Why do we require gauge symmetries to commute?Representation of the Galileo Group and Central ChargesHow do I construct the $SU(2)$ representation of the Lorentz Group using $SU(2)times SU(2)sim SO(3,1)$ ?Why does global supersymmetry commute with gauge transformations?Wightman axioms and gauge symmetriesHow to find the remaining subgroup after some Higgs field gets a VEV?Are the mass matrices the same if Higgs corresponding to different Cartan generators get a vev?Electric charge of a triplet under $SU(2)_L$Decomposition of the gauge group of a sigma modelHiggs-Mechanism: Why are gauge boson masses not protected by gauge symmetryEmbedding of $SU(2)_L times U(1)_Y$ into $SU(2)_L times SU(2)_R$ in electroweak chiral effective theories

Two researchers want to work on the same extension to my paper. Who to help?

What is the significance of 4200 BCE in context of farming replacing foraging in Europe?

Why does TypeScript pack a Class in an IIFE?

Make all the squares explode

Why was the Ancient One so hesitant to teach Dr. Strange the art of sorcery?

Best species to breed to intelligence

Is it a bad idea to replace pull-up resistors with hard pull-ups?

What does it mean with the ask price is below the last price?

Washer drain pipe overflow

Was the Highlands Ranch shooting the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019

Can I use my laptop, which says 240V, in the USA?

Noob at soldering, can anyone explain why my circuit won't work?

How old is Captain America at the end of "Avengers: Endgame"?

Can I do brevets (long distance rides) on my hybrid bike? If yes, how to start?

Why does a C.D.F need to be right-continuous?

How to select certain lines (n, n+4, n+8, n+12...) from the file?

How are one-time password generators like Google Authenticator different from having two passwords?

find not returning expected files

Early arrival in Australia, early hotel check in not available

How are Core iX names like Core i5, i7 related to Haswell, Ivy Bridge?

Will change of address affect direct deposit?

How to slow yourself down (for playing nice with others)

How do I compare the result of "1d20+x, with advantage" to "1d20+y, without advantage", assuming x < y?

What does this quote in Small Gods refer to?



Why do we require gauge symmetries to commute?


Representation of the Galileo Group and Central ChargesHow do I construct the $SU(2)$ representation of the Lorentz Group using $SU(2)times SU(2)sim SO(3,1)$ ?Why does global supersymmetry commute with gauge transformations?Wightman axioms and gauge symmetriesHow to find the remaining subgroup after some Higgs field gets a VEV?Are the mass matrices the same if Higgs corresponding to different Cartan generators get a vev?Electric charge of a triplet under $SU(2)_L$Decomposition of the gauge group of a sigma modelHiggs-Mechanism: Why are gauge boson masses not protected by gauge symmetryEmbedding of $SU(2)_L times U(1)_Y$ into $SU(2)_L times SU(2)_R$ in electroweak chiral effective theories













4












$begingroup$


My question arises after reading the 87th page of Elementary particle physics in a nutshell by Tully:
enter image description here



which is also given by the following link:



https://books.google.se/books?id=vLy2YlkXZuEC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=SU(2)+U(1)+direct+product+group&source=bl&ots=ECiDbYUqQ9&sig=ACfU3U2TyUyv5cvXIMhMQ3_3_cbrKS8y9A&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_xOSHufrhAhUltYsKHVuRASAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=SU(2)%20U(1)%20direct%20product%20group&f=false



After deriving Eq $3.83$, he argued that




Since the $tau$ matrices (which are pauli matrices) don't commute, commutativity of the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ transformations for all $vecalpha$ and $chi$ is possible only if the $U(1)$ charges for the up and down compoments of the $SU(2)$ are equal.....And therefore we cannot identify the $U(1)$ group in the $SU(2)times U(1)$ direct product group with $U(1)_EM$




My questions are:



  1. why do we require the commutativity of the $SU(2)$ group and $U(1)$ transformation? And what forbid us to commute them?


  2. What are the differences in math between $U(1)_EM$ and $U(1)_Y$?
    Since they are both $U(1)$ group I guess there is no difference between them? The only difference is the charge?


  3. How is the "charge" defined (hypercharge and electrical charge)? I don't have a backgroud of group theory. As far as I know, it is just a parameter in the lagrangian, is it related to the generator?


  4. How does one define hypercharge in experiment? How is it measured?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    My question arises after reading the 87th page of Elementary particle physics in a nutshell by Tully:
    enter image description here



    which is also given by the following link:



    https://books.google.se/books?id=vLy2YlkXZuEC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=SU(2)+U(1)+direct+product+group&source=bl&ots=ECiDbYUqQ9&sig=ACfU3U2TyUyv5cvXIMhMQ3_3_cbrKS8y9A&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_xOSHufrhAhUltYsKHVuRASAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=SU(2)%20U(1)%20direct%20product%20group&f=false



    After deriving Eq $3.83$, he argued that




    Since the $tau$ matrices (which are pauli matrices) don't commute, commutativity of the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ transformations for all $vecalpha$ and $chi$ is possible only if the $U(1)$ charges for the up and down compoments of the $SU(2)$ are equal.....And therefore we cannot identify the $U(1)$ group in the $SU(2)times U(1)$ direct product group with $U(1)_EM$




    My questions are:



    1. why do we require the commutativity of the $SU(2)$ group and $U(1)$ transformation? And what forbid us to commute them?


