Breaking of ##SU(2) \times SU(2)## to ##SU(2)##

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the breaking of the ##SU(2) \times SU(2)## symmetry in the G(221) model, specifically how to assign fermions to the respective representations. The light-generation fermions are assigned to ##SU_l(2)## and the third generation to ##SU_h(2)##. A bi-doublet ##\Sigma## is introduced to facilitate symmetry breaking, with gauge bosons ##W_l## and ##W_h## belonging to the representations ##(\textbf{3},\textbf{1})## and ##(\textbf{1},\textbf{3})##, respectively. The Lagrangian presented includes kinetic, interaction, gauge, and scalar terms, highlighting the need for a Higgs doublet to break the final symmetry group ##SU_{h+l}(2) \times U_Y(1)##.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gauge theories and symmetry breaking
  • Familiarity with the G(221) model and its representations
  • Knowledge of Lagrangian formulation in particle physics
  • Experience with Higgs mechanisms and fermion mass generation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of bi-doublets in symmetry breaking, particularly in G(221)
  • Research the role of Higgs doublets in mass generation for fermions
  • Examine the construction of Lagrangians for models with multiple SU(2) groups
  • Learn about higher-dimensional operators in effective field theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in particle physics, gauge theories, and model building within the context of the G(221) framework.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I am trying to write down the above model (also known as G(221) )...
So as a first step I am trying to put the particles in their respective representations.
I say that the light-generation fermions belong to the one SU(2) , also written as ##SU_l (2)##, and the third generation fermions belong to the other ##SU_h(2)##. Thus the first transform in ##(\textbf{2},\textbf{1})## of the model, and the last in ##(\textbf{1},\textbf{2})##.
I also need a bi-doublet ##\Sigma## to break the symmetry which will belong in the ##(\textbf{2},\textbf{2})##, and I will have the gauge bosons ##W_l## and ##W_h## that will belong in ##(\textbf{3},\textbf{1})## and ##(\textbf{1},\textbf{3})## respectively.

Question 1:
Wouldn't a##(\textbf{3},\textbf{3})## field be possible?

Question 2:
I tried to write down the Lagrangian that will be invariant under this group. I know it looks bad but here is what I ended up with:
\begin{align*}

\mathcal{L}_{kin}&= i\bar{\psi}_l \partial_\mu \gamma^\mu \psi_l +i \bar{\psi}_h \partial_\mu \gamma^\mu \psi_h \\

\mathcal{L}_{int}&= g_l W_\mu^l\bar{\psi}_l \gamma^\mu \psi_l + g_h W_\mu^h \bar{\psi}_h \gamma^\mu \psi_h \\&+ Y_{lh} \bar{\psi}_l \Sigma \psi_h\\&- \Big(g_l^2 W_\mu^l W^{\mu l} + 2g_l g_h W_\mu^l W^{\mu h} +g_h^2 W_\mu^h W^{\mu h} \Big) \Sigma^\dagger \Sigma\\&-i (g_l W_\mu^l + g_h W_\mu^h) ( \Sigma^\dagger \partial^\mu \Sigma + \Sigma \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger)\\

\mathcal{L}_{gauge}&= - \frac{1}{4} W_{\mu \nu}^l W^{\mu \nu l}- \frac{1}{4} W_{\mu \nu}^h W^{\mu \nu h} \\

\mathcal{L}_{scalar}&= \partial_\mu \Sigma^\dagger \partial^\mu \Sigma - \mu_{h}^2 \Sigma^\dagger \Sigma + \lambda_h |\Sigma^\dagger \Sigma|^2
\end{align*}

In literature I read that one also needs to add a Higgs doublet that belongs to the ##(\textbf{2},\textbf{1})## so that it will break the final SM group ##SU_{h+l}(2) \times U_Y(1)##. However I don't understand how one can add just 1 Higgs doublet and not a second one (that will belong to ##(\textbf{1},\textbf{2})## rep). Adding just the recommended Higgs Doublet, I will have to couple it only to the light generation of fermions (and I think at the end the heavy generation won't get masses in the final stage):
as I understand it the reccommendation asks to add (among others): Y \bar{\psi}_l H \psi_l
vs
I think i should write something like: Y_1 \bar{\psi}_l H_1 \psi_l +Y_2 \bar{\psi}_h H_2 \psi_h

Any idea what I'm thinking is wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
maybe I could try a \Sigma^\dagger \Sigma \bar{\psi}_h \psi_h
but if that's true, I don't see why I cannot use the same for the lights:\Sigma^\dagger \Sigma \bar{\psi}_l \psi_l ...in fact I think this is a higher dimension operator (it's not there in the SM lagrangian either).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K