Technicolor (physics)

Beyond the Standard Model
Standard Model
Evidence Hierarchy problem • Dark matter Cosmological constant problem Strong CP problem Neutrino oscillations
Theories Technicolor Kaluza–Klein theory Grand Unified Theory Theory of everything String theory Superfluid vacuum theory
Supersymmetry MSSM • Superstring theory Supergravity
Quantum gravity String theory Loop quantum gravity Causal dynamical triangulation Canonical quantum gravity Superfluid vacuum theory
Experiments Gran Sasso • INO • LHC SNO • Super-K • Tevatron
v · d · e

Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that address electroweak symmetry breaking, the mechanism through which elementary particles acquire masses. Early technicolor theories were modelled on quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the "color" theory of the strong nuclear force, which inspired their name.

Instead of introducing elementary Higgs bosons to explain observed phenomena, technicolor models hide electroweak symmetry and generate masses for the W and Z bosons through the dynamics of new gauge interactions. Although asymptotically free at very high energies, these interactions must become strong and confining (and hence unobservable) at lower energies that have been experimentally probed. This dynamical approach is natural and avoids the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model.^[1]

In order to produce quark and lepton masses, technicolor has to be "extended" by additional gauge interactions. Particularly when modelled on QCD, extended technicolor is challenged by experimental constraints on flavor-changing neutral current and precision electroweak measurements. It is not known what is the extended technicolor dynamics.

Much technicolor research focuses on exploring strongly-interacting gauge theories other than QCD, in order to evade some of these challenges. A particularly active framework is "walking" technicolor, which exhibits nearly-conformal behavior caused by an infrared fixed point with strength just above that necessary for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Whether walking can occur and lead to agreement with precision electroweak measurements is being studied through non-perturbative lattice simulations.^[2]

Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are expected to discover the mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking, and will be critical for determining whether the technicolor framework provides the correct description of nature.

Introduction

The mechanism for the breaking of electroweak gauge symmetry in the Standard Model of elementary particle interactions remains unknown. The breaking must be spontaneous, meaning that the underlying theory manifests the symmetry exactly (the gauge-boson fields are massless in the equations of motion), but the solutions (the ground state and the excited states) do not. In particular, the physical W and Z gauge bosons become massive. This phenomenon, in which the W and Z bosons also acquire an extra polarization state, is called the "Higgs mechanism". Despite the precise agreement of the electroweak theory with experiment at energies accessible so far, the necessary ingredients for the symmetry breaking remain hidden, yet to be revealed at higher energies.

The simplest mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking introduces a single complex field and predicts the existence of the Higgs boson. Typically, the Higgs boson is "unnatural" in the sense that quantum mechanical fluctuations produce corrections to its mass that lift it to such high values that it cannot play the role for which it was introduced. Unless the Standard Model breaks down at energies less than a few TeV, the Higgs mass can be kept small only by a delicate fine-tuning of parameters.

Technicolor avoids this problem by hypothesizing a new gauge interaction coupled to new massless fermions. This interaction is asymptotically free at very high energies and becomes strong and confining as the energy decreases to the electroweak scale of roughly 250 GeV. These strong forces spontaneously break the massless fermions' chiral symmetries, some of which are weakly gauged as part of the Standard Model. This is the dynamical version of the Higgs mechanism. The electroweak gauge symmetry is thus broken, producing masses for the W and Z bosons.

The new strong interaction leads to a host of new composite, short-lived particles at energies accessible at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This framework is natural because there are no elementary Higgs bosons and, hence, no fine-tuning of parameters. Quark and lepton masses also break the electroweak gauge symmetries, so they, too, must arise spontaneously. A mechanism for incorporating this feature is known as extended technicolor. Technicolor and extended technicolor face a number of phenomenological challenges. Some of them can be addressed within a class of theories known as walking technicolor.

Early technicolor

Technicolor is the name given to the theory of electroweak symmetry breaking by new strong gauge-interactions whose characteristic energy scale Λ_TC is the weak scale itself, Λ_TC ≅ F_EW ≡ 246 GeV. The guiding principle of technicolor is "naturalness": basic physical phenomena should not require fine-tuning of the parameters in the Lagrangian that describes them. What constitutes fine-tuning is to some extent a subjective matter, but a theory with elementary scalar particles typically is very finely tuned (unless it is supersymmetric). The quadratic divergence in the scalar's mass requires adjustments of a part in $\mathcal{O}(M^2_{\mathrm{bare}}/M^2_{\mathrm{physical}})$, where M_bare is the cutoff of the theory, the energy scale at which the theory changes in some essential way. In the standard electroweak model with M_bare ∼ 10¹⁵ GeV (the grand-unification mass scale), and with the Higgs boson mass M_physical = 100–500 GeV, the mass is tuned to at least a part in 10²⁵.

By contrast, a natural theory of electroweak symmetry breaking is an asymptotically-free gauge theory with fermions as the only matter fields. The technicolor gauge group G_TC is often assumed to be SU(N_TC). Based on analogy with quantum chromodynamics (QCD), it is assumed that there are one or more doublets of massless Dirac "technifermions" transforming vectorially under the same complex representation of G_TC, T_iL,R = (U_i,D_i)_L,R, i = 1,2, … ,N_f/2. Thus, there is a chiral symmetry of these fermions, e.g., SU(N_f)_L ⊗ SU(N_f)_R, if they all transform according the same complex representation of G_TC. Continuing the analogy with QCD, the running gauge coupling α_TC(μ) triggers spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, the technifermions acquire a dynamical mass, and a number of massless Goldstone bosons result. If the technifermions transform under [SU(2) ⊗ U(1)]_EW as left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets, three linear combinations of these Goldstone bosons couple to three of the electroweak gauge currents.

In 1973 Jackiw and Johnson^[3] and Cornwall and Norton^[4] studied the possibility that a (non-vectorial) gauge interaction of fermions can break itself; i.e., is strong enough to form a Goldstone boson coupled to the gauge current. Using Abelian gauge models, they showed that, if such a Goldstone boson is formed, it is "eaten" by the Higgs mechanism, becoming the longitudinal component of the now massive gauge boson. Technically, the polarization function Π(p²) appearing in the gauge boson propagator, Δ_μν = (p_μ p_ν/p² - g_μν)/[p²(1 Ð g² Π(p²))] develops a pole at p² = 0 with residue F², the square of the Goldstone boson's decay constant, and the gauge boson acquires mass M ≅ g F. In 1973, Weinstein^[5] showed that composite Goldstone bosons whose constituent fermions transform in the “standard” way under SU(2) ⊗ U(1) generate the weak boson masses

$(1)\qquad M_{W^\pm} = {\frac{1}{2}} gF_{EW} \quad {\rm and} \quad M_Z = {\frac{1}{2}} \sqrt{g^2 + g^{\prime\,2}}F_{EW} \equiv \frac{M_W}{\cos\theta_{W}}\,.$

This standard-model relation is achieved with elementary Higgs bosons in electroweak doublets; it is verified experimentally to better than 1%. Here, g and g′ are SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings and tanθ_W = g′/g defines the weak mixing angle.

