Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Gianluigi Fogli
Dipartimento di Fisica & INFN - Bari
3. Weak Interactions
4. Electroweak Interactions
5. Gauge Symmetry
Electromagnetic
Weak interactions
Strong
All these three interactions studied within the same framework characterized
by
Quantum Mechanics Local Relativistic Quantum Field Theory
Special Relativity
In other words, they are asked to satisfy a gauge symmetry invariance, which
means that they are supposed to be invariant under phase transformations that
rotate the basic internal degrees of freedom (internal quantum numbers), with
rotation angles dependent on the specific space-time coordinates (Local Gauge
Invariance).
The part of the electroweak symmetry related to the Higgs mechanism and to
the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the gauge symmetry is still hidden to us.
For all material bodies on the Earth and in all astrophysical and cosmological
phenomena a fourth interaction,
On the other hand, quantum effects in gravity are expected to become important
only for energy concentrations in space-time that in practice are not accessible
to the experimentation in laboratories.
r =
Mc
This gives
1/2
c5
Mc2 = = 1.22 x 1019 GeV Planck Mass
G
The Planck Mass is the only dimensional quantity appearing in gravity. It indicates
the mass scale at which gravitational effects become significant.
Instead of considering the mass scale, we can look to the distance at which the
interaction takes place, making use of the Heisemberg indetermination principle,
p r .
In the case of the LHC, we are testing the interaction at distances of the order
rLHC 10-18 cm
On the basis of the experiments performed until now, we can say that down to
distances of this order of magnitude the subatomic particles do not show an
appreciable internal structure and behave as elementary and point-like.
Using the Planck Mass to estimate the distances at which the quantum effects
due to gravity become significant, we find
rPM 10-33 cm
At these distances, r ~ 10-33 cm, the particles so far appeared as point-like could
well reveal a structure, like strings, and could require a completely different
theoretical framework.
Since the photon emerges in a natural way from the quantization of the Maxwell
field A(x), it is reasonable to ask whether also the other particles observed in
nature, primarily the electron, are also related to force fields by the same
quantization procedure.
When this point of view is assumed, it becomes natural to associate with each
kind of observed particles a field (x) which satisfies an assumed wave equation.
The particle interpretation of the field (x) is obtained when we apply the
canonical quantization program.
After the requirement of an ether propagating light waves had been abandoned,
it has been considerably less difficult to accept the same idea when the observed
wave properties of the electron suggested the introduction of a new field (x).
From that moment, the present description of the subatomic world in terms of
relativistic local fields follows.
At this point it is legitime to ask why local field theories, that is theories of
fields which can be described by differential laws of wave propagation, have been
so extensively used and accepted.
An important reason is that with their aid we have found a significant agreement
with observations.
But the foremost reason is brutally simple. There exists no convincing form of a
theory which avoids differential field equations.
Of course, a Hamiltonian may well not exist for a non-local granular theory: if it
does not, the link connecting us with the quantization method of non-relativistic
theories is fatally broken.
Since there exists no alternative theory which is any more convincing, we are
forced to restrict ourselves to the formalism of relativistic local causal fields. It
is undoubtedly true that a modified theory must have local field theory as an
appropriate large-distance approximation or correspondence.
However, we again emphasize that the formalism of the Standard Model may well
describe only the large-distance limit (at present, distances 10-18 cm) of a
physical world of considerably different submicroscopic properties.
But let us now abandon these speculations and go to the concrete formulation of
the Standard Model.
( + m2 ) (x) = 0
E2 +
p2 = m2
p p + eA quantum-mechanically i i + eA
corresponding to
sign chosen according to the relative e related to the coupling: in natural units
e2
=
sign of kinetic energy and potential 4
in the Schrodinger equation
In the usual non-relativistic perturbation theory the transition amplitude for the
scattering of a spinless electron from a state i to the state f off an
electromagnetic potential A is given by
Integrating by parts
with
electromagnetic
jfi = - ie [f*(i) - (f*) i]
current
A
If the ingoing and outgoing electrons have momenta pi and pf, respectively, we can
write, with Ni and Nf normalization constants,
i = Ni e-ip x
i
We are now able to calculate the scattering of the electron from another particle,
for example a muon. The graph is simple: pA and pC are the initial and final momenta
of the electron, pB and pD of the muon.
