<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Michael et. al.<BR>
<BR>
In keeping with the goal of focusing on the issue of whether or not Intelligent Design/Creationism should be taught as a "scientific theory" in science classrooms, it is puzzling that you did not respond to the problem posed in my statement below, that was central (or so I thought it would appear?) to the gist of my post that you answered on Eugenie Scott's talk at the U of I.<BR>
<BR>
Intelligent Design/Creationism can be taught as a philosophical or theological problem in classes focusing on these disciplines, an effort I am not focusing on in this analysis. You perhaps are speaking from a philosophical/theological system that may place science under the overarching metaphysics of a certain theology, weakening the independence of science to dispassionately and thoroughly investigate phenomena according to the methods of science and science alone, leaving other sorts of problems for other disciplines. <BR>
<BR>
Many questions science cannot now, and may never, be able to answer, questions suited for investigations in philosophy and/or theology. But to expect science to be a discipline that must address the subjects other differing disciplines focus on, is perhaps like demanding a Bible class must offer all the scientific evidence that the history the Bible presents and other Biblical theories, are not supported by scientific evidence.<BR>
<BR>
Shall we pass a law regulating the study of the Bible in terms of science for any public institution, such as courses at the U of I that discuss the Bible?<BR>
<BR>
Ted wrote on 10/16/05:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">The problem for Intelligent Design/Creationism theory is to find a testable reproducible empirical method of data gathering and/or experimentation that can be presented in a science classroom as "science" based on a theory that also passes logical/mathematical analysis for coherence with itself and other established theories of science. <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Perhaps it's useful to consider the details of a scientific theory about the origin of our universe that has received empirical scientific validation to flesh out what is required to offer an answer to the problem. <BR>
<BR>
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which the theory of the Big Bang predicts, has been found, and is offered by modern science as empirical evidence for the theory, a discovery which earned Penzias and Wilson the Nobel prize for physics in 1978. More empirical evidence is being sought by the methods of modern science for this theory, predicted by difficult mathematical calculations.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.big-bang-theory.com/">http://www.big-bang-theory.com/</A><BR>
<BR>
Offer your scientific theory for empirically investigating the Creation and/or Intelligent Design of our universe by a supreme being, and perhaps a scientist will explore your path of investigation to earn a Nobel Prize? Such a published article, investigated by numerous scientists and later found to be valid, would garner a massive audience, with millions doing cart wheels at having their cherished beliefs gaining major confirmation by modern science. <BR>
<BR>
I doubt that any of the theories you have presented from Plantinga, etc., regarding belief producing mechanisms, regardless of how clever and complex and interesting to consider in the world of philosophy or theology, could serve as the basis for a publishable scientific theory (think in terms of the well known journal "Science") that offers validation of Intelligent Design/Creationism of the universe. This is in part because it is obvious that any scientific theory of the creation of the universe must deal with the complexities of physics, and your defense of Intelligent Design/Creationism offered nothing on this subject, nor did your referencing of Plantinga. But perhaps your introduction of Plantinga into the discussion of Intelligent Design/Creationism was not meant to utilize his theories aimed specifically at the Intelligent Design/Creationism of the universe as science debate.<BR>
<BR>
To provide more context into which the "problem" with Intelligent Design and/or Creationism as a scientific theory might be understood more profoundly, I offer below mind boggling information (very little of which I understand) on the efforts of modern Physics to explore issues that impact our understanding of the origins of our universe, including continuing exploration of empirical evidence predicted by mathematics to confirm or complicate the Big Bang theory.<BR>
<BR>
These issues are so complex and difficult, they should give pause to anyone who thinks they can construct a scientific theory based on empirical evidence that supports Intelligent Design and/or Creationism, though I am focusing only on one theory of Intelligent Design/Creationism, that of a supreme being who created the entire universe, Big Bang and All. Of course for someone who does not accept the age of the universe since the Big Bang that science has presented, because they believe God created the universe much sooner, they may not believe in the Big Bang theory.<BR>
<BR>