    2. What are the differences in math between $U(1)_EM$ and $U(1)_Y$?
      Since they are both $U(1)$ group I guess there is no difference between them? The only difference is the charge?


    3. How is the "charge" defined (hypercharge and electrical charge)? I don't have a backgroud of group theory. As far as I know, it is just a parameter in the lagrangian, is it related to the generator?


    4. How does one define hypercharge in experiment? How is it measured?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4


      3



      $begingroup$


      My question arises after reading the 87th page of Elementary particle physics in a nutshell by Tully:
      enter image description here



      which is also given by the following link:



      https://books.google.se/books?id=vLy2YlkXZuEC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=SU(2)+U(1)+direct+product+group&source=bl&ots=ECiDbYUqQ9&sig=ACfU3U2TyUyv5cvXIMhMQ3_3_cbrKS8y9A&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_xOSHufrhAhUltYsKHVuRASAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=SU(2)%20U(1)%20direct%20product%20group&f=false



      After deriving Eq $3.83$, he argued that




      Since the $tau$ matrices (which are pauli matrices) don't commute, commutativity of the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ transformations for all $vecalpha$ and $chi$ is possible only if the $U(1)$ charges for the up and down compoments of the $SU(2)$ are equal.....And therefore we cannot identify the $U(1)$ group in the $SU(2)times U(1)$ direct product group with $U(1)_EM$




      My questions are:



      1. why do we require the commutativity of the $SU(2)$ group and $U(1)$ transformation? And what forbid us to commute them?


      2. What are the differences in math between $U(1)_EM$ and $U(1)_Y$?
        Since they are both $U(1)$ group I guess there is no difference between them? The only difference is the charge?


      3. How is the "charge" defined (hypercharge and electrical charge)? I don't have a backgroud of group theory. As far as I know, it is just a parameter in the lagrangian, is it related to the generator?


      4. How does one define hypercharge in experiment? How is it measured?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      My question arises after reading the 87th page of Elementary particle physics in a nutshell by Tully:
      enter image description here



      which is also given by the following link:



      https://books.google.se/books?id=vLy2YlkXZuEC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=SU(2)+U(1)+direct+product+group&source=bl&ots=ECiDbYUqQ9&sig=ACfU3U2TyUyv5cvXIMhMQ3_3_cbrKS8y9A&hl=zh-CN&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_xOSHufrhAhUltYsKHVuRASAQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=SU(2)%20U(1)%20direct%20product%20group&f=false



      After deriving Eq $3.83$, he argued that




      Since the $tau$ matrices (which are pauli matrices) don't commute, commutativity of the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ transformations for all $vecalpha$ and $chi$ is possible only if the $U(1)$ charges for the up and down compoments of the $SU(2)$ are equal.....And therefore we cannot identify the $U(1)$ group in the $SU(2)times U(1)$ direct product group with $U(1)_EM$




      My questions are:



      1. why do we require the commutativity of the $SU(2)$ group and $U(1)$ transformation? And what forbid us to commute them?


      2. What are the differences in math between $U(1)_EM$ and $U(1)_Y$?
        Since they are both $U(1)$ group I guess there is no difference between them? The only difference is the charge?


      3. How is the "charge" defined (hypercharge and electrical charge)? I don't have a backgroud of group theory. As far as I know, it is just a parameter in the lagrangian, is it related to the generator?


      4. How does one define hypercharge in experiment? How is it measured?







      quantum-field-theory gauge-theory group-theory electroweak






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited May 1 at 15:12









      Qmechanic

      109k122041260




      109k122041260










      asked May 1 at 14:20









      Universe MaintainerUniverse Maintainer

      1849




      1849




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          1. Pretty much by definition. Electroweak theory is built around $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is a Cartesian product of two groups, so it has them as commuting parts by definition.


          2. $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$ both isomorphic to the abstract $U(1)$. The $U(1)_Y$ plays a role in the definition of the electroweak model, but because the Higgs acquires a VEV, the $U(1)_text em$ plays a role in the broken phase which we happen to be living in.

          3. See below.

          4. Hypercharge is the $U(1)_Y$ gauge charge. In Standard Model, the values of hypercharge are chosen such that the particles have properties consistent with observation. The peculiar pattern of hypercharges is therefore arbitrary in the Standard Model, but its structure has been considered to be a clue into the physics beyond the Standard Model. Quite interestingly most of the GUT theories predict exactly the correct pattern of hypercharges.

          To understand gauge charges, a small introduction into the representation theory for semisimple Lie algebra is needed. Keep in mind that I'm leaving a lot behind the curtains here!



          An important fact about semisimple Lie algebras is that they admit the Cartan-Weyl basis that splits into a maximal commuting subalgebra called the Cartan subalgebra, and the remaining generators called roots. The number of Cartan subalgebra generators is called the rank of the algebra, and it is the number of gauge charges. Think of the Cartan subalgebra as the space of quantum numbers (the analogy is very close, because both are maximal commuting subspaces of something else, be it the Lie algebra or the configuration space of a system).



          All fields (and therefore particles) are classified into finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$, and each such representation is a direct sum of irreducible representations, or irreps.



          Cartan subalgebra generators have simultaneous eigenvalues on the vector space of any irrep, because they all commute. These eigenvalues are called gauge charges.



          For example, $mathfraksu_2$ has rank 1, and the Cartan-Weyl basis can be chosen as follows:



          • Cartan subalgebra is generated by $J_3$.

          • Two roots are $J_1 pm i J_2$.