The important idea of a new strong gauge interaction of massless fermions at the electroweak scale F_EW driving the spontaneous breakdown of its global chiral symmetry, of which an SU(2) ⊗ U(1) subgroup is weakly gauged, was first proposed in 1979 by S. Weinberg^[6] and L. Susskind.^[7] This "technicolor" mechanism is natural in that no fine-tuning of parameters is necessary.

Extended technicolor

Elementary Higgs bosons perform another important task. In the Standard Model, quarks and leptons are necessarily massless because they transform under SU(2) ⊗ U(1) as left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets. The Higgs doublet couples to these fermions. When it develops its vacuum expectation value, it transmits this electroweak breaking to the quarks and leptons, giving them their observed masses. (In general, electroweak-eigenstate fermions are not mass eigenstates, so this process also induces the mixing matrices observed in charged-current weak interactions.)

In technicolor, something else must generate the quark and lepton masses. The only natural possibility, one avoiding the introduction of elementary scalars, is to enlarge G_TC to allow technifermions to couple to quarks and leptons. This coupling is induced by gauge bosons of the enlarged group. The picture, then, is that there is a large "extended technicolor" (ETC) gauge group G_ETC ⊃ G_TC in which technifermions, quarks, and leptons live in the same representations. At one or more high scales Λ_ETC, G_ETC is broken down to G_TC, and quarks and leptons emerge as the TC-singlet fermions. When α_TC(μ) becomes strong at scale Λ_TC ≅ F_EW, the fermionic condensate $\langle \bar{T}T\rangle_{TC} \cong 4 \pi F_{EW}^3$ forms. (The condensate is the vacuum expectation value of the technifermion bilinear $\bar{T}T$. The estimate here is based on naive dimensional analysis of the quark condensate in QCD, expected to be correct as an order of magnitude.) Then, the transitions $q_L (\mathrm{or}\,\,\ell_L) \rightarrow T_L \rightarrow T_R \rightarrow q_R\,(\mathrm{or}\,\,\ell_R)$ can proceed through the technifermion's dynamical mass by the emission and reabsorption of ETC bosons whose masses M_ETC ≅ g_ETC Λ_ETC are much greater than Λ_TC. The quarks and leptons develop masses given approximately by

$(2)\qquad m_{q,\ell}(M_{ETC}) \cong \frac{g_{ETC}^2 \langle \bar T T\rangle_{ETC}}{M_{ETC}^2} \cong \frac{4 \pi F _{EW}^3}{\Lambda_{ETC}^2}\,.$

Here, $\langle \bar T T\rangle_{ETC}$ is the technifermion condensate renormalized at the ETC boson mass scale,

$(3)\qquad \langle \bar T T\rangle_{ETC} = \exp{\left(\int_{\Lambda_{TC}}^{M_{ETC}} \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\gamma_m(\mu)\right)}\,\langle \bar T T\rangle_{TC}\,,$

where γ_m(μ) is the anomalous dimension of the technifermion bilinear $\bar T T$ at the scale μ. The second estimate in Eq. (2) depends on the assumption that, as happens in QCD, α_TC(μ) becomes weak not far above Λ_TC, so that the anomalous dimension γ_m of $\bar T T$ is small there. Extended technicolor was introduced in 1979 by Dimopoulos and Susskind,^[8] and by Eichten and Lane.^[9] For a quark of mass m_q ≅ 1 GeV, and with Λ_TC ≅ 250 GeV, one estimates Λ_ETC ≅ 15 TeV. Therefore, assuming that $g^2_{ETC} \gtrsim 1$, M_ETC will be at least this large.

In addition to the ETC proposal for quark and lepton masses, Eichten and Lane observed that the size of the ETC representations required to generate all quark and lepton masses suggests that there will be more than one electroweak doublet of technifermions.^[9] If so, there will be more (spontaneously broken) chiral symmetries and therefore more Goldstone bosons than are eaten by the Higgs mechanism. These must acquire mass by virtue of the fact that the extra chiral symmetries are also explicitly broken, by the standard-model interactions and the ETC interactions. These "pseudo-Goldstone bosons" are called technipions, π_T. An application of Dashen's theorem^[10] gives for the ETC contribution to their mass

$(4)\qquad F_{EW}^2 M_{\pi T}^2 \cong \frac{g_{ETC}^2 \langle \bar{T}T \bar{T}T\rangle_{ETC}}{M_{ETC}^2} \cong \frac{16\pi^2 F _{EW}^6}{\Lambda_{ETC}^2}\,.$

The second approximation in Eq. (4) assumes that $\langle \bar{T}T \bar{T}T\rangle_{ETC} \cong \langle \bar{T}T\rangle^2_{ETC}$. For F_EW ≅ Λ_TC ≅ 250 GeV and Λ_ETC ≅ 15 TeV, this contribution to M_πT is about 50 GeV. Since ETC interactions generate $m_{q,\ell}$ and the coupling of technipions to quark and lepton pairs, one expects the couplings to be Higgs-like; i.e., roughly proportional to the masses of the quarks and leptons. This means that technipions are expected to decay to the heaviest $\bar{q}q$ and $\bar{\ell}\ell$ pairs allowed.

Perhaps the most important restriction on the ETC framework for quark mass generation is that ETC interactions are likely to induce flavor-changing neutral current processes such as μ → e γ, K_L → μ e, and |Δ S| = 2 and |Δ B| = 2 interactions that induce $K^0 \leftrightarrow \bar{K}^0$ and $B^0 \leftrightarrow \bar{B}^0$ mixing.^[9] The reason is that the algebra of the ETC currents involved in $m_{q,\ell}$ generation imply $\bar{q}q^\prime$ and $\bar{\ell}\ell^\prime$ ETC currents which, when written in terms of fermion mass eigenstates, have no reason to conserve flavor. The strongest constraint comes from requiring that ETC interactions mediating $K \hbox{--} \bar{K}$ mixing contribute less than the Standard Model. This implies an effective Λ_ETC greater than 1000 TeV. The actual Λ_ETC may be reduced somewhat if CKM-like mixing angle factors are present. If these interactions are CP-violating, as they well may be, the constraint from the ε-parameter is that the effective Λ_ETC > 10⁴ TeV. Such huge ETC mass scales imply tiny quark and lepton masses and ETC contributions to M_πT of at most a few GeV, in conflict with LEP searches for π_T at the Z⁰.

Extended technicolor is a very ambitious proposal, requiring that quark and lepton masses and mixing angles arise from experimentally accessible interactions. If there exists a successful model, it would not only predict the masses and mixings of quarks and leptons (and technipions), it would explain why there are three families of each: they are the ones that fit into the ETC representations of q, $\ell$ and T. It should not be surprising that the construction of a successful model has proven to be very difficult.

Walking technicolor

Since quark and lepton masses are proportional to the bilinear technifermion condensate divided by the ETC mass scale squared, their tiny values can be avoided if the condensate is enhanced above the weak-α_TC estimate in Eq. (2), $\langle\bar{T}T\rangle_{ETC} \cong \langle\bar{T}T \rangle_{TC} \cong 4 \pi F _{EW}^3$.