We can speculate that God and the universe may have always existed, so the problem of Intelligent Design/Creationism could be thus narrowed to the scientific evidence that God created human life, though consider this does not automatically rule out God "supervised" evolution of the human species. If God is "all powerful," such a being could create a scenario where humans evolved from one celled organisms. And furthermore, when it is suggested that because the theory of evolution has "gaps," that therefore Intelligent Design/Creationism of human life must have validity as a scientific theory, this does not address the demands for empirical verification and logical/mathematical examination that all scientific theories require, so we are back again to the problem I suggested is the crux of why Intelligent Design/Creationism has serious difficulties as a scientific theory, though now perhaps more focused on Biology than Physics:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html</A><BR>
<BR>
We can date fossils that reveal life forms from previous eras of Earth's history, we can observe evolution occurring in real time in living organisms, and we can conduct mathematical analysis of genes to determine if their makeup fits evolutionary theory. Various other theories to explain human life are possible, but to teach them as science requires they fulfill the conditions for scientific investigation.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/article4.html">http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/article4.html</A><BR>
<BR>
<B>Europhysics News (2004) Vol. 35 No. 3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=6 PTSIZE=24 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>Particle physics from the Earth and from the sky</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=4 PTSIZE=14 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><BR>
<B><I>Daniel Treille, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland</B></I><BR>
<BR>
<B><I>R</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=5 PTSIZE=18 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B></I>ecent results in particle physics offer a good balance between the news "coming from the Earth", namely results from the various colliders, and news "coming from the sky", concerning solar and atmospheric neutrinos, astroparticle programmes, searches for dark matter, cosmic microwave background (CMB), cosmology, etc.<BR>
<BR>
In the light of this information, gathered in particular from the 2003 Summer Conferences (EPS in Aachen, Lepton-Photon in Fermilab), an account of the status of our field is given. It will appear in two parts, corresponding approximatively to the division between the Earth and the sky. The first one covers the Electroweak Theory, ideas beyond the Standard Model, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), Beauty and heavy ion physics. <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>Electroweak Theory</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><BR>
The Electroweak Theory (EWT), together with Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), modern version of the strong interaction, builds the Standard Model (SM) of Particle Physics [1]. The EWT is a fully computable theory. All EW measurable quantities, called "observables", as for instance the properties of the various Z0 decay modes, can be predicted with great accuracy and compared to measurements. Each of them allows in particular to determine the Weak Mixing Angle, i.e. the parameter of the 2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">X</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">2 unitary matrix which transforms the two abstract neutral bosons of the EWT into the two neutral physical states, photon and Z0. The internal consistency of the EWT implies that all values of the Weak Mixing Angle obtained should coincide. In terms of the standard Big Bang model, the breaking of the EW symmetry, namely the time at which known elementary particles got their mass, presumably through the Higgs mechanism*, occured at about 10-11s after the Big Bang. <BR>
<BR>
The e+e- high-energy colliders LEP at CERN and SLC (SLAC Linear Collider) have delivered their quasi-final results. Their contribution to the validation of the EWT has been invaluable. However, besides celebrating this great success, it is worth considering the few areas of obscurity left and discussing how one can hope to improve the precision measurements in the future.<BR>
<BR>
It is amusing to remember what was expected from LEP, for instance at the time of the meeting held in Aachen, in the same place as the 2003 EPS Conference, in 1986. In nearly all domains the quality and accuracy of the final results of Z0 and W± physics* have been much better than foreseen, in particular due to the progress made during the last decade on detectors (microvertex devices allowing a clean tag of beauty particles, by revealing their long lifetime (flight path) of about 1 picosecond (few mm), luminometers providing a very accurate absolute normalization of the various processes, etc), on methods (such as how to determine the number of neutrinos from the Z0 properties, ...) and on the mastering of theoretical calculations.<BR>
