Are monopoles a problem for all gauge groups in GUT theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter emanaly
  • Start date Start date
emanaly
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Hi All
I have some questions about monopoles, I would be grateful if someone help me in answering them.
1-Does all GUTs gauge groups simple and semi simple suffer from the monopoles problem?
2- If semi simple groups suffer from the above problem why standard Model doesn't produce monoples although there will be U(1) electromagnetic group when spontanous breaking happens?
Eman
 
Physics news on Phys.org
emanaly said:
Hi All
I have some questions about monopoles, I would be grateful if someone help me in answering them.
1-Does all GUTs gauge groups simple and semi simple suffer from the monopoles problem?

many of them do.

2- If semi simple groups suffer from the above problem why standard Model doesn't produce monoples although there will be U(1) electromagnetic group when spontanous breaking happens?
Eman

It does! Well, EWSB won't since there's a U(1) hypercharge, but for example, SU(5) GUT theories should produce monopoles. In fact, this was the original motivation for inflation - to push them all out of causal contact with us.
 
It should be that nonperturbative physics in many gauge theories already include these objects, for instance in various supersymmetric field theories and others. So they are far from just being a signature of GUT physics perse.
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top