This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
S. F. Novaes
Instituto de F´ısica Te´ orica
Universidade Estadual Paulista
Rua Pamplona 145, 01405–900, S˜ ao Paulo
Brazil
Abstract
We present a primer on the Standard Model of the elec
troweak interaction. Emphasis is given to the historical as
pects of the theory’s formulation. The radiative corrections to
the Standard Model are presented and its predictions for the
electroweak parameters are compared with the precise exper
imental data obtained at the Z pole. Finally, we make some
remarks on the perspectives for the discovery of the Higgs bo
son, the most important challenge of the Standard Model.
Contents
I. Introduction 4
I.1. A Chronology of the Weak Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I.2. The Gauge Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
I.2.1. Gauge Invariance in Quantum Mechanics . . . . . 19
I.2.2. Gauge Invariance for Non–Abelian Groups . . . . 22
I.3. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
I.4. The Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
I.4.1. The Abelian Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . 31
I.4.2. The Non–Abelian Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
II. The Standard Model 35
II.1. Constructing the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
II.1.1. General Principles to Construct Gauge Theories . 35
II.1.2. Right– and Left– Handed Fermions . . . . . . . . 37
II.1.3. Choosing the gauge group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
II.1.4. The Higgs Mechanism and the W and Z mass . . 44
II.2. Some General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
II.2.1. On the mass matrix of the neutral bosons . . . . . 48
II.2.2. On the ρ Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
II.2.3. On the Gauge Fixing Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
II.2.4. On the Measurement of sin
2
θ
W
at Low Energies . 51
2
II.2.5. On the Lepton Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
II.2.6. On the Cross Sections e
+
e
−
→W
+
W
−
. . . . . . . 53
II.3. Introducing the Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
II.3.1. On Anomaly Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
II.3.2. The Quark Masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
II.4. The Standard Model Lagrangian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
III. Beyond the Trees 63
III.1.Radiative Corrections to the Standard Model . . . . . . . 64
III.1.1.One Loop Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
III.2.The Z boson Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
III.2.1.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
III.2.2.The Standard Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 71
IV. The Higgs Boson Physics 80
IV.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
IV.2. Higgs Boson Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
IV.3. Production and Decay Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
IV.3.1. The Decay Modes of the Higgs Boson . . . . . . . . 87
IV.3.2. Production Mechanisms at Colliders . . . . . . . . 88
V. Closing Remarks 90
References 92
3
I. Introduction
The joint description of the electromagnetic and the weak inter
action by a single theory certainly is one of major achievements of
the physical science in this century. The model proposed by Glashow,
Salam and Weinberg in the middle sixties, has been extensively tested
during the last 30 years. The discovery of neutral weak interactions
and the production of intermediate vector bosons (W
±
and Z
0
) with
the expected properties increased our conﬁdence in the model. Even
after the recent precise measurements of the electroweak parameters
in electron–positron collisions at the Z
0
pole, there is no experimental
result that contradicts the Standard Model predictions.
The description of the electroweak interaction is implemented by
a gauge theory based on the SU(2)
L
⊗ U(1)
Y
group, which is sponta
neously broken via the Higgs mechanism. The matter ﬁelds — lep
tons and quarks — are organized in families, with the left–handed
fermions belonging to weak isodoublets while the right–handed com
ponents transform as weak isosinglets. The vector bosons, W
±
, Z
0
and
γ, that mediate the interactions are introduced via minimal coupling
to the matter ﬁelds. An essential ingredient of the model is the scalar
potential that is added to the Lagrangian to generate the vector–boson
(and fermion) masses in a gauge invariant way, via the Higgs mecha
nism. A remnant scalar ﬁeld, the Higgs boson, is part of the physical
spectrum. This is the only missing piece of the Standard Model that
still awaits experimental conﬁrmation.
In this course, we intend to give a quite pedestrian introduction to
the main concepts involved in the construction of the Standard Model
of electroweak interactions. We should not touch any subject “beyond
the Standard Model”. This primer should provide the necessary back
ground for the lectures on more advanced topics that were covered in
this school, such as W physics and extensions of the Standard Model.
A special emphasis will be given to the historical aspects of the for
mulation of the theory. The interplay of new ideas and experimental
results make the history of weak interactions a very fruitful laboratory
for understanding how the development of a scientiﬁc theory works in
4
practice. More formal aspects and details of the model can be found in
the vast literature on this subject, from textbooks [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] to
reviews [8, 9, 10, 11].
We start these lectures with a chronological account of the ideas re
lated to the development of electromagnetic and weak theories (Section
I.1.). The gauge principle (Sec. I.2.) and the concepts of spontaneous
symmetry breaking (Sec. I.3.) and the Higgs mechanism (Section I.4.)
are presented. In the Chapter II., we introduce the Standard Model,
following the general principles that should guide the construction of
a gauge theory. We discuss topics like the mass matrix of the neu
tral bosons, the measurement of the Weinberg angle, the lepton mass,
anomaly cancelation, and the introduction of quarks in the model. We
ﬁnalize this chapter giving an overview on the Standard Model La
grangian in Sec. II.4.. In Chapter III., we give an introduction to the
radiative corrections to the Standard Model. Loop calculations are im
portant to compare the predictions of the Standard Model with the pre
cise experimental results of Z physics that are presented in Sec. III.2..
We ﬁnish our lectures with an account on the most important challenge
to the Standard Model: the discovery of the Higgs boson. In Chapter
IV., we discuss the main properties of the Higgs, like mass, couplings
and decay modes and discuss the phenomenological prospects for the
search of the Higgs in different colliders.
Most of the material covered in these lectures can be found in a
series of very good textbook on the subject. Among them we can point
out the books from Quigg [1], Aitchison and Hey [4], and Leader and
Predazzi [7].
I.1. A Chronology of the Weak Interactions
We will present in this section the main steps given towards a uni
ﬁed description of the electromagnetic and weak interactions. In order
to give a historical ﬂavor to the presentation, we will mention some
parallel achievements in Particle Physics in this century, from theoret
ical developments and predictions to experimental conﬁrmation and
surprises. The topics closely related to the evolution and construction
of the model will be worked with more details.
5
The chronology of the developments and discoveries in Particle Phy
sics can be found in the books of Cahn and Goldhaber [12] and the
annotated bibliography from COMPAS and Particle Data Groups [13].
An extensive selection of original papers on Quantum Electrodynamics
can be found in the book edited by Schwinger [14]. Original papers on
gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions appear in Ref.
[15].
1896
Becquerel [16]: evidence for spontaneous radioactivity effect
in uranium decay, using photographic ﬁlm.
1897
Thomson: discovery of the electron in cathode rays.
1900
Planck: start of the quantum era.
1905 Einstein: start of the relativistic era.
1911
Millikan: measurement of the electron charge.
1911 Rutherford: evidence for the atomic nucleus.
1913
Bohr: invention of the quantum theory of atomic spectra.
1914 Chadwick [17]: ﬁrst observation that the β spectrum is continu
ous. Indirect evidence on the existence of neutral penetrating particles.
1919 Rutherford: discovery of the proton, constituent of the nucleus.
1923
Compton: experimental conﬁrmation that the photon is an
elementary particle in γ + C →γ + C.
1923
de Broglie: corpuscular–wave dualism for electrons.
1925
Pauli: discovery of the exclusion principle.
1925
Heisenberg: foundation of quantum mechanics.
1926
Schr¨ odinger: creation of wave quantum mechanics.
1927 Ellis and Wooster [18]: conﬁrmation that the β spectrum is con
tinuous.
The “star” () means that the author(s) have received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for this particular work.
6
1927 Dirac [19]: foundations of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
1928
Dirac: discovery of the relativistic wave equation for electrons;
prediction of the magnetic moment of the electron.
1929 Skobelzyn: observation of cosmic ray showers produced by en
ergetic electrons in a cloud chamber.
1930 Pauli [20]: ﬁrst proposal, in an open letter, of the existence of a
light, neutral and feebly interacting particle emitted in β decay.
1930 Oppenheimer [21]: self–energy of the electron: the ﬁrst ultravi
olet divergence in QED.
1931 Dirac: prediction of the positron and anti–proton.
1932
Anderson: ﬁrst evidence for the positron.
1932
Chadwick: ﬁrst evidence for the neutron in α + Be →C +n.
1932 Heisenberg: suggestion that nuclei are composed of protons and
neutrons.
1934 Pauli [22]: explanation of continuous electron spectrum of β
decay — proposal for the neutrino.
n →p +e
−
+ ¯ ν
e
.
1934 Fermi [23]: ﬁeld theory for β decay, assuming the existence of
the neutrino. In analogy to “the theory of radiation that describes the
emission of a quantum of light from an excited atom”, eJ
µ
A
µ
, Fermi
proposed a current–current Lagrangian to describe the β decay:
L
weak
=
G
F
√
2
_
¯
ψ
p
γ
µ
ψ
n
_ _
¯
ψ
e
γ
µ
ψ
ν
_
.
1936 Gamow and Teller [24]: proposed an extension of the Fermi the
ory to describe also transitions with ∆J
nuc
,= 0. The vector currents
proposed by Fermi are generalized to:
L
weak
=
G
F
√
2
i
C
i
_
¯
ψ
p
Γ
i
ψ
n
_ _
¯
ψ
e
Γ
i
ψ
ν
_
,
with the scalar, pseudo–scalar, vector, axial and tensor structures:
Γ
S
= 1 , Γ
P
= γ
5
, Γ
V
µ
= γ
µ
, Γ
A
µ
= γ
µ
γ
5
, Γ
T
µν
= σ
µν
.
7
Nuclear transitions with ∆J = 0 are described by the interactions
S.S and/or V.V , while ∆J = 0, ±1 (0 , →0) transitions can be taken into
account by A.A and/or T.T interactions (Γ
P
→0 in the non–relativistic
limit). However, interference between them are proportional to m
e
/E
e
and should increase the emission of low energy electrons. Since this
behavior was not observed, the weak Lagrangian should contain,
S.S or V.V and A.A or T.T .
1937 Neddermeyer and Anderson: ﬁrst evidence for the muon.
1937 Majorana: Majorana neutrino theory.
1937 Bloch and Nordsieck [25]: treatment of infrared divergences.
1940 Williams and Roberts [26]: ﬁrst observation of muon decay
µ
−
→e
−
+ (¯ ν
e
+ ν
µ
) .
1943 Heisenberg: invention of the S–matrix formalism.
1943
Tomonaga [27]: creation of the covariant quantum electrody
namic theory.
1947 Pontecorvo [28]: ﬁrst idea about the universality of the Fermi
weak interactions i.e. decay and capture processes have the same ori
gin.
1947 Bethe [29]: ﬁrst theoretical calculation of the Lamb shift in non–
relativistic QED.
1947
Kusch and Foley [30]: ﬁrst measurement of g
e
−2 for the elec
tron using the Zeeman effect: g
e
= 2(1 + 1.19 10
−3
).
1947
Lattes, Occhialini and Powell: conﬁrmation of the π
−
and ﬁrst
evidence for pion decay π
±
→µ
±
+ (ν
µ
).
1947 Rochester and Butler: ﬁrst evidence for V events (strange par
ticles).
1948 Schwinger [31]: ﬁrst theoretical calculation of g
e
−2 for the elec
tron: g
e
= 2(1+α/2π) = 2(1+1.1610
−3
). The high–precision measure
ment of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most
8
stringent QED test. The present theoretical and experimental value of
a
e
= (g
e
−2)/2, are [32],
a
thr
e
= (115 965 215.4 ±2.4) 10
−11
,
a
exp
e
= (115 965 219.3 ±1.0) 10
−11
,
where we notice the impressive agreement at the 9 digit level!
1948
Feynman [33]; Schwinger [34]; Tati and Tomonaga [35]: cre
ation of the covariant theory of QED.
1949 Dyson [36]: covariant QED and equivalence of Tomonaga, Sch
winger and Feynman methods.
1949 Wheeler and Tiomno [37]; Lee, Rosenbluth and Yang [38]: pro
posal of the universality of the Fermi weak interactions. Different pro
cesses like,
β −decay : n →p + e
−
+ ¯ ν
e
,
µ −decay : µ
−
→e
−
+ ¯ ν
e
+ν
µ
,
µ −capture : µ
−
+p →ν
µ
+ n ,
must have the same nature and should share the same coupling con
stant,
G
F
=
1.03 10
−5
M
2
p
,
the so–called Fermi constant.
50’s A large number of new particles where discovered in the 50’s: π
0
,
K
±
, Λ, K
0
, ∆
++
, Ξ
−
, Σ
±
, ¯ ν
e
, ¯ p, K
L,S
, ¯ n, Σ
0
,
¯
Λ, Ξ
0
,
1950 Ward [39]: Ward identity in QED.
1953 St ¨ uckelberg; Gell–Mann: invention and exploration of renor
malization group.
1954 Yang and Mills [40]: introduction of local gauge isotopic invari
ance in quantum ﬁeld theory. This was one of the key theoretical de
velopments that lead to the invention of non–abelian gauge theories.
1955 Alvarez and Goldhaber [41]; Birge et al. [42]: θ − τ puzzle: The
“two” particles seem to be a single state since they have the same width
9
(Γ
θ
= Γ
τ
), and the same mass (M
θ
= M
τ
). However the observation of
different decay modes, into states with opposite parity:
θ
+
→ π
+
+ π
0
, J
P
= 0
+
,
τ
+
→ π
+
+ π
+
+ π
−
, J
P
= 0
−
,
suggested that parity could be violated in weak transitions.
1955 Lehmann, Symanzik and Zimmermann: beginnings of the ax
iomatic ﬁeld theory of the S–matrix.
1955 Nishijima: classiﬁcation of strange particles and prediction of
Σ
0
and Ξ
0
.
1956
Lee and Yang [43]: proposals to test spatial parity conservation
in weak interactions.
1957 Wu et al. [44]: obtained the ﬁrst evidence for parity nonconser
vation in weak decays. They measured the angular distribution of the
electrons in β decay,
60
Co (polarized) →
60
Ni + e
−
+ ¯ ν
e
,
and observed that the decay rate depend on the pseudo–scalar quan
tity: <
J
nuc
> . p
e
.
1957 Garwin, Lederman and Weinrich [45]; Friedman and Telegdi
[46]: conﬁrmation of parity violation in weak decays. They make the
measurement of the electron asymmetry (muon polarization) in the de
cay chain,
π
+
→ µ
+
+ ν
µ
→e
+
+ν
e
+ ¯ ν
µ
.
1957 Frauenfelder et al. [47]: further conﬁrmation of parity noncon
servation in weak decays. The measurement of the longitudinal polar
ization of the electron (σ
e
. p
e
) emitted in β decay,
60
Co → e
−
(long. polar.) + ¯ ν
e
+ X ,
showed that the electrons emitted in weak transitions are mostly left–
handed.
10
The conﬁrmation of the parity violation by the weak interaction
showed that it is necessary to have a term containing a γ
5
in the weak
current:
L
weak
→
G
F
√
2
i
C
i
_
¯
ψ
p
Γ
i
ψ
n
_ _
¯
ψ
e
Γ
i
(1 ±γ
5
) ψ
ν
¸
.
Note that CP remains conserved since C is also violated.
1957 Salam [48] ; Lee and Yang [49]; Landau [50]: two–component
theory of neutrino. This requires that the neutrino is either right or
left–handed.
Since it was known that electrons (positrons) involved in weak de
cays are left (right) handed, the leptonic current should be written as:
J
i
lept
≡
_
¯
ψ
e
Γ
i
(1 ±γ
5
) ψ
ν
¸
→
_
¯
ψ
e
(1 + γ
5
)
2
Γ
i
(1 ±γ
5
) ψ
ν
_
.
Therefore the measurement of the neutrino helicity is crucial to
determine the structure of the weak current. If Γ
i
= V or A then
¦γ
5
, Γ
i
¦ = 0 and the neutrino should be left–handed, otherwise the cur
rent is zero. On the other hand, if Γ
i
= S or T, then [γ
5
, Γ
i
] = 0, and the
neutrino should be right–handed.
1957 Schwinger [51]; Lee and Yang [52]: development of the idea of
the intermediate vector boson in weak interaction. The four–fermion
Fermi interaction is “point–like” i.e. a s–wave interaction. Partial wave
unitarity requires that such interaction must give rise to a cross section
that is bound by σ < 4π/p
2
cm
. However, since G
F
has dimension of
M
−2
, the cross section for the Fermi weak interaction should go like
σ ∼ G
2
F
p
2
cm
. Therefore the Fermi theory violates unitarity for p
cm
· 300
GeV.
This violation can be delayed by imposing that the interaction is
transmitted by a intermediate vector boson (IVB) in analogy, once again,
with the quantum electrodynamics. Here, the IVB should have quite
different characteristics, due to the properties of the weak interaction.
The IVB should be charged since the β decay requires charge–changing
currents. They should also be very massive to account for short range
11
of the weak interaction and they should not have a deﬁnite parity to
allow, for instance, a V −A structure for the weak current.
With the introduction of the IVB, the Fermi Lagrangian for leptons,
L
weak
=
G
F
√
2
_
J
α
()J
†
α
(
) + h.c.
¸
,
where J
α
() =
¯
ψ
ν
Γ
α
ψ
, becomes:
L
W
weak
= G
W
_
J
α
W
+
α
+ J
† α
W
−
α
_
, (I.1)
with a new coupling constant G
W
.
Let us compare the invariant amplitude for µ–decay, in the low–
energy limit in both cases. For the Fermi Lagrangian, we have,
/
weak
= i
G
F
√
2
J
α
(µ)J
α
(e) . (I.2)
On the other hand, when we take into account the exchange of the
IVB, the invariant amplitude should include the vector boson propaga
tor,
/
W
weak
= [i G
W
J
α
(µ)]
_
−i
k
2
−M
2
W
_
g
αβ
−
k
α
k
β
M
2
W
__
_
i G
W
J
β
(e)
¸
.
At low energies, i.e. for k
2
¸M
2
W
,
/
W
weak
−→ i
G
2
W
M
2
W
J
α
(µ)J
α
(e) , (I.3)
and, comparing (I.3) with (I.2) we obtain the relation
G
2
W
=
M
2
W
G
F
√
2
, (I.4)
which shows that G
W
is dimensionless.
However, at high energies, the theory of IVB still violates unitarity,
for instance, in the cross section for ν¯ ν →W
+
W
−
(see Fig. 1).
12
Let us consider the W
±
polarization states. At the W
±
rest frame,
we can deﬁne the transversal and longitudinal polarizations as
µ
T
1
(0) = (0, 1, 0, 0) ,
µ
T
2
(0) = (0, 0, 1, 0) ,
µ
L
(0) = (0, 0, 0, 1) .
neutrino
antineutrino
W+
W
electron
Fig. 1: Feynman diagram for the process ν + ¯ ν →W
+
+ W
−
.
After a boost along the z direction, i.e. for p
µ
= (E, 0, 0, p), the
transversal states remain unchanged while the longitudinal state be
comes,
µ
L
(p) =
_
[ p[
M
W
,
E
M
W
ˆ p
_
·
p
µ
M
W
.
Since the longitudinal polarization is proportional to the vector boson
momentum, at high energies the longitudinal amplitudes should give
rise to the worst behavior.
In fact, in high energy limit, the polarized cross section for ν¯ ν →
W
+
W
−
behaves like,
σ(ν¯ ν →W
+
T
W
−
T
) −→ constant
σ(ν¯ ν →W
+
L
W
−
L
) −→
G
2
F
s
3π
,
which still violates unitarity for large values of s.
13
1958 Feynman and Gell–Mann [53]; Marshak and Sudarshan [54];
Sakurai [55]: universal V −A weak interactions.
J
+ µ
lept
=
_
¯
ψ
e
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
) ψ
ν
¸
. (I.5)
1958 Leite Lopes [56]: hypothesis of neutral vector mesons exchanged
in weak interaction. Prediction of its mass of ∼ 60 m
proton
.
1958 Goldhaber, Grodzins and Sunyar [57]: ﬁrst evidence for the neg
ative ν
e
helicity. As mentioned before, this result requires that the
structure of the weak interaction is V −A.
1959
Reines and Cowan: conﬁrmation of the detection of the ¯ ν
e
in
¯ ν
e
+ p →e
+
+ n.
1961 Goldstone [58]: prediction of unavoidable massless bosons if
global symmetry of the Lagrangian is spontaneously broken.
1961 Salam and Ward [59]: invention of the gauge principle as basis
to construct quantum ﬁeld theories of interacting fundamental ﬁelds.
1961
Glashow [60]: ﬁrst introduction of the neutral intermediate
weak boson (Z
0
).
1962
Danby et al.: ﬁrst evidence of ν
µ
from π
±
→µ
±
+ (ν/¯ ν).
1963 Cabibbo [61]: introduction of the Cabibbo angle and hadronic
weak currents.
It was observed experimentally that weak decays with change of
strangeness (∆s = 1) are strongly suppressed in nature. For instance,
the width of the neutron is much larger than the Λ’s,
Γ
∆s=0
(n
udd
→p
uud
e¯ ν) ¸Γ
∆s=1
(Λ
uds
→p
uud
e¯ ν) ,
which yield a branching ratio of 100% in the case of neutron and just
∼ 8 10
−4
for the Λ.
The hadronic current, in analogy with leptonic current (I.5), can be
written in terms of the u, d, and s quarks,
J
H
µ
=
¯
dγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u + ¯ sγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u , (I.6)
where the ﬁrst term is responsible for the ∆s = 0 transitions while
the latter one gives rise to the ∆s = 1 processes. In order to make
14
the hadronic current also universal, with a common coupling constant
G
F
, Cabibbo introduced a mixing angle to give the right weight to the
∆s = 0 and ∆s = 1 parts of the hadronic current,
_
d
s
_
=
_
cos θ
C
sin θ
C
−sin θ
C
cos θ
C
__
d
s
_
, (I.7)
where d
, s
(d, s) are interaction (mass) eigenstates. Now the transition
¯
d ↔ u is proportional to G
F
cos θ
C
· 0.97 G
F
and the ¯ s ↔ u goes like
G
F
sin θ
C
· 0.24 G
F
.
The hadronic current should now be given in terms of the new in
teraction eigenstates,
J
H
µ
=
¯
d
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u
= cos θ
C
¯
dγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u + sin θ
C
¯ sγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u . (I.8)
1964 Bjorken and Glashow[62]: proposal for the existence of a charm
ed fundamental fermion (c).
1964 Higgs [63]; Englert and Brout [64]; Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble
[65]: example of a ﬁeld theory with spontaneous symmetry breakdown,
no massless Goldstone boson, and massive vector boson.
1964
Christenson, Cronin, Fitch and Turlay [66]: ﬁrst evidence of
CP violation in the decay of K
0
mesons.
1964
Salam and Ward [67]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthe
sis, estimation of the W mass.
1964
Gell–Mann; Zweig: introduction of quarks as fundamental
building blocks for hadrons.
1964 Greenberg; Han and Nambu: introduction of color quantum
number and colored quarks and gluons.
1967 Kibble [68]: extension of the Higgs mechanism of mass genera
tion for non–abelian gauge ﬁeld theories.
1967
Weinberg [69]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthesis and
estimation of W and Z masses.
1967 Faddeev and Popov [70]: method for construction of Feynman
rules for Yang–Mills gauge theories.
15
1968
Salam [71]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthesis.
1969 Bjorken: invention of the Bjorken scaling behavior.
1969 Feynman: birth of the partonic picture of hadron collisions.
1970 Glashow, Iliopoulos and Maiani [72]: introduction of lepton–
quark symmetry and the proposal of charmed quark (GIMmechanism).
1971
’t Hooft [73]: rigorous proof of renormalizability of the mass
less and massive Yang– Mills quantum ﬁeld theory with spontaneously
broken gauge invariance.
1973 Kobayashi and Maskawa [74]: CP violation is accommodated in
the Standard Model with six favours.
1973 Hasert et al. (CERN) [75]: ﬁrst experimental indication of the
existence of weak neutral currents.
¯ ν
µ
+e
−
→ ¯ ν
µ
+ e
−
, ν
µ
+N →ν
µ
+X .
This was a dramatic prediction of the Standard Model and its discovery
was a major success for the model. They also measured the ratio of
neutral–current to charged–current events giving a estimate for the
Weinberg angle sin
2
θ
W
in the range 0.3 to 0.4.
1973 Gross and Wilczek; Politzer: discovery of asymptotic freedom
property of interacting Yang–Mills ﬁeld theories.
1973 Fritzsch, Gell–Mann and Leutwyler: invention of the QCD La
grangian.
1974 Benvenuti et al. (Fermilab) [76]: conﬁrmation of the existence
of weak neutral currents in the reaction
ν
µ
+N →ν
µ
+ X .
1974
Aubert et al. (Brookhaven); Augustin et al. (SLAC): evidence
for the J/ψ (c¯ c).
1975
Perl et al. (SLAC) [77]: ﬁrst indication of the τ lepton.
1977 Herb et al. (Fermilab) [78]: ﬁrst evidence of Υ (b
¯
b).
16
1979 Barber et al. (MARK J Collab.); Brandelik et al. (TASSO Col
lab.); Berger et al. (PLUTOCollab.); W. Bartel (JADE Collab.): evidence
for the gluon jet in e
+
e
−
→3 jet.
1983
Arnison et al. (UA1 Collab.) [79]; Banner et al. (UA2 Collab.)
[80]: evidence for the charged intermediate bosons W
±
in the reactions
p + ¯ p →W(→ + ν) + X .
They were able to estimate the W boson mass (M
W
= 81 ± 5 GeV) in
good agreement with the predictions of the Standard Model.
1983
Arnison et al. (UA1 Collab.) [81]; Bagnaia et al. (UA2 Collab.)
[82]: evidence for the neutral intermediate boson Z
0
in the reaction
p + ¯ p →Z(→
+
+
−
) + X .
This was another important conﬁrmation of the electroweak theory.
1986
Van Dyck, Schwinberg and Dehmelt [83]: high precision mea
surement of the electron g
e
−2 factor.
1987 Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collab.) [84]: ﬁrst evidence of B
0
−
¯
B
0
mixing.
1989 Abrams et al. (MARKII Collab.) [85]: ﬁrst evidence that the
number of light neutrinos is 3.
1992 LEP Collaborations (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL) [86]: pre
cise determination of the Z
0
parameters.
1995 Abe et al. (CDF Collab.) [87]; Abachi et al. (DØ Collab.) [88]:
observation of the top quark production.
17
I.2. The Gauge Principle
As it is well known, symmetry has always played a very important
rˆ ole in the development of physics. From the spacetime symmetry of
special relativity, up to the internal and gauge invariances, the sym
metries have mapped out the route to most of the physical theories in
this last century.
An important result for ﬁeld theory and particle physics is provided
by the Noether’s theorem. If an action is invariant under some group
of transformations (symmetry), then there exist one or more conserved
quantities (constants of motion) which are associated to these transfor
mations. In this sense, Noether’s theorem establishes that symmetries
imply conservation laws.
A natural question to ask would be: upon imposing to a given La
grangian the invariance under a certain symmetry, would it be possible
to determine the form of the interaction among the particles? In other
words, could symmetry also imply dynamics?
In fact, this happens in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the best
theory ever built to describe Nature, which had become a prototype of a
successful quantum ﬁeld theory. In QED the existence and some of the
properties of the gauge ﬁeld — the photon — follow from a principle of
invariance under local gauge transformations of the U(1) group.
Could this principle be generalized to other interactions? For Salam
and Ward [59], who invented the gauge principle as the basis to con
struct the quantum ﬁeld theory of interacting ﬁelds, this was a possible
dream:
“Our basic postulate is that it should be possible to generate
strong, weak and electromagnetic interaction terms (with all
their correct symmetry properties and also with clues regard
ing their relative strengths) by making local gauge transforma
tions on the kinetic–energy terms in the free Lagrangian for all
particles.”
In fact, those ideas could be accomplished just after some new and
important ingredients were introduced to describe short distance (weak)
18
and strong interactions. In the case of weak interactions the presence
of very heavy weak gauge bosons require the new concept of sponta
neous breakdown of the gauge symmetry and the Higgs mechanism
[63, 64, 65]. On the other hand, the concept of asymptotic freedom
[89, 90] played a crucial rˆ ole to describe perturbatively the strong in
teraction at short distances, making the strong gauge bosons trapped.
The Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the gauge theory for strong in
teractions, is the subject of Mangano’s lecture at this school.
I.2.1. Gauge Invariance in Quantum Mechanics
The gauge principle and the concept of gauge invariance are already
present in Quantum Mechanics of a particle in the presence of an elec
tromagnetic ﬁeld [4]. Let us start from the classical Hamiltonian that
gives rise to the Lorentz force (
F = q
E + qv
B),
H =
1
2m
_
p −q
A
_
2
+ qφ , (I.9)
where the electric and magnetic ﬁelds can be described in terms of the
potentials A
µ
= (φ,
A),
E = −
∇φ −
∂
A
∂t
; ,
B =
∇
A .
These ﬁelds remain exactly the same when we make the gauge trans
formation (G) in the potentials:
φ →φ
= φ −
∂χ
∂t
,
A →
A
=
A +
∇χ . (I.10)
When we quantize the Hamiltonian (I.9) by applying the usual pre
scription p →−i
∇, we get the Schr¨ odinger equation for a particle in an
electromagnetic ﬁeld,
_
1
2m
_
−i
∇−q
A
_
2
+ qφ
_
ψ(x, t) = i
∂ψ(x, t)
∂t
,
which can be written in a compact form as
1
2m
(−i
D)
2
ψ = iD
0
ψ , (I.11)
19
The equation (I.11) is equivalent to make the substitution
∇ →
D =
∇−iq
A ,
∂
∂t
→D
0
=
∂
∂t
+iqφ .
in the free Schr¨ odinger equation.
If we make the gauge transformation, (φ,
A)
G
−→ (φ
,
A
), given by
(I.10), does the new ﬁeld ψ
which is solution of
1
2m
(−i
D
)
2
ψ
= iD
0
ψ
,
describe the same physics?
The answer to this question is no. However, we can recover the
invariance of our theory by making, at the same time, the phase trans
formation in the matter ﬁeld
ψ
= exp (iqχ) ψ (I.12)
with the same function χ = χ(x, t) used in the transformation of elec
tromagnetic ﬁelds (I.10). The derivative of ψ
transforms as,
D
ψ
=
_
∇−iq(
A +
∇χ)
_
exp (iqχ) ψ
= exp (iqχ) (
∇ψ)+iq(
∇χ) exp (iqχ) ψ
−iq
Aexp (iqχ) ψ−iq(
∇χ) exp (iqχ) ψ
= exp (iqχ)
Dψ , (I.13)
and in the same way, we have for D
0
,
D
0
ψ
= exp (iqχ) D
0
ψ . (I.14)
We should mention that now the ﬁeld ψ (I.12) and its derivatives
Dψ (I.13), and D
0
ψ (I.14), all transform exactly in the same way: they
are all multiplied by the same phase factor.
Therefore, the Schr¨ odinger equation (I.11) for ψ
becomes
1
2m
(−i
D
)
2
ψ
=
1
2m
(−i
D
)(−i
D
ψ
)
=
1
2m
(−i
D
)
_
−i exp (iqχ)
Dψ
_
= exp (iqχ)
1
2m
(−i
D)
2
ψ
= exp (iqχ) (iD
0
)ψ = iD
0
ψ
.
20
and now both ψ and ψ
describe the same physics, since [ψ[
2
= [ψ
[
2
. In
order to get the invariance for all observables, we should assure that
the following substitution is made:
∇ →
D ,
∂
∂t
→D
0
,
For instance, the current
J ∝ ψ
∗
(
∇ψ) −(
∇ψ)
∗
ψ ,
becomes also gauge invariant with this substitution since
ψ
∗
(
D
ψ
) = ψ
∗
exp (−iqχ) exp (iqχ) (
Dψ) = ψ
∗
(
Dψ) .
After we have shown how to obtain a gauge invariant quantum de
scription of a particle in an electromagnetic ﬁeld, could we reverse the
argument? That is: when we demand that a theory is invariant under
a spacetime dependent phase transformation, can this procedure im
pose the speciﬁc form of the interaction with the gauge ﬁeld? In other
words, can the symmetry imply dynamics?
Let us examine what happens when we start from the Dirac free
Lagrangian
L
ψ
=
¯
ψ(i ,∂ −m)ψ ,
that is not invariant under the local gauge transformation,
ψ →ψ
= exp [−iα(x)] ψ ,
since
L
ψ
→L
ψ
= L
ψ
+
¯
ψγ
µ
ψ(∂
µ
α) ,
However, if we introduce the gauge ﬁeld A
µ
through the minimal
coupling
D
µ
≡ ∂
µ
+ ieA
µ
,
and, at the same time, require that A
µ
transforms like
A
µ
→A
µ
= A
µ
+
1
e
∂
µ
α . (I.15)
21
we have
L
ψ
→L
ψ
=
¯
ψ
[(i ,∂ −e , A
) −m] ψ
=
¯
ψ exp(+iα)
_
i ,∂ −e
_
, A +
1
e
,∂α
_
−m
_
exp(−iα)ψ
= L
ψ
− e
¯
ψγ
µ
ψA
µ
. (I.16)
The coupling between ψ (e.g. electrons) and the gauge ﬁeld A
µ
(pho
ton) arises naturally when we require the invariance under local gauge
transformations of the kinetic–energy terms in the free fermion La
grangian.
Since, the electromagnetic strength tensor
F
µν
≡ ∂
µ
A
ν
−∂
ν
A
µ
, (I.17)
is invariant under the gauge transformation (I.15), so is the Lagrangian
for free gauge ﬁeld,
L
A
= −
1
4
F
µν
F
µν
, (I.18)
This Lagrangian together with (I.16) describes the Quantum Electro
dynamics.
We should point out that a hypothetical mass term for the gauge
ﬁeld,
L
m
A
= −
1
2
A
µ
A
µ
,
is not invariant under the transformation (I.15). Therefore, something
else should be necessary to describe massive vector bosons in a gauge
invariant way, preserving the renormalizability of the theory.
I.2.2. Gauge Invariance for Non–Abelian Groups
As suggested by Heisenberg [91] in 1932, under nuclear interac
tions, protons and neutron can be regarded as degenerated since their
mass are quite similar and electromagnetic interaction is negligible.
Therefore any arbitrary combination of their wave function would
be equivalent,
ψ ≡
_
ψ
p
ψ
n
_
→ψ
= Uψ ,
22
where U is unitary transformation (U
†
U = UU
†
= 1) to preserve nor
malization (probability). Moreover, if det[U[ = 1, U represents the Lie
group SU(2):
U = exp
_
−i
τ
a
2
α
a
_
· 1 −i
τ
a
2
α
a
,
where τ
a
, a = 1, 2, 3 are the Pauli matrices.
In 1954, Yang and Mills [40] introduced the idea of local gauge iso
topic invariance in quantum ﬁeld theory.
“The differentiation between a neutron and a proton is then a
purely arbitrary process. As usually conceived, however, this
arbitrariness is subject to the following limitation: once one
chooses what to call a proton, what a neutron, at one space
time point, one is then not free to make any choices at other
spacetime points. It seems that this is not consistent with the
localized ﬁeld concept that underlies the usual physical theo
ries.”
Following their argument, we should preserve our freedomto choose
what to call a proton or a neutron no matter when or where we are. This
can be implemented by requiring that the gauge parameters depend on
the spacetime points, i.e. α
a
→α
a
(x).
This idea was generalized by Utiyama [92] in 1956 for any non–
Abelian group G with generators t
a
satisfying the Lie algebra [8],
[t
a
, t
b
] = i C
abc
t
c
,
with C
abc
being the structure constant of the group.
The Lagrangian L
ψ
should be invariant under the matter ﬁeld trans
formation
ψ →ψ
= Ω ψ ,
with
Ω ≡ exp [−i T
a
α
a
(x)] ,
where T
a
is a convenient representation (i.e. according to the ﬁelds ψ)
of the generators t
a
.