<BR>
Figure 1 and its legend recall what is the scenery of e+e- collisions. Sitting on the huge Z0 resonance, LEP recorded about 18 millions Z0 events and SLC about half a million only, but with the strong bonus of a large polarization of the incident electrons and better conditions for beauty tagging. From this large amount of data, many observables were measured, often with an accuracy of one per mil or better. Later, LEP200 measured e+e- interactions at higher center-of-mass energies, up to 206 GeV: it recorded about 40K W pair events and set quite strong lower mass limits on the Higgs boson and Supersymmetric Particles. <BR>
<BR>
If one summarizes the whole set of available EW measurements (LEP/SLC and others) by performing a global fit [2], one finds that the SM accounts for the data in a satisfactory but nevertheless imperfect way: the probability of the fit is only 4.5%.<BR>
<BR>
The measurement lying furthest from the average is that of the weak mixing angle by the NuTeV experiment in Fermilab [3], which scatters neutrinos and antineutrinos on target nuclei. Before invoking new physics, the possible "standard" causes of such a disagreement were carefully investigated: unexpected features of the quark distribution inside nucleons are the most likely culprits. If this measurement is excluded from the fit, the probability becomes 27.5%, a reassuring number.<BR>
<BR>
The other noticeable disagreement concerns the two most precise electroweak measurements, namely the spin asymmetry ALR at SLC, i.e. the relative change of rate of Z0 production in e+e- collisions when one flips the electron helicity (i.e. the component of its spin along the direction of motion), and the forward-backward asymmetry of beauty production on the Z0 at LEP, AFBb, i.e. the manifestation of the violation of particle-antiparticle conjugation C (and of parity P) in e+e-<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/fleche.gif" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="9" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="61">Z0<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/fleche.gif" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="9" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="61">beauty-antibeauty, which give values of the weak mixing angle differing by 2.7 standard deviation with no hint of an explanation, neither instrumental nor theoretical.<BR>
<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/treille_fig1.gif" WIDTH="531" HEIGHT="441" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="19255"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#cc6633" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Fig 1</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>The scenery of e+e- collisions as a function of energy. LEP1 was "sitting" on the huge Z0 resonance. Beauty factories exploit the Y(4S) resonance located in the family of Y beauty-antibeauty resonances near 10 GeV. The J/</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">y</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> is the lowest charm quark-antiquark bound state near 3 GeV. <I>(Fig. courtesy U. Almaldi.)</B></I><BR>
<BR>
An ambiguity which is not yet removed concerns the theoretical interpretation of the muon g-2 measurement [4] obtained in Brookhaven with an experimental accuracy of ~ 5 10-7. The slight departure of the muon g factor, relating the magnetic moment to the spin, from its canonical value of 2 (i.e. the value given by the Dirac equation describing pointlike relativistic fermions) is due to the fact that the electromagnetic interaction of a muon and a photon is perturbed by the exchange of one (or more) additional photon(s) (figure 2a). After correction of a small error, the theoretical frame is sound. However, the tiny hadronic contribution (figure 2b) to this quantity expected in the SM, which reflects the probability that the additional photon fluctuates into a light hadronic system, differs, depending on the way it is estimated. To obtain its value one has to resort to subsidiary experimental data. Using for this purpose the hadronic decays of the tau* (plus a set of assumptions) leads to a relatively fair agreement between theory and experiment (the latter larger than the former by 1.4 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">. However using hadronic production in low energy e+e- collisions leads to an excess of experiment over expectation which according to the most recent analyses [5] amounts to 2.7 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">. The situation may still change with the advent of data from the B Factories in SLAC and in KEK (Japan) and from KLOE in Frascati. This residual discrepancy is all the more unfortunate given that the g-2 observable is potentially a powerful telltale sign of new physics, in particular Supersymmetry [1], since new particles can contribute to the perturbation as virtual states (figure 2c). While a significant excess of the measured value over theory could point to an appetizing window for the masses of some supersymmetric particles, good agreement could on the contrary eventually turn into a noticeable constraint on the minimal value of their masses.<BR>
