text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The introductory parts of the talk included the motivation for supersymmetry and inflation, and ten challenges facing a supersymmetric inflationary model. This was followed by a detailed review of a particular intermediate scale supersymmetric inflation model, as an example of a model which attempts to meet all the challenges. These parts of my talk can be found in the recent review article  to which we refer those readers requiring more background information. Here we state the omega problem in supersymmetric inflation, give the motivation for intermediate scale inflation and introduce a particular model. We then show how the parameters of this model simultaneously control different phenomena in particle physics and cosmology. Finally we show how the matter relic densities may be calculated from such a model together with a measurement of the CMB temperature and the Hubble constant, and hence how the DE density may be deduced.

## 2 The Omega Problem in Supersymmetric Inflation

Within the framework of intermediate scale supersymmetric inflation one may expect on general grounds that our Universe contains sizeable relic abundances of baryons (from e.g. leptogenesis), axions (a) (from the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) solution to the strong CP problem), as well as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS). In R-parity conserving SUSY the WIMP is identified as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), and this is often assumed to be the lightest neutralino of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). We shall argue from this perspective that the LSP could equally well be a lighter stable singlet (singlino) identified with an axino or inflatino.

In general the ratio of the total density of the universe $`\rho _{tot}`$ to critical density $`\rho _{crit}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}$$
(1)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ are the ratios of radiation density $`\rho _\gamma `$, matter density $`\rho _{matter}`$ and DE density $`\rho _{DE}`$ to critical density $`\rho _{crit}`$, and the radiation density is unimportant $`\rho _\gamma \rho _{matter}`$. Note that the critical density is a function of time and in the present epoch $`\rho _{crit}=3M_P^2H_0^2=(3h^{1/2}\times 10^3\mathrm{eV})^4(M_W^2/M_P)^4`$ where $`M_W`$ is the weak scale, $`M_P`$ is the Planck scale, and $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}.\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is the present day Hubble constant, with $`h=0.7\pm 10\%`$. From observation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}2/3`$ while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}1/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ is very close to unity. Inflation predicts $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$, for all times after inflation. The matter contributions consist of (at least)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}=\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu +\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSP}+\mathrm{\Omega }_a$$
(2)
The most recent data is consistent with nucleosynthesis estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.04`$, where the baryons (b) in the universe are mainly to be found in dark objects. The determined value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0.3`$ contains unknown relative contributions from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSP}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$. Super-Kamiokande sets a lower limit on neutrino masses $`_im_{\nu _i}0.05`$ eV which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 0.003`$. In hierarchical neutrino mass models the lower bound is saturated and interestingly the neutrino density is then comparable to the visible baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{stars}0.005`$.

## 3 An Example

### 3.1 Why Intermediate Scale Inflation?

We now wish to consider a specific example of a model which addresses the particle physics issues mentioned in the abstract, in order to illustrate many of the general features that we have discussed above. The brand of inflation most closely related to particle physics seems to be hybrid inflation which may occur at a scale well below the Planck scale, and hence be in the realm of particle physics. The next question is what is the relevant scale at which hybrid inflation takes place? One obvious possibility is to associate the scale of inflation with some grand unified theory (GUT) symmetry breaking scale, as originally conceived by Guth. However it is somewhat ironic that hybrid inflation at the GUT scale faces the magnetic monopole problem, which was precisely one of the original motivations for considering inflation in the first place! Although in certain cases this problem may be resolved, there are typically further symmetry breaking scales below the GUT scale at which discrete symmetries are broken, leading to problems with cosmological domain walls.

Intermediate scale hybrid inflation immediately solves both the magnetic monopole problem and the domain wall problem. The idea is simply that there is a period of hybrid inflation occuring below the GUT scale at the PQ symmetry breaking scale itself, in which the inflaton carries PQ charge and so the choice of domain is fixed during inflation. The universe therefore inflates inside a particular domain, and the magnetic monople relics produced by the GUT scale symmetry breaking are inflated away. This provides a powerful motivation for intermediate scale inflation.

### 3.2 Intermediate Scale Supersymmetric Inflation Model

The model we consider is a variant of the NMSSM. This model has a SUGRA foundation and leptogenesis and reheating has been studied and preheating has been demonstrated not to lead to over-production of either axions or gravitinos. The model provides a solution to the strong CP problem and the $`\mu `$ problem, with inflation directly solving the monopole and domain wall problems at the inflation scale. It is therefore a well motivated, successful model that has been well studied and does not appear to suffer from any embarrassing problems, and is therefore a suitable laboratory for our discussion here. This variant of the NMSSM has the following superpotential terms involving the standard Higgs doublets $`H_u,H_d`$ and two gauge singlet fields $`\varphi `$ (inflaton) and $`N`$,

$$W=\lambda NH_uH_dk\varphi N^2$$
(3)
where $`\lambda ,k`$ are dimensionless coupling constants. Notice that the standard NMSSM is recovered if we replace the inflaton $`\varphi `$ by N. However this leads to the familiar domain wall problems arising from the discrete $`Z_3`$ symmetry. In this new variant, the $`Z_3`$ becomes a global $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ symmetry that is commonly invoked to solve the strong CP problem. This symmetry is broken in the true vacuum by intermediate scale $`\varphi `$ and N VEVs, where the axion is the pseudo-Goldstone boson from the spontaneous symmetry breaking and constrains the size of the VEVs. With such large VEVs this model should be regarded as giving an intermediate scale solution to the $`\mu `$ problem, and as such will have collider signatures.