23
Introducing one gauge ﬁeld for each generator, and deﬁning the co
variant derivative by
D
µ
≡ ∂
µ
−igT
a
A
a
µ
,
Since the covariant derivative transforms just like the matter ﬁeld,
i.e. D
µ
ψ → Ω (D
µ
ψ), this will ensure the invariance under the local
non–Abelian gauge transformation for the terms containing the ﬁelds
and its gradients as long as the gauge ﬁeld transformation is
T
a
A
a
µ
→Ω
_
T
a
A
a
µ
+
i
g
∂
µ
_
Ω
−1
,
or, in inﬁnitesimal form, i.e. for Ω · 1 −i T
a
α
a
(x),
A
a
µ
= A
a
µ
−
1
g
∂
µ
α
a
+C
abc
α
b
A
c
µ
.
Finally, we should generalize the strength tensor (I.17) for a non–
abelian Lie group,
F
a
µν
≡ ∂
µ
A
a
ν
−∂
ν
A
a
µ
+ g C
abc
A
b
µ
A
c
ν
, (I.19)
which transforms like F
a
µν
→ F
a
µν
+ C
abc
α
b
F
c
µν
. Therefore, the invariant
kinetic term for the gauge bosons, can be written as
L
A
= −
1
4
F
a
µν
F
a µν
, (I.20)
and is invariant under the local gauge transformation. However, a
mass term for the gauge bosons like
A
a
µ
A
a µ
→
_
A
a
µ
−
1
g
∂
µ
α
a
+ C
abc
α
b
A
c
µ
__
A
a µ
−
1
g
∂
µ
α
a
+ C
ade
α
d
A
e µ
_
,
is still not gauge invariant.
Note that since
F ∝ (∂A −∂A) + gAA ,
unlike the Abelian case, there is a new feature: the gauge ﬁelds have
triple and quartic self–couplings,
L
A
∝ (∂A −∂A)
2
+ g(∂A −∂A)AA + g
2
AAAA
propagator triple quartic
.
24
I.3. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
Exact symmetries give rise, in general, to exact conservation laws.
In this case both the Lagrangian and the vacuum (the ground state of
the theory) are invariant. However, there are some conservation laws
which are not exact, e.g. isospin, strangeness, etc. These situations can
be described by adding to the invariant Lagrangian (L
sym
) a small term
that breaks this symmetry (L
sb
),
L = L
sym
+ ε L
sb
.
Another situation occurs when the system has a Lagrangian that is
invariant and a non–invariant vacuum. A classic example of the sit
uation is provided by a ferromagnet where the Lagrangian describing
the spin–spin interaction is invariant under tridimensional rotations.
For temperatures above the ferromagnetic transition temperature (T
C
)
the spin system is completely disordered (paramagnetic phase), and
therefore the vacuum is also SO(3) invariant [see Fig. 2(a)].
However, for temperatures below T
C
(ferromagnetic phase) a spon
taneous magnetisation of the system occurs, aligning the spins in some
speciﬁc direction [see Fig. 2(b)]. In this case, the vacuum is not invari
ant under the SO(3) group. This symmetry is broken to SO(2), repre
senting the rotation of the whole system around the spin directions.
−→ ¸ ¸ ↑ −→ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
¸ ↓ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
↑ −→ ¸ −→ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
←− ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
−→ −→ ¸ ¸ −→ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
(a) (b)
Fig. 2: Representation of the spin orientation in the
paramagnetic (a) and ferromagnetic (b) phases.
25
Let us analyze the simple example of a scalar self–interacting real
ﬁeld with Lagrangian,
L =
1
2
∂
µ
φ ∂
µ
φ −V (φ) , (I.21)
with
V (φ) =
1
2
µ
2
φ
2
+
1
4
λφ
4
. (I.22)
In the theory of the phase transition of a ferromagnet, the Gibbs free
energy density is analogous to V (φ) with φ playing the rˆ ole of the aver
age spontaneous magnetisation M.
The whole Lagrangian (I.21) is invariant under the discrete trans
formation
φ →−φ . (I.23)
Is the vacuum also invariant under this transformation? The vacuum
(φ
0
) can be obtained from the Hamiltonian
H =
1
2
_
(∂
0
φ)
2
+ (∇φ)
2
¸
+ V (φ) .
We notice that φ
0
= constant corresponds to the minimum of V (φ)
and consequently of the energy:
φ
0
(µ
2
+ λφ
2
0
) = 0 .
Since λ should be positive to guarantee that H is bounded, the min
imum depends on the sign of µ. For µ
2
> 0, we have just one vacuum at
φ
0
= 0 and it is also invariant under (I.23) [see Fig. 3 (a)]. However, for
µ
2
< 0, we have two vacua states corresponding to φ
±
0
= ±
_
−µ
2
/λ [see
Fig. 3 (b)]. This case corresponds to a wrong sign for the φ mass term.
(a) (b)
Fig. 3: Scalar potential (I.22) for µ
2
> 0 (a) and for µ
2
< 0 (b).
Since the Lagrangian is invariant under (I.23) the choice between
φ
+
0
or φ
−
0
is irrelevant
∗
. Nevertheless, once one choice is made (e.g.
∗
For an interesting discussion discarding the invariant state (φ
+
0
±φ
−
0
) as the true
vacuum see Ref. [93]
26
2 1 1 2
2
4
6
8
V
2 1 1 2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
V
v = φ
+
0
) the symmetry is spontaneously broken since L is invariant but
the vacuum is not.
Deﬁning a new ﬁeld φ
by shifting the old ﬁeld by v =
_
−µ
2
/λ,
φ
≡ φ −v ,
we verify that the vacuum of the new ﬁeld is φ
0
= 0, making the the
ory suitable for small oscillations around the vacuum state. The La
grangian becomes:
L =
1
2
∂
µ
φ
∂
µ
φ
−
1
2
_
_
−2µ
2
_
2
φ
2
−λv φ
3
−
1
4
λφ
4
.
This Lagrangian describes a scalar ﬁeld φ
with real and positive mass,
M
φ
=
_
−2µ
2
, but it lost the original symmetry due to the φ
3
term.
A new interesting phenomenon happens when a continuous sym
metry is spontaneously broken. Let us analyze the case of a charged
self–interacting scalar ﬁeld,
L = ∂
µ
φ
∗
∂
µ
φ −V (φ
∗
φ) , (I.24)
with a similar potential,
V (φ
∗
φ) = µ
2
(φ
∗
φ) + λ(φ
∗
φ)
2
. (I.25)
Notice that the Lagrangian (I.24) is invariant under the global phase
transformation
φ →exp(−iθ)φ .
27
When we redeﬁne the complex ﬁeld in terms of two real ﬁelds by
φ =
(φ
1
+ iφ
2
)
√
2
,
the Lagrangian (I.24) becomes
L =
1
2
(∂
µ
φ
1
∂
µ
φ
1
+ ∂
µ
φ
2
∂
µ
φ
2
) −V (φ
1
, φ
2
) , (I.26)
which is invariant under SO(2) rotations,
_
φ
1
φ
2
_
−→
_
cos θ −sin θ
sin θ cos θ
_ _
φ
1
φ
2
_
.
For µ
2
> 0 the vacuum is at φ
1
= φ
2
= 0, and for small oscillations,
L =
2
i=1
1
2
_
∂
µ
φ
i
∂
µ
φ
i
−µ
2
φ
2
i
_
,
which means that we have two scalar ﬁelds φ
1
and φ
2
with mass m
2
=
µ
2
> 0.
In the case of µ
2
< 0 we have a continuum of distinct vacua [see Fig.
4 (a)] located at
< [φ[
2
>=
(< φ
1
>
2
+ < φ
2
>
2
)
2
=
−µ
2
2λ
≡
v
2
2
. (I.27)
We can see from the contour plot [Fig. 4 (b)] that the vacua are also
invariant under SO(2). However, this symmetry is spontaneously bro
ken when we choose a particular vacuum. Let us choose, for instance,
the conﬁguration,
φ
1
= v ,
φ
2
= 0 .
The new ﬁelds, suitable for small perturbations, can be deﬁned as,
φ
1
= φ
1
−v ,
φ
2
= φ
2
.
28
0
0
0
0
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
(a) (b)
Fig. 4: The potential V (φ
1
, φ
2
) (a) and its contour plot (b)
In terms of these new ﬁelds the Lagrangian (I.26) becomes,
L =
1
2
∂
µ
φ
1
∂
µ
φ
1
−
1
2
(−2µ
2
)φ
2
1
+
1
2
∂
µ
φ
2
∂
µ
φ
2
+ interaction terms .
Now we identify in the particle spectrum a scalar ﬁeld φ
1
with real
and positive mass and a massless scalar boson (φ
2
). This could be seen
from Fig. 4 (b), when we consider the mass matrix in tree approxima
tion,
M
2
ij
=
∂
2
V (φ
1
, φ
2
)
∂φ
i
∂φ
j
¸
¸
¸
¸
φ
=φ
0
.
The second derivative of V (φ
1
, φ
2
) in the φ
2
direction corresponds to the
zero eigenvalue of the mass matrix, while for φ
1
it is positive.
This is an example of the prediction of the so called Goldstone theo
rem [58] which states that when an exact continuous global symmetry
29
is spontaneously broken, i.e. it is not a symmetry of the physical vac
uum, the theory contains one massless scalar particle for each broken
generator of the original symmetry group.
The Goldstone theorem can be proven as follows. Let us consider a
Lagrangian of N
G
real scalar ﬁelds φ
i
, belonging to a N
G
–dimensional
vector Φ,
L =
1
2
(∂
µ
Φ)(∂
µ
Φ) −V (Φ) .
Suppose that G is a continuous group that let the Lagrangian invariant
and that Φ transforms like
δΦ = −i α
a
T
a
Φ .
Since the potential is invariant under G, we have
δV (Φ) =
∂V (Φ)
∂φ
i
δφ
i
= −i
∂V (Φ)
∂φ
i
α
a
(T
a
)
ij
φ
j
= 0 .
The gauge parameters α
a
are arbitrary, and we have N
G
equations
∂V (Φ)
∂φ
i
(T
a
)
ij
φ
j
= 0 ,
for a = 1, , N
G
. Taking another derivative of this equation, we obtain
∂
2
V (Φ)
∂φ
k
∂φ
i
(T
a
)
ij
φ
j
+
∂V (Φ)
∂φ
i
(T
a
)
ik
= 0 .
If we evaluate this result at the vacuum state, Φ = Φ
0
, which mini
mizes the potential, we get
∂
2
V (Φ)
∂φ
k
∂φ
i
¸
¸
¸
¸
Φ=Φ
0
(T
a
)
ij
φ
0
j
= 0 ,
or, in terms of the mass matrix,
M
2
ki
(T
a
)
ij
φ
0
j
= 0 . (I.28)
If, after we choose a ground state, a subgroup g of G, with dimen
sion n
g
, remains a symmetry of the vacuum, then for each generator of
g,
(T
a
)
ij
φ
0
j
= 0 for a = 1, , n
g
≤ N
G
,
30
while for the (N
G
−n
g
) generators that break the symmetry,
(T
a
)
ij
φ
0
j
,= 0 for a = n
g
+ 1, , N
G
.
Therefore, the relation (I.28) shows that there are (N
G
− n
g
) zero
eigenvalues of the mass matrix: the massless Goldstone bosons.
I.4. The Higgs Mechanism
I.4.1. The Abelian Higgs Mechanism
The Goldstone theorem implies the existence of massless scalar parti
cle(s). However, we do not have any experimental evidence in nature
of these particles. In 1964 several authors independently [63, 64, 65]
were able to provide a way out to the Goldstone theorem, that is, a
ﬁeld theory with spontaneous symmetry breakdown, but with no mass
less Goldstone boson(s). The so called Higgs mechanism has an extra
bonus: the gauge boson(s) becomes massive. This is accomplished by
requiring that the Lagrangian that exhibits the spontaneous symme
try breakdown is also invariant under local, rather than global, gauge
transformations. This feature ﬁts very well in the requirements for a
gauge theory of electroweak interactions where the short range char
acter of this interaction requires a very massive intermediate particle.
In order to see how this works let us consider again the charged
self–interacting scalar Lagrangian (I.24) with the potential (I.25), and
let us require a invariance under the local phase transformation,
φ →exp [i q α(x)] φ . (I.29)
In order to make the Lagrangian invariant, we introduce a gauge
boson (A
µ
) and the covariant derivative (D
µ
), following the same prin
ciples of Section I.2.
We introduce a gauge boson (A
µ
) and the covariant derivative (D
µ
),
so that the Lagrangian becomes invariant, following the same princi
31
ples of Section I.2.
∂
µ
−→D
µ
= ∂
µ
+ iqA
µ
, with A
µ
−→A
µ
= A
µ
−∂
µ
α(x) .
The spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs for µ
2
< 0, with the
vacuum < [φ[
2
> given by (I.27). There is a very convenient way of
parametrizing the new ﬁelds, φ
, that are suitable for small perturba
tions, i.e.,
φ = exp
_
i
φ
2
v
_
(φ
1
+ v)
√
2
·
1
√
2
(φ
1
+ v + iφ
2
) = φ
+
v
√
2
. (I.30)
Therefore the Lagrangian (I.24) becomes,
L =
1
2
∂
µ
φ
1
∂
µ
φ
1
−
1
2
(−2µ
2
)φ
2
1
+
1
2
∂
µ
φ
2
∂
µ
φ
2
+ interact.
−
1
4
F
µν
F
µν
+
q
2
v
2
2
A
µ
A
µ
+ qvA
µ
∂
µ
φ
2
. (I.31)
This Lagrangian presents a scalar ﬁeld φ
1
with mass M
φ
1
=
_
−2µ
2
,
a massless scalar boson φ
2
(the Goldstone boson) and a massive vector
boson A
µ
, with mass M
A
= qv.
However the presence of the last term in (I.31), which is propor
tional to A
µ
∂
µ
φ
2
is quite inconvenient since it mixes the propagators of
A
µ
and φ
2
particles. In order to eliminate this term, we can choose the
gauge parameter in (I.29) to be proportional to φ
2
as
α(x) = −
1
qv
φ
2
(x) .
In this way, the ﬁeld φ (I.30) becomes,
φ = exp
_
iq
_
−
φ
2
qv
__
exp
_
i
φ
2
v
_
(φ
1
+ v)
√
2
=
1
√
2
(φ
1
+ v) .
With this choice of gauge (called unitary gauge) the Goldstone boson
disappears, and we get the Lagrangian
L =
1
2
∂
µ
φ
1
∂
µ
φ
1
−
1
2
(−2µ
2
)φ
2
1
−
1
4
F
µν
F
µν
+
q
2
v
2
2
A
µ
A
µ
+
1
2
q
2
(φ
1
+ 2v) φ
1
A
µ
A
µ
−
λ
4
φ
3
1
(φ
1
+ 4v) . (I.32)
32
Where is φ
2
, the Goldstone boson? To answer this question, it is
convenient to count the total number of degrees of freedom from the
initial (I.24) and ﬁnal (I.32) Lagrangians:
Initial L (I.24) Final L (I.32)
φ
(∗)
charged scalar : 2 φ
1
neutral scalar : 1
A
µ
massless vector : 2 A
µ
massive vector : 3
4 4
As we can see, the corresponding degree of freedom of the Gold
stone boson was absorbed by the vector boson that acquires mass. The
Goldstone turned into the longitudinal degree of freedom of the vector
boson.
33
I.4.2. The Non–Abelian Case
It is straightforward to generalize the last section’s results for a
non–Abelian group G of dimension N
G
, and generators T
a
. In this case,
we introduce N
G
gauge bosons, such that the covariant derivative is
written as
∂
µ
−→D
µ
= ∂
µ
−igT
a
B
a
µ
.
After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, a sub–group g of dimension
n
g
remains as a symmetry of the vacuum, that is,
T
a
ij
φ
0
j
= 0 , for a = 1, , n
g
.
We would expect the appearance of (N
G
− n
g
) massless Goldstone
bosons. Like in (I.30), we parametrize the original scalar ﬁeld as
φ = (
˜
φ + v) exp
_
i
φ
a
GB
T
a
v
_
,
where T
a
are the (N
G
− n
g
) broken generators that do not annihilate
the vacuum.
Choose the gauge parameter α
a
(x) in order to to eliminate φ
a
GB
. This
will give rise to (N
G
− n
g
) massive gauge bosons. Counting the total
number of degrees of freedom we obtain N
φ
+ 2N
G
, both before and
after the spontaneous symmetry breaking:
Before SSB After SSB
φ massless scalar : N
φ
˜
φ massive scalar : N
φ
−(N
G
−n
g
)
B
a
µ
massless vector : 2 N
G
˜
B
a
µ
massive vector : 3 (N
G
−n
g
)
B
a
µ
massless vector : 2 n
g
34
II. The Standard Model
II.1. Constructing the Model
II.1.1. General Principles to Construct Gauge The
ories
Based on what we have learned from the previous sections, we can
establish some quite general principles to construct a gauge theory.
The recipe is as follows,
• Choose the gauge group G with N
G
generators;
• Add N
G
vector ﬁelds (gauge bosons) in a speciﬁc representation of
the gauge group;
• Choose the representation, in general the fundamental represen
tation, for the matter ﬁelds (elementary particles);
• Add scalar ﬁelds to give mass to (some) vector bosons;
• Deﬁne the covariant derivative and write the most general renor
malizable Lagrangian, invariant under G, which couples all these
ﬁelds;
• Shift the scalar ﬁelds in such a way that the minimum of the
potential is at zero;
• Apply the usual techniques of quantum ﬁeld theory to verify the
renormalizability and to make predictions;
• Check with Nature if the model has anything to do with reality;
• If not, restart from the very beginning!
In fact, there were several attempts to construct a gauge theory
for the (electro)weak interaction. In 1957, Schwinger [51] suggested a
35
model based on the group O(3) with a triplet gauge ﬁelds (V
+
, V
−
, V
0
).
The charged gauge bosons were associated to weak bosons and the neu
tral V
0
was identiﬁed with the photon. This model was proposed be
fore the structure V − A of the weak currents have been established
[53, 54, 55].
The ﬁrst attempt to incorporate the V −A structure in a gauge the
ory for the weak interactions was made by Bludman [94] in 1958. His
model, based on the SU(2) weak isospin group, also required three vec
tor bosons. However in this case the neutral gauge boson was associ
ated to a new massive vector boson that was responsible for weak inter
actions without exchange of charge (neutral currents). The hypothesis
of a neutral vector boson exchanged in weak interaction was also sug
gested independently by Leite Lopes [56] in the same year. This kind
of process was observed experimentally for the ﬁrst time in 1973 at the
CERN neutrino experiment [75].
Glashow [60] in 1961 noticed that in order to accommodate both
weak and electromagnetic interactions we should go beyond the SU(2)
isospin structure. He suggested the gauge group SU(2) ⊗ U(1), where
the U(1) was associated to the leptonic hypercharge (Y ) that is related
to the weak isospin (T) and the electric charge through the analogous
of the GellMann–Nishijima formula (Q = T
3
+ Y/2). The theory now
requires four gauge bosons: a triplet (W
1
, W
2
, W
3
) associated to the
generators of SU(2) and a neutral ﬁeld (B) related to U(1). The charged
weak bosons appear as a linear combination of W
1
and W
2
, while the
photon and a neutral weak boson Z
0
are both given by a mixture of W
3
and B. A similar model was proposed by Salam and Ward [67] in 1964.
The mass terms for W
±
and Z
0
were put “by hand”. However, as we
have seen, this procedure breaks explicitly the gauge invariance of the
theory. In 1967, Weinberg [69] and independently Salam [71] in 1968,
employed the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs
mechanism to give mass to the weak bosons and, at the same time,
to preserve the gauge invariance, making the theory renormalizable
as shown later by ’t Hooft [73]. The Glashow–Weinberg–Salam model
is known, at the present time, as the Standard Model of Electroweak
Interactions, reﬂecting its impressive success.
36
II.1.2. Right– and Left– Handed Fermions
Before the introduction of the Standard Model, let us make an in
terlude and discuss some properties of the fermionic helicity states. At
high energies (i.e. for E ¸m), the Dirac spinors
u(p, s) , and v(p, s) ≡ C ¯ u
T
(p, s) = i γ
2
u
∗
(p, s) ,
are eigenstates of the γ
5
matrix.
The helicity +1/2 (right–handed, R) and helicity −1/2 (left–handed,
L) states satisfy
u
R
L
=
1
2
(1 ±γ
5
) u and v
R
L
=
1
2
(1 ∓γ
5
) v .
It is convenient to deﬁne the helicity projectors:
L ≡
1
2
(1 −γ
5
) , R ≡
1
2
(1 + γ
5
) , (II.1)
which satisfy the usual properties of projection operators,
L + R = 1 ,
RL = LR = 0 ,
L
2
= L ,
R
2
= R .
For the conjugate spinors we have,
¯
ψ
L
= (Lψ)
†
γ
0
= ψ
†
L
†
γ
0
= ψ
†
Lγ
0
= ψ
†
γ
0
R =
¯
ψR
¯
ψ
R
=
¯
ψL .
Let us make some general remarks. First of all, we should notice
that fermion mass term mixes right– and left–handed fermion compo
nents,
¯
ψψ =
¯
ψ
R
ψ
L
+
¯
ψ
L
ψ
R
. (II.2)
On the other hand, the electromagnetic (vector) current, does not mix
those components, i.e.
¯
ψγ
µ
ψ =
¯
ψ
R
γ
µ
ψ
R
+
¯
ψ
L
γ
µ
ψ
L
. (II.3)
37
Finally, the (V − A) fermionic weak current can be written in terms of
the helicity states as,
¯
ψ
L
γ
µ
ψ
L
=
¯
ψRγ
µ
Lψ =
¯
ψγ
µ
L
2
ψ =
¯
ψγ
µ
Lψ =
1
2
¯
ψγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)ψ , (II.4)
what shows that only left–handed fermions play a rˆ ole in weak inter
actions.
II.1.3. Choosing the gauge group
Let us investigate which gauge group would be able to unify the
electromagnetic and weak interactions. We start with the charged
weak current for leptons. Since electron–type and muon–type lepton
numbers are separately conserved, they must form separate represen
tations of the gauge group. Therefore, we refer as any lepton ﬂavor
( = e, µ, τ), and the ﬁnal Lagrangian will be given by a sum over all
these ﬂavors.
From Eq. (II.4), we see that the weak current (I.5), for a generic
lepton , is given by,
J
+
µ
=
¯
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)ν = 2
¯
L
γ
µ
ν
L
. (II.5)
If we introduce the left–handed isospin doublet (T = 1/2),
L ≡
_
ν
_
L
=
_
Lν
L
_
=
_
ν
L
L
_
, (II.6)
where the T
3
= +1/2 and T
3
= −1/2 components are the left–handed
parts of the neutrino and of the charged lepton respectively. Since,
there is no right–handed component for the neutrino
∗
, the right–handed
part of the charged lepton is accommodated in a weak isospin singlet
(T = 0)
R ≡ R =
R
. (II.7)
∗
At this moment, we consider that the neutrinos are massless. The possible mass
term for the neutrinos will be discussed later, Sec. II.4..
38
The charged weak current (II.5) can be written in terms of leptonic
isospin currents:
J
i
µ
=
¯
L γ
µ
τ
i
2
L ,
where τ
i
are the Pauli matrices. In a explicit form,
J
1
µ
=
1
2
(¯ ν
L
¯
L
) γ
µ
_
0 1
1 0
__
ν
L
L
_
=
1
2
_
¯
L
γ
µ
ν
L
+ ¯ ν
L
γ
µ
L
_
,
J
2
µ
=
1
2
(¯ ν
L
¯
L
) γ
µ
_
0 −i
i 0
__
ν
L
L
_
=
i
2
_
¯
L
γ
µ
ν
L
− ¯ ν
L
γ
µ
L
_
,
J
3
µ
=
1
2
(¯ ν
L
¯
L
) γ
µ
_
1 0
0 −1
__
ν
L
L
_
=
1
2
_
¯ ν
L
γ
µ
ν
L
−
¯
L
γ
µ
L
_
.
Therefore, the weak charged current (II.5), that couples with inter
mediate vector boson W
−
µ
, can be written in terms of J
1
and J
2
as,
J
+
µ
= 2
_
J
1
µ
−iJ
2
µ
_
.
In order to accommodate the third (neutral) current J
3
, we can de
ﬁne the hypercharge current by,
J
Y
µ
≡ −
_
¯
L γ
µ
L + 2
¯
R γ
µ
R
_
= −
_
¯ ν
L
γ
µ
ν
L
+
¯
L
γ
µ
L
+ 2
¯
R
γ
µ
R
_
.
The electromagnetic current can be written as
J
em
µ
= −
¯
γ
µ
= −
_
¯
L
γ
µ
L
+
¯
R
γ
µ
R
_
= J
3
µ
+
1
2
J
Y
µ
.
We should notice that neither T
3
nor Q commute with T
1,2
. However,
the ‘charges’ associated to the currents J
i
and J
Y
,
T
i
=
_
d
3
x J
i
0
and Y =
_
d
3
x J
Y
0
,
satisfy the algebra of the SU(2) ⊗U(1) group:
[T
i
, T
j
] = i
ijk
T
k
, and [T
i
, Y ] = 0 ,
39
and the GellMann–Nishijima relation between Q and T
3
emerges in a
natural way,
Q = T
3
+
1
2
Y . (II.8)
With the aid of (II.8) we can deﬁne the weak hypercharge of the doublet
(Y
L
= −1) and of the fermion singlet (Y
R
= −2).
Let us followour previous recipe for building a general gauge theory.
We have just chosen the candidate for the gauge group,
SU(2)
L
⊗U(1)
Y
.
The next step is to introduce gauge ﬁelds corresponding to each gener
ator, that is,
SU(2)
L
−→ W
1
µ
, W
2
µ
, W
3
µ
,
U(1)
Y
−→ B
µ
.
Deﬁning the strength tensors for the gauge ﬁelds according to (I.17)
and (I.19),
W
i
µν
≡ ∂
µ
W
i
ν
−∂
ν
W
i
µ
+ g
ijk
W
j
µ
W
k
ν
,
B
µν
≡ ∂
µ
B
ν
−∂
ν
B
µ
,
we can write the free Lagrangian for the gauge ﬁelds following the
results (I.18) and (I.20),
L
gauge
= −
1
4
W
i
µν
W
i µν
−
1
4
B
µν
B
µν
. (II.9)
For the leptons, we write the free Lagrangian,
L
leptons
=
¯
R i ,∂ R +
¯
L i ,∂ L
=
¯
R
i ,∂
R
+
¯
L
i ,∂
L
+ ¯ ν
L
i ,∂ ν
L
=
¯
i ,∂ + ¯ ν i ,∂ ν . (II.10)
Remember that a mass term for the fermions (II.2) mixes the right–
and left–components and would break the gauge invariance of the the
ory from the very beginning.
40
The next step is to introduce the fermion–gauge boson coupling via
the covariant derivative, i.e.
L : ∂
µ
+ i
g
2
τ
i
W
i
µ
+ i
g
2
Y B
µ
, (II.11)
R : ∂
µ
+ i
g
2
Y B
µ
, (II.12)
where g and g
are the coupling constant associated to the groups SU(2)
L
and U(1)
Y
respectively, and
Y
L
= −1 , Y
R
= −2 . (II.13)
Therefore, the fermion Lagrangian (II.10) becomes
L
leptons
−→ L
leptons
+
¯
L iγ
µ
_
i
g
2
τ
i
W
i
µ
+ i
g
2
Y B
µ
_
L
+
¯
R iγ
µ
_
i
g
2
Y B
µ
_
R . (II.14)
Let us ﬁrst pick up just the “left” piece of (II.14),
L
L
leptons
= −g
¯
L γ
µ
_
τ
1
2
W
1
µ
+
τ
2
2
W
2
µ
_
L −g
¯
L γ
µ
τ
3
2
L W
3
µ
−
g
2
Y
¯
L γ
µ
L B
µ
.
The ﬁrst term is charged and can be written as
L
L(±)
leptons
= −
g
2
¯
L γ
µ
_
0 W
1
µ
−iW
2
µ
W
1
µ
+ iW
2
µ
0
_
L .
This suggests the deﬁnition of the charged gauge bosons as
W
±
µ
=
1
√
2
(W
1
µ
∓W
2
µ
) , (II.15)
in such a way that
L
L(±)
leptons
= −
g
2
√
2
_
¯ νγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
) W
+
µ
+
¯
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)ν W
−
µ
¸
, (II.16)
41
reproduces exactly the (V −A) structure of the weak charged current .
When we compare the Lagrangian (II.16) with (I.1) and take into
account the result from low–energy phenomenology (I.4) we see that
G
W
= g/2
√
2 and we obtain the relation
g
2
√
2
=
_
M
2
W
G
F
√
2
_
1/2
. (II.17)
Now let us treat the neutral piece of L
leptons
(II.14) that contains
both left and right fermion components,
L
(L+R)(0)
leptons
= −g
¯
L
_
γ
µ
τ
3
2
_
L W
3
µ
−
g
2
_
¯
Lγ
µ
Y L +
¯
Rγ
µ
Y R
_
B
µ
= −g J
µ
3
W
3
µ
−
g
2
J
µ
Y
B
µ
, (II.18)
where the currents J
3
and J
Y
have been deﬁned before,
J
µ
3
=
1
2
(¯ ν
L
γ
µ
ν
L
−
¯
L
γ
µ
L
)
J
µ
Y
= −
_
¯ ν
L
γ
µ
ν
L
+
¯
L
γ
µ
L
+ 2
¯
R
γ
µ
R
_
.
Note that the ‘charges’ respect the GellMann–Nishijima relation
(II.8) and currents satisfy,
J
em
= J
3
+
1
2
J
Y
.
In order to obtain the right combination of ﬁelds that couples to the
electromagnetic current, let us make the rotation in the neutral ﬁelds,
deﬁning the new ﬁelds A and Z by,
_
A
µ
Z
µ
_
=
_
cos θ
W
sin θ
W
−sin θ
W
cos θ
W
__
B
µ
W
3
µ
_
, (II.19)
or,
W
3
µ
= sin θ
W
A
µ
+ cos θ
W
Z
µ
,
B
µ
= cos θ
W
A
µ
−sin θ
W
Z
µ
,
42
where θ
W
is called the Weinberg angle and the relation with the SU(2)
and U(1) coupling constants hold,
sin θ
W
=
g
_
g
2
+ g
2
cos θ
W
=
g
_
g
2
+g
2
. (II.20)
In terms of the newﬁelds, the neutral part of the fermion Lagrangian
(II.18) becomes
L
(L+R)(0)
leptons
= −(g sin θ
W
J
µ
3
+
1
2
g
cos θ
W
J
µ
Y
)A
µ
+(−g cos θ
W
J
µ
3
+
1
2
g
sin θ
W
J
µ
Y
)Z
µ
= −g sin θ
W
(
¯
γ
µ
) A
µ
−
g
2 cos θ
W
ψ
i
=ν,
¯
ψ
i
γ
µ
(g
i
V
−g
i
A
γ
5
)ψ
i
Z
µ
, (II.21)
and we easily identify the electromagnetic current coupled to the pho
ton ﬁeld A
µ
and the electromagnetic charge,
e = g sin θ
W
= g
cos θ
W
. (II.22)
The Standard Model introduces a newingredient, weak interactions
without change of charge, and make a speciﬁc prediction for the vector
(V ) and axial (A) couplings of the Z to the fermions,
g
i
V
≡ T
i
3
−2Q
i
sin
2
θ
W
, (II.23)
g
i
A
≡ T
i
3
. (II.24)
This was a very successful prediction of the Standard Model since at
that time we had no hint about this new kind of weak interaction. The
experimental conﬁrmation of the existence of weak neutral currents
occurred more than ﬁve years after the model was proposed [75].
43
Up to now we have in the theory:
• 4 massless gauge ﬁelds W
i
µ
, B
µ
or equivalently, W
±
µ
, Z
µ
, and A
µ
;
• 2 massless fermions: ν, .
The next step will be to add scalar ﬁelds in order to break sponta
neously the symmetry and use the Higgs mechanism to give mass to
the three weak intermediate vector bosons, making sure that the pho
ton remains massless.
II.1.4. The Higgs Mechanism and the W and Z mass
In order to apply the Higgs mechanism to give mass to W
±
and Z
0
,
let us introduce the scalar doublet
Φ ≡
_
φ
+
φ
0
_
. (II.25)
From the relation (II.8), we verify that the hypercharge of the Higgs
doublet is Y = 1. We introduce the Lagrangian
L
scalar
= ∂
µ
Φ
†
∂
µ
Φ −V (Φ
†
Φ) ,
where the potential is given by
V (Φ
†
Φ) = µ
2
Φ
†
Φ + λ (Φ
†
Φ)
2
. (II.26)
In order to maintain the gauge invariance under the SU(2)
L
⊗U(1)
Y
,
we should introduce the covariant derivative
∂
µ
→D
µ
= ∂
µ
+ i g
τ
i
2
W
i
µ
+i
g
2
Y B
µ
.
We can choose the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs ﬁeld as,
< Φ >
0
=
_
0
v/
√
2
_
,
44
where
v =
_
−
µ
2
λ
. (II.27)
Since we want to preserve the exact electromagnetic symmetry to
maintain the electric charged conserved, we must break the original
symmetry group as
SU(2)
L
⊗U(1)
Y
U(1)
em
,
i.e. after the spontaneous symmetry breaking, the sub–group U(1)
em
,
of dimension 1, should remain as a symmetry of the vacuum.
In this case the corresponding gauge boson, the photon, will remain
massless, according to results of section I.4.2.. We can verify that our
choice let indeed the vacuum invariant under U(1)
em
. This invariance
requires that
e
iαQ
< Φ >
0
· (1 + i α Q) < Φ >
0
= < Φ >
0
,
or, the operator Q annihilates the vacuum, Q < Φ >
0
= 0. This is
exactly what happens: the electric charge of the vacuum is zero,
Q < Φ >
0
=
_
T
3
+
1
2
Y
_
< Φ >
0
=
1
2
__
1 0
0 −1
_
+
_
1 0
0 1
__ _
0
v/
√
2
_
= 0 .
The other gauge bosons, corresponding to the broken generators T
1
,
T
2
, and (T
3
−Y/2) = 2T
3
−Q should acquire mass. In order to make this
explicit, let us parametrize the Higgs doublet c.f. (I.30),
Φ ≡ exp
_
i
τ
i
2
χ
i
v
__
0
(v + H)/
√
2
_
· < Φ >
0
+
1
2
√
2
_
χ
2
+ iχ
1
2H −iχ
3
_
=
1
√
2
_
i
√
2ω
+
v +H −iz
0
_
.
where ω
±
and z
0
are the Goldstone bosons.
45
Now, if we make a SU(2)
L
gauge transformation with α
i
= χ
i
/v (uni
tary gauge) the ﬁelds become
Φ →Φ
= exp
_
−i
τ
i
2
χ
i
v
_
Φ =
(v + H)
√
2
_
0
1
_
. (II.28)
and the scalar Lagrangian can be written in terms of these new ﬁeld
as
L
scalar
=
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
∂
µ
+ ig
τ
i
2
W
i
µ
+ i
g
2
Y B
µ
_
(v + H)
√
2
_
0
1
_¸
¸
¸
¸
2
−µ
2
(v + H)
2
2
−λ
(v + H)
4
4
. (II.29)
In terms of the physical ﬁelds W
±
(II.15) and Z
0
(II.19) the ﬁrst
term of (II.29), that contain the vector bosons, is
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
0
∂
µ
H/
√
2
_
+ i
g
2
(v + H)
_
W
+
µ
(−1/
√
2c
W
)Z
µ
_¸
¸
¸
¸
2
=
1
2
∂
µ
H∂
µ
H +
g
2
4
(v +H)
2
_
W
+
µ
W
− µ
+
1
2c
2
W
Z
µ
Z
µ
_
, (II.30)
where we deﬁned c
W
≡ cos θ
W
.
