Advertisement

Electroweak Physics of the ′80s

  • J. J. Sakurai
Part of the The Subnuclear Series book series (SUS, volume 18)

Abstract

In these lectures I would like to discuss some electroweak physics issues which are likely to be of basic importance in the decade that has just begun. Even though my lectures were originally advertized as “theoretical lectures,” they may be more properly categorized as “review lectures.” You may naturally ask: How can you review discoveries and happenings which are yet to take place in the future? My answer is that we, high energy theorists--not I myself but some of my friends--have done extremely well in predicting the course of electroweak physics in the ′70s. For example, if you go back and read the Reviews of Modern Physics paper of Gaillard, Lee and Rosner1 on charm written on the eve of the November (1974) Revolution, we can only be impressed by the fact that much of the electroweak physics of the ′70s was actually anticipated by the theorists. By anybody’s standard we did well in the ′70s. To illustrate my point just recall all those experiments--I can count at least seven--which initially threatened to kill the standard electroweak model but later turned out to be wrong!

Keywords

Gauge Theory Higgs Boson Neutrino Oscillation Beta Decay Higgs Coupling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Footnotes

  1. 1.
    M. K. Gaillard, B. W. Lee and J. L. Rosner, Revs. Mod. Phys. 47, 277 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D2, 1285 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Peruzzi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 569 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CDHS Collaboration, Proceedings of Neutrino 79, International Conference on Neutrinos, Weak Interactions and Cosmology (Bergen, 1979, ed. A. Haatuft and C. Jarlskog), Vol. 2, p. 92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a recent discussion see e.g. G. H. Trilling’s rapporteur talk at the XX International Conference on High Energy Physics at Madison (July, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Bacino et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 329 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. L. Perl et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1489 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Bacino et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 749 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. B. Thacker and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Lett. 36B, 103 (1971); Y. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D4, 2821 (1971); N. Kawamoto and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. 76B, 446 (1978); F. J. Gilman and D.-H. Miller, Phys. Rev. D17, 1846 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Alles-Borelli et al., Nuovo Cimento Lett. 4, 1156 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a recent summary see e.g. M. L. Perl, SLAC-PUB-2446 (1979) to be published in Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Dorfan et al., SLAC-PUB-2566 (1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. J. Hasert et al., Phys Lett. 46B, 138 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Y. Prescott et al., Phys. Lett. 77B, 347 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961); A. Salam and J. C. Ward, Phys. Lett. 13, 168 (1964); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Q. Hung and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Lett. 69B, 323 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    In Fig. 2.2 we do not include the coupling parameters of ss, cc etc., nor the parameters of the parity-conserving electron-quark interactions. They are obviously more difficult to determine.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Q. Hung and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Lett. 88B, 91 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Wright and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. D22, 220 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. E. Kim, P. Langacker, M. Levine and H. H. Williams, University of Pennsylvania preprint, UPR-158T (1980).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. W. Herb et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 252 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Progr. Theoret. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Angerson, Nucl. Phys. B69, 493 (1974); A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B71, 29 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. E. Shrock and L.-L. Chau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1692 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. K. Gaillard and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D10, 897 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B109, 213 (1976); R. E. Shrock, S. B. Treiman and L.-L. Chau. Phys. R.v. Lett. 42: 1589 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Pakvasa and H. Sugawara, Phys. Rev. D14, 305 (1976).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Berkelman, rapporteur talk at the XX International Conference on High Energy Physics at Madison (July 1980).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    This has been conjectured by many people. See e.g. H. Harari, Phys. Rep. 42, 235 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Ali, Zeit. Phys. C1, 25 (1979); V. Barger, T. Gottschalk and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. 82B, 445 (1980).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    I. I. Y. Bigi and H. Krasemann, CERN preprint TH.2854-CERN (1980).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. D. Bjorken, SLAC-PUB-2195 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See e.g. S. Weinberg, A Festschrift for I. I. Rabi (ed. L. Motz, New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Pontecorvo, JETP 26, 984 (1968).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Progr. Theoret. Phys. 28, 870 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. De Rujula, L. Maiani, S. Petcov and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B168, 54 (1980); V. Barger, K. Whisnant and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. 93B, 194 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1205 (1968); R. Davis, Jr., BNL Report, BNL 50879 (1979).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    V. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett. 28B, 493 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Bahcall et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 945 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Bahcall and S. C. Frautschi, Phys. Lett. 29B, 63 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Nuovo Cimento Lett. 17, 569 (1976); H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. 62B, 72 (1976); S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. 63B, 201 (1976).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Bellotti et al., Lett. Nuovo Cimento 17, 553 (1976); J. Blietschau et al., Nucl. Phys. B133, 205 (1978).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. F. Crouch et al., Phys. Rev. D18, 2239 (1978). For update see a remark made in Ref. 47.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    For summary see H. Wachmuth, Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies, (Fermilab, 1979), p. 541.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    D. Cundy, private communication.