We can make the $`\varphi `$-field real by a choice of the (approximately) massless axion field. We will now regard $`\varphi `$ and $`N`$ to be the real components of the complex singlets in what follows. When we include soft SUSY breaking mass terms, trilinear terms $`A_kk\varphi N^2+h.c.`$ (for real $`A_k`$) and neglect the $`\lambda NH_uH_d`$ superpotential term, we have the following potential:

$$V=V_0+k^2N^4+\frac{1}{2}m^2(\varphi )N^2+\frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2$$
(4)
where $`m^2(\varphi )=m_N^2+4k^2\varphi ^22kA_k\varphi `$. We can identify the various elements of the potential: $`V_0`$ arises from some other sector of the theory, SUGRA for example, and dominates the potential; the soft SUSY breaking parameters $`A_k`$ and $`m_N`$ are generated through some gravity-mediated mechanism with a generic value of $`O(TeV)`$.

More details about how hybrid inflation may be implemented in this model may be found in . We only remark here that it is non-trivial that a set of parameters exists that is consistent with axion and SUSY physics and allows the correct COBE perturbations to be achieved by radiative corrections. Without SUSY one would be free to add soft scalar masses at will, but with SUSY one must rely on the theory which either generates soft masses of order a TeV, or sets them equal to zero as in no-scale SUGRA, in which case the radiative corrections, which are under control in the case of SUSY predict the relevant value of the soft parameters, without any further adjustable parameters. Thus SUSY is playing a crucial role in the model which is why we refer to it as a Supersymmetric Inflation Model.

### 3.3 The Cosmological Constant Problem

Notice that the SUGRA-derived potential contribution $`V_0`$ exactly cancels with the other terms (by tuning) to provide agreement with the observed small cosmological constant. Thus we assume that at the global minimum $`V(\varphi ,N)=0`$ which implies that $`V_0=k^2N^4`$. The height of the potential during inflation is therefore $`V_0^{1/4}=k^{1/2}N10^8GeV`$. Since the approach has a consistent way to set the large cosmological constant to zero, the absence of a real solution to this problem may not be an obstacle to the implications of the approach.

### 3.4 Parameter Counting and Singlino Mixing

A relevant parameter count at this stage reveals two superpotential effective parameters ($`\lambda `$ and $`k`$), the two soft SUSY breaking parameters ($`A_k`$ and $`m_N`$), plus the constant energy density $`V_0`$. From these five parameters we have inflated the universe with the correct COBE perturbations, provided a $`\mu `$ term of the correct order of magnitude and solved the strong CP problem. They also govern the phenomenology of the singlet Higgs and Higgsino components of $`\varphi `$ and $`N`$ which may weakly mix with the MSSM superfields $`H_u,H_d`$.

The LSP will be the lightest eigenvalue of the full “ino” matrix, extended in the usual way to include gaugino-higgsino mixing. Clearly if $`k<\lambda /2`$ then a singlino will be the LSP. In our case the singlino may be regarded as a linear combination of axino and inflatino.

As usual in models based on an intermediate scale solution to the $`\mu `$ problem the coupling of the singlino to the neutralinos means that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ nearly decouples. However the conservation of R-parity means that eventually the lightest neutralino produced in colliders must decay into the singlino, and all the collider signatures discussed in may apply. In the case that the lightest neutralino leaves the detector before it decays into the singlino, there will be no unconventional collider signature. In this case the knowledge concerning a lighter singlino will come from cosmology since the LSP relic density gets diluted by the ratio of the singlino to lightest neutralino masses, and direct dark matter searches will not see anything since the singlino LSP will not scatter off nuclei.

One of the main things emphasized in  is the connection between the calculation of relic densities and the other physics, via their common parameters. This is summarised in Table 1 for the particular model we have been discussing. The same parameters that control the ino mass matrix will also be involved in reheating of the universe after inflation, and giving the relic densities of LSP and in leptogenesis as we discussed in . Different models may have different mechanisms to solve some of the problems, different reheating and preheating, and so on, but will still lead to a version of Table 1.

## 4 How To Calculate the Size of the Dark Energy Density in Supersymmetric Inflation

Is there anything that we can say about DE at the current time from the perspective of our supersymmetric particle physics based model of inflation? Perhaps surprisingly the answer is positive: we shall show that we can deduce the present day value of dark energy density from the model, together with the measured CMB temperature and the Hubble constant, even if the model does not yet specify the physics of dark energy !

A key point of our approach is that a supersymmetric particle physics based model of inflation enables us to calculate (in principle at least) the (energy or number) densities of all forms of radiation and matter (but excluding dark energy) at some early time $`t_{RH}`$ after inflation and reheating has taken place, corresponding to the start of the standard hot big bang. For simplicity we consider only one type of matter energy density $`\rho _{matter}(t_{RH})`$ (which may readily be obtained from the calculated number density) and radiation energy density $`\rho _\gamma (t_{RH})`$. The argument may be straightforwardly generalised to the case of several components of radiation and matter. Now, using the equations of the standard hot big bang, we wish to obtain their values at the present time $`t_0`$, $`\rho _\gamma (t_0)`$ and $`\rho _{matter}(t_0)`$. Without further information this is impossible since we need something to tell us when the present time $`t_0`$ is, and moreover the model does not specify either $`\rho _{DE}(t_{RH})`$, or its equation of state, both of which will influence the evolution of the universe. Therefore let us input into our analysis the present day observed CMB temperature $`T_0=2.725\mathrm{K}`$, which corresponds to a photon density $`\rho _\gamma (t_0)=(2.115\times 10^4\mathrm{eV})^4`$, a photon number density $`n_\gamma =410\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$, and, assuming three families of light neutrinos, an entropy density $`s=7.04n_\gamma `$. Then, ignoring additional sources of entropy between $`t_{RH}`$ and $`t_0`$ (such as electron-positron annihilation), since we know the equations of state for photons and matter, $`\rho _\gamma R^4`$ and $`\rho _{matter}R^3`$, where $`R`$ is the scale factor of the universe, using the initial values of $`\rho _\gamma (t_{RH})`$ and $`\rho _{matter}(t_{RH})`$ predicted by the model and the present value of $`\rho _\gamma (t_0)`$ from observation, we find $`\rho _{matter}(t_0)\rho _{matter}(t_{RH})[\rho _\gamma (t_0)/\rho _\gamma (t_{RH})]^{3/4}`$. We emphasise that this determination of $`\rho _{matter}(t_0)`$ is independent of the unknown dark energy.