The quadratic terms in the vector ﬁelds, are,
g
2
v
2
4
W
+
µ
W
− µ
+
g
2
v
2
8 cos
2
θ
W
Z
µ
Z
µ
,
When compared with the usual mass terms for a charged and neutral
vector bosons,
M
2
W
W
+
µ
W
− µ
+
1
2
M
2
Z
Z
µ
Z
µ
,
and we can easily identify
M
W
=
gv
2
M
Z
=
gv
2c
W
=
M
W
c
W
. (II.31)
We can see from (II.30) that no quadratic term in A
µ
appears, and
therefore, the photon remains massless, as we could expect since the
U(1)
em
remains as a symmetry of the theory.
46
Taking into account the low–energy phenomenology via the relation
(II.17), we obtain for the vacuum expectation value
v =
_
√
2G
F
_
1/2
· 246 GeV , (II.32)
and the Standard Model predictions for the W and Z masses are
M
2
W
=
e
2
4s
2
W
v
2
=
πα
s
2
W
v
2
·
_
37.2
s
W
GeV
_
2
∼ (80 GeV)
2
,
M
2
Z
·
_
37.2
s
W
c
W
GeV
_
2
∼ (90 GeV)
2
,
where we assumed a experimental value for s
2
W
≡ sin
2
θ
W
∼ 0.22.
We can learn from (II.29) that one scalar boson, out of the four de
grees of freedom introduced in (II.25), is remnant of the symmetry
breaking. The search for the so called Higgs boson, remains as one
of the major challenges of the experimental high energy physics, and
will be discussed later in this course (see Sec. IV.).
The second term of (II.29) gives rise to terms involving exclusively
the scalar ﬁeld H, namely,
−
1
2
(−2µ
2
)H
2
+
1
4
µ
2
v
2
_
4
v
3
H
3
+
1
v
4
H
4
−1
_
. (II.33)
In (II.33) we can also identify the Higgs boson mass term with
M
H
=
_
−2µ
2
, (II.34)
and the self–interactions of the H ﬁeld. In spite of predicting the exis
tence of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model does not give a hint on
the value of its mass since µ
2
is a priori unknown.
II.2. Some General Remarks
Let us address some general features of the Standard Model:
47
II.2.1. On the mass matrix of the neutral bosons
In order to have a different view of the rotation (II.19) we analyze
the mass term for W
3
µ
and B
µ
in (II.29). It can be written as
L
W
3
−B
scalar
=
v
2
2
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
g
τ
3
2
W
3
µ
+
g
2
Y B
µ
__
0
1
_¸
¸
¸
¸
2
=
v
2
8
_
_
B
µ
W
3
µ
_
_
g
2
−gg
−gg
g
2
__
B
µ
W
3 µ
__
.
The mass matrix is not diagonal and has two eigenvalues, namely,
0 and
_
1
2
_
(g
2
+ g
2
)v
2
4
=
1
2
M
2
Z
,
which correspond exactly to the photon (M
A
= 0) and Z mass (II.31).
We obtain a better understanding of the meaning of the Weinberg
angle rotation by noticing that the same rotation matrix used to deﬁne
the physical ﬁelds in (II.19),
R
W
=
_
cos θ
W
sin θ
W
−sin θ
W
cos θ
W
_
,
is the one that diagonalizes the mass matrix for the neutral gauge
bosons, i.e.
R
W
v
2
4
_
g
2
−gg
−gg
g
2
_
R
T
W
=
_
0 0
0 M
2
Z
_
.
II.2.2. On the ρ Parameter
We can deﬁne a dimensionless parameter ρ by:
ρ =
M
2
W
cos
2
θ
W
M
2
Z
,
that represents the relative strength of the neutral and charged effec
tive Lagrangians (J
0 µ
J
0
µ
/J
+ µ
J
−
µ
),
ρ =
g
2
8 cos
2
θ
W
M
2
Z
_
g
2
8M
2
W
.
48
In the Standard Model, at tree level, the ρ parameter is 1. This is
not a general consequence of the gauge invariance of the model, but it
is, in fact, a successful prediction of the model.
In a model with an arbitrary number of Higgs multiplets φ
i
with
isospin T
i
and third component T
3
i
, and vacuum expectation value v
i
,
the ρ parameter is given by
ρ =
i
[T
i
(T
i
+ 1) −(T
3 i
)
2
] v
2
i
2
i
(T
3 i
)
2
v
2
i
,
which is 1 for an arbitrary number of doublets.
Therefore, ρ represents a good test for the isospin structure of the
Higgs sector. As we will see later, it is also sensitive to radiative cor
rections.
II.2.3. On the Gauge Fixing Term
The unitary gauge chosen in (II.28) has the great advantage of mak
ing the physical spectrum clear: the W
±
and Z
0
become massive and
no massless Goldstone boson appears in the spectrum.
In this gauge the vector boson (V ) propagator is given by
P
U
µν
(V ) =
−i
q
2
−M
2
V
_
g
µν
−
q
µ
q
ν
M
2
V
_
.
Notice that P
U
µν
does not go like ∼ 1/q
2
as q →∞due to the term pro
portional to q
µ
q
ν
. This feature has some very unpleasant consequences.
First of all there are very complicated cancellations in the invariant
amplitudes involving the vector boson propagation at high energies.
More dramatic is the fact that it is very hard to prove the renormaliz
ability of the theory since it makes use of power counting analysis in
the loop diagrams.
A way out to this problem [73, 95] is to add a gauge–ﬁxing term to
the original Lagrangian,
L
gf
= −
1
2
_
2G
+
W
G
−
W
+ G
2
Z
+ G
2
A
_
,
49
with
G
±
W
=
1
√
ξ
W
_
∂
µ
W
±
µ
∓iξ
W
M
W
ω
±
_
,
G
Z
=
1
√
ξ
Z
(∂
µ
Z
µ
−ξ
Z
M
Z
z) ,
G
A
=
1
√
ξ
A
∂
µ
A
µ
,
where ω
±
and z are the Goldstone bosons. This is called the R
ξ
gauge.
Notice, for instance, that,
−
1
2
G
2
Z
= −
1
2ξ
Z
(∂
µ
Z
µ
−ξ
Z
M
Z
z)
2
=
1
2
Z
µ
_
1
ξ
Z
∂
µ
∂
ν
_
Z
ν
−
1
2
ξ
Z
M
2
Z
z
2
+M
Z
z ∂
µ
Z
µ
,
where the last term that mixes the Goldstone (z) and the vector bo
son (∂
µ
Z
µ
) is canceled by an identical term that comes from the scalar
Lagrangian [see Eq. (I.31)].
In the R
ξ
gauge the vector boson propagators is
P
R
ξ
µν
(V ) =
−i
q
2
−M
2
V
_
g
µν
−(1 −ξ
V
)
q
µ
q
ν
q
2
−ξ
V
M
2
V
_
. (II.35)
In this gauge the Goldstone bosons, with mass
√
ξ
V
M
V
, remain in
the spectrum and their propagators are given by,
P
R
ξ
(GB) =
i
q
2
−ξ
V
M
2
V
.
and the physical Higgs propagator remains the same.
In the limit of ξ
V
→ ∞ the Goldstone bosons disappear and the
unitary gauge is recovered. Other gauge choices like Landau gauge
(ξ
V
→ 0) and Feynman gauge (ξ
V
→ 1) are contained in (II.35). There
fore, all physical processes should not depend on the parameter ξ
V
.
50
II.2.4. On the Measurement of sin
2
θ
W
at Low Ener
gies
The value of the Weinberg angle is not predicted by the Standard
Model and should be extract from the experimental data. Once we
have measured θ
W
(and of course, e) the value of the SU(2)
L
and U(1)
Y
coupling constants are determined via (II.22).
At low energies the value of sin
2
θ
W
can be obtained from different
reactions. For instance:
• The cross section for elastic neutrino–lepton scattering
ν
µ
¯ ν
µ
+ e →
ν
µ
¯ ν
µ
+ e ,
which involve a t–channel Z
0
exchange is given by
σ =
G
2
F
M
e
E
ν
2π
_
(g
e
V
±g
e
A
)
2
+
1
3
(g
e
V
∓g
e
A
)
2
_
.
The vector and axial couplings of the electron to the Z are given by
(II.23) and (II.24),
g
e
V
= −
1
2
+ 2 sin
2
θ
W
, g
e
A
= −
1
2
,
and depend on the sin
2
θ
W
. For ν
e
reaction we should make the substi
tution g
e
V,A
→ (g
e
V,A
+ 1) since in this case there is also a W exchange
contribution. When the ratio σ(ν
µ
e)/σ(¯ ν
µ
e) is measured the systematic
uncertainties cancel out and yields sin
2
θ
W
= 0.221 ±0.008 [32].
• Deep inelastic neutrino scattering from isoscalar targets (N). The
ratio between the neutral (NC) and charged (CC) current cross sections
R
ν(¯ ν)
≡
σ
NC
[ν(¯ ν)N]
σ
CC
[ν(¯ ν)N]
,
depends on the sin
2
θ
W
as
R
ν(¯ ν)
·
1
2
−sin
2
θ
W
+
5
9
[1 + r(1/r)] sin
4
θ
W
,
51
with r ≡ σ
CC
(¯ νN)/σ
CC
(νN) · 0.44. The measurement of these reactions
yields sin
2
θ
W
= 0.226 ±0.004 [32].
• Atomic parity violation. The Z
0
mediated electron–nucleus inter
action in cesium, thallium, lead and bismuth can be described by the
interaction Hamiltonian,
H =
G
F
2
√
2
Q
W
γ
5
ρ
nuc
,
with Q
W
being the “weak charge” that depends on the Weinberg angle,
Q
W
· Z(1 −4 sin
2
θ
W
) −N ,
where Z(N) is the number of protons (neutrons). This measurement
furnishes sin
2
θ
W
= 0.220 ±0.003 [32].
Nevertheless, the most precise measurements of the Weinberg an
gle are obtained at high energies, for instance in electron–positron col
lisions at the Z pole (see section III.2.).
II.2.5. On the Lepton Mass
Note that the charged lepton is still massless, since
M
¯
= M
(
¯
R
L
+
¯
L
R
) ,
mixes L and R components and breaks gauge invariance. A way to
give mass in a gauge invariant way is via the Yukawa coupling of the
leptons with the Higgs ﬁeld (II.28), that is,
L
yuk
= −G
_
¯
R
_
Φ
†
L
_
+
_
¯
L Φ
_
R
¸
= −G
(v + H)
√
2
_
¯
R
(0 1)
_
ν
L
L
_
+ ( ¯ ν
L
¯
L
)
_
0
1
_
R
_
= −
G
v
√
2
¯
−
G
√
2
¯
H . (II.36)
Thus, we can identify the charged lepton mass,
M
=
G
v
√
2
. (II.37)
52
We notice that this procedure is able to generate a mass term for
the fermion in a gauge invariant way. However, it does not specify the
value of the mass since the Yukawa constant G
introduced in (II.36) is
arbitrary.
As a consequence, we obtain the Higgs–lepton coupling with strength,
C¯
H
=
M
v
, (II.38)
which is a precise prediction of the Standard Model that should also be
checked experimentally.
II.2.6. On the Cross Sections e
+
e
−
→W
+
W
−
A very interesting example on how the Standard Model is able to
improve the unitarity behavior of the cross sections is provided by the
e
+
e
−
→W
+
W
−
processes, which is presented in Fig. 5.
The ﬁrst two diagrams are the t–channel neutrino exchange, sim
ilar to the contribution of Fig. 1, and the s–channel photon exchange.
Both of them are present in any theory containing charged interme
diate vector boson. However, the Standard Model introduces two new
contributions: the neutral current contribution (Z exchange) and the
Higgs boson exchange (H).
The leading p–wave divergence of the neutrino diagram, which is
proportional to s, is analogous to the one found in the reaction ν¯ ν →
W
+
W
−
. However, in this case it is exactly canceled by the sum of the
contributions of the photon (A) and the Z. This delicate canceling is a
direct consequence of the gauge structure of the theory [96].
53
e
e+
W
W+
neutrino
neutrino
e
e+
W+
W
A
photon
e
e+
W+
W
Z
Z boson
e
e+
W+
W
H
H boson
Fig. 5: Feynman diagram for the reaction e
+
e
−
→W
+
W
−
.
However, the s–wave scattering amplitude is proportional to (m
f
√
s)
and, therefore, is also divergent at high energies. This remaining di
vergence is canceled by the Higgs exchange diagram. Therefore, the
existence of a scalar boson, that gives rise to a s–wave contribution and
couples proportionally to the fermion mass, is an essential ingredient
of the theory. In Quigg’s words [1],
“If the Higgs boson did not exist, we should have to invent
something very much like it.”
54
II.3. Introducing the Quarks
In order to introduce the strong interacting particles in the Stan
dard Model we shall ﬁrst examine what happens with the hadronic
neutral current when the Cabibbo angle (I.7) is taken into account. We
can write the hadronic neutral current in terms of the quarks u and d
,
J
H
µ
(0) = ¯ uγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u +
¯
d
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)d
= ¯ uγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)u + cos
2
θ
C
¯
dγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)d + sin
2
θ
C
¯ sγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)s
+ cos θ
C
sin θ
C
_
¯
dγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)s + ¯ sγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)d
¸
.
We should notice that the last term generates ﬂavor changing neutral
currents (FCNC), i.e. transitions like d + ¯ s ↔
¯
d + s, with the same
strength of the usual weak interaction. However, the observed FCNC
processes are extremely small. For instance, the branching ratio of
charged kaons decaying via charged current is,
BR
_
K
+
u¯ s
→W
+
→µ
+
ν
_
· 63.5% ,
while process involving FCNC are very small [32]:
BR
_
K
+
u¯ s
→π
+
u
¯
d
ν¯ ν
_
· 4.2 10
−10
,
BR
_
K
L
d¯ s
→µ
+
µ
−
_
· 7.2 10
−9
.
In 1970, Glashow, Iliopoulos, and Maiani proposed the GIM mecha
nism [72]. They consider a fourth quark ﬂavor, the charm (c), already
introduced by Bjorken and Glashow in 1963. This extra quark com
pletes the symmetry between quarks (u, d, c, and s) and leptons (ν
e
, e,
ν
µ
, and µ) and suggests the introduction of the weak doublets
L
U
≡
_
u
d
_
L
=
_
u
cos θ
C
d + sin θ
C
s
_
L
,
L
C
≡
_
c
s
_
L
=
_
c
−sin θ
C
d + cos θ
C
s
_
L
. (II.39)
and the right–handed quark singlets,
R
U
, R
D
, R
S
, R
C
. (II.40)
55
Notice that now all particles, i.e. the T
3
= ±1/2 ﬁelds, have also the
right components to enable a mass term for them.
In order to introduce the quarks in the Standard Model, we should
start, just like in the leptonic case (II.10), from the free massless Dirac
Lagrangian for the quarks,
L
quarks
=
¯
L
U
i ,∂ L
U
+
¯
L
C
i ,∂ L
C
+
¯
R
U
i ,∂ R
U
+ +
¯
R
C
i ,∂ R
C
. (II.41)
We should now introduce the gauge bosons interaction via the co
variant derivatives (II.11) with the quark hypercharges determined by
the GellMann–Nishijima relation (II.8), in such a way that the up–
type quark charge is +2/3 and the down–type −1/3,
Y
L
Q
=
1
3
, Y
R
U
=
4
3
, Y
R
D
= −
2
3
. (II.42)
Therefore, the charged weak couplings quark–gauge bosons, is given
by,
L
(±)
quarks
=
g
2
√
2
[¯ uγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)d
+ ¯ cγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)s
] W
+
µ
+ h.c. . (II.43)
On the other hand, the neutral current receives a new contribution
proportional to
¯ cγ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)c + ¯ s
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)s
and becomes diagonal in the quarks ﬂavors, since the inconvenient
terms of J
H
µ
(0) cancels out, avoiding the phenomenological problem
with the FCNC. For instance, for the process K
L
→ µ
+
µ
−
, the GIM
mechanism introduces a new box contribution containing the c–quark
that cancels most of the u–box contribution and gives a result in agree
ment with experiment [97].
Finally, the neutral current interaction of the quarks become,
L
(0)
quarks
= −
g
2c
W
ψ
q
=u,··· ,c
¯
ψ
q
γ
µ
(g
q
V
−g
q
A
γ
5
)ψ
q
Z
µ
, (II.44)
with the vector and axial couplings for the quarks given by (II.23) and
(II.24), for i = q.
56
II.3.1. On Anomaly Cancellation
In ﬁeld theory, some loop corrections can violate a classical local
conservation law, derived from gauge invariance via Noether’s theorem
The so–called anomaly is a disaster since it breaks Ward–Takahashi
identities and invalidate the proofs of renormalizability. The vanishing
of the anomalies is so important that have been used as a guide for
constructing realistic theories.
Let us consider a generic theory with Lagrangian
L
int
= −g
_
¯
R γ
µ
T
a
+
R +
¯
L γ
µ
T
a
−
L
_
1
a
µ
,
where T
a
±
are the generators in the right (+) and left (−) representation
of the matter ﬁelds, and 1
a
µ
are the gauge bosons. This theory will be
anomaly free if
/
abc
= /
abc
+
−/
abc
−
= 0 ,
where /
abc
±
is given by the following trace of generators
/
abc
±
≡ Tr
_
¦T
a
±
, T
b
±
¦T
c
±
¸
.
In a V −A gauge theory like the Standard Model, the only possible
anomalies come from V V A triangle loops, i.e. loops with two vectors
and one axial vertex and are proportional to:
SU(2)
2
U(1) : Tr
_
¦τ
a
, τ
b
¦Y
¸
= Tr
_
¦τ
a
, τ
b
¦
¸
Tr [Y ] ∝
doub.
Y
U(1)
3
: Tr
_
Y
3
¸
∝
ferm.
Y
3
.
Remembering the value of the hypercharge of the leptons (II.13) and
quarks (II.42), we can write for the SU(2)
2
U(1) case,
/
abc
∝ −
doub.
Y = −
_
−1 + 3
_
1
3
__
= 0 ,
57
and for the U(1)
3
case,
/
abc
∝
ferm
Y
3
+
−Y
3
−
=
_
(−2)
3
+ 3
_
_
4
3
_
3
+
_
−2
3
_
3
__
−
_
(−1)
3
+ (−1)
3
+ 3
_
_
1
3
_
3
+
_
1
3
_
3
__
= 0 .
where the 3 colors of the quarks were taken into account.
This shows that the Standard Model is free from anomalies if the
fermions appears in complete multiplets, with the general structure:
__
ν
e
e
_
L
, e
R
,
_
u
d
_
L
, u
R
, d
R
_
,
that should be repeated always respecting this same structure:
__
ν
µ
µ
_
L
, µ
R
,
_
c
s
_
L
, c
R
, s
R
_
,
The discovery of the τ lepton in 1975 [77], and of a ﬁfth quark ﬂa
vor, the b [78], two years later, were the evidence for a third fermion
generation,
__
ν
τ
τ
_
L
, τ
R
,
_
t
b
_
L
, t
R
, b
R
_
.
The existence of complete generations, with no missing partner, is
essential for the vanishing of anomalies. This was a compelling the
oretical argument in favor of the existence of a top quark before its
discovery in 1995 [87, 88].
II.3.2. The Quark Masses
In order to generate mass for both the up (U
i
= u, c, and t) and down
(D
i
= d, s, and b) quarks, we need a Y = −1 Higgs doublet. Deﬁning
the conjugate doublet Higgs as,
˜
Φ = i σ
2
Φ
∗
=
_
φ
0
∗
−φ
−
_
, (II.45)
58
we can write the Yukawa Lagrangian for three generations of quarks
as,
L
q
yuk
= −
3
i,j=1
_
G
U
ij
¯
R
U
i
_
˜
Φ
†
L
j
_
+ G
D
ij
¯
R
D
i
_
Φ
†
L
j
_
_
+ h.c. . (II.46)
From the vacuum expectation values of Φ and
˜
Φ doublets, we obtain
the mass terms for the up
(u
, c
, t
)
R
/
U
_
_
u
c
t
_
_
L
+ h.c. ,
and down quarks
(d
, s
, b
)
R
/
D
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L
+ h.c. ,
with the non–diagonal matrices /
U(D)
ij
= (v/
√
2) G
U(D)
ij
.
The weak eigenstates (q
) are linear superposition of the mass eigen
states (q) given by the unitary transformations:
_
_
u
c
t
_
_
L,R
= U
L,R
_
_
u
c
t
_
_
L,R
,
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L,R
= D
L,R
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L,R
,
where U(D)
L,R
are unitary matrices to preserve the form of the kinetic
terms of the quarks (II.41). These matrices diagonalize the mass ma
trices, i.e.,
U
−1
R
/
U
U
L
=
_
_
m
u
0 0
0 m
c
0
0 0 m
t
_
_
D
−1
R
/
D
D
L
=
_
_
m
d
0 0
0 m
s
0
0 0 m
b
_
_
.
59
The (V −A) charged weak current (II.43), for three generations, will
be proportional to
(u
, c
, t
)
L
γ
µ
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L
= (u, c, t)
L
(U
†
L
D
L
) γ
µ
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L
,
with the generation mixing of the mass eigenstates (q) described by:
V ≡ (U
†
L
D
L
) .
On the other hand, for the neutral current of the quarks (II.44), now
becomes,
(u
, c
, t
)
L
γ
µ
_
_
u
c
t
_
_
L
= (u, c, t)
L
(U
†
L
U
L
) γ
µ
_
_
u
c
t
_
_
L
.
We can notice that there is no mixing in the neutral sector (FCNC)
since the matrix U
L
is unitary: U
†
L
U
L
= 1.
The quark mixing, by convention, is restricted to the down quarks,
that is with T
q
3
= −1/2,
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L
= V
_
_
d
s
b
_
_
L
.
V is the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix [61, 74], that can be
parametrized as
V = R
1
(θ
23
)R
2
(θ
13
, δ
13
)R
3
(θ
12
) ,
where R
i
(θ
jk
) are rotation matrices around the axis i, the angle θ
jk
de
scribes the mixing of the generations j and k and δ
13
is a phase.
We should notice that, for three generations, it is not always possi
ble to choose the V matrix to be real, that is δ
13
= 0, and therefore the
weak interaction can violate CP and T
†
.
†
The violation of CP can also occur in the interaction of scalar bosons, when we
have two or more scalar doublets. For a review see Ref. [98].
60
The Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix can be written as
V =
_
_
c
12
c
13
s
12
c
13
s
13
e
−iδ
13
−s
12
c
23
−c
12
s
23
s
13
e
iδ
13
c
12
c
23
−s
12
s
23
s
13
e
iδ
13
s
23
c
13
s
12
s
23
−c
12
c
23
s
13
e
iδ
13
−c
12
s
23
−s
12
c
23
s
13
e
iδ
13
c
23
c
13
_
_
,
where s
ij
(c
ij
) ≡ sin(cos)θ
i
j. Notice that, in the limit of θ
23
= θ
13
→0, we
associate θ
12
→θ
C
, the Cabibbo angle (I.7), and
V →
_
_
c
12
s
12
0
−s
12
c
12
0
0 0 1
_
_
.
Using unitarity constraints and assuming only three generations
the experimental value for the elements of the matrix V , with 90% of
C.L., can be extract from weak quark decays and from deep inelastic
neutrino scattering [32],
V =
_
_
0.9742 −0.9757 0.219 −0226 0.002 −0.005
0.219 −0.225 0.9734 −09749 0.037 −0.043
0.004 −0.014 0.035 −0.043 0.9990 −0.9993
_
_
.
II.4. The Standard Model Lagrangian
We end this chapter giving a birds’ eye view of the Standard Model,
putting all terms together and writing the whole Lagrangian in a sche
matic way.
Gauge–boson + Scalar
The gauge–boson (II.9) and the scalar (II.29) Lagrangians give rise
to the free Lagrangian for the photon, W, Z, and the Higgs boson. Be
sides that, they generate triple and quartic couplings among the vector
61
bosons and also couplings involving the Higgs boson:
L
gauge
+L
scalar
= (II.47)
−
1
4
F
µν
F
µν
−
1
2
W
+
µν
W
− µν
+ M
2
W
W
+
µ
W
− µ
−
1
4
Z
µν
Z
µν
+ M
2
Z
Z
µ
Z
µ
+
1
2
∂
µ
H∂
µ
H −
1
2
M
2
H
H
2
+ W
+
W
−
A + W
+
W
−
Z
+ W
+
W
−
AA + W
+
W
−
ZZ + W
+
W
−
AZ + W
+
W
−
W
+
W
−
+ HHH + HHHH
+ W
+
W
−
H + W
+
W
−
HH + ZZH + ZZHH .
The vector–boson self–couplings that appear in (II.47) are strictly
constrained by the SU(2)
L
⊗ U(1)
Y
gauge invariance and any small
deviation from the Standard Model predictions would destroy, for in
stance, the precise cancellation of the high–energy behavior between
the various diagrams, giving rise to an anomalous growth of the cross
section with energy. Therefore, the careful study of the vector–boson
self–interactions is a important test of the Standard Model (see M. E.
Pol, these Proceedings).
Leptons + Yukawa
The leptonic (II.14) and the Yukawa (II.36) Lagrangians are respon
sible for the lepton free Lagrangian and for the couplings with the
gauge bosons: photon (QED interaction), W (charged weak current)
and Z (neutral weak current). The mass terms are generated by the
Yukawa interaction which also gives rise to the coupling of the massive
lepton with the Higgs boson:
L
leptons
+L
yuk
= (II.48)
=e,µ,τ
¯
(i ,∂ −m
) +
ν
=ν
e
,ν
µ
,ν
τ
¯ ν
(i ,∂)ν
+
¯
A + ¯ ν
W
+
+
¯
ν
W
−
+
¯
Z + ¯ ν
ν
Z
+
¯
H .
62
Even if the neutrinos have mass, as seems to suggest the recent
experimental results [99, 100], their Dirac mass terms could be incor
porated in the framework of the Standard Model without any difﬁculty.
The procedure would be similar to the one that lead to the quark mass
terms, that is, introducing a right–handed component of the neutrino
and a Yukawa coupling with the conjugate Higgs doublet (II.45). One
may notice, however, than being electrically neutral neutrinos may also
have a Majorana mass which violates lepton number. The simultane
ous existence of both type of mass terms, Dirac and Majorana, can be
used to explain the smallness of the neutrino mass as compared to the
charged leptons via the so called seesaw mechanism [101].
Quarks + Yukawa
The quark Lagrangian (II.41) and the corresponding Yukawa inter
action (II.46) give rise to the free Dirac term and to the electromagnetic
and weak interaction of the quarks. A quark–Higgs coupling is also
generated,
L
quarks
+L
q
Yuk
= (II.49)
q=u,··· ,t
¯ q(i ,∂ −m
q
)q
+ ¯ q q A
+ ¯ ud
W
+
+
¯
d
uW
−
+ ¯ q q Z
+ ¯ q q H .
Besides the propagators and couplings presented above, in a gen
eral R
ξ
gauge, we should also take into account the contribution of the
Goldstone bosons and of the ghosts. The Faddeev–Popov ghosts [70]
are important to cancel the contribution of the unphysical (timelike
and longitudinal) degrees of freedom of the gauge bosons.
A practical guide to derive the Feynman rules for the vertex and
propagators can be found, for instance, in Ref. [2], where the complete
set of rules for the Standard Model is presented.
63
III. Beyond the Trees
III.1. Radiative Corrections to the Standard
Model
It was shown that the Standard Model is a renormalizable ﬁeld the
ory. This means that when we go beyond the tree level (Born approx
imation) we are still able to make deﬁnite predictions for observables.
The general procedure to evaluate these quantities at the quantum
level is to collect and evaluate all the loop diagrams up to a certain
level. Many of these contributions are ultraviolet divergent and a con
venient regularization method (e.g. dimensional regularization) should
be used to isolate the divergent parts. These divergences are absorbed
in the bare couplings and masses of the theory. Assuming a renormal
ization condition (e.g. on–shell or MS scheme), we can evaluate all the
counterterms. After all these ingredients are put together we are able
to obtain ﬁnite results for S–matrix elements that can be translated in,
for instance, cross sections and decay widths. The predictions of the
Standard Model for several observables are obtained and can be com
pared with the experimental results for these quantities enabling the
theory to be falsiﬁed (in the Popperian sense).
The subject of renormalization is very cumbersome and deserves a
whole course by itself. Here we want to give just the minimum neces
sary tools to enable the reader to appreciate the astonishing agreement
of the Standard Model, even at the quantum level, with the recent ex
perimental results. Very good accounts of the electroweak radiative
corrections can be found elsewhere [102, 103, 104].
Let us start considering the Standard Model Lagrangian which is
given by the sum of the contributions (II.47), (II.48), and (II.49). The
L
SM
is a function of coupling constants g and g
and of the vacuum
expectation value of the Higgs ﬁeld, v. The observables can be deter
mined in terms of these parameters and any possible dependence on
other quantities like M
H
or m
t
appears just through radiative correc
tions.
64
Therefore, we need three precisely known observables in order to
determine the basic input parameters of the model. A natural choice
will be the most well measured quantities, like, e.g.:
• The electromagnetic ﬁne structure constant that can be extracted,
for instance, from the electron g
e
− 2 or from the quantum Hall
effect,
α(0) = 1/137.0359895(61) ;
• The Fermi constant measured from the muon lifetime,
G
F
(µ) = 1.16639(1) 10
−5
GeV
−2
;
• The Z boson mass that was obtained by LEP at the Z pole,
M
Z
= 91.1867(21) GeV .
These input parameters can be written, at tree level, in terms of just g,
g
and v as
α
0
(0) =
g
2
s
2
W
4π
,
G
F
0
=
1
√
2v
2
, (III.1)
M
2
Z
0
=
g
2
v
2
4c
2
W
.
where the subscript 0 indicates that these relations are valid at tree
level, and
s
2
W
≡
g
2
g
2
+ g
2
, and c
2
W
≡
g
2
g
2
+ g
2
,
depend only on g and g
:
III.1.1. One Loop Calculations
Let us write the vacuum polarization amplitude (self–energy) for
vector bosons (a, b = γ, W, Z) as
Π
µν
ab
(q
2
) ≡ g
µν
Π
ab
(q
2
) + (q
µ
q
ν
terms) .
65
The terms proportional to q
µ
q
ν
can be dropped since these ampli
tudes should be plugged in conserved fermion currents, and from the
Dirac equation, they will give rise to terms that goes with the external
fermion mass that can be neglected in the usual experimental situa
tion.
We can summarize the relevant quantities for the loop corrections
of the Standard Model [103]:
• The vector and axial form factors of the Z
0
coupling, at q
2
= M
2
Z
,
which include both the vertex and the fermion self–energy radia
tive corrections. From (II.21) we can write
V
µ
Zf
¯
f
= −i
g
2 cos θ
W
¯
ψ
f
γ
µ
(g
f
V
−g
f
A
γ
5
)ψ
f
,
where (II.23) and (II.24) now are given by
g
f
V
=
√
ρ
_
T
f
3
−2 κ
f
Q
f
sin
2
θ
W
_
,
g
f
A
=
√
ρ T
f
3
. (III.2)
which deﬁne the relative strength of the neutral and charged cur
rents, ρ, and the coefﬁcient of the sin
2
θ
W
, κ
f
. Notice that at tree
level, ρ = κ
f
= 1.
• Correction to µ–decay amplitude at q
2
= 0, which includes the box
(B), vertex (V ) and the fermion self–energy corrections
/(µ) = −i δG
(B,V )
_
¯
ψ
e
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)ψ
ν
e
¸ _
¯
ψ
ν
µ
γ
µ
(1 −γ
5
)ψ
µ
¸
.
We can write the corrections to the input parameters as,
α = α
0
+δα ,
M
2
Z
= M
2
Z
0
+ δM
2
Z
, (III.3)
G
F
= G
F
0
+ δG
F
,
where, in terms of the vacuum polarization amplitude, and δG
(B,V )
the
66
corrections become
δα
α
= −Π
γγ
(0) −2
s
W
c
W
Π
γZ
(0)
M
2
Z
,
δM
2
Z
M
2
Z
= −
Π
ZZ
(M
2
Z
)
M
2
Z
, (III.4)
δG
F
G
F
=
Π
WW
(0)
M
2
W
+
δG
(B,V )
G
F
.
Correction to the Derived Observables
From the corrections to the input parameters we can estimate the
radiative corrections to the derived observables. Let us write the tree
level input variables α
0
, G
F
0
, and M
Z
0
as 1
i
0
. When we compute the
radiative correction to the input parameters 1
i
0
, we have
1
i
0
−→ 1
i
(1
i
0
) = 1
i
0
+δ1
i
(1
i
0
) .
The relation for the renormalized input variables, 1
i
, can be inverted
to write 1
i
0
= 1
i
0
(1
i
).
The same holds true for any derived observable (O) or any S–matrix
element, that is,
O[1
i
0
(1
i
)] = O
0
(1
i
0
) + δO(1
i
0
)
= O
0
(1
i
−δ1
i
) + δO(1
i
−δ1
i
)
= O
0
(1
i
) −
i
∂O
0
∂1
i
δ1
i
+ δO(1
i
)
≡ O
0
(1
i
) + ∆O(1
i
) . (III.5)
At one loop it is enough to renormalize just the input variables 1
i
. How
ever, at two loops it is necessary also to renormalize all other parame
ters that intervene at one loop level like m
t
and M
H
.
As an example, let us compute the radiative correction to the W
boson mass. At tree level M
W
is given by [see (II.31)]
M
2
W
0
= c
2
W
0
M
2
Z
0
.
67
Writing c
2
W
in terms of the input variables, we have
c
2
W
= (1 −s
2
W
) =
_
1 −
_
4πα
g
2
__
=
_
1 −
_
πα
√
2G
F
M
2
Z
c
2
W
__
.
Solving for c
2
W
, we get
M
2
W
0
(1
i
) =
_
1
2
_
1 +
_
1 −
4πα
√
2G
F
M
2
Z
_
1/2
__
M
2
Z
.
Taking into account the derivatives,
∂M
2
W
0
∂α
=
s
2
W
c
2
W
s
2
W
−c
2
W
M
2
Z
α
,
∂M
2
W
0
∂G
F
= −
s
2
W
c
2
W
s
2
W
−c
2
W
M
2
Z
G
F
,
∂M
2
W
0
∂M
2
Z
= −
c
4
W
s
2
W
−c
2
W
.
We obtain from (III.5) the M
W
correction
M
2
W
= M
2
W
0
(1
i
) −
i
∂M
2
W
0
∂1
i
δ1
i
+ δM
2
W
(1
i
)
= c
2
W
M
2
Z
−
c
2
W
M
2
Z
s
2
W
−c
2
W
_
s
2
W
δα
α
−s
2
W
δG
F
G
F
−c
2
W
δM
2
Z
M
2
Z
_
+ δM
2
W
,
with
δM
2
W
= −Π
WW
(M
2
W
) .
III.2. The Z boson Physics
III.2.1. Introduction
The most important experimental tests of the Standard Model in
this decade was performed at the Z pole. The four LEP Collaborations
68
(Aleph, Delphi, L3, and Opal)[105] and the SLAC SLD Collaboration
[106] studied the reaction,
e
+
e
−
→Z
0
→f
¯
f .
The main purpose of these experiments was to test the Standard Model
at the level of its quantum corrections and also to try to obtain some
hint on the top quark mass and on the Higgs boson.
Fig. 6: The Z proﬁle measured by the L3 Collab. [107]
At CERN, after scanning the Z resonance (see Fig. 6), data were
collected at the Z peak, and around 17 millions of Z’s were produced
and studied.
