318: the angle $\theta_e$, together with the formulae
2319: $$
2320: x_e~=~ \frac{E_e}{E_p}\frac{E_e'(1 + cos_e)}{2E_e - E_e'(1-cos \theta_e)}~,
2321: ~~ y_e~=~1~-~ \frac{E_e' }{2E_e}~(1 - cos\theta_e)
2322: \auto\label{psm}
2323: $$
2324: and, again, $~Q^2_e = s x_e y_e~$.
2325: Although this second method is much more direct,
2326: because of the difficulty of measuring $E_e'$ reliably, the double
2327: angle method is generally regarded as more reliable for discussing
2328: large $Q^2$ deep-inelastic events.
2329:
2330: The double angle method is
2331: predicated\cite{dam}
2332: on the assumption that the jet mass can be neglected. As a result, (\ref{dba})
2333: correctly gives $x$ and $Q^2$ only when the jet is (at least approximately)
2334: massless. Therefore, whether or not, there is agreement between the two methods
2335: can be regarded as an indirect test of the smallness of
2336: the jet mass. In fact, for all but the largest $Q^2$ event, there
2337: is no significant disagreement.
2338:
2339: \subhead{5.8 The Largest $Q^2$ Event}
2340:
2341: This event is shown in Fig.~22. The jet is clearly very broad and, in fact, the results
2342: for $Q^2$ and $x$ obtained from the two reconstruction methods
2343: differ significantly, with the differences being outside
2344: of the quoted errors.
2345: \begin{center}
2346: \epsfxsize=6in
2347: \epsffile{ev446.ps}
2348:
2349: Fig.~22 The largest $Q^2$ ZEUS event.
2350: \end{center}
2351: If we reconstruct the full four-momentum $Q$
2352: from (\ref{Qcp})-(\ref{qpr}) we obtain
2353: $$
2354: Q_{DA}~=~(-399,-439,-113,0)
2355: \auto\label{qda1}
2356: $$
2357: and
2358: $$
2359: Q_e~=~(-352.5,-393.5,101,0)
2360: \auto\label{qe1}
2361: $$
2362:
2363: We can regard the double-angle method as projecting the
2364: experimentally measured calorimeter
2365: energies and momenta onto the combination of a massless jet and an additional
2366: momentum projected onto the measured direction of the positron.
2367: In effect, this is what is done by the process of
2368: eliminating the energy of the positron and assuming that only the angle is well
2369: determined experimentally. The jet angle $\gamma$ is
2370: determined directly (under the assumption that the jet is massless).
2371: Following the procedure used in the ZEUS paper we determine the
2372: jet energy by using the fact that $p_{\perp}$ is approximately
2373: conserved (as is recorded in Fig.~22).
2374: As a result, the $p_{\perp}$ of the jet must balance that given by
2375: $Q_e$. With $\gamma = 38.6^o$, this determines the four-momentum
2376: of the (assumed to exist) massless jet to be
2377: $$
2378: P_j~=~ (167,126.5,101,0)
2379: \auto\label{pjm}
2380: $$
2381: Taking the directly measured $Q_e$ to be correct,
2382: the additional momentum projected along the positron direction is
2383: $$
2384: Q_e - Q_{DA}~= ~(46.5,45.5,-12,0)
2385: \auto\label{eDA}
2386: $$
2387: Adding this back to $P_j$ to, potentially, obtain the true four momentum
2388: of the produced hadronic state we obtain
2389: $$
2390: P_j + Q_e - Q_{DA}~=~ (213.5,172,89,0)
2391: \auto\label{jeDA}
2392: $$
2393: which has a mass squared of
2394: $$
2395: 8,077.25~GeV^2~=~ (89.9~GeV)^2
2396: \auto\label{mjeDA}
2397: $$
2398: suggesting that a massive $Z^0$ jet was indeed produced.
2399: The production angle would have been $\gamma_{Z^0}~=~ 27.4^o$
2400: which is large enough to be detected only because $Q^2$
2401: is so large.
2402:
2403: If we compute the momentum transfer $k$ using
2404: (\ref{jeDA}) for the momentum $\hat{P}$ of the $Z^0$ we obtain
2405: $$
2406: k~=~P_{Z^0} - Q_e ~=~ (566,565.5,12,0)
2407: \auto\label{tZ0}
2408: $$
2409: implying (more exactly than is surely justified by all the reconstruction involved)
2410: that the squared momentum transfer may have indeed been
2411: small. Thus allowing the interpretation of the event
2412: as diffractive $Z^0$ production.
2413:
2414: \subhead{5.9 Other Events}
2415:
2416: It will be very interesting to determine whether the foregoing
2417: analysis can reveal further HERA events that might be consistent with
2418: diffractive $Z^0$ production. Although the H1 events, that were presented in the
2419: paper\cite{H1} that was contemporaneous with the ZEUS paper, carried large
2420: $Q^2$ they were selected with
2421: different criteria and were presented from a different
2422: viewpoint. There was an emphasis on the possibility of a large mass intermediate
2423: state in the electron + jet channel that led to the presentation of the kinematics
2424: of the events in a way that makes it impossible to directly apply our analysis.
2425: Also the search for a large mass intermediate state produced an emphasis on large
2426: $y$, and hence low $Q_{\perp}^2$, that is counter to our purpose. In particular,
2427: the two largest
2428: $Q^2$ events presented (with $Q^2 \sim ~31,000~ GeV^2$) both had relatively
2429: small $x$ ($\sim 0.45$) and consequently had lower
2430: $Q_{\perp}^2$ ($\sim~ 80~ GeV$) than we would prefer for our analysis.
2431:
2432: Presumably, both ZEUS and $H1$ have further candidate events from
2433: runs subsequent to 1997. However, cross-sections
2434: for $Q^2 > 30,000~ GeV^2$ have yet to be published, as have any corresponding
2435: event pictures.
2436:
2437: \newpage
2438:
2439: \mainhead{6. SEXTET PHYSICS AT FERMILAB }
2440:
2441:
2442: \subhead{6.1 Single Diffraction}
2443:
2444: The interactions shown in Fig.~18 will also take place in a hadron collider
2445: when a $Z^0$, $W^{\pm}$, or photon is emitted from a quark in a hadron.
2446: Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to isolate these
2447: processes because of the small cross-section involved.
2448: However, as in our discussion of deep-inelastic scattering in the previous Section,
2449: the $t$ dependence of the pomeron/hadron vertex implies there should
2450: be a ``relatively large'' forward amplitude. In fact, this interaction could
2451: explain the push towards larger rapidities, that is apparently
2452: observed\cite{d0} at the Tevatron, when
2453: a $W^{\pm}$ or $Z^0$ is produced in association with a large $E_T$ jet.
2454:
2455: Diffractive production of vector boson pairs might also be possible,
2456: although it is not clear whether the corresponding anomaly pole vertices exist.
2457: Apparently\cite{UA1}, there is already an anomalously large (non-diffractive) $W$ pair
2458: cross-section at the energy of the $S\bar{p}pS$ collider. Since, as we discuss
2459: in the next Section, we expect
2460: this cross-section to be really large at the LHC, it seems that an
2461: ``anomalous'' (although still relatively small) cross-section
2462: should surely be observed at the Tevatron. A sextet pion
2463: coupling might then give an unexpectedly large single diffractive component.
2464: A complication is that detection of
2465: events in which one of the pair decays hadronically is much more difficult
2466: at the Tevatron than it was at the $S\bar{p}pS$ because of the large background
2467: from the QCD production of $W$ (or $Z$) plus two jets. In addition, the
2468: vector boson pairs will be produced with much greater momentum at the Tevatron
2469: (than at the $S\bar{p}pS$) and so the problem of the
2470: close together decays of longitudinal bosons will be much more significant.
2471:
2472: Other anomalous events, related to the single diffractive interactions,
2473: may also be observed. In particular, a connection between
2474: diffractive cross-sections and events with twice the average multiplicity density
2475: (in rapidity) is required by the AGK cutting rules. In addition,
2476: the Wilson lines attached to sextet quarks
2477: should also generate higher associated multiplicities than triplet quark lines.
2478: Anomalously low multiplicity events may anticipate the higher energy
2479: rapidity gap cross-sections that we expect to appear.
2480:
2481: \subhead{6.2 Double Pomeron Exchange at the Tevatron}
2482:
2483: Double pomeron production of $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ pairs which, as we discuss in the
2484: next Section, we expect to be a very clean signal of sextet quark physics
2485: at the LHC, is (probably) inaccessible kinematically at the Tevatron.
2486: However, a $Z^0$ can also pair with a photon to give a state
2487: with zero sextet quark flavor. Since double pomeron production of $Z^0 \gamma$
2488: is accessible kinematically, although there is not an obvious anomaly pole vertex,
2489: there could be a significant
2490: (although small, because an electromagnetic coupling is involved)
2491: anomalous cross-section for this process at the Tevatron. Since
2492: there are two hadron/pomeron couplings there should also be a major
2493: increase of the cross-section at smaller $t$. Assuming that the photon can
2494: simply play the role of introducing sextet quark quantum numbers,
2495: it need not carry electroweak scale transverse momentum.
2496:
2497: \subhead{6.3 The $\eta_6$, $t\bar{t}$, and Large $E_T$ Jets.}
2498:
2499: We turn now to non-diffractive sextet quark physics that might be seen (or may have
2500: already been seen) at the Tevatron.
2501:
2502: As illustrated in Fig.~23,
2503: the $\eta_6$ has two anomaly couplings to wee gluons in $CSQCD_S$.
2504: There is both a $Q\bar{Q}$ and an SU(2) singlet gluon coupling (where
2505: the gluon has a non-leading helicity).
2506: Therefore, in $QCD_S$, the $\eta_6$
2507: mixes with a pure glue state
2508: \begin{center}
2509: \epsfxsize=4.5in
2510: \epsffile{dp47.ps}
2511:
2512: Fig.~23 Anomaly couplings for the $\eta_6$.
2513: \end{center}
2514: and, as a result, we expect that it
2515: will have an electroweak scale mass, with the sextet quark and
2516: antiquark carrying electroweak scale constituent masses. The $\eta_6$
2517: will also mix, via the gluon state, with the triplet flavor singlet
2518: (the $\eta_3$) that will be dominated by $t\bar{t}$ at the electroweak scale.
2519:
2520: We anticipate, therefore, that the $\eta_6$ has
2521: an electroweak scale short-distance component which
2522: carries octet color that is compensated by wee gluons. This short
2523: distance component can be produced via gluon production and, since
2524: sextet quarks are stable, it will decay, primarily, through
2525: $t\bar{t}$. Assuming that the major disparity in scales leads to a minimal
2526: dynamical role for the wee gluons in the process,
2527: $t\bar{t}$ production at Fermilab could be due to the $\eta_6$, and
2528: could be, essentially, ``perturbatively'' calculable. This would imply, however, that
2529: $m_{\eta_6} \sim $ ``$~2 m_t~$''.
2530:
2531: That top production is due to resonance production would, of course, resolve
2532: the paradox that the production of a confined, colored, quark can, apparently, be
2533: observed experimentally.
2534: Theoretically, and ``philosophically'', it would surely be attractive if
2535: an electroweak scale mass, i.e. $2 m_t \sim 350~ GeV$, is explained
2536: as the (dynamical) mass of a sextet
2537: quark/antiquark bound state, rather than as (twice the value of) a
2538: lagrangian parameter of the triplet
2539: quark sector. Whether a well-determined top quark
2540: ``mass'' should still be, experimentally, identifiable is not clear.
2541:
2542: Within $QCD_S$, the existence of a non-perturbative
2543: QCD sector above the ``mass'' of the top quark makes it very unlikely
2544: that the concept of a perturbative, electroweak scale, current quark
2545: mass can be well-defined enough to be directly measured. There would be
2546: a large dynamical mass generated above the electroweak scale that, most likely,
2547: would make
2548: the concept of the current quark mass very elusive. Alternatively, if we
2549: identify the $\eta_6$ as responsible for top production then we can identify
2550: $m_t$ as the sextet quark constituent mass scale. This would imply
2551: that the sextet neutron $N_6$ has a relatively low mass of $500-600~GeV$.
2552: As we will discuss in the next Section, this maximises the possibility
2553: that the Cosmic Ray spectrum knee is associated with the appearance of sextet quark
2554: states.
2555:
2556: As detailed in Appendix A, the contribution of the sextet quark doublet
2557: to the QCD $\beta$-function is equivalent to the contribution of ten
2558: triplet quarks. Consequently at the scale where (non-chiral)
2559: sextet quarks enter the dynamics, they will
2560: halt the evolution of $\alpha_s$ entirely. If the top quark mass is actually
2561: the sextet constituent mass scale, as we have suggested, then the evolution
2562: of $\alpha_s$ will halt at $E_T \sim m_t$. In Fig.~24(a) we show a CDF
2563: analysis\cite{CDF}
2564: which translates the observed (Run 1) jet excess at large $E_T$ into
2565: the (non-)evolution of $\alpha_s$.
2566: As can be seen, $\alpha_s$ does indeed stop evolving just at $E_T \sim m_t$.
2567: \begin{center}
2568: \epsfxsize=2.7in
2569: \epsffile{CDF4.ps}
2570: \hspace{0.2in}
2571: \epsfxsize=2.9in
2572: \epsffile{CDF11.ps}
2573:
2574: (a)\hspace{2.7in}(b)
2575:
2576: Fig.~24 CDF jet cross-section measurements.
2577: \end{center}
2578:
2579: Measurement of the jet cross-section in Run 2 appears, at present, to be entangled
2580: by the very real problem of systematic experimental errors.
2581: In Fig.~24(b) we show the current
2582: comparison of data with theory\cite{CDFb}. Note that ``theory'' in this case
2583: includes a gluon distribution that was
2584: chosen to best fit the Run 1 excess cross-section.
2585: As can be seen, if we ignore the experimental error problem, the data again
2586: pull away from theory, for $E_T \sim m_t$ upwards, with the effect clearly
2587: growing with $E_T$.
2588:
2589: It seems possible, if not probable, that
2590: above the electroweak scale, QCD jet physics is breaking down in just the manner
2591: that we would expect from $QCD_S$. Indeed,
2592: if the top mass has the significance that we have just discussed,
2593: then the sextet sector has fully entered the theory at this scale.
2594: In addition to halting the evolution of $\alpha_s$,
2595: the increasing entry of sextet sector states into the dynamics
2596: should imply that the ``excess'' continues to grow as $E_T$ increases.
2597: Indeed, we would expect that in the highest $E_T$ excess region there is an
2598: enrichment of longitudinal $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$
2599: jets with $M_{jet} \approx M_{W/Z}$. As we discuss in the next Section,
2600: at the LHC such events will have become a major part of the cross-section.
2601:
2602: \subhead{6.4 Non-perturbative Decay Modes}
2603:
2604: If the $\eta_6$ is indeed responsible for $t\bar{t}$ production, then
2605: we would also expect to see ``non-perturbative'' decay modes.
2606: To discuss these modes, the best we can do
2607: is to exploit the parallel between the \{$\Pi^{\pm},\Pi^0,\eta_6$\} sextet
2608: states, corresponding to \{$W^{\pm},Z^0,\eta_6$\},
2609: and the familiar \{$\pi^{\pm},\pi^0,\eta$\} triplet quark states.
2610: Although the width should be large, if we take
2611: $~m_{\eta_6} ~\sim~2 m_t~ \sim ~ 350 GeV$,
2612: the relative couplings and masses of
2613: the vector mesons, and the photon, imply that the
2614: primary non-perturbative decay mode should be (in parallel with
2615: $\eta~\to~ \pi^+~\pi^-~\pi^0$)
2616: $$
2617: \eta_6~~\to~~ W^+~W^-~Z^0
2618: \auto\label{dk1}
2619: $$
2620: which, when $Z^0 \to b\bar{b}$, would give the same final state as $t\bar{t}$.
2621: The next most significant mode
2622: $$
2623: \eta_6~~\to~~ Z^0~Z^0~Z^0
2624: \auto\label{dk2}
2625: $$
2626: (in parallel with $\eta~\to~ \pi^0~\pi^0~\pi^0$)
2627: should have a smaller branching ratio, because of the larger $Z^0$ mass.
2628: In addition, (\ref{dk2}) would
2629: be indistinguishable from (\ref{dk1}) when the $Z^0$'s decay hadronically, as they
2630: do most of the time. Because the $\eta_6$ mass is so large,
2631: decay modes involving an electromagnetic coupling, such as
2632: $$
2633: \eta_6~~ \to~~ W^+~W^-~\gamma~, ~~~Z^0 ~Z^0~\gamma ~, ~~~ Z^0 ~\gamma~\gamma~,
2634: ~~~ \gamma~\gamma
2635: \auto\label{dk3}
2636: $$
2637: would be expected to have smaller branching ratios but should
2638: be present at some level.
2639:
2640: Unfortunately, because the non-perturbative decay modes proceed vis sextet pion
2641: interactions, the produced vector mesons will be longitudinally
2642: polarized and so, as we discussed in the previous Section,
2643: when they carry large momentum they will have close together jet
2644: and lepton decay modes that are more difficult to detect.
2645:
2646: \newpage
2647:
2648: \mainhead{7. DARK MATTER, COSMIC RAY PHENOMENA, AND LARGE CROSS-SECTION
2649: LHC PHYSICS}
2650:
2651: If the sextet sector exists, the LHC will most probably
2652: be the discovery machine, at least as far as accelerator physics is concerned.
2653: In the
2654: next Section, we will give direct theoretical arguments
2655: for effects that should be seen at the LHC. However, we will not
2656: be able to predict, theoretically,
2657: the magnitude of the major phenomena we expect with any great certainty.
2658: However, if there is ``a major change in the strong
2659: interaction above the electroweak scale'', it surely should
2660: be visible in Cosmic Ray physics and, more generally, in other cosmic phenomena.
2661: As we now discuss,
2662: there are candidate phenomena of this kind and, if they are
2663: interpreted as we will suggest, they indicate that
2664: large cross-section effects are to be expected at the LHC.
2665: We first give a brief, qualitative, discussion of why
2666: we expect the sextet sector to appear with high-energy cross-sections
2667: that are larger than hadronic in size and what we expect the major effects of these
2668: cross-sections to be.
2669:
2670: \subhead{7.1 Larger Than Hadronic Size Cross-Sections}
2671:
2672: If $QCD_S$ existed in isolation, without the electroweak sector, then, because of
2673: the larger Casimirs, the sextet sector would constitute
2674: a stronger coupling sector of the theory. Just how significant
2675: the casimir effect is, we do not know. In general, it is clearly present in
2676: perturbation theory but is less significant in conventional non-perturbative
2677: formalisms. In $QCD_S$, because of the
2678: ``almost perturbative'' form of confinement that is present,
2679: we expect the effect to be maximal. Most importantly, though, we do not know how
2680: the wee gluon distribution contributes to the pomeron couplings that determine
2681: the size of asymptotic cross-sections, although sextet couplings should surely
2682: be larger. Therefore, the best we can say is that
2683: sextet pions will be massless and have asymptotic
2684: cross-sections that are (probably considerably) larger that their triplet
2685: counterpart. The sextet nucleon mass
2686: scale will be larger than the triplet scale but,
2687: nevertheless, sextet nucleon asymptotic cross-sections should also be larger.
2688: In general, therefore, although
2689: the asymptotic mass scale will be much larger, the size of asymptotic
2690: cross-sections, including multi-pomeron cross-sections,
2691: should be larger for the sextet sector, than the triplet sector, in $QCD_S$.
2692:
2693: Adding the electroweak sector
2694: transforms the massless sextet pions into massive vector mesons. Effective
2695: current quark masses also have to be added. At
2696: asymptotic energies neither effect should matter, but such
2697: effects do matter for determining the scale above which
2698: asymptotia sets in. In addition, if we start
2699: (in the real world) with initial triplet states we will only
2700: be able to produce the large cross-section sextet states via multiple gluon
2701: exchange and therefore, to obtain large cross-sections, via the pomeron.
2702: This does not mean, however, that only
2703: double pomeron production processes can be involved. If the
2704: double pomeron amplitude for the production of a sextet state, such as the
2705: $W^{\pm}$ pair amplitude shown in Fig.~25(a), is large (as we show in the next
2706: Section)
2707: then the associated ``cut-pomeron'' amplitude, shown as the first diagram
2708: in Fig.~25(b), should also be large. (This amplitude is, however, entirely
2709: non-perturbative in that it can not be obtained by an anomaly pole method.)
2710: \begin{center}
2711: \epsfxsize=1.6in
2712: \epsffile{dp48.ps}
2713: \hspace{0.5in}
2714: \epsfxsize=3.4in
2715: \epsffile{dp490.ps}
2716:
2717: (a)\hspace{3.2in}(b)$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$
2718:
2719: Fig.~25 (a) The double pomeron $W$ pair amplitude (b) cut-pomeron amplitudes.
2720: \end{center}
2721:
2722: The cut-pomeron amplitude describes the full,
2723: central region, inclusive cross-section for production of a
2724: $W^{\pm}$ pair. Like the total cross-section, a significant part of the inclusive
2725: cross-section should be describable by pomeron exchange, even when only a
2726: relatively small rapidity range is effectively available for one cut-pomeron
2727: or the other. Therefore, when the cut-pomeron amplitude is large it implies that
2728: $W^{\pm}$ pairs (and, similarly, $Z^0$ pairs) will be strongly,
2729: and multiply, produced inclusively across a larger part of the rapidity axis
2730: than is covered by the double pomeron produced state.
2731: The second cut-pomeron amplitude shown in Fig.~25(b)
2732: describes the inclusive production of three boson states which requires, of course,
2733: a bit more energy, and so on for higher cut-pomeron amplitudes.
2734: Once there is enough energy for cut-pomeron
2735: exchange to begin describing significant production
2736: of the sextet sector then the larger cross-sections
2737: of this sector should imply that sextet states actually come to
2738: dominate the inelastic
2739: (triplet state) hadronic cross-section at a (not too much) higher energy.
2740:
2741:
2742: We expect, therefore, that the initial
2743: ``major change in the strong interaction
2744: above the electroweak scale'' will be that multiple vector boson states
2745: are produced, with large cross-section, across
2746: most (but not all) of the rapidity axis - in close analogy
2747: with pion production at much lower energies. Sextet nucleon production will
2748: set in at higher energies, depending on the mass of
2749: these states. If the pomeron provides the gateway to the
2750: asymptotically dominant sextet sector, then we could expect that
2751: to produce a sextet state with mass $M$ requires at least
2752: $\sqrt{S} ~> 10M$
2753: and so if $M \sim~400~GeV$ (to be safely above the threshold
2754: for vector boson pair procution) then we would need
2755: $\sqrt{S} ~> 4~TeV $
2756: - which is just above the Fermilab energy.
2757:
2758: \subhead{7.2 The $N_6$ and Dark Matter}
2759:
2760: That the (triplet quark)
2761: proton is lighter than the neutron is entirely due to the fact
2762: that the current mass of the $u$ quark is less than that of the $d$ quark.
2763: Electromagnetic effects, alone,
2764: would make the proton heavier.
2765: Because of the absence of hybrid triplet/sextet states,
2766: the lightest of the sextet nucleons will be stable. However,
2767: sextet quark current masses must be zero. If not, sextet pions would
2768: be massive and could not mix with the massless $W$ and $Z$ states to give
2769: them masses, as discussed in Section 5.
2770: Therefore, the sextet nucleon mass difference
2771: has to be entirely electromagnetic in origin, and so
2772: it is the $N_6$ that is stable. If the sextet
2773: quark dynamical mass is given by the top quark mass, as discussed in the last
2774: Section, then the $N_6$ mass should be $\approx 500~ GeV$ and the $P_6$
2775: mass should be just a little higher. Since triplet and sextet quarks do not
2776: combine to form bound states it is, presumably, reasonable to assume that
2777: sextet nucleons also do not form bound states with triplet nucleons. More
2778: particularly, perhaps, if pion exchange provides the binding force for nucleons
2779: to form nuclei, the distinct quark content of sextet and triplet nucleons
2780: implies that there is no common ``pion'' that can bind them.
2781:
2782: The $N_6$ is, therefore, neutral, stable, and (because of the dominance
2783: of sextet states) will be the
2784: dominant, heavy, stable state produced in high energy cross-sections. Consequently,
2785: it will be dominantly produced in the high energy interactions that
2786: are believed to have been responsible for the formation of the early universe.
2787: If it does not form bound states with normal quark matter it will
2788: abundantly form cold
2789: dark matter, in the form of (sextet) nuclei, clumps, etc. (Perhaps
2790: sextet pions can exist inside sextet nuclei and provide the binding force.) As
2791: a result, the existence of the sextet nucleon sector provides a natural
2792: explanation for the dominance of dark matter in the universe. Conversely, once
2793: we establish that the $N_6$ will form dark matter, the dominance of dark matter
2794: in the universe can be regarded as
2795: evidence confirming that sextet quark states dominate high energy cross-sections.
2796:
2797: The dominance of dark matter in the universe does not
2798: tell us at what energy scale this
2799: dominance appears in total cross-sections.
2800: Specific evidence for the relevant scale
2801: is, however, provided by the cosmic phenomenon that we discuss next.
2802:
2803: \subhead{7.3 The Knee in the Cosmic Ray Spectrum}
2804:
2805: The ``knee'' in the cosmic ray spectrum is an extraordinary, well-established
2806: and very well-known, phenomenon. As shown in Fig.~26(a), it appears as a break in
2807: the slope of the spectrum that stands out, as a distinctive feature, as the
2808: energy increases over some ten orders of magnitude and the flux decreases
2809: by thirty orders of magnitude. In first approximation, there is
2810: one single slope as the energy increases
2811: from $10^{10}~eV$ to $10^{16}~eV$ and a second slope as the energy increases
2812: from $10^{16}~eV$ to $10^{20}~eV$. It is called the knee because, as is
2813: clear from the larger scale plot shown in Fig.~26(b) (normalized by the low-energy
2814: slope), it is not simply a break
2815: in slope but rather a ``bump'' in which, for a short energy range, it looks
2816: like the slope has decreased before it settles at an increased value.
2817:
2818: It is widely believed by cosmic ray physicists that the origin of the
2819: knee is cosmic, even though there is no consensus on what the cause
2820: could be.
2821: \begin{center}\parbox{2.9in}{
2822: \begin{center}
2823: \epsfxsize=2.3in
2824: \epsffile{eng3.ps}
2825:
2826: (a)
2827: \end{center}}
2828: \parbox{2.9in}{
2829: \begin{center}
2830: \epsfxsize=2.5in
2831: \epsffile{crk51.ps}
2832:
2833: (b)
2834: \end{center}}
2835:
2836: Fig.~26 (a) The full cosmic ray spectrum (b) The knee.
2837:
2838: \end{center}
2839: A priori, it seems almost inconceivable that a conspiracy of
2840: external phenomena could produce such a pronounced local effect, in a spectrum that
2841: (naively at least) is arriving from all directions and all distances
2842: of the universe. It seems far more plausible that the cause of the effect is in the
2843: atmospheric interaction. Indeed, right from it's earliest discovery, it was
2844: suggested\cite{nik} that the knee could be the threshold for
2845: a new interaction that produces (stable or relatively stable)
2846: neutral particles which are not observed in the ground level detectors.
2847: This would produce an underestimation of the shower energy above the threshold
2848: and would lead to a pile-up of events below the threshold energy which,
2849: together with a depletion of the spectrum above the threshold, would be
2850: observed as a ``knee''. However,
2851: the major part of the cross-section has to be affected by
2852: this threshold. Since there was no serious idea what the neutral particle(s) could
2853: be and there was no reason to expect
2854: such a dramatic effect in the strong interaction,
2855: particularly after the discovery that this interaction is described by QCD,
2856: there was no general acceptance of the proposal.
2857:
2858: We first proposed that the sextet threshold could be responsible for the knee
2859: some time ago\cite{arw94}. In the
2860: meantime, other authors have emphasized the difficulty of explaining the knee as
2861: an effect of cosmic physics and have made various proposals\cite{nik,kn,bk}
2862: for a threshold effect that could be involved.
2863: That a large fraction of the cross-section (increasing
2864: as the energy increases) has to be involved, is a problem for all threshold
2865: proposals.
2866: Because the data from different experiments do not agree about the absolute value
2867: of the flux and also cover different energy ranges, it is difficult to be sure
2868: exactly where the threshold should be and how
2869: much of the cross-section has to be involved. It is clear, however, that the
2870: threshold should be below the LHC energy and that
2871: the physics involved should be visible at the LHC as a significant part of
2872: the hadronic cross-section ($\sim$ 10-20\% ).
2873: As the discussion in
2874: {\bf 7.1} shows, the sextet sector threshold has (perhaps uniquely) the potential,
2875: at least, to play this role.
2876:
2877: The the prolific production of vector bosons,
2878: will increase the average transverse momentum of events enormously and lead to
2879: such an increase of the shower spread that a much greater fraction (than expected)
2880: of the shower particles will be undetected. At the LHC, ten or more vector bosons
2881: could be produced, kinematically, via the cut-pomeron cross-section.
2882: The major consequence will, of course, be a huge increase of the large
2883: $E_T$ jet cross-section. (The effective increase
2884: due to the non-evolution of $\alpha_s$ will be just a small part of this effect).
2885: There will also be marked changes in the distributions of
2886: leptons produced. In particular, there will be
2887: a much larger fraction of (undetected) neutrinos in the ground level particles.
2888: The production of ``dark matter'' (sextet
2889: neutron/antineutron pairs) will
2890: straightforwardly take away undetected energy and the effect will be maximal
2891: if the sextet neutron mass is as low as possible.
2892: At higher energies the inclusive production of $N_6$ pairs will surely
2893: become more and more significant and, necessarily, be a major contribution
2894: to the loss of detected energy by most of the total cross-section.
2895:
2896: It is interesting that
2897: the production of $N_6$ pairs is not so different from the original
2898: proposal\cite{nik} of the production of neutrals
2899: to explain the knee. Of course, the existence of dark matter was unknown
2900: and the link between the two phenomena, that we are proposing,
2901: could not have been imagined.
2902:
2903: \subhead{7.4 Cosmic Ray Dijets and Ultra High Energy Events}
2904:
2905: There are a number of distinct effects that have been seen in cosmic ray showers
2906: with energies above the knee, for example those discussed
2907: in \cite{nik}. Collectively, they all suggest that
2908: new physics appears above the knee. We catalogued the effects,
2909: and offered explanations of the phenomena involved, in \cite{arw94}. However,
2910: in most cases, the explanations we offered would surely be modified by our current
2911: understanding. In addition, other effects have been discovered since. We will not
2912: attempt a recataloguing here, but instead will concentrate on one of the,
2913: by now, most well-established effects and will also discuss what has since
2914: become one of the most interesting phenomena.
2915:
2916: There are very significant anomalies in the rate of high $E_T$ jets (``cores") in
2917: experiments such as Chacaltaya and Kanbala~\cite{cores}. A QCD Monte Carlo
2918: was tuned to jet data at fixed
2919: target and collider energies (including the $Sp\bar{p}S$ and Tevatron).
2920: The prediction for $\chi_{12}$, which is basically the
2921: product of the jets' $E_T$ and the jet-pair separation $R_{12}$,
2922: was then compared with the cosmic ray data. As shown in Fig.~27, for
2923: energies above $\sqrt{s} \approx $ 5 TeV (i.e. above the knee)
2924: the jet rate for $\chi_{12}~ \centerunder{\raisebox{1mm}{$>$}}{$\sim$} $ 1000
2925: TeV.cm exceeds the QCD expectation
2926: by as much as two orders of magnitude.
2927: If we interpret this is an extension, to higher energies,
2928: of the large $E_T$ jet excess observed at Fermilab, then
2929: it shows that there is an (orders of magnitude)
2930: increase of just the kind that we expect.
2931: \begin{center}
2932: \epsfxsize=3.5in
2933: \epsffile{sp31.ps}
2934:
2935: Fig.~27 Excess large $E_T$ dijets (``cores'').
2936: \end{center}
2937:
2938: Ultra high-energy cosmic ray events, with $E_0~
2939: \centerunder{\raisebox{0.5mm}{$>$}}{$\sim$}~
2940: 10^{20}~eV$, have attracted great attention because the energy
2941: exceeds the GZK cut-off produced by the interaction of a proton
2942: with the cosmic background radiation. This suggests, of course, that
2943: the particles involved can not be protons. On the other hand,
2944: it is believed that the high
2945: velocities involved imply the particles must have traveled a long way and so
2946: should be stable. Within the Standard Model there is no other candidate
2947: besides the proton. As a result, both the origin and the nature, of the
2948: high-energy events is regarded as a mystery.
2949:
2950: Within the sextet sector, there is an obvious candidate for producing the
2951: ultra high-energy events. Sextet neutrons are stable and will
2952: avoid the GZK cut-off, both because they are neutral and because they are
2953: massive. Also (because they have a large coupling to the pomeron) they will
2954: have a large high-energy hadronic cross-section. Clearly they could be
2955: responsible for the ultra high-energy cosmic rays. Indeed, they are probably
2956: responsible for an increasing fraction of the spectrum from energies
2957: lower than $10^{20}eV$ upwards. Since they would simply be
2958: very high energy dark matter, which is omnipresent in the universe,
2959: their origin would (presumably) not be a mystery.
2960:
2961: To the extent that the existence of the
2962: ultra high-energy events is evidence for a stable, massive,
2963: particles that are strongly interacting (and preferably neutral), they
2964: could actually be regarded as evidence that dark matter is strongly interacting.
2965:
2966: \newpage
2967:
2968: \mainhead{8. WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN AT THE LHC ?}
2969:
2970: Major evidence for the sextet sector, in the high luminosity mode of the LHC,
2971: will be the much larger than expected
2972: multiple vector boson and large $E_T$ jet cross-sections discussed in
2973: the previous Section. Because large momentum longitudinal bosons
2974: (that preferentially decay to jet or lepton configurations with isolation
2975: problems) will be
2976: dominantly produced, the full size of the diboson cross-section may
2977: not be immediately recognized. Instead the major, observed, effect of this cross-section
2978: may be to contribute to the increased magnitude of large $E_T$ jet cross-sections.
2979: Quite possibly, this increase will not be immediately identified as due to
2980: a sextet quark sector.
2981:
2982: A priori, the neutral $N_6$ will also be quite difficult to detect,
2983: since missing energies of several hundred $GeV$ will be common. The $P_6$,
2984: assuming it is not too unstable, should be seen.
2985: Although a massive, charged, particle with a large production cross-section
2986: will surely cause much general interest, it also may not be
2987: immediately identified with the sextet sector. Instead,
2988: the double pomeron cross-section may well be
2989: the most definitive early evidence for the sextet sector.
2990:
2991: \subhead{8.1 Double Pomeron Exchange.}
2992:
2993: Vector bosons can be pair-produced directly in double pomeron exchange,
2994: via the sextet pion anomaly mechanism, as illustrated in Fig.~28.
2995: \begin{center}
2996: \epsfxsize=3in
2997: \epsffile{dp53.ps}
2998: \epsfxsize=2.4in
2999: \epsffile{dp50.ps}
3000:
3001: Fig.~28 Double pomeron production of $W$ and $Z$ pairs via sextet pions.
3002: \end{center}
3003: The kinematics needed for the derivation of this amplitude, as a
3004: straightforward extension of the argument of {\bf 5.2}, are easily satisfied
3005: at the LHC. A parallel argument to that of {\bf 5.4} and {\bf 6.2} can then
3006: be used to obtain
3007: an order of magnitude estimate for the cross-section.
3008: The jet amplitude, analagous to Fig.~18(a), that has, apart from the anomaly
3009: loops, the same propagators and couplings as Fig.~28 is shown in Fig.~29(a).
3010: When the transverse momentum
3011: is electroweak scale, i.e. $|k_{\perp}|
3012: \centerunder{\raisebox{1mm}{$>$}}{$\sim$} ~100 ~GeV$, the cross-sections
3013: given by Fig.~28 and Fig.~29(a) are comparable. That is to say,
3014: at large $k_{\perp}$, the double pomeron production of
3015: $W^+W^-$ and $Z^0Z^0$ pairs will give jet
3016: cross-sections that are as large as those predicted by standard QCD.
3017: \begin{center}
3018: \epsfxsize=2in
3019: \epsffile{dp51.ps}
3020: \hspace{0.6in}
3021: \epsfxsize=2.3in
3022: \epsffile{dp52.ps}
3023:
3024: (a)\hspace{3in}(b)
3025:
3026: Fig.~29 (a) The comparable jet amplitude (b) a triplet sector amlitude
3027: \end{center}
3028: In Fig.~29(b) we show the
3029: lowest-order triplet sector amplitude that would comparably produce
3030: a vector boson pair decaying to jets, and would also involve the
3031: gluon exchanges necessary for pomeron exchange. Extending the argument of
3032: {\bf 5.4}, since there are two sextet pions involved, and therefore two
3033: factors of $F_{\Pi}$,
3034: the cross-section given by Fig.~29(b) would be smaller by a factor
3035: of $~ \centerunder{\raisebox{0.5mm}{$ >$}}{$\sim$}
3036: ~O(10^{12})$.
