Why Use a Bi-Doublet Scalar Field (2,2) Under SU(2)L x SU(2)R?

  • Thread starter Thread starter btphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
btphysics
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello,

why one can use a bi-doublet scalar field (2,2) under SU(2)L x SU(2)R ? In terms of group theory, we should have only triplets (3,1) or (1,3) since 2 x 2=3+1 ? But in left right symmetric models, indeed yukawa coupling are formed with bi-doublet scalars.

Best regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really know about such models, but in either case individually one can have SU(2) doublet scalar fields, e.g. the Standard Model Higgs doublet, so why couldn't you have scalars which are doublets under both groups?
 
The only problem is that in terms of group theory representation, for me, that does not makes sense.
 
btphysics said:
Hello,

why one can use a bi-doublet scalar field (2,2) under SU(2)L x SU(2)R ? In terms of group theory, we should have only triplets (3,1) or (1,3) since 2 x 2=3+1 ? But in left right symmetric models, indeed yukawa coupling are formed with bi-doublet scalars.

Best regards

This is very much SM question. So, this thread should be moved to particle physics sub-forums.

As for the answer, recall that in the interacting theory of massless nucleon and mesons, we introduce the following 8 \times 8 matrix of meson fields
\Phi ( x ) = I_{ 8 \times 8 } \ \sigma ( x ) + i \gamma_{ 5 } \tau_{ i } \pi_{ i } ( x ) ,
where \sigma ( x ) is an iso-scalar in the [1] representation of SU(2) and \pi_{ i } ( x ) is an iso-vector in the [3] representation of SU(2). We couple this to the nucleon field N ( x ) \in \ [2] by (Yukawa)
\mathcal{ L }_{ \mbox{int} } = \bar{ N } ( x ) \Phi ( x ) N ( x ) .
a) The requirement that \mathcal{ L }_{ \mbox{int} } be invariant under the (vector) SU(2) transformation U, implies that
N ( x ) \rightarrow U N ( x ) , \ \ \ \Phi ( x ) \rightarrow U \Phi ( x ) U^{ \dagger } .
b) Since the nucleon in the model is massless, we also demand that \mathcal{ L }_{ \mbox{int} } be invariant under the axial iso-spin transformation U_{ 5 } = \exp ( i \gamma_{ 5 } \alpha_{ i } \tau_{ i } / 2 ). This implies
N \rightarrow U_{ 5 } N , \ \ \ \Phi \rightarrow U^{ \dagger }_{ 5 } \Phi U^{ \dagger }_{ 5 } .
With a bit of algebra we can combine the transformations in (a) and (b) to form the invariance group SU_{ L } (2) \times SU_{ R }(2) of \mathcal{ L }_{ \mbox{int} } as follows
N_{ R } \rightarrow R N_{ R } ,
in the (1 , 2) representation of SU_{ L } (2) \times SU_{ R }(2),
N_{ L } \rightarrow L N_{ L },
in the (2 , 1) representation, and
\Phi \rightarrow L \Phi R^{ \dagger },
in the (2 , 2) representation of SU_{ L } (2) \times SU_{ R }(2).

So, in short, it is the massless (chiral) fermions that require mesons from (2 , 2 ) representation.

See:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3819325&postcount=6

See also pages 115-121 in the textbook by Ta-Pei Cheng & Ling-Fong Li:
“Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics, Problems and Solutions” , Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sam
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
Back
Top