Fermions Mass Terms in SM: Questions & Answers

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the fermion mass terms in the Standard Model (SM), specifically addressing the forms of mass terms such as ## \bar{\psi}\psi = \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R + \bar{\psi}_R \psi_L ## and the absence of Majorana mass terms. It is established that terms like ## \bar{\psi}_R \psi_R ## and ## \bar{\psi}_L \psi_L ## are zero due to the properties of projection operators. The conversation also clarifies that Majorana mass terms are not included in the SM because they violate ## SU(2)_L ## invariance, particularly for left-handed neutrinos, and discusses the conditions under which such terms can arise post electroweak symmetry breaking.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fermion fields and their representations in the Standard Model.
  • Familiarity with projection operators, specifically ## P_L ## and ## P_R ##.
  • Knowledge of gauge invariance and the implications of ## SU(2)_L ## symmetry.
  • Concept of the seesaw mechanism and its role in neutrino mass generation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of gauge invariance in the context of fermion mass terms in the Standard Model.
  • Learn about the seesaw mechanism and its mathematical formulation in neutrino physics.
  • Investigate the role of the Higgs field in electroweak symmetry breaking and its effects on mass terms.
  • Explore literature on Majorana mass terms and their theoretical implications in particle physics.
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particle physicists, and advanced students studying the Standard Model and its implications for fermion masses and neutrino physics.

Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
Hi all,

I have some points not so clear for me about the fermions mass terms in SM; first, why
## \bar{\psi}\psi = \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R + \bar{\psi}_R \psi_L ##, that since

## \bar{\psi} = \bar{\psi}_R + \bar{\psi}_L ## and
## \psi = \psi_R + \psi_L ##

Where are such terms: ## \bar{\psi}_R \psi_R , \bar{\psi}_L \psi_L ##

Second: Why in SM the Majorana mass terms has not taken into account, that since term as:
## m~ \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R ## is not ## SU(2)_L ## invariant, a term as

## m~ \bar{\psi}_L \bar{\psi}^c_L, ~ m ~\bar{\psi}_R \bar{\psi}^c_R ## are gauge invariant. I mean could not Majorana mass terms replace the Higgs mechanism ?

Last: I read in literatures that ## m~ \bar{\psi}_L \psi_R ##, is not a re-normalizable term, but I don't see why , if ## \psi ## has dimensions of mass equals 3/2, then the the mass dimension of this term is only 4 !

Thanks,
S.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first question is answered by the fact that P_L P_R or P_R P_L are equivalent to the zero-operation:

(1 \pm \gamma_ 5) (1 \mp \gamma_5) = 1 - \gamma_5^2 = 0

now your \bar{\psi}_R \psi_R = \psi^\dagger P_R \gamma_0 P_R \psi = \bar{\psi} P_L P_R \psi =0
where I used that P_R^\dagger = P_R and that P_R \gamma_0 = \gamma_0 P_L

For the second, first of all, the \psi_L combination you have given is not SU(2)_L invariant, because both your fields transform as doublets under SU(2) transformation. It's the same reason that in the Sea-Saw mechanism you don't add such a term for the left handed neutrinos.
For the rights I am not sure, but which fermion in the SM is Majorana? appart from neutrinos there is no other chargeless fermion... And in neutrinos you can have such a term [in Seesaw mechanism]...

Finally for the mass term. Can you give some "literature" you found it in? In general the fermionic mass dimension doesn't have to be 3/2 (in general dimensions).
Then the mass term won't necessarily have the dimension 1.
However I don't understand why someone would call it non-renormalizable. You can renormalize the bare mass by adding mass regularizing terms (self energy diagrams).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
For the second, first of all, the ## ψ_L ## combination you have given is not SU(2)_L invariant, because both your fields transform as doublets under SU(2) transformation.

Do you mean that ## \psi_L ## transforms by ## \psi_L' \to e^{-iT_i a^i(x) } \psi_L ##, and ## \bar{\psi_L}^c ## transforms also by ## \bar{\psi_L'}^c \to e^{-iT_i a^i(x) } \bar{\psi_L}^c ## ?

Nevertheless, in a talk as
http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/~dph3tcl/NuNotes/TLiSeeSaw.pdf

slide 5, ## \bar{\nu_l}^c \nu_l ## term has taken in Seesaw mechanism ..

What do you think about good and clear reference for Seesaw mechanism ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your original post is a bit unclear since you have not defined how the fields transform under the gauge group ##SU(2)_L##.

The Majorana mass term for Standard Model neutrinos is breaking ##SU(2)_L## due to the reason given by ChrisVer, the neutrino field is part of a weak doublet together with the corresponding left handed charged lepton. However, we know that ##SU(2)_L## is broken and at low energies it is possible to have such mass terms. In the seesaw mechanisms, they are generally introduced by integrating out a heavy field which gives rise to a Weinberg operator. Upon the Higgs taking a vev and breaking ##SU(2)_L##, this results in a neutrino Majorana mass. This is the effective regime that Tracey is looking at.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
I don't ask about neutrino specifically, but as in my second question it isn't clear why a combination as ## \bar{\psi_L}^c \psi_L ## is not allowed under SU(2)_L .
 
You cannot get an answer to this question unless you specify how ##\psi## transforms under ##SU(2)_L##. If ##\psi## is a neutrino field ##\nu_L##, it is part of an ##SU(2)_L## doublet and therefore cannot appear in the Lagrangian without its ##SU(2)_L## partner. As I said in the previous post, it can appear after electroweak symmetry breaking once ##SU(2)_L## is broken, generally by the Higgs field in the Weinberg operator ##\overline{L^c}\phi \tilde \phi^\dagger L /\Lambda + h.c.## taking a vev and thus singling out the neutrino component of the ##SU(2)_L## doublet ##L = (\nu_L e_L)##, where ##e_L## is the left handed charged lepton field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K