          Its irreps are labeled by a half-integer $j$ called spin (here for abstract $mathfraksu_2$, but "spin" also has a meaning in particle physics), and the spin-$j$ irrep has dimension
          $$ dim V_j = 2j + 1. $$



          The eigenvalues of $J_3$ on $V_j$ range from $-j$ to $j$ with interval of $1$: $-j, -j+1, dots, j-1, j$. This constitues a gauge charge that is called isospin (sometimes the term isospin refers to $j$, and the eigenvalue of $J_3$ is termed the 3-rd projection of isospin).



          To give you a real life example, consider a left-chiral duplet
          $$ left(beginarrayc
          e_L\
          nu_e
          endarrayright) $$



          It lies in the $V_1/2$ irrep of $mathfraksu_2$, and $e_L$ and $nu_e$ are eigenstates of $J_3$ with isospin $mp 1/2$ respectively.



          Another example is the right-chiral electron $e_R$ which is an $mathfraksu_2$ singlet, that is, belongs to the 1-dimensional irrep $V_0$. Its isospin is $0$.



          The $mathfraku_1$ subalgebra isn't semisimple and has to be handled separately, but luckily the representation theory of $mathfraku_1$ is pretty straightforward. All irreps of an abelian algebra are 1-dimensional, and are completely parametrized by a choice of a number that corresponds to the single generator $J$. For the Lie algebra of $U(1)_Y$ that number is called hypercharge, and for $U(1)_textem$ it is the electric charge.



          The question of why electric charge is quantized is open in the Standard Model. GUTs attempt to embed $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$ into a larger semisimple Lie algebra (e.g $mathfraksu_5$) which means that charge quantization (both for hypercharge and electric charge) comes out naturally.



          Finally, the formula relating the two $mathfraku_1$ charges is:
          $$ Q = J_3 + fracY2,$$
          which is of course just the preferred by physicists normalization of $Q$ and $Y$.



          Now for more interesting algebras such as $mathfraksu_3$ (for QCD) or $mathfraksu_5$ (the simplest GUT model), the ranks are respectively $2$ and $4$, so irreps form peculiar patterns of gauge charges in 2-dimensional and 4-dimensional spaces respectively.



          Garrett Lisi has an awesome browser app called "elementary particle explorer" that maps elementary particles to points on $mathbbR^n$ with coordinates corresponding to gauge charges. It works with the Standard Model, several GUT models, as well as with Lisi's pet E8 model (which in its present state isn't well defined).



          UPD



          I will give you the derivation of $U(1)_textem$.



          The Higgs field is a scalar multiplet with the following transformation properties under the electroweak group $SU(2) times U(1)_Y$:



          • Under the $SU(2)$ part it transforms as a douplet – the irrep with $j = 1/2$. The generators of $SU(2)$ in the spin-$1/2$ irrep are given by $$J_i = frac12 sigma_i,$$ where $sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

          • Under the $U(1)_Y$ part it transforms as a singlet with hypercharge $1$. The generator of $U(1)_Y$, which is of course just $Y$, acts on the higgs as $1$.

          It is known that the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV) through the dynamics of the electroweak model. This breaks the full electroweak group. The important question is – which part of the group is unbroken (i.e. preserves the VEV)?



          The Higgs VEV in the unitary gauge is
          $$ phi_0=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright). $$



          Acting with $J_1 sim sigma_1$ or $J_2 sim sigma_2$ on it mixes up the components, because these matrices aren't diagonal. Therefore no nonzero linear combination of these can preserve the VEV.



          Also, the $U(1)_Y$ generator which is $Y$ doesn't preserve the VEV either. We know that it acts as $1$, so



          $$ Y phi_0 = phi_0 neq 0.$$



          However, a linear combination of $J_3$ and $Y$ does zero out the VEV!



          $$ J_3=frac12sigma_3=left(beginarraycc
          1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2
          endarrayright), $$

          $$ left(J_3+frac12Yright)phi_0=left(beginarraycc
          1/2+1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2+1/2
          endarrayright)left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright)=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          0
          endarrayright). $$



          Here we've found the so-called "little group" – the subgroup of the gauge group that preserves the VEV of the Higgs. It turns out that it is the $U(1)_textem$, generated by
          $$ Q = J_3 + frac12 Y. $$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 16:44











          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:50










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:55











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 17:04










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 17:10











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477169%2fwhy-do-we-require-gauge-symmetries-to-commute%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6












          $begingroup$

          1. Pretty much by definition. Electroweak theory is built around $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is a Cartesian product of two groups, so it has them as commuting parts by definition.


          2. $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$ both isomorphic to the abstract $U(1)$. The $U(1)_Y$ plays a role in the definition of the electroweak model, but because the Higgs acquires a VEV, the $U(1)_text em$ plays a role in the broken phase which we happen to be living in.

          3. See below.

          4. Hypercharge is the $U(1)_Y$ gauge charge. In Standard Model, the values of hypercharge are chosen such that the particles have properties consistent with observation. The peculiar pattern of hypercharges is therefore arbitrary in the Standard Model, but its structure has been considered to be a clue into the physics beyond the Standard Model. Quite interestingly most of the GUT theories predict exactly the correct pattern of hypercharges.

          To understand gauge charges, a small introduction into the representation theory for semisimple Lie algebra is needed. Keep in mind that I'm leaving a lot behind the curtains here!