During the 1980s, several dynamical mechanisms were advanced to do this. In 1981 Holdom suggested that, if the α_TC(μ) evolves to a nontrivial fixed point in the ultraviolet, with a large positive anomalous dimension γ_m for $\bar{T}T$, realistic quark and lepton masses could arise with Λ_ETC large enough to suppress ETC-induced $K \hbox{--} \bar K$ mixing.^[11] However, no example of a nontrivial ultraviolet fixed point in a four-dimensional gauge theory has been constructed. In 1985 Holdom analyzed a technicolor theory in which a “slowly varying” α_TC(μ) was envisioned.^[12] His focus was to separate the chiral breaking and confinement scales, but he also noted that such a theory could enhance $\langle \bar{T}T\rangle_{ETC}$ and thus allow the ETC scale to be raised. In 1986 Akiba and Yanagida also considered enhancing quark and lepton masses, by simply assuming that α_TC is constant and strong all the way up to the ETC scale.^[13] In the same year Yamawaki, Bando and Matumoto again imagined an ultraviolet fixed point in a non-asymptotically free theory to enhance the technifermion condensate.^[14]

In 1986 Appelquist, Karabali and Wijewardhana discussed the enhancement of fermion masses in an asymptotically free technicolor theory with a slowly running, or “walking”, gauge coupling.^[15] The slowness arose from the screening effect of a large number of technifermions, with the analysis carried out through two-loop perturbation theory. In 1987 Appelquist and Wijewardhana explored this walking scenario further.^[16] They took the analysis to three loops, noted that the walking can lead to a power law enhancement of the technifermion condensate, and estimated the resultant quark, lepton, and technipion masses. The condensate enhancement arises because the associated technifermion mass decreases slowly, roughly linearly, as a function of its renormalization scale. This corresponds to the condensate anomalous dimension γ_m in Eq. (3) approaching unity (see below).^[17]

In the 1990s, the idea emerged more clearly that walking is naturally described by asymptotically free gauge theories dominated in the infrared by an approximate fixed point. Unlike the speculative proposal of ultraviolet fixed points, fixed points in the infrared are known to exist in asymptotically free theories, arising at two loops in the beta function providing that the fermion count N_f is large enough. This has been known since the first two-loop computation in 1974 by Caswell.^[18] If N_f is close to the value $\hat{N}_f$ at which asymptotic freedom is lost, the resultant infrared fixed point is weak, of parametric order $\hat{N}_f - N_f$, and reliably accessible in perturbation theory. This weak-coupling limit was explored by Banks and Zaks in 1982.^[19]

The fixed-point coupling α_IR becomes stronger as N_f is reduced from $\hat{N}_f$. Below some critical value N_fc the coupling becomes strong enough (> α_{χ SB}) to break spontaneously the massless technifermions' chiral symmetry. Since the analysis must typically go beyond two-loop perturbation theory, the definition of the running coupling α_TC(μ), it’s fixed point value α_IR, and the strength α_{χ SB} necessary for chiral symmetry breaking depend on the particular renormalization scheme adopted. For $0 < (\alpha_{IR} - \alpha_{\chi SB})/\alpha_{IR} \ll 1$; i.e., for N_f just below N_fc, the evolution of α_TC(μ) is governed by the infrared fixed point and it will evolve slowly (walk) for a range of momenta above the breaking scale Λ_TC. To overcome the $M_{ETC}^2$-suppression of the masses of first and second generation quarks involved in $K \hbox{--} \bar{K}$ mixing, this range must extend almost to their ETC scale, of $\mathcal{O}(10^3\hbox{ TeV})$. Cohen and Georgi argued that γ_m = 1 is the signal of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, i.e., that γ_m(α_{χ SB}) = 1.^[17] Therefore, in the walking-α_TC region, γ_m ≅ 1 and, from Eqs. (2) and (3), the light quark masses are enhanced approximately by M_ETC/Λ_TC.

The idea that α_TC(μ) walks for a large range of momenta when α_IR lies just above α_{χ SB} was suggested by Lane and Ramana.^[20] They made an explicit model, discussed the walking that ensued, and used it in their discussion of walking technicolor phenomenology at hadron colliders. This idea was developed in some detail by Appelquist, Terning and Wijewardhana.^[21] Combining a perturbative computation of the infrared fixed point with an approximation of α_{χ SB} based on the Schwinger-Dyson equation, they estimated the critical value N_fc and explored the resultant electroweak physics. Since the 1990s, most discussions of walking technicolor are in the framework of theories assumed to be dominated in the infrared by an approximate fixed point. Various models have been explored, some with the technifermions in the fundamental representation of the gauge group and some employing higher representations.^[22][23][24]

The possibility that the technicolor condensate can be enhanced beyond that discussed in the walking literature, has also been considered recently by Luty and Okui under the name "conformal technicolor".^[25] They envision an infrared stable fixed point, but with a very large anomalous dimension for the operator $\bar{T}T$. It remains to be seen whether this can be realized, for example, in the class of theories currently being examined using lattice techniques.

Top quark mass

The walking enhancement described above may be insufficient to generate the measured top quark mass, even for an ETC scale as low as a few TeV. However, this problem could be addressed if the effective four-technifermion coupling resulting from ETC gauge boson exchange is strong and tuned just above a critical value.^[26] The analysis of this strong-ETC possibility is that of a Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model with an additional (technicolor) gauge interaction. The technifermion masses are small compared to the ETC scale (the cutoff on the effective theory), but nearly constant out to this scale, leading to a large top quark mass. No fully realistic ETC theory for all quark masses has yet been developed incorporating these ideas. A related study was carried out by Miransky and Yamawaki.^[27] A problem with this approach is that it involves some degree of parameter fine-tuning, in conflict with technicolor’s guiding principle of naturalness.

Finally, it should be noted that there is a large body of closely related work in which ETC does not generate m_t. These are the top quark condensate,^[28] topcolor and top-color-assisted technicolor models,^[29] in which new strong interactions are ascribed to the top quark and other third-generation fermions. As with the strong-ETC scenario described above, all these proposals involve a considerable degree of fine-tuning of gauge couplings.

Minimal Walking Models

In 2004 Francesco Sannino and Kimmo Tuominen proposed technicolor models with technifermions in higher-dimensional representations of the technicolor gauge group.^[23] They argued that these more "minimal" models required fewer flavors of technifermions in order to exhibit walking behavior, making it easier to pass precision electroweak tests.

For example, SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories may exhibit walking with as few as two Dirac flavors of fermions in the adjoint or two-index symmetric representation. In contrast, at least eight flavors of fermions in the fundamental representation of SU(3) (and possibly SU(2) as well) are required to reach the near-conformal regime.^[24]

These results continue to be investigated by various methods, including lattice simulations discussed below, which have confirmed the near-conformal dynamics of these minimal walking models. The first comprehensive effective Lagrangian for minimal walking models, featuring a light composite Higgs, spin-one states, tree-level unitarity, and consistency with phenomenological constraints was constructed in 2007 by Foadi, Frandsen, Ryttov and Sannino.^[30]

Technicolor on the lattice

Lattice gauge theory is a non-perturbative method applicable to strongly-interacting technicolor theories, allowing first-principles exploration of walking and conformal dynamics. In 2007, Catterall and Sannino used lattice gauge theory to study SU(2) gauge theories with two flavors of Dirac fermions in the symmetric representation,^[31] finding evidence of conformality that has been confirmed by subsequent studies.^[32]

As of 2010, the situation for SU(3) gauge theory with fermions in the fundamental representation is not as clear-cut. In 2007, Appelquist, Fleming and Neil reported evidence that a non-trivial infrared fixed point develops in such theories when there are twelve flavors, but not when there are eight.^[33] While some subsequent studies confirmed these results, others reported different conclusions, depending on the lattice methods used, and there is not yet consensus.^[34]

Further lattice studies exploring these issues, as well as considering the consequences of these theories for precision electroweak measurements, are underway by several research groups.^[35]

Technicolor phenomenology

Any framework for physics beyond the Standard Model must conform with precision measurements of the electroweak parameters. Its consequences for physics at existing and future high-energy hadron colliders, and for the dark matter of the universe must also be explored.

