Fermions Mass Terms in SM: Questions & Answers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mass terms for fermions in the Standard Model (SM), focusing on the structure of these terms, the implications of Majorana mass terms, and the renormalizability of fermionic mass terms. Participants explore theoretical aspects, gauge invariance, and the role of the Higgs mechanism.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the absence of terms like ## \bar{\psi}_R \psi_R ## and ## \bar{\psi}_L \psi_L ## in the fermionic mass term expression, suggesting a need for clarification on their roles.
  • Another participant explains that the projection operators ## P_L ## and ## P_R ## lead to zero when applied to the same chirality, thus justifying the absence of certain mass terms.
  • Concerns are raised about the invariance of Majorana mass terms under ## SU(2)_L ##, with one participant noting that terms like ## m~ \bar{\psi}_L \bar{\psi}^c_L ## could be gauge invariant.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of Majorana mass terms, particularly in relation to neutrinos and the Seesaw mechanism, with references to the need for gauge invariance in the context of the SM.
  • Participants express uncertainty regarding the dimensional analysis of fermionic mass terms, with one questioning the claim that certain mass terms are non-renormalizable.
  • Clarifications are sought on how fields transform under the gauge group ## SU(2)_L ##, particularly in relation to the inclusion of Majorana mass terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects multiple competing views regarding the treatment of Majorana mass terms and their gauge invariance. Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of these terms or the dimensionality of the mass terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion hinges on the definitions and transformations of fields under the gauge group, which remains unspecified in some posts. The implications of electroweak symmetry breaking on the mass terms are also mentioned but not fully resolved.

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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K