          An important fact about semisimple Lie algebras is that they admit the Cartan-Weyl basis that splits into a maximal commuting subalgebra called the Cartan subalgebra, and the remaining generators called roots. The number of Cartan subalgebra generators is called the rank of the algebra, and it is the number of gauge charges. Think of the Cartan subalgebra as the space of quantum numbers (the analogy is very close, because both are maximal commuting subspaces of something else, be it the Lie algebra or the configuration space of a system).



          All fields (and therefore particles) are classified into finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$, and each such representation is a direct sum of irreducible representations, or irreps.



          Cartan subalgebra generators have simultaneous eigenvalues on the vector space of any irrep, because they all commute. These eigenvalues are called gauge charges.



          For example, $mathfraksu_2$ has rank 1, and the Cartan-Weyl basis can be chosen as follows:



          • Cartan subalgebra is generated by $J_3$.

          • Two roots are $J_1 pm i J_2$.

          Its irreps are labeled by a half-integer $j$ called spin (here for abstract $mathfraksu_2$, but "spin" also has a meaning in particle physics), and the spin-$j$ irrep has dimension
          $$ dim V_j = 2j + 1. $$



          The eigenvalues of $J_3$ on $V_j$ range from $-j$ to $j$ with interval of $1$: $-j, -j+1, dots, j-1, j$. This constitues a gauge charge that is called isospin (sometimes the term isospin refers to $j$, and the eigenvalue of $J_3$ is termed the 3-rd projection of isospin).



          To give you a real life example, consider a left-chiral duplet
          $$ left(beginarrayc
          e_L\
          nu_e
          endarrayright) $$



          It lies in the $V_1/2$ irrep of $mathfraksu_2$, and $e_L$ and $nu_e$ are eigenstates of $J_3$ with isospin $mp 1/2$ respectively.



          Another example is the right-chiral electron $e_R$ which is an $mathfraksu_2$ singlet, that is, belongs to the 1-dimensional irrep $V_0$. Its isospin is $0$.



          The $mathfraku_1$ subalgebra isn't semisimple and has to be handled separately, but luckily the representation theory of $mathfraku_1$ is pretty straightforward. All irreps of an abelian algebra are 1-dimensional, and are completely parametrized by a choice of a number that corresponds to the single generator $J$. For the Lie algebra of $U(1)_Y$ that number is called hypercharge, and for $U(1)_textem$ it is the electric charge.



          The question of why electric charge is quantized is open in the Standard Model. GUTs attempt to embed $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$ into a larger semisimple Lie algebra (e.g $mathfraksu_5$) which means that charge quantization (both for hypercharge and electric charge) comes out naturally.



          Finally, the formula relating the two $mathfraku_1$ charges is:
          $$ Q = J_3 + fracY2,$$
          which is of course just the preferred by physicists normalization of $Q$ and $Y$.



          Now for more interesting algebras such as $mathfraksu_3$ (for QCD) or $mathfraksu_5$ (the simplest GUT model), the ranks are respectively $2$ and $4$, so irreps form peculiar patterns of gauge charges in 2-dimensional and 4-dimensional spaces respectively.



          Garrett Lisi has an awesome browser app called "elementary particle explorer" that maps elementary particles to points on $mathbbR^n$ with coordinates corresponding to gauge charges. It works with the Standard Model, several GUT models, as well as with Lisi's pet E8 model (which in its present state isn't well defined).



          UPD



          I will give you the derivation of $U(1)_textem$.



          The Higgs field is a scalar multiplet with the following transformation properties under the electroweak group $SU(2) times U(1)_Y$:



          • Under the $SU(2)$ part it transforms as a douplet – the irrep with $j = 1/2$. The generators of $SU(2)$ in the spin-$1/2$ irrep are given by $$J_i = frac12 sigma_i,$$ where $sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

          • Under the $U(1)_Y$ part it transforms as a singlet with hypercharge $1$. The generator of $U(1)_Y$, which is of course just $Y$, acts on the higgs as $1$.

          It is known that the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV) through the dynamics of the electroweak model. This breaks the full electroweak group. The important question is – which part of the group is unbroken (i.e. preserves the VEV)?



          The Higgs VEV in the unitary gauge is
          $$ phi_0=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright). $$



          Acting with $J_1 sim sigma_1$ or $J_2 sim sigma_2$ on it mixes up the components, because these matrices aren't diagonal. Therefore no nonzero linear combination of these can preserve the VEV.



          Also, the $U(1)_Y$ generator which is $Y$ doesn't preserve the VEV either. We know that it acts as $1$, so



          $$ Y phi_0 = phi_0 neq 0.$$



          However, a linear combination of $J_3$ and $Y$ does zero out the VEV!



          $$ J_3=frac12sigma_3=left(beginarraycc
          1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2
          endarrayright), $$

          $$ left(J_3+frac12Yright)phi_0=left(beginarraycc
          1/2+1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2+1/2
          endarrayright)left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright)=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          0
          endarrayright). $$



          Here we've found the so-called "little group" – the subgroup of the gauge group that preserves the VEV of the Higgs. It turns out that it is the $U(1)_textem$, generated by
          $$ Q = J_3 + frac12 Y. $$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 16:44











          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:50










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:55











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 17:04










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 17:10















          6












          $begingroup$

          1. Pretty much by definition. Electroweak theory is built around $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is a Cartesian product of two groups, so it has them as commuting parts by definition.


