1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %% ws-procs10x7.tex : 2 July 2005
4: %% (Adapted for LP2005 by C .de los Heros from World Scientific
5: %% ws-procs10x7.tex from 14 June 2002)
6: %% Text file for Proceedings Trim Size [10in x 7in] written in Latex2E.
7: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
8: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
9: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
10: %% All rights are reserved.
11: %%
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %%
14:
15: \documentclass{ws-procs10x7}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Circa 2005}
20:
21: \author{S. Dawson}
22:
23: \address{Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 11973,
24: USA\\E-mail: dawson@bnl.gov}
25:
26:
27: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{Recent progress in both the
28: experimental and theoretical explorations of electroweak symmetry breaking is
29: surveyed.}]
30:
31: \section{Introduction}%1
32:
33: Particle physicists have a Standard Model of electroweak interactions
34: which describes
35: a large number of measurements extraordinarily
36: well at energies on the few hundred $GeV$ scale.
37: In fact, we have become extremely blas\'{e} about
38: tables such as that of Fig.~\ref{fig:pull},\cite{lepewwg}
39: which shows an impressive agreement between
40: experiment and theory. Virtual probes, using the sensitivity
41: of rare decays to high scale physics, are also in good agreement
42: with the predictions of the Standard Model.
43: This agreement, however, assumes the existence of a
44: light, scalar Higgs boson, without which the theory is incomplete.
45: There has thus been an intense experimental effort at the Tevatron
46: aimed at discovering either the Standard Model Higgs boson or one
47: of the Higgs bosons associated with the minimal supersymmetric
48: model (MSSM).
49:
50: In the Standard Model, using $G_F$, $\alpha$, and $M_Z$
51: as inputs, along with the
52: fermion masses, the $W$ mass is a predicted quantity. The
53: comparison between the prediction and the measured value can not only be used
54: to check the consistency of the theory, but also to infer limits on possible
55: extentions of the Standard Model.
56: The relationship between $M_W$ and $M_t$ is shown in Fig.~ \ref{fig:higglim}.
57: The curve labelled ``old'' does not include the new values
58: (as of Summer, 2005), for the $W$ mass
59: and width from LEP-2 and the new mass of the top quark from the Tevatron.
60: (These new values are reflected in Fig.~ \ref{fig:pull}.)
61:
62: The measurements of Fig.~ \ref{fig:pull} can be used to extract limits
63: on the mass of
64: a Standard Model Higgs boson. The limit on the Higgs boson mass
65: depends quadratically on the top quark mass and logarithmically on the
66: Higgs boson mass, making the limit
67: exquisitely sensitive to the top quark mass. The limit is also quite
68: sensitive to which pieces of data are included in the analysis. The fit
69: of Fig.~ \ref{fig:higglim} includes only the high energy data and so
70: does not include results from NuTeV or atomic parity violation.
71:
72:
73:
74: The
75: precision electroweak measurements of Fig.~\ref{fig:pull} give a $95\%$
76: confidence level upper limit on the value of the Higgs boson mass
77: of,\cite{lepewwg}
78: \begin{equation}
79: M_H < 186~GeV.
80: \end{equation}
81: If the LEP-2 direct search limit of $M_H > 114~GeV$ is included, the limit
82: increases to
83: \begin{equation}
84: M_H < 219~GeV.
85: \end{equation}
86:
87:
88: \begin{figure}
89: \epsfxsize120pt
90: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{s05_show_pull_18.eps}
91: \caption{Precision electroweak measurements and the best theoretical
92: fit to the Standard Model as of September, 2005. Also shown is the
93: deviation of the fit for each measurement from the value predicted using
94: the parameters of the central value of
95: the fit[1].
96: %\cite{lepewwg}
97: }
98: \label{fig:pull}
99: \end{figure}
100:
101:
102:
103: \begin{figure}%1
104: \vskip -.5in
105: \epsfxsize120pt
106: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{sz05_mt_mw_contours.eps}
107: \caption{The relationship between $M_W$ and $M_t$ in the Standard Model.
108: The curve
109: labelled ``old'' does not include the Summer, 2005 updates on the
110: $W$ boson mass and width from LEP-2 and the new top quark mass
111: from the Tevatron[1].}
112: \label{fig:higglim}
113: \end{figure}
114:
115: Both CDF and D0 have presented experimental
116: limits on the production rate for a Standard Model Higgs
117: boson, which are shown in Fig.~ \ref{fig:tevhig}.\cite{cdfd0} For most
118: channels, the limits are still several orders of magnitude
119: away from the predicted cross sections in
120: the Standard Model. With an integrated
121: luminosity of $4~fb^{-1}$ ($8~fb^{-1}$), the $95\%$ exclusion
122: limit will increase to $M_H>130~GeV$ ($M_H>135~GeV$). A much more
123: optimistic viewpoint is to note that with $4~fb^{-1}$ there is a $35\%$
124: chance that the Tevatron will find $3\sigma$ evidence for a Higgs boson
125: with a mass up to $M_H=130~GeV$.
126: \begin{figure}%1
127: \epsfxsize220pt
128: \figurebox{220pt}{220pt}{cdfd0_higgs_6.eps}
129: \caption{CDF and D0 limits on the production cross section times
130: the branching ratios for various Higgs boson production channels
131: as a function of the Higgs boson mass, along with the
132: Standard Model expectations for each channel[2].}
133: \label{fig:tevhig}
134: \end{figure}
135:
136:
137: Despite the impressive agreement between the precision
138: electroweak data and the theoretical
139: predictions of the Standard Model
140: with a light Higgs boson, theorists have been busy inventing
141: new models where mechanisms other than a light Higgs boson are responsible
142: for the electroweak symmetry breaking. We begin in Section \ref{needhiggs}
143: by reviewing the theoretical arguments for the existence of a Higgs boson
144: and continue in Section 3 to discuss the reasons why a light Higgs boson is
145: unattractive to many theorists. In the following sections, we review a
146: sampling of models of electroweak symmetry breaking.
147:
148: \section{Who needs a Higgs Boson?}
149: \label{needhiggs}
150:
151: The Standard Model requires a Higgs boson for consistency with precision
152: electroweak data, as is clear from Fig.~ \ref{fig:higglim}.
153: The Standard Model Higgs boson also serves two additional
154: critical functions.