Once we have obtained $`\rho _{matter}(t_0)`$, from a combination of our model calculation and the observed CMB temperature, as outlined above, we now use the observed Hubble constant $`H_0`$, or equivalently the present day critical density $`\rho _{crit}`$, to convert $`\rho _{matter}(t_0)`$ into the various $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}=\rho _{matter}(t_0)/\rho _{crit}`$. Once $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}`$ is predicted within some supersymmetric particle physics based model of inflation, supplemented by measurements of the CMB temperature and the Hubble constant, then it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ is also predicted  to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}$$
(5)
Thus a model of inflation that is capable of predicting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}`$ using measurements of the CMB temperature and the Hubble constant, is also capable of predicting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ from Eq.5. This sum rule has been written down before, including a curvature term and it has been discussed how to determine each of the components $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}`$ from observation. What we are saying here is quite different from the empirical approach to determining the components of this equation. To begin with we are assuming inflation, so that the curvature contribution is zero. Secondly we are only taking two inputs from observation, namely the CMB temperature and the value of the Hubble constant. Given these inputs we have shown how an inflation model allows us to then calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{matter}`$, and hence deduce $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ from Eq.5.

## 5 Conclusion

Over the next few years there will be considerable progress in cosmology from the Map and Planck explorer satellites, and in SUSY from the Tevatron and LHC. We believe the time is ripe for a new closer synthesis of SUSY and inflation, and that the most promising scenario will involve these theories meeting at the intermediate scale. We have shown that in this case one may hope to relate different phenomena in cosmology and in particle physics in a much closer and more predictive way than ever before. Finally we have made the original observation that, given the value of the CMB temperature and Hubble constant from observation, an intermediate scale supersymmetric inflation model allows the present day matter relic density to be calculated, and hence the present day DE relic density to be determined from Eq.5 even in the absence of any theory of DE.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank co-authors Mar Bastero-Gil, Gordy Kane and David Rayner. I enjoyed conversations at COSMO-01 with many people especially J. Cline, E. Copeland, J. Garcia-Bellido, J.E. Kim, A. Kusenko, A. Liddle, A. Linde, C. Lineweaver, A. Mazumdar, C. Munoz, P. Nilles, K. Olive, J. Peacock, M. Pluemacher and S. Sarkar.


format: text

text:
# Associated 𝑡𝑡̄ℋ production at a VLHC: measuring the top-quark Yukawa coupling

## I Introduction

As part of the Snowmass effort to investigate the physics potential of future hadron colliders, we have addressed the problem of how some of the most relevant precision measurements of Higgs boson physics could benefit from the very high energy and statistics of these future facilities.

We imagine a scenario in which one or more Higgs bosons have been discovered at either the Fermilab Tevatron or the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and a rich program of Higgs boson physics has already been developed. We then work under the assumption that precise determinations of the Higgs boson mass(es) and width(s), as well as determinations of various Higgs boson production cross sections, branching ratios, and ratios of Higgs boson couplings within a 10-20% uncertainty are available. The next generation of colliders will then play a crucial role in getting to a more precise determination of the Higgs boson couplings, therefore constraining its nature. It has been shown that an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider, operating with high luminosity, can reach precisions of a few percents on all Higgs boson couplings except the Higgs boson self-couplings Abe:2001wn ; TDRTESLA:2001 . The question is therefore what is the corresponding potential of a next generation hadron collider like a Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC).

Among the most important Higgs boson couplings, the Higgs-boson coupling to the top quark plays a special role. Because of the intriguingly large size of the top-quark mass, this coupling is largely enhanced with respect to all other Yukawa couplings and could shed some light on the obscure pattern of fermion mass generation and electroweak symmetry breaking.

In this context, it is interesting to assess the precision with which the top-quark Yukawa coupling could be measured at a $`pp`$ VLHC, running at center of mass energies of $`\sqrt{s}=40,100,200`$ TeV respectively. The golden mode for this measurement is the associated production of a Higgs boson with a pair of top-antitop quarks, $`ppt\overline{t}`$Marciano:1991qq . The Higgs boson is radiated either from the top or from the antitop quarks and the cross section is directly proportional to the top-quark Yukawa coupling Ng:1984jm ; Kunszt:1984ri . We mainly focus on a Standard Model (SM) like Higgs boson ($`=h_{SM}`$), giving only some qualitative indication of how the analysis could be generalized to the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) Higgs sector ($`=h^0,H^0,A^0`$). In our analysis we consider the Higgs boson decaying into $`b\overline{b}`$, $`\gamma \gamma `$, and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and we determine the significance of the signal over the background in these three cases. As a result, all three channels turn out to be viable, even for fairly low integrated luminosities, providing a determination of the top-quark Yukawa coupling at the few percent level over a large range of Higgs boson masses.

The layout of our presentation is as follows. The characteristics of the the associated production of a SM like Higgs boson in $`ppt\overline{t}`$ are described in Sec. II. In Sec. III we compare signal and background, in the SM, for the three Higgs boson decay channels discussed above, and estimate the relative error with which the SM top-quark Yukawa coupling could be measured at a VLHC. We also give some qualitative indications of how the results could change if the MSSM Higgs sector is considered. Sec. IV contains our conclusions.

## II Signal

The total hadronic cross section for $`ppt\overline{t}`$ ($`=h_{SM},h^0,H^0,A^0`$) consists of two parton level sub-processes: $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$ and $`ggt\overline{t}`$. Taking $`=h_{SM}`$ for illustrative purposes, we plot in Fig. 2 the relative contribution of the two subprocesses, for $`M_{}=150`$ GeV. As expected, the $`gg`$ contribution dominates as the center of mass energy is increased.

In Fig. 2 we also show the dependence of the total cross section from $`M_{}`$, again when $`=h_{SM}`$, for $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV (LHC) and $`\sqrt{s}=40,100,200`$ TeV (VLHC). For the highest center of mass energy considered in this paper, $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ TeV, the total cross section is enhanced by two to three orders of magnitude with respect to the corresponding cross section at the LHC, depending on the Higgs boson mass.

All the results presented in this paper are obtained using tree-level cross sections, both for the signal and for the backgrounds, calculated using CTEQ4L Lai:1995bb  parton distribution functions and the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ at one-loop. As usual, tree-level cross sections have a very large renormalization/factorization scale dependence and, as a result, a large uncertainty. At present, only the next-to-leading QCD corrections to the signal are known Beenakker:2001rj ; Reina:2001sf ; Reina:2001bc . Since we do not aim at a precise determination of the cross section, but at a study of signal vs. background, we prefer to consistently use only quantities calculated at leading order, without including any K-factors. The renormalization and factorization scales have been set to a common value $`\mu =m_t+M_{}/2`$, with $`m_t=174`$ GeV.

## III Signal vs. Background for various decay channels

In this section we present some studies of the irreducible backgrounds and discuss the expected precision with which a measurement of the SM top-quark Yukawa coupling can be performed at a VLHC. For illustration purposes, we consider the case of a VLHC operating at $`\sqrt{s}=100`$ TeV. In Fig. 3 we compare the cross sections for the signal, $`ppt\overline{t}h_{SM}`$, and for the irreducible backgrounds consisting of $`t\overline{t}XX`$ production with $`X=b,\gamma ,\tau `$ 111Even though we do not include in this study other decay modes, such as, for instance, $`h_{SM}WW,ZZ`$, they are potentially interesting and more detailed analysis are in progress.. The cross sections for the signal include the branching ratios $`h_{SM}XX`$, calculated using HDECAY Djouadi:1998yw . In order to take into account finite mass resolution effects, the background events are plotted in bins of $`40`$, $`5`$, and $`20`$ GeV for $`b`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\tau `$ respectively. To simulate the detector acceptance, the decay products of the Higgs boson are required to have a transverse momentum $`p_T>25`$ GeV and a pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<3`$. The set of parton distribution functions is CTEQ4L and the renormalization and factorization scales are set equal to $`m_t+M_{XX}/2`$, where $`M_{XX}`$ is the invariant mass of the $`XX`$ pair.

Qualitatively, the signal to background ratios are similar to those expected at the LHC Beneke:2000hk . For the leading decay channel $`h_{SM}b\overline{b}`$ the QCD background is comparable to the signal, while for the $`h_{SM}\gamma \gamma `$ and $`h_{SM}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay channels the background is small, if not negligible. However, for these last two channels, the advantage of a VLHC over the LHC is manifest. Already with 100 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, at a VLHC with $`\sqrt{s}=100`$ TeV, the number of signal events is increased by about a factor of $`50100`$ (for $`M_{h_{SM}}=100200`$ GeV) with respect to the LHC, therefore allowing studies that are statistically limited at the LHC. Even for the $`h_{SM}b\overline{b}`$ decay channel, assuming that efficiencies similar to those at the LHC could be attained, the significance of the signal (directly related to the accuracy with which the top Yukawa coupling can be measured) would be increased by a factor $`\sqrt{50}`$.

A first estimate of the precision with which the SM top-quark Yukawa coupling could be measured at a VLHC is given in Table 1, for $`\sqrt{s}=100`$ TeV and $`M_{h_{SM}}=130`$ GeV. In our analysis we assume 100 fb-1 of total integrated luminosity, corresponding to roughly one year of running of a VLHC with luminosity $`=10^{34}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$. In analogy with similar studies performed for the LHC TDRCMS:1994 ; TDRATLAS:1999 ; Beneke:2000hk , we consider a sample where one top quark decays leptonically, in order to have an unambiguous lepton tag, and the other top decays hadronically. We apply a $`t\overline{t}`$ pair reconstruction efficiency $`ϵ_{t\overline{t}}=0.15`$. We also use a $`b`$ tagging efficiency $`ϵ_b=0.6`$, a $`\tau `$ tagging efficiency $`ϵ_\tau =0.6`$, and a photon identification efficiency $`ϵ_\gamma =0.9`$. Moreover, in order to account for the efficiency of the invariant mass finite cut imposed by the binning procedure, we multiply the results for the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ signatures by $`ϵ_{mc}^{b,\tau }=0.7`$, and the results for the $`t\overline{t}\gamma \gamma `$ signature by $`ϵ_{mc}^\gamma =0.9`$ . The $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ signature is further reduced by a factor $`ϵ_{comb}=0.5`$, to take into account the combinatorics due to the four $`b`$ quarks in the final state. Finally, we only consider the $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ signature where the $`\tau `$’s decay hadronically and we therefore multiply by Br$`(\tau \text{hadrons})=0.63`$ for each $`\tau `$ lepton in the final state 222In a more complete analysis other data samples should be added to this channel. For instance, the case where one $`\tau `$ decays leptonically, providing the lepton tag, and both the top quarks decay hadronically has a comparable rate..

