Graduate Spontaneous symmetry breaking - potential minima

Click For Summary
In spontaneous symmetry breaking, expanding the Lagrangian around different potential minima affects the Feynman rules only in terms of the basis used, leading to SU(2) rotated rules. The discussion presents a theory with a symmetry under specific transformations, demonstrating two true vacua at ##\phi = \pm \nu##. Upon expanding around one minimum, the resulting Lagrangian reveals that the masses and interaction terms depend on the vacuum expectation value (vev) ##\nu##. This indicates that different minima can yield different physical predictions, particularly in terms of particle masses and interaction strengths. Ultimately, the choice of minimum impacts the physical outcomes in the theory.
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
In spontaneous symmetry breaking, you expand the Lagrangian around one of the potential minima and write down the Feynman rules using this new Lagrangian.

Will it make any difference to your Feynman rules if you expand the Lagrangian around different minima of the potential?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This depends on what you mean, it is just a question of which basis you write down the Feynman rules in. In other words, we generally chose the basis in the higgs representation in such a way that the vev is real and appears in the second position.

If you chose another basis you will just get SU(2) rotated Feynman rules.
 
How about a simpler theory:

Let's say we have the following theory with ##\phi \rightarrow -\phi## symmetry under ##\psi_{i}\rightarrow \gamma_{5}\psi_{i}##:

$$\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}_{e}(i\gamma^{\nu}{\partial_{\nu}}-y_{\mu}\phi)\psi_{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^{2}-V(\phi)$$

with $$V(\phi) = -\frac{1}{2}|\kappa^{2}|\phi^{2} + \frac{\lambda}{24}\phi^{4}$$

It can be shown that this theory has two true vacua at ##\phi = \pm \nu##, and after expanding about ##\phi(x) = \nu + h(x)##, we get

$$\underbrace{\bar{\psi}_{e}(i\gamma^{\nu}{\partial_{\nu}}-y_{e}\nu)\psi_{e}}_{\text{Dirac Lagrangian for field $\psi_{e}$ with mass $y_{e}\nu$}} \qquad \underbrace{-y_{e}\bar{\psi}_{e}h\psi_{e}}_{\text{interaction term coupling field $\psi_{e}$ with field $h$ with Yukawa coupling $y_{e}$}} +\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}h)(\partial^{\mu}h)-\frac{1}{2}\left(2|\kappa^{2}|\right)h^{2}}_{\text{Klein-Gordon Lagrangian for field $h$ with mass $\displaystyle{\sqrt{2|\kappa^{2}|}}$}}\\ \\ \underbrace{-\frac{\lambda}{6}\nu h^{3}}_{\text{cubic self-interaction term for field $h$ with coupling constant $\displaystyle{\frac{\lambda}{6}\nu}$}}\qquad \underbrace{-\frac{\lambda}{24}h^{4}}_{\text{quartic self-interaction term for field $h$ with coupling constant $\displaystyle{\frac{\lambda}{24}}$}}$$

I can see clearly that the cubic self-interaction term as well as the masses of the electron and the muon depend on the value of ##\nu##. Does this not mean that different minima give different physical predictions?
 
Last edited:
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K