155:
156: The first is to generate gauge invariant masses for the fermions. Since
157: left- ($\psi_L$) and right- ($\psi_R$) handed fermions transform differently
158: under the chiral $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauge groups, a mass term of the
159: form
160: \begin{equation}
161: L_{mass}\sim m_f \biggl({\overline \psi_L}\psi_R+
162: {\overline \psi_R}\psi_L\biggr)
163: \end{equation}
164: is forbidden by the gauge symmetry. A Higgs doublet, $\Phi$, with
165: a vacuum expectation value, $v$, generates a mass term of the required form,
166: \begin{equation}
167: L_{mass}\sim {m_f\over v} \biggl({\overline \psi_L}\Phi \psi_R +
168: {\overline \psi_R}\Phi^\dagger\psi_L\biggr).
169: \end{equation}
170:
171: The second important role of the Standard Model Higgs boson is to
172: unitarize the gauge boson scattering amplitudes. The $J=0$
173: partial wave amplitude for the process $W^+W^-\rightarrow
174: W^+W^-$ (Fig.~ \ref{fig:unit}) grows with energy when the Higgs
175: boson is not included in the amplitude
176: and violates partial wave unitarity at
177: an energy around $E\sim 1.6~TeV$.\cite{unitviol} The Higgs boson has
178: just the right couplings to the gauge bosons to restore partial
179: wave unitarity as long as the Higgs boson mass is less than
180: around $M_H < 800~GeV$.
181: With a Higgs boson satisfying this limit, the Standard Model
182: preserves unitarity at high energies and is weakly interacting.
183:
184:
185:
186: \begin{figure}%1
187: \epsfxsize240pt
188: \vskip -.6in
189: \figurebox{240pt}{240pt}{unitarity_feyn.eps}
190: \vskip -2.2in
191: \hskip -.2in
192: \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $W^+W^-\rightarrow
193: W^+W^-$ with the Higgs boson removed from the theory.}
194: \label{fig:unit}
195: \end{figure}
196:
197: \section{Problems in Paradise}
198:
199: The Standard Model is theoretically unsatisfactory, however,
200: because when
201: loop corrections are included, the Higgs boson mass contains a quadratic
202: dependence on physics at some unknown higher energy scale, $\Lambda$.
203: When the one-loop corrections to the Higgs boson mass, $\delta M_H^2$,
204: are computed we find,
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: \delta M_H^2 &=& {G_F\Lambda^2\over 4 \sqrt{2}\pi^2}
207: \biggl(6 M_W^2 +3 M_Z^2 +M_H^2-12 M_t^2\biggr)
208: \nonumber \\
209: &\sim&- \biggl({\Lambda\over .7~TeV}~200~GeV\biggr)^2.
210: \label{mh2}
211: \end{eqnarray}
212: In order to have a light Higgs boson as required by the precision
213: electroweak measurements, the scale $\Lambda$ must be near $1~TeV$.
214: The quantum corrections thus suggest that there must be some new physics
215: lurking at the $TeV$ scale.
216:
217: We therefore need new physics at the $1~TeV$ scale to get a light Higgs boson.
218: However, much of the possible new physics at this scale is already
219: excluded experimentally. A model independent analysis which looked
220: at various dimension-$6$ operators found that
221: typically new physics cannot occur below a scale ~$\Lambda>5~TeV$. A
222: representative
223: sampling of limits on possible dimension-6
224: operators is shown in Table 1 and a
225: more complete list can be found in Ref.[3].
226: This tension between needing a low scale $\Lambda$ for new physics
227: in order to get a light Higgs boson and the experimental exclusion
228: of much possible new physics at the $TeV$ scale
229: has been dubbed the ``little hierarchy problem''.
230: However, a global fit to 21 flavor- and CP- conserving
231: operators found that there
232: are certain directions in parameter space where the limit on $\Lambda$
233: can be lowered considerably\cite{skib} (even to below
234: $1~TeV$) raising the possibility that
235: in specific models the ``little hierarchy problem'' may not be
236: a problem at all.
237:
238: \begin{table}%1
239: \caption{Representative limits ($90~\%$ c.l.) on the scale of new
240: dimension-6 operators
241: corresponding to $L={\cal O}_i/\Lambda^2$[4].}
242: \label{tab:lit}
243: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
244:
245: \hline
246:
247: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]& {}
248:
249: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{Operator, ${\cal O}_i$} &
250:
251: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$\Lambda_{min}~(TeV)$ }\\
252:
253: \hline
254:
255: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{LEP} &
256:
257: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$H^\dagger\tau HW_{\mu\nu}^a B^{\mu\nu}$} &
258:
259: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$10$} \\
260:
261: \hline
262:
263: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{LEP-2} &
264:
265: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{${\overline e}\gamma_\mu e {\overline l}
266: \gamma^\mu l$} &
267:
268: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$5$} \\
269: \hline
270:
271: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{Flavor} &
272:
273: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$H^\dagger {\overline d}_R\sigma_{\mu\nu}
274: q_L F^{\mu\nu}$} &
275:
276: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$9$} \\
277:
278:
279: \hline
280: \end{tabular}
281: \end{table}
282:
283:
284: In recent years, there have been a variety of creative new models
285: constructed which
286: attempt to find a mechanism to lower the scale $\Lambda$, while at the
287: same time not violating the existing experimental limits. Supersymmetric
288: models are the trusty standard for addressing this problem and we
289: discuss progress and variations on the minimal supersymmetric model in
290: the next section. In the following sections, we discuss attempts to
291: address electroweak symmetry breaking with Little Higgs models\cite{lh,lh1}
292: and with
293: Higgsless models.\cite{higgsless}
294: There are many other novel models for electroweak
295: symmetry breaking--fat Higgs models,\cite{fathiggs}
296: strong electroweak symmetry breaking\cite{sews} (and many more!)
297: --which will not be
298: addressed here due to space limitations.