A = j(2)
pB pD with
j(2) = - e NBND (pD + pB) ei(pD-pB) x
- j(2) -
From
eiqx = -q2eiqx
with
g
M = ie (pA+pC) -i ie (pB+pD) invariant amplitude
q2
g
is the propagator of the photon (a
-i spin 1 particle) exchanged
q2
j(1) between electron and muon.
e- e-
(p m) = 0
The substitution
p p + eA
(p m) = 0V
with 0V = - e A
Tfi = -i f(x) V(x) i(x) d4x = ie f(x) A i(x) d4x = -i jfiA d4x
with
jfi = -e f i = - e uf ui ei(p -p )xf i where = 0
Jfi Jfi
The vertex factor is now a 1 1 ui uf
4x4 matrix in spin space
ie(pf+pi)
ie
1
The Gordon decomposition of the current shows that the spin 2
electron
interacts via both its charge and its magnetic moment:
1
uf ui = uf (pf+pi) + i(pf-pi) ui
with = i ( )
2m 2
e-
j(1) e-
so that the invariant amplitude is
ie
g
g
-i 2
q
-iM = (ie uC uA) -i (ie uD uB) ie
q 2
-
j(2) -
1
|M|2 |M|2 = |M|2
(2sA+1)(2sB+1) all spin
states
Le = 1
[ u(k) u(k)][u(k) u(k)]* p P
2 e spins
-
-
with a similar expression for Lmuon
.
The sum in Le can now be done. Writing explicitly the indeces and using the
completeness relations of the Dirac spinors (m being the electron mass)
(k + m)
(k + m)
i.e.
1
Le = Tr [(k + m) (k + m) ]
2
+ = 2g
Accordingly
Le = 1 Tr (k k ) + 1 m2 Tr ( ) =
2 [kk + kk (k k m2) g]
2 2
In similar way
M2 Tr ( ) =
2 [pp + pp (p p M2) g]
muon
L = 1 Tr (p p ) + 1
2 2
So that, in conclusion
e4
|M|2 = 8 4 [(kp)(kp) + (kp)(kp) m2(pp) M2(kk) + 2m2M2]
q
p + e- n + e no propagator:
point-like int. j(1)
p n
described by the invariant amplitude
M = G ( un up) ( u ue)
e-
e
Fermi constant charged weak currents j(2)
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 32
2. Parity violation
In 1956 Lee and Yang made a critical survey of all the weak interaction data and
argued persuasively that parity was not conserved in weak interactions. The Wu
experiment in the same year studied -transition of polarized cobalt nuclei
z
60Co 60Ni* + e- + e
-R
and observed that the electron is emitted
preferentially in the direction opposite to that of
the spin of the 60Co nucleus. +
eL-
The observation is consistent with the
explanation that the required Jz = 1 is formed by
a right-handed antineutrino -
R and a left-handed Jz = 5 Jz = 4 Jz = 1
electron eL. 60Co 60Ni* - R
+ (e-)L+ ()
L and -R
are involved in weak interactions. The absence of R and -
L is a clear indication of
parity violation:
Not only parity is maximally violated in weak interaction, but also charge
conjugation, i. e. the interchange particle-antiparticle. Indeed, C transforms a L
into a -
L so that
(+ +L) (- --
L) = 0 C violation
However, the combination of the two symmetry operations is not violated, at least in
principle, in weak interactions
(+ +L) = (- --
R) CP invariance
M(- e- -
G
e) = [ u
(1-5) u][ue (1-5) u e]
2
J = -
charge-raising
u 1 (1-5)ue
2 current
M = 4G J J with
2
J = -
ue 1 (1-5)u
charge-lowering
2
current
-e) = g 1 g
M(- e- u
(1-5) u ue (1-5) ue
2 MW q 2
2 2
G g2
=
2 8M2W
and the propagator disappears: the interaction is point-like. From the previous
equation we are induced to suspect that weak interactions are weak since M2W is
large, while it is reasonable to expect g e.
With the previous structure of the invariant amplitude, a large number of processes
can be explicitly calculated and compared with the experimental measurements.
-
e - -
e -
clean events, but small cross-section
N X
deep-inelastic scattering (DIS)
neutral
currents !
-
N -
X
NC() ( N X)
R = 0.31 0.01
CC() ( N - X)
-
NC() - N - X)
(
R- = 0.38 0.02
CC()-
- N + X)
(
GN GN cV cA
M= [ u (1- 5) u] [uq (cVq - cAq 5)uq]
2 new parameters
The conventional normalization of the weak neutral current is then of the type
J
NC () = 1 -u 1 (1- ) u
2 2
5
M = 4G 2 JNC J NC = 4GN 2 JNC JNC
with
u-q 1 (cV - cA5) uq
2 2 q q
J
NC (q) =
2
Neutral currents, unlike charged currents, are not pure V-A (cV cA): they have
right-handed components. However the neutrino is left-handed with cV=cA=1/2.
