Parity of a Particle (and Parity of the Higgs in particular)

In summary, the Parity of a particle is a property that is not subject to randomness, but depends on its transformation properties. The Higgs particle has intrinsic parity +1.
  • #1
the_pulp
207
9
Im quite confused with the Parity idea. I never payed much attention to it. My thought always was that Parity is related to a discrete symetry of space and it is something that can be measured and can give 1 or -1 (like the x-momentum of a particle that can give "2" "1,9" "1,8" and so on).

Nevertheless reading about the Higgs particle I saw that the Higgs Parity is "+1". My concern is that it is written as if the Parity is not something that can give "+1" or "-1" depending on randomness (the operator-eigenvalue idea) but it is just a parameter (like mass or electric charge that it is not subject to randomness).

I think that it is related to the idea that weak interactions apply to left handed particles only but I am not sure and I would like if anyone can give me an explanation of it.

I have a more or less general knowledge about SM and the math behind it. I've never actually done the math but I saw it in Peskin and such and I think I sort of followed it (I don't know, perhaps a 50%-80% of it).

Thanks for every Math or non Math explanations you can give me. Both will be very helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
parity is a discrete symmetry. it is defined as taking x[itex]\rightarrow[/itex]-x,y[itex]\rightarrow[/itex]-y,z[itex]\rightarrow[/itex]-z

However the result of applying parity is not random; it depends on its transformation properties under parity. It is a property of the object.

for example the position vector [itex]\vec{r}\rightarrow-\vec{r}[/itex] is a vector
the momentum vector also. (parity -1)
Angular momentum [itex]\vec{L}=\vec{r}\times\vec{p}[/itex] is a pseudo-vector [itex]\vec{L}\rightarrow\vec{L}[/itex] (parity +1 doesn't change sign under parity)

A scalar particle like the higgs can be either a scalar which has a parity value of +1 or a pseudo-scalar which has a value of -1 (other theories, such as susy, predict also pseudo-scalar higgs particles)

The difference from momentum is that momemtun can be changed by a lorentz transformation and thus not considered to be a property of a particle, While parity can't be.

This has nothing to do with the parity violation due to the weak interaction.

In particles physics one usually talks about the combined discrete symmetry CP, since P is not such as good symmetry (because of the weak inetraction) and CP is better( though not exact also)
 
  • #3
Ok, thanks, I almost followed you. Nevertheless, in the first part you talk about operators that change or does not change after Parity (ie commutes with parity I imagine). However in the second part you say that "the particle" does not change with parity. What is that does not change with parity (ie commutes with parity I imagine again)? the [itex]\phi[/itex] operator perhaps (wether it refers to the scalar or vector version of the particle)?

Thanks
 
  • #4
First,

You need to separate between the operator and the vector space it acts on.

In general any vector (in any vector space) which is an eigenstate of parity has eigenvalue 1 or -1 (position, momentum, scalar partice, pseudo-scalar particle)

comutation is defined between two operrators, not an operator and and a vector.


Second,

If by saying that "the particle" does not change with parity you mean this

The difference from momentum is that momemtun can be changed by a lorentz transformation and thus not considered to be a property of a particle, While parity can't be

I mean that a lorentz transformation will never change a scalar to a pseudo-scalar. Unlike momentum, which has a different value for every reference frame, a scalar (P=+1) will be a scalar in all reference frame.


-This is not true for a reperesenation of lorentz. In general, lorentz transformation don't commute with parity
 
  • #5
Ok, let me think about it and perhaps I'll ask a bit more later. Any other thought is very welcomed.

Thanks
 
  • #6
Parity tells us whether a quantity changes sign under a space reflection. It is used in three senses:

1) The parity of a variable, such as r, p, L, as ofirg illustrated.

2) The parity of a wavefunction. The wavefunction for an atomic state can have different parity. States with an orbital angular momentum that is even, L = 0, 2, 4... have parity +1. States with odd orbital angular momentum have parity -1.

3) The parity of a particle. This is also called the particle's intrinsic parity, and is the same regardless of what state the particle is in. The Higgs particle in the Standard Model has intrinsic parity +1. The data analysis at the LHC is trying to confirm that the particle they see at 125 GeV does have spin 0 and parity +1.
 
  • #7
The Higgs particle in the Standard Model has intrinsic parity +1.

This may sound like a silly, trivial question... but why? How does one see that the parity of the SM Higgs is +1?

On a sidenote, the SM Higgs charge conjugation number is also said to be +1. Again, how does one extract this from the theory?

Thank you in advance for your attention.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
How does one see that the parity of the SM Higgs is +1?

Basically, One looks at the theory and "reads out" the value from the requirement the parity is a symmetry(and thus conserved). Since in the standard model parity isn't a good symmetry, one usually talks about CP (the product of parity and charge conjugation). The higgs has to be assigned a value of CP=1 (scalar) for CP to be a good symmetry (although still not exact)

It is important to note that the existence of the symmetry doesn't depend if we actually do the assignment in our heads. It just tells us what the meaningful value is.


What is your background in the field? Are you familiar with the lagrangian formulation of the standard model ( or QFT in general?). This can be deduced from the terms in the SM lagrangian.
 
  • #9
I'm pretty familiar with the lagrangian formulation of qft And of sm in particular, but i can't see how i can deduce that CP=1, so anything you can say would be helpful.
 
  • #10
Two examples:

in the SM (after the higgs gets a vacuum expectation value) higgs potential there are cubic terms in the higgs field. Obviously this isn't possible for CP=-1, since the term would have a total [itex]cp^{3}=-1[/itex].

The higgs yukawa coupling to fermions (after diagonalization, where the CP violating phase appears in the CKM matrix) doesn't include [itex]\gamma_{5}[/itex] matrix in the interaction term which makes the fermion bilinear odd under parity. If the higgs where a pseudoscalar the
[itex]\gamma_{5}[/itex] factor would be present in the interaction.

Hope that helps.
 
  • #11
ofirg said:
Basically, One looks at the theory and "reads out" the value from the requirement the parity is a symmetry(and thus conserved). Since in the standard model parity isn't a good symmetry, one usually talks about CP (the product of parity and charge conjugation). The higgs has to be assigned a value of CP=1 (scalar) for CP to be a good symmetry (although still not exact)

So, if I understood it correctly, one imposes CP invariance in the Standard Model lagrangian. The cubic term ([itex]H^3[/itex] after SSB) is a clear way of noticing that the desired CP invariance is only attained if the Higgs field itself is also CP invariant.
ofirg said:
What is your background in the field? Are you familiar with the lagrangian formulation of the standard model ( or QFT in general?).

As the_pulp, I am also familiar with the lagrangian formalism in QFT.
ofirg said:
The higgs yukawa coupling to fermions (after diagonalization, where the CP violating phase appears in the CKM matrix) doesn't include [itex]\gamma_{5}[/itex] matrix in the interaction term which makes the fermion bilinear odd under parity. If the higgs where a pseudoscalar the
[itex]\gamma_{5}[/itex] factor would be present in the interaction.

This was actually my first reasoning, which only made sense in light of the CP invariance requirement (of which I wasn't sure).


Also, if one has established CP=+1, then, if the particle is additionally an eigenstate of both C and P, one should have either C=P=-1 or C=P=+1 (the latter corresponds in the literature to the assigment for the SM Higgs).

Firstly, how can one be sure that a particle, such as the Higgs, is an eigenstate of C or P?
Finally, if it is shown to have a well defined value of P and C, I would suppose that, in order to confirm the assignment C=P=+1, one would again look at the lagrangian. But since, as you stated, parity isn't a good symmetry in the SM, we cannot (as we could before) rule out P=-1 by looking at the cubic term or the yukawa coupings, for example.


Thank you for your previous answers, they were indeed very helpful.
 
  • #12
So, if I understood it correctly, one imposes CP invariance in the Standard Model lagrangian

No. CP is an approximate accidental symmetry of the Standard model (SM) lagrangian.

After requiring the symmetries which are part of the SM definition (gauge symmetries and lorentz) one can look at the lagrangian and identify other symmetries which were not imposed.

When one does that you get that there is an approximate CP symmetry with the assignment CP=1 for the higgs. The symmetry exists with this useful assignment because of the form of the lagrangian, and not because of how the particle was defined. It is, however, useful to identify it with the particle.

The same is true for any accidental symmetry. You don't define the electron,muon,tau to have lepton number=1 before writing the lagranagian, later you see that the symmetry exists with those assignments.

The same is true for C=1 and P=1 ( for the higgs) but these symmetries are useful only when the weak interaction is not involved.
 
  • #13
ofirg said:
No. CP is an approximate accidental symmetry of the Standard model (SM) lagrangian.
Oh, ok, my mistake.
ofirg said:
The same is true for any accidental symmetry. You don't define the electron,muon,tau to have lepton number=1 before writing the lagranagian, later you see that the symmetry exists with those assignments.
But still, isn't the accidental lepton number symmetry a little different? Consider the charged current term in the lagrangian: [itex]\mathcal{L}_e^{\textrm{CC}} \propto \overline{\nu_e}\,\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,e\,W_\mu[/itex].

Suppose we assign lepton number to the fields like so: [itex]\quad \overline{\nu_e}\rightarrow -1 \qquad e \rightarrow 1 \qquad W^\mu \rightarrow 0[/itex]
Then, looking at the term [itex]\mathcal{L}_e^{\textrm{CC}}[/itex], considering lepton number additive, we get [itex]-1+1+0=0[/itex] and this means the interaction associated with this term conserves lepton number. Lepton number is assigned to the fields and not to the whole term.

Consider the Higgs interaction term with the electron, if the Higgs were a pseudoscalar: [itex]\mathcal{L}_e^{\textrm{H}} \propto \overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e\,H[/itex].
Here, again, one assigns lepton number to the fields: [itex]\quad \overline{e}\rightarrow -1 \qquad e \rightarrow 1 \qquad H \rightarrow 0[/itex]
The interaction again conserves lepton number. Lepton number is assigned to the fields and not to the bilinear [itex]\overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e[/itex] as a whole.

Now, regarding CP, it would be different in the sense that [itex]\overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e[/itex] (a bilinear, not a field) already has a well defined way of transforming under CP:
[itex]\overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e\, \overset{CP}{\rightarrow}\, -\overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e\ [/itex], because [itex]\det(CP)=-1[/itex].

Assigning a CP number to the field [itex]H[/itex] would then translate our desire to either have a (almost) CP invariant lagrangian or not. So I can't see here how the symmetry exists independently of the assignment, since [itex]\overline{e}\,\gamma_5\,e[/itex] already has a fixed assignment of CP-number ([itex]-1[/itex]).

I hope the mistake in my reasoning is easy to spot.
 
  • #14
But still, isn't the accidental lepton number symmetry a little different?

The difference is that parity is a spacetime symmetry and not an internal symmetry. Therefore spacetime objects transfrom under it in a known way, while they are invariant under lepton number symmetry.

Lepton number is assigned to the fields and not to the bilinear [itex]e^{-}\gamma_{5}e[/itex] as a whole

It is entirely possible to tranform a single spinor field under parity. When one does that, one sees that the tranformation includes a factor which is assigned to the fermion (see peskin page 65)
The difference from lepton number is that a single spinor isn't an eigenstate of parity or CP (only the bilinear is) so that the tranformation mixes different component and isn't simply a multiplicative factor as in lepton number.
The other reason why one mainly cares about the transformation of fermion bilinears is that fermions always appear in the lagrangian ( and in observables) in pairs.

it would be different in the sense that [itex]e^{-}\gamma_{5}e[/itex] (a bilinear, not a field) already has a well defined way of transforming under CP:

It just happens that the bilinear tranformation doesn't depend on the value assigned mentioned above.

Assigning a CP number to the field H would then translate our desire to either have a (almost) CP invariant lagrangian or not

The main thing to understand here is that the lagrangian determines all the dynamics, including conservation laws. This dynamics of course doesn't depend on any arbitrary assignment we make. It is simply useful to assign numbers such that the lagrnagian is invariant ( if possible) and thus these numbers are conserved.

for example, I could define a transformation and call it CP under which [itex]H\rightarrow-H[/itex] but then it woudn't be conserved. The conservation of CP with CP=1 for H would still of course happen.

Any transformation I can define under which my lagrangain is invariant, would be useful. However if I were to identify it with parity it needs satisfy the basic group mutiplication of parity. for example [itex]P^{2}=1[/itex]. Both assignments for the higgs would satisfy this.
 
  • #15
I think I got it. I'll go and read Peskin & Schröder to see if I missed anything.
Thank you very much.
 

1. What is the concept of parity in particle physics?

The concept of parity in particle physics refers to the symmetry of a system under spatial inversion, or the reversal of all spatial coordinates. In other words, if we were to look at a system through a mirror, the system would appear identical to the original. Parity is a fundamental property of particles and can have important implications for their interactions.

2. What is the parity of a particle?

The parity of a particle is a quantum number that describes its behavior under spatial inversion. It can have two possible values: positive (+) or negative (-). A particle with positive parity will behave the same way as its mirror image, while a particle with negative parity will behave differently from its mirror image.

3. How is parity determined experimentally?

Parity can be determined experimentally by observing the behavior of particles in certain interactions. For example, in a weak interaction, particles with negative parity will behave differently from particles with positive parity. By studying these interactions, scientists can determine the parity of a particle.

4. What is the significance of the parity of the Higgs boson?

The Higgs boson, also known as the "God particle," is the final piece of the Standard Model of particle physics. Its discovery in 2012 confirmed the existence of the Higgs field, which gives particles their mass. The Higgs boson is unique in that it has a parity of +1, making it the only known elementary particle with positive parity. This has important implications for our understanding of the universe and the fundamental forces that govern it.

5. Can the parity of a particle change?

Yes, the parity of a particle can change under certain conditions. In some interactions, a particle may emit or absorb a virtual particle, causing its parity to change. This is known as a parity-violating interaction. Additionally, in certain physical situations, such as extremely high energies or temperatures, the concept of parity may not apply at all. This is an area of ongoing research in the field of particle physics.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
970
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
5K
Back
Top