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. M. Cnops et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 144 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    F. Reines, H. W. Sobel, and E. Pasierb, UC Irvine preprint (1980).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    F. T. Avignone and Z. D. Greenwood, Phys. Rev. C22, 594 (1980).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    B. R. Davis, P. Vogel, F. M. Mann and R. E. Schenter, Phys. Rev.C19, 2259 (1979).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    This interesting point was raised in an unpublished (but widely publicized) paper of R. P. Feynman and P. Vogel (May, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    F. A. Nezrick and F. Reines, Phys. Rev. 142, 852 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    F. Boehm et al., paper submitted to Neutrino T80 (Erice, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    J. Kirkby, Proceedings of 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies (Fermilab, 1979); K. Bergkvist, Nucl. Phys. B39, 317 (1972).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    V. A. Lyubimov et al., Phys. Lett. 94B, 266 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dirac masses for neutrinos have been discussed by a number of authors; see e.g. Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Ref. 35; S. Eliezer and D. A. Ross, Phys. Rev. DIP, 3088 (1974).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Supergravity (ed. P. van Nieumenhuisen and D. Z. Freedman; North Holland, 1979); E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 91B, 81 (1980).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    V. Barger, P. Langacker, J. Leville and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 692 (1980); S. M. Bilensky, J. Hosek and S. Petcov, Dubna preprint (1980); Wu Dan Dai, Harvard preprint HUTP-80/ A032; T. Yanagida and M. Yoshimura, KEK preprint TH-14 (1980).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    H. Yukawa, Proc. Phys.-Math. Soc. Japan 17, 48 (1935).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    R. P. Feynman and M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. 109, 193 (1958); E. C. G. Sudarshan and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. 109, 1860 (1958); J. J. Sakurai, Nuovo Cimento 7, 649 (1958).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    F. Antonelli, M. Consoli and G. Corbo, Phys. Lett. 91B, 90 (1980); M. Veltman, Phys. Lett. 91B, 95 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    See e.g. J. D. Bjorken, Proceedings of Summer Institute on Particle Physics, SLAC-198 (1976), p. 1.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    The gluonic (as well as electromagnetic) corrections to the naive quark pair picture have been worked out; see e.g. D. Albert, W. J. Marciano, D. Wyler and Z. Parsa, Nucl. Phys. B166, 460 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    For review see e.g. C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 317 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    D. M. Scott, Proceedings of Topical Workshop on the Production of New Particles in Super High Energy Collisions (University of Wisconsin, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    J. M. Cornwall, D. Levin and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1268 (1973); C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. 46B, 233 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    W. Alles, Ch. Boyer and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B119, 125 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    K. Winter, Proceedings of Neutrino 1979 (Bergen, 1979), Inter-national Conference on Neutrinos, Weak Interactions and Cosmology (Bergen, 1979, ed. A. Haatuft and C. Jarlskog), Vol. 1, p. 163.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    K. J. F. Gaemmers and G. J. Gounaris, Zeit. Phys. C1, 259 (1979).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    H. Georgi and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D17, 275 (1979).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    E. H. de Groot, G. J. Gounaris, D. Schildknecht, Phys. Lett. 85B, 339 (1979).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    V. Barger, W. Y. Keung and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90B, 427 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    J. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974); H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Nucl. Phys. B103, 61 (1976); M. A. Beg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1252 (1977); R. N. Mohapatra and D. P. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 667 (1977). For phenomenological implications, see e.g., T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D21, 1214 (1980).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    J. D. Bjorken, Unification of Elementary Forces and Gravitation (Hardwood Academic Publishers, London, 1978), p. 701; J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D19, 335 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    P. Q. Hung and J. J. Sakurai, Nucl. Phys. B143, 81 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    This can be done most elegantly using the propagator matrix formalism of I. Yu. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and I. Ya. Pomeranchuk, JETP 14, 355 (1962).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    H. Terazawa, Y. Chikashige and K. Akama, Phys. Rev. D15, 480 (1977); F. Cooper, G. Guralnik and N. Snyderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1620 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    H. Harari, Phys. Lett. 86B, 83 (1979); M. A. Shupe, Phys. Lett. 86B, 87 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D21, 2903 (1980).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    J. J. Sakurai, Ann. Phys. 11, 1 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    S. A. Bludman, Nuovo Cimento 9, 433 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964); P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B35, 167 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    A. D. Linde, JETP Lett. 23, 64 (1976); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 294 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    S. Weinberg, Ref. 84; J. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, D. V. Nanopoulos and C. T. Sachradja, CERN TH 2634 (1979).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    M. Veltman, Acta Physica Polonica B8, 475 (1977).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1304 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    For early discussions, see e.g., R. Jackiw and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D8, 2386 (1973); J. M. Cornwall and R. E. Norton, Phys. Rev. D8, 3338 (1973).Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D13, 974 (1976); L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D20, 2169 (1979).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    The experimental consequences of the hypercolor scheme have been discussed by many authors, e.g., M. A. B. Beg, H. D. Politzer and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1701 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974). Grand unification models and proton decay are not discussed here because they are treated by other lecturers of this School (F. Buccella and D. Cline).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. Sakurai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations