Understanding SU(5) Subgroups and the SM Choice

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SU(5) gauge group and its subgroups, particularly focusing on the relationship between SU(5) and the Standard Model (SM) gauge group. Participants explore the implications of different symmetry breaking patterns and question the criteria that might lead to the selection of the SM subgroup over other possible subgroups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that both SU(4) × U(1) and SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) are equally possible candidates for symmetry breaking from SU(5), questioning what might lead nature to prefer the Standard Model subgroup.
  • Another participant points out that there is evidence suggesting that nature may not be SU(5) symmetric, introducing uncertainty regarding the validity of SU(5) as a framework.
  • A different participant notes that minimal SU(5) theories are ruled out by experimental evidence (specifically, the absence of proton decay), but nonminimal SU(5) theories remain viable.
  • One participant raises a general question about how other subgroups are ruled out during the spontaneous symmetry breaking process, indicating a broader inquiry beyond just SU(5).
  • Another participant introduces the concept of SO(10) as a generalization of SU(5) and discusses the conditions for embedding smaller groups within larger ones, but does not clarify the implications of this embedding for the original question.
  • A participant questions the reasoning behind a specific embedding of SU(4) and its relation to SU(3) × U(1), seeking clarification on why this is not desirable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of SU(5) as a symmetry of nature, with some suggesting it is ruled out by evidence while others maintain that nonminimal versions may still hold. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the criteria for selecting the Standard Model subgroup over others.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of symmetry breaking and the criteria for subgroup selection. The discussion also touches on the limitations of current experimental evidence in ruling out certain theories.

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
10K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K