Charge in a Lie Group.... is it always a projection?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between electric charges and projections of roots in the context of Lie group representations. Participants explore whether this relationship holds universally across different representations of Lie algebras, particularly in relation to gauge symmetries and symmetry breaking. The conversation includes technical aspects of mathematical modeling and computational approaches to identify possible charge projections.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if there is an equivalence between electric charges and projections of roots in Lie group representations, referencing the standard model's charge composition.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the resulting charge from symmetry breaking depends on the specific linear combination of gauge fields associated with the U(1) symmetry.
  • There is a discussion about whether any linear combination of gauge fields can be considered a projection vector in the root space of the original representation.
  • A participant shares code aimed at exploring projections from the 27-dimensional representation of E6, setting conditions for neutrinos and quark multiplicities.
  • Subsequent posts reveal potential bugs in the code and additional findings of different multiplicities, highlighting the complexity of the projections and their implications for particle physics.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the correctness and exhaustiveness of the computational approach used to identify projections and branching rules.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the relationship between charges and projections is a general fact applicable to all representations. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the nature of these projections and the implications of symmetry breaking.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their approaches, including unresolved mathematical steps and the need for clarity on the branching rules associated with the projections. There is also a recognition that the existence of certain particle characteristics, such as SU(3) color, cannot be guaranteed based solely on the multiplicities found.

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
188
Given a representation of a Lie Group, is there a equivalence between possible electric charges and projections of the roots? For instance, in the standard model Q is a sum of hypercharge Y plus SU(2) charge T, but both Y and T are projectors in root space, and so a linear combination is. But I am not sure if this is a general fact for any representation of any lie algebra.

If it is so, do computer algebra programs have specific functions to search for all the possible different projections? I guess, the thing that Lisi et al "elementary particle explorer" did visually, but in an automated way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are talkig about breaking a larger gauge symmetry to a U(1) gauge symmetry. The charge you get from this is going to depend on the linear combination of gauge fields that corresponds to the U(1) symmetry after symmetry breaking and therefore reflects this fact. In other words, it depends on how you break the symmetry (i.e., typically on the representation you put the symmetry breaking vev in).
 
Orodruin said:
You are talkig about breaking a larger gauge symmetry to a U(1) gauge symmetry. The charge you get from this is going to depend on the linear combination of gauge fields that corresponds to the U(1) symmetry after symmetry breaking and therefore reflects this fact. In other words, it depends on how you break the symmetry (i.e., typically on the representation you put the symmetry breaking vev in).

But, is any linear combination of gauge fields a projection vector (a scalar product) in the space of roots of the original representation? Also, it is more about the branching down that the breaking, for instance in the standard model you always get the electric charge as sum of hypercharge and weak isospin, independently of the final combination given from the Weinberg angle. So it seems one does not need all the possible linear combinations over the reals, but just some combination of generators which should be easy to define and to scan.

Of course, a problem of this approach is that I only get a vector in root space, without any indication of the path followed to branch down towards this vector.
 
Last edited:
Let me put some code as example of my question.

We get the 27 of E6
we tensor it with its conjugate to get 27 \times \bar 27.
and now we start looking for projections with some conditions:

That we have at least 12 neutrinos
That we have at least four particles with multiplicity greater or equal than 6, so they could be quarks
That if we assume the least charged of this particle is the down quark, there is at least 6 states with the double of this charge, to make the role of the up quarks, and at least two states with three times this charge, to make the role of the electron

Code:
import numpy as np
from math import gcd
from collections import Counter
import itertools
#the 27 of E6
pesos=[[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],[-1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],[0, -1, 1, 0, 0, 0],[0, 0, -1, 1, 0, 1],[0, 0, 0, -1, 1, 1], [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, -1],[0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 1], [0, 0, 1, -1, 1, -1],[0, 0, 1, 0, -1, -1], [0, 1, -1, 0, 1, 0],[0, 1, -1, 1, -1, 0], [1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 0],[1, -1, 0, 1, -1, 0], [0, 1, 0, -1, 0, 0], [-1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0],[-1, 0, 0, 1, -1, 0], [1, -1, 1, -1, 0, 0],[-1, 0, 1, -1, 0, 0], [1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 1],[-1, 1, -1, 0, 0, 1], [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1],[0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 1], [-1, 1, 0, 0, 0, -1],[0, -1, 1, 0, 0, -1],[0, 0, -1, 1, 0, 0],[0, 0, 0, -1, 1, 0],[0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0]]
#we tensor it with its conjugate to get 27 \times \bar 27.
pesos=[x+[0,0,0,0,0,0] for x in pesos]+[[0,0,0,0,0,0]+[x[4],x[2],x[1],x[3],x[0],x[5]] for x in pesos]
pesos=np.array(pesos)
vistos=set()
#and now we start looking for projections
k=0
while True:
    k=k+1
    print(k)
    for y in itertools.product(range(-k,k+1),repeat=6):
        #we use the same projector in the 27 and the conjugate 27
        x = y + y
        #and only evaluate for the new vector in the itertools... this is poor man programming :-(
        if max(x)==k or min(x)==-k:
            suma=Counter( x @ w for w in pesos)
            if suma[0]==12: #Neutrinos: we require the result to have at least 12 charge zero elements
                ordered=sorted(list(suma.keys()))
                dato=tuple(((k0,suma[k0]) for k0 in ordered))
                ok = sum( 1 if j>5 else 0 for j in suma.values()) > 4 #quarks: we require 4 having of each electric charge having at least multiplcity 6.
                if ok and  np.gcd.reduce(ordered)==1 and not dato in vistos:
                    quarkCharges=set( (abs(k0) for k0 in suma if suma[k0]>=6) )
                    quarkCharges.remove(0)
                    down=min(quarkCharges)
                    #condition: the minimum charge quark is the down quark, so we check that
                    #1) there exists a up quark:
                    ok = ok and suma[2*down] >=6 and suma[-2*down]>=6
                    #2) there are electrons:
                    ok = ok and suma[3*down] >=2 and suma[-3*down]>=6
                    if ok:
                        print(min(quarkCharges)/max(quarkCharges),dato[0][0]/dato[-1][0],x,dato)
                        vistos.add(dato)

Code:
The output of the program is to suggest five different multiplicities:
0.3333333333333333 -1.25 (-2, -2, -1, 1, 0, -2, -2, -2, -1, 1, 0, -2) ((-5, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 9), (0, 12), (1, 6), (2, 6), (3, 6), (4, 2))
0.3333333333333333 -1.0 (-2, -2, -1, 1, 1, -2, -2, -2, -1, 1, 1, -2) ((-5, 1), (-4, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 7), (2, 6), (3, 6), (4, 1), (5, 1))
0.3333333333333333 -1.2 (-2, -2, -1, 1, 1, 1, -2, -2, -1, 1, 1, 1) ((-6, 1), (-4, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 7), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 5), (2, 6), (3, 5), (4, 3), (5, 1))
0.3333333333333333 -0.8 (-2, 0, 2, -1, 1, 1, -2, 0, 2, -1, 1, 1) ((-4, 2), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 6), (0, 12), (1, 9), (2, 6), (3, 6), (5, 1))
0.3333333333333333 -1.0 (-2, 1, 2, -1, 1, 1, -2, 1, 2, -1, 1, 1) ((-5, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 7), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 6), (5, 1))

(removing the "vistos" variable we see all the projections producing a given multiplicity, this is of course a wider set).

So I would conclude that, with this kind of down quark, there are five different ways to distribute the expected fourteen exotics in the 27 \times \bar 27:
1) 1 particle -5/3, 4 extra of charge -1, three extra of -1/3, 4 extra of charge +1, two extra of charge +4/3
2) 1 particle -5/3, 1 particle -4/3, 4 extra of charge -1, 1 extra of charge -1/3, and the symetrical of positive charge
3)
4) etc
5)

but:
I do not know if the procedure is correct.
If it is, I do not know if it is exhaustive, nor when to finish the loop.
We only have the proyection vector for this U(1), I have no idea of how to find the branching rule.

And of course we can not grant the existence of SU(3) colour, we only have a "six or more" multiplicity[/code]
 
Note the bug in the previous code
ok = ok and suma[3*down] >=2 and suma[-3*down]>=6
but well, it is equally ilustrative.

The corrected program finds some extra possible multiplicities:

Code:
1
0.5 -1.0 (-1, -1, -1, 1, 1, 1, -1, -1, -1, 1, 1, 1) ((-4, 1), (-3, 3), (-2, 8), (-1, 9), (0, 12), (1, 9), (2, 8), (3, 3), (4, 1))
0.5 -1.0 (-1, -1, 0, 1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 0, 1, -1, -1) ((-3, 3), (-2, 7), (-1, 11), (0, 12), (1, 11), (2, 7), (3, 3))
0.5 -1.0 (-1, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1, -1, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1) ((-4, 2), (-3, 3), (-2, 7), (-1, 9), (0, 12), (1, 9), (2, 7), (3, 3), (4, 2))
2
0.3333333333333333 -1.25 (-2, -2, -1, 1, 0, -2, -2, -2, -1, 1, 0, -2) ((-5, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 9), (0, 12), (1, 6), (2, 6), (3, 6), (4, 2))
0.3333333333333333 -1.0 (-2, -2, -1, 1, 1, -2, -2, -2, -1, 1, 1, -2) ((-5, 1), (-4, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 7), (2, 6), (3, 6), (4, 1), (5, 1))
0.5 -1.0 (-2, -2, 0, -2, 1, -2, -2, -2, 0, -2, 1, -2) ((-5, 1), (-4, 2), (-3, 3), (-2, 7), (-1, 8), (0, 12), (1, 8), (2, 7), (3, 3), (4, 2), (5, 1))
0.3333333333333333 -0.8 (-2, 0, 2, -1, 1, 1, -2, 0, 2, -1, 1, 1) ((-4, 2), (-3, 6), (-2, 6), (-1, 6), (0, 12), (1, 9), (2, 6), (3, 6), (5, 1))
0.3333333333333333 -1.0 (-2, 1, 2, -1, 1, 1, -2, 1, 2, -1, 1, 1) ((-5, 1), (-3, 6), (-2, 7), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 6), (5, 1))
3
0.5 -1.0 (-2, -3, -1, -3, 0, -3, -2, -3, -1, -3, 0, -3) ((-5, 2), (-4, 1), (-3, 3), (-2, 8), (-1, 7), (0, 12), (1, 7), (2, 8), (3, 3), (4, 1), (5, 2))
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K