As we will see, in the Standard Model all the couplings cV, cA are all given in
terms of only one parameter, sin2W.
The parameter measures the relative strenght of neutral to charged
current processes. In the minimal version of the Standard Model (MSM) = 1.
This value is confirmed by the experiment within the experimental errors.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 39
4. The Cabibbo angle
We have seen that charged currents are constructed considering transition
between states coupled in the following pairs of (left-handed) fermionic doublets:
e
u
e- - d
They are coupled with the same universal coupling G. However, there are also
processes that implies transitions u s. For example the decay
u + u +
similarly
K+ +
K+ to +
s
d
M = 4G J J CC
2
It is now clear the reason of the small difference between G and G: G includes
the cosine of the Cabibbo angle. The relation is
G = G cosc
K0 +- K+ +e+e- -
K+ +
When the GIM mechanism has been proposed (1970), only the three lightest quarks
(u, d, s) were supposed to exist.
(K0 +-) d W -
= (9.1 1.9) 10-9
(K0 all)
u
because of charged current u d transition
due to the box diagram in which the
transition is mediated by a quark u. s W +
M ~ coscsinc
The GIM proposal was to introduce a fourth
quark c, of charge 2/3, such that a second
box diagram occurs, which would cancel d W -
exactly the first if it were not for the mass
difference between c and u. c
In the case of two doublets the mixing is described in terms on only one parameter,
the Cabibbo mixing angle c.
1 1
N2 (2N - 1) - N (N 1) = (N 1)(N 2) residual phases
2 2
d
- --
J = ( u c t ) 1 (1- ) U s
2 5
where one of the most usual parametrizations is also indicated (with ci, si cosine and
sine of the angles 1, 2, 3).
M Jca J bd
-
uc (1- 5) Uca ua u-b (1- 5) Ubd ud =
W
= Uca Udb* -
uc (1- 5) ua -
ud (1- 5) ub
b d
Udb *
If
MCP = M
We find
MCP
Uca Udb* -
ua (1- 5) uc -
ub (1- 5) ud
The comparison shows that, provided that the elements of the mixing matrix U are
real, we find
MCP = M
This is the case in which U is a 22 matrix and only 4 quarks (u, d, c, s) exist.
If however we have three generations of quarks, the mixing matrix becomes the
33 matrix of Kobayashi-Maskawa. It now contains a complex phase ei. Then in
general it is
MCP M
A first step in this direction is to find within the weak interaction phenomenology
an underlying symmetry group.
Let us start from the charged currents written in terms of the left-handed fields
e
J = J(+) = -
u 1 (1-5) ue = -
1 (1-5) e = -
L eL
W+
2 2
e-
e-
J = J(-) = u-e 1 -
(1-5) u = e 1 (1-5) = -
eL L
W-
2 2
e
By introducing
e and the usual step-up 1 (1 i2)
the doublet L =
=
e- L and step-down operators 2
-L+L
J(+) (x) = J(-) (x) = -
L-L
e- (e)
J(i) (x) = -
L 1
(i = 1, 2, 3)
2 i L
and can be assumed as generators of a new quantum number, the Weak Isospin.
The answer is negative, since J(3) (x) is a pure left-handed current, whereas the
observed phenomenological current contains a (small) right-handed component.
- e = - -eLeL - -eReR
jem(x) = - e
- Q
j = e jem = e
where Q is the electric charge generator, with eigenvalue Q = -1 for the electron.
In other words, Q is the generator of the U(1)em symmetry group of the
electromagnetic interactions.
The two currents JNC and jem do not respect the SU(2)L symmetry, but we can
expect that this is the case for a suitable linear combination of them. This
combination is a neutral current that can be identified with the member J(3) of the
isospin triplet.
The explicit form of this linear combination of T(3) and Q is quite arbitrary. We can
adopt the same relation which characterizes the third component of the isotopic
spin and the electric charge in the definition of the hypercharge through the Gell
Mann-Nishijima scheme (i.e. the scheme adopted for the arrangement of the
strange particles in the SU(2)I symmetry of the hadronic isospin multiplets).
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 54
So, we adopt the well-known Gell Mann-Nishijima relation
Y
Q = T (3) +
2
to connect the third component of the weak isospin to a new generator, the weak
hypercharge Y. Going to the currents associated to these generators, we can write
jem = J(3) + 1 jY
2
The hypercharge generator Y can be taken as the generator of a new abelian group
U(1)Y, so that the complete symmetry group is now enlarged to
SU(2)L U(1)Y
Note that we do not have a simple group, but the product of two groups, which
means that we need to introduce, in addition to the electric charge, another
coupling constant. Or, which is equivalent, we have to introduce two couplings, one
for SU(2)L and one for U(1)Y, by identifying the electric charge as a proper
combination of them.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 55
The SU(2)L U(1)Y proposal was first made by Glashow in 1961, long before the
discovery of the weak neutral currents, and, as we will see later, was extended to
accomodate massive vector bosons (W, Z0) by Weinberg in 1967 and Salam in 1968.
This is the Standard Model of the electroweak interactions.
Since we have to do with the product of two symmetry groups, the generator Y
must commute with the generators T(i). Accordingly, all the members of an isospin
multiplet must have the same value of the hypercharge. For example, for the
electron doublet ( e-) it is
so that the left-handed doublet ( e-)L has hypercharge -1 and the isospin singlet
eR has hypercharge -2.
We are now able to provide the assignment of weak isospin and hypercharge to
leptons and quark of the first generation.
Particle T T(3) Q Y
1 1
e 2
0 -1
2
1 1
e-L
2 - 2
-1 -1
e-R 0 0 -1 -2
1 1 2 1
uL 2 3
2 3
1
dL 1
2
- 2 - 1
3
1
3
2 4
uR 0 0 3 3
1
dR 0 0 - 3 - 23
Exactly in the same way used to develop QED from the basic interaction
- i e jem A
We can introduce an isotriplet of vector bosons W(i) and a single vector boson B,
with coupling g and g, respectively, to describe the SU(2)L U(1)Y interaction, which
takes the form
1
- i g J(i) W(i) - - i g j Y B
2
W(i) J(i) B
j Y
g 1
g
2
We have only to extract them explicitly, taking into account that they must appear
as two orthogonal combinations of the neutral vector bosons associated to J(3) and
jY. Accordingly, we can introduce the physical states (the mass eigenstates) in the
form
1 Y 1
- i g J(3) W(3) - i g j B
2
= - i ( g sinw J(3) + 2
g cosw jY ) A +
1 Y
e jem = e (J(3) + j )
2
g
g sinw = g cosw = e tg w =
g
The second term contains the neutral current JNC. It can be rewritten
1 g 1 g
- i ( g cosw J(3) - g sinw jY ) Z = - i ( J(3) - sinw cosw jY ) Z =
2 cosw 2 g
g g
= -i ( J(3) sin2w jem ) Z = - i JNC Z
cosw cosw
So, one identifies
coupled to Z g
J NC = J (3) sin2w j
em
cosw
with coupling
Mcc = 4G J J CC
2
with, in the isospin notation,
-L+L
J = J(+) (x) =
On the other hand, introducing the charged vector bosons, we can rewrite the basic
interaction in the form
J
g
-i J W(+) + J W(-)
2
which leads to
g 1 g W()
Mcc = J J CC
2 M2w 2
G g2
=
2 8M2w
MNC =
g
J NC 1 g
JNC JNC
cosw M2Z cosw
f f
cV = T(3)f 2 sin2w Qf cA = T(3)f
-
The explicit values of the different Z f f vertex factors are reported in the
Table (sin2w = 0.234)
1 1
e , , 0 2 2
1 1
e- , - , -1 - 2 - 2
+ 2 sin2w - 0.03
1 1
u,c, 2 - 4 sin2w + 0.19
3 2 2 3
d,s, - 1
3
- 1
2
- 21 + 2 sin2w - 0.34
3
Neutrino-electron scattering
In all these processes, a perfect agreement with the Standard Model has been
found.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 65
5. Gauge symmetries
The framework in which these principles are discussed is the Lagrangian Field
Theory. It is well-known that in classical mechanics the particle equations of motion
can be obtained from the Lagrange equations
d L L = 0 qi generalized coordinates
. - with .
dt qi qi qi = dqi/dt
where
T kinetic energy
L=T-V with
V potential energy
.
