%%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
%
% $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
%
\documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{espcrc2,psfig,epsfig}
\mathindent=0pt

% change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
% \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

% if you want to include PostScript figures
\usepackage{graphicx}
% if you have landscape tables
\usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
\newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}


% put your own definitions here:
%   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
%   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
%   ...
\newcommand{\minerva}{MINER$\nu$A}
\newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
%\newcommand{\integ}{\iint\limits_{q^2, flux}}
\newcommand{\integ}{\iint}
\newcommand{\FA}{$F_A$}
\newcommand{\fa}{$F_A(q^2)$}
\newcommand{\gep}{$G_E^p(q^2)$}
\newcommand{\nubar}[0]{$\overline{\nu}$}
%\newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
%  A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

% add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
\hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}

% declarations for front matter
\title{The Structure of the Nucleon, 
Three Decades of Investigation (1967-2004) }

\author{Arie Bodek\address[roc]{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
             University of Rochester,
             Rochester, New York 14618,  USA}}
    
\begin{document}

\begin{abstract}
A personal historical account of three decades of 
experiments that led to a detailed understanding of the
structure of the nucleon and the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics.
(Panofsky Prize 2004 Talk, Presented  at NuInt04,
Mar. 2004, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso -
INFN - Assergi, Italy~\cite{nuint04})
\vspace{1pc}
\end{abstract}

% typeset front matter (including abstract)
\maketitle
\section{INTRODUCTION}
%
 \begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=parton.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Current understanding of the structure of the nucleon in
terms of point-like partons.}
\label{parton}
\end{figure}
Currently,
the structure of the nucleon is well understood and nucleon parton distributions
have been measured with very high precision. It took about 30 years of
various experiments to show that Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in
Next to Next to Leading Order (NNLO QCD) works very well\cite{BYnnlo}
from  very low momentum tranfers (e.g. order of the proton mass) to
the highest $Q^2$ values currently accessible in hadron 
colliders (as shown in Figure~\ref{f2nnlo}). 
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=f2Rnnlo.ps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{The Triumph of Quantum Chromodynamics
in Next to Next to Leading Order.
Results from a NNLO 
QCD analysis from Bodek and Yang~\cite{BYnnlo} (2000).
 QCD theory in NNLO describes
all the data from very low to very high $Q^2$ with no need
for dynamical higher twist corrections.
Shown are electron and muon-nucleon scattering data 
(SLAC, BCDMS and NMC) for $F_{2p}$ [a] and $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ [b] compared
to the predictions with (NNLO modified) MRSR2 NLO
PDFs including both NNLO and target mass corrections with (solid line) 
and without (dashed line)
higher twist corrections.  This
analysis indicate that in QCD fits at lower order (LO or NLO fits), the extracted  
higher twist corrections originate from target mass effects and 
the missing QCD NNLO higher order terms (for $Q^2>~1~$GeV$^2$). }
\label{f2nnlo}
\end{figure}
\section{OVERVIEW}
In the early 1960's a  
large number of hadron resonances were
discovered  and studied at in proton and pion-nucleon scattering experiments.
From elastic electron-nucleon scattering experiments in the
1960's (Nobel Prize of Hofstader), it was known that nucleons are
composite and have a finite size of about 1 Fermi. However, it did not appear that
any of the hadrons were particularly more fundamental than other hadrons.
 There were many theoretical models proposed to describe the
spectroscopy of hardrons, and the physics of lepton-nucleon scattering.
Much of the effort of mainstream particle physics at that time was 
focused on hadron-nucleon experiments where hadron resonances  
 were discovered and categorized. It was the era of
spectroscopy, group theory, partial wave analysis,  resonances, regge 
poles, and field theory.  During that period, the quark model was 
proposed, but quarks were only considered as one convenient way to model SU(3)
symmetry. 

Quarks were not considered real particles for very good
reasons such as (a) no free quarks were ever 
observed, (b) quarks had to have fractional 1/3 charges, and (c) 
new quantum numbers (e.g. color) were required if the quark states 
were to satisfy
Fermi-Dirac statistics. At that time, to illustrate this point, 
I was told by a leading theoretical
physicist that any self-respecting theorist who actually used the quark model
in any calculations, did it only in the privacy of his own office. 
Later,  
any calculations based on the quark model
were translated into field-theoretic language before 
they were submitted for publication refereed journals.
I took that advice to heart and only did quark model calculations
in private.
In summary prior to the  MIT-SLAC electron-nucleon scattering experiments 
(1967-1973), many believed that quarks were mathematical constructs and 
could not be real particles.   


Quarks became accepted as real particles  during the 1967-74 period
following their discovery 
in the MIT-SLAC inelastic electron-nucleon scattering experiments.
The Nobel Prize of 1990  was awarded to Friedman, Kendall, and
Taylor for: ``their pioneering investigations concerning 
deep inelastic scattering of electrons on protons and bound neutrons,
which have been of essential importance for the development of the quark model
in particle physics (1967-74).''

 
Soon thereafter the  J/$\psi$ and Charm particles were discovered in 
 hadron-nucleon and electron-positron  experiments.  A few years later
 the  $\Upsilon$ and Bottom
quarks were also discovered in proton-nucleon and  electron-positron 
experiments. This led to
 a large number of experiments (in the 1970's and
1980's)  at e+e- and hadron machines
where  charm and bottom  hadrons were studied in great detail.
Here again, attention was focused on  
the study of spectroscopy, partial wave analysis, and new 
resonances. The new hadronic states that were being
investigated were now composed  of larger variety of quark flavors (up, down, strange, charm and
bottom).  During that period, neutral-currents were discovered, the $\tau$ lepton
was discovered and the standard model of electro-weak interactions 
was developed.




To put the previous paragraph in context,
I should note that, as is the case today, a portion of
the experimental effort in particle physics was
focused on non-discoveries of new particles  (searches and limit setting)  
 such as Supersymmetry, Lepto-quarks,
Higgs, Heavy Leptons.

However, as we have learned many times before, physics is a 
quantitative  
experimental science and precision experiments are essential to its 
progress. In the past thirty years,  a segment of the experimental high energy physics
community (later joined by members of the nuclear physics
community) continued to 
to make incremental progress in the
study of nucleon structure. 


Like other advances in science, 
progress in this area was accomplished by a combination of
experiments at  higher energies (e.g. accessible
with new accelerators) and
new experimental techniques.
New techniques were instrumental in achieving 
higher precision and overcoming the limitation (e.g. brick walls) of  old techniques.
 Higher Luminosities (more statistics), experiments with
different probes (new beams), 
  new theoretical tools (better understanding
 of radiative corrections, QCD to higher orders)  were all essential. 
 In this review I will discuss some of my own involvement and
 highlight the contributions of
PhD graduate students in the  Rochester group
over the past three decades.

\section{The Nobel Prize of 1990: The MIT-SLAC Experiments}
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=1990pic.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Nobel~\cite{nobelweb}
 Prize of 1990 (see text for details) }
\label{nobel}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{nobel}~is taken from the 1990  Nobel Prize archives
and SLAC Web Page~\cite{nobelweb}. It shows 
 Richard Taylor, Jerome Friedman, Henry Kendall in the front row,  
and Arie Bodek, David Coward, Michael Riordan, Elliott Bloom,
James Bjorken, Roger (Les) Cottrell, Martin Breidenbach, Gutherie Miller,
Jurgen Drees, W.K.H. (Pief)
Panofsky, Luke Mo, William Atwood in the second row
(not pictured was Herbert (Hobey) DeStaebler).  
An historical account of the experiments can also be
found in a popular science book written by Michael 
Riodan~\cite{Riordan}. 

The following is a generic summary description
of the PhD Thesis topics of
the graduate students
who particpated in the the first and second generation MIT-SLAC experiments
Arie Bodek (scaling on neutrons and protons), Martin Briedenbach
(scaling on protons, Briedenbach was awarded later awarded the Panofsky Prize
in Experimental Particle Physics later for his work on the SLD 
Experiment), Rod 
Ditzler (nuclear dependence),  
Scott Poucher (scaling on neutrons and 
protons), and Michael Riordan (R on protons and  neutrons) all from MIT.
Also Guthrie Miller (scaling on protons) and William 
Atwood (scaling on neutrons and protons) from SLAC.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=Bodek8GeV.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Experimental setup~\cite{BodekPRD}
 used in some of the MIT-SLAC electron-nucleon scattering 
experiments 1967-1974 (e.g. E49B, E87) 
with the SLAC 8-GeV spectrometer (the Feynman Diagram Experimental
Setup).}
\label{SLAC8GeV}
\end{figure}
%

\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekRes.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The MIT-SLAC data~\cite{BodekPRD} (described by V. Weisskopf as
the Frank-Hertz and Rutherford Experiments of the 
Proton and Neutron) }
\label{BodekRes}
\end{figure}
Professor Victor Weisskopf (a former faculty member at the University 
of Rochester, who spent many of his later years as a faculty member at MIT)
said at one of his talks at MIT that theorists like the electron scattering
experiment because it is one of the few detectors
that they can understand. His reasoning was that, as shown in 
Figure~\ref{SLAC8GeV}, the experimental setup~\cite{BodekPRD} looks very much like
the Feynman diagram for the deep inelastic scattering process.

When he showed the MIT-SLAC results at a colloquium at MIT, 
(Figure~\ref{BodekRes}) Weisskopf  referred to the inelastic
scattering region as the Rutherford Experiment of the proton, and
to the resonance production region as the Frank-Hertz Experiment
of the proton.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekScatter.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Approxmiate scaling of the MIT-SLAC data in
the Bjorken variable $x$ was the first evidence
for point like constituents in the
proton. After Rosenbluth separation of $F_1$ and $F_2$ it was clear
the the scatter of the points was due to
 scaling~\cite{scaling}
 violations in $F_2$.}
\label{BodekScatter}
\end{figure}

From the series of electron scattering experiments performed between 1967 and 
1974, it was inferred
that: 

(1) The nucleon is composed of point like constituents (called 
$partons$, as shown in Figure~\ref{parton}). The evidence for this was that
the data approximately $scaled$ in the Bjorken variable $x$ as shown
in Figure~\ref{BodekScatter}.

(2) The charged
partons were predominantly  $spin$ $1/2$ since the
ratio of the cross section for longitudinal and transverse
virtual photons ($R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$)
was found to be small~\cite{RPRL}.