<BR>
A low energy measurement which "returned to the ranks" is that of atomic parity violation (APV). APV [6] occurs because in an atom the electrons and the nucleus interact not only by photon exchange but also by Z0 (and its possible recurrences at higher mass Z0') exchange. Alkali atoms, having a single outer electron, are the only ones that lead to tractable atomic calculations. Due to recent refinements of some theoretical estimates, there is presently a good agreement between the expectation and the 0.6% accurate measurement on cesium made in Boulder in 1997. The APV measurement does not weight much in the EW fit. However, a remarkable result for such a small sized experiment is that the lower mass limit it sets on a potential Z' (600-800 GeV) is quite competitive with those of LEP or Tevatron. However, to stay so in the face of future LHC data, the APV measurement should reach ~ 1‰ or so. The possibility of a programme using francium, the next alkali atom, much more sensitive but radioactive, is sometimes mentioned.<BR>
<BR>
It is worth underlining here the promises of another set of low energy measurements concerning Electric Dipole Moments (EDM), in particular of the neutron. For particles to have a permanent EDM the forces concerned must violate the invariance under time reversal T (and therefore under CP*), and the SM expectations are out of reach, far below existing and foreseeable limits. But various scenarios beyond the SM may lead to strong enhancements. Very sophisticated methods involving ultra cold neutrons are under study and may bring an improvement of two orders of magnitude on the present neutron EDM upper limit. Limits on the muon EDM, as a by-product of the g-2 measurement, and on the electron EDM, through measurements made on various atoms, in particular Hg, are likely to improve as well. If no positive evidence is found, these limits will in particular become a major constraint for Supersymmetry.<BR>
<BR>
Let us finally quote a potential problem concerning the unitarity of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix7, and more precisely its first row. The CKM matrix gives the relationship between the quarks seen as mass and as flavour eigenstates. Unitarity just means that when one "rotates" from one base to the other the probability has to be conserved. The CKM matrix is a 3X3 unitary matrix, entirely defined in terms of four real parameters. It gives a concise description of all that we know at present about the weak interactions of quarks. The first row of the matrix concerns essentially the u<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/fleche2.gif" WIDTH="18" HEIGHT="9" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="59">d and the u<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/fleche2.gif" WIDTH="18" HEIGHT="9" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="59">s (Cabbibo angle) transitions and the fact that their moduli squared do not add exactly to unity could indicate that the value of the Cabibbo angle is slightly underestimated. Actually, after including recent results, like the data of E865, at Brookhaven Alternate Gradient Synchrotron, on the decay K<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/fleche.gif" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="9" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="61"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">p</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">en, the remaining deficit relative to unity amounts only to ~1.8 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> and is not a big worry<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/treille_fig2.gif" WIDTH="531" HEIGHT="221" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="19158"><BR>
<B><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#cc6633" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Fig 2</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> <B>Examples of loop diagrams<BR>
(a) The lowest order diagram contributing to g-2.<BR>
(b) The hadronic contribution to g-2.<BR>
(c) SUSY particles in the loops as a possible contribution to g-2.<BR>
(d) Penguin diagrams (SM and SUSY) contributing to one B decay mode. The ressemblance to a penguin is a matter of taste.<BR>
(e) The loop diagrams responsible for beauty-antibeauty oscillation.</B><BR>
<BR>
<B>The message from LEP</B><BR>
In spite of the few open questions quoted above, the first message of LEP/SLC is therefore the quality of the agreement of the SM, or more exactly of its neutral current (i.e. Z0) sector with data. Any theory attempting to go beyond the SM (see below) must therefore mimic it closely and offer very similar predictions of the various EW observables. Most interestingly, because of the extreme accuracy of the measurements, the agreement has been demonstrated at the quantum loop-level. Before expanding this last point, let us remark that the situation is less precise for the charged current sector of the SM. As for its scalar (Higgs or equivalent) sector, still largely untested, it will need the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to be explored.<BR>
<BR>