The shape of the resonance is characterised by the cross section for
the fermion pair (f
¯
f) production at the Z peak,
σ
0
f
¯
f
=
12π
M
2
Z
Γ
e
Γ
f
Γ
2
Z
,
where the position of the peak gives the value M
Z
= 91186.7 ±2.1 MeV,
the full width at half maximum (FWHM) represents the Z width, Γ
Z
=
69
2493.9 ±2.4 MeV, and the height of the peak gives the value of the total
cross section for f
¯
f production, σ
0
f
¯
f
.
For the analysis of the Z physics it is necessary to choose the input
parameters at the appropriate scale, M
Z
. The relative uncertainty of
the input parameters are:
Parameter Value Uncertainty
m
t
[108] 174.3 ±5.1 GeV 2.9 %
α
s
(M
2
Z
) [105] 0.119 ±0.002 1.7 %
α
−1
(M
2
Z
) [109, 110] 128.878 ±0.090 0.07 %
M
Z
[105] 91186.7 ±2.1 MeV 0.0023 %
G
F
(µ) [32] (1.16639 ±0.00001) 10
−5
GeV
−2
0.00086 %
Table I: Relative uncertainty of the input parameters.
For the Higgs boson mass we just have available a lower bound of M
H
>
95.2 GeV at 95% of C.L. [111].
Notice that, in spite of the very precise measurement of the electro
magnetic structure constant at low energy, which has a relative uncer
tainty of just 0.0000045 %, its value at M
Z
is much less precise. This
uncertainty arises from the contribution of light quarks to the vacuum
polarization. The evolution of α is given by
α(M
2
Z
) =
α(0)
1 −∆α
, (III.6)
where
∆α = ∆α
lep
+ ∆α
had
+ ∆α
top
.
The top quark contribution is proportional to 1/m
2
t
∼ 10
−5
. The contri
butions from leptons () [110] and light quarks (q) [109] are:
∆α
lep
= 0.031498 ,
∆α
had
= −(0.02804 ±0.00065) . (III.7)
70
where the error in ∆α
lep
is negligible. Therefore, the loss of precision
comes from ∆α
had
due to non–perturbative QCD effects that are large
at low energies and to the imprecision in the light quark masses.
Other important pure QED corrections are the initial and ﬁnal state
photon radiation. The initial state radiation is taken into account by
convoluting the cross section with the radiator function H(k),
σ(s) =
_
k
max
0
dk H(k)σ
0
[s(1 −k)] ,
where k
max
represents a cut in the maximum radiated energy. The
radiator function takes into account virtual and real photon emissions
and includes soft photon resummation [112].
The ﬁnal state radiation is included by multiplying the bare cross
sections and widths by the QED correction factor,
_
1 +
3αQ
2
f
4π
_
· (1 + 0.002 Q
2
f
) .
where Q
f
is the fermion charge.
III.2.2. The Standard Model Parameters
We present in the following sections the Standard Model predictions
for some observables. We compare these predictions with the values
measured by the CERN LEP and at the SLAC SLD Collaborations,
and stress the very impressive agreement between them.
Z Partial Widths
The Z width into a fermion pair, at tree level, is given in the Stan
dard Model by,
Γ(Z →f
¯
f) = C
G
F
M
3
Z
6
√
2π
_
(g
f
A
)
2
+ (g
f
V
)
2
_
, (III.8)
71
where C refers to the fermion color, i.e.,
C =
_
1 , for leptons ,
3 [1 + α
s
(M
Z
)/π + 1.409α
2
s
(M
Z
)/π
2
+ ] , for quarks .
where the QCD corrections were included for quarks. At loop level we
should consider the modiﬁcations to g
f
V
and g
f
A
(III.2) and the appropri
ate QED corrections discussed in the last section.
The value of the partial width for the different fermion ﬂavors are
f
¯
f Pair Partial Width
ν¯ ν 167.25 MeV
e
+
e
−
84.01 MeV
u¯ u 300.30 MeV
d
¯
d 383.10 MeV
b
¯
b 376.00 MeV
Table II: Z →f
¯
f partial widths.
The experimental results for the partial widths are [105],
Γ
≡ Γ(Z →
+
−
) = 83.90 ±0.10 MeV ,
Γ
had
≡ Γ(Z →hadrons) = 1742.3 ±2.3 MeV ,
Γ
Z
≡ Γ(Z →all) = 2493.9 ±2.4 MeV ,
Γ
inv
≡ Γ
Z
−3 Γ
−Γ
had
= 500.1 ±1.9 GeV ,
where we assume three leptonic channels (e
+
e
−
, µ
+
µ
−
, and τ
+
τ
−
), and
Γ
inv
is the invisible Z width.
Number of Neutrino Species
We can extract information on the number of light neutrino species
by supposing that they are responsible for the invisible width, i.e. Γ
inv
=
N
ν
Γ
ν
. The LEP data [105] gives the ratio of the invisible and leptonic
72
Z partial widths, Γ
inv
/Γ
= 5.961 ± 0.023. On the other hand, Stan
dard Model predicts the (Γ
ν
/Γ
)
SM
= 1.991 ± 0.001, where the error is
associated to the variation of m
t
and M
H
. In the ratio of these two
expressions, Γ
cancels out and yields the number of neutrino species,
N
ν
= 2.994 ±0.011 ,
where N
ν
represents the total number of neutrino ﬂavors that are ac
cessible kinematically to the Z, that is M
ν
< M
Z
/2. This result in
dicates that, if the observed pattern of the ﬁrst three generations is
assumed, then we have only these families of fermions in nature.
Radiative Corrections Beyond QED
An important question to be asked when comparing the Standard
Model predictions with experimental data is if the effect of pure weak
radiative correction could indeed be measured. This question can be
answered by looking, for instance, at the plot of sin
2
θ
eﬀ
Γ
(Fig. 7),
where Γ
is given by (III.8) and,
sin
2
θ
eﬀ
≡
1
4
_
1 −
g
V
g
A
_
= 0.23157 ±0.00018 .
The point at the lower–left corner shows the prediction when only
the QED (photon vacuum polarization) correction is included and the
respective variation for α(M
2
Z
) varying by one standard deviation. The
Standard Model prediction, with the full (QED + weak) radiative cor
rection, is represented by the band that reﬂects the dependence on the
Higgs (95 GeV < M
H
< 1000 GeV) and on the top mass (169.2 GeV
< m
t
< 179.4 GeV). We notice that the presence of genuine electroweak
correction is quite evident.
Another important evidence for pure electroweak correction comes
from the radiative correction ∆r
W
to the relation between M
W
and G
F
,
_
1 −
M
2
W
M
2
Z
_
M
2
W
M
2
Z
=
πα(M
2
Z
)
√
2G
F
M
2
Z
(1 −∆r
W
)
, (III.9)
where α(M
2
Z
) is given by (III.6), and therefore, the effect of the run
ning of α was subtracted in the deﬁnition of ∆r
W
. Taking into account
73
0.231
0.2315
0.232
0.2325
0.233
83.6 83.8 84 84.2
∆α
Preliminary 68% CL
Γ
l
[MeV]
s
i
n
2
θ
l
e
p
t
e
f
f
m
t
= 174.3 ± 5.1 GeV
m
H
= 95...1000 GeV
m
t
m
H
Fig. 7: LEP + SLD measurements of sin
2
θ
eﬀ
and Γ
, compared
to the Standard Model prediction [113].
the value measured at LEP and Tevatron, M
W
= 80.394 ± 0.042 GeV,
we have [104]: (∆r)
exp
W
= −0.02507 ± 0.00259. Thus, the correction rep
resenting only the electroweak contribution, not associated with the
running of α, is ∼ 10 σ different from zero.
g
V
, g
A
, and the Lepton Universality
The partial Z width in the different lepton ﬂavors is able to provide
a very important information on the universality of the electroweak
interactions. The values of g
V
and g
A
can be plotted for = e, µ and τ.
The result present in Fig. 8 shows that the measurements of g
V
g
A
are consistent with the hypothesis that the electroweak interaction is
74
0.043
0.039
0.035
0.031
0.503 0.502 0.501 0.5
g
Al
g
V
l
Preliminary
68% CL
l
+
l
−
e
+
e
−
µ
+
µ
−
τ
+
τ
−
A
l
(SLD)
m
t
m
H
Fig. 8: 68% C.L. contours in the g
V
g
A
plane. The solid line
is a ﬁt assuming lepton universality. The band corresponds to
the SLD result from A
LR
(III.12) measurements [113].
universal and yields
g
V
= −0.03703 ±0.00068 , g
A
= −0.50105 ±0.00030 .
Notice that the value of g
A
disagrees with the Born prediction of −0.5
(II.24) by 3.5 σ. However they are in very good agreement with the
Standard Model values [32]: (g
V
)
SM
= −0.0397 ± 0.0003 and (g
A
)
SM
=
−0.5064±0.0001. This is another important evidence of the weak radia
tive corrections.
75
Asymmetries
Since parity violation comes from the difference between the right
and left couplings of the Z
0
to fermions, it is convenient to deﬁne the
combination of the vector and axial couplings of the fermions as
A
f
=
2g
f
V
g
f
A
(g
f
V
)
2
+ (g
f
A
)
2
. (III.10)
The events e
+
e
−
→ f
+
f
−
can be characterized by the momentum
direction of the emitted fermion. We say that the ﬁnal state fermion
(f
−
) travels forward (F) or backward (B) with respect to the electron
(e
−
) beam. Therefore, we can deﬁne the forward–backward asymmetry
by
A
FB
≡
σ
F
−σ
B
σ
F
+ σ
B
,
and at the Z pole, this asymmetry is given by
A
0 , f
FB
=
3
4
A
e
A
f
. (III.11)
The measurement of A
0 , f
FB
for charged leptons, and c and b quarks
give us information only on the product of A
e
and A
f
. On the other
hand, the measurement of the τ lepton polarization is able to determine
the values of A
e
and A
τ
separately. The longitudinal τ polarization is
deﬁned as
T
τ
≡
σ
R
−σ
L
σ
R
+ σ
L
,
where σ
R(L)
is the cross section for tau–lepton pair production of a right
(left) handed τ
−
. At the Z pole, T
τ
can be written in terms of scattering
(e
−
, τ
−
) angle θ as,
T
τ
= −
A
τ
(1 + cos
2
θ) + 2A
e
cos θ
1 + cos
2
θ + 2A
e
A
τ
cos θ
.
This yields [105]
A
e
= 0.1479 ±0.0051 , A
τ
= 0.1431 ±0.0045 ,
76
which are in agreement with the lepton universality (A
= 0.1469 ±
0.0027). They are also in agreement with the Standard Model predic
tion: A
SM
= 0.1475 ±0.0013.
This result can be used to extract information on the heavy quark
couplings: A
c
= 0.646 ± 0.043 and A
b
= 0.899 ± 0.025, which should be
compared with the Standard Model values of A
SM
c
= 0.6679 ±0.0006 and
A
SM
b
= 0.9348 ±0.0001.
Another interesting asymmetry that can be measured by SLD is the
left–right cross section asymmetry,
A
LR
=
σ
L
−σ
R
σ
L
+ σ
R
, (III.12)
where σ
L(R)
is the cross section for (left–) right–handed incident elec
tron with the positron kept unpolarized. Since, at the Z pole, A
LR
=
A
e
, we can get the best measurement of the electron couplings: A
e
=
0.1510 ±0.0025 (see Fig. 8).
Higgs Mass Sensitivity
In order to give an idea of the sensitivity of the different electroweak
observables to the Higgs boson mass, we compare in Fig. 9 the experi
mental values with the the Standard Model theoretical predictions, as
a function of M
H
.
The vertical band represents the experimental measurement with
the respective error. The theoretical prediction includes the errors in
α(M
2
Z
), from ∆α
had
(III.7), α
s
(M
2
Z
), and m
t
(see Table I).
In this ﬁgure σ
0
h
is the hadronic cross section at the Z pole, R
≡
(Γ
had
/Γ
). A
0 , f
FB
is deﬁned in (III.11) and A
f
in (III.10). < Q
FB
> is the
average charge, which is related to the forward–backward asymmetries
by
< Q
FB
>=
q
δ
q
A
q
FB
Γ
q¯ q
Γ
hadr
,
77
10
2
10
3
2.49 2.5
Γ
Z
[GeV]
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.015 0.02
A
FB
0,l
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
41.4 41.6
σ
0
h
[nb]
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.095 0.1 0.105
A
FB
0,b
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
20.7 20.8
R
l
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.06 0.07 0.08
A
FB
0,c
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.14 0.16
A
τ
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.23 0.232 0.234
sin
2
Θ
lept
eff
from <Q
FB
>
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.14 0.16
A
e
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
80.25 80.5
m
W
[GeV]
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
10
2
10
3
0.14 0.16
A
l
(SLD)
m
H
[
G
e
V
]
Measurement
∆α
had
= 0.02804 ± 0.00065 ∆α
(5)
α
s
= 0.119 ± 0.002
m
t
= 174.3 ± 5.1 GeV
Fig. 9: LEP measurements compared with the Standard
Model predictions, as a function of M
H
[113].
78
where δ
q
is the average charge difference between the q and ¯ q hemi
spheres. For the sake of comparison A
e
, extracted by SLD from A
LR
(III.12), is also shown. We can see from Fig. 9 that dependence on
the Higgs mass varying in the range 95 GeV < M
H
< 1000 GeV is
quite mild for all the observables, since the Higgs effect enters only via
log(M
2
H
/M
2
Z
) factors.
0
2
4
6
10 10
2
10
3
m
H
[GeV]
∆
χ
2
Excluded Preliminary
∆α
had
= ∆α
(5)
0.02804±0.00065
0.02784±0.00026
theory uncertainty
Fig. 10: ∆χ
2
≡ χ
2
−χ
2
min
as a function of M
H
[105, 113].
However we can extract information on M
H
from the global ﬁt in
cluding all data on the different observables. In Fig. 10 we show the
plot of ∆χ
2
≡ χ
2
− χ
2
min
versus M
H
. The left vertical band represents
the excluded region due to the direct search for the Higgs (M
H
95
GeV). The band represents an estimate of the theoretical error due to
missing higher order corrections. The global ﬁt results in M
H
= 91
+64
−41
GeV.
79
Measurement Pull Pull
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
m
Z
[GeV] m
Z
[GeV] 91.1871 ± 0.0021 .08
Γ
Z
[GeV] Γ
Z
[GeV] 2.4944 ± 0.0024 .56
σ
hadr
[nb] σ
0
41.544 ± 0.037 1.75
R
e
R
e
20.768 ± 0.024 1.16
A
fb
A
0,e
0.01701 ± 0.00095 .80
A
e
A
e
0.1483 ± 0.0051 .21
A
τ
A
τ
0.1425 ± 0.0044 1.07
sin
2
θ
eff
sin
2
θ
lept
0.2321 ± 0.0010 .60
m
W
[GeV] m
W
[GeV] 80.350 ± 0.056 .62
R
b
R
b
0.21642 ± 0.00073 .81
R
c
R
c
0.1674 ± 0.0038 1.27
A
fb
A
0,b
0.0988 ± 0.0020 2.20
A
fb
A
0,c
0.0692 ± 0.0037 1.23
A
b
A
b
0.911 ± 0.025 .95
A
c
A
c
0.630 ± 0.026 1.46
sin
2
θ
eff
sin
2
θ
lept
0.23099 ± 0.00026 1.95
sin
2
θ
W
sin
2
θ
W
0.2255 ± 0.0021 1.13
m
W
[GeV] m
W
[GeV] 80.448 ± 0.062 1.02
m
t
[GeV] m
t
[GeV] 174.3 ± 5.1 .22
∆α
had
(m
Z
) ∆α
(5)
0.02804 ± 0.00065 .05
Fig. 11: Comparison of the precision electroweak
measurements with the Standard Model predictions [113].
As a ﬁnal comparison, we present in Fig. 11 a list of several elec
troweak observables. The experimental values are compared with the
Standard Model theoretical predictions. The Pull ≡ (O
meas
−O
ﬁt
)/σ
meas
,
represents the number of standard deviations that separate the central
values. This results show an impressive agreement with the Standard
Model expectations.
80
IV. The Higgs Boson Physics
IV.1. Introduction
The procedure of generating vector boson masses in a gauge invari
ant way requires the introduction of a complex doublet of scalar ﬁelds
(II.25) which corresponds to four degrees of freedom. Three out of these
are “eaten” by the gauge bosons, W
+
, W
−
, and Z
0
, and become their
longitudinal degree of freedom. Therefore, it remains in the physical
spectrum of the theory the combination
(φ
0
+
¯
φ
0
)
√
2
= H + v ,
where v is given by (II.27), and H is the physical Higgs boson ﬁeld.
The Higgs boson mass (II.34) can be written as
M
H
=
_
−2µ
2
=
√
2λ v =
_
√
2
G
F
_
1/2
√
λ . (IV.1)
Both Higgs potential parameters, µ
2
and λ, are a priori unknown —
just their ratio is ﬁxed by the low energy data [see (II.17) and (II.31)].
Therefore the Standard Model does not provide any direct information
on the Higgs boson mass.
The discovery of this particle is one of the challenges of the high–
energy colliders. This is the most important missing piece of the Stan
dard Model and its experimental veriﬁcation could furnish very impor
tant information on the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak sym
metry and on the mechanism for generating fermion masses. The phe
nomenology of the Standard Model Higgs boson is covered in great de
tail in reference [114]. Recent review articles include Ref. [115], [116],
[117], [118]. We intend to emphasize here the most relevant proper
ties of Higgs particle and make a brief summary of the prospects for its
search in the near future.
81
IV.2. Higgs Boson Properties
The Higgs Couplings
The Higgs boson couples to all particles that get mass (∝ v) through
the spontaneous symmetry breaking of SU(2)
L
⊗ U(1)
Y
. We collect in
Table III the intensity of the coupling to the different particles from
(II.30), (II.33), (II.36), and (II.46),
Coupling Intensity
Hf
¯
f M
f
/v
HW
+
W
−
2M
2
W
/v
HZ
0
Z
0
M
2
Z
/v
HHW
+
W
−
M
2
W
/v
2
HHZ
0
Z
0
M
2
Z
/2v
2
HHH M
2
H
/2v
HHHH M
2
H
/8v
2
Table III: The Higgs coupling to different particles.
From the results of Table III it becomes evident that the Higgs cou
ples proportionally to the particle masses. Therefore we can establish
two general principles that should guide the search of the Higgs boson:
(i) it will be produced in association with heavy particles; (ii) it will
decay into the heaviest particles that are accessible kinematically.
Besides the couplings presented in Table III, the Higgs can also cou
ple to γγ [119], Zγ [120, 121] and also to gluons [122, 123], at one
loop level. The neutral and weak interacting Higgs boson can interact
with photons through loops of charged particles that share the weak
and electromagnetic interactions: leptons, quarks and W boson. In
the same way the Higgs couples indirectly with the gluons via loops of
(weak and strong interacting) quarks.
82
Bounds on the Higgs Boson Mass
Since the Higgs boson mass is not predicted by the model we should
rely on some experimental and theoretical bounds to guide our future
searches. The most stringent lower bound was recently established by
the LEP Collaborations [111] and read
M
H
> 95.2 GeV .
at 95% C.L..
It is also possible to obtain a theoretical lower bound on the Higgs
boson mass based on the stability of the Higgs potential when quan
tum corrections to the classical potential (II.26) are taken into account
[124]. Requiring that the standard electroweak minimum is stable (i.e.
the vacuum is an absolute minimum) up to the Planck scale, Λ = 10
19
GeV, the following bound can be established [125]:
M
H
(in GeV) > 133 + 1.92(m
t
−175) −4.28
_
α
s
−0.12
0.006
_
.
The behavior of M
H
as a function of the scale Λ is given in the lower
curve of Fig. 13, for m
t
= 175 GeV and α
s
= 0.118. We see from this
ﬁgure that, if a Higgs boson is discovered with M
H
· 100 GeV, it would
mean that the electroweak vacuum is instable at Λ ∼ 10
5
GeV
∗
.
There are also some theoretical upper bounds on the Higgs boson
mass. A bound can be obtained by requiring that unitarity is not vio
lated in the scattering of vector bosons [126]. Let us take as an example
the WW scattering represented in Fig. 12.
We should notice that if we exclude the Higgs boson contribution by
taking M
H
→∞, we expect that the remaining amplitudes would even
tually violate unitarity, since the theory is not renormalisable without
the Higgs. Therefore, it is natural to expect that the Higgs mass should
play an important rˆ ole in high energy behaviour of the scattering am
plitudes of longitudinally polarized vector bosons. This is what hap
pened for instance in the reaction e
+
e
−
→ W
+
W
−
discussed in section
II.2..
∗
Reversing the argument, since we live in a stable vacuum, this means that the
Standard Model must break down at this same scale.
83
W
W
W
W
A
W
W
W
W
Z
W
W
W
W
H
W
W
W
W
A
W
W
W
W
Z
W
W
W
W
H
W
W
W
W
Fig. 12: Feynman contributions to W
+
W
−
→W
+
W
−
.
Aconvenient way to estimate amplitudes involving longitudinal gau
ge bosons is through the use of the Goldstone Boson Equivalence The
orem [126, 127]. This theorem states that at high energies, the ampli
tude / for emission or absorption of a longitudinally polarized gauge
boson is equal to the amplitude for emission or absorption of the corre
sponding Goldstone boson, up to terms that fall like 1/E
2
, i.e.,
/(W
±
L
, Z
0
L
) = /(ω
±
, z
0
) +O
_
M
2
W,Z
/E
2
_
. (IV.2)
We can use an effective Lagrangian approach to describe the Gold
stone boson interactions. Starting from the Higgs doublet in terms of
ω
±
and z
0
,
Φ =
1
√
2
_
i
√
2ω
+
v +H −iz
0
_
,
84
we can write the Higgs potential as
V (Φ
†
Φ) = µ
2
Φ
†
Φ + λ(Φ
†
Φ)
2
=
1
2
M
2
H
H
2
+
g
4
M
2
H
M
W
H(H
2
+ 2ω
+
ω
−
+ z
0
2
)
+
g
2
32
M
2
H
M
2
W
(H
2
+ 2ω
+
ω
−
+ z
0
2
)
2
.
Therefore, with the aid of (IV.2), the amplitude for W
+
L
W
−
L
→W
+
L
W
−
L
is obtained as,
/(W
+
L
W
−
L
→W
+
L
W
−
L
) · /(ω
+
ω
−
→ω
+
ω
−
)
= −i
g
2
4
M
2
H
M
2
W
_
2 +
M
2
H
s −M
2
H
+
M
2
H
t −M
2
H
_
.
and, at high energies, we have:
/(ω
+
ω
−
→ω
+
ω
−
) · −i
g
2
2
M
2
H
M
2
W
= −i 2
√
2G
F
M
2
H
.
Therefore, for swave, unitarity requires
A
0
=
1
16π
[/(ω
+
ω
−
→ω
+
ω
−
)[ =
2G
F
8π
√
2
M
2
H
< 1 .
When this result is combined with the other possible channels (z
0
z
0
,
z
0
h, hh) it leads to the requirement that λ 8π/3 or, translated in terms
of the Higgs mass,
M
H
_
8π
√
2
3G
F
_
1/2
· 1 TeV .
Another way of imposing a bound on the Higgs mass is provided by
the analysis of the triviality of the Higgs potential [124]. The renor
malization group equation, at one loop, for the quartic coupling λ is
dλ
dt
=
1
16π
2
_
12λ
2
_
+ (terms involving g, g
, Yukawa) ,
85
Fig. 13: Perturbative and stability bound on M
H
as a function
of the scale Λ, from Ref. [125].
where t = log(Q
2
/µ
2
). Therefore, for a pure φ
4
potential, i.e., when the
gauge and Yukawa couplings are neglected, we have the solution
1
λ(µ)
−
1
λ(Q)
=
3
4π
2
log
_
Q
2
µ
2
_
.
Since the stability of the Higgs potential requires that λ(Q) ≥ 0, we
can write
λ(µ) ≤
4π
2
3 log(Q
2
/µ
2
)
, (IV.3)
and, for large values of Q
2
, we can see that λ(µ) → 0 and the theory
becomes trivial, that is, not interacting. The relation (IV.3), can be
written as
Q
2
≤ µ
2
exp
_
4π
2
3λ(µ)
_
.
This result gives rise to a bound in the Higgs boson mass when we
86
consider the scale µ
2
= M
2
H
and take into account (IV.1),
Q
2
≤ M
2
H
exp
_
8π
2
v
2
3M
2
H
_
.
Therefore, there is a maximum scale Q
2
= Λ
2
, for a given Higgs boson
mass, up to where the Standard Model theory should be valid.
In Fig. 13, we present the stability bound (lower curve) and the triv
iality bound (upper curve) on the Higgs boson mass as a function of the
scale Λ. If we expect that the Standard Model is valid up to a given
scale — let us say Λ
GUT
∼ 10
16
GeV [128] — a bound on the Higgs mass
should lie between both curves, in this case 140 GeV M
H
180 GeV.
IV.3. Production and Decay Modes
IV.3.1. The Decay Modes of the Higgs Boson
The possible decay modes of the Higgs boson are essentially deter
mined by the value of its mass. In Fig. 14 we present the Higgs branch
ing ratio for different M
H
.
When the Higgs boson mass lies in the range 95 GeV < M
H
< 130
GeV, the Higgs is quite narrow Γ
H
< 10 MeV and the main branching
ratios come from the heaviest fermions that are accessible kinemati
cally:
BR(H →b
¯
b) ∼ 90% ,
BR(H →c¯ c) · BR(H →τ
+
τ
−
) ∼ 5% .
For M
H
· 120 GeV the gluon–gluon channel is important giving a con
tribution of ∼ 5% of the width. For a heavier Higgs, i.e. M
H
> 130 GeV,
the vector boson channels H →V V
∗
, with V = W, Z, are dominant,
BR(H →W
+
W
−
) ∼ 65% ,
BR(H →Z
0
Z
0
) ∼ 35% .
For M
H
· 500 GeV the top quark pair production contributes with ∼
20% of the width. Note that the BR(H → γγ) is always small O(10
−3
).
87
BR(H)
bb
_
τ
+
τ
−
cc
_
gg
WW
ZZ
tt

γγ
Zγ
M
H
[GeV]
50 100 200 500 1000
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Fig. 14: The branching ratios of the Higgs boson as a function
of its mass from Ref. [117].
However, we can think of some alternative models that give rise to
larger Hγγ couplings (for a review see [129] and references therein).
For large values of M
H
the Higgs becomes a very wide resonance: Γ
H
∼
[M
H
(in TeV)]
3
/2.
IV.3.2. Production Mechanisms at Colliders
Electron–Positron Colliders
The Higgs boson can be produced in electron–positron collisions via
the Bjorken mechanism [130] or vector boson fusion [131],
(i) Bjorken: e
+
+ e
−
→Z →Z H ,
(ii) WW Fusion: e
+
+ e
−
→ν¯ ν(WW) →ν¯ ν H ,
(iii) ZZ Fusion: e
+
+ e
−
→e
+
e
−
(ZZ) →e
+
e
−
H .
At LEPI and II, where
√
s · M
Z
or 2 M
W
the Higgs production is
dominated by the Bjorken mechanism and they were able to rule out
88
from very small Higgs masses up to 95.2 GeV [111]. Maybe, when the
whole analysis is complete, they will be able to rule out up to M
H
∼ 106
GeV.
At the future e
+
e
−
accelerators, like the Next Linear Collider [132],
where
√
s = 500 GeV, the production of a Higgs with 100 < M
H
<
200 GeV will be dominated by the WW fusion, since its cross section
behaves like σ ∝ log(s/M
2
H
) and therefore dominates at high energies.
We can expect around 2000 events per year for an integrated luminosity
of L · 50 fb
−1
, and the Next Linear Collider should be able to explore
up to M
H
∼ 350 GeV.
Hadron Colliders
At proton–(anti)proton collisions the Higgs boson can be produced
via the gluon fusion mechanism [122, 123], through the vector boson
fusion and in association with a W
±
or a Z
0
,
(i) Gluon fusion: p¯ p →gg →H ,
(ii) VV Fusion: p¯ p →V V →H ,
(iii) Association with V: p¯ p →q¯ q
→V H .
At the Fermilab Tevatron [133], with
√
s = 1.8 (2) TeV, the Higgs
is better produced in association with vector boson and they look for
the V H(→ b
¯
b) signature. After the improvement in the luminosity at
TEV33 they will need L ∼ 10 fb
−1
to explore up to M
H
∼ 100 GeV with
5 σ.
At the CERN Large Hadron Collider [134], that will operate with
√
s = 14 TeV, the dominant production mechanism is through the gluon
fusion and the best signature will be H →ZZ →4
±
for M
H
> 130 GeV.
For M
H
< 130 GeV they should rely on the small BR(H → γγ) ∼ 10
−3
.
We expect that the LHC can explore up to M
H
∼ 700 GeV with an
integrated luminosity of L ∼ 100 fb
−1
.
Once the Higgs boson is discovered it is important to establish with
precision several of its properties like mass, spin, parity and width.
The next step would be to search for processes involving multiple Higgs
89
production, like V V → HH or gg → HH, which could give some infor
mation on the Higgs self–coupling.
V. Closing Remarks
In the last 30 years, we have witnessed the striking success of a
gauge theory for the electroweak interactions. The Standard Model
made some new and crucial predictions. The existence of a weak neu
tral current and of intermediate vector bosons, with deﬁnite relation
between their masses, were conﬁrmed by the experiments.
Recently, a set of very precise tests were performed by Tevatron,
LEP and SLC colliders that were able to reach an accuracy of 0.1% or
even better, in the measurement of the electroweak parameters. This
guarantees that even the quantum structure of the model was success
fully confronted with the experimental data. It was veriﬁed that the
W and Z couplings to leptons and quarks have exactly the same values
anticipated by the Standard Model. We already have some strong hints
that the triple–gauge–boson couplings respect the structure prescribed
by the SU(2)
L
⊗ U(1)
Y
gauge symmetry. The Higgs boson, remnant
of the spontaneous symmetry breaking, has not yet been discovered.
However, important information, extracted from the global ﬁtting of
data taking into account the loop effects of the Higgs, assures that this
particle is just around the corner. The Higgs mass should be less than
∼ 260 GeV at 95% C.L., in full agreement with the theoretical upper
bounds for the Higgs mass.
These remarkable achievements let just a small room for the new
physics beyond the Standard Model. Nevertheless, we still have some
conceptual difﬁculties like the hierarchy problem, that may indicate
that the explanation provided by the Standard Model should not be
the end of the story.
A series of alternative theories — technicolour, grand uniﬁed theory,
supersymmetric extensions, superstrings, extra dimension theories, etc
— have been proposed, but they all suffer from lack of an experimental
90
spark. Nevertheless, the physics beyond the Standard Model is also
beyond the scope of these lectures . . .
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to M. C. Gonzalez–Garcia and T. L. Lungov for the
critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by Con
selho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient´ıﬁco e Tecnol´ ogico (CNPq), by
Fundac¸ ˜ ao de Amparo ` a Pesquisa do Estado de S˜ ao Paulo (FAPESP),
by Programa de Apoio a N´ ucleos de Excelˆ encia (PRONEX), and by
Fundac¸ ˜ ao para o Desenvolvimento da Universidade Estadual Paulista
(FUNDUNESP).
91
References
[1] C. Quigg, Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromag
netc Interactions (Addison–Wesley Pub. Co., Menlo Park, 1983).
[2] T. P. Cheng and L.F. Li, Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle
Physics (Claredon Press, Oxford, 1984).
[3] The partial Z width in the different lepton ﬂavors is able to pro
vide a very important information on the universality of the elec
troweak interactions. The values of g
V
and F. Halzen and A. D.
Martin, Quarks and Leptons: An Introductory Course on Modern
Particle Physics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984).
[4] I. J. R. Aitchison and A. J. G. Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle
Physics : A Practical Introduction (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1990).
[5] P. Renton, Electroweak Interactions: An Introduction to the
Physics of Quarks and Leptons (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1990).
[6] E. Golowich J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of
the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1992).
[7] E. Predazzi E. Leader, An Introduction to Gauge Theories and
Modern Particle Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge, 1996).
[8] E. S. Abers and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rep. 9, 1 (1973).
[9] M. Levine J. E. Kim, P. Langacker and H. H. Williams, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 53, 211 (1981).
[10] M. A. B. Beg and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rep. 88, 1 (1982).
[11] M. S. Chanowitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 38, 323 (1988).
92
[12] R. N. Cahn and G. Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of
Particle Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1989).
[13] V. V. Ezhela et al., Particle Physics: One Hundred Years of Dis
coveries (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1996).
[14] J. Schwinger (editor), Selected Papers on Quantum Electrody
namics (Dover Pub., Inc., New York, 1981).
[15] C. H. Lai (editor), Selected Papers on Gauge Theory of Weak and
Electromagnetic Interactions (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1981).
[16] H. Becquerel, Compt. Ren. 122, 501 (1896), (Five papers were
published in the same issue. See also pages 559, 689, 762, and
1086).
[17] J. Chadwick, Verhandl Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 16, 383 (1914).
[18] C. D. Ellis and W. A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117, 109 (1927).
[19] P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A114, 243 (1927); idem, A114, 710
(1927).
[20] W. Pauli, Open Letter to Radioactive Persons, 1930, for an English
translation see: Physics Today 31, 27 (1978).
[21] J. R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev. 35, 461 (1930).
[22] W. Pauli, in Septi` eme Conseil de Physique, Solvay (Gauthier–
Villars, Paris, 1934), p. 324.
[23] E. Fermi, Z. Phys. 88, 161 (1934); idem, Nuovo Cim. 11, 1 (1934).
[24] G. Gamow and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 49, 895 (1936).
[25] F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. 52, 54 (1937).
[26] E. J. Williams and G. E. Roberts, Nature 145, 102 (1940).
[27] S. Tomonaga, Bull. I. P. C. R. (Riken Iho) 22, 545 (1943), for the
English translation see Prog. Theor. Phys. 1, 27 (1946).
[28] B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Rev. 72, 246 (1947).
93
[29] H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 72, 339 (1947).
[30] P. Kusch and H. M. Foley, Phys. Rev. 72, 1256 (1947).
[31] J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 73, 416 (1948).
[32] C. Caso et al., The European Physical Journal 1 (1998).
[33] R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 74, 1430 (1948); idem, 76, 769 (1949).
[34] J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948); idem, 75, 651 (1949).
[35] T. Tati and S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 3, 391 (1948); see
also: Z. Koba, T. Tati and S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 2, 101
and 198 (1947).
[36] F.J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 486 (1949).
[37] J. Tiomno and J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 144 (1949).
[38] T. D. Lee, M. N. Rosenbluth, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 75, 905
(1949).
[39] J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev. 78, 182 (1950).
[40] C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954).
[41] L. W. Alvarez and S. Goldhaber, Nuovo Cim. 2, 344 (1955).
[42] R. W. Birge et al., Phys. Rev. 100, 430 (1955).
[43] T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956).
[44] C. S. Wu et al., Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957).
[45] R. L. Garwin, L. M. Lederman, and M. Weinrich, Phys. Rev. 105,
1415 (1957).
[46] J. I. Friedman and V. L. Teledgi, Phys. Rev. 105, 1681 (1957).
[47] H. Frauenfelder et al., Phys. Rev. 106, 386 (1957).
[48] A. Salam, Nuovo Cim. 5, 299 (1957).
94
[49] T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 105, 1671 (1957).
[50] L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 32, 407 (1957); see also JETP
5, 337 (1957).
[51] J. Schwinger, Ann. Phys. 2, 407 (1957).
[52] T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 108, 1611 (1957).
[53] R. P. Feynman and M. GellMann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958).
[54] R. E. Marshak and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. 109, 1860
(1958).
[55] J. J. Sakurai, Nuovo Cim. 7, 649 (1958).
[56] J. Leite Lopes, Nucl. Phys. 8, 234 (1958).
[57] M. Goldhaber, L. Grodzins, and A. W. Sunyar, Phys. Rev. 109,
1015 (1958).
[58] J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cim. 19, 154 (1961); see also: Y. Nambu,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1962).
[59] A. Salam and J. C. Ward, Nuovo Cim. 19, 165 (1961).
[60] S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961).
[61] N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963).
[62] S. L. Glashow J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Lett. 11, 255 (1964).
[63] P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964).
[64] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964).
[65] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.
13, 585 (1964).
[66] J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964).
[67] A. Salam and J. C. Ward, Phys. Lett. 13, 168 (1964).
95
[68] T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 155, 1554 (1967).
[69] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967).
[70] L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, Phys. Lett. B 25, 29 (1967).
[71] A. Salam, in “Elementary Particle Theory”, The Nobel Sympo
sium no
¯
8, edited by N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stock
holm, 1968), p. 367.
[72] S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285
(1970).
[73] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B33, 173 (1971); idem, B35, 167 (1971).
[74] M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).
[75] F. J. Hasert et al., Phys. Lett. B 46, 121 (1973); idem, B 46, 138
(1973).
[76] A. Benvenuti et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 800 (1974).
[77] M. L. Perl et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1489 (1975).
[78] S. W. Herb et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 252 (1977).
[79] G. Arnison et al. (UA1 Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 122, 103 (1983).
[80] M. Banner et al. (UA2 Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 122, 476 (1983).
[81] G. Arnison et al. (UA1 Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 126, 398 (1983).
[82] P. Bagnaia et al. (UA2 Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 129, 130 (1983).
[83] R. S. Van Dyck, P. B. Schwinberg, and H. G. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev.
D 34, 722 (1986).
[84] H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 192, 245 (1987).
[85] G. S. Abrams et al. (MARK–II Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2173
(1989).
[86] LEP Collaborations: ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, Phys.
Lett. B 276, 247 (1992).
96
[87] F. Abe et al. (CDF Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995).
[88] S. Abachi et al. (DØ Collab.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2632 (1995).
[89] D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973).
[90] H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973).
[91] W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 77, 1 (1932).
[92] R. Utiyama, Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956).
[93] S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge Univer
sity Press, Cambridge, 1996), vol. II, pp. 164–167.
[94] S. A. Bludman, Nuovo Cim. 9, 433 (1958).
[95] B. W. Lee K. Fujikawa and Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 6, 2923 (1972).
[96] C. H. Llwellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. B 46, 233 (1973).
[97] M. K. Gaillard and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 10, 897 (1974).
[98] B. Winstein and L. Wolfenstein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1113 (1993).
[99] Y. Suzuki, talk given at the XIX International Symposium on
Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford Uni
versity (1999).
[100] T. Mann, talk given at the XIX International Symposium on Lep
ton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford Univer
sity (1999).
[101] R. Slansky M. GellMann, P. Ramond, in Supergravity, , edited
by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman (North Holland
Publ. Co., Amsterdan, 1979), pp. Print–80–0576 (CERN); see
also, R. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912
(1980).
[102] W. Hollik, in Particle and Fields, Proceedings of the VII J. A.
Swieca Summer School, edited by O. J. P.
´
Eboli and V. O. Rivelles
(World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1994), p. 169.
97
[103] R. Barbieri, in 1994 European School of High Energy Physics,
Proceedings of the 1994 European School of High Energy Phys
ics, edited by N. Ellis and M. B. Gavela (CERN, Geneva, 1995),
p. 43.
[104] A. Sirlin, talk given at the XIX International Symposium on Lep
ton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford Univer
sity (1999), hepph/9912227.
[105] The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP
Electroweak Working Group and the SLD Heavy Flavour and
Electroweak Groups, Technical Report No. CERN–EP/99–15 (un
published).
[106] S. Willocq (for the SLD Collaboration), in The strong interaction,
from hadrons to partons, Proceedings of the 24th Annual SLAC
Summer Institute on Particle Physics: The Strong Interaction,
From Hadrons to Protons, edited by L. Dixon J. Chan, L. DePor
cel (Springﬁeld, NTIS, 1997), p. 405.
[107] B. Adeva et al. (L3 Collab.), Phys. Lett. B 247, 473 (1990).
[108] S. Kim (for the CDF and DØ Collaborations), Technical Report
No. FERMILAB–Conf99/262–E (unpublished).
[109] S. Eidelmann and F. Jegerlehmer, Z. Phys. 585 (1995).
[110] M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 429, 158 (1998).
[111] ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, and the LEP Working Group
for Higgs Boson Searches, Technical Report No. ALEPH 99–
081 CONF 99052, submitted to the International Europhysics
Conference on High Energy Physics, Tampere, Finland (unpub
lished).
[112] O. Nicrosini G. Montagna and F. Piccinini, Phys. Lett. B 406, 243
(1997).
[113] See also the LEP Electroweak Working Group Home Page,
http://www.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/ (Summer 99 Plots).
98
[114] G. Kane J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber and S. Dawson, The Higgs
Hunter’s Guide (Addison–Wesley Pub. Co., Menlo Park, 1990),
and references therein.
[115] B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rep. 240, 211 (1994).
[116] A. Djouadi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 1 (1995).
[117] M. Spira and P. Zerwas, in 36th International University School
of Nuclear and Particle Physics: Computing Particle Properties
(36 IUKT), Lecture Notes in Physics 512, edited by C. B. Land
H. Gausterer (Springer, Berlin, 1998), p. 161.
[118] C. Quigg, Acta Phys. Polon. B30, 2145 (1999).
[119] M. K. Gaillard J. Ellis and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 106,
292 (1976).
[120] N. Fleishon R. N. Cahn, M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Lett. B 82, 113
(1979).
[121] J. C. Rom˜ ao A. Barroso, J. Pulido, Nucl. Phys. B 267, 509 (1986).
[122] M. E. Machacek D. V. Nanopoulos H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 692 (1978).
[123] S. F. Novaes, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2211 (1983).
[124] M. Sher, Phys. Rep. 179, 273 (1989).
[125] M. Quiros J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, Phys. Lett. B 342, 171
(1995); see also M. Quiros, in Perspectives on Higgs Physics II,
edited by G. L. Kane (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1997), hep
ph/9703412.
[126] H. B. Thacker B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977).
[127] M. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 379 (1985).
[128] G. G. Ross, Grand Uniﬁed Theories (Addison–Wesley Pub. Co.,
Menlo Park, 1984), and references therein.
[129] M. C. GonzalezGarcia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 3121 (1999).
99
[130] J. D. Bjorken, Proccedings of the Summer Institute on Particle
Physics, Technical Report No. SLAC198 (unpublished).
[131] R. Cahn and S. Dawson, Phys. Lett. B 136, 196 (1984), [E: B 138,
464 (1984)].
[132] H. Murayama and M. E. Peskin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 46,
533 (1996), E. Accomando et al., Phys. Rep. 299, 1 (1998).
[133] W. Marciano A. Stange and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1354
(1994); idem, D 50, 4491 (1994).
[134] D. Graudenz M. Spira, A. Djouadi and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys.
B 453, 17 (1995).
100
Contents
I. Introduction I.1. A Chronology of the Weak Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . I.2. The Gauge Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.2.1. Gauge Invariance in Quantum Mechanics . . . . . I.2.2. Gauge Invariance for Non–Abelian Groups . . . . I.3. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.4. The Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.4.1. The Abelian Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . I.4.2. The Non–Abelian Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The Standard Model II.1. Constructing the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.1.1. General Principles to Construct Gauge Theories . II.1.2. Right– and Left– Handed Fermions . . . . . . . . II.1.3. Choosing the gauge group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.1.4. The Higgs Mechanism and the W and Z mass . . II.2. Some General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.2.1. On the mass matrix of the neutral bosons . . . . . II.2.2. On the ρ Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.2.3. On the Gauge Fixing Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.2.4. On the Measurement of sin2 θW at Low Energies .
4 5 18 19 22 25 31 31 34 35 35 35 37 38 44 47 48 48 49 51
2
II.2.5. On the Lepton Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.2.6. On the Cross Sections e+ e− → W + W − . . . . . . . II.3. Introducing the Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.3.1. On Anomaly Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.3.2. The Quark Masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.4. The Standard Model Lagrangian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Beyond the Trees III.1.Radiative Corrections to the Standard Model . . . . . . . III.1.1.One Loop Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III.2.The Z boson Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III.2.1.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III.2.2.The Standard Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . IV. The Higgs Boson Physics IV.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.2. Higgs Boson Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.3. Production and Decay Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV.3.1. The Decay Modes of the Higgs Boson . . . . . . . . IV.3.2. Production Mechanisms at Colliders . . . . . . . . V. Closing Remarks References
52 53 55 57 58 61 63 64 65 68 68 71 80 81 82 87 87 88 90 92
3
Introduction The joint description of the electromagnetic and the weak interaction by a single theory certainly is one of major achievements of the physical science in this century. In this course. W ± . with the left–handed fermions belonging to weak isodoublets while the right–handed components transform as weak isosinglets. The description of the electroweak interaction is implemented by a gauge theory based on the SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y group. there is no experimental result that contradicts the Standard Model predictions. We should not touch any subject “beyond the Standard Model”. This is the only missing piece of the Standard Model that still awaits experimental conﬁrmation. Even after the recent precise measurements of the electroweak parameters in electron–positron collisions at the Z 0 pole. This primer should provide the necessary background for the lectures on more advanced topics that were covered in this school. The matter ﬁelds — leptons and quarks — are organized in families. is part of the physical spectrum. that mediate the interactions are introduced via minimal coupling to the matter ﬁelds. we intend to give a quite pedestrian introduction to the main concepts involved in the construction of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions. Salam and Weinberg in the middle sixties. A remnant scalar ﬁeld. which is spontaneously broken via the Higgs mechanism. A special emphasis will be given to the historical aspects of the formulation of the theory. An essential ingredient of the model is the scalar potential that is added to the Lagrangian to generate the vector–boson (and fermion) masses in a gauge invariant way. The discovery of neutral weak interactions and the production of intermediate vector bosons (W ± and Z 0 ) with the expected properties increased our conﬁdence in the model. The model proposed by Glashow. via the Higgs mechanism. Z 0 and γ. The interplay of new ideas and experimental results make the history of weak interactions a very fruitful laboratory for understanding how the development of a scientiﬁc theory works in 4 .I. such as W physics and extensions of the Standard Model. has been extensively tested during the last 30 years. The vector bosons. the Higgs boson.
We ﬁnish our lectures with an account on the most important challenge to the Standard Model: the discovery of the Higgs boson.3. like mass. we introduce the Standard Model.practice. A Chronology of the Weak Interactions We will present in this section the main steps given towards a uniﬁed description of the electromagnetic and weak interactions. The gauge principle (Sec.4. I. More formal aspects and details of the model can be found in the vast literature on this subject. We start these lectures with a chronological account of the ideas related to the development of electromagnetic and weak theories (Section I. 9. 5. Most of the material covered in these lectures can be found in a series of very good textbook on the subject. The topics closely related to the evolution and construction of the model will be worked with more details. and the introduction of quarks in the model.) and the Higgs mechanism (Section I. We ﬁnalize this chapter giving an overview on the Standard Model Lagrangian in Sec. Aitchison and Hey [4]. 10.) and the concepts of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Sec. 3. from textbooks [1. we give an introduction to the radiative corrections to the Standard Model.). we discuss the main properties of the Higgs.1.2. In the Chapter II.. from theoretical developments and predictions to experimental conﬁrmation and surprises. we will mention some parallel achievements in Particle Physics in this century. 2. and Leader and Predazzi [7]. We discuss topics like the mass matrix of the neutral bosons. 7] to reviews [8. Loop calculations are important to compare the predictions of the Standard Model with the precise experimental results of Z physics that are presented in Sec. the measurement of the Weinberg angle. 11]. the lepton mass.) are presented. I. In Chapter IV. 5 . II.. III. following the general principles that should guide the construction of a gauge theory. I..2. 6.4. Among them we can point out the books from Quigg [1]. couplings and decay modes and discuss the phenomenological prospects for the search of the Higgs in different colliders. In Chapter III. anomaly cancelation.1. In order to give a historical ﬂavor to the presentation... 4.
1911 Millikan: measurement of the electron charge. 1911 Rutherford: evidence for the atomic nucleus. 1914 Chadwick [17]: ﬁrst observation that the β spectrum is continuous. Pauli: discovery of the exclusion principle. 1923 1925 1925 1926 de Broglie: corpuscular–wave dualism for electrons. Indirect evidence on the existence of neutral penetrating particles. The “star” ( ) means that the author(s) have received the Nobel Prize in Physics for this particular work. 1896 Becquerel [16]: evidence for spontaneous radioactivity effect in uranium decay. Schr¨ dinger: creation of wave quantum mechanics. Compton: experimental conﬁrmation that the photon is an 1923 elementary particle in γ + C → γ + C. 1913 Bohr: invention of the quantum theory of atomic spectra. Planck: start of the quantum era. 1919 Rutherford: discovery of the proton. Original papers on gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions appear in Ref. o 1927 Ellis and Wooster [18]: conﬁrmation that the β spectrum is continuous. [15]. 1897 1900 Thomson: discovery of the electron in cathode rays. An extensive selection of original papers on Quantum Electrodynamics can be found in the book edited by Schwinger [14]. Heisenberg: foundation of quantum mechanics. 1905 Einstein: start of the relativistic era. 6 . using photographic ﬁlm.The chronology of the developments and discoveries in Particle Physics can be found in the books of Cahn and Goldhaber [12] and the annotated bibliography from COMPAS and Particle Data Groups [13]. constituent of the nucleus.
µ 7 ΓA = γµ γ5 . In analogy to “the theory of radiation that describes the emission of a quantum of light from an excited atom”. 1930 Pauli [20]: ﬁrst proposal. 1934 Pauli [22]: explanation of continuous electron spectrum of β decay — proposal for the neutrino. 1930 Oppenheimer [21]: self–energy of the electron: the ﬁrst ultraviolet divergence in QED. pseudo–scalar. 2 1936 Gamow and Teller [24]: proposed an extension of the Fermi theory to describe also transitions with ∆J nuc = 0. 1931 Dirac: prediction of the positron and anti–proton. µ ΓT = σµν . in an open letter. neutral and feebly interacting particle emitted in β decay. prediction of the magnetic moment of the electron. of the existence of a light. n → p + e− + νe . The vector currents proposed by Fermi are generalized to: GF ¯ ¯ Ci ψp Γi ψn ψe Γi ψν . 1928 Dirac: discovery of the relativistic wave equation for electrons. ΓP = γ5 . 1932 1932 Anderson: ﬁrst evidence for the positron. Fermi proposed a current–current Lagrangian to describe the β decay: GF ¯ ¯ Lweak = √ ψp γµ ψn ψe γ µ ψν . assuming the existence of the neutrino.1927 Dirac [19]: foundations of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). 1932 Heisenberg: suggestion that nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons. Lweak = √ 2 i with the scalar. eJµ Aµ . µν . ¯ 1934 Fermi [23]: ﬁeld theory for β decay. Chadwick: ﬁrst evidence for the neutron in α + Be → C + n. axial and tensor structures: ΓS = 1 . ΓV = γµ . 1929 Skobelzyn: observation of cosmic ray showers produced by energetic electrons in a cloud chamber. vector.
16 × 10−3 ).V .T . decay and capture processes have the same origin.S and/or V.A and/or T. ±1 (0 → 0) transitions can be taken into account by A. Occhialini and Powell: conﬁrmation of the π − and ﬁrst evidence for pion decay π ± → µ± + (νµ ). the weak Lagrangian should contain.Nuclear transitions with ∆J = 0 are described by the interactions S. interference between them are proportional to me /Ee and should increase the emission of low energy electrons. Since this behavior was not observed.e. 1943 Tomonaga [27]: creation of the covariant quantum electrodynamic theory. 1937 Majorana: Majorana neutrino theory.19 × 10−3 ).S or V. 1937 Neddermeyer and Anderson: ﬁrst evidence for the muon.A or T. 1947 Lattes. The high–precision measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most 8 . 1937 Bloch and Nordsieck [25]: treatment of infrared divergences. 1947 Bethe [29]: ﬁrst theoretical calculation of the Lamb shift in non– relativistic QED.T interactions (ΓP → 0 in the non–relativistic limit). ν 1943 Heisenberg: invention of the S–matrix formalism. However. 1947 Pontecorvo [28]: ﬁrst idea about the universality of the Fermi weak interactions i. 1940 Williams and Roberts [26]: ﬁrst observation of muon decay µ− → e− + (¯e + νµ ) .V and A. while ∆J = 0. 1948 Schwinger [31]: ﬁrst theoretical calculation of ge − 2 for the electron: ge = 2(1 + α/2π) = 2(1 + 1. S. 1947 Kusch and Foley [30]: ﬁrst measurement of ge − 2 for the electron using the Zeeman effect: ge = 2(1 + 1. 1947 Rochester and Butler: ﬁrst evidence for V events (strange particles).
03 × 10−5 GF = . 1954 Yang and Mills [40]: introduction of local gauge isotopic invariance in quantum ﬁeld theory. 2 Mp the so–called Fermi constant. · · · ¯ ¯ ¯ 1950 Ward [39]: Ward identity in QED. Birge et al. Λ.0) × 10−11 .3 ± 1. K 0 . are [32]. KL. 1. 50’s A large number of new particles where discovered in the 50’s: π 0 . Gell–Mann: invention and exploration of renormalization group.stringent QED test. ¯ − µ + p → νµ + n . Ξ0 . β − decay µ − decay µ − capture : : : n → p + e− + νe . where we notice the impressive agreement at the 9 digit level! 1948 Feynman [33]. Ξ− . ¯ K ± . Rosenbluth and Yang [38]: proposal of the universality of the Fermi weak interactions. e exp ae = (115 965 219. Schwinger [34]. The present theoretical and experimental value of ae = (ge − 2)/2. 1955 Alvarez and Goldhaber [41]. Lee. This was one of the key theoretical developments that lead to the invention of non–abelian gauge theories. p. νe . Σ0 .4 ± 2.4) × 10−11 . ¯ − − µ → e + νe + νµ . Schwinger and Feynman methods. Σ± . 1949 Wheeler and Tiomno [37]. Tati and Tomonaga [35]: creation of the covariant theory of QED. athr = (115 965 215.S . [42]: θ − τ puzzle: The “two” particles seem to be a single state since they have the same width 9 . must have the same nature and should share the same coupling constant. n. ∆++ . ¨ 1953 Stuckelberg. Λ. Different processes like. 1949 Dyson [36]: covariant QED and equivalence of Tomonaga.
into states with opposite parity: θ+ → π+ + π 0 . π + → µ+ + νµ → e+ + νe + νµ . They measured the angular distribution of the electrons in β decay. The measurement of the longitudinal polarization of the electron (σe . 1955 Lehmann. Friedman and Telegdi [46]: conﬁrmation of parity violation in weak decays. 60 Co (polarized) → 60 Ni + e− + νe . and the same mass (Mθ = Mτ ). 10 . pe . Lederman and Weinrich [45]. [44]: obtained the ﬁrst evidence for parity nonconservation in weak decays. They make the measurement of the electron asymmetry (muon polarization) in the decay chain. 1957 Wu et al.) + νe + X . J P = 0+ . ¯ and observed that the decay rate depend on the pseudo–scalar quantity: < Jnuc > . suggested that parity could be violated in weak transitions. J P = 0− . Symanzik and Zimmermann: beginnings of the axiomatic ﬁeld theory of the S–matrix. 1956 Lee and Yang [43]: proposals to test spatial parity conservation in weak interactions. 60 Co → e− (long. However the observation of different decay modes.(Γθ = Γτ ).pe ) emitted in β decay. τ + → π + + π + + π − . [47]: further conﬁrmation of parity nonconservation in weak decays. 1955 Nishijima: classiﬁcation of strange particles and prediction of Σ0 and Ξ0 . ¯ showed that the electrons emitted in weak transitions are mostly left– handed. polar. 1957 Garwin. ¯ 1957 Frauenfelder et al.
Here. Partial wave unitarity requires that such interaction must give rise to a cross section that is bound by σ < 4π/p2 . Γi } = 0 and the neutrino should be left–handed. since GF has dimension of cm M −2 . if Γi = S or T . They should also be very massive to account for short range 11 . This violation can be delayed by imposing that the interaction is transmitted by a intermediate vector boson (IVB) in analogy. Therefore the measurement of the neutrino helicity is crucial to determine the structure of the weak current. The IVB should be charged since the β decay requires charge–changing currents. the leptonic current should be written as: i ¯ (1 + γ5 ) Γi (1 ± γ5 ) ψν ¯ Jlept ≡ ψe Γi (1 ± γ5 ) ψν → ψe 2 . Note that CP remains conserved since C is also violated. On the other hand. the IVB should have quite different characteristics. otherwise the current is zero. Lee and Yang [49].e. If Γi = V or A then {γ5 . Therefore the Fermi theory violates unitarity for pcm 300 F cm GeV.The conﬁrmation of the parity violation by the weak interaction showed that it is necessary to have a term containing a γ5 in the weak current: GF Lweak → √ 2 ¯ Ci ψp Γi ψn i ¯ ψe Γi (1 ± γ5 ) ψν . Lee and Yang [52]: development of the idea of the intermediate vector boson in weak interaction. with the quantum electrodynamics. the cross section for the Fermi weak interaction should go like σ ∼ G2 p2 . a s–wave interaction. However. Γi ] = 0. and the neutrino should be right–handed. This requires that the neutrino is either right or left–handed. once again. then [γ5 . due to the properties of the weak interaction. Since it was known that electrons (positrons) involved in weak decays are left (right) handed. The four–fermion Fermi interaction is “point–like” i. 1957 Schwinger [51]. Landau [50]: two–component theory of neutrino. 1957 Salam [48] .
of the weak interaction and they should not have a deﬁnite parity to allow, for instance, a V − A structure for the weak current. With the introduction of the IVB, the Fermi Lagrangian for leptons, GF † Lweak = √ J α ( )Jα ( ) + h.c. , 2 ¯ where J α ( ) = ψν Γα ψ , becomes:
+ − LW = GW J α Wα + J † α Wα , weak
(I.1)
with a new coupling constant GW . Let us compare the invariant amplitude for µ–decay, in the low– energy limit in both cases. For the Fermi Lagrangian, we have, GF Mweak = i √ J α (µ)Jα (e) . 2 (I.2)
On the other hand, when we take into account the exchange of the IVB, the invariant amplitude should include the vector boson propagator, MW = [i GW J α (µ)] weak At low energies, i.e. for k 2 MW weak k2 −i 2 − MW gαβ − kα kβ 2 MW i GW J β (e) .
2 MW ,
G2 α −→ i W J (µ)Jα (e) , 2 MW
(I.3)
and, comparing (I.3) with (I.2) we obtain the relation G2 = W
2 MW GF √ 2
,
(I.4)
which shows that GW is dimensionless. However, at high energies, the theory of IVB still violates unitarity, for instance, in the cross section for ν ν → W + W − (see Fig. 1). ¯ 12
Let us consider the W ± polarization states. At the W ± rest frame, we can deﬁne the transversal and longitudinal polarizations as
µ T1 (0) = (0, 1, 0, 0) , µ T2 (0) = (0, 0, 1, 0) , µ L (0) = (0, 0, 0, 1) .
neutrino
W+ electron W
antineutrino
Fig. 1: Feynman diagram for the process ν + ν → W + + W − . ¯ After a boost along the z direction, i.e. transversal states remain unchanged while comes, p E µ , p ˆ L (p) = MW MW for pµ = (E, 0, 0, p), the the longitudinal state bepµ . MW
Since the longitudinal polarization is proportional to the vector boson momentum, at high energies the longitudinal amplitudes should give rise to the worst behavior. In fact, in high energy limit, the polarized cross section for ν ν → ¯ − W W behaves like,
+ + − σ(ν ν → WT WT ) −→ constant ¯ G2 s F + − σ(ν ν → WL WL ) −→ ¯ , 3π
which still violates unitarity for large values of s. 13
1958 Feynman and Gell–Mann [53]; Marshak and Sudarshan [54]; Sakurai [55]: universal V − A weak interactions.
+µ ¯ Jlept = ψe γ µ (1 − γ5 ) ψν .
(I.5)
1958 Leite Lopes [56]: hypothesis of neutral vector mesons exchanged in weak interaction. Prediction of its mass of ∼ 60 mproton . 1958 Goldhaber, Grodzins and Sunyar [57]: ﬁrst evidence for the negative νe helicity. As mentioned before, this result requires that the structure of the weak interaction is V − A. 1959 Reines and Cowan: conﬁrmation of the detection of the νe in ¯ νe + p → e+ + n. ¯ 1961 Goldstone [58]: prediction of unavoidable massless bosons if global symmetry of the Lagrangian is spontaneously broken. 1961 Salam and Ward [59]: invention of the gauge principle as basis to construct quantum ﬁeld theories of interacting fundamental ﬁelds.
Glashow [60]: ﬁrst introduction of the neutral intermediate 1961 weak boson (Z 0 ).
1962
Danby et al.: ﬁrst evidence of νµ from π ± → µ± + (ν/¯). ν
1963 Cabibbo [61]: introduction of the Cabibbo angle and hadronic weak currents.
It was observed experimentally that weak decays with change of strangeness (∆s = 1) are strongly suppressed in nature. For instance, the width of the neutron is much larger than the Λ’s, Γ∆s=0 (nudd → puud e¯) ν Γ∆s=1 (Λuds → puud e¯) , ν
which yield a branching ratio of 100% in the case of neutron and just ∼ 8 × 10−4 for the Λ. The hadronic current, in analogy with leptonic current (I.5), can be written in terms of the u, d, and s quarks,
H ¯ Jµ = dγµ (1 − γ5 )u + sγµ (1 − γ5 )u , ¯
(I.6)
where the ﬁrst term is responsible for the ∆s = 0 transitions while the latter one gives rise to the ∆s = 1 processes. In order to make 14
and massive vector boson. s) are interaction (mass) eigenstates. 1964 Salam and Ward [67]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthesis. The hadronic current should now be given in terms of the new interaction eigenstates. 1964 Greenberg. Cabibbo introduced a mixing angle to give the right weight to the ∆s = 0 and ∆s = 1 parts of the hadronic current. 1964 Higgs [63]. 1967 Weinberg [69]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthesis and estimation of W and Z masses. Englert and Brout [64]. estimation of the W mass.8) 1964 Bjorken and Glashow [62]: proposal for the existence of a charmed fundamental fermion (c). Guralnik. Now the transition ¯ d ↔ u is proportional to GF cos θC 0.24 GF . s (d. no massless Goldstone boson. Zweig: introduction of quarks as fundamental building blocks for hadrons. Hagen and Kibble [65]: example of a ﬁeld theory with spontaneous symmetry breakdown. 1967 Faddeev and Popov [70]: method for construction of Feynman rules for Yang–Mills gauge theories. Han and Nambu: introduction of color quantum number and colored quarks and gluons. Cronin. 1964 Christenson.97 GF and the s ↔ u goes like ¯ GF sin θC 0. ¯ (I.the hadronic current also universal. Fitch and Turlay [66]: ﬁrst evidence of CP violation in the decay of K 0 mesons. 15 . d s = cos θC sin θC − sin θC cos θC d s . 1967 Kibble [68]: extension of the Higgs mechanism of mass generation for non–abelian gauge ﬁeld theories. (I. H ¯ Jµ = d γµ (1 − γ5 )u ¯ = cos θC dγµ (1 − γ5 )u + sin θC sγµ (1 − γ5 )u .7) where d . with a common coupling constant GF . 1964 Gell–Mann.
(Fermilab) [78]: ﬁrst evidence of Υ (b¯ b).4. This was a dramatic prediction of the Standard Model and its discovery was a major success for the model. (Fermilab) [76]: conﬁrmation of the existence of weak neutral currents in the reaction νµ + N → νµ + X . (CERN) [75]: ﬁrst experimental indication of the existence of weak neutral currents. 1973 Fritzsch. 1974 Benvenuti et al. (SLAC): evidence for the J/ψ (c¯). ¯ ¯ νµ + N → νµ + X . 1970 Glashow. 1974 Aubert et al. c 1975 Perl et al. Iliopoulos and Maiani [72]: introduction of lepton– quark symmetry and the proposal of charmed quark (GIM mechanism). 16 . Gell–Mann and Leutwyler: invention of the QCD Lagrangian. 1977 Herb et al. Augustin et al. 1973 Kobayashi and Maskawa [74]: CP violation is accommodated in the Standard Model with six favours. 1969 Bjorken: invention of the Bjorken scaling behavior. 1973 Gross and Wilczek.3 to 0. (SLAC) [77]: ﬁrst indication of the τ lepton. νµ + e− → νµ + e− . (Brookhaven). 1971 ’t Hooft [73]: rigorous proof of renormalizability of the massless and massive Yang– Mills quantum ﬁeld theory with spontaneously broken gauge invariance.1968 Salam [71]: Lagrangian for the electroweak synthesis. 1969 Feynman: birth of the partonic picture of hadron collisions. 1973 Hasert et al. Politzer: discovery of asymptotic freedom property of interacting Yang–Mills ﬁeld theories. They also measured the ratio of neutral–current to charged–current events giving a estimate for the Weinberg angle sin2 θW in the range 0.
W. 17 . (UA2 Collab. (MARKII Collab.) [81]. 1989 Abrams et al. L3 and OPAL) [86]: precise determination of the Z 0 parameters. Abachi et al.): evidence for the gluon jet in e+ e− → 3 jet. Berger et al. Banner et al.) [82]: evidence for the neutral intermediate boson Z 0 in the reaction p + p → Z(→ ¯ + + − )+X . Bagnaia et al. 1983 Arnison et al. DELPHI. 1992 LEP Collaborations (ALEPH. This was another important conﬁrmation of the electroweak theory.) [87]. (PLUTO Collab. Bartel (JADE Collab. (DØ Collab.). (MARK J Collab.) [84]: ﬁrst evidence of B 0 − B 0 mixing. Schwinberg and Dehmelt [83]: high precision measurement of the electron ge − 2 factor. 1983 Arnison et al. (ARGUS Collab. ¯ 1987 Albrecht et al.1979 Barber et al. (UA1 Collab. 1995 Abe et al. (CDF Collab.). ¯ They were able to estimate the W boson mass (MW = 81 ± 5 GeV) in good agreement with the predictions of the Standard Model.) [85]: ﬁrst evidence that the number of light neutrinos is 3.) [79]. 1986 Van Dyck.). (UA2 Collab. (UA1 Collab. (TASSO Collab. Brandelik et al.) [88]: observation of the top quark production.) [80]: evidence for the charged intermediate bosons W ± in the reactions p + p → W (→ + ν) + X .
this was a possible dream: “Our basic postulate is that it should be possible to generate strong. In this sense. If an action is invariant under some group of transformations (symmetry). the symmetries have mapped out the route to most of the physical theories in this last century. up to the internal and gauge invariances. this happens in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). could symmetry also imply dynamics? In fact. symmetry has always played a very important rˆ le in the development of physics. A natural question to ask would be: upon imposing to a given Lagrangian the invariance under a certain symmetry. The Gauge Principle As it is well known. weak and electromagnetic interaction terms (with all their correct symmetry properties and also with clues regarding their relative strengths) by making local gauge transformations on the kinetic–energy terms in the free Lagrangian for all particles.” In fact. those ideas could be accomplished just after some new and important ingredients were introduced to describe short distance (weak) 18 . which had become a prototype of a successful quantum ﬁeld theory. In QED the existence and some of the properties of the gauge ﬁeld — the photon — follow from a principle of invariance under local gauge transformations of the U (1) group.I. the best theory ever built to describe Nature. Could this principle be generalized to other interactions? For Salam and Ward [59]. An important result for ﬁeld theory and particle physics is provided by the Noether’s theorem. who invented the gauge principle as the basis to construct the quantum ﬁeld theory of interacting ﬁelds. Noether’s theorem establishes that symmetries imply conservation laws. From the spacetime symmetry of o special relativity. then there exist one or more conserved quantities (constants of motion) which are associated to these transformations. would it be possible to determine the form of the interaction among the particles? In other words.2.
the gauge theory for strong interactions. 1 −i 2m − qA 2 + qφ ψ(x. H= ∂A . 64. 2 1 p − q A + qφ . Let us start from the classical Hamiltonian that gives rise to the Lorentz force (F = q E + qv × B).10) When we quantize the Hamiltonian (I. The Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). (I. ∂t These ﬁelds remain exactly the same when we make the gauge transformation (G) in the potentials: E =− φ− φ→φ =φ− ∂χ . making the strong gauge bosons trapped.2. Gauge Invariance in Quantum Mechanics The gauge principle and the concept of gauge invariance are already present in Quantum Mechanics of a particle in the presence of an electromagnetic ﬁeld [4]. the concept of asymptotic freedom [89.9) by applying the usual prescription p → −i . (I. In the case of weak interactions the presence of very heavy weak gauge bosons require the new concept of spontaneous breakdown of the gauge symmetry and the Higgs mechanism [63. 2m 19 (I. ∂t which can be written in a compact form as 1 (−iD)2 ψ = iD0 ψ . is the subject of Mangano’s lecture at this school. A). 65].and strong interactions. . B = ×A.9) 2m where the electric and magnetic ﬁelds can be described in terms of the potentials Aµ = (φ. I. t) = i ∂ψ(x. 90] played a crucial rˆ le to describe perturbatively the strong ino teraction at short distances. we get the Schr¨ dinger equation for a particle in an o electromagnetic ﬁeld.11) . ∂t A→A =A+ χ. t) .1. On the other hand.
12) with the same function χ = χ(x. 2m describe the same physics? The answer to this question is no. o If we make the gauge transformation. The derivative of ψ transforms as. does the new ﬁeld ψ which is solution of 1 (−iD )2 ψ = iD0 ψ . t) used in the transformation of electromagnetic ﬁelds (I. the Schr¨ dinger equation (I. However. D0 ψ = exp (iqχ) D0 ψ . and D0 ψ (I. 20 . Therefore. (I.The equation (I.10).14).13) We should mention that now the ﬁeld ψ (I.10). and in the same way.11) for ψ becomes o 1 1 (−iD )2 ψ = (−iD )(−iD ψ ) 2m 2m 1 = (−iD ) −i exp (iqχ) Dψ 2m 1 (−iD)2 ψ = exp (iqχ) 2m = exp (iqχ) (iD0 )ψ = iD0 ψ . given by (I.12) and its derivatives Dψ (I. A ). all transform exactly in the same way: they are all multiplied by the same phase factor. ∂t ∂t in the free Schr¨ dinger equation.11) is equivalent to make the substitution ∂ ∂ → D0 = + iqφ . we have for D0 . we can recover the invariance of our theory by making. the phase transformation in the matter ﬁeld ψ = exp (iqχ) ψ (I. → D = − iq A . A) −→ (φ .13).14) (I. (φ. at the same time. Dψ = − iq(A + χ) exp (iqχ) ψ G = exp (iqχ) ( ψ)+iq( χ) exp (iqχ) ψ −iq A exp (iqχ) ψ−iq( χ) exp (iqχ) ψ = exp (iqχ) Dψ .
For instance. the current J ∝ ψ ∗ ( ψ) − ( ψ)∗ ψ . if we introduce the gauge ﬁeld Aµ through the minimal coupling Dµ ≡ ∂µ + ieAµ . can this procedure impose the speciﬁc form of the interaction with the gauge ﬁeld? In other words. After we have shown how to obtain a gauge invariant quantum description of a particle in an electromagnetic ﬁeld. and. becomes also gauge invariant with this substitution since ψ ∗ (D ψ ) = ψ ∗ exp (−iqχ) exp (iqχ) (Dψ) = ψ ∗ (Dψ) . we should assure that the following substitution is made: →D .and now both ψ and ψ describe the same physics. at the same time.15) . ∂t However. since ¯ Lψ → Lψ = Lψ + ψγµ ψ(∂ µ α) . could we reverse the argument? That is: when we demand that a theory is invariant under a spacetime dependent phase transformation. In order to get the invariance for all observables. since ψ2 = ψ 2 . ψ → ψ = exp [−iα(x)] ψ . can the symmetry imply dynamics? Let us examine what happens when we start from the Dirac free Lagrangian ¯ Lψ = ψ(i ∂ − m)ψ . require that Aµ transforms like 1 Aµ → Aµ = Aµ + ∂µ α . e 21 (I. that is not invariant under the local gauge transformation. ∂ → D0 .
