Higgs Boson and the Missing Cubic Term in the Standard Model

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the absence of a cubic term in the Higgs boson sector of the Standard Model, exploring the implications and conditions under which such a term could be included. It touches on theoretical aspects and mathematical formulations related to the Higgs field.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the Standard Model includes quadratic and quartic terms for the Higgs boson but not a cubic term, and asks if there would be any issues if a cubic term were present.
  • Another participant raises a concern about maintaining U(1) invariance when proposing the inclusion of a cubic term in the Higgs field Lagrangian.
  • A later reply suggests that it is possible to include a cubic term through certain methods, referencing a paper for further details.
  • Another participant notes that including a cubic term may require shifting the field by its vacuum expectation value (VEV), referencing a specific Lagrangian formulation.
  • One participant acknowledges the previous point about the necessity of shifting the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of including a cubic term in the Higgs sector, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about field transformations and invariance properties that are not fully detailed, leaving some mathematical steps and implications unresolved.

the_pulp
Messages
206
Reaction score
9
Why does the standard model have a higgs boson quadratic and a cuartic term but it does not have a cubic term? is there any problem if it happens to have a cubic term?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The higgs field is a complex field. How do you propose to include a cubic term and leave the Lagrangian u(1) invariant?
 
Ok, thanks!
 
But that's after we had shifted the field by its VEV, if I'm not mistaken. That occurs even for:
[tex] \mathcal{L}_{4} = \frac{\lambda}{2} \, \left( \vert \varphi \vert^2 - v^2 \right)^2[/tex]
if you make the subst:
[tex] \varphi = (v + \rho) \, e^{i \, \chi}[/tex]
 
Oh, yeah fair enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K