299:
300: \section{Supersymmetry}
301:
302: The classic model of new physics at the TeV scale is
303: supersymmetry, where a cancellation between the contributions
304: of the Standard Model particles and the new partner particles
305: of a supersymmetric model keeps the
306: Higgs boson mass at the TeV scale. This
307: cancellation occurs as long as the supersymmetric partner
308: particles have masses on the order of the weak scale. For example,
309: the top quark contribution to Eq.~ \ref{mh2} becomes,\cite{susycan}
310: \begin{equation}
311: \delta M_H^2 \sim G_F\Lambda^2 \biggl(M_t^2-
312: {\tilde m}_{t1,t2}^2\biggr),
313: \label{susymh}
314: \end{equation}
315: where ${\tilde m}_{t1,t2}$ are the masses of
316: the scalar partners of the top quark.
317:
318: The simplest version of a supersymmetric model, the MSSM,
319: has many positive aspects:
320: \begin{itemize}
321: \item The MSSM predicts gauge coupling unification at the GUT scale.
322: \item
323: The MSSM contains a dark matter candidate, the LSP (Lightest Supersymmetric
324: Particle).
325: \item
326: The MSSM predicts a light Higgs boson, $M_H < 140~GeV$.
327: \item
328: The MSSM agrees with precision electroweak measurements.\cite{susyfit}
329: \end{itemize}
330: The fit to the electroweak precision data
331: can be performed
332: in the context of the MSSM and is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mwmt} for
333: supersymmetric partner
334: masses below $2~TeV$. The MSSM with supersymmetric
335: partner particles
336: in the $1-2~TeV$ region is actually a slightly better statistical
337: fit to the data than the Standard Model.\cite{mssmfit}
338:
339: \begin{figure}%1
340: \epsfxsize120pt
341: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{mwmt04.eps}
342: \caption{Fit to precision electroweak data in the MSSM. The curve
343: labelled heavy SUSY assumes the supersymmetric parameters are
344: set at $2~TeV$[11].}
345: \label{fig:mwmt}
346: \vskip -.2in
347: \end{figure}
348:
349:
350:
351: There are also many negative things about the supersymmetric
352: model, the most obvious of which is: {\bf{{\it Where is it?}}}
353:
354: In the MSSM, the
355: lightest Higgs boson mass has a theoretical upper bound,
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: M_H^2 &<& M_Z^2 \cos^2 2 \beta
358: \nonumber \\
359: &&
360: +{3G_F M_t^4\over
361: \sqrt{2}\pi^2\sin^2\beta}\log\biggl({
362: {\tilde m}_{t1}{\tilde m}_{t2}\over M_t^2}\biggr),
363: \end{eqnarray}
364: where
365: $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the neutral Higgs boson vacuum expectation
366: values.
367: Requiring that the Higgs boson mass
368: satisfy the LEP direct search limit, $M_H>114~ GeV$,
369: implies that the stop squarks must be relatively heavy,\cite{rg}
370: \begin{equation}
371: {\tilde m}_{t1}{\tilde m}_{t2}>(950~GeV)^2.
372: \label{susymass}
373: \end{equation}
374: However, the supersymmetric
375: partner particles in the MSSM are naturally on the order
376: of the weak scale, so there
377: is a tension between the desire for them to be light (to fill their
378: required role in cancelling the quadratic contributions to the Higg
379: boson mass as in Eq.~ \ref{susymh} ) and the limit of Eq.~ \ref{susymass}.
380:
381: The couplings of the Higgs boson to the bottom quark are enhanced in
382: the MSSM for large values of $\tan\beta$ and the dominant
383: production mechanism becomes $gg\rightarrow b {\overline b} H$, where
384: $0$, $1$, or $2$ $b$ quarks are tagged.\cite{bbh2,mssmb}
385: Fig.~ \ref{fig:bbhmssm} shows
386: the total next-to-leading order cross section for $bH$ production at
387: the Tevatron as a function of the mass of the
388: lightest Higgs boson of the MSSM for $\tan\beta=40$.\cite{bbh2}
389: D0 has a new limit
390: on this process, which is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:bbh}.\cite{d0bbh}
391:
392: \begin{figure}
393: \vskip -.5in
394: \epsfxsize220pt
395: \hskip -1in
396: \begin{center}
397: \hskip -.25in\figurebox{150pt}{420pt}{mhdep_1btag_tev.eps}
398: \end{center}
399: \vskip -2.in
400: \caption{Total next-to-leading order cross section in the MSSM for $bH$
401: production at the Tevatron. The bands show the renormalization/factorization
402: dependence. The solid (red) curves correspond to the four-flavor number
403: scheme with no $b$ partons, and the dotted (blue) curves are
404: the prediction from the five-flavor
405: number scheme with $b$ partons in the initial state[15].}
406: \label{fig:bbhmssm}
407: %\vskip -.15in
408: \end{figure}
409:
410:
411: \begin{figure}
412: \epsfxsize160pt
413: \figurebox{160pt}{200pt}{d0bbh.eps}
414: \caption{$95\%$ c.l. upper limit from the D0
415: experiment at the Tevatron on $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM from
416: $gg\rightarrow b {\overline b} \phi$, where $\phi$ is any of the three
417: neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM[17].}
418: \vskip -.2in
419: \label{fig:bbh}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422:
423:
424: Many variants of the MSSM have been constructed.
425: One of the simplest is the NMSSM (next-to-minimal-
426: supersymmetric model)
427: which is obtained by adding a Higgs singlet superfield ${\hat S}$ to the
428: MSSM.\cite{nmssm,nmssm2} The superpotential in the NMSSM is,
429: \begin{equation}
430: W=W_{MSSM}+\lambda {\hat H_1} {\hat H_2}
431: {\hat S}+{\kappa\over 3}{\hat S}^3,
432: \end{equation}
433: where ${\hat H_1}$ and ${\hat H_2}$ are the Higgs doublet
434: superfields of the MSSM, and ${\hat S}$ is
435: the Higgs singlet superfield.
436: When the scalar component of
437: the singlet, $S$, gets a vacuum expectation
438: value, the term $\lambda {\hat H_1}
439: {\hat H_2} <S>$ in the superpotential naturally
440: generates the $\mu {\hat H_1}
441: {\hat H_2}$ term of the MSSM superpotential and it
442: is straightforward to understand why $\mu\sim M_Z$.
443: This is the major motivation for constructing the NMSSM.
