Understanding SU(5) Subgroups and the SM Choice

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SU(5) gauge group, specifically the pathways to its subgroups, SU(4) × U(1) and SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1), which is identified as the Standard Model (SM). Participants explore why the SM is favored over other subgroups and the implications of nonminimal SU(5) theories, especially in light of experimental evidence against minimal SU(5) models due to the absence of proton decay. The conversation also touches on the embedding of SU(5) within larger groups, such as SO(10) and E6, and the criteria for subgroup selection during spontaneous symmetry breaking.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of SU(5) gauge theory
  • Familiarity with spontaneous symmetry breaking
  • Knowledge of group theory, specifically Dynkin diagrams
  • Awareness of the Standard Model of particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of nonminimal SU(5) theories on particle physics
  • Study the embedding of SU(5) in SO(10) and its implications
  • Examine the role of Dynkin diagrams in group theory
  • Explore the exceptional group E6 and its relationship to SU(5)
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particle physicists, and graduate students studying gauge theories and symmetry in high-energy physics.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Well working with the dynkin diagram of SU(5), one can easily see (by Dynkin's rule) that possible choices of SU(5) spontaneous symmetry breaking could be:
SU(5)→ SU(4) \times U(1) I call the broken group G
and
SU(5)→ SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1) which I call SM

So I have a question. Apart from the natural imposition of the SM subgroup (since we know that this is the gauge symmetry of our below GUT scale physics) is there any particular way the nature could have chosen it to G?

If you understood the question so far, don't procceed I'll try to make it clearer. I would expect that both G and SM are equally possible candidates, but something must have been there to choose the Standard Model to G... what is that something?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But we don't know that nature is even SU(5) symmetric - and indeed, there is evidence that it is not.
 
SU(5) won't die that easily, will it? XD Well, the minimal SU(5) theories are in fact rulled out by experiment (no proton decay), leaving nonminimal SU(5)s still around in the game.

Nevertheless, this doesn't cancel my question, which I think can be more general. Having a bigger symmetry, containing several subgroups, one of them being the Standard Model, how are the rest subgroups ruled out in the procedure of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking?

One could be this, I heard of in a talk of Prof.Nielsen:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2668v1.pdf
But I think it leaves out the spontaneous symmetry breaking formalism?
 
Nevertheless, this doesn't cancel my question, which I think can be more general. Having a bigger symmetry, containing several subgroups, one of them being the Standard Model, how are the rest subgroups ruled out in the procedure of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking?
I don't think that I am understanding what you are asking correctly.The most general generalization of SU(5) group is SO(10) which apart from SU(5) contains U(1),while SU(5) contains the embedding of standard model.You just introduce one other lepton in case of SO(10) i.e. antineutrino.The embedding of any group structure inside a group is determined from
1-the adjoint representation of larger group should contain the adjoint representation of smaller one.
2-the smallest representation of larger group is the sum of all non-trivial representations of smaller group.
In your case,if you use the embedding SU(5)→ SU(4) \times U(1),then SU(4) actually has an embedding of SU(3) \times U(1),which is not what you want.Apart from this the next larger group is the Exceptional group E6,which contains SO(10).
 
andrien said:
In your case,if you use the embedding SU(5)→ SU(4) \times U(1),then SU(4) actually has an embedding of SU(3) \times U(1),which is not what you want..


why isn't it what I want?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K