In a given process, particles, even if they are too heavy to be produced as "real" particles, can nevertheless intervene as "virtual" states and slightly influence the process. Figure 2 presents a variety of such loop diagrams. Accurate measurements on a process can thus yield information on these virtual particles. At LEP the "missing pieces" of the SM were the top quark, too heavy to be pair produced but whose existence was never in doubt, and the Higgs boson, not yet observed directly at present. As G.Altarelli put it, LEP physicists were in the situation of a bush hunter, his ear to the ground, trying to hear the pace of a tiger (the Higgs) while an elephant (the top) was rampaging around.<BR>
<BR>
It is well known that Z0 physics at LEP gave a rather accurate "indirect" estimate of the top quark mass (presently 171.5 +11.9 -9.4 GeV), in very good agreement with the value that later the Tevatron measured "directly" by producing the top, presently 174.3 ± 5.1 GeV (figure 3a). Once the "large" effect of the elephant-top on the relevant electroweak observables was well under control, one could search for the tiny effect expected from the tiger-Higgs boson, which in the SM is assumed to be the only missing piece. Ignoring the disagreements quoted above, essentially that existing between ALR and AFBb, and considering only the mean values, one can thus deduce, in the strict frame of the SM, the preferred mass region for the Higgs boson (remembering that the information concerns the logarithm of its mass):<BR>
<BR>
Mh = 91+58 -37 GeV, and mh <219 GeV at 95% CL (figure 3b).<BR>
<BR>
Taken alone, the ALR observable would give for the boson mass a range between about 15 and 80 GeV, while the observable AFBb would give it between about 200 and 700 GeV. The W mass value (the world average is 80.426 ± 0.034 GeV) indicates also a Higgs mass region on the low side.<BR>
<BR>
Let us remark that the SLC measurement seems to contradict the lower limit of 114.2 GeV set on the Higgs mass by the direct Higgs search* at LEP200, as well as the indication for an effect near 115 GeV which is presently at the 1.7 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">s</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> level. However the problem would be less acute if the top mass was a few GeV, say one standard deviation, higher than one states presently, a possibility that a reanalysis by the Tevatron [8] experiment D0 of its Run I data might suggest. If it were so the limit on mh would be raised from 219 to ~280 GeV. For this reason, and many other good ones, a precise determination of the top mass is "devoutly to be wished". The Tevatron will reduce the uncertainty to ~2.5-3 GeV, per experiment and with an integrated luminosity of 2fb-1 (i.e. providing 2 events for a process having a cross-section of a femtobarn, i.e. 10-39 cm2). The LHC should reach an uncertainty of ~1-2 GeV, while a Linear Collider will do about ten times better.<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/treille_fig3.gif" WIDTH="531" HEIGHT="218" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="23296"><BR>
<B><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#cc6633" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Fig 3</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> <B><I>Left</I>: The top mass from indirect LEP measurements (open circles) and from the direct Tevatron measurements (colour triangles).<I><BR>
Right</I>: The preferred region for the SM Higgs mass (near the bottom of the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">c</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">2 curve) deduced from electroweak measurements.</B><BR>
<BR>
The other key message of LEP/SLC is thus the indication of a light Higgs boson. Is this the truth, or could it be an illusion? Clearly if one quits the frame of the SM by introducing new physics, it is quite possible to invent "conspiracies", i.e. interference of amplitudes of different processes, by which a heavy Higgs boson has its effect on electroweak observables compensated by something else, like new particles or extradimensions of space. However, these solutions are more or less artificial: it is thus reasonable to focus on the simplest scenario and to test in priority the assumption of a light boson by obtaining direct evidence for it. <BR>
<BR>
<B>Beyond the standard model</B><BR>
Exhaustive reviews of the direct searches for new physics at colliders, updating the existing limits, have been given. Unfortunately, besides the DsJ particles* found by the Beauty Factories [9] and the Pentaquarks [10]*, no discovery has showed up at the high-energy frontier.<BR>
<BR>
Nevertheless the motivations pushing to go beyond the SM are still present and more compelling than ever. The main one is the Hierarchy Problem that can be stated as follows. Gravity exists and defines a very high energy scale, the Planck scale* (~1019 GeV) at which the gravitational force becomes strong. In the SM all other masses, in particular the Higgs mass, should be irredeemably pulled towards this high scale by the radiative effects already quoted. Something more is needed to guarantee the stability of low-mass scales. Traditionally the routes leading beyond the SM either call for new levels of structure and/or new forces, as Technicolour (TC) [11] does, or involve more symmetry among the players of the theory, as in the case of Supersymmetry (SUSY) [1,12], in which SM particles and their "superpartners", i.e. the new particles of opposite spin-statistics (a boson as partner of a SM fermion and vice-versa) that SUSY introduces, conspire to solve the Hierarchy Problem.<BR>
