The standard model, a couple of q's

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around questions related to the standard model of particle physics, specifically focusing on the nature of Yang-Mills systems, gauge symmetries, and the terminology used in the context of these theories. Participants explore the implications of different gauge groups and their representations, as well as the classification of matter fields within the standard model.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the standard model's description of Yang-Mills systems is accurate, given that U(1) is abelian while Yang-Mills systems are typically non-abelian.
  • There is a discussion about the use of subscripts in gauge symmetries, with some participants suggesting that they serve to clarify the physical context rather than just denote mathematical groups.
  • Participants mention that "matter fields" in the standard model refer to fermions, specifically quarks and leptons.
  • Some argue that the terminology surrounding Yang-Mills theories is somewhat arbitrary and can vary among physicists, with different preferences for categorizing gauge theories.
  • There is a historical perspective offered regarding the evolution of Yang-Mills theory and its application, noting that original formulations were incorrect but have since been generalized.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the terminology and classification of Yang-Mills theories and gauge groups, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain. There is no consensus on the necessity of subscripts in academic writing.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight the ambiguity in the definitions and classifications used in the field, as well as the historical context of the theories being discussed. The conversation reflects the complexity of the subject matter and the varying interpretations among participants.

karnten07
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
I have a couple of questions about the standard model:

1.) I read somewhere that the standard model describes 3 closely related Yang-Mills systems, but i thought yang-mills systems were non-abelian whereas U(1) is abelian. So is the statement false or have i misunderstood?

2.)Why do i see subscripts for the gauge symettries of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and they are soemtimes different depending where i read from. Can anyone guide me on this please?

Many thanks

karnten07
 
Physics news on Phys.org
karnten07 said:
I have a couple of questions about the standard model:

1.) I read somewhere that the standard model describes 3 closely related Yang-Mills systems, but i thought yang-mills systems were non-abelian whereas U(1) is abelian. So is the statement false or have i misunderstood?

this is just semantics. Some people use "Yang-Mills" to refer to nonabelian gauge theory, while others use "Yang-Mills" and "gauge theory" interchangably. It doesn't really make a difference what you call it! ;-)

2.)Why do i see subscripts for the gauge symettries of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and they are soemtimes different depending where i read from. Can anyone guide me on this please?

Many thanks

karnten07

SU(3) or SU(3)_C refers to QCD - the gauge theory of the strong interaction; the C stands for "color", referring to the three color charges of QCD.

SU(2) or SU(2)_W or SU(2)_L all refer to part of the gauge theory of the weak nuclear force. The W stands for "Weak" while the "L" stands for "left-handed", since left-handed fields are charged under this group while the right handed fields are not.

U(1) or U(1)_Y refers to the other part of the electroweak force, called "hypercharge" (denoted "Y" purely for historical reasons). The SU(2) x U(1) break to make U(1)_EM, the electromagnetic force.

Hope that helps!
 
blechman said:
this is just semantics. Some people use "Yang-Mills" to refer to nonabelian gauge theory, while others use "Yang-Mills" and "gauge theory" interchangably. It doesn't really make a difference what you call it! ;-)



SU(3) or SU(3)_C refers to QCD - the gauge theory of the strong interaction; the C stands for "color", referring to the three color charges of QCD.

SU(2) or SU(2)_W or SU(2)_L all refer to part of the gauge theory of the weak nuclear force. The W stands for "Weak" while the "L" stands for "left-handed", since left-handed fields are charged under this group while the right handed fields are not.

U(1) or U(1)_Y refers to the other part of the electroweak force, called "hypercharge" (denoted "Y" purely for historical reasons). The SU(2) x U(1) break to make U(1)_EM, the electromagnetic force.

Hope that helps!

That is most helpful, thankyou. Just so I'm clear, are the subscripts used to show that we are doing physics and not just talking about the mathematical groups or are they just there to remind us of what each is representative of?

Also, i read that the SM involves these 3 systems, the higgs field and several matter fields. What are the matter fields?
 
Last edited:
karnten07 said:
That is most helpful, thankyou. Just so I'm clear, are the subscripts used to show that we are doing physics and not just talking about the mathematical groups or are they just there to remind us of what each is representative of?

yes... and yes. why do you have an "or"?!

Also, i read that the SM involves these 3 systems, the higgs field and several matter fields. What are the matter fields?

"matter fields" are the fermions - quarks and leptons.
 
blechman said:
this is just semantics. Some people use "Yang-Mills" to refer to nonabelian gauge theory, while others use "Yang-Mills" and "gauge theory" interchangably. It doesn't really make a difference what you call it! ;-)

Indeed. Particularly since the original theory of Yang and Mills was incorrect. They tried to use this to explain the interaction between hadrons and failed. What we call Yang-Mills today are generalizations of this original idea - which I have to say was brilliant, even if it was originally applied to the wrong thing. But where you draw the line at generalizations is, at some level, arbitrary.

I would probably be inclined to take a historical approach, and call everything that isn't a U(1) a Yang-Mills theory. But that's my choice, and others probably differ.
 
blechman said:
yes... and yes. why do you have an "or"?!



"matter fields" are the fermions - quarks and leptons.

Ok that's very helpful, is it a matter of choice to include these subscripts or is it a must to include them for things like papers or dissertations?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Indeed. Particularly since the original theory of Yang and Mills was incorrect. They tried to use this to explain the interaction between hadrons and failed. What we call Yang-Mills today are generalizations of this original idea - which I have to say was brilliant, even if it was originally applied to the wrong thing. But where you draw the line at generalizations is, at some level, arbitrary.

The same can be said about Kaluza-Klein modes, which now refer to any extra modes you get from a field when compactifying on an extra dimension, whereas THE KK modes of Kaluza's and Klein's 1920-something paper refer to a pure gravitational theory with a single extra dimension compactified on a circle. But the idea was generic enough to keep the name for any generalization.

I would probably be inclined to take a historical approach, and call everything that isn't a U(1) a Yang-Mills theory. But that's my choice, and others probably differ.

since we're collecting opinions, with all due respect to Yang and Mills, of course, I just refer to all of these as "Gauge Theories" and don't worry about whether or not there are abelian factors. But whatever...


karnten07 said:
Ok that's very helpful, is it a matter of choice to include these subscripts or is it a must to include them for things like papers or dissertations?

Are you writing a thesis? I guess you include the subscripts if you want to emphasize the point. But usually people can figure it out. If you see the words

"Standard Model"

followed by the symbols

SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)

I think it's pretty clear what the paper is talking about!
 

Similar threads

Graduate How can the LRS model for leptons incorporate the Standard Model group?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Supplementary material for standard model
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate My T-shirt and the Standard Model
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Bivector mediation of standard field equations to form coupled system
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Graduate Standard Model decompositions of larger group representations?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Covariant derivative in Standard Model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate How many generations and fermions are there in the Standard Model Group?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Matching interaction terms and decay processes in standard model
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate New ideas on confinement and meson masses from Brazil
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K