(3) The integral of the fractional momentum carried 
by the charged partons was only $half$ of
the nucleon's momentum. Therefore,  neutral particles 
 carried the other  half of the nucleon momentum~\cite{scaling}. These
neutral particles were referred to as $gluons$. Just as neutrinos
were discovered from missing energy in $\beta$ decays, $gluons$
were  discovered in the MIT-SLAC experiments around 1970, years
before the observation of three jet events at PETRA.

(4) The ratio of the 
cross sections on neutrons and proton 
was below 2/3 at large x~\cite{BodekPRL,BodekPL}.
This could only be explained in a model in 
which the partons at large $x$ are $fractionally$
charged valence $quarks$. This was the clinching evidence in
support of the $quark$ model (as shown in in Figure~\ref{BodekNovP}).

(5) At small $x$ the neutron to proton ratio~\cite{BodekPRL,BodekPL}
was near 1.0. This  
indicated that in  addition to valence quarks, there was a $sea$ of 
$quark-antiquark$ pairs which was about the same magnitude for the neutron
and proton (Figure~\ref{parton} and Figure~\ref{BodekNovP}.

(6) There
was little $nuclear$ dependence of the structure
functions in the region near $x=0.1$.  These data ruled out
simple $vector$ dominance models which predicted nuclear dependence
similar to $pion-nucleus$ scattering (subsequently, the vector mesons 
dominance models evolved to include a much larger number of vector mesons).
As an aside, a decade later, we would find that nuclear
effects were more important than we thought and that $x=0.1$
is the $only$ region for which there is no nuclear dependence of
the structure functions.


(6) Within a couple of years, it was
foudn that $scaling$ in the Bjorken variable  $x$ 
was only $approximate$.
$Rosenbluth$ separations of $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ showed
(Figure~\ref{BodekScaling})
that the scatter of the points was in
  $F_{2}$ and not from uncertainties in R ~\cite{scaling}.
 The observed deviations~\cite{scaling,BodekPRD} 
from  scaling were investigated and  were  
attributed to either gluon emission in the scattering process, as 
predicted by the new theory of Quantum-Chromodynamics ($QCD$), and/or to binding
effects of the partons in the nucleon (e.g. target mass and/or
dynamical $higher-twist$ effects).  The only $x$ value for which there
were no deviations from scaling was at $x=0.2$ (which incidentally was
the first region that was investigated in 1968).
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekNovP.eps,width=2.8in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The Ratio of e-N and e-P cross sections.
It was found to be below 2/3 at large x~\cite{BodekPRL,BodekPL}.
This could only be explained in a model in 
which the partons at large $x$ are $fractionally$
charged valence $quarks$. This was the clinching evidence in
support of the quark model.}
\label{BodekNovP}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekScaling.eps,width=3.1in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The $x$, $Q^2$ dependence of scaling violations first observed
in Rosenbluth separated MIT-SLAC data~\cite{scaling}. }
\label{BodekScaling}
\end{figure}

These results changed our view of the structure of
the nucleon.  The parton model was proposed,  and
by the early 1970's, the accepted view was that the nucleon is composed of point like
quarks.
It is interesting to note
that this view was accepted quickly
(especially by some of the referees for Physical Review Letters).
Many of the results of the more
precise second generation MIT-SLAC electron scattering experiments
were not accepted for publication in  Physical Review Letters
(precision experiments were not as valued in those days as
they are today).

Figure~\ref{BodekNovP} shows both first results (E49A and E49B at 
6 and 18 degrees)
of the neutron to proton structure function ratio~\cite{BodekPRL} which
were published in Phys. Rev. Letters. Also shown are the
more precise results (E87 at 15 degrees) obtained
a couple of years later~\cite{BodekPL}. Since the quark
model was already established, our second paper with
more precise data was rejected by Physical Review Letters`` as not
adding much to our state of knowledge''.  At that time I
was a young graduate 
student at MIT, and accepting the judgement of my elders, I re-submitted 
that paper to Physics Letters ~\cite{BodekPL} instead.

By the early 1970's the accepted dogma was that when
higher momentum transfers can be reached,
scaling will become more and more exact. However, 
the second generation Rosenbluth separated MIT-SLAC data (E87) showed clear
deviations from scaling~\cite{scaling} as shown in Figure~\ref{BodekScaling}. 
Note that deviations from scaling due to interactions between the quarks
 bound in the nucleon (target mass and dynamical higher twist effects) 
 were expected to vanish as (1/$Q^2$). However, there were several theories that
predicted other forms of scaling violations, including models
in which the quarks had a finite size (e.g. form factors)
and a new theory of quantum chromodynamis (QCD) which
predicted that scaling violations will only decrease as 1/ln($Q^2$).
Nonetheless, our study comparing the measured scaling violation 
(extracted from  Rosenbluth separated data) to various models
was rejected for publication
in Physical Review Letters. The 
referees stated that these were obviously ``uninteresting higher twist 
effects''.  At time time I was a young postdoc at MIT,  and accepting
the judgement of my elders, I re-submitted the paper for publication 
in  Physics Letters~\cite{scaling} instead.
\section{ The New 400 GeV Accelerator
at Fermilab - Higher Energy Fixed Target Lepton-Hadron Experiments}
The focus shifted to the  new muon and neutrino scattering experiments at Fermilab
and CERN. These experiments, though  less precise, could
provide data at higher values of $Q^2$. The primary motivation
was to search for $W$ bosons and to search for new heavy leptons.
Nonetheless, the  questions specific to nucleon
structure that were of interest at that time were:

(1) Is QCD correct. Are there $logarithmic$ scaling violations?
what are those $gluons$ that carry half of the momentum in
the nucleon.

(2) What was the magnitude and $flavor$ decomposition of the 
$quark-antiquark$ sea?

(3) Are there heavy quarks (e.g. $charm$) intrinsic in the nucleon?

(4) What is the $x$ and $Q^2$ dependence of the nucleon $sea$.

(5) What is the value of the strong interactions $coupling$ constant
and does it change with $Q^2$ as predicted by QCD.

(6) Is there experimental evidence for the validity of a variety of Current
Algebra and QCD $sum$ $rules$.

These questions could
be addressed by using new probes at higher energies such as high energy
neutrino beams.  In 1974 I went to Caltech as Millikan Fellow
to work on
the new  neutrino program at Fermilab (led by Frank Sciulli and Barry 
Barish and H. E. Fisk).
Over the years, this program evolved from the Caltech-Fermilab
experiment to the Chicago 
(F. Merritt/M. Oreglia) - Columbia (F. Sciulli/M. 
Shaevitz) - Rochester(Bodek) -Fermilab (HE 
Fisk) - Wisconsin (W. Smith)
(CCFR) neutrino program, and  became NuTeV at the end. Frank Sciulli
has received the APS Panofsky prize in Experimental Particle
Physics for his leadership in this
program.

The first results from the neutrino experiments showed that the ratio
of neutrino to electron (or muon) structure functions was in agreement
with the quark-parton model (assuming fractional charged
quarks).  
The combination of neutrino and antineutrino measurements was used
to separate the distributions of valence quarks from the distribution of antiquarks 
in the sea.  The experiments were not only relevant to nucleon 
structure, but also led to new discoveries such 
neutral currents,  charm production (dimuon events), and trimuon 
events in neutrino interactions.
\section{The strange-sea is cut in half}
Dimuon events in neutrino interactions
originated from charm-particles produced in charged current
events.  The discovery of dimuon events allowed for a separate 
determination of the strange-quark content of the quark-antiquark
sea. It was found that the quark-antiquark sea was not SU(3) Symmetric.
The strange-sea carried about 1/2 of of the average momentum carried by 
the sea of up or down quarks.  One of first  
 PhD theses that focused on the determination of the strange-quark content
of the sea (in leading order QCD)  was done by Rochester PhD student, Karol Lang~\cite{dimuons}, who
is now a faculty member at UT Austin.  As more data were accumulated, 
the $x$ distribution of the strange sea  (in NLO QCD) was extracted from the $x$ 
distribution of dimuon events in both neutrino and antineutrino 
interactions~\cite{dimuons} as shown in Figure~\ref{ccfrdimuon}.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=ccfrdimuon.eps,width=2.8in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{The magnitude and $x$ distribution of the strange sea (in NLO QCD) was extracted from the $x$ 
distribution of dimuon events in both neutrino and antineutrino 
interactions~\cite{dimuons} at CCFR.}
\label{ccfrdimuon}
\end{figure}
\section{Intrinsic charm comes and goes}
With the discovery of charm states, a significant fraction of the
high energy physics community was involved in looking for 
charm-particles 
in electron-positron, proton-proton and neutrino-nucleon interactions. 
At that time, two experiments at the CERN Intersecting Storage 
Ring (ISR)  
observed copious production of charm states in the forward
direction proton-proton collisions.
This was surprising because it implied
that there were intrinsic charm quarks in the nucleon wave function (of order 
one to three percent), and that these charm quarks carried
a very large fraction of the momentum
of the proton.

In contrast, an emulsion experiment which searched for 
charm particle production in proton-proton collisions in the central 
region, reported that
for 400 GeV protons the cross section for the production of charm 
particles was less than 3 microbarns.
At that time,  aside from the reported results by the ISR, not
a single experiment has observed the  production of open charm
in hadron collisions. Adding to the confusion, QCD calculations
in leading order predicted that the production of charm states in the
central region (via the gluon-fusion mechanism process) was very small 
(e.g. 1-3 microbrans) in agreement with the emulsion limits.  It 
turned out that  all of the experimental results as well
as the theoretical calculations were incorrect.

There was another unresolved mystery at that time.
The source of prompt muons (i.e. not from 
long lived pion decays) produced in hadron collisions
was not understood.
It was not clear if the prompt muons originated from
dimuon pairs (e.g. vector meson and Drell Yan events) or from
weak decays of single states such as charm particles.  
The new large acceptance
neutrino detectors, if placed in a hadron beam, could be
used to answer some of these questions.

