1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Why SU(3)xU(1)?

  1. Jan 3, 2017 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a companion question to https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-su-3-xsu-2-xu-1.884004/

    Of course the Higgs mechanism over the standard model produces this low-energy group, SU(3)xU(1), which acts on Dirac fermions (this is, no Left-Right asymmetry anymore).

    Is there some reason, beyond experimental observation, to need this group particularly, and the precise way it acts? Given SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), are we already forced to choose a Higgs mechanism that hides the chiral (axial?) part of the electroweak force?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 3, 2017 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    By the way, the fact of SU(3)xU(1) acting on Dirac fermions has the interesting consequence of bypassing the usual objection against Kaluza-Klein theories; which are discarded because it is not possible to put chiral fermions on (most of) then. Here in principle we could use a 9-dimensional space, one dimension less than string theory, with compactification manifold CP2 x S1 (or CP2 x CP1 if you prefer).
  4. Jan 7, 2017 #3
    The Witten manifold for the SM gauge group, M111, has a quotient with symmetry group SU(3) x U(1)^2... see page 5 here.

    As I understand it, the quotient applies to a U(1) factor within SU(2), i.e. there is a one-parameter set of "rotations" of the manifold onto itself, and to form the Z_k quotient, you divide that circle of rotations into k segments, and then only keep enough of M111 that would correspond to one "segment". Like replacing a pie with just one slice of the pie, and then folding the slice over to make a cone shape.

    If you do that, all that is left of SU(2) is a different U(1) subgroup. Meanwhile, M111's original U(1) is untouched, so the remaining symmetry of this "M111/Z_k" manifold (which is still 11-dimensional) is SU(3) x U(1) x U(1).

    So I'm wondering if one could pursue your program of a d=9 Kaluza-Klein model for QCD+QED on "M111/Z_k" with two compactification scales. In d=4, you have QED+QCD; in d=9, you have "Kaluza-Klein QED+QCD"; and in d=11, you have "something like" the full SM gauge group.

    One might go further and guess that the transition from d=11 to d=9 is associated with supersymmetry breaking, and the transition from d=9 to d=4 with electroweak symmetry breaking. For the first transition, I might seek inspiration in the neglected case of G2-MSSM with few moduli and high susy scale (see page 7, "reason b", here). For the second transition, I might look to "postmodern technicolor", in which chiral symmetry breaking of technicolor, contributes to electroweak symmetry breaking.
  5. Jan 12, 2017 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmm? I almost certainly expected it to be the other way: d=11 goes to d=9 because of electroweak symmetry breaking; or even including LR-breaking if you are considering M111 (which is SU(3)xSU(2)xSU(2)). Then something causes d=9 down to d=4 but I can not guess what it is; susy breaking could do find here.

    Also, note that we could go d=12 to d=9 if we consider we are starting, as Witten did, from S3xS5, with both Pati-Salam and L-R symmetry.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Why SU(3)xU(1)?
  1. Why 3+1 dimensions? (Replies: 29)

  2. Why SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)? (Replies: 48)