As a result, the statistical error on the $`t\overline{t}h_{SM}`$ production cross section for a SM Higgs boson with mass 130 GeV is at the percentage level for both the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ signatures, while for the $`t\overline{t}\gamma \gamma `$ signature is around 10%. The precision with which the top-quark Yukawa coupling can be extracted from the measured $`t\overline{t}h_{SM}`$ cross section depends on the accuracy on the $`h_{SM}XX`$ branching ratios (see Table 1). Assuming that all other Higgs boson couplings entering our analysis have been determined with very good precision, then all three signatures allow a measurement of the top Yukawa coupling with precision better than 10%, for Higgs boson masses up to 150 GeV. We note that the level of precision obtained is comparable with the precision that could be attained at a high energy Linear Collider, running at the optimal center of mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV, when $`10^3`$ fb-1 of integrated luminosity are used Baer:1999ge ; Juste:1999af . On the other hand, our results are obtained using a quite low integrated luminosity, $`10^2`$ fb-1, and could therefore be further improved by more available statistics.

Finally, it is worth having a quick look at $`t\overline{t}`$ production in the MSSM (for $`=h^0,H^0,A^0`$). For the MSSM scenario we assume some “typical” set of parameters: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500`$ GeV, $`\mu =300`$ GeV, $`A_t=A_b=A`$ with $`A=\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta +\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, according to the “maximal mixing” scenario where loop corrections maximize the light Higgs boson mass. The total cross sections for the signal $`t\overline{t}`$ as well as the total cross sections multiplied by the branching ratios for $`b\overline{b},\gamma \gamma ,\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are presented in Fig. 4.

The cross sections for $`t\overline{t}h^0`$ and $`t\overline{t}h_{SM}`$ are close to each other in the narrow, but crucial, region up to $`M_{}=120`$ GeV or slightly above that. However, we note that, when the branching ratios are included, both the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ MSSM signatures for $`h^0`$ are 30-40% higher than the corresponding SM signatures. Above 120 GeV only the $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ and $`t\overline{t}A^0`$ associated production can take place. The $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ signal is suppressed by a factor of $`\mathrm{cos}\beta ^2`$ compared to the corresponding SM signal. It is similar to the light Higgs boson ($`h^0`$) signal only in the small region around 120 GeV, where all three MSSM Higgs bosons are degenerate in mass. For $`M_{}>120`$ GeV the $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ cross section drops rapidly and becomes comparable to the $`t\overline{t}A^0`$ cross section for Higgs boson masses above 200 GeV. The cross sections for both $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ and $`t\overline{t}A^0`$ above 120 GeV are 2-3 orders of magnitude below the SM cross section. However, when we take into account the corresponding Higgs boson decay branching ratios, the situation can be very different. For instance, when $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, the MSSM cross sections start dominate the SM one over the entire mass region $`M_{}>200`$ GeV. This happens because the MSSM $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ branching ratio is significant over the entire Higgs boson mass region for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. With this respect, the $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ supersymmetric signature (summed over the $`t\overline{t}A^0`$ and $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ channels) could be interesting in the high MSSM Higgs boson mass range ($`M_{}200`$ GeV). Since however, even at a VLHC, this channel appears to be statistically limited, it will require a large integrated luminosity. We note that the MSSM $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ signature also dominates over the SM one for large Higgs masses, but in this case, contrary to $`t\overline{t}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, the background is overwhelming.

## IV Conclusions

In this note we have studied the precision with which the top-quark Yukawa coupling could be determined at a $`pp`$ VLHC through the measurement of the cross section for the process $`ppt\overline{t}`$, with the Higgs boson subsequently decaying into $`b\overline{b}`$, $`\gamma \gamma `$, and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. We have mainly focused on a SM like Higgs boson, but have also looked at some interesting MSSM signatures, for both light and heavy Higgs bosons. Assuming that the branching ratios of the Higgs into the final states were known with very good precision, each of the three Higgs boson decay channels could provide a determination of the top-quark Yukawa coupling at the few percent level, over a large range of Higgs boson masses. In particular, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels, which will be statistically limited at the LHC, are at the VLHC very clean and already significant with just 100 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. This could be extremely useful, even under the pessimistic assumption that some of the Higgs boson branching ratios had still to be determined by the VLHC era. For instance, the determination of $`y_t`$ from the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and/or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels, could be used to extract the branching ratio of the Higgs into $`\overline{b}b`$, which will be hard to measure directly at the LHC. Or, one could directly check that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hb\overline{b})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(H\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ behaves as $`m_b^2/m_\tau ^2`$, and subsequently extract the top Yukawa coupling $`y_t`$ by following a strategy similar to the one suggested in Ref. Zeppenfeld:2000td .

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to David Rainwater for his comments and suggestions. The work of A.B. and L.R. (F.M.) is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-97ER41022 (DE-FG02-91ER40677).


text:
# The LCDROOT analysis package1footnote 11footnote 1Work supported by Department of Energy contract DE–AC03–76SF00515.

## I Introduction

For various studies for future Linear Collider experiments, the North American Linear Collider Detector group (LCD) has developed simulation and analysis program packages. LCDROOT is one of the packages for event generation, fast and full detector simulations, and event analyses. In LCDROOT, the simulators are designed to have the flexibility of changing any component of the detector parameters, i.e, geometry and performance, to study detector requirements in detail.

LCDROOT is based on ROOT Brun and Rademakers (1997) which is an object oriented framework, and the C++ programming language. In the ROOT framework the basic utilities and services, such as I/O and 3D graphics, are provided. ROOT provides a large selection of HEP-specific utilities such as histogramming and fitting. ROOT also has a C++ command interpreter. Due to these very powerful features, a lot of experimented groups use ROOT. Currently we support LCDROOT on AIX, Linux, Sun and Windows platforms.

## II Event generator

For event generation, we support PANDORA Peskin (1999) with an interface using PYTHIA Sjostrand (1994); Sjostrand et al. (2001) and TAUOLA Jadach et al. (1993), for parton showering, hadronization, and tau decays. The generator includes beam polarization, beamstrahlung, and initial state radiation, which are very important features for future Linear Collider studies. PANDORA is written in C++ and can be directly handled within LCDROOT. Hence PANDORA is used as our main generator. We also support the PYTHIA Sjostrand (1994); Sjostrand et al. (2001) event generator with a C++ interface class. In order to support other generator outputs, LCDROOT also handles HEPEVT common blocks using the FNAL StdHep I/O package Garren and Lebrun (1998).

## III Simulation and Event Reconstruction

LCDROOT supports both fast and full detector simulations. The fast simulator is designed to provide a fast and flexible physics analysis environment, while the full simulator is for detailed detector studies. Detector geometry is specified by a text file translated from XML, and geometry parameters are easily changed in LCDROOT.

The fast simulation is based on parametrized position and energy smearing, and it makes tracks and clusters directly from the generated particle information. In the fast simulation, charged particles within the magnetic field follow helical trajectories, and their momenta and positions are smeared according to their error matrix. The error matrices are given by a look-up table method based on momentum and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ of charged particles. The error matrices include off-diagonal elements to give added realism.

Electrons, photons, and hadrons produce clusters in the electromagnetic (EM) and hadronic (HAD) calorimeters. Here, one cluster is made from one particle, and energies and positions of clusters are smeared. To consider the detector granularity and cluster width, which is typically a few units of Moliere radius, we merge the clusters when the angular separation between clusters is less than $`\theta _{max}`$, where $`\theta _{max}`$ is a size of the detector granularity.

The position of the interaction position is also smeared. We assume $`\sigma _x`$=$`\sigma _y`$=2 $`\mu `$m and $`\sigma _z`$=6 $`\mu `$Abe (2001).

We use GISMO Burnett (1993) for the full simulation. The full simulation outputs simulation data in binary format using SIO Waite (1999). LCDROOT reads the SIO binary format for event reconstruction. Using the digitized outputs from the full simulation, we reconstruct charged tracks and clusters. In the reconstruction of the full simulated data, we postpone the track reconstruction. Instead, we make charged tracks by smearing, using exactly the same procedure as in the fast simulation, but we also apply a minimum tracker-hit cut. Calorimeter clusters are made by gathering the hits which are from the same particle. Energy and position of the cluster is obtained from the energy sum, and the energy-weighted average of associated Calorimeter hits, respectively.

Comparing the full and fast simulations, the most significant difference is in the Calorimetry. It is important to improve the parameterization of the fast simulator Calorimetry to have a more realistic detector response, which we hope to implement in the near future.

## IV Event Analysis Tools

For the physics analysis, there are several useful tools in LCDROOT. We provide Thrust finding and 3 kinds of Jet finding (based on JADE, JADE-E and DURHAM algorithms) programs. There is also an event display for LCDROOT.

In the energy flow analysis, neutral clusters are selected by the absence of a track and cluster association. For this analysis, we provide methods which extrapolate the particles to the cluster cylindrical radius.

For heavy flavor tagging, we provide two kinds of topological vertexing algorithms which are described in the next section.

## V Heavy flavor tagging

Building on the success of the CCD-based vertex detector (VTX) at the SLC/SLD experiment Abe et al. (1997); Abe (2000), we strongly believe that a CCD-based VTX will provide the optimal performance in future Linear Collider experiments. Taking advantage of the precise 3-D spatial points provided by such a detector, powerful topological vertexing techniques were developed by SLD Jackson (1997). The algorithms naturally associates tracks with the vertices where they originated and can reconstruct a full $`b`$/$`c`$-meson decay chain, i.e, primary, secondary, and tertiary vertices. Using the reconstructed secondary/tertiary vertex, the invariant mass of the tracks associated with a decay is used to identify jet flavor (mass tag technique Abe et al. (1998)). This combination of the techniques gives the best heavy-flavor-jet tagging performance in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliding experiments at present. We have previously ported the original topological vertexing source code, ZVTOP, written in Prepmort, to C++ to fit natively into the LCDROOT simulation environment. The main feature of ZVTOP3 is the ability to reconstruct one-prong decay vertices, giving it better reconstruction efficiency. During Snowmass 2001 we succeeded in implementing this functionality into LCDROOT. Figs. 1 and 2 show $`b`$/$`c`$-quark jet tagging efficiencies and purities comparing the performance of ZVTOP and ZVTOP3, clearly demonstrating the enhanced capabilities of this algorithm. We plan to continue our efforts to improve the flavor-tagging efficiency and purity since it is such an essential part of any Linear Collider physics program.

## VI Summary

In this report, we briefly introduce the simulation and analysis tools based on ROOT for the LCD group. The tools are constantly being improved and can be obtained via the URL, http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/nld/New/Docs/LCD\_Root/root.htm. Feedback from the users is highly welcomed.


text:
# Are Quantum Computing Models Realistic?

## Introduction

Quantum information science provides important insights into several aspects of the communication and computing process. Single qubits have been proposed for use in cryptography. Pairs of entangled qubits can, in principle, have remarkable applications: two bits of classical information may be exchanged using an existing entangled pair with the two parties while transferring only one qubit by means of the protocol of dense coding; and an unknown quantum state may be teleported to another location by use of an entangled pair of qubits and classical bits so long as the entangled qubits do not have any phase uncertainty associated between them .

When we go from single and entangled pairs of particles to groups of particles, as in various methods of quantum computing, the question of the physical realizability of the mathematical model become more problematic. For example, the circuit model of quantum computing  leaves out problems of state preparation (how to get the individual particles into a precise state using gates that would have imprecision associated with them), particle statistics (indistinguishability of quantum particles of the same quantum state), and effective error correction. It is assumed that once the qubits, each placed into a superposition of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ by the use of an appropriate rotation operator, are loaded individually on the $`n`$-cell register, Hamiltonians for the subsequent evolution of the set of $`n`$-qubits will somehow be found. The physical implementability of the unitary matrices is not addressed. The model of computing also does not address the questions of statistics and error correction.

The quantum Turing machine and the quantum cellular automata models are equivalent to the circuit model and, therefore, face the same difficulties. These models, inspired by the philosophically extravagant many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics , assign specific information to the qubits, postulating gates that implement the unitary transformation representing the solution to the computational problem.