Therefore. I. Therefore any arbitrary combination of their wave function would be equivalent.2. 1 LA = − Fµν F µν . ψp → ψ = Uψ .15). so is the Lagrangian for free gauge ﬁeld. under nuclear interactions. 1 Lm = − Aµ Aµ . something else should be necessary to describe massive vector bosons in a gauge invariant way. = Lψ − eψγ (I. the electromagnetic strength tensor Fµν ≡ ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ . electrons) and the gauge ﬁeld Aµ (photon) arises naturally when we require the invariance under local gauge transformations of the kinetic–energy terms in the free fermion Lagrangian.g. protons and neutron can be regarded as degenerated since their mass are quite similar and electromagnetic interaction is negligible.16) describes the Quantum Electrodynamics. Gauge Invariance for Non–Abelian Groups As suggested by Heisenberg [91] in 1932. ψ≡ ψn 22 .15).2. preserving the renormalizability of the theory. (I.we have ¯ Lψ → Lψ = ψ [(i ∂ − e A ) − m] ψ 1 ¯ = ψ exp(+iα) i ∂ − e A + ∂α − m exp(−iα)ψ e ¯ µ ψAµ . Since. (I. A 2 is not invariant under the transformation (I. We should point out that a hypothetical mass term for the gauge ﬁeld.17) is invariant under the gauge transformation (I.18) 4 This Lagrangian together with (I.16) The coupling between ψ (e.
at one spacetime point. with Ω ≡ exp [−i T a αa (x)] . U = exp −i αa 2 2 where τ a . one is then not free to make any choices at other spacetime points. Yang and Mills [40] introduced the idea of local gauge isotopic invariance in quantum ﬁeld theory. 2. where T a is a convenient representation (i. according to the ﬁelds ψ) of the generators ta . [ta . It seems that this is not consistent with the localized ﬁeld concept that underlies the usual physical theories. 23 . a = 1. if detU  = 1. U represents the Lie group SU (2): τa τa 1 − i αa . The Lagrangian Lψ should be invariant under the matter ﬁeld transformation ψ→ψ =Ωψ. This idea was generalized by Utiyama [92] in 1956 for any non– Abelian group G with generators ta satisfying the Lie algebra [8]. αa → αa (x). however. with Cabc being the structure constant of the group.e.” Following their argument. tb ] = i Cabc tc . i. we should preserve our freedom to choose what to call a proton or a neutron no matter when or where we are. In 1954. This can be implemented by requiring that the gauge parameters depend on the spacetime points. “The differentiation between a neutron and a proton is then a purely arbitrary process.e.where U is unitary transformation (U † U = U U † = 1) to preserve normalization (probability). As usually conceived. what a neutron. Moreover. this arbitrariness is subject to the following limitation: once one chooses what to call a proton. 3 are the Pauli matrices.
Dµ ψ → Ω (Dµ ψ). is still not gauge invariant. we should generalize the strength tensor (I.e. there is a new feature: the gauge ﬁelds have triple and quartic self–couplings. ν µ µ ν (I.19) a a c which transforms like Fµν → Fµν + Cabc αb Fµν . i. and deﬁning the covariant derivative by Dµ ≡ ∂µ − igT a Aa . µ µ µ g Finally.Introducing one gauge ﬁeld for each generator. LA ∝ (∂A − ∂A)2 + g(∂A − ∂A)AA + g 2 AAAA . However. propagator triple quartic 24 . Note that since F ∝ (∂A − ∂A) + gAA . in inﬁnitesimal form. i. a mass term for the gauge bosons like Aa Aa µ → µ 1 Aa − ∂µ αa + Cabc αb Ac µ µ g 1 Aa µ − ∂µ αa + Cade αd Ae µ g . can be written as 1 a LA = − Fµν F a µν . this will ensure the invariance under the local non–Abelian gauge transformation for the terms containing the ﬁelds and its gradients as long as the gauge ﬁeld transformation is i T a Aa → Ω T a Aa + ∂µ Ω−1 . unlike the Abelian case.20) and is invariant under the local gauge transformation.17) for a non– abelian Lie group. for Ω 1 − i T a αa (x). µ µ g or. Therefore. µ Since the covariant derivative transforms just like the matter ﬁeld. the invariant kinetic term for the gauge bosons. 1 Aa = Aa − ∂µ αa + Cabc αb Ac .e. 4 (I. a Fµν ≡ ∂µ Aa − ∂ν Aa + g Cabc Ab Ac .
for temperatures below TC (ferromagnetic phase) a spontaneous magnetisation of the system occurs. representing the rotation of the whole system around the spin directions. 2(a)]. e.I. In this case both the Lagrangian and the vacuum (the ground state of the theory) are invariant. For temperatures above the ferromagnetic transition temperature (TC ) the spin system is completely disordered (paramagnetic phase). aligning the spins in some speciﬁc direction [see Fig. In this case. isospin. −→ ↓ ↑ −→ ←− −→ −→ (a) −→ (b) −→ ↑ −→ Fig. A classic example of the situation is provided by a ferromagnet where the Lagrangian describing the spin–spin interaction is invariant under tridimensional rotations. in general. to exact conservation laws. 25 . and therefore the vacuum is also SO(3) invariant [see Fig. the vacuum is not invariant under the SO(3) group.g. However. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking Exact symmetries give rise.3. This symmetry is broken to SO(2). L = Lsym + ε Lsb . These situations can be described by adding to the invariant Lagrangian (Lsym ) a small term that breaks this symmetry (Lsb ). 2: Representation of the spin orientation in the paramagnetic (a) and ferromagnetic (b) phases. However. there are some conservation laws which are not exact. Another situation occurs when the system has a Lagrangian that is invariant and a non–invariant vacuum. etc. strangeness. 2(b)].
we have two vacua states corresponding to φ± = ± −µ2 /λ [see 0 Fig.23) [see Fig. (I.Let us analyze the simple example of a scalar self–interacting real ﬁeld with Lagrangian. once one choice is made (e. Since the Lagrangian is invariant under (I. 2 We notice that φ0 = constant corresponds to the minimum of V (φ) and consequently of the energy: φ0 (µ2 + λφ2 ) = 0 .22) 2 4 In the theory of the phase transition of a ferromagnet. for µ2 < 0.21) 1 1 V (φ) = µ2 φ2 + λφ4 . 3 (b)]. 0 Since λ should be positive to guarantee that H is bounded. 3: Scalar potential (I. Nevertheless. the Gibbs free energy density is analogous to V (φ) with φ playing the rˆ le of the avero age spontaneous magnetisation M . 3 (a)]. 1 L = ∂µ φ ∂ µ φ − V (φ) . For µ2 > 0. (a) (b) Fig.21) is invariant under the discrete transformation φ → −φ . This case corresponds to a wrong sign for the φ mass term. 0 φ+ 0 ∗ For an interesting discussion discarding the invariant state (φ+ ± φ− ) as the true 0 0 vacuum see Ref. the minimum depends on the sign of µ. The whole Lagrangian (I.23) Is the vacuum also invariant under this transformation? The vacuum (φ0 ) can be obtained from the Hamiltonian H= 1 (∂0 φ)2 + ( φ)2 + V (φ) .23) the choice between or φ− is irrelevant ∗ .22) for µ2 > 0 (a) and for µ2 < 0 (b). (I. [93] 26 . 2 with (I.g. we have just one vacuum at φ0 = 0 and it is also invariant under (I. However.
24) Notice that the Lagrangian (I.2 v = φ+ ) the symmetry is spontaneously broken since L is invariant but 0 the vacuum is not. The Lagrangian becomes: 1 1 L = ∂µ φ ∂ µ φ − 2 2 −2µ2 2 −µ2 /λ. φ 2 − λvφ 3 1 − λφ 4 4 . with a similar potential.4 4 0. Deﬁning a new ﬁeld φ by shifting the old ﬁeld by v = φ ≡φ−v .6 6 0. (I. we verify that the vacuum of the new ﬁeld is φ0 = 0. 27 . This Lagrangian describes a scalar ﬁeld φ with real and positive mass.25) (I.V 8 V 0. but it lost the original symmetry due to the φ 3 term.24) is invariant under the global phase transformation φ → exp(−iθ)φ .2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0. making the theory suitable for small oscillations around the vacuum state. V (φ∗ φ) = µ2 (φ∗ φ) + λ(φ∗ φ)2 . L = ∂µ φ∗ ∂ µ φ − V (φ∗ φ) . Let us analyze the case of a charged self–interacting scalar ﬁeld. A new interesting phenomenon happens when a continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken. Mφ = −2µ2 .
When we redeﬁne the complex ﬁeld in terms of two real ﬁelds by φ= the Lagrangian (I.24) becomes L= 1 (∂µ φ1 ∂ µ φ1 + ∂µ φ2 ∂ µ φ2 ) − V (φ1 , φ2 ) , 2 (I.26) (φ1 + iφ2 ) √ , 2
which is invariant under SO(2) rotations, φ1 φ2 −→ cos θ − sin θ sin θ cos θ φ1 φ2 .
For µ2 > 0 the vacuum is at φ1 = φ2 = 0, and for small oscillations,
2
L=
i=1
1 ∂µ φi ∂ µ φi − µ2 φ2 , i 2
which means that we have two scalar ﬁelds φ1 and φ2 with mass m2 = µ2 > 0. In the case of µ2 < 0 we have a continuum of distinct vacua [see Fig. 4 (a)] located at < φ2 >= (< φ1 >2 + < φ2 >2 ) −µ2 v2 = ≡ . 2 2λ 2 (I.27)
We can see from the contour plot [Fig. 4 (b)] that the vacua are also invariant under SO(2). However, this symmetry is spontaneously broken when we choose a particular vacuum. Let us choose, for instance, the conﬁguration, φ1 = v , φ2 = 0 . The new ﬁelds, suitable for small perturbations, can be deﬁned as, φ1 = φ1 − v , φ2 = φ2 . 28
15
10
5
0
0
5
0
10
0
15 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4: The potential V (φ1 , φ2 ) (a) and its contour plot (b)
In terms of these new ﬁelds the Lagrangian (I.26) becomes, 1 1 1 L = ∂µ φ1 ∂ µ φ1 − (−2µ2 )φ1 2 + ∂µ φ2 ∂ µ φ2 + interaction terms . 2 2 2 Now we identify in the particle spectrum a scalar ﬁeld φ1 with real and positive mass and a massless scalar boson (φ2 ). This could be seen from Fig. 4 (b), when we consider the mass matrix in tree approximation, ∂ 2 V (φ1 , φ2 ) 2 . Mij = ∂φi ∂φj φ =φ
0
The second derivative of V (φ1 , φ2 ) in the φ2 direction corresponds to the zero eigenvalue of the mass matrix, while for φ1 it is positive. This is an example of the prediction of the so called Goldstone theorem [58] which states that when an exact continuous global symmetry 29
is spontaneously broken, i.e. it is not a symmetry of the physical vacuum, the theory contains one massless scalar particle for each broken generator of the original symmetry group. The Goldstone theorem can be proven as follows. Let us consider a Lagrangian of NG real scalar ﬁelds φi , belonging to a NG –dimensional vector Φ, 1 L = (∂µ Φ)(∂ µ Φ) − V (Φ) . 2 Suppose that G is a continuous group that let the Lagrangian invariant and that Φ transforms like δΦ = −i αa T a Φ . Since the potential is invariant under G, we have δV (Φ) = ∂V (Φ) ∂V (Φ) a a δφi = −i α (T )ij φj = 0 . ∂φi ∂φi ∂V (Φ) a (T )ij φj = 0 , ∂φi for a = 1, · · · , NG . Taking another derivative of this equation, we obtain ∂ 2 V (Φ) a ∂V (Φ) a (T )ij φj + (T )ik = 0 . ∂φk ∂φi ∂φi If we evaluate this result at the vacuum state, Φ = Φ0 , which minimizes the potential, we get ∂ 2 V (Φ) ∂φk ∂φi (T a )ij φ0 = 0 , j
Φ=Φ0
The gauge parameters αa are arbitrary, and we have NG equations
or, in terms of the mass matrix,
2 Mki (T a )ij φ0 = 0 . j
(I.28)
If, after we choose a ground state, a subgroup g of G, with dimension ng , remains a symmetry of the vacuum, then for each generator of g, (T a )ij φ0 = 0 for a = 1, · · · , ng ≤ NG , j 30
so that the Lagrangian becomes invariant. In order to see how this works let us consider again the charged self–interacting scalar Lagrangian (I.1. and let us require a invariance under the local phase transformation. we do not have any experimental evidence in nature of these particles. · · · . following the same principles of Section I. We introduce a gauge boson (Aµ ) and the covariant derivative (Dµ ). In 1964 several authors independently [63.25). j Therefore.28) shows that there are (NG − ng ) zero eigenvalues of the mass matrix: the massless Goldstone bosons. φ → exp [i q α(x)] φ . following the same princi31 . NG .4. 64. the relation (I. The so called Higgs mechanism has an extra bonus: the gauge boson(s) becomes massive. The Higgs Mechanism I. However. (I.4. This feature ﬁts very well in the requirements for a gauge theory of electroweak interactions where the short range character of this interaction requires a very massive intermediate particle.2. 65] were able to provide a way out to the Goldstone theorem. a ﬁeld theory with spontaneous symmetry breakdown. The Abelian Higgs Mechanism The Goldstone theorem implies the existence of massless scalar particle(s). This is accomplished by requiring that the Lagrangian that exhibits the spontaneous symmetry breakdown is also invariant under local. I.while for the (NG − ng ) generators that break the symmetry. rather than global. (T a )ij φ0 = 0 for a = ng + 1. that is. but with no massless Goldstone boson(s).24) with the potential (I. we introduce a gauge boson (Aµ ) and the covariant derivative (Dµ ).29) In order to make the Lagrangian invariant. gauge transformations.
e. However the presence of the last term in (I. 4 2 (I.31).24) becomes. ∂µ −→ Dµ = ∂µ + iqAµ .30) Therefore the Lagrangian (I. The spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs for µ2 < 0. with mass MA = qv. 2 2 2 1 q2v2 − Fµν F µν + Aµ Aµ + qvAµ ∂ µ φ2 .30) becomes. i. L = 1 1 1 ∂µ φ1 ∂ µ φ1 − (−2µ2 )φ1 2 + ∂µ φ2 ∂ µ φ2 + interact. φ . which is proportional to Aµ ∂ µ φ2 is quite inconvenient since it mixes the propagators of Aµ and φ2 particles.. a massless scalar boson φ2 (the Goldstone boson) and a massive vector boson Aµ . φ = exp iq − φ2 qv exp i φ2 v With this choice of gauge (called unitary gauge) the Goldstone boson disappears. with the vacuum < φ2 > given by (I.ples of Section I.29) to be proportional to φ2 as α(x) = − 1 φ (x) . 2 4 32 (I. qv 2 (φ1 + v) 1 √ = √ (φ1 + v) . In order to eliminate this term. φ = exp i φ2 v (φ1 + v) √ 2 1 v √ (φ1 + v + iφ2 ) = φ + √ .31) This Lagrangian presents a scalar ﬁeld φ1 with mass Mφ1 = −2µ2 . the ﬁeld φ (I. we can choose the gauge parameter in (I.32) . with Aµ −→ Aµ = Aµ − ∂µ α(x) . 2 2 (I. 2 2 In this way.2.27). There is a very convenient way of parametrizing the new ﬁelds. that are suitable for small perturbations. and we get the Lagrangian L = 1 1 q2v2 1 ∂µ φ1 ∂ µ φ1 − (−2µ2 )φ1 2 − Fµν F µν + A Aµ 2 2 4 2 µ λ 1 + q 2 (φ1 + 2v) φ1 Aµ Aµ − φ1 3 (φ1 + 4v) .
32) Lagrangians: Initial L (I. the corresponding degree of freedom of the Goldstone boson was absorbed by the vector boson that acquires mass.32) φ1 neutral scalar : 1 Aµ massive vector : 3 4 As we can see.24) and ﬁnal (I.Where is φ2 . 33 . it is convenient to count the total number of degrees of freedom from the initial (I. The Goldstone turned into the longitudinal degree of freedom of the vector boson.24) φ(∗) charged scalar : 2 Aµ massless vector : 2 4 Final L (I. the Goldstone boson? To answer this question.
I. We would expect the appearance of (NG − ng ) massless Goldstone bosons. Like in (I. we parametrize the original scalar ﬁeld as φ T ˜ φ = (φ + v) exp i GB v a a . After the spontaneous symmetry breaking.4. The Non–Abelian Case It is straightforward to generalize the last section’s results for a non–Abelian group G of dimension NG . a sub–group g of dimension ng remains as a symmetry of the vacuum. and generators T a . where T a are the (NG − ng ) broken generators that do not annihilate the vacuum. we introduce NG gauge bosons. Choose the gauge parameter αa (x) in order to to eliminate φa . This GB will give rise to (NG − ng ) massive gauge bosons. that is. In this case. a Tij φ0 = 0 . · · · . both before and after the spontaneous symmetry breaking: Before SSB φ massless scalar : Nφ massless vector : 2 NG After SSB ˜ φ massive scalar : Nφ − (NG − ng ) ˜a Bµ massive vector : 3 (NG − ng ) a Bµ massless vector : 2 ng a Bµ 34 .30). ng .2. j for a = 1. Counting the total number of degrees of freedom we obtain Nφ + 2NG . such that the covariant derivative is written as a ∂µ −→ Dµ = ∂µ − igT a Bµ .
• Choose the gauge group G with NG generators. • Apply the usual techniques of quantum ﬁeld theory to verify the renormalizability and to make predictions. General Principles to Construct Gauge Theories Based on what we have learned from the previous sections.1. • If not. Schwinger [51] suggested a 35 . • Add NG vector ﬁelds (gauge bosons) in a speciﬁc representation of the gauge group. In 1957. The Standard Model II.II. we can establish some quite general principles to construct a gauge theory. • Check with Nature if the model has anything to do with reality. there were several attempts to construct a gauge theory for the (electro)weak interaction. for the matter ﬁelds (elementary particles). which couples all these ﬁelds. Constructing the Model II.1. restart from the very beginning! In fact. • Shift the scalar ﬁelds in such a way that the minimum of the potential is at zero. The recipe is as follows. • Add scalar ﬁelds to give mass to (some) vector bosons. • Deﬁne the covariant derivative and write the most general renormalizable Lagrangian. • Choose the representation. in general the fundamental representation. invariant under G.1.
where the U (1) was associated to the leptonic hypercharge (Y ) that is related to the weak isospin (T ) and the electric charge through the analogous of the GellMann–Nishijima formula (Q = T3 + Y /2). also required three vector bosons. However. The Glashow–Weinberg–Salam model is known. based on the SU (2) weak isospin group. making the theory renormalizable as shown later by ’t Hooft [73]. this procedure breaks explicitly the gauge invariance of the theory. as we have seen. A similar model was proposed by Salam and Ward [67] in 1964. Glashow [60] in 1961 noticed that in order to accommodate both weak and electromagnetic interactions we should go beyond the SU (2) isospin structure. The charged gauge bosons were associated to weak bosons and the neutral V 0 was identiﬁed with the photon. This model was proposed before the structure V − A of the weak currents have been established [53. at the same time. to preserve the gauge invariance. reﬂecting its impressive success. The mass terms for W ± and Z 0 were put “by hand”. In 1967. The theory now requires four gauge bosons: a triplet (W 1 . while the photon and a neutral weak boson Z 0 are both given by a mixture of W 3 and B. This kind of process was observed experimentally for the ﬁrst time in 1973 at the CERN neutrino experiment [75]. V − . W 3 ) associated to the generators of SU (2) and a neutral ﬁeld (B) related to U (1). He suggested the gauge group SU (2) ⊗ U (1). W 2 . 36 . Weinberg [69] and independently Salam [71] in 1968. The hypothesis of a neutral vector boson exchanged in weak interaction was also suggested independently by Leite Lopes [56] in the same year. His model. employed the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism to give mass to the weak bosons and. V 0 ). The charged weak bosons appear as a linear combination of W 1 and W 2 . as the Standard Model of Electroweak Interactions. 54. at the present time.model based on the group O(3) with a triplet gauge ﬁelds (V + . However in this case the neutral gauge boson was associated to a new massive vector boson that was responsible for weak interactions without exchange of charge (neutral currents). 55]. The ﬁrst attempt to incorporate the V − A structure in a gauge theory for the weak interactions was made by Bludman [94] in 1958.
the Dirac spinors u(p. ¯ are eigenstates of the γ5 matrix. the electromagnetic (vector) current. and v(p. i.e. 2 (II. ¯ ¯ ¯ ψγ µ ψ = ψR γ µ ψR + ψL γ µ ψL . ¯ ¯ ¯ ψψ = ψR ψL + ψL ψR . s) . L+R RL = LR L2 R2 = = = = 1. First of all. Let us make some general remarks. Right– and Left– Handed Fermions Before the introduction of the Standard Model. 37 (II.1. does not mix those components. L) states satisfy uR = L 1 1 (1 ± γ5 ) u and v R = (1 2 2 L γ5 ) v . R) and helicity −1/2 (left–handed. s) = i γ2 u∗ (p. It is convenient to deﬁne the helicity projectors: L≡ 1 (1 − γ5 ) 2 . R≡ 1 (1 + γ5 ) . At high energies (i. 0. let us make an interlude and discuss some properties of the fermionic helicity states. The helicity +1/2 (right–handed. (II.2. R. ¯ ¯ ψL = (Lψ)† γ0 = ψ † L† γ0 = ψ † Lγ0 = ψ † γ0 R = ψR ¯ ¯ ψR = ψL .II. for E m).3) .2) On the other hand. s) . L. we should notice that fermion mass term mixes right– and left–handed fermion components.1) which satisfy the usual properties of projection operators.e. For the conjugate spinors we have. s) ≡ C uT (p.
38 . (II.Finally. µ.5) If we introduce the left–handed isospin doublet (T = 1/2). We start with the charged weak current for leptons. Choosing the gauge group Let us investigate which gauge group would be able to unify the electromagnetic and weak interactions. they must form separate representations of the gauge group.. II. Since electron–type and muon–type lepton numbers are separately conserved. (II. Therefore.6) where the T3 = +1/2 and T3 = −1/2 components are the left–handed parts of the neutrino and of the charged lepton respectively.3. there is no right–handed component for the neutrino ∗ . and the ﬁnal Lagrangian will be given by a sum over all these ﬂavors. L≡ ν L = Lν L = νL L . 1 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ψL γ µ ψL = ψRγ µ Lψ = ψγ µ L2 ψ = ψγ µ Lψ = ψγ µ (1 − γ5 )ψ . Since. The possible mass term for the neutrinos will be discussed later. for a generic lepton .5). From Eq.4) what shows that only left–handed fermions play a rˆ le in weak intero actions. the (V − A) fermionic weak current can be written in terms of the helicity states as.4. we refer as any lepton ﬂavor ( = e. we consider that the neutrinos are massless.1.7) ∗ At this moment. + Jµ = ¯γµ (1 − γ5 )ν = 2 ¯L γµ νL . τ ). is given by. 2 (II. II. we see that the weak current (I.4). (II. (II. Sec. the right–handed part of the charged lepton is accommodated in a weak isospin singlet (T = 0) R≡R = R.
2 where τ i are the Pauli matrices. can be written in terms of J 1 and J 2 as. the weak charged current (II. the ‘charges’ associated to the currents J i and J Y .The charged weak current (II. In a explicit form.5) can be written in terms of leptonic isospin currents: τi i J µ = ¯ γµ L L. 2 i ¯ = ¯ L γµ νL − νL γµ L . ¯ 2 Therefore. satisfy the algebra of the SU (2) ⊗ U (1) group: [T i . In order to accommodate the third (neutral) current J 3 . Y ¯ Jµ ≡ − ¯ γµ L + 2 R γµ R = − νL γµ νL + ¯L γµ L ¯ L + 2 ¯R γµ R .2 . . 1 Jµ = 2 Jµ 3 Jµ 1 (¯L ¯L ) γµ ν 2 1 = (¯L ¯L ) γµ ν 2 1 = (¯L ¯L ) γµ ν 2 0 1 1 0 0 −i i 0 1 0 0 −1 νL L = νL L νL L 1 ¯ ¯ L γµ νL + νL γµ L . + 1 2 Jµ = 2 Jµ − iJµ . 39 and [T i . we can deﬁne the hypercharge current by. 2 We should notice that neither T3 nor Q commute with T1. T j ] = i ijk Tk . However. Y ] = 0 . The electromagnetic current can be written as em Jµ = − ¯ γµ = − ¯L γµ L + ¯R γµ R 1 Y 3 = Jµ + Jµ . 2 1 = νL γµ νL − ¯L γµ L . that couples with inter− mediate vector boson Wµ . Ti = i d3 x J0 and Y = Y d3 x J0 .5).
8) we can deﬁne the weak hypercharge of the doublet (YL = −1) and of the fermion singlet (YR = −2). We have just chosen the candidate for the gauge group. SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y . that is. W µ . 1 i Lgauge = − Wµν W i 4 µν 1 − Bµν B µν . 4 (II.17) and (I. W µ . ¯ L + νL i ∂ νL ¯ (II. we can write the free Lagrangian for the gauge ﬁelds following the results (I. The next step is to introduce gauge ﬁelds corresponding to each generator.10) Remember that a mass term for the fermions (II. SU (2)L U (1)Y −→ −→ 1 2 3 Wµ . Bµ . ijk j k Wµ Wν . Let us follow our previous recipe for building a general gauge theory. we write the free Lagrangian. Lleptons = = = ¯ R i ∂ R+¯i ∂ L L ¯R i ∂ R + ¯L i ∂ ¯i ∂ + ν i ∂ ν .18) and (I.9) For the leptons.8) 2 With the aid of (II. 40 .and the GellMann–Nishijima relation between Q and T3 emerges in a natural way.20).19). Deﬁning the strength tensors for the gauge ﬁelds according to (I. i i i Wµν ≡ ∂µ Wν − ∂ν Wµ + g Bµν ≡ ∂µ Bν − ∂ν Bµ . 1 Q = T3 + Y . (II.2) mixes the right– and left–components and would break the gauge invariance of the theory from the very beginning.
(II. L L 2 2 2 2 (II.16) 2 Wµ ) . ¯ 2 2 41 (II. 2 Let us ﬁrst pick up just the “left” piece of (II.11) g Y Bµ . 2 2 ∂µ + i (II. and YL = −1 .14).15) . the fermion Lagrangian (II. This suggests the deﬁnition of the charged gauge bosons as 1 ± 1 Wµ = √ (Wµ 2 in such a way that g L(±) + − Lleptons = − √ ν γ µ (1 − γ5 ) Wµ + ¯γ µ (1 − γ5 )ν Wµ . L : ∂µ + i R : g i i g τ Wµ + i Y B µ .e.14) The ﬁrst term is charged and can be written as g L(±) Lleptons = − ¯ γ µ L 2 1 Wµ 1 2 0 Wµ − iWµ 2 + iWµ 0 L. YR = −2 .The next step is to introduce the fermion–gauge boson coupling via the covariant derivative. i. (II.12) 2 where g and g are the coupling constant associated to the groups SU (2)L and U (1)Y respectively.10) becomes g g i Lleptons −→ Lleptons + ¯ iγ µ i τ i Wµ + i Y Bµ L L 2 2 g ¯ + R iγ µ i Y Bµ R .13) Therefore. ¯ µ LL leptons = −g L γ τ1 1 τ2 2 τ3 g 3 W µ + W µ L − g ¯ γ µ L W µ − Y ¯ γ µ L Bµ . (II.
2 Y where the currents J3 and JY have been deﬁned before. Note that the ‘charges’ respect the GellMann–Nishijima relation (II. 1 Jem = J3 + JY . (II.18) µ 3 = −g J3 Wµ − g µ J Bµ . 2 In order to obtain the right combination of ﬁelds that couples to the electromagnetic current. let us make the rotation in the neutral ﬁelds. Aµ Zµ or. When we compare the Lagrangian (II. Bµ = cos θW Aµ − sin θW Zµ .19) 42 . deﬁning the new ﬁelds A and Z by. µ J3 = µ JY 1 (¯L γ µ νL − ¯L γ µ L ) ν 2 = − νL γ µ νL + ¯L γ µ L + 2 ¯R γ µ ¯ R .4) we see that √ GW = g/2 2 and we obtain the relation g √ = 2 2 2 MW GF √ 2 1/2 .17) Now let us treat the neutral piece of Lleptons (II.16) with (I. 3 Wµ = sin θW Aµ + cos θW Zµ .reproduces exactly the (V − A) structure of the weak charged current .14) that contains both left and right fermion components. (L+R)(0) Lleptons = −g ¯ L γµ τ3 2 3 L Wµ − g ¯ µ ¯ Lγ Y L + Rγ µ Y R Bµ 2 (II.1) and take into account the result from low–energy phenomenology (I.8) and currents satisfy. = cos θW sin θW − sin θW cos θW Bµ 3 Wµ . (II.
e = g sin θW = g cos θW . 43 .where θW is called the Weinberg angle and the relation with the SU (2) and U (1) coupling constants hold.18) becomes 1 (L+R)(0) µ µ Lleptons = −(g sin θW J3 + g cos θW JY )Aµ 2 1 µ µ +(−g cos θW J3 + g sin θW JY )Zµ 2 = −g sin θW ( ¯γ µ ) Aµ g i i ¯ − ψi γ µ (gV − gA γ5 )ψi Zµ .24) This was a very successful prediction of the Standard Model since at that time we had no hint about this new kind of weak interaction. i (II. sin θW = g g2 +g 2 cos θW = g g2 +g2 .20) In terms of the new ﬁelds. weak interactions without change of charge. i i g A ≡ T3 . the neutral part of the fermion Lagrangian (II.22) The Standard Model introduces a new ingredient. (II. and make a speciﬁc prediction for the vector (V ) and axial (A) couplings of the Z to the fermions. 2 cos θW ψ =ν. (II. (II.21) and we easily identify the electromagnetic current coupled to the photon ﬁeld Aµ and the electromagnetic charge. The experimental conﬁrmation of the existence of weak neutral currents occurred more than ﬁve years after the model was proposed [75]. i i gV ≡ T3 − 2Qi sin2 θW .23) (II.
The Higgs Mechanism and the W and Z mass In order to apply the Higgs mechanism to give mass to W ± and Z 0 . let us introduce the scalar doublet Φ≡ φ+ φ0 . . making sure that the photon remains massless.4. < Φ >0 = 44 0 √ v/ 2 . Zµ .1. we should introduce the covariant derivative ∂µ → Dµ = ∂µ + i g g τi i Wµ + i Y B µ . (II.26) In order to maintain the gauge invariance under the SU (2)L ⊗U (1)Y . The next step will be to add scalar ﬁelds in order to break spontaneously the symmetry and use the Higgs mechanism to give mass to the three weak intermediate vector bosons. we verify that the hypercharge of the Higgs doublet is Y = 1.25) From the relation (II. Wµ . (II.8). We introduce the Lagrangian Lscalar = ∂µ Φ† ∂ µ Φ − V (Φ† Φ) . • 2 massless fermions: ν. and Aµ . where the potential is given by V (Φ† Φ) = µ2 Φ† Φ + λ (Φ† Φ)2 .Up to now we have in the theory: i ± • 4 massless gauge ﬁelds Wµ . II. . Bµ or equivalently. 2 2 We can choose the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs ﬁeld as.
In this case the corresponding gauge boson. This is exactly what happens: the electric charge of the vacuum is zero. λ (II. let us parametrize the Higgs doublet c.4. the photon. corresponding to the broken generators T1 . i. after the spontaneous symmetry breaking.30). the sub–group U (1)em .where v= − µ2 . should remain as a symmetry of the vacuum. T2 . according to results of section I. 45 . of dimension 1. or.2. The other gauge bosons.27) Since we want to preserve the exact electromagnetic symmetry to maintain the electric charged conserved.f. This invariance requires that eiαQ < Φ >0 (1 + i α Q) < Φ >0 = < Φ >0 . Φ ≡ exp i τ i χi 2 v 0 √ (v + H)/ 2 χ2 + iχ1 2H − iχ3 1 =√ 2 1 < Φ >0 + √ 2 2 √ i 2ω + v + H − iz 0 . and (T3 − Y /2) = 2T3 − Q should acquire mass. will remain massless. where ω ± and z 0 are the Goldstone bosons. We can verify that our choice let indeed the vacuum invariant under U (1)em . (I. In order to make this explicit. the operator Q annihilates the vacuum. Q < Φ >0 = 1 T3 + Y < Φ >0 2 1 1 0 1 0 = + 0 −1 0 1 2 0 √ v/ 2 =0.e. we must break the original symmetry group as SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y U (1)em .. Q < Φ >0 = 0.
Now. (II. (II. are.19) the ﬁrst term of (II. g2v2 + − µ g2v2 Wµ W + Zµ Z µ . 46 .15) and Z 0 (II.29). if we make a SU (2)L gauge transformation with αi = χi /v (unitary gauge) the ﬁelds become Φ → Φ = exp −i τ i χi 2 v Φ= (v + H) √ 2 0 1 . that contain the vector bosons.30) that no quadratic term in Aµ appears. the photon remains massless. (II. is g W+ 0√ √µ + i (v + H) ∂µ H/ 2 (−1/ 2cW )Zµ 2 2 1 g 1 + = ∂µ H∂ µ H + (v + H)2 Wµ W − µ + 2 Zµ Z µ 2 4 2cW where we deﬁned cW ≡ cos θW . 2 4 ∂µ + ig 0 1 2 (II.29) In terms of the physical ﬁelds W ± (II.28) and the scalar Lagrangian can be written in terms of these new ﬁeld as Lscalar = τi i g (v + H) √ Wµ + i Y B µ 2 2 2 2 4 (v + H) (v + H) − µ2 −λ . 2 and we can easily identify MW = gv 2 MZ = gv MW = 2cW cW . 4 8 cos2 θW When compared with the usual mass terms for a charged and neutral vector bosons. The quadratic terms in the vector ﬁelds. and therefore. as we could expect since the U (1)em remains as a symmetry of the theory. 1 2 2 + MW Wµ W − µ + MZ Zµ Z µ .31) 2 .30) We can see from (II.
II. Some General Remarks Let us address some general features of the Standard Model: 47 .33) In (II.2 GeV sW cW ∼ (90 GeV)2 .29) gives rise to terms involving exclusively the scalar ﬁeld H. and will be discussed later in this course (see Sec.17).2. is remnant of the symmetry breaking. (II. IV.Taking into account the low–energy phenomenology via the relation (II. (II.29) that one scalar boson. where we assumed a experimental value for s2 ≡ sin2 θW ∼ 0.2 GeV sW 2 2 ∼ (80 GeV)2 . 1 1 − (−2µ2 )H 2 + µ2 v 2 2 4 4 3 1 H + 4 H4 − 1 3 v v . The search for the so called Higgs boson. 37. (II. out of the four degrees of freedom introduced in (II. namely. The second term of (II. we obtain for the vacuum expectation value v= √ 2GF 1/2 246 GeV .33) we can also identify the Higgs boson mass term with MH = −2µ2 .25). W We can learn from (II.22. the Standard Model does not give a hint on the value of its mass since µ2 is a priori unknown.32) and the Standard Model predictions for the W and Z masses are 2 MW = e2 2 πα 2 v = 2 v 4s2 sW W 2 MZ 37. remains as one of the major challenges of the experimental high energy physics. In spite of predicting the existence of the Higgs boson.34) and the self–interactions of the H ﬁeld.).
RW v2 4 g2 −gg −gg g2 T RW = 0 0 2 0 MZ . 2 cos2 θW MZ that represents the relative strength of the neutral and charged effec− 0 tive Lagrangians (J 0 µ Jµ /J + µ Jµ ).31). We obtain a better understanding of the meaning of the Weinberg angle rotation by noticing that the same rotation matrix used to deﬁne the physical ﬁelds in (II. II. 2 8MW .19).2.29). RW = cos θW sin θW − sin θW cos θW . i. is the one that diagonalizes the mass matrix for the neutral gauge bosons.e. 4 2 which correspond exactly to the photon (MA = 0) and Z mass (II.2. It can be written as 3 LW −B scalar v2 = 2 v2 = 8 τ3 3 g 0 g Wµ + Y Bµ 1 2 2 2 g −gg 3 Bµ W µ −gg g2 2 Bµ W3µ .II. The mass matrix is not diagonal and has two eigenvalues. namely.1. On the mass matrix of the neutral bosons In order to have a different view of the rotation (II. ρ= g2 2 8 cos2 θW MZ 48 g2 .19) we analyze 3 the mass term for Wµ and Bµ in (II. 0 and 1 2 (g 2 + g 2 )v 2 1 2 = MZ . On the ρ Parameter We can deﬁne a dimensionless parameter ρ by: ρ= 2 MW .2.
and vacuum expectation value vi . In a model with an arbitrary number of Higgs multiplets φi with isospin Ti and third component Ti3 . the ρ parameter is 1. This is not a general consequence of the gauge invariance of the model. II. but it is. 95] is to add a gauge–ﬁxing term to the original Lagrangian. A way out to this problem [73. at tree level.28) has the great advantage of making the physical spectrum clear: the W ± and Z 0 become massive and no massless Goldstone boson appears in the spectrum. ρ represents a good test for the isospin structure of the Higgs sector. a successful prediction of the model. In this gauge the vector boson (V ) propagator is given by U Pµν (V ) = q2 −i 2 − MV gµν − qµ qν 2 MV . On the Gauge Fixing Term The unitary gauge chosen in (II. This feature has some very unpleasant consequences. the ρ parameter is given by ρ= i 2 [Ti (Ti + 1) − (T3 i )2 ] vi .3. First of all there are very complicated cancellations in the invariant amplitudes involving the vector boson propagation at high energies.2. 2 2 i (T3 i )2 vi which is 1 for an arbitrary number of doublets. Therefore. in fact. W W 2 49 . it is also sensitive to radiative corrections. More dramatic is the fact that it is very hard to prove the renormalizability of the theory since it makes use of power counting analysis in the loop diagrams. Lgf = − 1 2 2 2G+ G− + GZ + GA . As we will see later. U Notice that Pµν does not go like ∼ 1/q 2 as q → ∞ due to the term proportional to qµ qν .In the Standard Model.
ξZ 1 GA = √ ∂ µ Aµ . for instance. remain in and the physical Higgs propagator remains the same. = 2 ξZ 2 where the last term that mixes the Goldstone (z) and the vector boson (∂ µ Zµ ) is canceled by an identical term that comes from the scalar Lagrangian [see Eq. all physical processes should not depend on the parameter ξV . In the limit of ξV → ∞ the Goldstone bosons disappear and the unitary gauge is recovered. This is called the Rξ gauge. 1 2 1 − GZ = − (∂µ Z µ − ξZ MZ z)2 2 2ξZ 1 µ ν 1 1 2 Zµ ∂ ∂ Zν − ξZ MZ z 2 + MZ z ∂ µ Zµ . Notice. W ξW 1 GZ = √ (∂ µ Zµ − ξZ MZ z) . with mass the spectrum and their propagators are given by. (II. In the Rξ gauge the vector boson propagators is Pµνξ (V ) = R q2 −i qµ qν gµν − (1 − ξV ) 2 2 2 − MV q − ξV MV √ . Therefore. Other gauge choices like Landau gauge (ξV → 0) and Feynman gauge (ξV → 1) are contained in (II.35) In this gauge the Goldstone bosons. P Rξ (GB) = q2 i . (I. 2 − ξV MV ξV MV .35). ξA where ω ± and z are the Goldstone bosons. 50 . that.31)].with 1 ± G± = √ ∂ µ Wµ iξW MW ω ± .
2 and depend on the sin2 θW . On the Measurement of sin2 θW at Low Energies The value of the Weinberg angle is not predicted by the Standard Model and should be extract from the experimental data. For instance: • The cross section for elastic neutrino–lepton scattering νµ νµ νµ + e → νµ + e . Once we have measured θW (and of course.4. 2 1 e gA = − .23) and (II.221 ± 0. • Deep inelastic neutrino scattering from isoscalar targets (N ).2.22). ¯ ¯ which involve a t–channel Z 0 exchange is given by σ= 1 e G2 Me Eν F e e (gV ± gA )2 + (gV 2π 3 e gA )2 .A + 1) since in this case there is also a W exchange contribution. When the ratio σ(νµ e)/σ(¯µ e) is measured the systematic ν 2 uncertainties cancel out and yields sin θW = 0. e) the value of the SU (2)L and U (1)Y coupling constants are determined via (II. CC [ν(¯)N ] σ ν .II. 1 e gV = − + 2 sin2 θW . The vector and axial couplings of the electron to the Z are given by (II.24). The ratio between the neutral (N C) and charged (CC) current cross sections Rν(¯) ≡ ν depends on the sin2 θW as Rν(¯) ν 1 5 − sin2 θW + [1 + r(1/r)] sin4 θW . For νe reaction we should make the substie e tution gV.A → (gV.008 [32]. At low energies the value of sin2 θW can be obtained from different reactions. 2 9 51 σ NC [ν(¯)N ] ν .
44. mixes L and R components and breaks gauge invariance.003 [32].226 ± 0. Nevertheless. The measurement of these reactions ν 2 yields sin θW = 0. GF H = √ QW γ5 ρ nuc . II. A way to give mass in a gauge invariant way is via the Yukawa coupling of the leptons with the Higgs ﬁeld (II. ¯ Lyuk = −G R Φ† L + ¯ Φ R L (v + H) ¯ νL = −G √ R (0 1) L 2 G G v = −√ ¯ −√ ¯ H.004 [32]. the most precise measurements of the Weinberg angle are obtained at high energies. thallium.with r ≡ σ CC (¯N )/σ CC (νN ) 0.2.5. This measurement furnishes sin2 θW = 0.37) . • Atomic parity violation. that is. 2 2 with QW being the “weak charge” that depends on the Weinberg angle. since M ¯ = M ( ¯R L + ¯L R) .220 ± 0. 2 52 (II. we can identify the charged lepton mass.36) Thus.28). The Z 0 mediated electron–nucleus interaction in cesium.2. for instance in electron–positron collisions at the Z pole (see section III. On the Lepton Mass Note that the charged lepton is still massless. QW Z(1 − 4 sin2 θW ) − N . lead and bismuth can be described by the interaction Hamiltonian.). 2 2 0 1 + (νL ¯ ¯) L R (II. where Z(N ) is the number of protons (neutrons). G v M = √ .
which is presented in Fig. (II. similar to the contribution of Fig. C¯ H = M v .2. we obtain the Higgs–lepton coupling with strength. This delicate canceling is a direct consequence of the gauge structure of the theory [96].36) is arbitrary. However. II. 53 . As a consequence.We notice that this procedure is able to generate a mass term for the fermion in a gauge invariant way. 1. Both of them are present in any theory containing charged intermediate vector boson. The leading p–wave divergence of the neutrino diagram. which is proportional to s. the Standard Model introduces two new contributions: the neutral current contribution (Z exchange) and the Higgs boson exchange (H). it does not specify the value of the mass since the Yukawa constant G introduced in (II.38) which is a precise prediction of the Standard Model that should also be checked experimentally. On the Cross Sections e+ e− → W + W − A very interesting example on how the Standard Model is able to improve the unitarity behavior of the cross sections is provided by the e+ e− → W + W − processes. in this case it is exactly canceled by the sum of the contributions of the photon (A) and the Z. However.6. The ﬁrst two diagrams are the t–channel neutrino exchange. However. and the s–channel photon exchange. 5. is analogous to the one found in the reaction ν ν → ¯ + − W W .
This remaining divergence is canceled by the Higgs exchange diagram. √ However. that gives rise to a s–wave contribution and couples proportionally to the fermion mass. Therefore. “If the Higgs boson did not exist. the s–wave scattering amplitude is proportional to (mf s) and. we should have to invent something very much like it. is an essential ingredient of the theory. the existence of a scalar boson.e Wneutrino W+ neutrino eA e+ photon W eZ W W+ e+ Z boson W+ e+ eH e+ H boson W W+ Fig. 5: Feynman diagram for the reaction e+ e− → W + W − . In Quigg’s words [1]. is also divergent at high energies.” 54 . therefore.
the charm (c). the observed FCNC processes are extremely small. They consider a fourth quark ﬂavor. c. L = L . H ¯ ¯ Jµ (0) = uγµ (1 − γ5 )u + d γµ (1 − γ5 )d ¯ = uγµ (1 − γ5 )u + cos2 θC dγµ (1 − γ5 )d + sin2 θC sγµ (1 − γ5 )s ¯ ¯ ¯ µ (1 − γ5 )s + sγµ (1 − γ5 )d . i. and Maiani proposed the GIM mechanism [72]. and s) and leptons (νe .40) .3. We can write the hadronic neutral current in terms of the quarks u and d . 55 RS .II. This extra quark completes the symmetry between quarks (u. e. L (II.39) and the right–handed quark singlets. + BR Ku¯ → W + → µ+ ν s 63. Iliopoulos. RU .5% . Glashow. transitions like d + s ↔ d + s. 7. For instance. RD . and µ) and suggests the introduction of the weak doublets LU ≡ LC ≡ u d c s = L u cos θC d + sin θC s c − sin θC d + cos θC s . already introduced by Bjorken and Glashow in 1963. d. with the same ¯ strength of the usual weak interaction. (II.2 × 10−10 . In 1970. Introducing the Quarks In order to introduce the strong interacting particles in the Standard Model we shall ﬁrst examine what happens with the hadronic neutral current when the Cabibbo angle (I.e.2 × 10−9 .7) is taken into account. while process involving FCNC are very small [32]: + + BR Ku¯ → πud ν ν ¯ ¯ s L BR Kd¯ → µ+ µ− s 4. + cos θC sin θC dγ ¯ We should notice that the last term generates ﬂavor changing neutral ¯ currents (FCNC). νµ . the branching ratio of charged kaons decaying via charged current is. However. RC .
44) with the vector and axial couplings for the quarks given by (II.41) We should now introduce the gauge bosons interaction via the covariant derivatives (II. 3 2 YR = − .8).··· . Lquarks = − (0) g 2cW q q ¯ ψq γ µ (gV − gA γ5 )ψq Zµ . in such a way that the up– type quark charge is +2/3 and the down–type −1/3. from the free massless Dirac Lagrangian for the quarks.23) and (II. 3 YR = U 4 .Notice that now all particles. avoiding the phenomenological problem with the FCNC. for the process K L → µ+ µ− . the GIM mechanism introduces a new box contribution containing the c–quark that cancels most of the u–box contribution and gives a result in agreement with experiment [97].24).43) On the other hand. is given by.c.e. 56 . Lquarks = ¯U i ∂ LU + ¯C i ∂ LC L L ¯ U i ∂ RU + · · · + RC i ∂ RC . g (±) + Lquarks = √ [¯γ µ (1 − γ5 )d + cγ µ (1 − γ5 )s ] Wµ + h. ¯ +R (II. Finally. ψq =u. the neutral current interaction of the quarks become.11) with the quark hypercharges determined by the GellMann–Nishijima relation (II. have also the right components to enable a mass term for them. YL = Q 1 . since the inconvenient H terms of Jµ (0) cancels out. the neutral current receives a new contribution proportional to cγµ (1 − γ5 )c + s γµ (1 − γ5 )s ¯ ¯ and becomes diagonal in the quarks ﬂavors. just like in the leptonic case (II.10).c (II. u ¯ 2 2 (II. . the charged weak couplings quark–gauge bosons. i. In order to introduce the quarks in the Standard Model.42) Therefore. D 3 (II. we should start. For instance. for i = q. the T3 = ±1/2 ﬁelds.
a where T± are the generators in the right (+) and left (−) representation a of the matter ﬁelds. Remembering the value of the hypercharge of the leptons (II. Y = − −1 + 3 1 3 =0. The vanishing of the anomalies is so important that have been used as a guide for constructing realistic theories. + − where Aabc is given by the following trace of generators ± a b c Aabc ≡ Tr {T± . derived from gauge invariance via Noether’s theorem The so–called anomaly is a disaster since it breaks Ward–Takahashi identities and invalidate the proofs of renormalizability.II. i.e.13) and quarks (II. Y Tr Y 3 ∝ f erm. loops with two vectors and one axial vertex and are proportional to: SU (2)2 U (1) U (1)3 : : Tr {τ a . ± In a V − A gauge theory like the Standard Model.3. Let us consider a generic theory with Lagrangian a a a ¯ ¯ Lint = −g R γ µ T+ R + L γ µ T− L Vµ . T± }T± . the only possible anomalies come from V V A triangle loops. Aabc ∝ − doub. τ b } Tr [Y ] ∝ doub. This theory will be anomaly free if Aabc = Aabc − Aabc = 0 . some loop corrections can violate a classical local conservation law. we can write for the SU (2)2 U (1) case. On Anomaly Cancellation In ﬁeld theory. 57 . τ b }Y = Tr {τ a . and Vµ are the gauge bosons. Y3 .42).1.
that should be repeated always respecting this same structure: νµ µ . The Quark Masses In order to generate mass for both the up (Ui = u. Deﬁning the conjugate doublet Higgs as. is essential for the vanishing of anomalies. two years later. The discovery of the τ lepton in 1975 [77]. the b [78].2. 88]. ˜ Φ = i σ2 Φ∗ = 58 φ0 −φ− ∗ . L c s . s R L . and of a ﬁfth quark ﬂavor. bR . c. Aabc ∝ f erm 3 3 Y+ − Y− = (−2)3 + 3 3 4 3 3 3 + −2 3 1 3 3 3 − (−1) + (−1) + 3 + 1 3 3 =0. This was a compelling theoretical argument in favor of the existence of a top quark before its discovery in 1995 [87. cR . τR . we need a Y = −1 Higgs doublet. where the 3 colors of the quarks were taken into account.3. tR . b L τ L The existence of complete generations. dR L . and t) and down (Di = d. µR . with no missing partner. II. uR . and b) quarks. t ντ . were the evidence for a third fermion generation. eR . L u d .and for the U (1)3 case. with the general structure: νe e . (II. This shows that the Standard Model is free from anomalies if the fermions appears in complete multiplets. . s.45) .
t )R MU c + h. (II.c. we obtain the mass terms for the up u (u .R . 0 0 mb 59 . 3 Lq yuk =− i.e. mu 0 0 −1 UR M U UL = 0 m c 0 0 0 mt md 0 0 −1 DR MD DL = 0 ms 0 .R where U (D)L. b )R MD d s + h.R L. . . These matrices diagonalize the mass matrices. t t L.j=1 ¯ ¯ ˜ GU RUi Φ† Lj + GD RDi Φ† Lj ij ij + h. t L and down quarks (d .R L.R . The weak eigenstates (q ) are linear superposition of the mass eigenstates (q) given by the unitary transformations: u u d d c c s s = UL. b L U (D) with the non–diagonal matrices Mij √ U (D) = (v/ 2) Gij . c ..we can write the Yukawa Lagrangian for three generations of quarks as.41).c.R b b L. .46) ˜ From the vacuum expectation values of Φ and Φ doublets.c. i. s . = DL.R are unitary matrices to preserve the form of the kinetic terms of the quarks (II.
44). c. δ13 )R3 (θ12 ) . t)L (UL UL ) γµ c . for three generations. t t L L We can notice that there is no mixing in the neutral sector (FCNC) † since the matrix UL is unitary: UL UL = 1. for the neutral current of the quarks (II. We should notice that. [98]. For a review see Ref. is q that is with T3 = −1/2. The quark mixing. On the other hand.The (V − A) charged weak current (II. † 60 . u u † (u . 74]. and therefore the weak interaction can violate CP and T † . the angle θjk describes the mixing of the generations j and k and δ13 is a phase. d s . that is δ13 = 0. it is not always possible to choose the V matrix to be real. b L V is the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix [61. c . when we have two or more scalar doublets. where Ri (θjk ) are rotation matrices around the axis i. The violation of CP can also occur in the interaction of scalar bosons. by convention. c .43). d s =V b L restricted to the down quarks. now becomes. that can be parametrized as V = R1 (θ23 )R2 (θ13 . t)L (UL DL ) γµ s . t )L γµ s = (u. will be proportional to d d † (u . for three generations. c. t )L γµ c = (u. b b L L with the generation mixing of the mass eigenstates (q) described by: † V ≡ (UL DL ) .
putting all terms together and writing the whole Lagrangian in a schematic way.9990 − 0. W . The Standard Model Lagrangian We end this chapter giving a birds’ eye view of the Standard Model.005 V = 0.. and the Higgs boson.4.9) and the scalar (II.The Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix can be written as c12 c13 s12 c13 s13 e−iδ13 s23 c13 .9993 II.9734 − 09749 0.29) Lagrangians give rise to the free Lagrangian for the photon. 0 0 1 Using unitarity constraints and assuming only three generations the experimental value for the elements of the matrix V .7). the Cabibbo angle (I.002 − 0.L. we associate θ12 → θC . Z.035 − 0. they generate triple and quartic couplings among the vector 61 .043 0.043 . 0. 0. Notice that.014 0. Besides that.004 − 0. in the limit of θ23 = θ13 → 0.219 − 0. with 90% of C. V = −s12 c23 − c12 s23 s13 eiδ13 c12 c23 − s12 s23 s13 eiδ13 iδ13 iδ13 s12 s23 − c12 c23 s13 e −c12 s23 − s12 c23 s13 e c23 c13 where sij (cij ) ≡ sin(cos)θi j.9757 0.037 − 0. can be extract from weak quark decays and from deep inelastic neutrino scattering [32].225 0.219 − 0226 0. Gauge–boson + Scalar The gauge–boson (II.9742 − 0. and c12 s12 0 V → −s12 c12 0 .
Therefore. these Proceedings).47) 2 + + MW Wµ W − µ 1 1 2 ∂µ H∂ µ H − MH H 2 2 2 W + W − AA + W + W − ZZ + W + W − AZ + W + W − W + W − The vector–boson self–couplings that appear in (II.48) ν (i ∂)ν ¯ + + ¯ A + ν ¯ ¯ H . for instance. The mass terms are generated by the Yukawa interaction which also gives rise to the coupling of the massive lepton with the Higgs boson: Lleptons + Lyuk = ¯(i ∂ − m ) + =e.µ.τ ν =νe . W + + ¯ν W − + ¯ Z + ν ν Z ¯ 62 . E. the careful study of the vector–boson self–interactions is a important test of the Standard Model (see M. Pol.νµ .47) are strictly constrained by the SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y gauge invariance and any small deviation from the Standard Model predictions would destroy. Leptons + Yukawa The leptonic (II. giving rise to an anomalous growth of the cross section with energy. W (charged weak current) and Z (neutral weak current).14) and the Yukawa (II.ντ (II.bosons and also couplings involving the Higgs boson: Lgauge + Lscalar = 1 + 1 Fµν F µν − Wµν W − µν − 4 2 1 µν 2 − Zµν Z + MZ Zµ Z µ + 4 + W +W −A + W +W −Z + + + HHH + HHHH W + W − H + W + W − HH + ZZH + ZZHH . the precise cancellation of the high–energy behavior between the various diagrams. (II.36) Lagrangians are responsible for the lepton free Lagrangian and for the couplings with the gauge bosons: photon (QED interaction).
100]. ¯ Besides the propagators and couplings presented above.41) and the corresponding Yukawa interaction (II. A practical guide to derive the Feynman rules for the vertex and propagators can be found. in a general Rξ gauge.49) + + + qqA ¯ ¯ ud W+ + d uW− + q q Z ¯ ¯ qqH .46) give rise to the free Dirac term and to the electromagnetic and weak interaction of the quarks. however. Lquarks + Lq = Yuk q (i ∂ − mq )q ¯ q=u. The simultaneous existence of both type of mass terms. The procedure would be similar to the one that lead to the quark mass terms.··· . we should also take into account the contribution of the Goldstone bosons and of the ghosts. 63 . as seems to suggest the recent experimental results [99. A quark–Higgs coupling is also generated. Dirac and Majorana. for instance. can be used to explain the smallness of the neutrino mass as compared to the charged leptons via the so called seesaw mechanism [101].Even if the neutrinos have mass. The Faddeev–Popov ghosts [70] are important to cancel the contribution of the unphysical (timelike and longitudinal) degrees of freedom of the gauge bosons. introducing a right–handed component of the neutrino and a Yukawa coupling with the conjugate Higgs doublet (II. One may notice. [2]. Quarks + Yukawa The quark Lagrangian (II.45). where the complete set of rules for the Standard Model is presented.t (II. in Ref. that is. their Dirac mass terms could be incorporated in the framework of the Standard Model without any difﬁculty. than being electrically neutral neutrinos may also have a Majorana mass which violates lepton number.
47). Let us start considering the Standard Model Lagrangian which is given by the sum of the contributions (II. 103. Here we want to give just the minimum necessary tools to enable the reader to appreciate the astonishing agreement of the Standard Model. (II. 64 . Many of these contributions are ultraviolet divergent and a convenient regularization method (e. Assuming a renormalization condition (e. The predictions of the Standard Model for several observables are obtained and can be compared with the experimental results for these quantities enabling the theory to be falsiﬁed (in the Popperian sense). Radiative Corrections to the Standard Model It was shown that the Standard Model is a renormalizable ﬁeld theory.g. After all these ingredients are put together we are able to obtain ﬁnite results for S–matrix elements that can be translated in. This means that when we go beyond the tree level (Born approximation) we are still able to make deﬁnite predictions for observables. The subject of renormalization is very cumbersome and deserves a whole course by itself.49). The LSM is a function of coupling constants g and g and of the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs ﬁeld. The observables can be determined in terms of these parameters and any possible dependence on other quantities like MH or mt appears just through radiative corrections. The general procedure to evaluate these quantities at the quantum level is to collect and evaluate all the loop diagrams up to a certain level. we can evaluate all the counterterms. cross sections and decay widths. 104].III. dimensional regularization) should be used to isolate the divergent parts. Beyond the Trees III.48). These divergences are absorbed in the bare couplings and masses of the theory. Very good accounts of the electroweak radiative corrections can be found elsewhere [102. and (II. on–shell or MS scheme). v. even at the quantum level.1. for instance.g. with the recent experimental results.
Z) as Πµν (q 2 ) ≡ g µν Πab (q 2 ) + (q µ q ν terms) . • The Z boson mass that was obtained by LEP at the Z pole. • The Fermi constant measured from the muon lifetime. 2v 2 g2v2 = . like.1867(21) GeV . 4c2 W (III.Therefore.1) where the subscript 0 indicates that these relations are valid at tree level. A natural choice will be the most well measured quantities. g and v as α0 (0) = GF0 2 MZ0 g 2 s2 W . and c2 ≡ 2 . b = γ. at tree level. W. in terms of just g. for instance.16639(1) × 10−5 GeV−2 . and g 2 g2 s2 ≡ 2 . MZ = 91. e. These input parameters can be written. W W g +g 2 g +g 2 depend only on g and g : III. ab 65 .1.0359895(61) .: • The electromagnetic ﬁne structure constant that can be extracted.g. 4π 1 = √ . from the electron ge − 2 or from the quantum Hall effect. GF (µ) = 1.1. α(0) = 1/137. One Loop Calculations Let us write the vacuum polarization amplitude (self–energy) for vector bosons (a. we need three precisely known observables in order to determine the basic input parameters of the model.
which include both the vertex and the fermion self–energy radiative corrections. in terms of the vacuum polarization amplitude.V ) ψe γ µ (1 − γ5 )ψνe ψ¯µ γ µ (1 − γ5 )ψµ .The terms proportional to q µ q ν can be dropped since these amplitudes should be plugged in conserved fermion currents. 2 2 2 MZ = MZ0 + δMZ . Notice that at tree level. From (II. vertex (V ) and the fermion self–energy corrections ¯ M(µ) = −i δG(B. and δG(B. ν We can write the corrections to the input parameters as. (III.3) where. and the coefﬁcient of the sin2 θW . which includes the box (B). (III. • Correction to µ–decay amplitude at q 2 = 0. ρ. which deﬁne the relative strength of the neutral and charged currents.23) and (II. they will give rise to terms that goes with the external fermion mass that can be neglected in the usual experimental situation. ρ = κf = 1. We can summarize the relevant quantities for the loop corrections of the Standard Model [103]: 2 • The vector and axial form factors of the Z 0 coupling.V ) the 66 . and from the Dirac equation. at q 2 = MZ .24) now are given by f gV = √ √ ρ f T3 − 2 κf Qf sin2 θW .21) we can write µ VZf f¯ = −i g f f ¯ ψf γ µ (gV − gA γ5 )ψf . κf . GF = GF0 + δGF . 2 cos θW where (II. α = α0 + δα .2) f gA = f ρ T3 .
at two loops it is necessary also to renormalize all other parameters that intervene at one loop level like mt and MH . and MZ0 as I0 . When we compute the i radiative correction to the input parameters I0 .31)] 2 2 MW0 = c2 0 MZ0 . that is. 2 2 MZ MZ δGF ΠW W (0) δG(B. However. we have i i i i I0 −→ I i (I0 ) = I0 + δI i (I0 ) . GF0 . The same holds true for any derived observable (O) or any S–matrix element.corrections become sW ΠγZ (0) δα = −Πγγ (0) − 2 . let us compute the radiative correction to the W boson mass.V ) = + . (III. Let us write the tree i level input variables α0 . At tree level MW is given by [see (II. (III. 2 GF MW GF Correction to the Derived Observables From the corrections to the input parameters we can estimate the radiative corrections to the derived observables. W 67 . i i i O[I0 (I i )] = O0 (I0 ) + δO(I0 ) = O0 (I i − δI i ) + δO(I i − δI i ) ∂O0 i δI + δO(I i ) = O0 (I i ) − i ∂I i ≡ O0 (I i ) + ∆O(I i ) .4) The relation for the renormalized input variables.5) At one loop it is enough to renormalize just the input variables I i . I i . can be inverted i i to write I0 = I0 (I i ). 2 α cW M Z 2 2 ΠZZ (MZ ) δMZ = − . As an example.
III.1.5) the MW correction 2 2 MW = MW0 (I i ) − i 2 ∂MW0 i 2 δI + δMW (I i ) ∂I i c2 M 2 2 = c2 MZ − 2 W Z W sW − c2 W with s2 W 2 δα δGF δMZ − s2 − c2 W W 2 α GF MZ 2 + δMW .2. sW − cW We obtain from (III. 2 ∂MW0 ∂α 2 ∂MW0 ∂GF 2 ∂MW0 2 ∂MZ = 2 s2 c2 MZ W W . s2 − c2 α W W 2 s2 c2 MZ = − 2 W W2 . Taking into account the derivatives.2.Writing c2 in terms of the input variables. 1 4πα 1+ 1− √ 2 2 2GF MZ 1/2 2 MZ . The four LEP Collaborations 68 . we get W 2 MW0 (I i ) = 4πα g2 = 1− √ πα 2 2GF MZ c2 W . The Z boson Physics III. we have W c2 = (1 − s2 ) = 1 − W W Solving for c2 . Introduction The most important experimental tests of the Standard Model in this decade was performed at the Z pole. 2 2 δMW = −ΠW W (MW ) . sW − cW GF c4 = − 2 W 2 .
2 MZ Γ2 Z where the position of the peak gives the value MZ = 91186. data were collected at the Z peak. Delphi. ¯ e+ e− → Z 0 → f f .(Aleph. Fig.1 MeV. The shape of the resonance is characterised by the cross section for ¯ the fermion pair (f f ) production at the Z peak. ΓZ = 69 . and Opal)[105] and the SLAC SLD Collaboration [106] studied the reaction. 6: The Z proﬁle measured by the L3 Collab. the full width at half maximum (FWHM) represents the Z width.7 ± 2. 6). and around 17 millions of Z’s were produced and studied. The main purpose of these experiments was to test the Standard Model at the level of its quantum corrections and also to try to obtain some hint on the top quark mass and on the Higgs boson. after scanning the Z resonance (see Fig. L3. [107] At CERN. 0 σf f¯ = 12π Γe Γf .
The evolution of α is given by 2 α(MZ ) = α(0) . [111].1 GeV 0.031498 . 70 (III.3 ± 5. in spite of the very precise measurement of the electromagnetic structure constant at low energy.07 % 0.2493.090 91186. The contrit butions from leptons ( ) [110] and light quarks (q) [109] are: ∆αlep = 0.0023 % 0. The top quark contribution is proportional to 1/m2 ∼ 10−5 .7 ± 2. ∆αhad = −(0.9 ± 2.00001) × 10−5 GeV−2 Uncertainty 2. its value at MZ is much less precise.6) where ∆α = ∆αlep + ∆αhad + ∆αtop . MZ . which has a relative uncertainty of just 0.1 MeV (1.4 MeV.9 % 1.002 128. For the Higgs boson mass we just have available a lower bound of MH > 95. and the height of the peak gives the value of the total 0 ¯ cross section for f f production.02804 ± 0.878 ± 0.7 % 0.00086 % [105] α −1 2 (MZ ) [109.0000045 %.2 GeV at 95% of C.16639 ± 0.L. Notice that. σf f¯. The relative uncertainty of the input parameters are: Parameter mt [108] 2 αs (MZ ) Value 174. For the analysis of the Z physics it is necessary to choose the input parameters at the appropriate scale.00065) .7) . This uncertainty arises from the contribution of light quarks to the vacuum polarization. 110] MZ [105] GF (µ) [32] Table I: Relative uncertainty of the input parameters. 1 − ∆α (III.119 ± 0.
at tree level. The ﬁnal state radiation is included by multiplying the bare cross sections and widths by the QED correction factor. The radiator function takes into account virtual and real photon emissions and includes soft photon resummation [112].8) . 6 2π 71 3 (III. f III. and stress the very impressive agreement between them. 3αQ2 f 1+ 4π where Qf is the fermion charge. Other important pure QED corrections are the initial and ﬁnal state photon radiation. kmax σ(s) = 0 dk H(k)σ0 [s(1 − k)] . the loss of precision comes from ∆αhad due to non–perturbative QCD effects that are large at low energies and to the imprecision in the light quark masses.002 Q2 ) .2. Z Partial Widths The Z width into a fermion pair. GF M f f ¯ Γ(Z → f f ) = C √ Z (gA )2 + (gV )2 .where the error in ∆αlep is negligible. (1 + 0. where kmax represents a cut in the maximum radiated energy.2. The Standard Model Parameters We present in the following sections the Standard Model predictions for some observables. Therefore. The initial state radiation is taken into account by convoluting the cross section with the radiator function H(k). We compare these predictions with the values measured by the CERN LEP and at the SLAC SLD Collaborations. is given in the Standard Model by.
µ+ µ− . 2 3 [1 + αs (MZ )/π + 1.1 ± 1. Γ(Z → all) = 2493.10 MeV 376. where we assume three leptonic channels (e+ e− .409αs (MZ )/π 2 + · · · ] . where the QCD corrections were included for quarks.e. The value of the partial width for the different fermion ﬂavors are ¯ f f Pair νν ¯ e e u¯ u ¯ dd b¯ b Partial Width 167. Γ Γhad ΓZ Γinv ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ Γ(Z → + − ) = 83. and Γinv is the invisible Z width.4 MeV . for quarks .3 ± 2. Γ(Z → hadrons) = 1742. and τ + τ − ).3 MeV . Γinv = Nν Γν .9 GeV .9 ± 2.00 MeV + − ¯ Table II: Z → f f partial widths.2) and the appropriate QED corrections discussed in the last section. Number of Neutrino Species We can extract information on the number of light neutrino species by supposing that they are responsible for the invisible width. i.01 MeV 300.. ΓZ − 3 Γ − Γhad = 500. The experimental results for the partial widths are [105]. i. C= 1 .25 MeV 84. At loop level we f f should consider the modiﬁcations to gV and gA (III.10 MeV .30 MeV 383. The LEP data [105] gives the ratio of the invisible and leptonic 72 .where C refers to the fermion color.e.90 ± 0. for leptons .
The Standard Model prediction.011 . Standard Model predicts the (Γν /Γ )SM = 1. 1− 2 MW 2 MZ 2 2 πα(MZ ) MW =√ . This question can be answered by looking. where the error is associated to the variation of mt and MH . where Γ is given by (III. Γinv /Γ = 5. In the ratio of these two expressions. that is Mν < MZ /2. for instance. This result indicates that. and therefore. the effect of the running of α was subtracted in the deﬁnition of ∆rW . with the full (QED + weak) radiative correction. 7).23157 ± 0. Γ cancels out and yields the number of neutrino species. On the other hand.994 ± 0.6). if the observed pattern of the ﬁrst three generations is assumed.4 GeV).991 ± 0. is represented by the band that reﬂects the dependence on the Higgs (95 GeV < MH < 1000 GeV) and on the top mass (169. at the plot of sin2 θeﬀ × Γ (Fig.001. then we have only these families of fermions in nature. 2 2 MZ 2GF MZ (1 − ∆rW ) (III. sin2 θeﬀ ≡ 1 4 1− gV gA = 0. Another important evidence for pure electroweak correction comes from the radiative correction ∆rW to the relation between MW and GF . Radiative Corrections Beyond QED An important question to be asked when comparing the Standard Model predictions with experimental data is if the effect of pure weak radiative correction could indeed be measured.Z partial widths.9) 2 where α(MZ ) is given by (III. where Nν represents the total number of neutrino ﬂavors that are accessible kinematically to the Z. We notice that the presence of genuine electroweak correction is quite evident. The point at the lower–left corner shows the prediction when only the QED (photon vacuum polarization) correction is included and the 2 respective variation for α(MZ ) varying by one standard deviation.00018 .961 ± 0.2 GeV < mt < 179.023. Nν = 2.8) and. Taking into account 73 .
. we have [104]: (∆r)exp = −0. the value measured at LEP and Tevatron. MW = 80.2315 0.0. gA .. µ and τ . The values of gV and gA can be plotted for = e.1000 GeV sin2θeff lept mH 0. The result present in Fig.2325 mt= 174.00259.8 84 84. gV . 7: LEP + SLD measurements of sin2 θeﬀ and Γ . is ∼ 10 σ different from zero.3 ± 5.231 ∆α Preliminary mt 68% CL 83.042 GeV.2 Γl [MeV] Fig. 8 shows that the measurements of gV × gA are consistent with the hypothesis that the electroweak interaction is 74 . Thus.6 83.02507 ± 0.1 GeV mH= 95. compared to the Standard Model prediction [113]. not associated with the running of α.232 0. and the Lepton Universality The partial Z width in the different lepton ﬂavors is able to provide a very important information on the universality of the electroweak interactions.233 0.394 ± 0. the correction repW resenting only the electroweak contribution.
5064 ± 0.0397 ± 0. This is another important evidence of the weak radiative corrections.00030 .50105 ± 0. universal and yields gV = −0.L. contours in the gV × gA plane.12) measurements [113].503 0.031 Preliminary 0.502 0.039 gVl 0.043 68% CL 0.0. 8: 68% C.035 mH mt Al (SLD) ll + − ee + − µµ + − ττ +− 0. The band corresponds to the SLD result from ALR (III.0001. However they are in very good agreement with the Standard Model values [32]: (gV )SM = −0. 75 .00068 .0003 and (gA )SM = −0.5 σ.501 0. The solid line is a ﬁt assuming lepton universality.03703 ± 0. Notice that the value of gA disagrees with the Born prediction of −0.5 (II. gA = −0.24) by 3.5 gAl Fig.