444:
445: In
446: the NMSSM model, the bound on the lightest Higgs boson
447: mass becomes,
448: \begin{eqnarray}
449: M_H^2&<&M_Z^2 \cos^2 2 \beta +v^2\lambda^2\sin^2 2 \beta
450: \nonumber \\
451: && +{\hbox{1-loop~corrections}},
452: \end{eqnarray}
453: and the lightest Higgs boson can be significantly
454: heavier than in the MSSM.
455: If we further
456: assume that the couplings remain perturbative to the GUT scale,
457: the theoretical upper
458: bound on the lightest Higgs boson mass becomes $M_H<150~GeV$.\cite{nhiggs}
459:
460: The phenomenology in the NMSSM is significantly different
461: than in the MSSM. There are three neutral
462: Higgs bosons and two pseudoscalar Higgs bosons.
463: A typical scenario for the masses is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:nmssm}.
464: New decays such as the Higgs pseudoscalar into
465: two scalar Higgs bosons are possible
466: and changes the LHC Higgs search
467: strategies.
468: In addition, the lightest Higgs boson can have a
469: large CP-odd component and so can evade the LEP bound on
470: $M_H$.\cite{nmssm,nmssm2}
471:
472: \begin{figure}
473: \epsfxsize140pt
474: \figurebox{140pt}{180pt}{masses_scen1.eps}
475: \caption{Typical mass scenario for the Higgs bosons in the NMSSM
476: with $\tan\beta=3$. The region between the vertical lines (denoted
477: by arrows) is the region allowed by vacuum stability[19].}
478: \label{fig:nmssm}
479: \vskip -.2in
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483: The minimal version of the MSSM conserves CP, but
484: CP violation in the Higgs sector can easily be accommodated in the MSSM.
485: Non-zero phases in the scalar
486: tri-linear couplings can generate large CP violating
487: effects from radiative corrections,
488: especially those involving the third generation. If there is CP violation
489: in the Higgs sector of the MSSM, then the three neutral Higgs mass
490: eigenstates, $H_1$, $H_2$, and $H_3$, are mixtures of the CP- even and CP-
491: odd Higgs states.\cite{cpx}
492: The production and decay properties of the Higgs bosons can
493: be very different from those of
494: the Higgs bosons in the CP conserving version of the MSSM
495: since the CP- odd
496: components of the Higgs mass
497: eigenstates do not couple to the $Z$ boson.
498:
499: Experimental searches for the Higgs boson in a version of the MSSM with
500: CP violation in the Higgs sector have been performed by the LEP
501: collaborations\cite{igk} using the benchmark parameters of the CPX
502: model.\cite{cpx}
503: For large values of $M_{H_2}$, $H_1$ is almost completely CP- even
504: and the exclusion limit for the lightest Higgs boson mass is similar
505: to the CP conserving limit. If $M_{H_2}>130~ GeV$, then $M_{H_1} > 113~ GeV$.
506: For lighter $M_{H_2}$, the $H_1$ has a large mixture of the CP-
507: odd component and the result is that there are unexcluded regions in the
508: $M_{H_1}-\tan\beta$ parameter space and
509: the excluded region disappears completely for
510: $4< \tan \beta <10$.
511: At $95\%$~ c.l., $
512: \tan\beta < 3.5~{\hbox {and}}~ M_{H_1} < 114~GeV$ and also
513: $\tan\beta >2.6 $
514: are excluded in the CPX scenario.\footnote{These limits assume
515: $M_t=179.3~GeV$[22].}
516:
517:
518: It is interesting to compare the
519: excluded regions in
520: the $M_{H_1}-\tan\beta$ plane for
521: the CP conserving and CP nonconserving
522: versions of the MSSM, as shown in Figs.
523: \ref{fig:mssmcpyes} and \ref{fig:mssmcpno}.
524: We observe that the shape of
525: the excluded region is significantly different in the two cases.
526: As noted
527: in Ref.[22],
528: the limit is extremely sensitive to small variations in the top
529: quark mass.
530:
531: \begin{figure}
532: \epsfxsize160pt
533: \figurebox{160pt}{200pt}{mhtbmax99_174.eps}
534: \caption{Excluded region in the $M_{H_1}$-$\tan\beta$ plane
535: in the CP conserving version of the MSSM.
536: The light (dark) green is the 95~\% (97 \%cl) exclused region in the
537: $M_H$(max) benchmark scenario. The solid lines from left to right
538: vary the top quark mass: $M_t=169.3,~ 174.3, ~179.3$ and $183~GeV$[21].}
539: \label{fig:mssmcpyes}
540: \vskip -.25in
541: \end{figure}
542:
543: \begin{figure}
544: %\vskip -5.in
545: \epsfxsize160pt
546: \figurebox{160pt}{200pt}{mssm_cp.eps}
547: \caption{Excluded region in the $M_{H_1}-\tan\beta$
548: plane in the CPX CP violating version of the MSSM. The curves
549: are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mssmcpyes}[21].}
550: \label{fig:mssmcpno}
551: \end{figure}
552:
553:
554: \section{Little Higgs Models}
555:
556: Little Higgs models\cite{lh,lh1}
557: are an attempt to address the hierarchy problem by cancelling the
558: quadratic contributions to the Higgs boson mass
559: in the Standard Model with the
560: contributions resulting from the
561: addition of new particles which are assumed
562: to exist at a scale
563: around $1-3~TeV$. The cancellation
564: of the quadratic contributions occurs between states with the
565: same spin statistics. Thus contributions to
566: Eq.~\ref{mh2} from the Standard Model $W$, $Z$, and photon are
567: cancelled by the
568: contributions from new
569: heavy gauge bosons, $W_H,Z_H$ and $A_H$, with
570: Standard Model quantum numbers, while Standard
571: Model contributions
572: from the top quark are cancelled by those from a heavy charge $2/3$
573: top-like quark, and those from the Higgs doublet by
574: contributions from a scalar triplet.
575: A clear prediction of the Little Higgs models is the existence of these
576: new particles. Decays such as $Z_H\rightarrow Z H$ should be particularly
577: distinctive\cite{lh1} as demonstrated in Fig.\ref{fig:lhatlas}.\cite{atlaslh}
578: \begin{figure}%1
579: \epsfxsize120pt
580: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{lhatlasfig.eps}
581: \caption{ATLAS simulation with $300~fb^{-1}$of data of the $e^+e^-$invariant mass distribution in a Little Higgs model
582: resulting from the
583: decay $Z_H\rightarrow Z H$ for $Z_H=2~TeV$. The lower dotted histogram
584: is the background[26].}
585: \label{fig:lhatlas}
586: \vskip -.2in
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: The basic idea of the Little Higgs models is that a continuous global symmetry
590: is broken spontaneously and the Higgs boson is the Goldstone boson of
591: the broken symmetry. There are many variants of this idea, with the simplest
592: being a model with
593: a global SU(5) symmetry broken to a global SO(5) symmetry
594: by the vacuum
595: expectation value of
596: a non-linear sigma field $\Sigma=exp(2 i \Pi/f)$. The
597: Goldstone bosons contain both a Higgs doublet
598: and a Higgs triplet and reside in the field $\Pi$.
599: The parameter $f$ sets the scale
600: of the symmetry breaking, which occurs
601: at a scale $\Lambda\sim 4 \pi f\sim 10~TeV$ where
602: the theory becomes strongly interacting.
603: The quadratic contributions to the Higgs boson
604: mass of the Standard Model are cancelled by the
605: new states at a scale $gf\sim 1-3~TeV$.
606: Furthermore, the
607: gauge symmetries are arranged in such
608: a manner that the Higgs boson
609: gets a mass only at two-loops, $M_H\sim g^2 f/(4\pi)$, and
610: so the Higgs boson is naturally light, as required by the precision
611: electroweak data.
612:
613: The mixing of the Standard Model gauge bosons with the heavy gauge bosons
614: of Little Higgs models typically gives strong constraints
615: on the scale $f>1-4~TeV$.\cite{lhlims} It is possible to evade many of
616: these limits by introducing a symmetry ($T$ parity) which requires that
617: the new particles be produced in pairs.\cite{tparity,tparity2}
618: This allows the scale
619: $f$ to be as low as $500~GeV$. The lightest particle with $T$-odd parity
620: is stable and is a viable dark matter candidate for $M_H$ between around
621: $200$ and $400~GeV$ and the scale $f$ in the $1-2~TeV$ region, as seen
622: in Fig.~\ref{fig:tparity}.
623:
624: Little Higgs models allow the lightest neutral Higgs boson to be quite heavy,
625: as is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:wmass}.\cite{trip}
626: The relaxation of the strong upper bound on the Higgs mass
627: of the Standard Model is a generic feature of models with
628: Higgs triplets.
629:
630: \begin{figure}%1
631: \vskip -.05in
632: \epsfxsize120pt
633: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{DMPLOTFIN.eps}
634: \caption{Excluded regions at 95\%, 99\% and 99.9\% confidence
635: level (from lightest to darkest) in the little Higgs model with T-Parity.
636: In the band between the two dashed lines the lightest T-Parity odd particle
637: is a consistent dark matter candidate and contributes to a relic
638: density within $2\sigma$ of the WMAP data[25].}
639: \label{fig:tparity}
640: \vskip .4in
641: \end{figure}
642: \vskip -.25in
643:
644:
645: \begin{figure}%1
646: %\vskip -1.in
647: \epsfxsize120pt
648: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{mwmt_tm300600.eps}
649: \caption{Predictions for the $W$ mass as a function of the top quark mass
650: in a theory with a Higgs triplet. The masses of the three scalars in
651: the theory, $H^0,~K^0$, and $H^\pm$, are varied between $300$ and $600~GeV$.
652: The red point is the experimental data point with the $1\sigma$ errors[27].}
653: \label{fig:wmass}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656:
657:
658:
659: \section{Higgsless Models}
660:
661: Finally, we consider a class of models in which the Higgs boson is
662: completely removed from the theory. These models face a number of
663: basic challenges:
664: \begin{itemize}
665: \item
666: How to break the electroweak symmetry?
667: \item How to
668: restore unitarity without a Higgs boson?
669: \item How to generate gauge
670: boson and fermion masses?
671: \item How to ensure
672: \begin{equation}\rho={M_W^2\over
673: M_Z^2 \cos^2\theta_W}=1?\\ \nonumber\end{equation}
674: \end{itemize}
675:
676: Models with extra dimensions
677: offer the possibility of removing the
678: Higgs boson from the theory and generating the
679: electroweak symmetry breaking from boundary conditions
680: on the branes of the extra
681: dimensions.\cite{higgsless}
682: Before even constructing such a Higgsless model, it is
683: obvious that models of this class will
684: have problems with the electroweak
685: precision data. As can be seen from Fig.\ref{fig:stu}, as the Higgs boson
686: gets increasingly massive, the predictions of the
687: Standard Model get further
688: and further away from the data.
689: A heavy Higgs boson gives too large a value of $S$
690: and too small a value of $T$.
691: This figure gives a hint
692: as to what the solution must eventually be:
693: The Higgsless models must have a large and positive
694: contribution to $T$ and must not have any additional
695: contributions to $S$.\cite{post}
696:
697: \begin{figure}%1
698: \epsfxsize120pt
699: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{s05_stu.eps}
700: \caption{Limits on $S$ and $T$ from precision electroweak measurements,
701: as of September, 2005. The Standard Model reference values (which give
702: $S=T=U=0$) are $M_t=175~GeV$ and $M_H=150~GeV$.[1]}
703: \label{fig:stu}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: The Higgsless models all contain a tower of Kaluza Klein (KK) particles,
707: $V_n$, with the quantum numbers of the Standard Model
708: gauge bosons.
709: The lightest particles in the KK tower are the Standard Model $W$, $Z$,
710: and $\gamma$.
711: These Kaluza Klein particles contribute to the elastic scattering
712: amplitudes for gauge bosons. In general, the elastic scattering amplitudes
713: have the form, (where $E$ is the scattering energy):
714: \begin{equation}
715: A=A_4{E^4\over M_W^4}+A_2{E^2\over M_W^2}+A_0+...
716: \end{equation}
717: In the Standard Model, $A_4$ vanishes by gauge invariance and $A_2$ vanishes
718: because of the cancellation between the gauge boson and Higgs boson
719: contributions.