Precision electroweak tests

In 1990, the phenomenological parameters S, T, and U were introduced by Peskin and Takeuchi to quantify contributions to electroweak radiative corrections from physics beyond the Standard Model.^[36] They have a simple relation to the parameters of the electroweak chiral Lagrangian.^[37][38] The Peskin-Takeuchi analysis was based on the general formalism for weak radiative corrections developed by Kennedy, Lynn, Peskin and Stuart,^[39] and alternate formulations also exist.^[40]

The S, T, and U-parameters describe corrections to the electroweak gauge boson propagators from physics Beyond the Standard Model. They can be written in terms of polarization functions of electroweak currents and their spectral representation as follows:

$\begin{align} (5)\qquad S &= 16\pi \frac{d}{d q^2} \left[\Pi_{33}^{\mathbf{new}} (q^2) - \Pi_{3Q}^{\mathbf{new}}(q^2)\right]_{q^2=0}\\ &= 4\pi \int\frac{dm^2}{m^4}\left[\sigma^3_V(m^2) - \sigma^3_A(m^2)\right]^{\mathbf{new}};\\ (6)\qquad T &= \frac{16\pi}{M^2_Z \sin^2 2\theta_W}\; \left[\Pi_{11}^{\mathbf{new}}(0) - \Pi_{33}^{\mathbf{new}}(0) \right]\\ &= \frac{4\pi}{M^2_Z \sin^2 2\theta_W}\int_0^\infty\frac{dm^2}{m^2}\left[\sigma_V^1(m^2) + \sigma_A^1(m^2) - \sigma_V^3(m^2) - \sigma_A^3(m^2)\right]^{\mathbf{new}},\end{align}$

where only new, beyond-standard-model physics is included. The quantities are calculated relative to a minimal Standard Model with some chosen reference mass of the Higgs boson, taken to range from the experimental lower bound of 117 GeV to 1000 GeV where its width becomes very large.^[41] For these parameters to describe the dominant corrections to the Standard Model, the mass scale of the new physics must be much greater than M_W and M_Z, and the coupling of quarks and leptons to the new particles must be suppressed relative to their coupling to the gauge bosons. This is the case with technicolor, so long as the lightest technivector mesons, ρ_T and a_T, are heavier than 200–300 GeV. The S-parameter is sensitive to all new physics at the TeV scale, while T is a measure of weak-isospin breaking effects. The U-parameter is generally not useful; most new-physics theories, including technicolor theories, give negligible contributions to it.

The S and T-parameters are determined by global fit to experimental data including Z-pole data from LEP at CERN, top quark and W-mass measurements at Fermilab, and measured levels of atomic parity violation. The resultant bounds on these parameters are given in the Review of Particle Properties.^[41] Assuming U = 0, the S and T parameters are small and, in fact, consistent with zero:

$(7)\qquad\begin{align} S &= -0.04 \pm 0.09\,(-0.07), \\ T &= 0.02 \pm 0.09\,( +0.09), \end{align}$

where the central value corresponds to a Higgs mass of 117 GeV and the correction to the central value when the Higgs mass is increased to 300 GeV is given in parentheses. These values place tight restrictions on beyond-standard-model theories—when the relevant corrections can be reliably computed.

The S parameter estimated in QCD-like technicolor theories is significantly greater than the experimentally-allowed value.^[36][40] The computation was done assuming that the spectral integral for S is dominated by the lightest ρ_T and a_T resonances, or by scaling effective Lagrangian parameters from QCD. In walking technicolor, however, the physics at the TeV scale and beyond must be quite different from that of QCD-like theories. In particular, the vector and axial-vector spectral functions cannot be dominated by just the lowest-lying resonances.^[42] It is unknown whether higher energy contributions to $\sigma_{V,A}^3$ are a tower of identifiable ρ_T and a_T states or a smooth continuum. It has been conjectured that ρ_T and a_T partners could be more nearly degenerate in walking theories (approximate parity doubling), reducing their contribution to S.^[43] Lattice calculations are underway or planned to test these ideas and obtain reliable estimates of S in walking theories.^[2][44]

The restriction on the T-parameter poses a problem for the generation of the top-quark mass in the ETC framework. The enhancement from walking can allow the associated ETC scale to be as large as a few TeV,^[21] but—since the ETC interactions must be strongly weak-isospin breaking to allow for the large top-bottom mass splitting—the contribution to the T parameter,^[45] as well as the rate for the decay $Z^0 \rightarrow \bar{b}b$,^[46] could be too large.

Hadron collider phenomenology

Early studies generally assumed the existence of just one electroweak doublet of technifermions, or one techni-family including one doublet each of color-triplet techniquarks and color-singlet technileptons.^[47] In the minimal, one-doublet model, three Goldstone bosons (technipions, π_T) have decay constant F = F_EW = 246 GeV and are eaten by the electroweak gauge bosons. The most accessible collider signal is the production through $\bar{q}q$ annihilation in a hadron collider of spin-one $\rho_T^{\pm,0}$, and their subsequent decay into a pair of longitudinally-polarized weak bosons, $W_L^\pm Z_L^0$ and $W_L^+ W_L^-$. At an expected mass of 1.5–2.0 TeV and width of 300–400 GeV, such ρ_T's would be difficult to discover at the LHC. A one-family model has a large number of physical technipions, with F = F_EW/√4 = 123 GeV.^[48] There is a collection of correspondingly lower-mass color-singlet and octet technivectors decaying into technipion pairs. The π_T's are expected to decay to the heaviest possible quark and lepton pairs. Despite their lower masses, the ρ_T's are wider than in the minimal model and the backgrounds to the π_T decays are likely to be insurmountable at a hadron collider.