0051 . At the Z pole.1431 ± 0. 76 Aτ (1 + cos2 θ) + 2Ae cos θ .B = Ae Af . we can deﬁne the forward–backward asymmetry by σF − σB AF B ≡ . The longitudinal τ polarization is deﬁned as σR − σL Pτ ≡ . σR + σL where σR(L) is the cross section for tau–lepton pair production of a right (left) handed τ − . σF + σB and at the Z pole.B for charged leptons. it is convenient to deﬁne the combination of the vector and axial couplings of the fermions as Af = f f 2gV gA f f (gV )2 + (gA )2 .10) The events e+ e− → f + f − can be characterized by the momentum direction of the emitted fermion. and c and b quarks F give us information only on the product of Ae and Af . τ − ) angle θ as. the measurement of the τ lepton polarization is able to determine the values of Ae and Aτ separately.Asymmetries Since parity violation comes from the difference between the right and left couplings of the Z 0 to fermions. Pτ = − This yields [105] Ae = 0. Aτ = 0. (III. We say that the ﬁnal state fermion (f − ) travels forward (F ) or backward (B) with respect to the electron (e− ) beam. 1 + cos2 θ + 2Ae Aτ cos θ . F 4 (III.0045 . Therefore. Pτ can be written in terms of scattering (e− .1479 ± 0. this asymmetry is given by 3 f A0 .11) f The measurement of A0 . On the other hand.
6679 ± 0.1510 ± 0.0027).025.0006 and c ASM = 0. at the Z pole. Higgs Mass Sensitivity In order to give an idea of the sensitivity of the different electroweak observables to the Higgs boson mass. which should be compared with the Standard Model values of ASM = 0.1475 ± 0.0001.899 ± 0. Since.7). σL + σR (III.f (Γhad /Γ ).0013. The theoretical prediction includes the errors in 2 2 α(MZ ).9348 ± 0. R ≡ 0. The vertical band represents the experimental measurement with the respective error.10).12) where σL(R) is the cross section for (left–) right–handed incident electron with the positron kept unpolarized.0025 (see Fig. αs (MZ ). < QF B >= δq Aq B F Γhadr q 77 .11) and Af in (III. 8). and mt (see Table I). 9 the experimental values with the the Standard Model theoretical predictions.646 ± 0. 0 In this ﬁgure σh is the hadronic cross section at the Z pole. AF B is deﬁned in (III. b Another interesting asymmetry that can be measured by SLD is the left–right cross section asymmetry. as a function of MH . < QF B > is the average charge. ALR = Ae . from ∆αhad (III. we can get the best measurement of the electron couplings: Ae = 0. This result can be used to extract information on the heavy quark couplings: Ac = 0.1469 ± 0.043 and Ab = 0. ALR = σL − σR . which is related to the forward–backward asymmetries by Γqq ¯ . They are also in agreement with the Standard Model prediction: ASM = 0. we compare in Fig.which are in agreement with the lepton universality (A = 0.
232 0.23 10 3 0.7 20.234 10 3 Aτ sin2Θlepteff from <QFB> mH [GeV] 10 2 mH [GeV] 10 0.6 2 0.10 3 10 3 mH [GeV] 10 2 mH [GeV] 10 2.25 80.02 10 3 ΓZ [GeV] AFB0.5 10 3 Ae mW [GeV] Measurement mH [GeV] ∆α(5) = 0. 9: LEP measurements compared with the Standard Model predictions.015 0.095 10 3 0. 78 .4 41.c 10 3 mH [GeV] 10 2 mH [GeV] 10 0.49 2.14 0.14 0.8 2 0.02804 ± 0.14 0.b mH [GeV] 10 2 mH [GeV] 10 20.3 ± 5.07 0.5 10 3 2 0. as a function of MH [113].16 2 80.06 0.002 mt= 174.1 0.1 GeV 2 10 0.105 10 3 σh [nb] 0 AFB0.l mH [GeV] 10 2 mH [GeV] 10 41.00065 had αs= 0.16 2 0.08 Rl 10 3 AFB0.119 ± 0.16 Al (SLD) Fig.
min However we can extract information on MH from the global ﬁt including all data on the different observables. 9 that dependence on the Higgs mass varying in the range 95 GeV < MH < 1000 GeV is quite mild for all the observables.12).where δq is the average charge difference between the q and q hemi¯ spheres.00026 4 ∆χ 2 Excluded 10 10 2 2 0 Preliminary 10 3 mH [GeV] Fig. 79 . 6 theory uncertainty ∆α(5) = had 0.00065 0.02784±0. The global ﬁt results in MH = 91+64 −41 GeV. We can see from Fig. The band represents an estimate of the theoretical error due to missing higher order corrections. is also shown. 10: ∆χ2 ≡ χ2 − χ2 as a function of MH [105. extracted by SLD from ALR (III. since the Higgs effect enters only via 2 2 log(MH /MZ ) factors. 113].02804±0. In Fig. 10 we show the plot of ∆χ2 ≡ χ2 − χ2 versus MH . For the sake of comparison Ae . The left vertical band represents min the excluded region due to the direct search for the Higgs (MH 95 GeV).
062 174.20 1.0038 0.350 ± 0.2255 ± 0.23 . represents the number of standard deviations that separate the central values.e Aτ mW [GeV] Rb Rc 0. The Pull ≡ (Omeas − Oﬁt )/σmeas .1425 ± 0. we present in Fig.0051 0.21642 ± 0.026 0.2321 ± 0.768 ± 0.00026 1.27 2.1674 ± 0.00095 0.056 0. 11 a list of several electroweak observables.95 1. 11: Comparison of the precision electroweak measurements with the Standard Model predictions [113].23099 ± 0.00065 [nb] Re Afb Ae 2 lept sin θeff 0.037 20.1871 ± 0.46 1.95 mW [GeV] mt [GeV] (5) ∆αhad(mZ) 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Fig.630 ± 0.60 .75 1.01701 ± 0.07 .1483 ± 0.00073 0.22 .025 0.0692 ± 0.56 1.0010 80.Measurement mZ [GeV] ΓZ [GeV] 0 σhadr Pull .4944 ± 0.08 .0021 2.62 .1 0.911 ± 0.21 1.16 .0021 80.b Afb 0.c Afb Ab Ac 2 lept sin θeff 2 sin θW 0.0020 0.02804 ± 0.0044 0. As a ﬁnal comparison.02 .13 1.0988 ± 0. The experimental values are compared with the Standard Model theoretical predictions. This results show an impressive agreement with the Standard Model expectations.448 ± 0.0024 41.0037 0.3 ± 5.80 .05 Pull 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 91.024 0. 80 .81 1.544 ± 0.
1) Both Higgs potential parameters.IV.1. µ2 and λ. Recent review articles include Ref. are a priori unknown — just their ratio is ﬁxed by the low energy data [see (II. Therefore. Three out of these are “eaten” by the gauge bosons. it remains in the physical spectrum of the theory the combination ¯ (φ0 + φ0 ) √ =H +v . [115]. Introduction The procedure of generating vector boson masses in a gauge invariant way requires the introduction of a complex doublet of scalar ﬁelds (II. and H is the physical Higgs boson ﬁeld.27).31)]. W + . This is the most important missing piece of the Standard Model and its experimental veriﬁcation could furnish very important information on the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry and on the mechanism for generating fermion masses. The Higgs boson mass (II. 81 . [116]. 2 where v is given by (II. Therefore the Standard Model does not provide any direct information on the Higgs boson mass.17) and (II. The discovery of this particle is one of the challenges of the high– energy colliders.25) which corresponds to four degrees of freedom. We intend to emphasize here the most relevant properties of Higgs particle and make a brief summary of the prospects for its search in the near future. and become their longitudinal degree of freedom. and Z 0 . W − . The Higgs Boson Physics IV.34) can be written as MH = −2µ2 = √ √ 2λ v = 2 1/2 √ GF λ. [117]. [118]. (IV. The phenomenology of the Standard Model Higgs boson is covered in great detail in reference [114].
Coupling ¯ Hf f HW + W − HZ 0 Z 0 HHW + W − HHZ 0 Z 0 HHH HHHH Intensity Mf /v 2 2MW /v 2 MZ /v 2 MW /v 2 2 MZ /2v 2 2 MH /2v 2 MH /8v 2 Table III: The Higgs coupling to different particles. at one loop level. In the same way the Higgs couples indirectly with the gluons via loops of (weak and strong interacting) quarks. Therefore we can establish two general principles that should guide the search of the Higgs boson: (i) it will be produced in association with heavy particles. the Higgs can also couple to γγ [119]. 82 . Zγ [120. quarks and W boson.IV. (ii) it will decay into the heaviest particles that are accessible kinematically. From the results of Table III it becomes evident that the Higgs couples proportionally to the particle masses.46).30). (II. Besides the couplings presented in Table III.2.33). and (II. The neutral and weak interacting Higgs boson can interact with photons through loops of charged particles that share the weak and electromagnetic interactions: leptons. We collect in Table III the intensity of the coupling to the different particles from (II. 123]. Higgs Boson Properties The Higgs Couplings The Higgs boson couples to all particles that get mass (∝ v) through the spontaneous symmetry breaking of SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y . (II. 121] and also to gluons [122.36).
since the theory is not renormalisable without the Higgs. the vacuum is an absolute minimum) up to the Planck scale.006 . The most stringent lower bound was recently established by the LEP Collaborations [111] and read MH > 95. we expect that the remaining amplitudes would eventually violate unitarity.28 αs − 0. There are also some theoretical upper bounds on the Higgs boson mass. This is what happened for instance in the reaction e+ e− → W + W − discussed in section II. Requiring that the standard electroweak minimum is stable (i.2. 12. We should notice that if we exclude the Higgs boson contribution by taking MH → ∞. the following bound can be established [125]: MH (in GeV) > 133 + 1. A bound can be obtained by requiring that unitarity is not violated in the scattering of vector bosons [126]. Therefore. for mt = 175 GeV and αs = 0.92(mt − 175) − 4. We see from this ﬁgure that. ∗ 83 .26) are taken into account [124]. it is natural to expect that the Higgs mass should play an important rˆ le in high energy behaviour of the scattering amo plitudes of longitudinally polarized vector bosons. this means that the Standard Model must break down at this same scale. if a Higgs boson is discovered with MH 100 GeV.L. since we live in a stable vacuum.e. Let us take as an example the W W scattering represented in Fig.2 GeV . Reversing the argument. Λ = 1019 GeV.12 0. 13. It is also possible to obtain a theoretical lower bound on the Higgs boson mass based on the stability of the Higgs potential when quantum corrections to the classical potential (II. The behavior of MH as a function of the scale Λ is given in the lower curve of Fig.. it would mean that the electroweak vacuum is instable at Λ ∼ 105 GeV ∗ .Bounds on the Higgs Boson Mass Since the Higgs boson mass is not predicted by the model we should rely on some experimental and theoretical bounds to guide our future searches. at 95% C..118.
A convenient way to estimate amplitudes involving longitudinal gauge bosons is through the use of the Goldstone Boson Equivalence Theorem [126. ± 0 2 M(WL . Starting from the Higgs doublet in terms of ω ± and z 0 . 12: Feynman contributions to W + W − → W + W − . ZL ) = M(ω ± . i. This theorem states that at high energies.. z 0 ) + O MW. 127].W W A W W W Z W W W H W W W W W A W W W Z W W H W W W W W W W W W W Fig.2) We can use an effective Lagrangian approach to describe the Goldstone boson interactions. Φ= √ 0 2 v + H − iz 84 . √ 1 i 2ω + . the amplitude M for emission or absorption of a longitudinally polarized gauge boson is equal to the amplitude for emission or absorption of the corresponding Goldstone boson. up to terms that fall like 1/E 2 .e.Z /E 2 . (IV.
g . for swave. dt 16π 2 85 . Yukawa) . hh) it leads to the requirement that λ 8π/3 or. we have: M(ω + ω − → ω + ω − ) −i 2 √ g 2 MH 2 = −i 2 2GF MH . at high energies. and.2). 2 2 MW Therefore. at one loop. MH √ 8π 2 3GF 1/2 1 TeV . The renormalization group equation. 16π 8π 2 When this result is combined with the other possible channels (z 0 z 0 . the amplitude for WL WL → WL WL is obtained as. z 0 h. translated in terms of the Higgs mass.we can write the Higgs potential as V (Φ† Φ) = µ2 Φ† Φ + λ(Φ† Φ)2 2 1 2 2 g MH 2 = MH H + H(H 2 + 2ω + ω − + z 0 ) 2 4 MW 2 2 g MH 2 + (H 2 + 2ω + ω − + z 0 )2 . Another way of imposing a bound on the Higgs mass is provided by the analysis of the triviality of the Higgs potential [124]. 2 32 MW + − + − Therefore. for the quartic coupling λ is 1 dλ = 12λ2 + (terms involving g. unitarity requires A0 = 1 2GF 2 M(ω + ω − → ω + ω − ) = √ MH < 1 . with the aid of (IV. + − + − M(WL WL → WL WL ) M(ω + ω − → ω + ω − ) 2 2 2 g 2 MH MH MH = −i 2+ + 2 2 2 4 MW s − MH t − MH .
when the gauge and Yukawa couplings are neglected. i.3) 3 log(Q2 /µ2 ) and.e.3). The relation (IV. 3λ(µ) This result gives rise to a bound in the Higgs boson mass when we 86 . Therefore.. we can write 4π 2 λ(µ) ≤ . 13: Perturbative and stability bound on MH as a function of the scale Λ. not interacting. (IV. from Ref. Since the stability of the Higgs potential requires that λ(Q) ≥ 0. for large values of Q2 . can be written as 4π 2 Q2 ≤ µ2 exp . where t = log(Q2 /µ2 ). [125]. that is.Fig. we have the solution 1 1 3 − = 2 log λ(µ) λ(Q) 4π Q2 µ2 . for a pure φ4 potential. we can see that λ(µ) → 0 and the theory becomes trivial.
b) BR(H → c¯) c BR(H → τ + τ − ) ∼ 5% . MH > 130 GeV. 14 we present the Higgs branching ratio for different MH . When the Higgs boson mass lies in the range 95 GeV < MH < 130 GeV. For MH 500 GeV the top quark pair production contributes with ∼ 20% of the width. In Fig.1). If we expect that the Standard Model is valid up to a given scale — let us say ΛGUT ∼ 1016 GeV [128] — a bound on the Higgs mass should lie between both curves. with V = W .e. we present the stability bound (lower curve) and the triviality bound (upper curve) on the Higgs boson mass as a function of the scale Λ. Note that the BR(H → γγ) is always small O(10−3 ). 87 . IV. For a heavier Higgs. are dominant. 13. Therefore. up to where the Standard Model theory should be valid. For MH 120 GeV the gluon–gluon channel is important giving a contribution of ∼ 5% of the width. BR(H → Z 0 Z 0 ) ∼ 35% .3. Q ≤ 2 2 MH 8π 2 v 2 exp 2 3MH . for a given Higgs boson mass.1. In Fig. The Decay Modes of the Higgs Boson The possible decay modes of the Higgs boson are essentially determined by the value of its mass. in this case 140 GeV MH 180 GeV. there is a maximum scale Q2 = Λ2 .2 consider the scale µ2 = MH and take into account (IV. BR(H → W + W − ) ∼ 65% . i. Z.3. Production and Decay Modes IV. the vector boson channels H → V V ∗ . the Higgs is quite narrow ΓH < 10 MeV and the main branching ratios come from the heaviest fermions that are accessible kinematically: BR(H → b¯ ∼ 90% .
For large values of MH the Higgs becomes a very wide resonance: ΓH ∼ [MH (in TeV)]3 /2. (i) Bjorken: (ii) WW Fusion: (iii) ZZ Fusion: e+ + e− → Z → Z H .3. we can think of some alternative models that give rise to larger Hγγ couplings (for a review see [129] and references therein). IV.1 _ bb BR(H) WW ZZ 10 1 ττ _ cc gg + − tt 10 2 γγ Zγ 10 3 50 100 200 MH [GeV] 500 1000 Fig. where s MZ or 2 MW the Higgs production is dominated by the Bjorken mechanism and they were able to rule out 88 . e+ + e− → ν ν (W W ) → ν ν H . [117]. ¯ ¯ e+ + e− → e+ e− (ZZ) → e+ e− H . √ At LEPI and II. Production Mechanisms at Colliders Electron–Positron Colliders The Higgs boson can be produced in electron–positron collisions via the Bjorken mechanism [130] or vector boson fusion [131]. However. 14: The branching ratios of the Higgs boson as a function of its mass from Ref.2.
the dominant production mechanism is through the gluon fusion and the best signature will be H → ZZ → 4 ± for MH > 130 GeV. √ where s = 500 GeV.2 GeV [111]. We expect that the LHC can explore up to MH ∼ 700 GeV with an integrated luminosity of L ∼ 100 fb−1 . p ¯ √ At the Fermilab Tevatron [133]. with s = 1. For MH < 130 GeV they should rely on the small BR(H → γγ) ∼ 10−3 . The next step would be to search for processes involving multiple Higgs 89 . when the whole analysis is complete. At the future e+ e− accelerators. 123]. p p¯ → q q → V H . √ At the CERN Large Hadron Collider [134]. parity and width.8 (2) TeV. Once the Higgs boson is discovered it is important to establish with precision several of its properties like mass. Maybe. the Higgs is better produced in association with vector boson and they look for the V H(→ b¯ signature. (i) Gluon fusion: (ii) VV Fusion: (iii) Association with V: p¯ → gg → H . that will operate with s = 14 TeV.from very small Higgs masses up to 95. p p¯ → V V → H . through the vector boson fusion and in association with a W ± or a Z 0 . they will be able to rule out up to MH ∼ 106 GeV. like the Next Linear Collider [132]. Hadron Colliders At proton–(anti)proton collisions the Higgs boson can be produced via the gluon fusion mechanism [122. After the improvement in the luminosity at b) TEV33 they will need L ∼ 10 fb−1 to explore up to MH ∼ 100 GeV with 5 σ. spin. since its cross section 2 behaves like σ ∝ log(s/MH ) and therefore dominates at high energies. the production of a Higgs with 100 < MH < 200 GeV will be dominated by the W W fusion. and the Next Linear Collider should be able to explore up to MH ∼ 350 GeV. We can expect around 2000 events per year for an integrated luminosity of L 50 fb−1 .
superstrings. in full agreement with the theoretical upper bounds for the Higgs mass. with deﬁnite relation between their masses. but they all suffer from lack of an experimental 90 . important information. grand uniﬁed theory.. This guarantees that even the quantum structure of the model was successfully confronted with the experimental data. that may indicate that the explanation provided by the Standard Model should not be the end of the story. The existence of a weak neutral current and of intermediate vector bosons. The Higgs boson. in the measurement of the electroweak parameters. Nevertheless. V. These remarkable achievements let just a small room for the new physics beyond the Standard Model.1% or even better. were conﬁrmed by the experiments. However. which could give some information on the Higgs self–coupling. we have witnessed the striking success of a gauge theory for the electroweak interactions.production. The Higgs mass should be less than ∼ 260 GeV at 95% C. etc — have been proposed. like V V → HH or gg → HH. LEP and SLC colliders that were able to reach an accuracy of 0. extra dimension theories. It was veriﬁed that the W and Z couplings to leptons and quarks have exactly the same values anticipated by the Standard Model. we still have some conceptual difﬁculties like the hierarchy problem. has not yet been discovered. supersymmetric extensions. a set of very precise tests were performed by Tevatron. A series of alternative theories — technicolour. assures that this particle is just around the corner.L. We already have some strong hints that the triple–gauge–boson couplings respect the structure prescribed by the SU (2)L ⊗ U (1)Y gauge symmetry. Closing Remarks In the last 30 years. remnant of the spontaneous symmetry breaking. Recently. The Standard Model made some new and crucial predictions. extracted from the global ﬁtting of data taking into account the loop effects of the Higgs.
Nevertheless. by ı o ` ˜ Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP). Lungov for the critical reading of the manuscript. Acknowledgments We are grateful to M. This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient´ﬁco e Tecnol´ gico (CNPq). L. Gonzalez–Garcia and T. and by e Fundacao para o Desenvolvimento da Universidade Estadual Paulista ¸˜ (FUNDUNESP). 91 . C. the physics beyond the Standard Model is also beyond the scope of these lectures . . . ¸˜ ´ by Programa de Apoio a Nucleos de Excelˆ ncia (PRONEX).spark.
1984). Levine J. Hey. Mod. J. New York. Halzen and A. 1984). [4] I. Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics (Claredon Press. 1990). Predazzi E. 1992). P. Langacker and H. J. Abers and B. E.F. [10] M. Dynamics of the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Ann. [3] The partial Z width in the different lepton ﬂavors is able to provide a very important information on the universality of the electroweak interactions. 92 . 1983). [9] M. Leader. B. Gauge Theories in Particle Physics : A Practical Introduction (Adam Hilger. P. Phys. Donoghue and B. Cheng and L. Renton. An Introduction to Gauge Theories and Modern Particle Physics (Cambridge University Press. Rev. Cambridge. Beg and A. Phys. H. S. 1 (1973). [8] E. Lee. [11] M. Oxford. Phys. Li. Electroweak Interactions: An Introduction to the Physics of Quarks and Leptons (Cambridge University Press. Co. Kim. F. Rep. Rep. Golowich J. Nucl. 38. Gauge Theories of the Strong. Sirlin. 323 (1988). 53. and Electromagnetc Interactions (Addison–Wesley Pub. G. Chanowitz. The values of gV and F. 211 (1981). W. [6] E. 88. Cambridge. 1 (1982). D. Martin. R. Aitchison and A. 9. Holstein. Bristol. Sci. [5] P. S. R.References [1] C. [2] T. Quigg. Quarks and Leptons: An Introductory Course on Modern Particle Physics (John Wiley & Sons. Weak. Part. Menlo Park. A. Williams. [7] E. 1996). Rev. 1990)..
M.[12] R. p. Phys. [26] E. and 1086). A114.. New York. Goldhaber. Becquerel. 109 (1927). Theor. Nuovo Cim. Nordsieck. Inc. Pauli. 27 (1946). (Riken Iho) 22. 122. 1996). Rev. N. 545 (1943). Paris. R. 88. Bull. Gamow and E. C. J. [22] W. 689. [18] C. Ellis and W. Soc. 102 (1940). Williams and G. [21] J. [15] C. 72. Chadwick. Selected Papers on Gauge Theory of Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions (World Scientiﬁc. [20] W. Compt. for an English translation see: Physics Today 31. Pauli. Fermi. [27] S. Proc. A114. 1 (1934). 1934). Z... 1930. [28] B. New York. 1. 461 (1930). Press. Oppenheimer. I. 383 (1914). Roy. Ezhela et al. 243 (1927). D. 895 (1936). A. Phys. Phys. 1981). Dirac. [24] G. P. Bloch and A. R. Wooster. 762. V. 54 (1937). Roberts. idem. Pontecorvo. Soc. A. Cambridge. Ges. 49. 1981). Selected Papers on Quantum Electrodynamics (Dover Pub. [17] J. [14] J. 93 . [25] F. Phys. The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics (Cambridge Univ. Phys. Ren. [16] H. Tomonaga. 16. for the English translation see Prog. Particle Physics: One Hundred Years of Discoveries (American Institute of Physics. (Five papers were published in the same issue. 11. 501 (1896). Singapore. 27 (1978). Proc. Nature 145. Teller. Rev. Rev. 52. 324. Verhandl Dtsch. [23] E. See also pages 559. 35. E. Phys. 161 (1934). Roy. Solvay (Gauthier– e Villars. A117. [13] V. H. 710 (1927). Lai (editor). idem. in Septi` me Conseil de Physique. Cahn and G. Rev. Schwinger (editor). Open Letter to Radioactive Persons. Phys. 1989). [19] P. 246 (1947).
D. [30] P. Phys. Birge et al. S. Yang. 78. 106. I. Teledgi. Rev. Rev. Yang. L. [36] F. Rev.. 75. Ward. Rev. Rev. Goldhaber. Alvarez and S. Phys. Nuovo Cim. 105. 905 (1949). idem. Weinrich. Phys. and M. Schwinger. Caso et al. 416 (1948).. 104. 96. L. Dyson. 100. 1256 (1947). and C. 182 (1950). The European Physical Journal 1 (1998). N. 386 (1957). Rev. 3. [45] R. L. Tomonaga. Garwin. Rev. W. [48] A. Wu et al. N. 1439 (1948). 75. 75. 74. Phys. Phys. P. Kusch and H. Tiomno and J. Phys. [34] J. [44] C. Lee. Tati and S. M. [39] J. 94 . D. 391 (1948). Phys. 651 (1949). 105. 76. Phys. Rev. 1681 (1957). Bethe. Rev. Tati and S. Rev. Mod.J. W.. Lee and C. 72. Friedman and V. Phys. Prog. Phys. [32] C. 1415 (1957). Phys. T. Rev. [35] T. Feynman. Rosenbluth. Frauenfelder et al. Lederman. 2. Salam. 72. L. 254 (1956). 299 (1957). Rev. Foley. M. idem. Wheeler. C. Theor. 1430 (1948). Tomonaga. [31] J. Koba. A. Rev. Phys. 430 (1955). Mills.[29] H. 21. 2. 191 (1954). 101 and 198 (1947). [42] R. [46] J. Phys. M. Rev. Schwinger. 105. 73. 74. 1413 (1957). Theor. Phys. [38] T. [43] T. 486 (1949). Prog. [40] C. 5. 769 (1949).. Phys. Phys. [33] R. Nuovo Cim. [41] L. [37] J. Phys. [47] H. see also: Z. 339 (1947). Phys. Yang and R. N. A. Rev. 144 (1949). 344 (1955). N. Rev.
L. Lett. Lett. W. 132 (1964). R. [65] G. 19. Rev. 109. Ward. Rev. 19. see also: Y. [55] J. 154 (1961). Rev. Bjorken. Phys. Phys. 109. Nambu. 407 (1957). Christenson. 255 (1964). Phys. Fitch. Lett. 108. Rev. 4. Grodzins. [61] N. D. 105. Cabibbo. Englert and R. [52] T. J. 13. 13. Lett. Zh. Nucl. 649 (1958). Glashow. C. Nuovo Cim. 1860 (1958). 138 (1964). Leite Lopes. Ann. [50] L. Rev. Lett. [53] R. 1015 (1958). [66] J. Phys. [51] J. Lett. 531 (1963). 321 (1964). W. 109. Salam and J. Phys. Yang. B. E. and T. 32. Phys. 234 (1958). 380 (1962). 8. H. [58] J. [63] P. L. J. Phys. Fiz. Nucl. 13. Sakurai. see also JETP 5. P. L. Phys. Salam and J. Rev. N. L. Brout. Lee and C. 12. Sunyar. [57] M. and A. Lett. Teor. 2. 585 (1964). Nuovo Cim. 579 (1961). [59] A. C. D. Landau. Goldhaber. [60] S. 337 (1957). Goldstone. 7. 13. Ward. Marshak and E. Rev. C. 22. [54] R. N. 1671 (1957). Lee and C. W. 165 (1961). Kibble. Schwinger. Lett. Higgs. Phys. [56] J. W. 1611 (1957). Phys. Sudarshan. Phys. C. 11. Rev. Yang. [62] S. S. Phys. 193 (1958). and R. Phys. Phys. Rev. D. V. Hagen. Nuovo Cim. [64] F. Rev. Cronin. 407 (1957). 95 . 168 (1964). Turlay. D. Feynman and M. [67] A.[49] T. Eksp. G. Phys. GellMann. Phys. 10. Guralnik. Glashow J.
155. 1489 (1975). Albrecht et al. D 2. and L. L. Theor. Faddeev and V. in “Elementary Particle Theory”. Rev. Rev. Phys. Lett. p. B. 722 (1986). [74] M. Rev. B33. ’t Hooft. J. Lett.). 398 (1983). Lett. Arnison et al. 1554 (1967). Banner et al. 247 (1992). Salam.[68] T. Lett. Phys. Rev. Phys. W. Kobayashi and T. Lett. Rev. and H.). [73] G. 138 (1973). Perl et al..). 800 (1974). Lett. Phys.. [78] S. (UA1 Collab. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell. [86] LEP Collaborations: ALEPH. [76] A. Nucl. idem. [77] M. 2173 (1989). Phys. B. Phys. [84] H. Phys. 1968). [69] S. L3 and OPAL. [79] G. S. 121 (1973). Lett. Iliopoulos. Weinberg. Phys. Phys. 1285 (1970). [81] G. 252 (1977). D. B 276. 167 (1971).). W. [71] A. Lett. Prog. Bagnaia et al.. 39. G. 96 . Phys. 476 (1983). Abrams et al. 29 (1967). 19. Maskawa. Phys. 35. 367. (MARK–II Collab. 245 (1987). Arnison et al. Lett. (UA1 Collab. P. idem. S. Phys. Lett. B 46. The Nobel Symposium no 8. Phys. Phys. B35. Herb et al. (UA2 Collab. B 46. Phys. DELPHI. B 122. Phys.). Hasert et al. Rev. 1264 (1967). [75] F. [72] S. Phys. (UA2 Collab. [82] P. Benvenuti et al. (ARGUS Collab. Maiani. 652 (1973). 49. 173 (1971). 130 (1983). N. Popov. 32.. Lett. Kibble. Stock¯ holm. Rev. edited by N. L. [80] M. Rev. B 122. [70] L. 103 (1983). Van Dyck. 63. Phys. D 34. B 126. Dehmelt. [83] R. B 25.). Lett. J. B 192. B 129. Schwinberg. Lett. Glashow. [85] G.
2626 (1995). 30. ´ Swieca Summer School. Rev. P. [98] B. [89] D. in Supergravity. 433 (1958). Phys. 912 (1980). Gaillard and B. Freedman (North Holland Publ. Rev. Phys. Lett. 2632 (1995). Winstein and L. 1 (1932). edited by O. talk given at the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford University (1999). edited by P. [92] R. Lett.). Gross and F. 233 (1973). 164–167. Wolfenstein. Bludman. 2923 (1972). see also. Eboli and V. Lett. Z. 1343 (1973). A. 1113 (1993).). 1597 (1956). A. [99] Y. Mann. Z.. Phys. Wilczek. Mohapatra and G. Rev. Suzuki. Utiyama. Politzer. Lett. Rev. [91] W. [94] S. in Particle and Fields. 1979). pp. Phys. Lee. [88] S. [101] R. (CDF Collab. W. Senjanovic. Phys. Phys. Lee K. Phys. . Lett. [90] H. Abachi et al. Rev. [95] B. H. 1346 (1973). pp. Hollik. Co. Abe et al. (DØ Collab. [102] W. [100] T. W. Lett. J. Phys. Amsterdan. Heisenberg. 1996). Ramond. K. Weinberg. p. Phys. 897 (1974). Phys. B 46. Rev. 30. vol. 74. 97 . Proceedings of the VII J. Nuovo Cim. Cambridge. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Fujikawa and Sanda. O. GellMann. 74. Singapore. D 10. R. The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press. 169. 44. II. J. 77. [96] C. 9. P. Rev. Llwellyn Smith. Rivelles (World Scientiﬁc. Print–80–0576 (CERN). Phys. D 6. D. 65. [97] M. talk given at the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford University (1999). 101. Mod. Rev. Slansky M. 1994). Rev. [93] S.[87] F.
in The strong interaction. L3. Montagna and F. [106] S. (L3 Collab. From Hadrons to Protons. 585 (1995). Eidelmann and F. [107] B. Phys. Proceedings of the 1994 European School of High Energy Physics. [109] S. Piccinini. 405. Phys. Barbieri. OPAL. B 429. Kim (for the CDF and DØ Collaborations). edited by L. from hadrons to partons.cern. Phys. Proceedings of the 24th Annual SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics: The Strong Interaction. Tampere. B 406. and the LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches. Lett. Geneva. Phys. CERN–EP/99–15 (unpublished). FERMILAB–Conf99/262–E (unpublished). http://www. [113] See also the LEP Electroweak Working Group Home Page. Gavela (CERN. Willocq (for the SLD Collaboration).[103] R. 158 (1998). 1997). 1995). [108] S. OPAL. B. submitted to the International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics. L3. ALEPH 99– 081 CONF 99052. DELPHI. talk given at the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Stanford University (1999). 243 (1997). Nicrosini G. p. Jegerlehmer. Ellis and M. p. [104] A. Sirlin.). Z. NTIS. B 247.ch/LEPEWWG/ (Summer 99 Plots). 43. the LEP Electroweak Working Group and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak Groups. L. Technical Report No. Finland (unpublished). in 1994 European School of High Energy Physics. Technical Report No. DELPHI. [111] ALEPH. Lett. 98 . Chan. Steinhauser. Adeva et al. hepph/9912227. Lett. Dixon J. 473 (1990). Technical Report No. [105] The LEP Collaborations ALEPH. edited by N. DePorcel (Springﬁeld. [112] O. [110] M.
M. Rev. Phys. W. Gunion. E. 1997). Rep. [120] N. Ellis and D. A 14. [126] H. see also M. L. 692 (1978). Ross. Phys. Lett.[114] G. p. 379 (1985). Singapore. 161. Phys. Quiros J. A. R. 292 (1976). Co. Casas. Chanowitz. C. Zerwas. Fleishon R. Land H. Nucl. Quigg. V. 1519 (1977). B30. Int. F. [123] S.. Int. hepph/9703412. 1984). Quigg. A 10. [115] B. [129] M. K. L. Gaillard. Co. 211 (1994). [116] A. Chanowitz and M. Phys. G. D 16. Menlo Park. B 106. 113 (1979). B 267. Phys. [117] M. Berlin. Dawson. Kniehl. Haber and S. E. Rev. Pulido. Phys. Lett. Lecture Notes in Physics 512. Phys. Gausterer (Springer. S. Phys. in Perspectives on Higgs Physics II. B 82. B. GonzalezGarcia. Lett. Mod. Kane J. J. Polon. [119] M. in 36th International University School of Nuclear and Particle Physics: Computing Particle Properties (36 IUKT). 3121 (1999). Sher. [122] M. N. Menlo Park. 99 . H. Nucl. 509 (1986). Thacker B. 2211 (1983). Phys. K. D 27. Nanopoulos. Machacek D. J. B. Mod. [118] C. Nanopoulos H. 240. Nucl. Espinosa. Georgi. [124] M. J. S. Djouadi. and references therein. Quiros. 40. B 342. 273 (1989). Gaillard J. Romao A. F. edited by C. 179. Lee. 171 (1995). Phys. 1998). Grand Uniﬁed Theories (Addison–Wesley Pub. C. Novaes. Spira and P. C. edited by G. 1 (1995). and references therein. The Higgs Hunter’s Guide (Addison–Wesley Pub. Rep. A. [128] G. 2145 (1999). B 261. ˜ [121] J. Phys. V.. 1990). [127] M. Cahn. Kane (World Scientiﬁc. [125] M. Glashow. Acta Phys. J. Phys. Rev. Barroso. M.
Accomando et al. SLAC198 (unpublished). B 453. [131] R. A. Lett. Bjorken. Marciano A..[130] J. Cahn and S. 4491 (1994). Phys. E. Stange and S. Graudenz M. M. 464 (1984)]. D 49. D 50. Zerwas. Willenbrock. Phys. Nucl. [134] D. Dawson. Part. Nucl. 1354 (1994). E. B 136. Murayama and M. 196 (1984). [E: B 138. Peskin. Rev. 1 (1998). 17 (1995). 46. [132] H. Ann. Sci. Phys. Djouadi and P. Spira. Rev. 100 . [133] W. idem. Proccedings of the Summer Institute on Particle Physics. Rep. Technical Report No. 533 (1996). Phys. D. 299.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.