<BR>
TC breaks the EW symmetry in an appealing way, very reminiscent of the way the electromagnetic one is broken by supraconductivity (which, crudely speaking, gives a mass to the photon). However TC meets serious problems in passing the tests of electroweak measurements, because it harms too much the predictions. On the other hand SUSY, which has a more discrete effect in this respect, keeps its eminent merits and remains the most frequented and even crowded route. In this context another important result [13] derived from the LEP data is the quasi-perfect convergence near 1016 GeV of the electromagnetic, weak and strong coupling "constants" in the frame of SUSY, the so-called Supersymmetric Grand Unification (SGU) (figure 4b). This "running" of coupling constants with the energy scale is another consequence of the quantum nature of the theory: it is due to the effect of virtual particles appearing in the loop diagrams. The presence of superpartners explains why the "running speed" is different in SUSY and in the SM.<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/treille_fig4.gif" WIDTH="531" HEIGHT="413" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="23123"><BR>
<B><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#cc6633" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Fig 4</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> <B><I>Left</I>: The evolution of the strong coupling constant with the energy scale. <I>Right</I>: The convergence of the SM coupling constants, approximate in the SM (upper figure), exact in SUSY (lower figure). One should distinguish this smooth running of couplings from the evolution of the intensity of the interaction with the energy scale, depending on the mass of the exchanged boson.</B><BR>
<BR>
SUSY is certainly a broken symmetry as no partner of known particles with opposite spin-parity exists with the same mass. These partners are assumed to be heavy, but not too much (few hundred GeV to few TeV) as otherwise SUSY would no longer cure the hierarchy problem. Furthermore the convergence of couplings quoted above requires that the superpartners appear at relatively low mass, say 1 to 10 TeV.<BR>
<BR>
With the diversity of the possible SUSY breaking mechanisms*, this theory presents a complex phenomenology with many different possible mass spectra for the supersymmetric particles. Its minimal version however offers a golden test: it predicts a very light Higgs boson, i.e. <130 GeV in full generality (for mtop=175 GeV), and <126 GeV once SUSY is broken, as it has to be, and in particular in all versions of Supergravity14 presently considered as the reference points for future searches. This is a mass window that LEP, with 80 additional (i.e. 30% more) superconducting accelerating cavities and the magnificent performances of the accelerating field finally reached, could have explored and which stays as the first objective of future programmes. If SUSY represents the truth, the LHC, or maybe, with much luck and considerable improvements, the Tevatron, will discover it by observing, besides the light Higgs boson, some supersymmetric particles. But a Linear Collider will be needed to complete its metrology in the mass domain it will give access to.<BR>
<BR>
However, quite interesting new roads have appeared in recent years.<BR>
<BR>
One, the Little Higgs scenario, leaving aside the Big Hierarchy problem (the one we introduced above) for the time being, tackles first the Small Hierarchy one, namely the fact that LEP announces a light Higgs boson while it pushes beyond several TeV the scale of any new physics (except SUSY which can still be "behind the door"): again the Higgs mass should be pulled to this high scale and the fact that it is not calls for efficient cancellation mechanisms to be at work. Keen to do without SUSY, this model, by an algebraic tour de force, manages to realize the compensations needed by inventing new particles, a Z', a W', a new quark, etc., at the mass scale of few TeV. The existing EW measurements put however the model under a severe tension. True or not, this theory has the merit to reinvigorate the LHC phenomenology by introducing new particles into the game and in particular insisting on quantitative tests concerning their decay modes.<BR>
<BR>
The other new route postulates the existence, so far uncontradicted, of extra dimensions of space (ED), large enough to generate visible effects at future experiments. The general idea of an ED, due to Kaluza and Klein, is rather old (around 1919). The Superstring Theory requires EDs since it is consistent only in 9 or 10 spatial dimensions. For long, however, these EDs were thought to be "curled up" (compactified) at the Planck scale, until it was realized that things could be different. Several versions are presently put forward [15]. With substantial differences between them, they all predict Kaluza-Klein recurrences of the graviton or some of the SM particles, i.e. new states which can be produced if their mass is at the TeV scale or below, or that may change the rate of SM processes through their effect as virtual particles.<BR>