          2. $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$ both isomorphic to the abstract $U(1)$. The $U(1)_Y$ plays a role in the definition of the electroweak model, but because the Higgs acquires a VEV, the $U(1)_text em$ plays a role in the broken phase which we happen to be living in.

          3. See below.

          4. Hypercharge is the $U(1)_Y$ gauge charge. In Standard Model, the values of hypercharge are chosen such that the particles have properties consistent with observation. The peculiar pattern of hypercharges is therefore arbitrary in the Standard Model, but its structure has been considered to be a clue into the physics beyond the Standard Model. Quite interestingly most of the GUT theories predict exactly the correct pattern of hypercharges.

          To understand gauge charges, a small introduction into the representation theory for semisimple Lie algebra is needed. Keep in mind that I'm leaving a lot behind the curtains here!



          An important fact about semisimple Lie algebras is that they admit the Cartan-Weyl basis that splits into a maximal commuting subalgebra called the Cartan subalgebra, and the remaining generators called roots. The number of Cartan subalgebra generators is called the rank of the algebra, and it is the number of gauge charges. Think of the Cartan subalgebra as the space of quantum numbers (the analogy is very close, because both are maximal commuting subspaces of something else, be it the Lie algebra or the configuration space of a system).



          All fields (and therefore particles) are classified into finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$, and each such representation is a direct sum of irreducible representations, or irreps.



          Cartan subalgebra generators have simultaneous eigenvalues on the vector space of any irrep, because they all commute. These eigenvalues are called gauge charges.



          For example, $mathfraksu_2$ has rank 1, and the Cartan-Weyl basis can be chosen as follows:



          • Cartan subalgebra is generated by $J_3$.

          • Two roots are $J_1 pm i J_2$.

          Its irreps are labeled by a half-integer $j$ called spin (here for abstract $mathfraksu_2$, but "spin" also has a meaning in particle physics), and the spin-$j$ irrep has dimension
          $$ dim V_j = 2j + 1. $$



          The eigenvalues of $J_3$ on $V_j$ range from $-j$ to $j$ with interval of $1$: $-j, -j+1, dots, j-1, j$. This constitues a gauge charge that is called isospin (sometimes the term isospin refers to $j$, and the eigenvalue of $J_3$ is termed the 3-rd projection of isospin).



          To give you a real life example, consider a left-chiral duplet
          $$ left(beginarrayc
          e_L\
          nu_e
          endarrayright) $$



          It lies in the $V_1/2$ irrep of $mathfraksu_2$, and $e_L$ and $nu_e$ are eigenstates of $J_3$ with isospin $mp 1/2$ respectively.



          Another example is the right-chiral electron $e_R$ which is an $mathfraksu_2$ singlet, that is, belongs to the 1-dimensional irrep $V_0$. Its isospin is $0$.



          The $mathfraku_1$ subalgebra isn't semisimple and has to be handled separately, but luckily the representation theory of $mathfraku_1$ is pretty straightforward. All irreps of an abelian algebra are 1-dimensional, and are completely parametrized by a choice of a number that corresponds to the single generator $J$. For the Lie algebra of $U(1)_Y$ that number is called hypercharge, and for $U(1)_textem$ it is the electric charge.



          The question of why electric charge is quantized is open in the Standard Model. GUTs attempt to embed $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$ into a larger semisimple Lie algebra (e.g $mathfraksu_5$) which means that charge quantization (both for hypercharge and electric charge) comes out naturally.



          Finally, the formula relating the two $mathfraku_1$ charges is:
          $$ Q = J_3 + fracY2,$$
          which is of course just the preferred by physicists normalization of $Q$ and $Y$.



          Now for more interesting algebras such as $mathfraksu_3$ (for QCD) or $mathfraksu_5$ (the simplest GUT model), the ranks are respectively $2$ and $4$, so irreps form peculiar patterns of gauge charges in 2-dimensional and 4-dimensional spaces respectively.



          Garrett Lisi has an awesome browser app called "elementary particle explorer" that maps elementary particles to points on $mathbbR^n$ with coordinates corresponding to gauge charges. It works with the Standard Model, several GUT models, as well as with Lisi's pet E8 model (which in its present state isn't well defined).



          UPD



          I will give you the derivation of $U(1)_textem$.



          The Higgs field is a scalar multiplet with the following transformation properties under the electroweak group $SU(2) times U(1)_Y$:



          • Under the $SU(2)$ part it transforms as a douplet – the irrep with $j = 1/2$. The generators of $SU(2)$ in the spin-$1/2$ irrep are given by $$J_i = frac12 sigma_i,$$ where $sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

          • Under the $U(1)_Y$ part it transforms as a singlet with hypercharge $1$. The generator of $U(1)_Y$, which is of course just $Y$, acts on the higgs as $1$.

          It is known that the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV) through the dynamics of the electroweak model. This breaks the full electroweak group. The important question is – which part of the group is unbroken (i.e. preserves the VEV)?



          The Higgs VEV in the unitary gauge is
          $$ phi_0=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright). $$



          Acting with $J_1 sim sigma_1$ or $J_2 sim sigma_2$ on it mixes up the components, because these matrices aren't diagonal. Therefore no nonzero linear combination of these can preserve the VEV.



