U(1)XSU(2-N): The Silliest GUT Ever?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MTd2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gut
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of extending the Standard Model (SM) symmetry group by proposing a sequence of gauge groups, specifically U(1)XSU(2)XSU(3)XSU(4)XSU(5)...XSU(N) as N approaches infinity. Participants explore the implications of this idea for grand unified theories (GUTs) and gauge theories, questioning the feasibility and consequences of such an extension.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose extending the SM symmetry group indefinitely, questioning if this has been previously attempted.
  • Others suggest that such an extension may be homomorphic to SU(N) as N approaches infinity, relating it to planar gauge theory.
  • A participant mentions having derived a "sillier" GUT theory and inquires about the behavior of planar gauge theory as a particle gauge theory.
  • It is noted that planar gauge theory behaves more like string theory and has simplifications at the quantum level, potentially leading to exact solvability.
  • One participant argues that as energy increases, the best description of particles would be a new direct product with the next SU(j), suggesting an almost exact approximation at each energy level.
  • Another participant counters that for finite j, leading order groups would only allow self-conjugate irreducible representations (irreps) and would be non-chiral, complicating effective theories.
  • Some participants express that non-chirality is acceptable, as the Standard Model remains a subgroup of the proposed sequence.
  • Concerns are raised about the necessity of chiral gauge groups, citing implications for fermion masses and the constraints in GUT model building.
  • One participant asserts that N cannot approach infinity due to physical limitations on particle mass relative to the universe's total energy.
  • Discussions include the complexities of SU(N) with finite N, emphasizing the need for complex representations and anomaly cancellation for viable candidates.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the implications of fermions having large masses and seeks clarification on unifying an infinite sequence of forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the feasibility and implications of extending the gauge groups indefinitely. There is no consensus on whether this approach is viable or how it would function in practice.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions of chiral gauge groups, the implications of finite versus infinite N, and the necessity of anomaly cancellation in constructing viable GUTs.

MTd2
Gold Member
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
25
So, I was thinking, SM symmetry group is U(1)XSU(2)XSU(3), so, why not going on, that is:

U(1)XSU(2)XSU(3)XSU(4)XSU(5)X...XSU(N), N-> infinity

Did anyone ever try that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not entirely positive, you should ask on the math forum, but isn't that just homomorphic to SU(N) N--> infinity anyway? Which is just the planar gauge theory.
 
I would like to note that I have previously derived a much sillier GUT theory than this, outlined in the comments to this post.

Haelfix, what would the "planar gauge theory" act like when you try to apply it as a particle gauge theory? (If this is a sensible question)
 
Actually it doesn't behave particularly "particulate" at all. Instead its quite stringy, and remarkable simplifications occur at the quantum level leading some people to expect it to be exactly soluble. Nevertheless it was discovered by 'T Hooft in the 70s before string theory was really popular.

Its also one of the founding and motivating examples for AdS/CFT (where you take a large N gauge theory over a Riemann surface in a lower dimension).
 
In fact, what I mean is really simple, silly indeed. As you go to higher and higher enegies, you would find that the best description of the particle zoo up to a point would be a new direct product with the next j of SU(j). I didn't mean an aproximation, but an almost exact aproximation at each enegry level and that's why I didnt ask in the math forums.
 
That won't work, b/c for finite j you will have some leading order groups that admits only self conjugate irreps and are nonchiral. The effective theories thus cannot be broken up in such a way.
 
I don't see the problem in having some of them non chiral. The standard model will always be a subgroup of the sequence.
 
You always need a chiral gauge group. One physical reason it matters is b/c if you didn't you would have fermion masses completely at odds with experiment. Generically all the fermions in the theory would pick up large gauge invariant masses at some high energy scale instead of being massless (until electroweak symmetry breaking).

Thats one of the biggest constraints in GUT model building and why we don't use groups like say E7 for model building (even if it contains the SM as a subgroup)
 
N cannot go to infinity: there is no particle heavier than the total Universe energy.

Bob.
 
  • #10
Haelfix said:
You always need a chiral gauge group.

These are just embendings of smaller groups into largers ones until infinity. It's not like searching a smaller group inside a bigger one, but making a bigger extending the smallerm, and see what happens. And isn't every SU(j) gauge group chiral invariant?
 
  • #11
I don't really understand your first sentence. For instance E7 * G(standard model) is still unsuitable for phenomenology even if you are deadset on trying to complicate the high energy landscape for no suitable rewards!

Actually, the problem with SU(N) with N finite, is actually a little more complicated than I said above. In order to have a physically viable candidate, you need both a complex representation (and hence a chiral spectrum), which SU(N) does have, except that you also need to satisfy the additional requirement for anomaly cancellation. The only completely antisymmetric m fold representation for SU(N) then only contains the familiar SU(5) representation 1, 5, 5bar, 10bar. Which you can build up to get higher versions.

Unfortunately there again you run into certain choices for some fixed N, with a fixed representation r where you will have to explain why either fermions don't receive large masses or why the theory doesn't possesses possible gauge anomalies..

For N --> infinity, well that's a different story b/c of the aforementioned simplifications. But then that's not a candidate GUT either.
 
  • #12
Haelfix said:
The only completely antisymmetric m fold representation for SU(N) then only contains the familiar SU(5) representation 1, 5, 5bar, 10bar. Which you can build up to get higher versions.

I don't get any of this. :-p

Hmm. Fermions haing a huge mass is a desired effect, because I am adding a new force for every SU(j) added. They shouldn't be seen that easily.

I'd like to know how to unify that kind of inifinite sequence of forces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
18K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K