<BR>
Such an eventuality, which has to be fully explored, would be an extraordinary chance for LHC and its prospective study also contributes an agreeable diversification of its phenomenology. However, before dreaming too much, it is important to appreciate correctly the existing limits, drawn either from accelerators or from astrophysics. For the ADD scenario, one should also consider the impact of dedicated tests of Newtonian gravity at small scale [16], which, besides micro-mechanical experiments, use sophisticated methods involving Ultra Cold Neutrons and maybe in the future Bose-Einstein Condensates, which build interesting bridges between particle physics and other sectors of physics.<BR>
<BR>
Moreover, it is still a rather natural attitude to assume that extra dimensions, if they play a role, would do so at much higher energy scales, for instance the one of Grand Unification (GU). Many studies follow that path and analyse what one or more extra dimensions bring to the already very successful theories of Supersymmetric GU. This complements the class of studies which, to the symmetry group of GU, add other ones (a new U(1), a new SU(3), etc.) whose role is to deal in particular with the mystery of the triplication of families (i.e. the existence of the electron, muon and tau families).<BR>
<BR>
The hope is that these attempts, performed from "bottom to top", i.e. from low towards high energies, and those, from "top to bottom", of Superstrings [17] will meet one day and guide each other.<BR>
<IMG SRC="http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/27/article4/treille_fig5.gif" WIDTH="531" HEIGHT="340" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="15865"><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#cc6633" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Fig 5</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> <B>The "d-b" Unitary Triangle. Adding to zero three complex numbers like VudVub*, etc. naturally lead to draw a triangle. We indicate which B decay modes give access to its angles and sides. Vij is the element of the CKM matrix connecting the flavour eigenstate quark i to the mass eigenstate quark j.<BR>
-------------------<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Heavy ions</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B><BR>
In the Big Bang model the transition from free quarks to hadrons occurred at a few microseconds. High energy heavy ions collisions are under study, to find evidence for the reverse step, i.e. the fusion of nucleons into a quark-gluon plasma (quagma) [23]. <BR>
<BR>
Fresh results are coming from the RHIC collider in Brookhaven, concerning Au-Au collisions up to 200 A GeV and have brought a few "surprises" concerning the properties of the hot and dense medium thus produced. The quote expresses the fact that some of them were actually predicted long ago. <BR>
<BR>
The chemical freeze-out (at which the identity of the particles is fixed) occurs at 175 MeV (the Hagedorn temperature [24]), as at the CERN SPS, but the medium is now nearly baryon-free. The kinetic freeze-out (at which their kinematics is fixed) happens near 100 MeV. The medium undergoes an explosive expansion at a speed of 0.6 c, and shows a strong anisotropy of transverse flux, suggesting a hydrodynamic expansion due to very strong pressure gradients developing early in the history of the collision. Remarkably, the collision zone is opaque to fast quarks and gluons and this has a strong impact on hard phenomena: suppression of hadrons produced at large pT, jet "quenching", i.e. the decrease of their rate of production, phenomena which are not observed in control collisions D-Au . Several questions concerning the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss (HBT) correlations (a concept borrowed from astronomy), e.g. the size of the collision zone, or the fate of charm in this opaque medium, etc. have still to be clarified. <BR>
<BR>
However the most prominent signatures which could reveal a quark-gluon plasma are not yet available from RHIC and it is from the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron that results are still coming. In particular, the experiment NA45 confirms that the excess of low mass e+e- pairs, mee>0.2 GeV, implies a modification of the r resonance in the dense medium, probably linked to its baryonic density. The suppression of the production of the J/</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Symbol" LANG="0">y</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">, the lowest bound state of charm and anticharm, which could signal its fusion in the quagma [25], is confirmed by the analyses of NA50 and keeps all its interest. Unfortunately no unique prediction of this effect exists for RHIC and LHC. Data are needed: the next ones should come from PHENIX at RHIC and from NA60 at the CERN SPS. <BR>
--------------------------------------------<BR>
Vision2020 Post by Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>