3037:
3038: Repeating the argument of {\bf 5.6} in the present context,
3039: the central double pomeron vertex of Fig.~28
3040: should vary only slowly with $k_{\perp}$ (with an electroweak scale),
3041: while the external hadron/pomeron vertices
3042: will have strong $ k_{\perp}~$- dependence and give a large
3043: increase as $|t|$ decreases. As was the case in our discussion
3044: of HERA events, we will obtain the maximum
3045: increase if the scattering protons are not diffractively excited.
3046: In this case, the increase will be given by the
3047: same product of hadron/pomeron couplings that is present in the
3048: elastic cross-section. When combined with a large $|t|$ amplitude
3049: that is larger than it's triplet sector counterpart
3050: by $~ \centerunder{\raisebox{0.5mm}{$ >$}}{$\sim$} ~O(10^{12})$, this
3051: should imply a large double pomeron cross-section when $|t|$
3052: is at the minimum kinematically allowed value, in agreement with the general
3053: argument of {\bf 7.1}.
3054:
3055: \subhead{8.2 LHC Kinematics}
3056:
3057: If we consider
3058: the (symmetric) central region production of a state with
3059: mass $4M^2$ by colliding proton beams with momentum $\sqrt{S}/2$,
3060: then this corresponds to a minimum $t$ value of
3061: $$
3062: t~\sim~ - \frac{4 M^2 m_p^2}{S}
3063: \auto\label{syt}
3064: $$
3065: If we consider $W^{\pm}$ (or $Z^0$) pair production then, in analogy
3066: with the double pomeron cross-section for pion pairs we might expect
3067: the maximal cross-section to be at
3068: $M \sim 2 M_W \sim 170~GeV$. In this case, with
3069: $\sqrt{S}= 14~ TeV$ and the proton mass set to $1~ GeV$,
3070: we obtain from (\ref{syt})
3071: $$
3072: t~\sim~~ 4 ~\bigl(~\frac {0.17}{14}~\bigr)^2 ~~\sim ~5 \times 10^{-4}~GeV^2
3073: \auto\label{tsyv}
3074: $$
3075: which is close to the minimum value that is expected to be achieved by TOTEM
3076: in the initial low luminosity running at the LHC. Therefore, it should be possible
3077: to detect the cross-section very close to it's maximal value.
3078:
3079: If the CMS central detector is operational
3080: during the initial ``soft physics'' running period, then it should be
3081: straightforward to look for central $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ pairs,
3082: in combination with very forward scattered protons
3083: in the TOTEM Roman pots. The cross-section will be maximal when $t$ is at it's minimum
3084: but should, of course, be observable over a range of $t$ values. However,
3085: it will also be preferable to be
3086: as close as possible to threshold to minimize problems caused by the
3087: asymmetric decays of high momentum
3088: longitudinal vector bosons. In fact, with this in mind, it
3089: could be that at larger $|t|$ values multiple $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ pairs
3090: will be easier to detect because they are closer to threshold.
3091: Perhaps, since we expect the cross-sections to be so large, there
3092: could be spectacular events
3093: in which the far-forward protons are tagged and only (a multitude of)
3094: large $E_T$ leptons are seen in the central detector!
3095:
3096: A large double pomeron cross-section for $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ pairs
3097: immediately implies that the longitudinal components have direct
3098: strong interactions. Therefore, the observation of such a cross-section
3099: would be an immediate confirmation of the existence of the sextet sector
3100: and the sextet higgs mechanism. In addition, this cross-section can be looked for
3101: as soon as the LHC turns on. Consequently, we regard it as the top signature
3102: to be looked for as evidence for the sextet sector.
3103:
3104: If we consider sextet neutrons and, to be appropriately above threshold,
3105: set $M = 1~ TeV$ in (\ref{syt}) we obtain a minimum $|t|$ value of
3106: $$
3107: t~\sim~~ 4 ~\bigl(~\frac {1}{14}~\bigr)^2 ~~\sim ~2 \times 10^{-2}~GeV^2
3108: \auto\label{tsy1}
3109: $$
3110: which will be detectable, if the cross-section is large enough. It would also
3111: be a spectacular process. The deflection of the tagged protons would determine
3112: that a very massive state was produced, while no charged particles would be seen
3113: in any of the detectors. Comparison with charged lepton production should allow
3114: a clear separation between this process and the multiple production of neutrinos
3115: by $Z^0$'s.
3116:
3117: If the sextet nucleon double pomeron
3118: cross-section is extraordinarily large, it might be detectable in the low
3119: luminosity run of the LHC. If not,
3120: it might be seen by the high luminosity detector
3121: that will look for double pomeron production of the
3122: Standard Model Higgs particle.
3123:
3124: \subhead{8.3 Inclusive Cross-Sections for Sextet States.}
3125:
3126: As we noted in the previous Section, we expect cut-pomeron amplitudes
3127: of the form of
3128: Fig.~31(b) to be responsible for the inclusive production of mutiple vector
3129: bosons across most of the rapidity axis. This should be a
3130: major effect when the LHC is in high luminosity mode. However,
3131: as we already implied above, it is likely to
3132: take time to determine that this phenomenon is indeed taking place, since
3133: the main effect will
3134: be the contribution to jet cross-sections. Note that since we showed above
3135: that the double
3136: pomeron production of jets via vector bosons will be comparable with the total jet
3137: rates that are expected, we would obviously
3138: expect the inclusive production of jets via vector
3139: bosons to be orders of magnitude larger (as we argued for, more generally,
3140: in the previous Section).
3141:
3142: For the leptonic decays, the association
3143: of multiple leptons and missing $E_t$ to multiple $W$'s will have obvious
3144: problems, which the close together
3145: decays of longitudinal bosons will only make worse.
3146: Multiple $Z^0$ states should be the easiest to detect, but the close together
3147: decays will also be a problem. Nevertheless,
3148: since the cross-sections should be so dramatically
3149: large, they should eventually provide emphatic evidence for the sextet sector.
3150:
3151: If the $N_6$ and $P^{\pm}_6$ pairs (and also
3152: $\eta_6$ pairs) are indeed too massive to be seen in double pomeron
3153: exchange, the central region inclusive cross-sections could
3154: (as we have already said) still be relatively large
3155: via cut-pomeron amplitudes. The problem then becomes how to detect such states.
3156:
3157: \subhead{8.4 Large Jet Cross-Sections and the Evolution of $\alpha_s$}
3158:
3159: If the influence of the sextet sector on $\alpha_s$ is that the
3160: evolution stops at $E_T \sim m_t$, as we discussed in Section 6, then the
3161: LHC jet cross-sections will be further enhanced.
3162: Even according to conventional QCD
3163: predictions, the LHC jet cross-section persists for an order of magnitude
3164: in $E_T$ beyond $E_T > m_t$ and so the lack of
3165: evolution would be straightforwardly evident, if it were the only
3166: phenomenon involved.
3167: In effect, Fig.~27, together with the large $E_T$ jet excess
3168: at the Tevatron, are existing experimental evidence that
3169: the jet cross-section will be much larger than anticipated from conventional
3170: QCD, for almost all of the $E_T$ range. If this enhancement is as big
3171: as we are anticipating, it will be very hard to imagine an alternative
3172: explanation besides the existence of the sextet quark sector.
3173:
3174: \vspace{0.2in}
3175:
3176: \noindent{\bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
3177:
3178: I am grateful to Mike Albrow, Malcolm Derrick and Geoff Bodwin for
3179: valuable discussions
3180:
3181: \newpage
3182:
3183: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
3184: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3185: \vskip 1cm \noindent
3186: \noindent {\large\bf Appendix A. $~\beta$-function Properties of
3187: $QCD_S$ and $CSQCD_S$ }
3188: \vskip 3mm \noindent
3189:
3190: \subhead{A.1 The Infra-red Fixed-Point in $QCD_S$ }
3191:
3192: We write the $QCD_S$ $\beta$-function in the form
3193: $$
3194: \beta(\alpha_s) = - ~\frac{g^4}{(4\pi)^2}~\beta_0 ~ -~
3195: ~\frac{g^6}{(4\pi)^4}~\beta_1 ~-~ \frac{g^8}{(4\pi)^6}~\beta_2 ~+~ \cdots
3196: \auto\label{beta}
3197: $$
3198: The three loop calculation of \cite{tar} gives, for $n_f$ triplet flavors,
3199: $$
3200: \beta_0 = 11 - \frac{2}{3}n_f~ ,~~~\beta_1 = 102 - \frac{38}{3}n_f~, ~~~
3201: \beta_2 = \frac{2857}{2} - \frac{5033}{3}n_f + \frac{325}{54}n_f^2
3202: \auto\label{3lp}
3203: $$
3204: When $n_f = 6$, we obtain
3205: $$
3206: \beta_0 = 7,~~~\beta_1 = 26 ~.
3207: \auto\label{six}
3208: $$
3209: When the two sextet flavors are included we obtain\cite{tar}
3210: $$
3211: \beta_0 = 7 - 4T(R)n^6_f/3~ = 7 - 4(\frac{5}{2})2/3~ = 1/3,
3212: \auto\label{sex1}
3213: $$
3214: and
3215: $$
3216: \beta_1 = ~26 - 20T(R)n^6_f - 4C_2(R)T(R)n^6_f~ =~26 - 100 -66\frac{2}{3}
3217: ~=~-140\frac{2}{3}
3218: \auto\label{sex2}
3219: $$
3220: where $T(R) = C(R)/C(3) = 5/2$ and $C_2(R) = 10/3$ for sextet quarks.
3221: Therefore, $QCD_S$ is (just) asymptotically-free and also has an
3222: infra-red fixed point at
3223: $$
3224: \alpha_s~\approx ~ \frac{1}{34}
3225: \auto\label{as}
3226: $$
3227: (There is a sense in which this can be argued to be present to all
3228: orders\cite{bz}). In addition,
3229: between the ultra-violet and infra-red fixed points the $\beta$-function
3230: remains very small ($ <~10^{-6}$). As a result the massless theory
3231: evolves only very slowly and is
3232: almost scale-invariant.
3233:
3234: \subhead{A.2 Asymptotic Freedom in $CSQCD_S$ }
3235:
3236: As in the body of the paper, we use $CSQCD_S$ to denote the
3237: ``color superconducting'' version of $QCD_S$
3238: obtained by adding a scalar field and using the usual higgs mechanism.
3239: (Note that, in this context, the ``higgs mechanism'' is a technical manipulation
3240: that has nothing to do with electroweak symmetry breaking.)
3241: It is a special property of $QCD_S$ that a (complex)
3242: color-triplet Higgs scalar sector can be added\cite{gw,cel}
3243: - with both the gauge-coupling
3244: {\em and} the Higgs self-coupling asymptotically free. We can illustrate this
3245: as follows.
3246:
3247: Let $g(t)$ and
3248: $h(t)$ be the respective scale-dependent couplings, then
3249: $$
3250: \frac{dg}{dt} = \beta(g,h)~
3251: = -{1\over 2}b_0t^3 + \cdots
3252: \auto
3253: $$
3254: where, now,
3255: $$
3256: b_0 = {1\over {8\pi^2}} \left[\beta_0 -{1\over 6}\right]
3257: \auto
3258: $$
3259: $\beta_0$ is calculated from the quark content, as above,
3260: and the 1/6 is due to the triplet scalar. Similarly
3261: $$
3262: \frac{dh}{dt} = \tilde{\beta} (g,h)~
3263: = Ah^2 + Bg^2 + Cg^4 + \cdots
3264: \auto
3265: $$
3266: where
3267: $$
3268: A = {7\over {8\pi^2}},\ B = -{1\over {\pi^2}}~~~ and~~
3269: C = {{13}\over {48\pi^2}}.
3270: \auto
3271: $$
3272: We can have $h \rightarrow 0$ consistently in (3.5) if
3273: $h = xg^2 + 0(g^3)$.
3274: This gives a stability equation for $x$, that is
3275: $$
3276: \frac{dx}{dt} = g^2 \left( Ax^2 + B^\prime x + C \right)
3277: \auto
3278: $$
3279: where $B^\prime = B + b_0$. When the stability condition
3280: $(B^\prime)^2 > 4AC$ is
3281: satisfied there are two fixed-points of (3.7) and the smaller is stable for
3282: $t \rightarrow \infty$. The stability condition gives
3283: $$
3284: \left( 1-\pi^2b_0\right) ^2 > {{91}\over {96}}
3285: \auto
3286: $$
3287: which for $b_0$ small gives
3288: $$
3289: {5\over {24}} > 8\pi^2 b_0
3290: \auto
3291: $$
3292: If there are 16 color triplet quarks, or six color triplets and two sextets,
3293: then
3294: $$
3295: 8\pi^2 b_0 = {1\over6} < {5\over{24}}
3296: \auto
3297: $$
3298: For comparison, if there are 15 color triplet quarks then
3299: $$
3300: 8\pi^2 b_0 = {5\over6} > {5\over{24}}
3301: \auto
3302: $$
3303: We conclude that, only when the number of quark flavors is ``saturated'',
3304: as in $QCD_S$, can we use
3305: the Higgs mechanism to break the $SU(3)$ gauge symmetry to $SU(2)$, and so
3306: smoothly introduce a (single) massive vector into the theory, while
3307: {\em maintaining} the short-distance asymptotic freedom of the theory.
3308:
3309:
3310: \newpage
3311:
3312: \renewcommand{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
3313: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3314: \vskip 1cm \noindent
3315: \noindent {\large\bf Appendix B. ~Properties of the Triangle Anomaly}
3316: \vskip 3mm \noindent
3317:
3318: In this Appendix we summarize the various properties of the triangle
3319: diagram that are used in the paper.
3320: We consider the contribution of the massless fermion loop,
3321: shown in Fig.~B1,
3322: \begin{center}
3323: \leavevmode
3324: \epsfxsize=2in
3325: \epsffile{ehes54.ps}
3326:
3327: Fig.~B1 The Fermion Loop Contribution to $T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2)$
3328:
3329: \end{center}
3330: to an axial-vector/two-vector three current vertex, i.e.
3331: $$
3332: \Gamma_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2)~~
3333: =~ {i \over (2 \pi)^4} \int { d^4 p~ Tr \{ \gamma_5
3334: \gamma_{\mu} ~ (\st{k}_1
3335: + \st{p})~ \gamma_{\alpha}~ ~\st{p}~
3336: \gamma_{\beta}~ (-\st{k}_2 + \st{p} ) \}
3337: \over p^2 (k_1 + p)^2
3338: (p - k_2)^2 }
3339: $$
3340: A general decomposition of the symmetrized vertex
3341: $$
3342: T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2)~=~
3343: \Gamma_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2)~+~
3344: \Gamma_{\mu \beta \alpha }(k_2,k_1)
3345: \auto\label{syvt}
3346: $$
3347: into invariant amplitudes is
3348: $$
3349: \eqalign{T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2) ~&= ~ A_1~
3350: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu}~ k_1^{\sigma} ~+~ A_2~
3351: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu} ~k_2^{\sigma}
3352: ~+~A_3~
3353: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\alpha\mu}~
3354: k_{1\beta}k_1^{\delta} k_2^{\sigma} \cr
3355: ~~~& +~A_4~ {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\alpha\mu}
3356: ~ k_{2\beta}k_1^{\delta}
3357: k_2^{\sigma}~+~A_5~ {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\beta\mu}
3358: ~k_{1\alpha}k_1^{\delta}
3359: k_2^{\sigma}~+~A_6~ {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\beta\mu}
3360: ~ k_{2\alpha}k_1^{\delta}
3361: k_2^{\sigma} }
3362: \auto\label{inde}
3363: $$
3364: with
3365: $$
3366: \eqalign{A_1(k_1,k_2)~&=~-A_2(k_2,k_1) \cr
3367: A_3(k_1,k_2)~&=~-A_6(k_2,k_1) \cr
3368: A_4(k_1,k_2)~&=~-A_5(k_2,k_1) }
3369: \auto\label{bsym}
3370: $$
3371:
3372: The large momentum region ``anomaly'' contribution to $A_1$ and $A_2$ gives
3373: $$
3374: A_1~=~ \frac{1}{4\pi^2}~+~ \cdots~, ~~~~~~
3375: A_2~=~ \frac{-1}{4\pi^2}~+~ \cdots~, ~~~~~~
3376: \auto\label{uvco}
3377: $$
3378: leading to the ``anomalous'' divergence equation
3379: $$
3380: (k_1 + k_2)^{\mu}~T_{\mu \alpha \beta}~=~
3381: \frac{1}{ 2 {\pi}^2 }~{\hbox{\Large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta\sigma\alpha\beta}
3382: ~k_1^{\delta} k_2^{\sigma}
3383: \auto\label{awi}
3384: $$
3385: It is well-known\cite{gr1} that (\ref{uvco})
3386: can be understood as the consequence of a large momentum shift of
3387: the Dirac sea, during the interaction, that does not conserve axial charge.
3388:
3389: As is also well-known, the numerical value of (\ref{uvco}) is fixed
3390: by requiring that the vector Ward identities hold, i.e.
3391: $$
3392: k_1^{\alpha}~\Gamma_{\mu \alpha \beta}~=0 ~,~~~
3393: k_2^{\beta}~\Gamma_{\mu \alpha \beta}~=0
3394: \auto \label{vwi}
3395: $$
3396: and so vector charge is conserved.
3397: For the invariant amplitudes $A_i$, the Ward identities require that
3398: $$
3399: A_2~=~k_1^2~A_5 ~+~k_1\cdot k_2 ~A_6
3400: \auto\label{vwi1}
3401: $$
3402: and
3403: $$
3404: A_1~=~k_2^2~A_4 ~+~k_1\cdot k_2 ~A_3
3405: \auto\label{vwi2}
3406: $$
3407: These identities imply, in turn, an inter-relation between the
3408: ultra-violet anomaly contribution and the infra-red structure of the other $A_i$.
3409: For example, when $k_1^2=0$, (\ref{vwi1}) becomes
3410: $$
3411: A_2~=~k_1 \cdot k_2~A_6 ~=~\frac{q^2 - k_2^2}{2} ~A_6
3412: \auto\label{vwi11}
3413: $$
3414: suggesting that there is a pole in $A_6$.
3415: In particular, if we insert the ultra-violet
3416: anomaly term (\ref{uvco}) into (\ref{vwi11}), we obtain
3417: $$
3418: A_6~\centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-5mm}{$k_1^2 \to 0$}}
3419: ~\frac{1}{2\pi^2~(k_2^2 - q^2)}~+~ \cdots
3420: \auto\label{apol}
3421: $$
3422: which appears to determine that, when $k_1^2=0$, there is a pole in $A_6$ at
3423: $k_2^2=q^2$.
3424:
3425: In fact, explicit expressions for the $A_i$ can be given
3426: when $k_1^2=0$ (references to the original calculations
3427: can be found in \cite{arw02}), i.e.
3428: $$
3429: \eqalign{~~~~A_1~&=~{1\over 4{\pi}^2} \biggl({k_2^2 \over k_2^2 -q^2 }~ln{k_2^2
3430: \over q^2} ~+~1 \biggr)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\cr
3431: A_2~&=~{1\over 4{\pi}^2} \biggl({k_2^2 \over k_2^2 -q^2 }~ln{k_2^2
3432: \over q^2} ~-~1 \biggr) \cr
3433: A_3~&=-A_6~=~{1 \over 2{\pi}^2 }{1 \over k_2^2 -q^2}
3434: \biggl({k_2^2 \over k_2^2 - q^2}~ln{k_2^2
3435: \over q^2} ~-~1 \biggr) }
3436: \auto\label{k1m0}
3437: $$
3438: (While $A_4$ can be obtained from (\ref{vwi2}), $A_5$ is undetermined
3439: by (\ref{vwi1}) and is considerably more complicated.)
3440: Both (\ref{uvco}) and (\ref{apol}) are clearly present in (\ref{k1m0}).
3441: However, it can easily be checked that
3442: there is no pole at $k_2^2=q^2$ in $A_6$. The logarithms of $k_2^2$
3443: and $q^2$ are due to the ``normal thresholds'' in these channels, while the pole
3444: at $k_2^2=q^2$ is a (triangle diagram) ``anomalous threhold''. In general
3445: anomalous thresholds are hidden by normal thresholds. Consistent with
3446: this, the pole at $k_2^2=q^2$
3447: is present only if the expressions in (\ref{k1m0}) are continued to
3448: unphysical sheets of the logarithms.
3449:
3450: In special kinematic configurations, the
3451: ``anomaly pole'' does appear on the physical sheet. In particular,
3452: with $k_1^2$ already set to zero,
3453: $$
3454: k_2^2~=0 ~~~\implies~~~
3455: A_3~=-A_6~=~\frac{1}{ 2{\pi}^2~q^2 }
3456: \auto\label{apol1}
3457: $$
3458: while
3459: $$
3460: k_1=0~\equiv~k_2^2=q^2 ~~~\implies ~~~
3461: A_3~=-A_6~=~\frac{1}{ 4{\pi}^2~q^2 }
3462: \auto\label{apol2}
3463: $$
3464: In both of these kinematic
3465: configurations the invariant functions containing
3466: the anomaly pole reduce to just the pole term with the residue determined
3467: entirely by the anomaly. In (\ref{apol2}) the thresholds actually
3468: produce a partial
3469: cancelation of the pole. This partial cancelation is related to the property
3470: that, if $q^2$ is integrated over,
3471: the real part of the anomaly pole
3472: cancels and only the imaginary part $\delta$-function remains.
3473: As we discuss in Section 2,
3474: this is important for the contribution of the U(1) anomaly in pomeron vertices.
3475:
3476: If the massless fermions are actually confined, the anomaly pole can be
3477: interpreted as a Goldstone boson pole signaling chiral symmetry breaking.
3478: As we showed explicitly in \cite{arw02}, and briefly describe below,
3479: the pole is generated in the infra-red internal momentum
3480: region. Consequently, the Ward identities (\ref{vwi1})
3481: and (\ref{vwi2}) involve a direct cancelation between the large internal momentum
3482: region generating
3483: anomaly contributions of the form (\ref{uvco}) and the small internal momentum
3484: region giving the anomaly pole contribution.
3485: In effect, there are two distinct
3486: consequences of the presence of the ultra-violet anomaly (\ref{uvco}).
3487: The first is the
3488: anomalous Ward identity (\ref{awi}). The second is that, for general momenta,
3489: the vector
3490: Ward identities require a cancelation between separate contributions
3491: (with different kinematic structure) from large and
3492: small internal momentum regions. If an internal large transverse momentum
3493: cut-off is introduced, (\ref{uvco}) will be
3494: modified and the vector Ward identities will no longer hold. The contribution,
3495: to the vector current divergences of the anomaly pole terms
3496: will survive, however, since they are generated in the infra-red transverse
3497: momentum region\cite{arw02}.
3498:
3499: If we keep just the anomaly pole contributions
3500: of $A_3$ and $A_6$ to $T_{\mu \alpha \beta}$ we can write
3501: $$
3502: T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2) ~=~-~{1 \over 2 {\pi}^2 } ~
3503: {({\hbox{\Large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\alpha\mu}k_{1\beta}
3504: ~-~{\hbox{\Large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\beta\mu}
3505: ~ k_{2\alpha})~ k_1^{\delta}
3506: k_2^{\sigma} \over (k_1+k_2)^2} ~~~ +~\cdots
3507: \auto\label{pipo}
3508: $$
3509: This expression does not satisfy the vector Ward identities and does
3510: not have the axial current anomaly.
3511: When $k_1^2= k_2^2= 0$, and $q^2 \to 0$, we can rewrite (\ref{pipo}) as
3512: $$
3513: T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2) ~\sim ~{1 \over 2 {\pi}^2 }~{
3514: - q_{\mu}~ [~{\epsilon}_{\delta\sigma\alpha\beta}
3515: ~ k_1^{\delta}
3516: k_2^{\sigma}~] \over q^2}
3517: \auto\label{sifo}
3518: $$
3519: which now satisfies both vector Ward identities and also gives
3520: the anomalous divergence (\ref{awi}). We conclude that, by itself, the anomaly
3521: pole contribution violates the vector Ward identities, except at
3522: $k_1^2= k_2^2= 0$.
3523:
3524: The ultra-violet anomaly contribution (\ref{uvco}) is
3525: absent in (\ref{sifo}) and yet the anomaly is present.
3526: To understand how the anomalous
3527: divergence can be due to the anomaly pole we must first
3528: discuss the intermal momentum configuration that generates the pole.
3529: The analysis of \cite{arw02} shows that, if external light-like momenta
3530: $k^+$ and $k^-$ are directed as shown in Fig.~B2, and $p$ is the internal
3531: loop momentum, the pole is generated at $p=0$.