This picture changed with the advent of walking technicolor. A walking gauge coupling occurs if α_{χ SB} lies just below the IR fixed point value α_IR, which requires either a large number of electroweak doublets in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, e.g., or a few doublets in higher-dimensional TC representations.^[22][49] In the latter case, the constraints on ETC representations generally imply other technifermions in the fundamental representation as well.^[9][20] In either case, there are technipions π_T with decay constant $F \ll F_{EW}$. This implies $\Lambda_{TC} \ll F_{EW}$ so that the lightest technivectors accessible at the LHC—ρ_T, ω_T, a_T (with I^G J^PC = 1⁺ 1⁻⁻, 0⁻ 1⁻⁻, 1⁻ 1⁺⁺)—have masses well below a TeV. The class of theories with many technifermions and thus $F \ll F_{EW}$ is called low-scale technicolor.^[50]

A second consequence of walking technicolor concerns the decays of the spin-one technihadrons. Since technipion masses $M_{\pi_T}^2 \propto \langle\bar{T}T \bar{T}T\rangle_{M_{ETC}}$ (see Eq. (4)), walking enhances them much more than it does other technihadron masses. Thus, it is very likely that the lightest M_ρT < 2M_πT and that the two and three-π_T decay channels of the light technivectors are closed.^[22] This further implies that these technivectors are very narrow. Their most probable two-body channels are $W^{\pm,0}_L \pi_T$, W_L W_L, γ π_T and γ W_L. The coupling of the lightest technivectors to W_L is proportional to F/F_EW.^[51] Thus, all their decay rates are suppressed by powers of $(F/F_{EW})^2 \ll 1$ or the fine-structure constant, giving total widths of a few GeV (for ρ_T) to a few tenths of a GeV (for ω_T and _T).

A more speculative consequence of walking technicolor is motivated by consideration of its contribution to the S-parameter. As noted above, the usual assumptions made to estimate S_TC are invalid in a walking theory. In particular, the spectral integrals used to evaluate S_TC cannot be dominated by just the lowest-lying ρ_T and a_T and, if S_TC is to be small, the masses and weak-current couplings of the ρ_T and a_T could be more nearly equal than they are in QCD.

Low-scale technicolor phenomenology, including the possibility of a more parity-doubled spectrum, has been developed into a set of rules and decay amplitudes.^[51] An April 2011 announcement of an excess in jet pairs produced in association with a W boson measured at the Tevatron^[52] has been interpreted by Eichten, Lane and Martin as a possible signal of the technipion of low-scale technicolor.^[53]

The general scheme of low-scale technicolor makes little sense if the limit on $M_{\rho_{T}}$ is pushed past about 700 GeV. The LHC should be able to discover it or rule it out. Searches there involving decays to technipions and thence to heavy quark jets are hampered by backgrounds from $\bar{t}t$ production; its rate is 100 times larger than that at the Tevatron. Consequently, the discovery of low-scale technicolor at the LHC relies on all-leptonic final-state channels with favorable signal-to-background ratios: $\rho_{T}^{\pm} \rightarrow W_L^\pm Z_L^0$, $a_{T}^{\pm} \rightarrow \gamma W_L^\pm$ and $\omega_{T} \rightarrow \gamma Z_L^0$.^[54]

Dark matter

Technicolor theories naturally contain dark matter candidates. Almost certainly, models can be built in which the lowest-lying technibaryon, a technicolor-singlet bound state of technifermions, is stable enough to survive the evolution of the universe.^[41][55] If the technicolor theory is low-scale ($F \ll F_{EW}$), the baryon's mass should be no more than 1–2 TeV. If not, it could be much heavier. The technibaryon must be electrically neutral and satisfy constraints on its abundance. Given the limits on spin-independent dark-matter-nucleon cross sections from dark-matter search experiments ($\lesssim 10^{-42}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ for the masses of interest^[56]), it may have to be electroweak neutral (weak isospin I = 0) as well. These considerations suggest that the "old" technicolor dark matter candidates may be difficult to produce at the LHC.

A different class of technicolor dark matter candidates light enough to be accessible at the LHC was introduced by Francesco Sannino and his collaborators.^[57] These states are pseudo Goldstone bosons possessing a global charge that makes them stable against decay.