The quantum circuit model converts the physical problem to a circuit-theoretic form but it does not map all the physical constraints required by the laws of quantum mechanics. It gives specific labels to different lines of the circuit and does not consider the question of the indistinguishability of particles in quantum mechanics. This indistinguishability may require constraints additional to the ones that are usually assumed when considering implementation.

It is good to remember that “a quantum system is a useful abstraction, which frequently appears in the literature, but does not really exist in nature” . Quantum computing models use selected elements of this abstraction in a manner that may preclude successful physical implementation. If a quantum computing model is not physically implementable, then it should be called a quasi-quantum model.

The quantum computing model – like the billiard ball model  – is an example of a Hamiltonian system. Several years ago, Rolf Landauer cautioned  against the Hamiltonian approach to computation. In contrast to digital computers where data is reset, a Hamiltonian system cannot correct local errors. Quantum error correcting codes have been proposed but they can only correct certain large errors without correcting small errors. Even in theory these codes work only to correct bit-flips and phase-flips, which is a vanishing small fraction of all the phase errors that can occur in the quantum state. Besides successful error correction, coding requires that the error be within bounds, whereas the uncertainty with regard to phase makes that assumption invalid.

The question of decoherence of quantum states is another problem afflicting quantum computation but it does not concern us here.

There is also the question of the fundamental limitations of the quantum computing paradigm. Its unitary evolution is unable to perform basic nonlinear mappings. For an unknown state $`x`$, a general unitary matrix $`U`$ does not exist which will take $`|x0`$ to $`|xx`$ or vice versa. In other words, an unknown state can neither be copied nor deleted. These operations are nonlinear and they are beyond the capacity of a unitary transformation.

By carrying the input data alongside, one can convert  a one-way mapping to a reversible mapping, but that would involve an exponential growth of overhead in any substantial computation and, therefore, this possibility cannot be taken seriously for real computational tasks. As unitary transformations, quantum algorithms would still be useful in certain problems, but this usefulness would be similar to that of optical computing. Since unitary mappings are rotations on a sphere (of high dimensionality), one can only hope to compute periodicity information or properties that can be related to this information.

In this note I list some interrelated issues related to the quantum circuit model. I first review the problems of creating an appropriate pure state to get the computation started and then consider the question of quantum statistics in the context of such a state. The thesis of this note is that “quantum computing” models use the mathematical apparatus of quantum theory but do not appear to incorporate all of its restrictions. If this thesis is correct then one may ask if other mathematical models of distinct computing power exist.

## On the realizability of the circuit model

The circuit model of quantum computing provides a schematic realization of the unitary matrix that represents the computation in terms of its submatrices. It is implicit that when such transformations are applied to the qubits on the register the evolution will correspond to the quantum evolution given by the Schrödinger equation. This is correct but for the fact that the circuit model takes the qubits to be unique and distinguishable from each other, a condition that maps into the uniqueness of the wires in the quantum circuit. But quantum objects cannot be distinguished amongst each other before measurement. From a practical point of view it imposes severe constraints on the labels that are ascribed to qubits. This could mean that the unitary matrices for certain gates may not be physically realizable. The circuit model may then be seen as an implementation not of quantum physics but of unitary transformations.

In the circuit model the register is loaded with data one qubit at a time where these qubits are independent of each other. Now Hadamard transformation is applied to each qubit. From a practical point of view, due to the imprecision in the implementation of the transformations, this will create a compound pure state with uncertain weights.

In several proposed implementations, the individual qubits themselves are not in a pure state. One must remember that a pure state must yield a predictable outcome in a specified maximal test , and no such test may be conceptualized for the qubits on the quantum register in certain practical systems .

## Unknown phase

The state function of a quantum system is defined on the complex plane whereas observations can only be real. This means that the state function may not be completely known even if the state is prepared because of the uncertainty associated with the state preparation process itself. In such a situation one cannot hope to characterize this reality with such precision so as to carry out a specific computation using a single quantum state.

In general there may be unknowable phase associated with the qubits  making it impossible to rotate this qubit through a precise angle . For convenience assume that the operator

$$M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(1)
is implementable. When applied to the qubit $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1),`$ it will lead to the pure state $`|0`$. But since the qubit should be realistically seen to be $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\theta _1}|0+e^{i\theta _2}|1)`$ (because of the imprecision in the gate), an operation by M will take the qubit only to

$$\frac{(e^{i\theta _1}+e^{i\theta _2})}{2}|0+\frac{(e^{i\theta _1}e^{i\theta _2})}{2}|1$$
(2)
The probability of obtaining a $`|0`$ will now be $`\frac{1}{2}[1+cos(\theta _1\theta _2)],`$ whereas the probability of obtaining a $`|1`$ will be $`\frac{1}{2}[1cos(\theta _1\theta _2)].`$ The probabilities for the basis observables are not exactly $`\frac{1}{2}`$, and they depend on the starting unknown $`\theta `$ values. Thus, the qubit can end up anywhere on the unit circle. As example, consider $`\theta _2=0,\theta _1=\pi /2`$, the probabilities of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ will remain $`\frac{1}{2}`$ even after the unitary transformation has been applied.

This may also be seen from the point of view of information. A computation is a mapping from an initial sequence to the solution sequence, where both these sequences may be considered to be binary. In classical computing, small noise added to the initial sequence bits is filtered out using techniques of discretization. But in quantum computing, we face the impossibility of distinguishing between amplitudes with the multiplier $`e^{i\theta }`$.

If the quantum register cannot be properly initialized, the algorithms will not work as desired.

## Error correction

A realistic model of computing must address the problem of random errors. In the circuit model, small errors would creep in state preparation and in the implementation of the gate operations that constitute the unitary transformations.

Error correction, intuitively and in classical theory, implies that if

$$y=x+n,$$

where $`x`$ is the discrete codeword, $`n`$ is analog noise, and $`y`$ is the analog noisy codeword, one can recover $`x`$ completely and fully so long as the analog noise function $`n`$ is less than a certain threshold. If it exceeds this threshold, then also there is full correction so long this does not happen more than a certain number of times (the Hamming distance for which the code is designed) at the places the analog signal $`y`$ is sampled.

The hallmark of classical error-correcting codes is the correction of all possible small analog errors and many others which exceed the thresholds associated with the code alphabet. This full correction of all possible small analog errors is beyond the capability of the proposed quantum error-correcting codes.

This definition of error correction in classical theory is not merely a matter of convention. In the communication process the errors are analog and, therefore, all possible small errors must be corrected by error-correcting codes. To someone who looks at classical error-correction theory as an outsider, it may appear that one only needs to fix bit flips. In reality, small analog errors, occurring on all the bits, are first removed by the use of clamping and hard-limiting.

Since the definition of a qubit includes arbitrary phase, it is necessary to consider errors from the perspective of the quantum state and not just from that of final measurement. Just as in the classical theory it is implicitly accepted that all possible small analog errors have already been corrected by means of an appropriate thresholding operation, we must define correction of small analog phase errors as a requirement for quantum error correction. This is something that the proposed quantum error correction schemes are unable to do .

## Statistics

Classical particles are distinct whereas quantum particles are indistinguishable if they are part of the same quantum state. Thus it becomes impossible for us to distinguish between 01 and 10 or between 001, 010, and 100, before the measurement is made. But the circuit model considers each particle to carry unique information, albeit in a superposition.

The model does not consider boson/fermion statistics  which prevent the identification of a qubit with any specific atom or particle within the system. This, in turn, should make it impossible to distinguish between the different wires of the circuit, but in the model each wire is uniquely labeled.

## Hierarchy of computation models

There may be a hierarchy of models of varying computational power that lie between classical and quantum paradigms.

We know that the quantum circuit model and others that are equivalent to it have computational power greater than that of classical computers. But can we find other models, still not fully quantum, that will be even more powerful? Knill and Laflamme have argued that if the initial state were highly mixed one could under certain conditions obtain efficient solutions to some problems compared to classical techniques . This suggests that a hierarchy might very well exist.

Imposing further constraints such as indistinguishability of the particles may lead to computing power less than that of the quantum circuit model. This question should be of interest to computer science theorists.

## Do useful quantum computing models exist?

Although the common quantum circuit model is not realistic, we should not be pessimistic about the plan to devise quantum computers. Physical processes in the microworld unfold according to quantum mechanics and this is enough for us to seek a paradigm for computation that satisfies all the rules of quantum mechanics. One would expect that in this paradigm some problems will be solved faster than by the fastest classical computer by virtue of the parallelism of quantum states.

For example, it is believed that the protein-folding problem is NP-complete , yet nature performs the folding in a second or so, and it is plausible that this is due to the quantum basis of the underlying chemical process. Furthermore, the use of quantum apparatus offers an exponential edge over classical apparatus , providing us with more assurance that useful models of quantum computing do exist.

A realistic model of quantum computing must ensure that the questions of preparation of pure states and that of boson/fermion statistics for a quantum state are not ignored. It would also require a realistic method of error-correction.

## Conclusion

There remains the question of practical implementation of the circuit framework without even considering the issues raised in this note. The requirements are so stringent so as to make the computer physically unrealizable .

As a mathematical construct, the idea of the quantum computer will continue to provide useful insights into the nature of the information process.

## References

1. See A.M. Steane, “Quantum computing,” Rept.Prog.Phys. 61, 117 (1998), quant-ph/9708022, for an account of cryptography, dense coding and teleportation; S. Kak, “Representation of entangled states,” quant-ph/0302118.
2. For example, see P. Shor, “Introduction to quantum algorithms.” quant-ph/0005003. Shor acknowledges the unrealizability of the model on page 3.
3. D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer.” Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400, 97-117 (1985).
4. A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995, page 24.
5. E. Fredkin and T. Toffoli, “Conservative logic.” Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21, 219-253 (1982).
6. R. Landauer, “Information is physical.” Phys. Today, 44, 23-29 (1991); R. Landauer, “The physical nature of information.” Phys. Lett. A, 217, 188 (1996).
7. E. Fredkin and T. Toffoli, op cit.
8. A. Peres, op cit., page 30.
9. R. Laflamme et al, “Introduction to NMR quantum information processing.” quant-ph/0207172.
10. S. Kak, “The initialization problem in quantum computing.” Foundations of Physics, 29, 267-279 (1999); quant-ph/9805002.
11. S. Kak, “Rotating a qubit.” Information Sciences, 128, 149-154 (2000); quant-ph/9910107.
12. S. Kak, “General qubit errors cannot be corrected.” Information Sciences, 152, 195-202 (2003); quant-ph/0206144.
13. S. Kak, “Statistical constraints on state preparation for a quantum computer.” Pramana, 57, 683-688 (2001) ; quant-ph/0010109.
14. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “On the power of one bit of quantum information.” Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 5672 (1998).
15. A. Fraenkel, “Complexity of protein folding.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 55, 1199 (1993),
R. Unger and J. Moult, “Finding the lowest free energy conformation of a protein is an NP-hard problem: proof and implications.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 55, 1183-1198, 1993.
B. Berger and T. Leighton, “Protein folding in the hydrophilic-hydrophobic (HP) model is NP-complete.” Journal of Computational Biology, 5, 27 (1998).
16. S. Kak, “Speed of computation and simulation.” Foundations of Physics, 26, 1375-1386 (1996); quant-ph/9804047.
17. M.I. Dyakonov, “Quantum computing: a view from the enemy camp.” cond-ph/0110326.