          Also, the $U(1)_Y$ generator which is $Y$ doesn't preserve the VEV either. We know that it acts as $1$, so



          $$ Y phi_0 = phi_0 neq 0.$$



          However, a linear combination of $J_3$ and $Y$ does zero out the VEV!



          $$ J_3=frac12sigma_3=left(beginarraycc
          1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2
          endarrayright), $$

          $$ left(J_3+frac12Yright)phi_0=left(beginarraycc
          1/2+1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2+1/2
          endarrayright)left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright)=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          0
          endarrayright). $$



          Here we've found the so-called "little group" – the subgroup of the gauge group that preserves the VEV of the Higgs. It turns out that it is the $U(1)_textem$, generated by
          $$ Q = J_3 + frac12 Y. $$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 16:44











          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:50










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:55











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 17:04










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 17:10













          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          1. Pretty much by definition. Electroweak theory is built around $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is a Cartesian product of two groups, so it has them as commuting parts by definition.


          2. $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$ both isomorphic to the abstract $U(1)$. The $U(1)_Y$ plays a role in the definition of the electroweak model, but because the Higgs acquires a VEV, the $U(1)_text em$ plays a role in the broken phase which we happen to be living in.

          3. See below.

          4. Hypercharge is the $U(1)_Y$ gauge charge. In Standard Model, the values of hypercharge are chosen such that the particles have properties consistent with observation. The peculiar pattern of hypercharges is therefore arbitrary in the Standard Model, but its structure has been considered to be a clue into the physics beyond the Standard Model. Quite interestingly most of the GUT theories predict exactly the correct pattern of hypercharges.

          To understand gauge charges, a small introduction into the representation theory for semisimple Lie algebra is needed. Keep in mind that I'm leaving a lot behind the curtains here!



          An important fact about semisimple Lie algebras is that they admit the Cartan-Weyl basis that splits into a maximal commuting subalgebra called the Cartan subalgebra, and the remaining generators called roots. The number of Cartan subalgebra generators is called the rank of the algebra, and it is the number of gauge charges. Think of the Cartan subalgebra as the space of quantum numbers (the analogy is very close, because both are maximal commuting subspaces of something else, be it the Lie algebra or the configuration space of a system).



          All fields (and therefore particles) are classified into finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$, and each such representation is a direct sum of irreducible representations, or irreps.



          Cartan subalgebra generators have simultaneous eigenvalues on the vector space of any irrep, because they all commute. These eigenvalues are called gauge charges.



          For example, $mathfraksu_2$ has rank 1, and the Cartan-Weyl basis can be chosen as follows:



          • Cartan subalgebra is generated by $J_3$.

          • Two roots are $J_1 pm i J_2$.

          Its irreps are labeled by a half-integer $j$ called spin (here for abstract $mathfraksu_2$, but "spin" also has a meaning in particle physics), and the spin-$j$ irrep has dimension
          $$ dim V_j = 2j + 1. $$



          The eigenvalues of $J_3$ on $V_j$ range from $-j$ to $j$ with interval of $1$: $-j, -j+1, dots, j-1, j$. This constitues a gauge charge that is called isospin (sometimes the term isospin refers to $j$, and the eigenvalue of $J_3$ is termed the 3-rd projection of isospin).



          To give you a real life example, consider a left-chiral duplet
          $$ left(beginarrayc
          e_L\
          nu_e
          endarrayright) $$



          It lies in the $V_1/2$ irrep of $mathfraksu_2$, and $e_L$ and $nu_e$ are eigenstates of $J_3$ with isospin $mp 1/2$ respectively.



          Another example is the right-chiral electron $e_R$ which is an $mathfraksu_2$ singlet, that is, belongs to the 1-dimensional irrep $V_0$. Its isospin is $0$.



          The $mathfraku_1$ subalgebra isn't semisimple and has to be handled separately, but luckily the representation theory of $mathfraku_1$ is pretty straightforward. All irreps of an abelian algebra are 1-dimensional, and are completely parametrized by a choice of a number that corresponds to the single generator $J$. For the Lie algebra of $U(1)_Y$ that number is called hypercharge, and for $U(1)_textem$ it is the electric charge.



          The question of why electric charge is quantized is open in the Standard Model. GUTs attempt to embed $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$ into a larger semisimple Lie algebra (e.g $mathfraksu_5$) which means that charge quantization (both for hypercharge and electric charge) comes out naturally.



          Finally, the formula relating the two $mathfraku_1$ charges is:
          $$ Q = J_3 + fracY2,$$
          which is of course just the preferred by physicists normalization of $Q$ and $Y$.



          Now for more interesting algebras such as $mathfraksu_3$ (for QCD) or $mathfraksu_5$ (the simplest GUT model), the ranks are respectively $2$ and $4$, so irreps form peculiar patterns of gauge charges in 2-dimensional and 4-dimensional spaces respectively.



          Garrett Lisi has an awesome browser app called "elementary particle explorer" that maps elementary particles to points on $mathbbR^n$ with coordinates corresponding to gauge charges. It works with the Standard Model, several GUT models, as well as with Lisi's pet E8 model (which in its present state isn't well defined).



          UPD



          I will give you the derivation of $U(1)_textem$.



          The Higgs field is a scalar multiplet with the following transformation properties under the electroweak group $SU(2) times U(1)_Y$:



          • Under the $SU(2)$ part it transforms as a douplet – the irrep with $j = 1/2$. The generators of $SU(2)$ in the spin-$1/2$ irrep are given by $$J_i = frac12 sigma_i,$$ where $sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

          • Under the $U(1)_Y$ part it transforms as a singlet with hypercharge $1$. The generator of $U(1)_Y$, which is of course just $Y$, acts on the higgs as $1$.