720: In the Higgsless models, the contributions to $A_4$ and $A_2$ cancel if,
721: \begin{eqnarray}
722: g^2_{nnnn}&=&\Sigma_kg^2_{nnk}
723: \nonumber\\
724: 4g^2_{nnnn}&=&3\Sigma_kg^2_{nnk}{M_k^2\over M_n^2 },
725: \end{eqnarray}
726: where $g_{nnk}$ is the cubic coupling between $V_n$, $V_n$, and $V_k$,
727: $g_{nnnn}$ is the quartic self coupling of $V_n$, and $M_k$ is the mass
728: of the $k^{th}$ KK particle.
729:
730: The amazing
731: fact is that the 5-dimensional Higgsless models satisfy these sum rules
732: exactly due to 5-dimensional gauge invariance. Similarly, 4-dimensional
733: deconstructed versions of the Higgsless models\cite{deconstruct}
734: satisfy these sum rules to an accuracy
735: of a few percent. The Kaluza Klein particles play the same role as the
736: Higgs boson does in the Standard Model and unitarize the scattering amplitudes.
737: Of course, the lightest Kaluza Klein mode needs to be light enough for
738: the cancellation to occur before the amplitude is already large, which
739: restricts the masses of the Kaluza
740: Klein particles to be less than $1-2~TeV$.\cite{kkunit,kkunit2}
741:
742: Fig.~ \ref{fig:higgsj0} shows the growth of the $J=0$ partial wave in the
743: Standard Model with the Higgs boson removed and in a Higgsless model
744: with a single Kaluza Klein particle with mass $M=500~GeV$ included. The
745: inclusion of the Kaluza Klein contributions pushes the scale of unitarity
746: violation from $E\sim 1.6~GeV$ in the Standard Model with no Higgs boson to
747: around $E\sim 2.6~TeV$ in the Higgsless models.
748:
749: \begin{figure}%1
750: \epsfxsize120pt
751: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{higgsless_a0.eps}
752: \caption{$J=0$ partial wave for elastic gauge boson scattering
753: in the Standard Model with the Higgs boson removed (red) and with the
754: inclusion of a single Kaluza Klein excitation with $M=500~GeV$
755: (blue) in a deconstructed Higgsless model[30].}
756: \label{fig:higgsj0}
757: \end{figure}
758:
759:
760:
761: The Kaluza Klein particles contribute to the electroweak precision
762: measurements. In general, the corrections are too large for KK particles
763: with masses on the $TeV$ scale.\cite{kkstu}
764: Considerable progress in addressing this problem
765: has been made in the last year with the realization that the contributions
766: of the Kaluza Klein particles to the precision
767: electroweak observables depend
768: on where the
769: fermions
770: are located in the extra dimensions. In the Randall-Sundrum
771: model, $S$ is positive if the fermions are located on the Planck brane and
772: negative if they are located on the $TeV$ brane. The trick is to find
773: an intermediate point where there is a weak coupling between
774: the KK modes and the fermions.\cite{kkstu,kkstu2} It appears to be possible
775: to construct models which are consistent with the electroweak precision
776: measurements by having the fermion wavefunction be located
777: between the branes.\cite{kkstu2}
778:
779: Fig.~ \ref{fig:stuhiggs} shows the oblique parameters as a function
780: of the variable $c$, which characterizes the location of the fermion
781: wavefunction. If the fermions are localized on the $TeV$ brane,
782: $c << {1\over 2}$, while fermions localized on the Planck brane have
783: $c>> {1\over 2}$. A flat
784: fermion wavefunction corresponds to $c={1\over 2}$.
785: For $c\sim {1/2}$ it is
786: possible to satisfy the bounds from precision electroweak data. Fermions with a flat wavefunction are weakly coupled to the Kaluza Klein
787: particles and so such Kaluza Klein particles would have escaped the
788: direct searches for heavy resonances at the Tevatron.
789:
790: \begin{figure}
791: %\vskip -.5in
792: \epsfxsize200pt
793: \figurebox{200pt}{2400pt}{STUvsC.eps}
794: \caption{Oblique parameters, $S$, $T$, and
795: $U$ in a Higgsless model as a function of the
796: fermion localization parameter, $c$. If the fermions
797: are localized on the $TeV$ brane, $c << {1\over 2}$,
798: while fermions localized on the Planck brane have $c>> {1\over 2}$. A flat
799: fermion wavefunction corresponds to $c={1\over 2}$[32].}
800: \label{fig:stuhiggs}
801: \vskip -.25in
802: \end{figure}
803:
804:
805:
806:
807:
808: The next challenge for Higgsless models
809: is to generate the large mass
810: splitting between the top and the bottom quarks.\cite{tb}
811:
812: Weakly coupled Kaluza Klein particles are a generic feature of
813: Higgsless models and can be searched
814: for in a model independent fashion. These KK particles appear as
815: massive $W$-,
816: $Z$-, and $\gamma$- like resonances in vector boson fusion and they
817: will appear as narrow resonances in the $WZ$ channel as shown in
818: Fig.~ \ref{fig:lhc}.\cite{bmp} The lightest KK
819: resonance should be clearly
820: observable above the background.
821: \begin{figure}%1
822: \vskip -.1in
823: \epsfxsize120pt
824: \figurebox{120pt}{160pt}{mWZ100KNew.ps}
825: \caption{The number of events per $100~GeV$ bin in the 2-jet plus 3 lepton
826: plus $\nu$ channel at the LHC, coming from the subprocess
827: $WZ\rightarrow WZ$ in a Higgsless model[34].}
828: \label{fig:lhc}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831:
832: \section{Conclusions}
833: The mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking could be far more
834: complicated than a simple Higgs boson. Almost all models, however,
835: have distinctive signatures which should be observed at the LHC.
836: Soon, with data from the LHC,
837: we should have some indication what mechanism nature has
838: chosen! A complete understanding of the unknown physics awaiting
839: us at the TeV scale will probably require a future linear collider.\cite{lc}
840:
841:
842:
843: \section*{Acknowledgments}
844: This research supported by Contract No. DE-AC02-76CH1-886 with the
845: U.S. Department of Energy. I thank my collaborators, M.C. Chen, C.~
846: Jackson, T. ~Krupovnickas, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth for countless
847: discussions.
848:
849: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
850:
851: \bibitem{lepewwg}
852: LEP Electroweak Working Group, http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch
853: /LEPEWWG/.
854:
855:
856: \bibitem{cdfd0}
857: Preliminary result posted at http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic.html.
