Goldstone boson without symmetry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuantumCosmo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boson Symmetry
QuantumCosmo
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was wondering about the U(1)_A problem. The Lagrangian exhibits a (in the limit of vanishing quark masses) U(1)_A symmetry but due to the chiral anomaly, the current J_5^{\mu} is not conserved:

\partial_{\mu}J_5^{\mu} = G\tilde{G} + 2i\bar{u}\gamma_5 u +...

The G\tilde{G} term is itself the divergence of the (not gauge invariant) current K^{\mu}.
(I have left out constant factors etc)

So in the limit of vanishing quark masses, the current \tilde{J}_5^{\mu} = J_5^{\mu} - K^{\mu} is conserved and so is the charge

\tilde{Q}_5 = \int \tilde{J}_5^{\mu} \d^3

Now it seems that although there actually isn't a U(1)_A symmetry in my theory, I still get a Goldstone boson because \tilde{Q}_5 is conserved.

But I thought Goldstone bosons occurred because of spontenously broken continuous symmetries and not because of conserved charges?

Can anyone help me with that?

Thank you very much,
Quantum
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AH! But this charge is not gauge invariant! Goldstone's Theorem as you normally see it requires gauge invariance.

In fact, you DO get poles in NON-Gauge invariant correlation functions, which Coleman refers to as "Goldstone Dipoles" in his "Aspects of Symmetry". But since these aren't gauge invariant, they don't contribute to physics (which is only described by gauge-invariant quantities).
 
QuantumCosmo said:
But I thought Goldstone bosons occurred because of spontenously broken continuous symmetries and not because of conserved charges?

Can anyone help me with that?

I just noticed this last sentence!

Of course, Goldstone bosons only come from spontaneously broken symmetries. So if you don't have that, then there are no Goldstone bosons at all.

This stuff about the Goldstone Dipole I mentioned earlier is relevant for the chiral Lagrangian, for example, to explain why there is no singlet after chiral symmetry breaking.

Is that what you were asking about?
 
Yeah... because I don't understand this Kogut Susskind solution to the U(1) problem at all...
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top