See also

• Higgsless model
• Topcolor
• Top quark condensate

References

1. ^ For a recent introductions to and reviews of technicolor, see:
   Christopher T. Hill and Elizabeth H. Simmons (2003). "Strong Dynamics and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking". Physics Reports 381 (4-6): 235–402. arXiv:hep-ph/0203079. Bibcode 2003PhR...381..235H. doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00140-6. 
   Kenneth Lane (2002). "Two Lectures on Technicolor". l'Ecole de GIF at LAPP, Annecy-le-Vieux, France. arXiv:hep-ph/0202255. 
   Robert Shrock (2007). "Some Recent Results on Models of Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry Breaking". In M. Tanabashi, M. Harada, and K. Yamawaki. Nagoya 2006: The Origin of Mass and Strong Coupling Gauge Theories. International Workshop on Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories. pp. 227–241. arXiv:hep-ph/0703050. 
   Adam Martin (2008). "Technicolor Signals at the LHC". The 46th Course at the International School of Subnuclear Physics: Predicted and Totally Unexpected in the Energy Frontier Opened by LHC. arXiv:0812.1841. 
   Francesco Sannino (2009). "Conformal Dynamics for TeV Physics and Cosmology". Acta Physica Polonica B40: 3533–3745. arXiv:0911.0931. Bibcode 2009arXiv0911.0931S. 
2. ^ ^{a b} George Fleming (2008). "Strong Interactions for the LHC". Proceedings of Science LATTICE 2008: 21. arXiv:0812.2035. Bibcode 2008arXiv0812.2035F. 
3. ^ R. Jackiw and K. Johnson (1973). "Dynamical Model of Spontaneously Broken Gauge Symmetries". Physical Review D8 (8): 2386–2398. Bibcode 1973PhRvD...8.2386J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2386. 
4. ^ John M. Cornwall and Richard E. Norton (1973). "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking Without Scalar Mesons". Physical Review D8 (10): 3338–3346. Bibcode 1973PhRvD...8.3338C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.3338. 
5. ^ Marvin Weinstein (1973). "Conserved Currents, Their Commutators, and the Symmetry Structure of Renormalizable Theories of Electromagnetic, Weak, and Strong Interactions". Physical Review D8 (8): 2511–2524. Bibcode 1973PhRvD...8.2511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2511. 
6. ^ Steven Weinberg (1976). "Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking". Physical Review D13 (4): 974–996. Bibcode 1976PhRvD..13..974W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.974. 
   S. Weinberg (1979). "Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking: An addendum". Physical Review D19 (4): 1277–1280. Bibcode 1979PhRvD..19.1277W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.1277. 
7. ^ Leonard Susskind (1979). "Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory". Physical Review D20 (10): 2619–2625. Bibcode 1979PhRvD..20.2619S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619. 
8. ^ Savas Dimopoulos and Leonard Susskind (1979). "Mass without scalars". Nuclear Physics B155 (1): 237–252. Bibcode 1979NuPhB.155..237D. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-X. 
9. ^ ^{a b c d} Estia Eichten and Kenneth Lane (1980). "Dynamical breaking of weak interaction symmetries". Physics Letters B90 (1-2): 125–130. Bibcode 1980PhLB...90..125E. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90065-9. 
10. ^ Roger Dashen (1969). "Chiral SU(3)⊗SU(3) as a Symmetry of the Strong Interactions". Physical Review 183 (5): 1245–1260. Bibcode 1969PhRv..183.1245D. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.183.1245. 
    Roger Dashen (1971). "Some Features of Chiral Symmetry Breaking". Physical Review D3 (8): 1879–1889. Bibcode 1971PhRvD...3.1879D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.1879. 
11. ^ Bob Holdom (1981). "Raising the sideways scale". Physical Review D24 (5): 1441–1444. Bibcode 1981PhRvD..24.1441H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1441. 
12. ^ Bob Holdom (1985). "Techniodor". Physics Letters B150 (4): 301–305. Bibcode 1985PhLB..150..301H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91015-9. 
13. ^ T. Akiba and T. Yanagida (1986). "Hierarchic chiral condensate". Physics Letters B169 (4): 432–435. Bibcode 1986PhLB..169..432A. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90385-0. 
14. ^ Koichi Yamawaki, Masako Bando, and Ken-iti Matumoto (1986). "Scale-Invariant Hypercolor Model and a Dilaton". Physical Review Letters 56 (13): 1335–1338. Bibcode 1986PhRvL..56.1335Y. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.1335. PMID 10032641. 
15. ^ Thomas Appelquist, Dimitra Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana (1986). "Chiral Hierarchies and Flavor-Changing Neutral Currents in Hypercolor". Physical Review Letters 57 (8): 957–960. Bibcode 1986PhRvL..57..957A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.957. PMID 10034209. 
16. ^ Thomas Appelquist and L. C. R. Wijewardhana (1987). "Chiral hierarchies from slowly running couplings in technicolor theories". Physical Review D36 (2): 568–580. Bibcode 1987PhRvD..36..568A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.568. 
17. ^ ^{a b} Andrew Cohen and Howard Georgi (1989). "Walking beyond the rainbow". Nuclear Physics B314 (1): 7–24. Bibcode 1989NuPhB.314....7C. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90109-0. 
18. ^ William E. Caswell (1974). "Asymptotic Behavior of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories to Two-Loop Order". Physical Review Letters 33 (4): 244–246. Bibcode 1974PhRvL..33..244C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.244. 
19. ^ T. Banks and A. Zaks (1982). "On the phase structure of vector-like gauge theories with massless fermions". Nuclear Physics B196 (2): 189–204. Bibcode 1982NuPhB.196..189B. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90035-9. 
20. ^ ^{a b} Kenneth Lane and M. V. Ramana (1991). "Walking technicolor signatures at hadron colliders". Physical Review D44 (9): 2678–2700. Bibcode 1991PhRvD..44.2678L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2678. 
21. ^ ^{a b} Thomas Appelquist, John Terning and L. C. R. Wijewardhana (1997). "Postmodern Technicolor". Physical Review Letters 79 (15): 2767–2770. arXiv:hep-ph/9706238. Bibcode 1997PhRvL..79.2767A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2767. 
22. ^ ^{a b c} Kenneth Lane and Estia Eichten (1989). "Two-scale technicolor". Physics Letters B222 (2): 274–280. Bibcode 1989PhLB..222..274L. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91265-3. 
23. ^ ^{a b} Francesco Sannino and Kimmo Tuominen (2005). "Orientifold theory dynamics and symmetry breaking". Physical Review D71 (5): 051901. arXiv:hep-ph/0405209. Bibcode 2005PhRvD..71e1901S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.051901. 
24. ^ ^{a b} Dennis D. Dietrich, Francesco Sannino and Kimmo Tuominen (2005). "Light composite Higgs boson from higher representations versus electroweak precision measurements: Predictions for CERN LHC". Physical Review D72 (5): 055001. arXiv:hep-ph/0505059. Bibcode 2005PhRvD..72e5001D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.055001. 
    Dennis D. Dietrich, Francesco Sannino and Kimmo Tuominen (2006). "Light composite Higgs and precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance: An update". Physical Review D73 (3): 037701. arXiv:hep-ph/0510217. Bibcode 2006PhRvD..73c7701D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.037701. 
    Dennis D. Dietrich and Francesco Sannino (2007). "Conformal window of SU(N) gauge theories with fermions in higher dimensional representations". Physical Review D75 (8): 085018. arXiv:hep-ph/0611341. Bibcode 2007PhRvD..75h5018D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.085018. 
    Thomas A. Ryttov and Francesco Sannino (2007). "Conformal windows of SU(N) gauge theories, higher dimensional representations, and the size of the unparticle world". Physical Review D76 (10): 105004. arXiv:0707.3166. Bibcode 2007PhRvD..76j5004R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.105004. 
    Thomas A. Ryttov and Francesco Sannino (2008). "Supersymmetry inspired QCD beta function". Physical Review D78 (6): 065001. arXiv:0711.3745. Bibcode 2008PhRvD..78f5001R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.065001. 
25. ^ Markus A. Luty and Takemichi Okui (2006). "Conformal technicolor". Journal of High Energy Physics 0609 (09): 070. arXiv:hep-ph/0409274. Bibcode 2006JHEP...09..070L. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/09/070. 