858:
859: \bibitem{unitviol}
860: B. ~Lee, C.~Quigg, and H.~Thacker, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 16}, 1519
861: (1977); D.~Dicus and V.~Mathur, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 7}, 3111
862: (1973)
863:
864: \bibitem{lith}
865: G.~Giudice, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A {\bf 19}, 835 (2004), hep-ph/0311344;
866: R.~Barbieri,
867: A.~Pomerol, and A.~Strumia,
868: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 703}, 127 (2004), hep-ph/0405040.
869:
870: \bibitem{skib}
871: Z.~Han and W.~Skiba, {\it Phys. Rev. } D {\bf 71}, 075009, hep-ph/0412166.
872:
873:
874: \bibitem{higgsless}
875: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, H.~Murayama, L.~Pilo, and J.~Terning, {\it Phys.
876: Rev.} D {\bf 69}, 055006 (2004), hep-ph/0305237;
877: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo, and J.~Terning, {\it Phys.
878: Rev. Lett.} {\bf 92}, 101802 (2004), hep-ph/0308038;
879: R.~Chivukula, E.~Simmons,
880: H.-J.~He, M.~Kurachi,
881: and M.~Tanabashi, {\it Phys. Rev} D {\it 70}, 075008
882: (2004), hep-ph/0406077. For a review and
883: references to the original literature see
884: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C. Grojean,J.~Terning,
885: eConf C040802:FRT004, 2004, C.~Csaki, hep-ph/0412339.
886:
887: \bibitem{lh}
888: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.Cohen, E. Katz, and A. Nelson, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0207},
889: 034 (2002), hep-ph/0206021;
890: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.Cohen, E. Katz, A. Nelson, T.~Gregoire,
891: and J.~Wacker, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0208},
892: 021 (2002), hep-ph/0206020; D.~Kaplan and M.~Schmaltz,
893: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0310},
894: 039 (2003), hep-ph/0302049;
895: W.~Skiba and J.~Terning, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf68}, 075001
896: (2003),
897: hep-ph/0305302.
898:
899: \bibitem{lh1} For a review and references to the original
900: literature, see T.~Han, H.~Logan, and L.-T. ~Wang, hep-ph/0506313.
901:
902: \bibitem{fathiggs} R. Harnik, G.~Kribs, D.~Larson, and H.~Murayama, {\it
903: Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 015002 (2004), hep-ph/0311349.
904:
905: \bibitem{sews}
906: C.~Hill and E.~Simmons, {\it Phys. Rept} {\bf 381}, 235 (2003), hep-ph/0203079.
907:
908: \bibitem{susyfit}
909: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, and G.~Weiglein, hep-ph/0412214.
910:
911: \bibitem{rg}
912: R.~Dermisek and J.~Gunion, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}{\bf 95}, 041801 (2005),
913: hep-ph/0502105.
914:
915: \bibitem{susycan}
916: M.Drees, hep-ph/9611409
917: and S.~Dawson, TASI97, hep-ph/9712464, and references therein.
918:
919: \bibitem{mssmfit}
920: W.~deBoer and C.~Sander, {\it Phys. Lett.}
921: B {\bf 585}, 276 (2004), hep-ph/0307049.
922:
923: \bibitem{bbh2}
924: S.~Dawson, C.Jackson, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth, hep-ph/0508293.
925:
926:
927: \bibitem{mssmb}
928: S.~Dawson, C.Jackson, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth,
929: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 94}, 031802 (2005), hep-ph/0408077;
930: J.~Campbell {\it et. al.}, hep-ph/0405302; S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kramer, and M.
931: Spira, {\it Phys. Rev. } D {\bf 70}, 074010 (2004); F.~Maltoni, Z.~Sullivan,
932: and S.~Willenbrock, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 093005 (2003), hep-ph/0301033.
933:
934:
935: \bibitem{d0bbh}
936: D0 Collaboration, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 95}, 151801 (2005).
937:
938: \bibitem{nmssm}
939: U.~ Ellwanger, J.~Gunion,and C.~Hugonie,{\it JHEP}
940: {\bf 0507}, 041 (2005), hep-ph/0503203;
941: D.~ Miller, R.~Nevzorov, and P.~Zerwas, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 681}, 3
942: (2003), hep-ph/0304049.
943:
944: \bibitem{nmssm2}
945: U.~ Ellwanger, J.~Gunion, C.~Hugonie, and S.~ Moretti, hep-ph/0401228.
946:
947:
948: \bibitem{nhiggs}
949: G.~Kane, C.~Kolda, and J.~ Wells,
950: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70}, 2686 (1993), hep-ph/9210242;
951: M.~Quiros and J.~Espinosa, hep-ph/9809269.
952:
953:
954: \bibitem{cpx}
955: M.~Carena, J.~ Ellis, A.~ Pilaftsis, C.~ Wagner,
956: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 495}, 155 (2000);
957: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 586}, 92 (2000).
958:
959: \bibitem{igk}
960: ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations,
961: Search for Neutral Higgs Bosons at LEP, LHWG-Note-2005-01.
962:
963:
964:
965: \bibitem{lhlims}
966: J.~Hewett, F.~Petriello, and T.~Rizzo, {\it JHEP}{\bf 0310}, 062
967: (2003), hep-ph/0211218;
968: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, P.~Meade, and J.~Terning, {\it Phys.
969: Rev.} D {\bf 68}, 035009 (2003), hep-ph/0303236;
970: R.~Casalbuoni, A.~Deandrea, and M.~Oertel,
971: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0402}, 032 (2004), hep-ph/0311038;
972: W.~Kilian and J.~Reuter,
973: {\it Phys. Rev. } D {\bf70}, 015004(2004), hep-ph/0311095;
974: M.~Chen and S.~Dawson, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70},015003 (2004),
975: hep-ph/0311032;
976: T.~Gregoire, D.~Smith and G.~Wacker,
977: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 69},115008 (2004),hep-ph/0305275.
978:
979: \bibitem{tparity}
980: H.~Cheng and I. ~Low, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0408},
981: 061 (2004), hep-ph/0405243;
982: I.~Low, {\it JHEP}
983: {\bf 0410}, 067 (2004), hep-ph/0409025;
984: J.~Hubisz and P.~Meade, {\it Phys.
