Why are particles in low representations in the Standard Model?
- Context: Graduate
- Thread starter ChrisVer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Fields Lagrangian
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 2K views
Discussion
Physics news on Phys.org
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,014
- 21,725
You could do that. But it would predict particles that are unseen. If I put the left-handed electron and neutrino in an SU(2) triplet and not an SU(2) doublet, where is the third particle?
Last edited:
Science Advisor
- 3,372
- 465
Hmmm I was thinking more the representations of the same gauge group.
For example the SU(2) has the 4-plet or triplet representation
(
[itex]2 \otimes 2 = 3 \oplus 1[/itex]
[itex]2 \otimes 3 = 4 \oplus 2[/itex]
)
and in a similar way I think you can work up to the 6plet.
In the 6plet one could put all the leptons.
For example the SU(2) has the 4-plet or triplet representation
(
[itex]2 \otimes 2 = 3 \oplus 1[/itex]
[itex]2 \otimes 3 = 4 \oplus 2[/itex]
)
and in a similar way I think you can work up to the 6plet.
In the 6plet one could put all the leptons.
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,014
- 21,725
You can't do that and make the quantum numbers come out right. How do the e and mu get the same quantum numbers if they are in different positions in the multiplet?
Science Advisor
- 3,372
- 465
I think they would still be color neutral...
They would still have the same isospins and u(1) charges, and that's enough.
For example if I had:
[itex][6] = \begin{pmatrix} e \\ \nu_e \\ \mu \\ \nu_\mu \\ \tau \\ \nu_\tau \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
The U(1) transformation matrix would have to be [itex]Y_6 = \begin{pmatrix} Y_{el-flav} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & Y_{mu-flav} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & Y_{tau-flav} \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
(still traceless) with [itex]Y_{i-flav}[/itex] the same 2x2 matrices you have in the SM for the i-th flavor.
and similarily for the isospin
[itex]T_6^i = diag ( \tau^i , \tau^i , tau^i )[/itex]
The only quantum number which I "feel" this would violate is the lepton number. But the lepton number is an accidental symmetry of SM.
Maybe I'm terribly wrong with the choices of Y and T matrices?
They would still have the same isospins and u(1) charges, and that's enough.
For example if I had:
[itex][6] = \begin{pmatrix} e \\ \nu_e \\ \mu \\ \nu_\mu \\ \tau \\ \nu_\tau \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
The U(1) transformation matrix would have to be [itex]Y_6 = \begin{pmatrix} Y_{el-flav} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & Y_{mu-flav} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & Y_{tau-flav} \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
(still traceless) with [itex]Y_{i-flav}[/itex] the same 2x2 matrices you have in the SM for the i-th flavor.
and similarily for the isospin
[itex]T_6^i = diag ( \tau^i , \tau^i , tau^i )[/itex]
The only quantum number which I "feel" this would violate is the lepton number. But the lepton number is an accidental symmetry of SM.
Maybe I'm terribly wrong with the choices of Y and T matrices?
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,014
- 21,725
You can't have them in a 6-plet of isospin and have the same isospins.
Consider angular momentum, also an SU(2). A 6-plet corresponds to J=5/2 which has m = +/- 5/2, +/- 3/2 and +/- 1/2. You can't declare it to have three +/- 1/2 and no +/- 3/2 or +/- 5/2. That's not a J=5/2 state and it's not a 6-plet.
Consider angular momentum, also an SU(2). A 6-plet corresponds to J=5/2 which has m = +/- 5/2, +/- 3/2 and +/- 1/2. You can't declare it to have three +/- 1/2 and no +/- 3/2 or +/- 5/2. That's not a J=5/2 state and it's not a 6-plet.
- 24,488
- 15,063
There's no way (yet?) to derive the particle content of the Standard Model theoretically. It's just empirical input to the model. The same holds for the many free parameters (coupling constants/masses).
Similar threads
Graduate Standard Model decompositions of larger group representations?
- Anchovy
- · Replies 4 ·
- High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
- Replies
- 4
Graduate What is the problem with the particle masses in the Standard Model?
- ChrisVer
- · Replies 1 ·
- High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
- Replies
- 1
Graduate SU(5), 'Standard Model decomposition', direct sum etc.
- Anchovy
- · Replies 23 ·
- High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
- Replies
- 23
Undergrad Why does a Lagrangian matter for the standard model?
- Daniel_C
- · Replies 3 ·
- High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
- Replies
- 3
Graduate Supplementary material for standard model
- diegzumillo
- · Replies 11 ·
- High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
- Replies
- 11
Graduate Furey's superalgebra and the standard model
- mitchell porter
- · Replies 4 ·
- Beyond the Standard Models
- Replies
- 4
Graduate My questions about QFT and the standard model
- planck999
- · Replies 1 ·
- Quantum Physics
- Replies
- 1
Graduate Seeking the Standard Model in E8 plus Supersymmetry
- mitchell porter
- · Replies 4 ·
- Beyond the Standard Models
- Replies
- 4
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
- kodama
- · Replies 26 ·
- Beyond the Standard Models
- Replies
- 26
Graduate Higher-dimensional routes to Standard Model bosons and fermions
- mitchell porter
- · Replies 4 ·
- Beyond the Standard Models
- Replies
- 4