3532: \begin{center}
3533: \epsfxsize=2in
3534: \epsffile{dpa1.ps}
3535:
3536: Fig.~B2 Generation of the anomaly pole.
3537: \end{center}
3538: The $\gamma$ matrices shown give an anomaly pole term
3539: $$
3540: \Gamma_{32-}~=~-~ \frac{[{\epsilon}_{\sigma\delta 32}~k_1^{\sigma}
3541: k_2^{\delta}]~k_{1-} }{2 \pi^2 q^2}
3542: ~~=~-~{k_+^2 k_- \over 2 \pi^2 q^2}
3543: \auto\label{llm}
3544: $$
3545: If $k^- \to 0$ then $q^2 = 2k^+k^- ~\to 0$. The finite light-like
3546: momentum $k^+$ then flows along two
3547: of the internal lines while the third, the dashed line in Fig.~B2, carries
3548: zero momentum. Because both poles of the zero momentum propagator
3549: participate in generating the anomaly pole, there is effectively
3550: a particle/antiparticle ``chirality transition'', that is equivalent
3551: to an infra-red shift of the Dirac sea, during the interaction. This
3552: is how the anomaly pole produces an infra-red non-conservation of axial charge
3553: that parallels that produced by the ultra-violet Dirac sea shift.
3554: The infra-red effect is present only when the fermions involved are massless
3555: and then only in the infra-red region where (\ref{sifo}) is valid.
3556:
3557: If the $1/q^2$ factor in (\ref{sifo}) is to be
3558: interpreted as a Goldstone boson particle pole then
3559: $q_{\mu}$ must provide the coupling to the axial current
3560: while $[~{\epsilon}_{\delta\sigma\alpha\beta} k_1^{\delta} k_2^{\sigma}~]$
3561: provides, potentially, a coupling to physical currents.
3562: There is a problem, however, in that $k_1$ and $k_2$ are both light-like
3563: and so $q^2=0$ implies that they are also parallel. Therefore, because of the
3564: $\epsilon$-tensor, the pole residue vanishes, as is seen explicitly in
3565: (\ref{llm}). This should be expected, of course.
3566: Otherwise we would be able to obtain a coupling of a pion to finite momentum
3567: gluons. Nevertheless, we can avoid the vanishing of the pole residue if,
3568: as we go to the pole, we simultaneously go to an infinite-momentum frame.
3569: If we make a boost $a_3(\zeta)$ along the $3$-axis and consider
3570: $\Gamma_{32-}$ defined in the new frame, we can use either (\ref{sifo})
3571: or (\ref{llm}) to obtain
3572: $$
3573: \Gamma_{32- } ~\sim ~ \frac{k_+\cosh{\zeta}~\bigl[-~k_+ k_- \sinh{\zeta} ~\bigr]}
3574: { \sqrt{2} ~q^2}
3575: \auto\label{imf}
3576: $$
3577: Since we still have $q^2=2k_+k_-$, the limit $k_- \to 0$ again gives $q^2 \to 0$.
3578: However, the coupling
3579: $[~k_+ k_- \sinh{\zeta}~] $ is finite if
3580: $ k_- \cosh{\zeta}~$ is kept finite, i.e. if the mass-shell and
3581: infinite momentum limits are combined. As discussed in Section 2, the anomaly
3582: then provides a coupling to infinite momentum wee gluons. This is very important
3583: because, on general grounds, we expect to see
3584: wee-partons carry vacuum properties in the infinite momentum frame !!
3585:
3586: \newpage
3587:
3588: \renewcommand{\theequation}{C.\arabic{equation}}
3589: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3590: \vskip 1cm \noindent
3591: \noindent {\large\bf Appendix C. ~ The Multi-Regge Program}
3592: \vskip 3mm \noindent
3593:
3594: In this Appendix we provide a general description of the multi-regge program
3595: that we have formulated over the years which, as we note often in the main
3596: body of the paper, should ultimately provide the best framework for a complete
3597: derivation of the high-energy solution of $QCD_S$.
3598: We include some minimal historical background in order
3599: to explain the motivation
3600: for the program and to show why we have
3601: been led to connect $QCD_S$ to the Critical Pomeron.
3602: More technical descriptions of the arguments we give can, for the most part,
3603: be found in our recent papers.
3604:
3605: We will assume that the reader has a basic knowledge of reggeon
3606: diagrams.
3607: A review of elastic scattering diagrams and the transverse
3608: momentum kernels that appear in Section 2 can be found in
3609: Section IIIB of \cite{arw02}. We will also make considerable use of multi-reggeon
3610: diagrams\cite{arw98}
3611: that are the extension to multiparticle amplitudes of the elastic diagrams
3612: described in \cite{arw02}. For our present purposes,
3613: it will be sufficient to understand firstly that, in the multi-reggeon diagrams,
3614: there are several distinct reggeon channels
3615: in which the elastic scattering kernels again appear - with
3616: all the same properties. Secondly, and very importantly,
3617: the vertices which couple the distinct
3618: reggeon channels contain anomalies that are not present in
3619: the (vector) gluon reggeon interactions appearing in elastic
3620: diagrams. We give details of these vertices, and the anomalies that occur,
3621: in the context of the discussion.
3622:
3623: To begin with, we note that the asymptotic freedom of QCD almost certainly implies
3624: that total cross-sections
3625: must rise asymptotically if perturbation theory is to have any validity.
3626: The Critical Pomeron description of rising cross-sections
3627: was discovered\cite{cri} thirty years ago.
3628: While it's derivation as a renormalization group solution of Reggeon Field
3629: Theory (RFT) implied that it satisfied full multiparticle
3630: $t$-channel unitarity\cite{gpt,arw00}, it was soon established
3631: that it also satisfies all known $s$-channel unitarity constraints\cite{mm}.
3632: It remains today the only known rising cross-section solution
3633: of unitarity in the regge limit. In a sense, it is a fixed point solution
3634: of the regge limit (expressed in terms of physical degrees of
3635: freedom) analagous to the asymptotically-free fixed-point
3636: solution of the short-distance limit. The Critical Pomeron is, however, much
3637: more difficult to realize in a physical theory.
3638:
3639: The critical solution of RFT was found via the well understood
3640: sub-critical theory (essentially the multiperipheral
3641: model plus unitarity corrections). The physical significance of the
3642: supercritical theory was the subject of much dispute
3643: and conflicting proposals were put forward. The
3644: solution we proposed\cite{arw77,arw78,arw91}
3645: has the advantage that it is described by an explicit
3646: diagrammatic expansion that clearly satisfies reggeon unitarity.
3647: The supercritical diagrams are generated (as in a normal
3648: supercritical phase) by introducing a pomeron condensate in the
3649: critical RFT lagrangian.
3650: The condensate generates new classes of RFT diagrams, a simple example of
3651: which is shown in Fig.~C1.
3652: The two pomeron propagators produced by the condensate
3653: give $k_{\perp}$ poles that have to be interpreted as
3654: particle poles, implying that there is a pomeron
3655: transition to a two vector reggeon state as shown.
3656: \begin{center}
3657: \leavevmode
3658: \epsfxsize=3.8in
3659: \epsffile{creg.ps}
3660:
3661: Fig.~C1 A new RFT diagram generated by the pomeron condensate
3662: \end{center}
3663:
3664: Reggeon states involving many vector particle poles
3665: similarly appear in higher-order diagrams. Consequently, the RFT phase transition
3666: can be described by saying that
3667: divergences in rapidity produced in the subcritical
3668: graphical expansion (because the bare pomeron intercept is above one) are
3669: converted to vector particle divergences in $k_{\perp}$ in the supercritical
3670: expansion. That is, the supercritical phase is characterized by the
3671: ``deconfinement of a vector particle on the pomeron trajectory''.
3672:
3673: We soon realized\cite{arw78} that the deconfinement of a vector
3674: particle is exactly what should happen if it is possible
3675: to make a smooth transition from QCD to CSQCD, suggesting
3676: that the Critical Pomeron occurs, in particular circumstances,
3677: in QCD. It also suggested that a transition from perturbative reggeized gluon
3678: diagrams, describing a spontaneously-broken gauge theory, to
3679: non-perturbative pomeron diagrams describing a confining theory,
3680: could be followed within RFT. Confinement
3681: would have to be produced by the infra-red divergences of reggeized gluon diagrams.
3682:
3683: We proposed\cite{arw81}, therefore, starting with the gluon and quark
3684: reggeon diagrams of QCD, but with the gauge symmetry
3685: competely broken so that all gluons are massive.
3686: The aim was to first restore the gauge symmetry
3687: to SU(2), to obtain CSQCD, and to show that the diagrams obtained could
3688: be identified with those of
3689: supercritical pomeron RFT. We anticipated that infra-red divergences
3690: would produce confinement of SU(2)
3691: color and a pomeron, while the broken part of the gauge group
3692: would provide the accompanying massive vector meson.
3693: Restoring the symmetry to SU(3) would then be done within
3694: RFT and the result would be the Critical Pomeron. We gave arguments, based on
3695: complimentarity, that with a transverse momentum cut-off imposed the symmetry
3696: restorations should take place smoothly and,
3697: over the years\cite{arw98,arw01}, made a number of attempts to
3698: implement our proposal.
3699:
3700: The derivation of our supercritical RFT solution involved many subtleties\cite{arw91}
3701: that we eventually realized implied that
3702: the nature of the scattering hadron states has to be
3703: closely related to that of the pomeron. In particular, the
3704: ``pomeron condensate'' that defines the supercritical phase has to be associated
3705: with a (``wee parton'') component of the scattering hadrons. To derive the
3706: solution in a well-defined way,
3707: it had proved necessary\cite{arw91} to consider a multi-regge
3708: amplitude in which regge pole hadrons scatter via pomeron exchange.
3709: As a result we believed we should consider an analagous amplitude in QCD.
3710: That is, we should consider a ``many-body'' scattering amplitude, in an
3711: appropriate multi-regge region\cite{arw98} of phase-space,
3712: in which regge pole pions and the pomeron could emerge together,
3713: as illustrated schematically in Fig.~C2.
3714: Starting with the appropriate multi-regge
3715: perturbative reggeon diagrams, we would look for
3716: infra-red divergences that could produce pions and the pomeron
3717: as the gluons become massless.
3718: That, a priori, very complicated diagrams were to be considered
3719: is not as bad as it seems because the
3720: general structure of high-order diagrams is determined\cite{arw98}
3721: from that of lower-order diagrams by reggeon unitarity.
3722: \begin{center}
3723: \epsfxsize0.4in
3724: \epsffile{dp000.ps}
3725: \epsfxsize=2.8in
3726: \epsffile{dp00.ps}
3727: \epsfxsize=2.3in
3728: \epsffile{dp001.ps}
3729:
3730: Fig.~C2 The transition from perturbative reggeon diagrams to reggeized
3731: pions scattering via pomeron exchange.
3732: \end{center}
3733:
3734: In the sub-critical theory it was apparent that
3735: the criticality of the pomeron should depend on the number of
3736: hadron states and, therefore, on the number of quark flavors. Consequently,
3737: ``saturating'' the asymptotic freedom constraint, as in $QCD_S$,
3738: would be most likely to produce the critical behavior. The only physically
3739: realistic way to do this was\cite{arw81} to add two sextet flavors and have the
3740: sextet higgs mechanism operative.
3741: It also became clear, rather quickly, that
3742: the special infra-red scaling properties of
3743: reggeon interaction kernels in $QCD_S$, which follow from the presence
3744: of an infra-red fixed-point, would have to be an essential ingredient
3745: of the infra-red divergence structure\cite{arw81}. In addition there would
3746: have to be interactions (anomaly related?)
3747: to which divergences produced by the scaling properties
3748: would couple. Finally we realized that, because the Higgs mechanism scalar
3749: field is asymptotically free in $CSQCD_S$, restoration of SU(3) color
3750: (which is to give the Critical Pomeron)
3751: can be carried out without a transverse momentum cut-off.
3752:
3753: It soon seemed, therefore, that if Fig.~C2 was to be
3754: implemented fully then, most likely,
3755: we would have to specifically consider $QCD_S$. There was, however,
3756: a major problem that, for a long time,
3757: prevented us from systematically developing a program
3758: to implement Fig.~C2. If we consider $QCD_S$ in
3759: isolation, then we can not find suitable external scattering
3760: states to provide a perturbatively well-defined starting amplitude
3761: within which pions and the pomeron could emerge as in Fig.~C1. Without this
3762: we can not determine, for sure, whether anomaly related divergences
3763: occur. Consequently, the anticipated
3764: mapping onto supercritical RFT can not be carried out.