985: Rev.} D {\bf 71}, 035016 (2005), hep-ph/0411264.
986:
987: \bibitem{tparity2}
988: J.~Hubisz, P.~Meade, A.~Noble,
989: and M.~Perelstein, hep-ph/0506042.
990:
991: \bibitem{atlaslh}
992: G.~Azuelos {\it et.al.}, {\it Eur. Phys. Jour.} C {\bf 39S2}, 13 (2005),
993: hep-ph/0402037.
994:
995: \bibitem{trip}
996: T.~Blank and W.~Hollik,{\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf514}, 113 (1998),
997: hep-ph/9703392;
998: M.~Chen, S.~Dawson, and T.~Krupovnickas, hep-ph/0504286.
999:
1000: \bibitem{post}
1001: R.~Chivukula, C.~Hoelbling, and N.~Evans, {\it Phys.
1002: Rev. Lett} {\bf 85}, 511 (2000), hep-ph/0002022;
1003: M.~Peskin and J.~Wells, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 093003 (2001),
1004: hep-ph/0101342.
1005:
1006: \bibitem{kkunit}
1007: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~Hewett, B.~Lillie, and T.~Rizzo, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0405},
1008: 015 (2004), hep-ph/0403300;{\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 015006 (2004);
1009: M.~Papucci, hep-ph/0408058; R.~Casalbuoni, S.~DeCurtis, and D.~Dominici,
1010: {\it Phys. Rev. } D {\bf 70}, 055010 (2004), hep-ph/0405188.
1011:
1012: \bibitem{kkunit2}
1013: R.~Foadi, S. Gopalakrishna, and C.~Schmidt,
1014: {\it JHEP} {\bf 403}, 042 (2004), hep-ph/0312324.
1015:
1016:
1017:
1018: \bibitem{kkstu}
1019: K.~Agashe, A.~Delgado, M.~May, R.~Sundrum, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0308}, 050
1020: (2003),
1021: hep-ph/0308036;
1022: J.~Hewett, B.~Lillie, and T.~Rizzo, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0410},
1023: 014 (2004), hep-ph/0407059;
1024: R.~Foadi, S. Gopalakrishna, and C.~Schmidt,
1025: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 606}, 157 (2005), hep-ph/0409266.
1026:
1027: \bibitem{kkstu2}
1028: C.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C. Grojean, J.~Terning, {\it Phys. Rev.}
1029: D {\bf 71}, 035015 (2005), hep-ph/0409126.
1030:
1031: \bibitem{deconstruct}
1032: R.~Chivukula, H.-J.~He, M.~Kurachi, E.~ Simmons, and M.~Tanabachi,
1033: {\it Phys. Rev.}
1034: D {\bf 72}, 015008 (2005), hep-ph/0504114;
1035: R.~Chivukula, H.-J.~He, M.~Kurachi, E.~ Simmons, and M.~Tanabachi,
1036: {\it Phys. Rev.}
1037: D {\bf 70}, 075008 (2004), hep-ph/0406077;
1038: R.~Chivukula, H.-J.~He, M.~Kurachi, E.~ Simmons, and M.~Tanabachi,
1039: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\it 603},
1040: 210 (2004), hep-ph/0408262.
1041:
1042: \bibitem{bmp}
1043: A.~Birkedal, K.~Matchev, and M.~Perelstein, {\it Phys Rev. Lett. } {\bf 94},
1044: 191803 (2005).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{tb}
1047: G.~Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean, M. Reece, and J. Terning,
1048: hep-ph/0505001;
1049: R.~Foadi and C.~Schmidt, hep-ph/0509071;
1050: H.~Davoudiasl, B.~Lillie, and T.~Rizzo, hep-ph/0508279;
1051: R.~Chivukula, H.-J.~He, M.~Kurachi, E.~ Simmons,and M.~Tanabachi,
1052: hep-ph/0508147.
1053:
1054:
1055: \bibitem{lc}
1056: S.~Dawson and M.~Oreglia, {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}
1057: {\bf 54}, 269 (2004), hep-ph/0403015.
1058:
1059: \end{thebibliography}
1060:
1061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1062: % Question and Answer Section %
1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1064: % Use clear page to make sure everything is flush and a new
1065: % page is started (not just a new column)
1066: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1067: %\clearpage
1068: \section*{DISCUSSION}
1069:
1070: \begin{description}
1071: \item[Daniel Kaplan] (Illinois Institute of Technology):
1072: \\
1073: How does the new state possibly seen in the HyperCP experiment at Fermilab fit
1074: into SUSY models? It has a mass of 214.3 MeV and decays into $\mu^+ \mu^-$.
1075:
1076: \item[Sally Dawson{\rm :}]
1077:
1078: This state is very difficult to understand in terms of SUSY models.
1079:
1080: \item[Anna Lipniacka] (University of Bergen):
1081:
1082: Is gauge coupling unification natural in Large Extra Dimension models?
1083:
1084: \item[Sally Dawson{\rm :}]
1085:
1086: No. These theories typically violate unitarity and become strongly interacting
1087: at a scale between $1$ and $10$~ TeV.
1088:
1089:
1090: \item[Ignatios Antoniadis] (CERN):
1091:
1092: What is the prize to pay in models that solve the little hierarchy problem,
1093: such as the little Higgs models, in particular on the number of parameters and
1094: the unification of gauge couplings?
1095:
1096: \item[Sally Dawson{\rm :}]
1097: Obviously, there is a large increase in the number of parameters and gauge
1098: unification is forfeited.
1099:
1100: \item[Luca Silvestrini] (Munich and Rome):\\
1101: Maybe one should comment about the statement that you made that new physics has
1102: to have a scale $\Lambda$ greater than 5 TeV. Of course this is a conventional
1103: scale that is only valid if the coupling in front of the operator is one, which
1104: is generally not true in any weakly interacting theory and generally not true
1105: if new physics enters through loops. So I do not want that anybody in the
1106: audience really believes that new physics must be at a scale larger than 5 TeV.
1107: It can easily be around the electroweak scale as we know very well.
1108:
1109: \item[Sally Dawson{\rm :}]
1110: Absolutely true. The limits depend on the couplings to the operators, which in
1111: turn depend on the model.
1112:
1113:
1114:
1115: \end{description}
1116:
1117: \end{document}
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121: