Standard Model decompositions of larger group representations?

Anchovy
Messages
99
Reaction score
2
When reading about GUTs you often come across the 'Standard Model decomposition' of the representations of a given gauge group. ie. you get the Standard Model gauge quantum numbers arranged between some brackets. For example, here are a few SM decompositions of the SU(5) representations \textbf{5}, \textbf{10}, \textbf{15} and \textbf{24}.

SU(5)_SM_decompositions.png


So, for instance this is telling us that the representation \textbf{5} will contain fields that are either

(SU(3)_{C} triplet, SU(2)_{L} singlet, hypercharge \tfrac{1}{2}Y = -\tfrac{1}{3}) for the (3, 1, -\tfrac{1}{3}),

or

(SU(3)_{C} singlet, SU(2)_{L} doublet, hypercharge \tfrac{1}{2}Y = \tfrac{1}{2}) for the (1, 2, \tfrac{1}{2}).

That's straightforward enough. However, I can't seem to find anything online explaining how these have been determined. I can find plenty about how you might go about constructing the \textbf{10}, \textbf{15} and \textbf{24} starting from combinations of the fundamental \textbf{5} by the 'Young's Tableaux' method, but nothing about starting with one of these SU(5) representations and breaking them down. Can anyone explain or link to an explanation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try chapter 18 of "Lie algebras in particle physics" by Georgi.
 
Andrea M. said:
Try chapter 18 of "Lie algebras in particle physics" by Georgi.

OK, found a pdf version, will check it out very soon.
 
I'm wondering something about what it says here. Specifically I am trying to understand the motivation for the part that's in the red box. I have also highlighted earlier parts in green boxes that I suspect might be related, but I don't quite understand.

SU(5)_SM_decompositions__Georgi_book.png


So it wants to get the SM decomposition of the \textbf{5} by choosing from constituents of the equation (18.13) that combine to form a 5-dimensional subset. Fair enough. What I don't understand is the SU(2) \times U(1) part. Why must the \textbf{5} incorporate that specifically? Why not require, say, SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)?
 
Anchovy said:
Why must the 5\textbf{5} incorporate that specifically? Why not require, say, SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)?

The multiplets in ##(18.15)## aren't a subgroups of ##SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)##?
 
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}...
Back
Top