In order to calibrate the new neutrino detectors at Fermilab, 
the Lab E neutrino facility had access to both a neutrino beam
(in the center) and a hadron/muon calibration beam (on the side).
The neutrino target/calorimeter modules and muon
spectrometers are ideal muon detectors. Therefore, one of the first
experiments in Lab E was actually a high intensity hadron experiment to
investigate the production of prompt muons in proton-nucleon and
pion-nucleon collisions (FNAL experiments E379/E595). This
experiment was
a collaborative
effort between Caltech (B. Barish), Fermilab (HE Fisk), Stanford (S.Wojcicki) and Rochester.
The results from FNAL E379/E595 were: 

(a) About 3/4 of the prompt muons originate
from dimuon events and about 1/4 of the prompt muons originate
from the production of charm particles. 

(b) The production of forward
charm particles in proton-nucleon collisions was very small. A 
limit  of 2x$10^{-4}$ was placed on the intrinsic charm in the nucleon wave function
(which is a factor of 100 lower than what was needed to explain
the large forward cross sections reported). Later experiments at the 
ISR (which much larger acceptance) did not confirm the original ISR 
results. 
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=e595plot.eps,width=2.8in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The apparatus and results from experiment~\cite{E595}
E595. A limit of  2x$10^{-4}$ was placed on the intrinsic charm in the nucleon wave function.
The experiment also measured tha hadronic charm 
production cross section for the first time (20 microbarns) from 
single charm decay events), and placed
the best limit on D0-D0bar mixing (from double charm decay events).}
\label{e595plot}
\end{figure}

(c) The hadronic charm 
production cross section in the central region was about 20 microbarns
(much higher than the  earlier emulsion limit). This implied that
large higher order corrections (K factors) were necessary to improve
on the Leading Order QCD calculations of hadroproduction cross sections.

(d) Investigation of the double leptonic
decays of charm mesons (to muons and missing energy) place the
most stringent limit
on the mixing of D0 and D0bar mesons.

Some of the published results~\cite{E595} are reported in the PhD Thesis
of Rochester graduate student Jack Ritchie~\cite{E595} (who is currently a faculty
member at UT Austin).   The apparatus and one of the plots from the
papers is shown in Figure~\ref{e595plot}.
\section{The Era of High Statistics Neutrino and Muon Experiments}
Over the following
20 years, the  muon and neutrino-nucleon experiments at CERN and
at Fermilab
were slowly upgraded. The programs have matured 
to  become high statistics experiments. 
Data samples of order of millions of charged current events
were collected.
In the
neutrino case, this was accomplished by the use of massive targets
(about 600 tons of iron) and higher fluxes of neutrinos made possible
by higher proton intensities.
In these higher energy experiments, logarithmic
scaling violations was observed at higher values $Q^2$, 
in agreement with QCD~\cite{alphas,GLS,NuTeV}.
During that period, QCD became the accepted theory
of strong interactions.


Because of the coarse sampling in the massive 
neutrino target-calorimeters,  and the multiple scattering
of muons in the large acceptance magnetized iron muon
spectrometers, both the hadron energy and muon energy were measured
with worse resolutions than was standard in the lower
energy  electron-nucleon experiments. 
Better uniformity at lower cost was accomplished 
by the CCFR Neutrino collaboration by the invention of
large area scintillation counters with wavelength
shifter bar readout. In addition CCFR constructed a compensating
calorimeter by using thick active sampling
layers.  Still, the worse resolutions in those experiments had to be
 compensated for by carefully
calibrating the detectors with hadron and muon beams~\cite{calibration}, and by
accumulating large statistical samples~\cite{NuTeV}. 

The second generation
neutrino and muon experiments yielded information on detailed
distributions of the various types of quarks and antiquarks in the nucleon.
The higher energies allowed determination of the parton distribution
functions at small values of $x$. In addition, values of the strong interaction coupling 
constant  and the $x$ and $Q^2$ dependence  of the gluon
distributions were extracted from the  $x$ and $Q^2$ dependence
of the scaling violations~\cite{alphas}. These data were used in
 global parametrizations of the various parton distribution
functions PDFs in nucleon (by CTEQ, MRST, GRV)  for the benefit of other experiments.
\section{High Statistics but poor systematics - new mysteries}
Precise knowledge
of nucleon PDFs is crucial in order to be
able to do physics in the new proton-antiproton colliders. In 
the early 1980's PDFs describing
the valence, sea,  strange quark and gluon distributions
were  extracted from fits to all available high $Q^{2}$
muon and neutrino scattering data.
The PDFs were known sufficiently well for the first generation
 proton-antiproton experiments. New particles including the $W$ and $Z$ 
 bosons and the Top quark were subsequently discovered and studied in the
 new high energy proton-antiproton machines at CERN and then at 
 Fermilab.

 With time, the
 proton-antiproton
 collider experiments at Fermilab have become more precise and
 started accumulating large statistical samples.
 Some of the most important measurements have become limited by the systematic 
 errors on the parton distribution
 functions.  The systematic errors on the PDFs (and especially
 $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$) also limited the  extraction of precise 
 parameters (such as the electro-weak 
 mixing angle) from high statistics neutrino experiments.
 
 Systematic errors in the PDFs originated from the following sources.
 
 (1) The high statistics muon and neutrino experiments are mostly done on
 iron targets. The PDFs are corrected for nuclear binding
 effects using theoretical models. Early results reported by the European
 Muon Collaboration (EMC)  on
 the ratio of iron to deuterium structure functions
 showed a large discrepancy from the Fermi-Motion calculations of
 Bodek and Ritchie~\cite{Fermi}. The ratio of iron to deuterium
 was observed to be different than
 1.0 with a 20 $\%$ slope as a function of
 Bjorken $x$, as shown in  Figure~\ref{BodekEMC}. Here, since
 the results were also in disagreement with my calculations~\cite{Fermi}, I was
further motivated to try to find out if it was correct.
 
(2) The systematic errors in calibration
and flux normalizations in the neutrino and muon experiments were
 significant.  These  high energy experiments were not yet
 precise enough to separate
 the contribution of the longitudinal and transverse components
 of the cross sections. Therefore unless $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$
 could be measured to better precision, there was a limit on
 how well the structure function $F_2$ (which has 
contributions from both longitudinal and transverse components) could
be extracted from muon and neutrino data at high energies.

(3) There were differences at small $x$
between the PDFs extracted from muon
and neutrino experiments. If those differences were attributed to
the strange sea, it implied a factor of 2 increase in the magnitude
of the strange sea, in contradiction with results from the dimuon
neutrino data. This also implied that
there was more than a 10$\%$ uncertainty in  the
level of the PDFs at small $x$ (a very important region for
collider experiments).

(4) There were normalization uncertainties in the various muon and
neutrino experiments, as well as $Q^2$ dependent errors from the
the remaining uncertainties in the calibration of muon and hadron energies.
As we later found out 
the systematic errors in the muon energy calibration  (in some muon experiments),
and in the hadron energy calibration (in some neutrino 
experiments) were larger then initially estimated. 

(5) A smaller value of the strong 
interaction coupling  $\alpha_{S}$ was extracted from DIS muon and
neutrino experiments, when compared to
$\alpha_{S}$  extracted from e+e- experiments.  The origin of difference was not 
understood since it was outside the quoted systematic errors.
Models with low mass supersymetric gluinos were proposed to account for this
difference. Since I was involved in both the AMY e+e- experiment
and the CCFR Neutrino experiment, I was caught in the middle between
the two results and had strong motivations to try resolve this
issue.

(6) The relative contribution to the scaling violations from QCD 
evolution and from higher twist effect was not understood.
Therefore, more precise lower energy electron scattering data
from SLAC was not included in the PDF fits.
This resulted in uncertainties in the evolution of the PDFs from fixed
target energies to the energies at hadron colliders, and
led to uncertainties in
the extraction of the strong interaction constant $\alpha_{S}$.

(7)  Because of poor resolution smearing 
in muon and neutrino experiments,
these  experiments could not reliably measure the
the PDFs at high values of $x$. Conversely, the
lower energy high $x$ data from SLAC was not
considered reliable, because the higher twist
effects were not understood.
As the structure functions are evolved
to very high $Q^2$, the poor of knowledge
of the PDFs at high $x$ and low $Q^2$ contributed significantly
to the PDF uncertainties at intermediate $x$ and high $Q^2$ at CDF 
and HERA.
Searches for new physics in high energy electron-proton
and proton-antiproton collisions were limited by these
PDF uncertainties, since some cross sections could 
be accounted for by introducing Toy Model PDFs which
are higher at larger x.

(8) The ratio of the $d$ and $u$ quark distributions was
only extracted
from the ratio of muon and electron scattering
on neutrons and protons. Since the neutrons are bound in deuterium,
the uncertainty in deuteron binding corrections 
results in an uncertainty
in the ratio of $d$ and $u$ PDFs. 
This  uncertainty led to an irreducible uncertainty of 75 
MeV (from PDF errors) in the measurement of the mass
of the $W$ boson when extracted from data in high
energy proton-antiproton collisions.
\section{Physics Archeology -Lepton Scattering on Nuclear Targets}
During the twenty year period from 1980 to 2000, much of
my efforts were directed towards the construction of new
detectors (e.g.  the Lab E Neutrino facility at
Fermilab, the AMY muon detector,  SLAC E140, the CDF
plug upgrade calorimeter and the CMS HCAL calorimeter. 
However, one of my physics hobbies was to resolve
experimental discrepancies by improving
on the precision of experiments. It is known that techniques
used in one subfield of high energy physics can sometimes make a large impact
whey introduced to another subfield. The  solutions frequently involved
a combination of new measurements at different laboratories, 
different beams, new experimental detectors and techniques, higher
precision,  better theoretical tools, and some phenomenology. 
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekEMC.eps,width=2.8in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The $x$ dependence of iron to deuterium ratio extracted from 
MIT-SLAC Empty Target Data~\cite{ironD}
 compared to the results initially reported
by the EMC collaboration.}
\label{BodekEMC}
\end{figure}