          It is known that the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV) through the dynamics of the electroweak model. This breaks the full electroweak group. The important question is – which part of the group is unbroken (i.e. preserves the VEV)?



          The Higgs VEV in the unitary gauge is
          $$ phi_0=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright). $$



          Acting with $J_1 sim sigma_1$ or $J_2 sim sigma_2$ on it mixes up the components, because these matrices aren't diagonal. Therefore no nonzero linear combination of these can preserve the VEV.



          Also, the $U(1)_Y$ generator which is $Y$ doesn't preserve the VEV either. We know that it acts as $1$, so



          $$ Y phi_0 = phi_0 neq 0.$$



          However, a linear combination of $J_3$ and $Y$ does zero out the VEV!



          $$ J_3=frac12sigma_3=left(beginarraycc
          1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2
          endarrayright), $$

          $$ left(J_3+frac12Yright)phi_0=left(beginarraycc
          1/2+1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2+1/2
          endarrayright)left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright)=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          0
          endarrayright). $$



          Here we've found the so-called "little group" – the subgroup of the gauge group that preserves the VEV of the Higgs. It turns out that it is the $U(1)_textem$, generated by
          $$ Q = J_3 + frac12 Y. $$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          1. Pretty much by definition. Electroweak theory is built around $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is a Cartesian product of two groups, so it has them as commuting parts by definition.


          2. $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$ both isomorphic to the abstract $U(1)$. The $U(1)_Y$ plays a role in the definition of the electroweak model, but because the Higgs acquires a VEV, the $U(1)_text em$ plays a role in the broken phase which we happen to be living in.

          3. See below.

          4. Hypercharge is the $U(1)_Y$ gauge charge. In Standard Model, the values of hypercharge are chosen such that the particles have properties consistent with observation. The peculiar pattern of hypercharges is therefore arbitrary in the Standard Model, but its structure has been considered to be a clue into the physics beyond the Standard Model. Quite interestingly most of the GUT theories predict exactly the correct pattern of hypercharges.

          To understand gauge charges, a small introduction into the representation theory for semisimple Lie algebra is needed. Keep in mind that I'm leaving a lot behind the curtains here!



          An important fact about semisimple Lie algebras is that they admit the Cartan-Weyl basis that splits into a maximal commuting subalgebra called the Cartan subalgebra, and the remaining generators called roots. The number of Cartan subalgebra generators is called the rank of the algebra, and it is the number of gauge charges. Think of the Cartan subalgebra as the space of quantum numbers (the analogy is very close, because both are maximal commuting subspaces of something else, be it the Lie algebra or the configuration space of a system).



          All fields (and therefore particles) are classified into finite-dimensional representations of the Lie algebra of $SU(2) times U(1)$, which is $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$, and each such representation is a direct sum of irreducible representations, or irreps.



          Cartan subalgebra generators have simultaneous eigenvalues on the vector space of any irrep, because they all commute. These eigenvalues are called gauge charges.



          For example, $mathfraksu_2$ has rank 1, and the Cartan-Weyl basis can be chosen as follows:



          • Cartan subalgebra is generated by $J_3$.

          • Two roots are $J_1 pm i J_2$.

          Its irreps are labeled by a half-integer $j$ called spin (here for abstract $mathfraksu_2$, but "spin" also has a meaning in particle physics), and the spin-$j$ irrep has dimension
          $$ dim V_j = 2j + 1. $$



          The eigenvalues of $J_3$ on $V_j$ range from $-j$ to $j$ with interval of $1$: $-j, -j+1, dots, j-1, j$. This constitues a gauge charge that is called isospin (sometimes the term isospin refers to $j$, and the eigenvalue of $J_3$ is termed the 3-rd projection of isospin).



          To give you a real life example, consider a left-chiral duplet
          $$ left(beginarrayc
          e_L\
          nu_e
          endarrayright) $$



          It lies in the $V_1/2$ irrep of $mathfraksu_2$, and $e_L$ and $nu_e$ are eigenstates of $J_3$ with isospin $mp 1/2$ respectively.



          Another example is the right-chiral electron $e_R$ which is an $mathfraksu_2$ singlet, that is, belongs to the 1-dimensional irrep $V_0$. Its isospin is $0$.



          The $mathfraku_1$ subalgebra isn't semisimple and has to be handled separately, but luckily the representation theory of $mathfraku_1$ is pretty straightforward. All irreps of an abelian algebra are 1-dimensional, and are completely parametrized by a choice of a number that corresponds to the single generator $J$. For the Lie algebra of $U(1)_Y$ that number is called hypercharge, and for $U(1)_textem$ it is the electric charge.



          The question of why electric charge is quantized is open in the Standard Model. GUTs attempt to embed $mathfraksu_2 oplus mathfraku_1$ into a larger semisimple Lie algebra (e.g $mathfraksu_5$) which means that charge quantization (both for hypercharge and electric charge) comes out naturally.



          Finally, the formula relating the two $mathfraku_1$ charges is:
          $$ Q = J_3 + fracY2,$$
          which is of course just the preferred by physicists normalization of $Q$ and $Y$.



          Now for more interesting algebras such as $mathfraksu_3$ (for QCD) or $mathfraksu_5$ (the simplest GUT model), the ranks are respectively $2$ and $4$, so irreps form peculiar patterns of gauge charges in 2-dimensional and 4-dimensional spaces respectively.



          Garrett Lisi has an awesome browser app called "elementary particle explorer" that maps elementary particles to points on $mathbbR^n$ with coordinates corresponding to gauge charges. It works with the Standard Model, several GUT models, as well as with Lisi's pet E8 model (which in its present state isn't well defined).



          UPD



          I will give you the derivation of $U(1)_textem$.



          The Higgs field is a scalar multiplet with the following transformation properties under the electroweak group $SU(2) times U(1)_Y$:



          • Under the $SU(2)$ part it transforms as a douplet – the irrep with $j = 1/2$. The generators of $SU(2)$ in the spin-$1/2$ irrep are given by $$J_i = frac12 sigma_i,$$ where $sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

          • Under the $U(1)_Y$ part it transforms as a singlet with hypercharge $1$. The generator of $U(1)_Y$, which is of course just $Y$, acts on the higgs as $1$.

          It is known that the Higgs acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV) through the dynamics of the electroweak model. This breaks the full electroweak group. The important question is – which part of the group is unbroken (i.e. preserves the VEV)?



          The Higgs VEV in the unitary gauge is
          $$ phi_0=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright). $$



          Acting with $J_1 sim sigma_1$ or $J_2 sim sigma_2$ on it mixes up the components, because these matrices aren't diagonal. Therefore no nonzero linear combination of these can preserve the VEV.



          Also, the $U(1)_Y$ generator which is $Y$ doesn't preserve the VEV either. We know that it acts as $1$, so



          $$ Y phi_0 = phi_0 neq 0.$$



          However, a linear combination of $J_3$ and $Y$ does zero out the VEV!



          $$ J_3=frac12sigma_3=left(beginarraycc
          1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2
          endarrayright), $$

          $$ left(J_3+frac12Yright)phi_0=left(beginarraycc
          1/2+1/2 & 0\
          0 & -1/2+1/2
          endarrayright)left(beginarrayc
          0\
          v
          endarrayright)=left(beginarrayc
          0\
          0
          endarrayright). $$



          Here we've found the so-called "little group" – the subgroup of the gauge group that preserves the VEV of the Higgs. It turns out that it is the $U(1)_textem$, generated by
          $$ Q = J_3 + frac12 Y. $$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited May 2 at 17:09

























          answered May 1 at 14:56









          Solenodon ParadoxusSolenodon Paradoxus

          7,12811437




          7,12811437











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 16:44











          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:50










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:55











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 17:04










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 17:10
















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 16:44











          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:50










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 16:55











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – Universe Maintainer
            May 2 at 17:04










          • $begingroup$
            @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
            $endgroup$
            – Solenodon Paradoxus
            May 2 at 17:10















          $begingroup$
          Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
          $endgroup$
          – Universe Maintainer
          May 2 at 16:44





          $begingroup$
          Thank you so much! I have another question. You mentioned that: $U(1)_text em$ and $U(1)_Y$ are different subgroups of $SU(2) times U(1)$. How can we see this?
          $endgroup$
          – Universe Maintainer
          May 2 at 16:44













          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 16:50




          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer the $U(1)_Y$ is the very $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$. It is generated by the hypercharge $Y$: the generic element is written as $exp(i varepsilon Y)$. As for $U(1)_textem$ – it is generated by $Q = J_3 + Y/2$. It should be evident from this that $U(1)_textem$ mixes the direction of $U(1)_Y$ in the full symmetry group with the direction in $SU(2)$ pointed to by $J_3$. As to why that particular direction is physically important – it happens to be the only symmetry that preserves the VEV of the Higgs field.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 16:50












          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 16:55





          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer the Higgs field is an $SU(2)$ duplet with hypercharge of $1$. That completely specifies its transformation properties under $SU(2) times U(1)$. It acquires a VEV (in so-called "unitary gauge") is written as $phi_0=left(beginarrayc 0\ v endarrayright)$. It's a good exercise to extract a subgroup of $SU(2) times U(1)$ that preserves such VEV (I urge you to try it, hint – work with the Lie algebra). It turns out that the answer is $U(1)$, but not the $U(1)$ in $SU(2) times U(1)$, but rather a $U(1)_em$ that mixes $U(1)_Y$ with a direction in $SU(2)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 16:55













          $begingroup$
          Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
          $endgroup$
          – Universe Maintainer
          May 2 at 17:04




          $begingroup$
          Thank you so much for such an amazing answer! It is of great help to me! I have another question perhaps it looks a little bit stupid because I really don't know much about Lie algebra. So seems like the $SU(2)$ group in the standard model is actually $SU(2)_L$. What does this mean? any differentce between this group? Do they have the same generators? Also could you please recommand any reference (book or lecture notes) on the topic? Thank you so much!
          $endgroup$
          – Universe Maintainer
          May 2 at 17:04












          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 17:10




          $begingroup$
          @UniverseMaintainer PTAL at the update – I added the derivation of $SU(2)_textem$. The $L$ suffix means that $SU(2)$ acts nontrivially only on the left-chiral fermions. In my answer I mentioned that $e_L$ transforms nontrivially under $SU(2)$ (mixes with the neutrino), and $e_R$ is a singlet – it doesn't transform at all. Why particle physics is chiral (i.e. non-left-right-symmetric) is one of the big unanswered questions.
          $endgroup$
          – Solenodon Paradoxus
          May 2 at 17:10

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477169%2fwhy-do-we-require-gauge-symmetries-to-commute%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

          Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

          Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020