What determines the range of the new Higgs triple coupling in 2HDM?

Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
Hi,

I wonder if a theory like 2HDM has a new triple Higgs coupling, like ##g_{hH^+H^-}##, what governs how much is this coupling ?

For example a paper as : arXiv:1405.3584v1 [hep-ph], they normalize ##g_{hH^+H^-}## by the SM ##g_{hWW}##,
they plotted at fig. 3 (f) ##C_{hH^+H^-}=g_{hH^+H^-}/g_{hWW} ## ratio ranges from 15 to -15, but couldn't this range extends to even -30 for example ? they mentioned at Sec. B that ranges determined by
perturbativity requirements, but this is not clear for me ..

Bests,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, in general you will get triplet couplings of the Higgs fields after symmetry breaking. These terms appear in the Lagrangian from the quartic terms in the scalar potential once the vev has broken the symmetry, much like Yukawa couplings give mass terms for fermions.

The normalization of the coupling is mainly conventional and the actual range of values the ratio can take of course depends on what you chose to normalize with. The perturbativity requirement is just saying that you want your theory to be perturbative and not dominated by higher order contributions. Thus, the maximum value is dependent on how far from being non-perturbative the coupling ##g_{hWW}## is. It may also be slightly author dependent what is considered to be a perturbative theory ...
 
So if I have a new model and have a new ##g_{hH^+H^-} ## coupling , how I determine how large is this coupling ?

In case the SM ##g_{hww}## ~ 51 ( gw mw) , can the new coupling reaches 2341, some say if there is a coupling
large like that why this interaction did not seen until now by experiment ..
 
One thing is having a theory that predicts a certain coupling due to some relation that relates it to other observables. Another approach is starting with some general argument (such as perturbativity) and try to put model independent bounds on the coupling based on existing experimental data.
 
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