3765: We initially supposed\cite{arw81} that the external states
3766: could be multi-quark states.
3767: However, as will soon become clear, the pions and pomeron, that we are led to,
3768: do not couple to such states. In \cite{arw98} we assumed the existence
3769: of external couplings with particular properties but, in this case, it was clear
3770: that the nature of the infra-red divergences that occured depended on these
3771: assumptions.
3772:
3773: Only recently\cite{arw03,arw02}, have we understood that adding
3774: the electroweak vector boson sector of the Standard Model to
3775: $QCD_S$ solves the problem of the external states for Fig.~C2.
3776: As illustrated in Fig.~C3, the desired pion amplitude should
3777: appear in a multi-regge
3778: limit\cite{arw98} of an amplitude for multiple vector boson scattering.
3779: \begin{center}
3780: \epsfxsize=1.1in
3781: \epsffile{wzsc12.ps}
3782: \epsfxsize=3in
3783: \epsffile{wzsc1.ps}
3784:
3785: Fig.~C3 The pion amplitude within a multiparticle vector boson amplitude.
3786: \end{center}
3787: Conversely, since W's and Z's have explicit perturbative couplings,
3788: this amplitude also has a perturbative reggeon diagram description.
3789: Most importantly for our program,
3790: because of the presence of elementary left-handed couplings, the perturbative
3791: reggeon vertices of the external $W$ and $Z$ states contain\cite{arw03}
3792: anomalies that can give (with the cut-off manipulation that we discuss below)
3793: the infra-red divergences that we are looking for.
3794: We want, of course,
3795: to add the vector boson sector of the Standard Model to $QCD_S$
3796: in order to study the sextet higgs mechanism.
3797: Clearly, the fact that
3798: electroweak vector bosons provide the perfect external states for our
3799: multi-regge program could be related to the actual
3800: validity of the solution of $QCD_S$ that we find. That is to say, our solution
3801: of $QCD_S$ is effectively induced by the presence of the electroweak vector
3802: bosons and may, perhaps, only be valid in their presence\cite{arw05}.
3803:
3804: For massless gluons, the individual reggeon diagrams in Fig.~C1 have well-known
3805: infra-red divergences (that we will return to later) but,
3806: if the scattering states are color zero vector
3807: bosons, we expect that these divergences will
3808: cancel in the sum over all diagrams of a given order.
3809: Therefore, there must be an
3810: additional divergence phenomenon, if $CSQCD_S$ reggeon diagrams are to be mapped
3811: on to the pomeron diagrams of supercritical RFT via divergences.
3812: In fact, we now understand
3813: well that it is the appearance\cite{arw02,arw021} of chiral anomalies
3814: in, high order, multi-regge vertices that produces the divergences that
3815: we are looking for. The anomalies occur because these vertices
3816: contain triangle diagrams that result from the contraction (in the
3817: regge limit) of larger loop feynman diagrams. Even though there are
3818: no axial vector currents in the elementary QCD interaction, $\gamma_5$
3819: couplings are generated within these vertices
3820: by products of orthogonal $\gamma$-matrices.
3821:
3822: We anticipate that, without a transverse momentum
3823: cut-off, the anomalies appear as a large transverse momentum phenomenon that
3824: produces (non-unitary) power
3825: enhancement of the high energy behavior. We have shown this
3826: explicitly in our analysis\cite{arw03} of elastic vector boson scattering.
3827: The enhancement
3828: is avoided by the introduction of a cut-off but there is then
3829: a violation of gauge invariance Ward identities for
3830: the anomaly generating vertices
3831: (in analogy with our discussion of the elementary triangle diagram in
3832: Appendix B). As a result, as we discuss more explicitly
3833: below, infra-red transverse momentum
3834: divergences appear which couple directly
3835: to the part of the anomaly diagrams which, because
3836: the quarks involved are massless,
3837: contain the infra-red ``anomaly pole''. (The anomaly pole
3838: contribution to a triangle diagram is discussed briefly in Appendix B and,
3839: at much greater length, in \cite{arw02}.) In effect, introducing a transverse
3840: momentum cut-off removes ultra-violet
3841: chirality violation produced by the anomaly
3842: and replaces it with infra-red chirality violation that produces
3843: anomaly poles. Since an anomaly pole can be interpreted
3844: as a Goldstone boson particle pole, this provides a crucial
3845: mechanism for a bound-state, Goldstone boson, spectrum to appear out of
3846: reggeon diagrams via infra-red divergences. Indeed, we will assume that
3847: anomaly poles survive higher-order corrections only when they are associated
3848: with a chiral symmetry.
3849:
3850: Understanding that the infra-red
3851: divergence phenomenon that we are looking for should appear
3852: as a consequence of anomalies if a transverse momentum cut-off is imposed,
3853: the first step of our program is to look for this phenomenon within
3854: the multi-regge diagrams of $CSQCD_S$ obtained
3855: by setting the mass of an SU(2) subgroup of gluons to zero. As described in
3856: Section 2, $CSQCD_S$ contains an SU(2) triplet of massless (reggeized) gluons,
3857: plus two SU(2) doublets and one singlet of massive (reggeized) gluons.
3858: The color symmetry breaking can be done, as we have already discussed,
3859: by adding a scalar field
3860: and using the usual Higgs mechanism (this is a technical manipulation
3861: that has nothing to do with electroweak symmetry breaking).
3862:
3863: The main infra-red divergence of massless gluon
3864: reggeon diagrams is that associated with reggeization. Independently
3865: of the transverse momentum cut-off, this divergence
3866: exponentiates to zero all amplitudes with non-zero SU(2)
3867: color (in the reggeon channel), while leaving finite color zero amplitudes.
3868: As described in more detail in \cite{arw02}, an infra-red fixed point implies
3869: that the interaction kernels of color zero massless
3870: gluons have a crucial infra-red scaling property (the ultra-violet version
3871: of which produces the leading-order BFKL pomeron).
3872: This scaling is an essential
3873: component of the anomaly related infra-red divergences that
3874: we are looking for, as we now discuss.
3875:
3876: We consider reggeon states which contain both an SU(2)
3877: color zero massless gluon component
3878: and an additional SU(2) color zero component - either a massive gluon or a
3879: quark-antiquark pair. We consider the possibility
3880: of an infra-red divergence from the infra-red region where all
3881: the transverse momenta of the massless gluons scale uniformly to zero.
3882: If the massless gluons carry, overall, normal color
3883: parity ($= $ the signature) they will
3884: interact with the additional color zero component and, as a result,
3885: any divergence that occurs
3886: will be exponentiated via reggeization effects, giving a zero amplitude.
3887: If, however, the massless gluon component
3888: carries anomalous ($\neq $ the signature) color parity the divergence
3889: will not exponentiate. This is because, as explained in \cite{arw02},
3890: a gluon component of this kind can only couple to an anomaly vertex and
3891: anomalies can not occur in vector reggeon interactions that take place
3892: within a reggeon state. Consequently,
3893: the massless gluon component will have only self interactions,
3894: as illustrated in Fig.~C4.
3895: \begin{center}
3896: \epsfxsize=5in
3897: \epsffile{dp003.ps}
3898:
3899: Fig.~C4 Pomeron and pion reggeon states in $CSQCD_S$.
3900: \end{center}
3901:
3902: Provided there are external (to the reggeon state) anomaly vertices to which the
3903: complete reggeon states shown in Fig.~C4 can couple
3904: the scaling property of the gluon self-interactions will produce a
3905: divergence (at zero transverse momentum for the gluons). The residue
3906: of this divergence contains a reggeon state that we can potentially
3907: identify as either a ``pion'' or a ``pomeron'', as shown.
3908: If we can absorb this divergence into a ``reggeon condensate'',
3909: this condensate will be an essential, zero transverse momentum, part
3910: of both the pion and the pomeron in $CSQCD_S$. Since
3911: ``anomalous gluons'' with SU(2) color zero necessarily have odd signature
3912: (three is the minimal number),
3913: the pomeron given by Fig.~C4 will be an even signature regge pole that is
3914: exchange degenerate with an odd signature, massive, gluon reggeon.
3915: This, together with the existence of a ``pomeron condensate'', are
3916: crucial features of supercritical RFT. Also,
3917: since all amplitudes have SU(2) color zero, if pion anomaly poles appear
3918: as we anticipate, we will
3919: have a spectrum with confinement and chiral symmetry breaking.
3920:
3921: For the pion and pomeron to appear as in Fig.~C4,
3922: via infra-red divergences, Fig.~C2 has to be realized by
3923: the appearance of a ``lowest-order'' amplitude, of the form shown in Fig.~C5,
3924: in which an anomaly that can couple the reggeon
3925: states appears in each vertex (as indicated by the $A$).
3926: The notation for Fig.~C5 is the same as that for Fig.~C4 except that a new notation
3927: is introduced to indicate that each of the massless gluons now
3928: carries zero transverse momentum.
3929: \begin{center}
3930: \epsfxsize=3.2in
3931: \epsffile{wzsc2.ps}
3932:
3933: \epsfxsize=4.3in
3934: \epsffile{wzsc21.ps}
3935:
3936: Fig.~C5 Anomaly vertices that must appear in the pion amplitude.
3937: \end{center}
3938:
3939: The external anomaly vertices needed for Fig.~C5 are identical to those that
3940: appear in our recent paper\cite{arw03} deriving elastic
3941: scattering amplitudes of electroweak vector bosons.
3942: In that paper we demonstrated
3943: that anomalous color parity gluons have the needed coupling.
3944: In the elastic scattering context, it is very
3945: clear how the use of a cut-off removes
3946: bad, large transverse momentum based, high-energy behavior produced
3947: by the anomalies and, instead, introduces anomaly dominated infra-red divergences
3948: that potentially produce ``non-perturbative'' anomaly pole Goldstone bosons.
3949: Although we did not discuss the generation of the anomaly pole explicitly
3950: in \cite{arw03}, we did give a brief summary of how
3951: the anticipated infra-red divergences should be mapped onto RFT and the amplitude
3952: for pion exchange obtained.
3953:
3954: The anomaly vertices obtained in \cite{arw03}
3955: contain triangle diagrams resulting from the contraction of larger loop
3956: feynman diagrams just as illustrated in Fig.~2.
3957: As described in Appendix B, an anomaly pole
3958: is generated in the triangle diagram by a zero momentum quark line
3959: (the partially broken line in Fig.~2).
3960: It is important that, as illustrtated in Fig.~2,
3961: it is the longitudinal polarization of the on-shell
3962: massive vector boson that produces the quark/antiquark coupling in the
3963: anomaly triangle diagram. (Note that,
3964: in the calculation of \cite{arw03}, the on-shell massive gluon in Fig.~2
3965: was replaced by a massive electroweak vector boson.)
3966:
3967: The anomaly that occurs in diagrams that contribute to the
3968: pion/pion/pomeron vertex in Fig.~C5 is discussed
3969: in \cite{arw021} and \cite{arw011}.
3970: The reduction to a triangle
3971: diagram is as illustrated in Fig.~C6 and it is the U(1) anomaly that is involved.
3972: \begin{center}
3973: \epsfxsize=5in
3974: \epsffile{dp7.ps}
3975:
3976: Fig.~C6 The reduction to a triangle diagram that involves the U(1) anomaly.
3977: \end{center}
3978: (The notation is the same as in previous diagrams.) The anomaly pole is
3979: present but, because it is integrated over,
3980: it contributes as an ``anomaly $\delta$-function'' and plays the remarkable
3981: role, also illustrated in Fig.~C6,
3982: that it factorizes off the (zero transverse momentum)
3983: anomalous gluon interaction from the remaining ``hard interaction''.
3984: The anomaly $\delta$-function is again
3985: generated by a zero momentum quark line (illustrated by a broken
3986: line in Fig.~C6) which
3987: undergoes a chirality transition. The hard interaction
3988: production of a massive gluon has an overall axial vector
3989: nature that compensates for this transition.
3990: To produce the axial coupling it is essential that the exchanged
3991: on-shell massive gluons within the hard interaction are longitudinal.
3992: (It is also important that these gluons
3993: carry zero light-cone momentum in a frame in which the pion carries
3994: finite light-cone momentum.)