    Markus A. Luty (2009). "Strong conformal dynamics at the LHC and on the lattice". Journal of High Energy Physics 0904 (04): 050. arXiv:0806.1235. Bibcode 2009JHEP...04..050L. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/050. 
    Jared A. Evans, Jamison Galloway, Markus A. Luty and Ruggero Altair Tacchi (2010). "Minimal conformal technicolor and precision electroweak tests". Journal of High Energy Physics 1010 (10): 086. arXiv:1001.1361. Bibcode 2010JHEP...10..086E. doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)086. 
26. ^ Thomas Appelquist, T. Takeuchi, Martin Einhorn and L. C. R. Wijewardhana (1989). "Higher mass scales and mass hierarchies". Physics Letters B220 (1-2): 223–228. Bibcode 1989PhLB..220..223A. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90041-5. 
27. ^ V. A. Miransky and K. Yamawaki (1989). "On Gauge Theories with Additional Four Fermion Interaction". Modern Physics Letters A4 (2): 129–135. Bibcode 1989MPLA....4..129M. doi:10.1142/S0217732389000186. 
28. ^ Y. Nambu (1989). "BCS mechanism, quasi supersymmetry, and fermion masses". In Z. Adjduk, S. Pokorski, and A. Trautman. Proceedings of the Kazimierz 1988 Conference on New Theories in Physics. XI International Symposium on Elementary Particle Physics. pp. 406–415. 
    V. A. Miransky, Masaharu Tanabashi and Koichi Yamawaki (1989). "Is the t Quark Responsible for the Mass of W and Z Bosons?". Modern Physics Letters A4 (11): 1043–1053. Bibcode 1989MPLA....4.1043M. doi:10.1142/S0217732389001210. 
    V. A. Miransky, Masaharu Tanabashi and Koichi Yamawaki (1989). "Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking with large anomalous dimension and t quark condensate". Physics Letters B221 (2): 177–183. Bibcode 1989PhLB..221..177M. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)91494-9. 
    William A. Bardeen, Christopher T. Hill, and Manfred Lindner (1990). "Minimal dynamical symmetry breaking of the standard model". Physical Review D41 (5): 1647–1660. Bibcode 1990PhRvD..41.1647B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.1647. 
29. ^ Christopher T. Hill (1991). "Topcolor: top quark condensation in a gauge extension of the standard model". Physics Letters B266 (3-4): 419–424. Bibcode 1991PhLB..266..419H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91061-Y. 
    Christopher T. Hill (1995). "Topcolor assisted technicolor". Physics Letters B345 (4): 483–489. arXiv:hep-ph/9411426. Bibcode 1995PhLB..345..483H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01660-5. 
30. ^ Roshan Foadi, Mads T. Frandsen, Thomas A. Ryttov and Francesco Sannino (2007). "Minimal walking technicolor: Setup for collider physics". Physical Review D76 (5): 055005. arXiv:0707.1696. Bibcode 2007PhRvD..76e5005F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.055005. 
31. ^ Simon Catterall and Francesco Sannino (2007). "Minimal Walking on the Lattice". Physical Review D76 (3): 034504. arXiv:0705.1664. Bibcode 2007PhRvD..76c4504C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034504. 
32. ^ Simon Catterall, Joel Giedt, Francesco Sannino and Joe Schneible (2008). "Phase diagram of SU(2) with 2 flavors of dynamical adjoint quarks". Journal of High Energy Physics 0811 (11): 009. arXiv:0807.0792. Bibcode 2008JHEP...11..009C. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/11/009. 
    Ari J. Hietanen, Kari Rummukainen and Kimmo Tuominen (2009). "Evolution of the coupling constant in SU(2) lattice gauge theory with two adjoint fermions". Physical Review D80 (9): 094504. arXiv:0904.0864. Bibcode 2009PhRvD..80i4504H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.094504. 
33. ^ Thomas Appelquist, George T. Fleming and Ethan T. Neil (2008). "Lattice Study of the Conformal Window in QCD-like Theories". Physical Review Letters 100 (17): 171607. arXiv:0712.0609. Bibcode 2008PhRvL.100q1607A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.171607. PMID 18518277. 
34. ^ Albert Deuzeman, Maria Paola Lombardo and Elisabetta Pallante (2008). "The physics of eight flavours". Physics Letters B670 (1): 41–48. arXiv:0804.2905. Bibcode 2008PhLB..670...41D. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.039. 
    Thomas Appelquist, George T. Fleming and Ethan T. Neil (2009). "Lattice study of conformal behavior in SU(3) Yang-Mills theories". Physical Review D79 (7): 076010. arXiv:0901.3766. Bibcode 2009PhRvD..79g6010A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.076010. 
    Erek Bilgici et al. (2009). "New scheme for the running coupling constant in gauge theories using Wilson loops". Physical Review D80 (3): 034507. arXiv:0902.3768. Bibcode 2009PhRvD..80c4507B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.034507. 
    Xiao-Yong Jin and Robert D. Mawhinney (2009). "Lattice QCD with 8 and 12 degenerate quark flavors". Proceedings of Science LAT2009: 049. http://pos.sissa.it/archive/conferences/091/049/LAT2009_049.pdf. 
    Zoltan Fodor, Kieran Holland, Julius Kuti, Daniel Nogradi and Chris Schroeder (2009). "Chiral symmetry breaking in nearly conformal gauge theories". Proceedings of Science LAT2009: 058. arXiv:0911.2463. Bibcode 2009arXiv0911.2463F. http://pos.sissa.it/archive/conferences/091/058/LAT2009_058.pdf. 
    Anna Hasenfratz (2010). "Conformal or Walking? Monte Carlo renormalization group studies of SU(3) gauge models with fundamental fermions". Physical Review D82 (1): 014506. arXiv:1004.1004. Bibcode 2010PhRvD..82a4506H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014506. 
35. ^ Thomas DeGrand, Yigal Shamir and Benjamin Svetitsky (2009). "Phase structure of SU(3) gauge theory with two flavors of symmetric-representation fermions". Physical Review D79 (3): 034501. arXiv:0812.1427. Bibcode 2009PhRvD..79c4501D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.034501. 
    Thomas Appelquist et al. (2009). "Toward TeV Conformality". Physical Review Letters 104 (7): 071601. arXiv:0910.2224. Bibcode 2010PhRvL.104g1601A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.071601. PMID 20366870. 
36. ^ ^{a b} Michael E. Peskin and Tatsu Takeuchi (1990). "New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector". Physical Review Letters 65 (8): 964–967. Bibcode 1990PhRvL..65..964P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.964. PMID 10043071. 
    Michael E. Peskin and Tatsu Takeuchi (1992). "Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections". Physical Review D46 (1): 381–409. Bibcode 1992PhRvD..46..381P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.381. 
37. ^ Thomas Appelquist and Claude Bernard (1980). "Strongly interacting Higgs bosons". Physical Review D22 (1): 200–213. Bibcode 1980PhRvD..22..200A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.200. 
38. ^ Anthony C. Longhitano (1980). "Heavy Higgs bosons in the Weinberg-Salam model". Physical Review D22 (5): 1166–1175. Bibcode 1980PhRvD..22.1166L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.1166. 
    Anthony C. Longhitano (1981). "Low-energy impact of a heavy Higgs boson sector". Nuclear Physics B188 (1): 118–154. Bibcode 1981NuPhB.188..118L. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90109-7. 
39. ^ B. W. Lynn, Michael Edward Peskin, and R. G. Stuart (1985). "Radiative Corrections in SU(2) x U(1): LEP / SLC". In Bryan W. Lynn and Claudio Verzegnassi. Tests of electroweak theories: polarized processes and other phenomena. Second Conference on Tests of Electroweak Theories, Trieste, Italy, 10–12 June 1985. pp. 213. 
    D. C. Kennedy and B. W. Lynn (1989). "Electroweak radiative corrections with an effective lagrangian: Four-fermions processes". Nuclear Physics B322 (1): 1–54. Bibcode 1989NuPhB.322....1K. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90483-5. 
40. ^ ^{a b} Mitchell Golden and Lisa Randall (1991). "Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories". Nuclear Physics B361 (1): 3–23. Bibcode 1991NuPhB.361....3G. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90614-4. 
    B. Holdom and J. Terning (1990). "Large corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories". Physics Letters B247 (1): 88–92. Bibcode 1990PhLB..247...88H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91054-F. 
    G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, and S. Jadach (1992). "Toward a model-independent analysis of electroweak data". Nuclear Physics B369 (1-2): 3–32. Bibcode 1992NuPhB.369....3A. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90376-M. 
41. ^ ^{a b c} Particle Data Group (C. Amsler et al.) (2008). "Review of Particle Physics". Physics Letters B667 (1-5): 1. Bibcode 2008PhLB..667....1P. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.018. http://pdg.lbl.gov. 
42. ^ Kenneth Lane (1994). "An introduction to technicolor". In K. T. Mahantappa. Boulder 1993 Proceedings: The building blocks of creation. Theoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI 93) in Elementary Particle Physics: The Building Blocks of Creation - From Microfermis to Megaparsecs, Boulder, Colorado, 6 June - 2 July 1993. pp. 381–408. arXiv:hep-ph/9401324. 
    Kenneth Lane (1995). "Technicolor and precision tests of the electroweak interactions". In P. J. Bussey and I. G. Knowles. High energy physics: Proceedings. II. 27th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), Glasgow, Scotland, 20–27 July 1994. pp. 543. arXiv:hep-ph/9409304. 
43. ^ Thomas Appelquist and Francesco Sannino (1999). "Physical spectrum of conformal SU(N) gauge theories". Physical Review D59 (6): 067702. arXiv:hep-ph/9806409. Bibcode 1999PhRvD..59f7702A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.067702. 
    Johannes Hirn and Verónica Sanz (2006). "Negative S Parameter from Holographic Technicolor". Physical Review Letters 97 (12): 121803. arXiv:hep-ph/0606086. Bibcode 2006PhRvL..97l1803H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.121803. PMID 17025952. 
    R. Casalbuoni, D. Dominici, A. Deandrea, R. Gatto, S. De Curtis, and M. Grazzini (1996). "Low energy strong electroweak sector with decoupling". Physical Review D53 (9): 5201–5221. arXiv:hep-ph/9510431. Bibcode 1996PhRvD..53.5201C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.5201. 
44. ^ Lattice Strong Dynamics Collaboration.
45. ^ Thomas Appelquist, Mark J. Bowick, Eugene Cohler, and Avi I. Hauser (1985). "Breaking of isospin symmetry in theories with a dynamical Higgs mechanism". Physical Review D31 (7): 1676–1684. Bibcode 1985PhRvD..31.1676A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.31.1676. 
    R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu, and J. Terning (1995). "Isospin breaking and fine-tuning in top-color assisted technicolor". Physics Letters B353 (2-3): 289–284. arXiv:hep-ph/9503203. Bibcode 1995PhLB..353..289C. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00569-7. 
46. ^ R. Sekhar Chivukula, Stephen B. Selipsky, and Elizabeth H. Simmons (1992). "Nonoblique effects in the Zbb¯ vertex from extended technicolor dynamics". Physical Review Letters 69 (4): 575–577. arXiv:hep-ph/9204214. Bibcode 1992PhRvL..69..575C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.575. PMID 10046976. 
    Elizabeth H. Simmons, R.S. Chivukula, and J. Terning (1996). "Testing extended technicolor with R(b)". Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 123: 87–96. arXiv:hep-ph/9509392. Bibcode 1996PThPS.123...87S. doi:10.1143/PTPS.123.87. 
47. ^ E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. Lane, and C. Quigg (1984). "Supercollider physics". Reviews of Modern Physics 56 (4): 579–707. Bibcode 1984RvMP...56..579E. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.56.579. 
    E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. Lane, and C. Quigg (1986). "Erratum: Supercollider physics". Reviews of Modern Physics 58 (4): 1065–1073. Bibcode 1986RvMP...58.1065E. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.1065. 
48. ^ E. Farhi and L. Susskind (1979). "Grand unified theory with heavy color". Physical Review D20 (12): 3404–3411. Bibcode 1979PhRvD..20.3404F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.3404. 
49. ^ Dennis D. Dietrich, Francesco Sannino, and Kimmo Tuominen (2005). "Light composite Higgs boson from higher representations versus electroweak precision measurements: Predictions for CERN LHC". Physical Review D72 (5): 055001. arXiv:hep-ph/0505059. Bibcode 2005PhRvD..72e5001D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.055001. 
50. ^ Kenneth Lane and Estia Eichten (1995). "Natural topcolor-assisted technicolor". Physics Letters B352 (3-4): 382–387. arXiv:hep-ph/9503433. Bibcode 1995PhLB..352..382L. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00482-Z. 
    Estia Eichten and Kenneth Lane (1996). "Low-scale technicolor at the Tevatron". Physics Letters B388 (4): 803–807. arXiv:hep-ph/9607213. Bibcode 1996PhLB..388..803E. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01211-7. 
    Estia Eichten, Kenneth Lane, and John Womersley (1997). "Finding low-scale technicolor at hadron colliders". Physics Letters B405 (3-4): 305–311. arXiv:hep-ph/9704455. Bibcode 1997PhLB..405..305E. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00637-0. 
51. ^ ^{a b} Kenneth Lane (1999). "Technihadron production and decay in low-scale technicolor". Physical Review D60 (7): 075007. arXiv:hep-ph/9903369. Bibcode 1999PhRvD..60g5007L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.075007. 
    Estia Eichten and Kenneth Lane (2008). "Low-scale technicolor at the Tevatron and LHC". Physics Letters B669 (3-4): 235–238. arXiv:0706.2339. Bibcode 2008PhLB..669..235E. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.09.047. 
52. ^ CDF Collaboration (T. Aaltonen et al.) (2011). "Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV". arXiv:1104.0699. 
53. ^ Estia J. Eichten, Kenneth Lane and Adam Martin (2011). "Technicolor at the Tevatron". arXiv:1104.0976. 
54. ^ Gustaaf H. Brooijmans et al. (New Physics Working Group) (2008). "New Physics at the LHC: A Les Houches Report". Les Houches 2007: Physics at TeV Colliders. 5th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders 11–29 June 2007, Les Houches, France. pp. 363–489. arXiv:0802.3715. 
55. ^ S. Nussinov (1985). "Technocosmology — could a technibaryon excess provide a "natural" missing mass candidate?". Physics Letters B165 (1-3): 55–58. Bibcode 1985PhLB..165...55N. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90689-6. 
    R. S. Chivukula and Terry P. Walker (1990). "Technicolor cosmology". Nuclear Physics B329 (2): 445–463. Bibcode 1990NuPhB.329..445C. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90151-3. 
    John Bagnasco, Michael Dine and Scott Thomas (1994). "Detecting technibaryon dark matter". Physics Letters B320 (1-2): 99–104. arXiv:hep-ph/9310290. Bibcode 1994PhLB..320...99B. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90830-3. 
    Sven Bjarke Gudnason, Chris Kouvaris, and Francesco Sannino (2006). "Dark matter from new technicolor theories". Physical Review D74 (9): 095008. arXiv:hep-ph/0608055. Bibcode 2006PhRvD..74i5008G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.095008. 
56. ^ D. McKinsey, "Direct Dark Matter Detection Using Noble Liquids", 2009 Institute for Advanced Study Workshop on Current Trends in Dark Matter.
57. ^ Sven Bjarke Gudnason, Chris Kouvaris and Francesco Sannino (2006). "Towards working technicolor: Effective theories and dark matter". Physical Review D73 (11): 115003. arXiv:hep-ph/0603014. Bibcode 2006PhRvD..73k5003G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.115003. 
    Sven Bjarke Gudnason, Chris Kouvaris and Francesco Sannino (2006). "Dark matter from new technicolor theories". Physical Review D74 (9): 095008. arXiv:hep-ph/0608055. Bibcode 2006PhRvD..74i5008G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.095008. 
    Thomas A. Ryttov and Francesco Sannino (2008). "Ultraminimal technicolor and its dark matter technicolor interacting massive particles". Physical Review D78 (11): 115010. arXiv:0809.0713. Bibcode 2008PhRvD..78k5010R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.115010. 
    Enrico Nardi, Francesco Sannino and Alessandro Strumia (2009). "Decaying Dark Matter can explain the e± excesses". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 0901 (01): 043. arXiv:0811.4153. Bibcode 2009JCAP...01..043N. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/01/043. 
    Roshan Foadi, Mads T. Frandsen and Francesco Sannino (2009). "Technicolor dark matter". Physical Review D80 (3): 037702. arXiv:0812.3406. Bibcode 2009PhRvD..80c7702F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.037702. 
    Mads T. Frandsen and Francesco Sannino (2010). "Isotriplet technicolor interacting massive particle as dark matter". Physical Review D81 (9): 097704. arXiv:0911.1570. Bibcode 2010PhRvD..81i7704F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.097704.