First, I tried get an independent measurement of the
ratio of iron
and deuterium structure functions, in view of the surprising results
reported by the EMC muon
collaboration. I called the members Group A at SLAC and
asked if they could look at their more recent empty target data. 
It turned out that that data was not readily available.
Since I could not convince somebody else to do the
measurement, I decided to do it myself.  I went back and 
 did a re-analysis of my own empty target
data taken in the original MIT-SLAC Experiments (E849 and E87). The
extraction of the  MIT-SLAC empty
target data~\cite{empty} (after more than a decade)
was an exercise in Physics Archeology (or a study of the quickly 
changing standards and media of computer technology). 
The analysis was greatly simplified by the fact that
in the 1970's (at my
suggestion~\cite{empty}), the H and D  empty target replicas
at SLAC were made
six times thicker. The thicker empty replicas had the
same radiation length as the D and H targets. This meant
that to first order, the radiative corrections for the full
and empty targets were the same. In addition, more statistics
could be taken with the thicker replicas.
This re-analysis was completed within a few months of the
announcement of the EMC results.  New electron scattering 
results on the ratio
of iron to deuterium~\cite{ironD} (and also on the  ratio of aluminum to 
deuterium~\cite{AlD}) structure
functions were submitted for publication to Physical Review Letters. 
This ratio, which has since become known
as the EMC effect, was actually found to be in disagreement with the initial
results reported by EMC, as shown in figure
Figure~\ref{BodekEMC}. 
At small $x$, the electron data showed a ratio of iron to deuterium 
that was
actually less than 1.0, which indicated effects of  shadowing
(in contrast to the EMC muon data which showed a ratio of 1.1). 
At  $x$ values
between 0.1 to 0.2, the electron data
showed a small amount of antishadowing (of order
a couple of percent). At larger $x$, the electron data showed
that ratio became less than 1.0. Finally,
for $x$ greater than 0.7, Fermi motion effects take over and the ratio
is larger than 1.0.   It is interesting to note that
the only reason this was not noticed in the early MIT-SLAC
data was that the first experiment to look for nuclear effects
was performed near x=0.1, where the effect  just happened to be small
(at the time, vector dominance model predicted a large effect
at x=0.1). Similarly, the first test of scaling was done at SLAC
at x=0.2, which also  happens to be the region where the scaling 
violations are also the smallest.

The mistake in the EMC data at small $x$ was later found to 
originate  from a tracking inefficiency for deuterium running.
This was from extra hits in the forward 
chambers that were less shielded when 
the lower density deuterium target was used. 
Later measurements taken by EMC, BCDMS and NMC (New Muon Collaboration) 
were in good agreement with our new electron scattering results.

We discovered  that the nuclear binding effects were
 more complicated than calculations
which only include the effects of Fermi motion. We have found out 
that there are contributions from shadowing, anti-shadowing, binding energy effect and Fermi 
motion, all contributing in different 
regions of $x$.  Therefore, both the initial EMC  experimental 
results, and the Fermi motion model of Bodek and Ritchie were found 
to be incorrect.  

We submitted
the first paper on the extraction of the  ratio of iron to 
deuterium~\cite{ironD} from the MIT-SLAC data to 
 Physical Review Letters.  To my surprise
the paper was first rejected. One referee said that there was no evidence 
for quarks in nuclei (contrary to the referees in 1973 who rejected
a paper because the evidence for quarks was already overwhelming).
The second referee said that the effect was 
expected from the multiple scattering of the electron beam in the
nucleus. By that time I was an seasoned faculty member,
and  I convinced the editors to ignore the comments of both referees.
The results were published in Physical Review Letters~\cite{ironD,AlD}.
\section{ The End Station A SLAC/NPAS E139/E140 Program - a new
collaborative effort between the High Energy
and Nuclear Physics Community}
To the high energy physics community,  it was
important to understand nuclear corrections 
in order to convert data for lepton scattering on nuclear targets to 
data for free nucleons (or at least deuterium). To the nuclear physics
community, it presented a new tool to investigate a new type
nuclear effects.

By that time, aside from Parity Violation experiments (for which
Charlie Prescott received the Panofsky Prize)
the high energy physics community
was not heavily involved the electron scattering program at End Station A. 
However, electron scattering experiments by members
of the nuclear physics community continued.
The SLAC station A electron scattering
facility at SLAC was used to do a variety of nuclear physics
experiments (e.g. measurement of elastic
form factors of deuterium and other nuclei). This program
was supported by the Nuclear Physics Divisions of DOE and NSF.
A dedicated lower energy nuclear physics (NPAS)
injector was built to  provide low energy beams for nuclear physics 
applications.
The NPAS
nuclear physics program was managed by Ray Arnold, Steve Rock and
Peter Bosted from American University. (Ray Arnold received the APS
Bonner Prize in Experimental Nuclear Physics for his leadership of the
NPAS program.)
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=E139.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{A determination of the ratio of cross sections on
various nuclear targets to deuterium~\cite{E139}
 from SLAC 
experiment E139.}
\label{E139}
\end{figure}

The publication of the results of the re-analysis of
the SLAC empty target data presented a new opportunity (for both the nuclear physics
and high energy communities) to embark on
a collaborative program 
of  third generation precision electron scattering experiments.
As  discussed below, 
measurements that were not possible before could now be done with
much better precision.
These new  higher precision electron scattering experiments  would lead
to a better understanding of both nucleon 
and nuclear structure. 

At  first, the  End Station A SLAC
8-GeV spectrometer was used for a new SLAC
experiment E139 without major modifications.   Experiment
E139 performed a survey of the ratio of structure 
functions taken on a variety of nuclear targets to that
of deuterium~\cite{E139}. In parallel we proposed SLAC
experiment E140 for a new precision electron scattering deep inelastic
scattering program on both nucleons and nuclear targets.

As part of the new SLAC E140  program (Arie Bodek and Steve Rock, 
co-spokespersons) the SLAC end station A 8 GeV spectrometer was upgraded for better
electron/pion discrimnation using a new 
lead glass segmented shower counters, and an improved Cerenkov 
counter with UV wavelength shifting phototobes. We
also upgraded the electronics
improved monitoring to control beam systematics. Since beam time
at SLAC was very costly, we introduced the technique (previously used in
the CCFR neutrino experiment at Fermilab), to check out and time-in the 
detectors (in place) using cosmic ray muons.

In  parallel, we undertook both an experimental and theoretical 
program to improve the radiative corrections. The external radiative corrections
were investigated with 
radiation length targets ranging from $2 \% $  to $12 \% $. It took a 
while to improve the radiative corrections  to obtain agreement
for the data from all
target thickness, and the 
use of thicker (higher statistics) $6 \% $ radiation length target became routine.
(we also had to bo back and re-correct the results of SLAC E139
by one percent, as a results of the improved radiative corrections).

The internal radiative corrections were also improved by comparing two very 
different approaches (the Mo-Tsai procedure and the Bardin procedure). 
By investigating the similarities and differences between
the two approaches, improvements were made and agreement
between the two approaches was achieved. Since the
 Bardin calculation also included electro-weak corrections
 (important for neutrino and higher energy muon experiment) it became the 
standard for all of the next generation electron, muon and neutrino
scattering experiments.

In SLAC experiment E140 we preformed much more precise 
measurements~\cite{E140} of
$R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ and $F_{2}$. These data were the PhD thesis topic of Rochester 
graduate student S. Dasu (now a faculty member at Madison).
SLAC Experiment E140 also took additional data in regions
that overlapped with previous electron
scattering experiments at SLAC. These previous SLAC experiments were then re-analyzed
with the improved radiative corrections program (for both external and
internal radiation), and cross normalized to SLAC E140. This was the 
PhD thesis topic of W. Whittlow, from Stanford.  The  following are 
highlights of
results from the SLAC E139/E140 program and the new combined re-analysis of
all previous data:
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=RYang.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Precise data~\cite{E140} on $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ taken by SLAC E140 as compared to
subsequent data taken by third generation neutrino 
(CCFR/NuTeV)~\cite{NuTeV} and
muon experiments}
\label{RYang}
\end{figure}

(1) Provided precise ratios of structure
functions for heavy targets to that of deuterium~\cite{E139} (see 
Figure~\ref{E139}). Now all data taken with nuclear targets
could be used in PDF fits.

(2) Extracted the first precise determinations of the $x$ and $Q^2$ 
dependence of $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$, the ration of longitudinal and transverse structure
functions~\cite{E140}.  The parametrization of these and other data 
(called $R_{wolrd}$) was 
 subsequently used for the extraction of the structure function $F_{2}$
 by higher energy muon and neutrino scattering experiments. This 
 greatly reduced the errors on the extracted structure functions from
 the previously poor knowledge of R (see Figure~\ref{RYang}). 
 
 (3) Established that the nuclear dependence of $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ was small, and
 provided the nuclear corrections for the structure function $F_{2}$ for
 a wide range of nuclear targets used in muon and neutrino experiments.
  \begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=combined.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The initial results from the SLAC E140/combined SLAC 
analysis~\cite{E140}
 indicating the the systematic errors in QCD fits that
only included the data from the higher energy experiments (compare 
these fits to the improved post-E140 analysis in Figure 18.}
\label{combined}
\end{figure}  

 (4) Provided a better understanding of radiative corrections
for both nucleon and nuclear targets for both past (E49, E87, E139)
and future lepton scattering experiments.
  
 (5) Provided a high precision anchor for the normalized $F_{2}$ 
 structure functions at low $Q^2$ for a wide range of $x$. By matching
 the structure functions between SLAC and the higher energy muon and 
 neutrino
 experiments in the overlap region, better determinations of the
 normalizations and systematic errors of the higher energy experiments
 could be done (see  a comparison of Figure~\ref{combined} (before) and 
 Figure~\ref{f2nlo} (after)).  This resulted
 in greatly improved determination of $\alpha_{S}$ and help
 resolve the difference between the value of $\alpha_{S}$ from
  DIS (electron/Muon) and e+e- experiments (the e+e- results
  were correct).
      \begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=pmiyang.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{The ratio of neutrino~\cite{NuTeV} and muon structure functions as
compared to the expectations from NLO QCD. }
\label{pmiyang}
\end{figure}

 (6) Led to new program of precision electron scattering experiments at
  End Station A at SLAC in advance of the construction of the
     facilities at Jefferson Lab.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=CCFR-F2.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ The QCD fit for the improved extraction~\cite{alphas} of the 
strong interaction coupling $\alpha_{S}$ from CCFR structure 
function $F_{2}$. }
\label{CCFR-F2}
\end{figure}
    \section{Reducing Systematics} 
      A comparison between the precise SLAC data and the high energy
     muon scattering data showed that there was a larger systematic
     error in the BCDMS magnetic field. Once this was corrected, there
     was better
    agreement between the BCDMS data and other experiments (both for
    the structure function and for the value of the extracted strong 
    interaction coupling constant $\alpha_{S}$). 
  With improved hadron energy calibrations and
  by extracting structure functions from the CCFR neutrino data in a more
  model independent way (e.g. Rosenbluth separation), the  difference
  in the structure functions in muon and neutrino experiments at low
  values of $x$ has been resolved, and new measurements of
  $R$ at higher values of $Q^2$ became available.
  This work is reported in the PhD 
  thesis of Rochester graduate student Un Ki Yang~\cite{NuTeV} (now at the 
  University of Chicago).
   The ratio of neutrino~\cite{NuTeV} and muon structure functions 
  now agrees with the expectations from NLO QCD (as shown in 
  figure~\ref{pmiyang}.  Figure~\ref{RYang} shows both our new 
  Rosenbluth separated CCFR measurement of $R$ with neutrinos as compared 
  to our previous measurements with electrons~\cite{E140} from the combined SLAC/E140 analysis. 
    
    With additional improvements in the  hadron energy 
    calibration~\cite{calibration} for
  the CCFR detector
  (thanks to Un Ki Yang,  Willis Sakumoto, Debbie Harris and J. Yu) the
  strong interaction coupling constant 
  was extracted from the  $Q^{2}$ dependence CCFR neutrino~\cite{alphas} data  on $F_{2}$ 
  and $xF_{3}$ (at large $Q^{2}$)
   shown in figure~\ref{CCFR-F2}. The extracted value is
   $\alpha_{S}(M_{z})$= 0.119 $\pm$ 0.002(expt) $\pm$ 0.004(theory).
  In addition, an independent 
  measurement $\alpha_{S}(M_{z})$ =0.114 $\pm$ 0.009 was extracted 
  from the $Q^{2}$ dependence  (at low $Q^{2}$)  of the  GLS sum rule, using the
  CCFR data on the structure function~\cite{GLS} $F_{3}$ shown in figure~\ref{GLSplot}.
   Both of these measurements are in agreement with data from electron-positron colliders
  (the e+e- results were correct).    
%
  \begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=GLSplot.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{An independent extraction of the 
strong interaction coupling $\alpha_{S}$ from the $Q^{2}$ dependence
of the GLS sum rule evaluated~\cite{GLS} using the 
CCFR structure function  $F_{3}$.  }
\label{GLSplot}
\end{figure}
\section{The High Energy Frontier, $d/u$, $W$ Charge Assymmetry and 
 Production of $W$, $Z$ bosons and Drell-Yan pairs in Proton-Antiproton 
Collisions at 2 TeV}
As mentioned earlier, the ratio of the $d$ and $u$ quark distributions 
is extracted
from the ratio of muon and electron scattering
on neutrons and protons. Since the neutrons are bound in deuterium,
the uncertainty in deuteron binding corrections leads to an uncertainty
in the ratio of $d$ and $u$ PDFs. 
This  uncertainty led to an irreducible uncertainty of 75 
MeV (from PDF errors) in the measurement of the mass
of the $W$ boson when extracted from data in high
energy proton-antiproton collisions.  

This issue was resolved in two different ways.  First we have done some work
on improved modeling of the nuclear binding effects in the deuteron~\cite{largex}.
More importantly, we also embarked on a new experimental approach.  Higher 
precision on PDFs can be achieved by introducing new techniques and new
measurements in proton-antiproton collisions.   Since proton and 
antiprotons are free nucleons, the production
of $W$ and $Z$ Bosons measures and constrains~\cite{constraints} the $d$ and $u$ quark
distributions without the complication of nuclear effects.
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=f2nlo.eps,width=2.9in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Post SLAC E140 status.~\cite{largex}
The NLO QCD plus target mass fits (with and without renormalon higher 
twist correction) by Bodek and Yang. The new determinations of
R from the SLAC E140 program are now used by the
higher energy experiments. In addition, the normalizations of the
higher energy experiments and the
BCDMS systematic error on the magnetic field were allowed to float
and be constrained by the overall fit. (Compare 
these improved fits to the pre-SLAC E140 fits shown in Figure 14).}
\label{f2nlo}
\end{figure}  


Figure~\ref{xydef} shows the relationship between the kinematic 
variables for production of $W$ and $Z$ Bosons and the initial
fraction of the proton and antiproton momentum carried by
the interacting quark and antiquark. Figure~\ref{wrapidity} 
shows that since the $d$ quark distribution falls more steeply
with $x$ than the $u$ quark distribution, the positive and negatively
charged $W$ bosons are boosted in opposite directions with respect
to the beam axis.  However, only the $W$ decay final state leptons
are detected,  as shown in Figure~\ref{wdiagram}. The well-understood
V-A asymmetry in the decay of the $W$ Boson tends to partially cancel
and convolute 
the asymmetry from the production process as shown in 
Figure~\ref{wdilution}.

In order to have sensitivity to the $d$ and $u$
quark distribution which contribute to initial $W$ production asymmetry, the 
electrons and positrons from $W$ decays must be measured over a wide
range of rapidity, including the very forward direction.  Initially, 
a measurement in the forward direction was 
not possible in CDF, since the central tracker covered a 
limited range of rapidity around the central region.  We therefore
introduced a new technique~\cite{trick}  (which we first
used in the AMY e+e- exxperiment) to measure both the charge and energy of
electrons and positrons in the forward plug calorimeter with very high precision.
This was accomplished by doing a combined analysis between the
track of the electron in the silicon tracker (SVX) and the location of
the centroid of the electromagnetic shower in the plug calorimeter.
The energy of the electron or positron was measured very well by
the calorimeter. The sign of the lepton was determined by seeing if
the shower centroid in plug calorimeter was to the left
or right of the extrapolated track from the vertex silicon
tracker.   This resulted in a measurement of the $W$ decay lepton
asymmetry~\cite{CDFWasym} as shown in Figure~\ref{wasym}. The new data indicated that
the $d/u$ ratio in the proton was lower than that from the best PDF 
fits available at the time.

In addition, the improved deuteron binding corrections and the
re-extraction of $d/$ by Bodek and Yang from muon
scattering data at high $Q^{2}$ were in agreement with 
previously improved
re-extraction of (d/u) from the lower $Q^{2}$ MIT-SLAC H and D electron scattering  data 
(A. Thomas and collaborators).
Both of these re-extractions indicated that at large values of $x$,
$d/u$ approaches a value of 0.2 (in agreement with expectations from
QCD), instead of a value of 0 which has been assumed by previous
PDF prametrizations. Some hints this (though with large errors)
are also found in neutrino data on  hydrogen and charged
current data at HERA\~cite{largex}

\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=xydef.eps,width=1.5in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Kinematics of $W$ production in proton-antiproton collisions.~\cite{CDFWasym}
 }
\label{xydef}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=wdiagram.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Kinematics of $W$ Production and Decay }
\label{wdiagram}
\end{figure}


The $d/u$ ratio extracted from the $W$ asymmetry data was in better agreement with
$d/u$ ratio extracted from deuterium data with improved corrections for
nuclear binding effects~\cite{largex}. Subsequently, both the $W$ asymmetry data
and deutron binding effects are used in modern fits to PDFs. 
The uncertainties in the $d/u$ ratio are greatly reduced and allow
for a more precise measurement of the $W$ mass.  The analysis of
the $W$ asymmetry data was the subject of the PhD Theses~\cite{CDFWasym} of two
Rochester graduate students, Mark Dickson (now at MIT Lincoln Lab) and
Qun Fan (now at KLA-Tenor in California). 

The $W$ charge asymmetry was also used to put stringent limits on
models which proposed isospin charge symmetry violation in the
nucleon PDFs~\cite{BodekWasym} as shown in Figure~\ref{BodekWplot}.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=wrapidity.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{The expected asymmetry in the rapidity distribution for
the production of 
positive and negative $W$ boson in proton-antiproton collisions at 
CDF~\cite{CDFWasym}.}
\label{wrapidity}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=wdilution.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ A comparison of the $W$ production  Asymmetry and the 
assymetry of the $W$ decay leptons~\cite{CDFWasym}}
\label{wdilution}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=svx.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{A comparison between the extrapolated track in the
CDF Silicon SVX vertex detector and the location of the centroid of the
electromangetic shower in the CDF electromagnetic calorimeter. This 
illustrates the discrimination between positive and negative 
electrons (from A. Bodek and Qun Fan,  Frascati Calorimetry 
Conference~\cite{trick}).}
\label{svx}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=wasym.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{A comparison of the CDF $W$ Asymmetry data~\cite{CDFWasym} with the 
prediction of PDFs with different assumptions for the d/u ratio.}
\label{wasym}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=BodekWasym.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{A comparison of the CDF $W$ Asymmetry data~\cite{CDFWasym} with 
prediction from models proposing PDFs with Isospin Charge Symmetry Violation (CSV) in 
the nucleon. These models were ruled out~\cite{BodekWasym}.}
\label{BodekWplot}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=zy.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{A measurement of the  full rapidity distribution~\cite{CDFDY} of $Z$ bosons
by including final states with both electrons detected the CDF plug calorimeter.}
\label{zy}
\end{figure}


We have also found that doing physics with 
electrons and positrons in hadron collider by using only silicon vertex 
tracking in conjunction with segmented electromagnetic calorimetry is 
actually 
better than using a central tracker~\cite{trick}. We found that
the the central tracker has
a higher charge misidentification
rate because it is more sensitive to conversions of gamma rays. 
It is interesting to note that the CMS collaboration at the LHC
has decided to eliminate their central tracker and use a pure
silicon system instead.


This new 
technique also allowed for the measurement of the rapidity 
distributions of $Z$ Bosons at high rapidity
as shown in Figure~\ref{zy}. This  was the
PhD thesis topic of Rochester graduate student Jinbo Liu~\cite{CDFDY} (now at Lucent). 

We have since used this  technique to greatly reduce the jet
background and
measure the mass and forward-backward
charge asymmetry of $Z$ Bosons and high mass Drell-Yan dilepton 
pairs.  The  Drell-Yan asymmetry is a
sensitive way to search for new physics beyond the
standard model (e.g.  high mass $Z'$  Bosons).  Figure~\ref{PRL1.PS} 
shows the CDF Drell-Yan data from run I, compared to a
calculation by Baur and Bodek~\cite{CDFZp} (with and without a hypothetical $Z'$ 
Boson. (The  CDF analysis  for the
forward-backward asymmetry was done by  Rochester postdoc
Yonsei-Chung~\cite{CDFZp1}. 

With a factor of 10  more data currently being
accumulated in Tevatron II, the $W$ 
Asymmetry data and the $Z$ rapidity distribution will make a
significant contribution to constrain the PDFs with even higher 
precision.  Precise PDFs are used to predict the expected level of high mass
Drell-Yan events. Therefore, searches for new states are possible in
both the differential cross section (versus mass) and the 
forward-backward asymmetry for Drell-Yan dilepton pairs.
%
\section{More Phenomenology- The Triumph of NNLO QCD, Origin Twist
Effects, and PDFs  at large $x$}
%
Although the lower energy electron scattering data was very precise, 
it was clear that in order to use it in the overall PDF QCD fits, one must
account for effects such as target mass and dynamical higher twist.
In particular, the only data available at large $x$ is the 
electron-scattering data from SLAC.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=PRL1.PS,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{The  mass and forward-backward 
asymmetry of Drell-Yan lepton pairs at CDF ~\cite{CDFZp}(including events
with one electron in the forward plug calorimeter) as compared to the 
predictions of the  standard model and
a model with an extra $Z$ boson.}
\label{PRL1.PS}
\end{figure}

The 
effects of target mass could be included using the formalism of 
Georgi and Politzer.  The dynamical higher twist effects was another 
issue.  It was known that some dynamical higher twist effects 
(power corrections) originate from the truncation of the QCD 
calculations to finite orders; i.e. the sum of the missing higher
order QCD corrections adds up to a power series in $1/Q^{2}$. The $x$ 
dependence of the $1/Q^{2}$ and  $1/Q^{4}$ QCD renormalon power corrections was
calculated, but the overall multiplative factors $a_{2}$ and $a_{4}$ 
were not predicted. However, the factors were expected to become
smaller as one goes from LO to NLO to NNLO.
Therefore, if the target-mass and higher order 
QCD terms were included, parton distribution functions extracted from
high $Q^{2}$ data could be evolved backwards and compared to the lower
energy SLAC data.  A comparison of the QCD predictions for $F_{2}$
and $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ (in LO, NLO and 
NNLO) to the data would allow one to extract the magnitude of
higher twist multiplicative factors $a_{2}$ and $a_{4}$.  This work was
done in a series of papers~\cite{largex,BYnnlo} by A. Bodek and Un-Ki 
Yang, a Rochester graduate
student who  completed his thesis on CCFR/NuTeV
and included some of this work in his
PhD thesis~\cite{NuTeV}. 
Figure~\ref{f2nlo} shows the fits in NLO, and the extracted
higher twist coeficients.
Figure~\ref{highx} shows the comparison of QCD in NLO, QCD plus 
target mass, and QCD plus target mass and higher twist to SLAC data
at very high $x$ for $Q^{2}$ = 20 $GeV/C^{2}$. These very high $x$ data
were not included in the fits that extracted the higher twist 
coefficients in NLO. These results~\cite{largex} show that at high $x$, the target
mass corrections must be applied, and that the contribution of
higher twists is much smaller. It appears that NLO QCD PDFs with target 
mass and a small higher twist term describe all of the data up to
$x$=0.9.  The high $x$ PDFs are now constrained by these very high $x$
SLAC data.  We repeated~\cite{BYnnlo} the study in NNLO QCD. Figure~\ref{f2nnlo} 
shows the comparison of the NNLO QCD fits (including target mass) to 
the data. It appears that NNLO QCD (with the addition
of target mass corrections) works very well for all data
above $Q^{2}$ = 1 $GeV/C^{2}$ without the need for any dynamical
higher twist correction. In summary, we expect NNLO QCD  to work very
well, and the need for higher twist corrections in the NLO QCD case 
came mostly from dropping the higher order NNLO terms.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=highx.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Comparison of SLAC $F_{2p}$
 data at high $x$  with the NLO QCD predictions using the modied
MRS(R2), CTEQ4M and the CTEQ toy model at high x and higher $Q^{2}$ $(20 <
Q^{2} < 31 GeV^{2})$. (a) Ratio to pQCD only, (b) ratio to pQCD with TM effects only,
and (c) ratio to pQCD with TM and Renormalon higher twist contributions (the
ratio of empirical to renormalon higher twist is also 
shown)~\cite{largex}.}
\label{highx}
\end{figure}


Note that although the $Q^{2}$ dependence of 
structure functions has been calculated to NNLO in QCD, NNLO PDFs
were not yet available for the calculations.  Figure~\ref{fnnlo} shows 
the small correction factors that were needed to fit the data
in the NLO and NNLO analyses. The ratio of the 
fitted floating factors for NNLO and 
NLO is identified with the  ratio of NNLO to NLO PDFs.
Therefore, this was the first estimate of
NNLO PDFs. Subsequently the work on NNLO PDFs was continued by the 
MRST PDF group (who obtained similar results).  In summary, our conclusions are that QCD NNLO
calculations should work quite well in hadron
colliders, and current PDFs are well understood over a very large
range in $x$ and $Q^{2}$.   This is indeed very good news for the next
generation hadron colliders at Fermilab and CERN.
%
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=fnnlo.eps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ (a) The floating factor $f^{NLO}(x)$ as a function of x extracted from
the NLO analysis with the d-quark modifed MRS(R2) PDFs, (b) The floating
factor$ f^{NNLO}(x)$) extracted with the standard MRS(R2) PDFs. The larger extracted
floating factors for the deuteron than for the proton indicate that the d quark
distribution at high x is underestimated in the standard MRS(R2) PDFs. 
The ratio of the floating factors in NNLO to NLO gives the ratio of 
NNLO to NLO PDFs.~\cite{BYnnlo} }
\label{fnnlo}
\end{figure}
\section{Back to the Future, Neutrino Physics, Phenomenology and the Low Energy 
Frontier at NUMI and Jefferson Lab}
%
Well, we thought we had everything covered, i.e. all we
need to do was QCD calculations in NNLO, and look for physics
beyond the standard model in the next generation of hadron colliders. 
However, the energy frontier in particle physics is currently also at low 
energies. 

Because the neutrino masses are so small, neutrino oscillations,
neutrino mass and neutrino mixing 
can only be investigated with low energy neutrino beams.  Current 
(K2K, SuperK,MiniBoone, MINOS) and 
future (next generation) neutrino  oscillations experiments
(JPARC, NOvA,Grand Sasso) require the understanding of
quasielastic, resonance and the deep inelastic regions for incident neutrino 
energies in the  0.4 to 5 GeV range.   However
perturbative QCD NLO and NNLO calculations are not valid  very low $Q^{2}$.

Therefore, we first embarked on a phenomenological study 
of this energy region using existing neutrino and electron scattering 
data.   For quasielastic scattering, I have 
recently been  working with  Howard Budd (Rochester) and John Arrington (Argonne) 
on improved understanding of elastic vector and axial form 
factors~\cite{BBA}.  We found that the old extractions of the axial form factor of
the nucleon from neutrino data used outdated vector form factors. We 
recently completed a re-analysis of the old neutrino results using
up to date modern vector form factors.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=Fig1Mex.ps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Electron and muon $F_2$ data (SLAC, BCDMS, NMC, H1 94)
used in our~\cite{modeling}  GRV98 $\xi_w$ fit compared to the predictions of the unmodified GRV98
PDFs (LO, dashed line) and the modified GRV98 PDFs 
fits (LO+HT, solid line); [a] for $F_2$ proton, [b] for $F_2$ deuteron,
and [c] for the H1 and NMC proton data at low $x$. }
\label{Fig1Mex}
\end{figure}
%

Most recently, I have continued to work with Yang on the 
modeling~\cite{modeling} of
vector and axial structure functions for resonance and production
and inelastic scattering at low energies. 
In our previous work we managed to finally remove all 
higher twist corrections by using NNLO QCD (plus target mass)
calculations at  higher energy. 

In  contrast,  in the very low energy region we need to
do the reverse (since the NNLO terms just blow up).
Our approach at low
energies is to use $leading$ $order$ QCD PDFs and include
higher twist efforts. Here we model the 
non-perturbative effects with a new scaling variable,
and with effective target-mass and higher twist 
corrections. This approach works well all the way down to $Q^{2}$= 0. 

We have derived
a new scaling variable to effectively  account for both
target-mass effects and higher-twist effects. In addition,
we have applied additional corrections to the PDF which are motivated by 
the Adler Sum rule. The Adler sum rule is a current algebra sum rule 
that is valid at all values of $Q^{2}$, down to $Q^{2}$= 0.
Figures~\ref{Fig1Mex}, ~\ref{Fig2Mex}, and ~\ref{Fig3Mex} show a 
comparison of how these modifications to the standard GRV98 PDFs
describe existing electron scattering data both at very high and
at very low energies.  In addition, from duality arguments, the
modified PDFs also describe electron scattering data in
the resonance region on average.

Although we have had good success in modeling vector structure 
functions at low energies, the axial structure functions at
low energies are not well known.   In addition, the vector
structure functions and $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ in the resonance region (for nuclear 
targets, which are used in neutrino experiments) need to be better measured.

At present, two experimental 
programs at Jefferson Laboratory~\cite{JUPITER} and at 
Fermilab~\cite{MINERvA}) have been
approved for a collaborative effort in measuring vector and axial
form factors and structure functions at low energies (with
both electron and neutrino beams on nuclear targets. 
The experiments will investigate current algebra sum rules, 
QCD sum rules, duality, resonance production and  axial form factors
and structure functions.
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=Fig2Mex.ps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{ Comparisons to proton and
iron data not included in our~\cite{modeling} GRV98 $\xi_w$  fit. 
(a) Comparison of SLAC and JLab 
(electron) $F_{2p}$ data
in the resonance region (or fits to these data)
and the predictions of the GRV98 PDFs with (LO+HT, solid)
and without (LO, dashed) our modifications.
(b)  Comparison of photoproduction
       data on protons  to predictions using
our modified GRV98 PDFs. 
(c)  Comparison of representative CCFR $\nu_\mu$ and $\overline\nu_\mu$
charged-current differential cross sections~\cite{NuTeV}
on iron at 55 GeV and the predictions of the GRV98 PDFs with (LO+HT,
solid) and without (LO, dashed)
      our modifications.  }
\label{Fig2Mex}
\end{figure}
%
The JUPITER (A. Bodek and C. Keppel, spokespersons)  and MINERvA
(K. McFarland and J. Morfin, spokespersons) 
experiments will improve the understanding of neutrino
cross sections at low energies, which is essential
for the next generation neutrino oscillations
experiments at Fermilab, Japan and Europe.
\section{Final comments and outlook for the future}

There is an increasing misapplication of a technique known as ``Blind Analysis''.
None of the physics in the field of nucleon
structure was ever discovered or resolved in a $blind$ analysis. Understanding 
the physics of nucleon structure  $looking$ at all kinds of data, with different beams and
different probes and different final states. Most of the time
the effects that are important have not been thought of (and are not in 
the Monte Carlo). If one uses ``blind analysis'' as a standard when one is looking at new 
data for the first time, the mostly likely outcomes are that new
insights are missed (since not all the data is being looked at), 
or poor limits are obtained (when one was not clever enough to put all
backrounds in the Monte Carlo in advance).
A blind analysis should only be used on very rare occasions 
(e.g. in a fourth generation 
experiment, when one has already done the
experiment several times, has results, and is now running for the last time).
As long as more data is being accumulated (e.g. in Tevatron run II), 
there will always be another independent data set six months later.

There is a bright outlook for 
the future. Spending time on one's physics hobbies can
be very productive. Whatever appears to have
been impossible, can become possible with a new idea.
A complete understanding 
of all the physics processes involved in a measurement
is a must (i.e. we have to understand what we are measuring).
This requires a collaborative effort between experiment 
and theory/phenomenology  (in four dimensions and here on earth).
Both depth and breadth are important,
and high precision is just as 
important as higher energies (especially as higher
energy machines become more and more expensive).
The good news is that
there is a lot of of physics 
to be done using both the accelerators which are currently available,
and accelerators which are currently under construction. New insights
and techniques will surely be introduced in response to the challenges 
posed by new data.

The frontier
in particle physics is open on both ends, 
at low energies and at high energies. 
\begin{figure}%[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\psfig{figure=Fig3Mex.ps,width=3.0in}
\vspace{-1.01cm}
\caption{Comparisons to data on deuterium
which were not included in our~\cite{modeling} GRV98 $\xi_w$ fit. 
(a) Comparison of SLAC and JLab 
(electron) $F_{2d}$ data
in the resonance region 
and the predictions of the GRV98 PDFs with (LO+HT, solid)
and without (LO, dashed) our modifications.
(b)  Comparison of photoproduction
       data on deuterium  to predictions using
our modified GRV98 PDFs (including shadowing corrections). 
(c) The  shadowing corrections that were applied to the PDFs for
predicting the photoproduction cross section on deuterium. }
\label{Fig3Mex}
\end{figure}



Since this is not meant to be a review of the field,
I have only mentioned the topics
in the area of nuclear structure to which
I have personally contributed, and only the names of
the Rochester PhD students with whom I have closely worked
in those specific area. The list is not meant to be complete.
I would also like to thank Rochester Senior Scientists
Howard Budd, Pawel de Barbaro and Willis Sakumoto for their numerous
contributions. 

High energy physics is a  collaborative group effort requiring  
the contributions of
a large number of scientists from many institutions. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank all other  
faculty,  graduate students,  and postdocs from
a large number of institutions who made significant contributions
to this important field.


\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{nuint04}\begin{verbatim}
http://nuint04.lngs.infn.it/
\end{verbatim}
%
\bibitem{Riordan} Michael Riordan (MIT PhD, SLAC E49B), The Hunting of the Quark,
(Simon 
and Schuster) 
AIP Science Writing Award 1988 and AIP Andrew Gemant Award 
2003
%
\bibitem{nobelweb} www2.slac.stanford.edu/ vvc/nobel/1990nobel.html\\
%
\bibitem{BYnnlo}A. Bodek and UK Yang, STUDIES OF HIGHER TWIST AND 
HIGHER ORDER EFFECTS IN NLO AND 
NNLO QCD ANALYSIS . Eur. Phys. J. C13 (2000) 241.\\
%
\bibitem{BodekPRL} A. Bodek (MIT PhD, SLAC E49B){\em et al.}, COMPARISONS OF DEEP 
INELASTIC ep AND en CROSS-SECTIONS  Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1087 (1973)\\
%
\bibitem{BodekPL} A. Bodek {\em et al.},THE RATIO OF DEEP - INELASTIC 
en TO ep CROSS-SECTIONS IN THE THRESHOLD REGION   Phys. Lett B51, 417 
(1973)\\
%
\bibitem{RPRL} E. M.  Riordan (MIT PhD. E49B) {\em et al.} EXTRACTION OF $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$
FROM DEEP INELASTIC eP AND eD CROSS-SECTIONS Phys. Rev.Lett.33, 
561 (1974)\\
%
\bibitem{scaling} E. M.  Riordan, A. Bodek, {\em et al.} TESTS OF SCALING OF THE PROTON ELECTROMAGNETIC 
STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS Phys.Lett.B52:249,1974 \\

\bibitem{BodekPRD}  A. Bodek {\em et al.},EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF 
THE NEUTRON AND PROTON ELECTROMAGNETIC STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS Phys Rev. D20, 
1471(1979)\\
%

\bibitem{calibration}(a)  W.K. Sakumoto, et al. (CCFR)
 CALIBRATION OF THE CCFR TARGET CALORIMETER.Nucl.Instrum.Meth.
A294:179-192,1990;
\\
(b)   D. Harris , J. Yu et al (NuTeV) PRECISION CALIBRATION
 OF THE NUTEV CALORIMETER. UR-1561    Nucl. Inst. Meth. A447
 (2000) \\
\bibitem{dimuons} Strange Sea (a) 
Karol Lang, (Rochester PhD, CCFR)  AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DIMUONS  
 PRODUCED IN HIGH-ENERGY NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS. PhD Thesis, University
 of Rochester UR-908 (1985)\ \
 (b) K. Lang , et al. NEUTRINO PRODUCTION OF DIMUONS.
  Z.Phys.C33:483,1987 \\
(c) S.A. Rabinowitz (Columbia PhD, CCFR) et al.  
MEASUREMENT OF THE STRANGE SEA DISTRIBUTION USING NEUTRINO CHARM PRODUCTION.
Phys.Rev.Lett.70:134-137,1993\\
(d) A.O. Bazarko (Columbia PhD, CCFR)  et al
DETERMINATION OF THE STRANGE QUARK CONTENT OF THE NUCLEON FROM A NEXT-TO-LEAD
ING ORDER QCD ANALYSIS OF NEUTRINO CHARM PRODUCTION, 
Z.Phys.C65:189-198,1995 
\\
(e) M. Goncharov (Kansas State PhD, NuTeV) et al. PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF DIMUON PRODUCTION CROSS-SECTIONS
IN MUON NEUTRINO FE AND MUON ANTI-NEUTRINO FE DEEP INELASTIC SCATTERING AT THE TEVATRON.
 Phys.Rev.D64:112006,2001 hep-ex/0102049 \\
%
 \bibitem{alphas} W.G. Seligman (Columbia PhD, CCFR) et al., IMPROVED DETERMINATION 
OF $\alpha_{S}$ 
 FROM NEUTRINO NUCLEON SCATTERING.  Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 1213 (1997)\\ 
 %
 \bibitem{GLS} H. Kim (CCFR Columbia PhD)  D.Harris  et. al. MEASUREMENT
 OF $\alpha_{S}$(Q2) FROM THE GROSS- LLEWELLYN SMITH SUM RULE.   Phys. Rev. Lett. 
 81, 3595 (1998)\\
 %
 \bibitem{NuTeV} (a)By Un-Ki Yang ( Rochester PhD, CCFR) 
A MEASUREMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL CROSS-SECTIONS IN
CHARGED CURRENT NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS ON IRON AND A GLOBAL STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS ANALYSIS. 
, FERMILAB-THESIS-2001-09, URA award for best Fermilab Thesis 2001.\\ 
 (b) Un-Ki Yang ( CCFR Rochester PhD) et al.  MEASUREMENTS OF F2 AND XF3  
 FROM CCFR n-FE DATA IN A PHYSICS MODEL
 INDEPENDENT WAY.  Phys.Rev.Lett.86, 2742,2001\\ 
%
\bibitem{E595} (a) Jack L. Ritchie (Rochester PhD, FNAL E595), HADRONIC CHARM PRODUCTION BY PROTONS AND PIONS ON IRON,
 PhD Thesis, University of Rochester UR-861 (1983)
 (winner of the Dexter Prize for Best PhD Thesis, U of R, 1988)\\
(b) J.L. Ritchie,  et al.  FORWARD PRODUCTION OF CHARM STATES AND PROMPT 
SINGLE MUONS IN 350-GEV P FE INTERACTIONS. Phys.Lett.B126:499,1983  \\ 
 (c) BJ.L. Ritchie,  et. al. FORWARD PRODUCTION OF CHARM STATES AND 
 PROMPT SINGLE MUONS IN 278-GEV PI- FE INTERACTIONS.
 Phys.Lett.B138:213,1984
\\
(d)  A. Bodek, et al. A STUDY OF THE FORWARD PRODUCTION OF CHARM PARTICLE PAIRS IN P FE AND PI- FE INTERACTIONS.
Phys.Lett.B113:77,1982 \\
\bibitem{Fermi} (a) A. Bodek, J.L. Ritchie et al.
FERMI MOTION EFFECTS IN DEEP INELASTIC LEPTON SCATTERING FROM NUCLEAR TARGETS.
 UR-759, COO-3065-280, Aug 1980. Phys.Rev.D23:1070,1981 \\
(b) By A. Bodek, J.L. Ritchie, FURTHER STUDIES OF FERMI MOTION EFFECTS 
IN LEPTON SCATTERING FROM NUCLEAR TARGETS.
 UR-772, COO-3065-292, Jan 1981.  Phys.Rev.D24:1400,1981 \\
%
 \bibitem{empty}Arie Bodek, EMPTY TARGET SUBTRACTIONS AND RADIATIVE CORRECTIONS IN
 ELECTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS, Nucl. Inst. Meth. 109 (1973).\\
% 
 \bibitem{ironD} A. Bodek et al. ELECTRON SCATTERING FROM NUCLEAR TARGETS AND QUARK DISTRIBUTIONS
 IN NUCLEI.  Phys.Rev.Lett.50:1431,1983.. - Used Steel Empty Target Data 
 from SLAC Experiment E87 (1972)\\
%  
 \bibitem{AlD} A. Bodek et al. A COMPARISON OF THE DEEP INELASTIC  STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS OF DEUTERIUM AND ALUMINUM NUCLEI.
AB et al Phys.Rev.Lett.51:534,1983. - Used Aluminum empty target data
       from  SLAC experimenet  E49B)\\
 %      
    \bibitem{E139} (a)  R .G. Arnold et al., 
      MEASUREMENTS OF THE A-DEPENDENCE OF  DEEP 
      INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING FROM NUCLEI    Phys. Rev. Lett.52:727,1984; 
(initial ratios too high by 1 percent since two photon external radiative corrections 
for thick targets not initially accounted for. Found out later in SLAC 
E140) correction in J. Gomez et al.
\\
(b) J. Gomez (American University PhD, E139)  et al., MEASUREMENT OF THE A-DEPENDENCE OF DEEP INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING. 
Phys.Rev.D49:4348-4372,1994. \\
%
\bibitem{E140} (a) Sridhara Rao Dasu, (Rochester PhD. SLAC E140)
PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF X, Q2 AND 
A-DEPENDENCE OF $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ AND F2 IN DEEP   INELASTIC 
SCATTERING. UR-1059 (Apr 1988) . Ph.D. Thesis,
winner of the Dexter Prize for Best PhD Thesis, U of Rochester, 1988).
\\(b)
S. Dasu et al., MEASUREMENT OF THE
  DIFFERENCE IN $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$, and $\sigma_A$/$\sigma_D$ IN DEEP INELASTIC 
 ed, eFE AND eAu SCATTERING.  Phys.Rev.Lett.60:2591,1988; \\
(c) S. Dasu et al., PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ 
AND F2 IN  DEEP INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING.    
Phys.Rev.Lett.61:1061,1988;\\ 
(d) S. Dasu et al., MEASUREMENT OF KINEMATIC AND NUCLEAR DEPENDENCE OF
$R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ IN DEEP INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING. 
Phys.Rev.D49:5641-5670,1994.\\ 
(f) L.H. Tao (American U PhD, SLAC E140X) et al.,
PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ ON HYDROGEN,
DEUTERIUM AND BERYLLIUM TARGETS IN  DEEP INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING.  
Z.Phys.C70:387,1996 ;\\ 
(g) L.W. Whitlow (Stanford PhD, SLAC E140), et al. ,
A PRECISE EXTRACTION OF $R=\sigma_L$/$\sigma_T$ FROM A
GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF THE SLAC DEEP INELASTIC ep AND ed 
SCATTERING CROSS-SECTIONS. Phys.Lett.B250:193-198,1990. \\
(h) 
L.W. Whitlow (Stanford PhD, SLAC E140), et. al., PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROTON 
AND DEUTERON  STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS FROM A GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF 
THE SLAC DEEP INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING CROSS-SECTIONS. 
Phys.Lett.B282:475-482,1992.\\
 %
\bibitem{constraints}Arie Bodek, CONSTRAINTS ON PDFS FROM W AND Z RAPIDITY DIST. AT CDF.
   Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 79 (1999) 136-138. In *Zeuthen 1999,
Deep inelastic scattering and QCD* 136-138.\\
%
\bibitem{CDFWasym} (a) Mark Dickson (Rochester PhD,CDF) THE CHARGE ASYMMETRY IN W BOSON DECAYS PRODUCED 
IN P ANTI-P COLLISIONS. (1994)   
Ph.D.Thesis Univ of Rochester.\\
(b) F. Abe et al..M. Dickson et al.(CDF) THE CHARGE ASYMMETRY 
IN W BOSON DECAYS PRODUCED IN P ANTI-P COLLISIONS AT  1.8-TEV..
 Phys.Rev.Lett.74:850-854,1995 ,  hep-ex/9501008 \\
 %(now at MIT Lincoln Labs) (b) 
(c) Qun Fan (Rochester PhD CDF) , A MEASUREMENT OF THE CHARGE ASYMMETRY IN W  DECAYS PRODUCED IN P ANTI-P COLLISIONS.
Ph.D.Thesis (Rochester 1996, CDF)\\
%(now at KLA-Tenor)
(d)  F. Abe et al..Q. Fan et al.(CDF)  A MEASUREMENT OF THE LEPTON CHARGE ASYMMETRY IN W BOSON DECAYS PRODUCED IN P ANTI-P COLLISIONS.
By CDF Collaboration   Phys.Rev.Lett.81:5754-5759,1998  
hep-ex/9809001\\ 
%
\bibitem{BodekWasym} A. Bodek, Q. Fan , M. Lancaster,  K.S. McFarland, Un-Ki Yang  IMPLICATION OF W BOSON CHARGE ASYMMETRY MEASUREMENTS IN P ANTI-P COLLISIONS TO MODELS FOR CHARGE SYMMETRY VIOLATIONS IN PARTON DISTRIBUTIONS.
UR-1657, Apr 1999.  Phys.Rev.Lett.83:2892-2895,1999 hep-ex/9904022 \\
%
\bibitem{trick} Arie Bodek and Qun Fan,  A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR DETERMINING 
CHARGE AND MOMENTUM OF ELECTRONS AND POSITRONS USING CALORIMETRY AND SILICON 
TRACKING. n In *Frascati 1996, Calorimetry in HEP*553- 
560 \\
%
\bibitem{CDFDY} (a) Jinbo Liu (Rochester PhD, CDF)  Measurement of 
d$\sigma$ /dy 
for Drell-Yan e+e Pairs in the Z Boson Region Produced in
Proton Anti-proton Collisions at 1.8 TeV. UR-1606, 2000 -  Ph.D. Thesis 
(U. Rochester 2000). \\
%(now at Lucent Technologies) 
(b) T. Affolde.. J.Liu  et al. (CDF), MEASUREMENT OF
d$\sigma$ / dy FOR HIGH MASS DRELL-YAN e+ e- PAIRS FROM
P ANTI-P COLLISIONS AT  1.8-TEV. Phys.Rev.D63:011101,2001.\\
%
\bibitem{CDFZp} (a) Arie Bodek and Ulrich Baur  
IMPLICATIONS OF A 300-GEV/C TO 500-GEV/C Z-PRIME BOSO
ON P ANTIP COLLIDER DATA AT  1.8-TEV. Eur.Phys.J.C21:607-611,2001.\\
%
\bibitem{CDFZp1}(b) T. Affolder et al.(CDF) Measurement of d$\sigma$ / dM and forward
backward charge asymmetry for high mass Drell-Yan e+ e- pairs
from p anti-p collisions at  1.8-TeV. Phys.Rev.Lett.87:131802,2001 \\
(c) 
Manoj Kumar Pillai (Rochester PhD, CDF) , A SEARCH FOR NEW GAUGE BOSONS 
IN ANTI-P P COLLISIONS AT 1.8-TEV at CDF (1996). Ph.D.Thesis 
(Univ of Rochester,1996) \\
(d) 
Abe et al..M Pillai et al. (CDF) LIMITS ON QUARK - LEPTON COMPOSITENESS
SCALES FROM DILEPTONS PRODUCED IN 1.8-TEV P ANTI-P COLLISIONS.
Phys.Rev.Lett.79:2198-2203,1997.\\ 
(e) 
Abe et al. (CDF), MEASUREMENT OF Z0 AND DRELL-YAN  PRODUCTION 
CROSS-SECTION USING DIMUONS IN ANTI-P P    COLLISIONS AT 1.8-TEV. 
Phys.Rev.D59:052002,1999\\
(f)
Abe et al.(CDF) SEARCH FOR NEW GAUGE BOSONS DECAYING INTO DILEPTONS 
IN ANTI-P P COLLISIONS AT  1.8-TEV.     
Phys.Rev.Lett.79:2192-2197,1997\\
%
\bibitem{largex} Arie Bodek,  UK Yang, PARTON DISTRIBUTIONS, d/u, AND HIGHER TWIST EFFECTS AT HIGH X. 
 Phys.Rev.Lett.82:2467-2470,1999 .\\
%form factors
\bibitem{BBA} H. Budd, A. Bodek, J. Arrington.  
MODELING QUASIELASTIC FORM-FACTORS FOR ELECTRON AND NEUTRINO SCATTERING.  
Presented at 2nd International Workshop on Neutrino - Nucleus
Interactions in the Few GeV Region (NUINT 02), Irvine, California, 12-15 Dec 2002. 
 hep-ex/0308005\\
 %   
\bibitem{modeling} (a)  A. Bodek , U.K. Yang, MODELING DEEP INELASTIC CROSS-SECTIONS IN THE FEW GEV REGION. 
  Presented at 1st Workshop on 
  Neutrino - Nucleus Interactions in the Few GeV Region (NuInt01),
  Tsukuba, Japan, 13-16 Dec 2001. Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.112:70-76,2002 e: 
  hep-ex/0203009\\ 
(b)  A. Bodek , U.K. Yang, HIGHER TWIST,$\xi_w$ SCALING, 
AND EFFECTIVE LO PDFS FOR LEPTON SCATTERING IN THE FEW 
GEV REGION. Proceedings of 4th Internationa
NuFact '02 Workshop (Neutrino Factories Workshop on Neutrino Factories, 
London, England, 1-6 Jul 2002.  J.Phys.G29:1899-1906,2003 
\\
(c) A. Bodek , U.K. Yang
MODELING NEUTRINO AND ELECTRON SCATTERING INELASTIC CROSS- SECTIONS 
IN THE FEW GEV REGION WITH EFFECTIVE LO PDFS IN LEADING ORDER.  2nd International Workshop on Neutrino - Nucleus Interactions in
the Few GeV Region (NUINT 02), Irvine, California, 12-15 Dec 2002.
Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. hep-ex/0308007 \\
A. Bodek and U.K. Yang - NUINT04 (These proceedings)
%Minerva proposal
\bibitem{MINERvA} Minerva Collaboration, Proposal for Neutrino
Fermilab Experiment E938, hep-ex[0405002], Kevin McFarland 
(Rochester), Jorge Morfin (FNAL), spokespersons.\\
%
\bibitem{JUPITER}JUPITER  Electron Scattering
Experiment, E04-001 at Jefferson Lab, Arie 
Bode (Rochester) and Cynthia Keppel (Hampton/Jefferson Lab) 
spokespersons.$http://www.pas.rochester.edu/$ 
$~bodek/jlab/JUPITER.html$
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}