3995:
3996: Because each of the external reduced triangle diagrams that we have discussed
3997: contain anomaly contributions,
3998: imposing a transverse momentum cut-off will lead to a violation of Ward
3999: identities for the gluons coupling to such vertices. A scaling
4000: transverse momentum divergence should then appear in each pion channel
4001: and generate Fig.~C5, as we have discussed above. We anticipate that there will
4002: be an overall logarithmic divergence as the transverse momenta in all channels
4003: are scaled uniformly to zero and that this is what we will have to factorize off
4004: to obtain the physical amplitude. However, to be sure of this and
4005: to elaborate the divergence phenomenon in full
4006: requires more details of the calculation than we presently have. We have, so far,
4007: carried out the full analysis only in the situation described in \cite{arw02}
4008: in which we used the pion anomaly pole approximation that
4009: we describe in Section 2.
4010:
4011: For the more general case of the reggeized pion amplitude
4012: appearing in Fig.~C5, we can say the following.
4013: The divergence is at zero transverse momentum, which (in an appropriate frame)
4014: should be equivalent to zero four momentum for the gluon
4015: vertex of the effective triangle diagram in Fig.~2. From (\ref{apol2}),
4016: we see that in this kinematic configuration
4017: the triangle diagram amplitude reduces to a ``pion''
4018: anomaly pole, as illustrated in Fig.~2. Thus, as we have anticipated,
4019: the anomaly pole should
4020: provide the mechanism whereby a pion particle pole appears (in
4021: the residue of the infra-red divergence) as part of the pion reggeon state.
4022:
4023: To obtain the multi-regge amplitudes of $QCD_S$ from those of
4024: $CSQCD_S$, via RFT, it is clearly necessary to understand in complete detail
4025: how the full set of divergent $CSQCD_S$ diagrams maps onto super-critical RFT.
4026: In higher-orders we expect to find vertices, of the form shown in Fig.~10, in
4027: which massive gluons are produced by a wee gluon interaction only.
4028: Interactions of this kind should lead to particle pole interactions within pomeron
4029: vertices, just as is produced by the pomeron condensate
4030: in the supercritical pomeron phase\cite{arw91}.
4031:
4032: Although there is every indication that the reggeon diagrams of $CSQCD_S$
4033: can be mapped onto supercritical RFT, it remains
4034: a major challenge to carry out the mapping in full.
4035: Our hope is that the (relative) simplicity of the external vector
4036: boson couplings, appearing in Fig.~2, will finally make it feasable.
4037: It also remains to be
4038: determined how a pion anomaly pole, which occurs
4039: at zero transverse momentum, combines with reggeization
4040: at spacelike momentum transfer. In the anomaly pole
4041: vertex method\cite{arw02}, that we use in Section 2,
4042: we effectively assume that the
4043: on-shell pion couplings can be obtained by an anomaly pole coupling of the
4044: form shown in Fig.~2. While the above discussion suggests that this should be
4045: a straightforward outcome of the full multi-regge calculation,
4046: it remains to be shown.
4047:
4048: With the mapping of $CSQCD_S$ onto supercritical RFT established, it should
4049: be straightforward to show that the high-energy
4050: behavior of $QCD_S$ is that of the Critical Pomeron.
4051: Critical Pomeron amplitudes
4052: can be, and have been, calculated\cite{mm}
4053: without reference to QCD. There will, however,
4054: be much to understand about the limiting process involved, particularly
4055: with respect to the formation of baryons. For our present purposes
4056: we have, in Sections 2 and 3,
4057: concentrated on the underlying physical phenomenon which
4058: describes the pomeron in $QCD_S$.
4059:
4060: \newpage
4061:
4062: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
4063:
4064: \bibitem{arw77} A.~R.~White, ``The Reggeon Field Theory Beyond the
4065: Critical Point ...'', CERN Preprint TH.2259, January, 1977.
4066:
4067: \bibitem{arw78} A.~R.~White, Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on
4068: High Energy Physics, Tokyo (1978).
4069:
4070: \bibitem{cri} A.~A.~Migdal, A.~M.~Polyakov and K.~A.~Ter-Martirosyan,
4071: {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 67}, 84 (1974);
4072: H.~D.~I.~Abarbanel and J.~B.~Bronzan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 2397 (1974).
4073:
4074: \bibitem{wm} W.~J.~Marciano, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D21}, 2425 (1980).
4075:
4076: \bibitem{bww}~E.~Braaten, A.~R.~White and C.~R.~Willcox, {\it Int. J. Mod.
4077: Phys.}, {\bf A1}, 693 (1986).
4078:
4079: \bibitem{arw04} A.~R.~White, ``Sextet Quark Physics at the Tevatron? '',
4080: hep-ph/0405190.
4081:
4082: \bibitem{arw041} A.~R.~White, ``The Sextet Higgs Mechanism and the Pomeron ''.
4083: Presented at ISMD 2004 - hep-ph/0409181.
4084:
4085: \bibitem{mga} M.~G.~Albrow, ``The White Pomeron, Color Sextet Quarks and
4086: Cosmic Ray Anomalies''. Presented at the Workshop on QCD and
4087: Cosmic Physics, Erice, 2004 - hep-ph/0409308.
4088:
4089: \bibitem{kw} K.~Kang and A.~R.~White, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A2},
4090: 409 (1987).
4091:
4092: \bibitem{arw05} A.~R.~White, Contributions to XVIIth Rencontre de Blois and
4093: Gribov-75 - to appear.
4094:
4095: \bibitem{fkl} V.~S.~Fadin, E.~A.~Kuraev and L.~N.~Lipatov, {\it Sov. Phys.
4096: JETP} {\bf 45}, 199 (1977);
4097: V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B406},
4098: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B477}, 767 (1996) and further references therein.
4099:
4100: \bibitem{bs} J.~B.~Bronzan and R.~L.~Sugar, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D17},
4101: 585 (1978), this paper organizes into reggeon diagrams the results from
4102: H.~Cheng and C.~Y.~Lo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D13}, 1131 (1976),
4103: {\bf D15}, 2959 (1977).
4104:
4105: \bibitem{fs} V.~S.~Fadin and V.~E.~Sherman, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 45},
4106: 861 (1978).
4107:
4108: \bibitem{jb} J.~Bartels, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C60}, 471 (1993) and further
4109: references therein.
4110:
4111: \bibitem{rk} R.~Kirschner, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 51C}, 118 (1996).
4112:
4113: \bibitem{arw93} A.~R.~White, {\it J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A8}, 4755 (1993).
4114:
4115: \bibitem{ce} C.~Ewerz, ``The Perturbative Pomeron and the Odderon: Where
4116: Can We Find Them?'' hep-ph/0403051.
4117:
4118: \bibitem{arw94} A.~R.~White, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on
4119: Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions, Tokyo (1994).
4120:
4121: \bibitem{arw97} A.~R.~White, hep-ph/9704248 (1997)
4122:
4123: \bibitem{cllr} T.~E.~Clark, C.~N.~Leung, S.~T.~Love
4124: and J.~L.~Rosner, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B177}, 413 (1986).
4125:
4126: \bibitem{arw03} A.~R.~ White,{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D69}, 096002 (2004).
4127:
4128: \bibitem{arw02} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66}, 056007 (2002).
4129:
4130: \bibitem{arw021} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66}, 045009 (2002).
4131:
4132: \bibitem{gm} V.~N.~Gribov, {\it Nucl.Phys.} {\bf B139}, 1 (1978),
4133: S.~Mandelstam, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D19}, 2391 (1978).
4134:
4135: \bibitem{irfp} Y.~Iwasaki, K.~Kanaya, S.~Kaya, S.~Sakai, T.~Yoshie,
4136: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D69}, 014507 (2004).
4137:
4138: \bibitem{asv} A.~Armoni, M.~Shifman and G.~Veneziano, hep-th/0403071.
4139:
4140: \bibitem{ZEUS} ZEUS Collaboration (M. Derrick et al.),
4141: {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C74} 207 (1997).
4142:
4143: \bibitem{kog} J.~B.~ Kogut, M.~A.~Stephanov, D.~Toublan,
4144: J.~J.~M.~ Verbaarschot and A.~Zhitnitsky, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B582},
4145: 477 (2000).
4146:
4147: \bibitem{arw91} A.~R.~White, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A11}, 1859 (1991).
4148:
4149: \bibitem{arw84} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf D29}, 1435 (1984)
4150: and references therein.
4151:
4152: \bibitem{dd} For details of Gribov's confinement picture
4153: and for references to the original papers see
4154: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer and D.~E.~Kharzeev, hep-ph/0404216 (2004).
4155:
4156: \bibitem{ZEUSa} ZEUS Collaboration (S. Chekanov et al.), hep-ex/0401003.
4157:
4158: \bibitem{H1a} H1 Collaboration (C.~Adloff et al.), {\it Eur. Phys. J.}
4159: {\bf C30}, 1 (2003).
4160:
4161: \bibitem{dam} S.~Bentvelsen, J.~Engelen and P.~Kooijman, Physics at Hera,
4162: Vol. ~1, 23.
4163:
4164: \bibitem{H1} H1 Collaboration (C.~Adloff et al.),
4165: {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C74} 191 (1997).
4166:
4167: \bibitem{d0} G.~E.~Forden, presentation at ISMD94. See also
4168: D0 Collaboration (S. Abachi et al.). FERMILAB-CONF-95-218-E (1995),
4169: presented at HEP 95.
4170:
4171: \bibitem{UA1} UA1 Collaboration (C. Albajar et al.),
4172: {\it Phys. Lett. } {\bf B193} 389 (1987).
4173:
4174: \bibitem{CDF} CDF Collaboration (T. Affolder et al.),
4175: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} 042001 (2002).
4176:
4177: \bibitem{CDFb} CDF Collaboration, ``CDF-QCD Group Run 2 Results''
4178: - http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/qcd/inclusive/index.html.
4179:
4180: \bibitem{nik} See S.~I.~ Nikolsky, {\it Phys. Atom. Nucl.} {\bf 62},
4181: 2048 (1999), for references.
4182:
4183: \bibitem{kn} D.~Kazanas and A.~Nicolaidis,
4184: {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 35}, 1117 (2003) - hep-ph/0109247;
4185: ``Cosmic Ray Spectrum "Knee": A Herald of New Physics?''
4186: - astro-ph/0103147.
4187:
4188: \bibitem{bk} S.~Barshay and G.~Kreyerhoff,
4189: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A16}, 1061 (2001).
4190:
4191: \bibitem{cores} Z.~Cao, L.~K.~Ding, Q.~Q.~Zhu, Y.~D.~He,
4192: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56} 7361 (1997).
4193:
4194: \bibitem{tar} O.~V.~Tarasov, A.~A.~Vladimirov and A.~Yu.~Zharkov, {\it Phys.
4195: Lett.} {\bf B93}, 429 (1980).
4196:
4197: \bibitem{bz} T.~Banks and A.~Zaks, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B196}, 189 (1982).
4198:
4199: \bibitem{gw} D.~J.~Gross and F.~Wilczek, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8}, 3633 (1973).
4200:
4201: \bibitem{cel} T.~P.~Cheng, E.~Eichten and L.~F.~Li, Phys. Rev. {\bf D9},
4202: 2259 (1974).
4203:
4204: \bibitem{gr1} V.~N.~Gribov, ``Gauge Theories and Quark Cofinement'',
4205: published by PHASIS Research and Publishing Corporation, Moscow (2002).
4206:
4207: \bibitem{arw98} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58}, 074008 (1998).
4208: This paper describes all the necessary multi-regge limits, as well as the
4209: construction of multi-reggeon diagrams via reggeon unitarity.
4210:
4211: \bibitem{gpt} V.~N.~Gribov, I.~Ya.~Pomeranchuk and K.~A.~Ter-Martirosyan,
4212: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 139B}, 184 (1965).
4213:
4214: \bibitem{arw00} A.~R.~White, ``The Past and Future of S-Matrix Theory'',
4215: published in ``Scattering'', edited
4216: by E.~R.~Pike and P.~Sabatier (Academic Press, 2002).
4217:
4218: \bibitem{mm} M.~Moshe, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 37}, 255 (1978).
4219:
4220: \bibitem{arw01} A.~R.~White, {\it Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.} {\bf 96}, 277 (2001).
4221:
4222: \bibitem{arw81} A.~R.~White, CERN preprint TH.2976 (1980) - a summary of this
4223: paper is presented in the Proceedings of the
4224: XVIth Rencontre de Moriond, Vol.~2 (1981).
4225:
4226: \bibitem{arw011} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf D63}, 016007 (2001).
4227:
4228: \end{thebibliography}
4229:
4230: \end{document}
4231:
4232:
4233:
4234: