Composite Gauge Bosons: Supersymmetric SU(4) Example

mitchell porter
Gold Member
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
777
Buried in a recent talk by John Ellis, the following passage:
It had long been thought that composite gauge bosons were impossible [92, 93], but then along came an explicit supersymmetric example with an SU(4) gauge group and 6 (4 + \bar{4}) multiplet pairs, which yielded an SU(2) composite gauge theory with 12 2 fermions and 32 singlet scalars in the infrared limit. This behaviour was initially a puzzle, although consistent with the 4-dimensional c-theorem. However, it is now known to be just one example of a strong-weak duality whose proof involves an abstruse relationship between elliptic hypergeometric Gamma functions and q-Pochhammer symbols (!) that the mathematicians have only recently discovered. It has been suggested that some deformation of this construction might be applicable to the ρ meson of QCD [93] - it has long been known that vector meson dominance requires an effective dynamical local symmetry. Or perhaps this construction would be interesting in dynamical models of electroweak symmetry breaking? Might the gauge bosons of the SM actually be composite?
Reference 92 is Weinberg & Witten 1980, reference 93 is a talk by Zohar Komargodski at the same meeting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is Ellis's thought accurate? I don't think anyone thought the Weinberg-Witten theorem ruled out composite gauge bosons, only certain types of composite gravitons. It didn't even rule out things like Sakharov's induced gravity.
 
It makes me thing about getting bosons easily from spin networks.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Back
Top