L ( qi, qi, t) L ( ,
, x) with L = L d 3x
x
L
- L
=0
x
x
What is the relation between the Lagrangian approach and the perturbative method
based on Feynman rules? To each Lagrangian there corresponds a set of Feynman
rules, so that, once we identify these rules, the connection is established. The
identification proceeds as follows:
We associate to the various terms in the Lagrangian a set of propagators and
vertex factors.
The propagators are determined by the terms quadratic in the fields, i.e. the
- , etc.
terms in the Lagrangian containing for example 2,
The other terms in L are associated to interaction vertices.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 68
Let us start from the Lagrangian
- m -
L = i
U(1)
This invariance, through the Noether theorem, implies the existence of a conserved
current and, at the integral level, of a conserved generalized charge, which acts
as the generator of the group U(1).
with j(x) = ie 1 L - L
- e -
j = 0 2 () -
()
=
where the proportionality factor has been chosen in such a way to match up the
electromagnetic current of an electron of charge e.
Q= j0 (x) d3x
A A + 1e (x)
But with the introduction of the covariant derivative the Lagrangian becomes
L = i- - = - (i m ) + e - A
D m
The result is to some extent rather surprising: the requirement of local gauge
invariance applied to the Lagrangian of a free particle leads to a Lagrangian which
describes the interaction of the particle with a vector field (gauge field) that we
can interpret as the electromagnetic field A.
In other words, we can derive QED from the requirement of local gauge invariance.
F = A - A
L= -
(i m ) + e -
A - 1
4
FF
1
2
M2 AA
L0 = -
qi (i m ) qi (i = 1, 2, 3)
with U arbitrary 33 unitary matrix. Ta are the eight generators of SU(3) in the
three-dimensional representation (the Gell Mann matrices a/2). They satisfy the
commutation relations
q (1+i aTa) q + i Ta q a
1
Ga Ga - g a (where g is the coupling)
D = + i g TaGa
L0 L = - - Ta q) Ga
q (i m ) q g ( q
Adding to L the gauge invariant kinetic energy term of the gauge fields we have for
the QCD gauge invariant Lagrangian the final form
q (i m ) q g ( -
L= - a
q Ta q) Ga G G
a
with
a a a b c
G = G - G g fabcG G
in order to satisfy the requirement of gauge invariance of the kinetic energy of the
gauge fields.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 76
The QCD Lagrangian describes the interaction between colored quarks q and vector
gluons G with coupling g. Gauge invariance requires the eight gluons to be massless.
a
Note that the particular expression of the terms G, due to the non-Abelian
character of the gauge group, introduces, together with the kinetic energy terms,
also a self-interaction effect between the gauge fields.
In a symbolic form we can distinguish
L = qq + G2 + g qqG + g G3 + g2 G4
qa qa gc a gc a gc a gacgc a gac
qa qa gab
ab gab gab gab gab
The first three terms have their analogue in QED. They describe the free
propagators of quarks and gluons and the quark-gluon interaction. The remaining
two terms correspond to three and four gluon vertices and reflect the fact that
gluons themselves carry color.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 77
4. Massive gauge bosons ?
The gauge bosons are required to be massless in gauge invariant theories. How can
we justify the existence of massive vector bosons, as they appear in weak and
electroweak interactions?
Of course, a possibility is to forget about gauge invariance and include the vector
boson mass terms as well.
However, the point is that the introduction or not of mass terms is not merely an
aesthetic problem. The introduction of mass terms not only spoils gauge invariance,
but also introduces unrenormalizable divergences that make the theory
meaningless.
q q
- g +
M2 q q
i ~ q2M2
Q2 - M2 q2
d4q (propagator) .
Even the introduction of a cut-off does not work, since the inspection of the
diagrams containing more loops shows that new, even more severe divergences
appear in each order, and ultimately an infinite number of unknown parameters has
to be introduced.
The point is: it is possible to introduce masses without breaking gauge invariance?
Higgs mechanism
L=TV= 1
2
( 21 22 + 41 4) with > 0
V(q)
The case 2 > 0 is rather familiar. It describes a scalar
field with mass in a confining potential.
The ground state (vacuum in the quantum language)
corresponds to = 0.
q
The solution satisfies the reflection symmetry of the
Lagrangian.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 80
The case 2 < 0 is more interesting. The Lagrangian has a mass term with a wrong
sign, moreover the potential has two minima. From
V(q)
V
= (2 + 4) = 0
-v v q
- 2
=v with v=
(x) = v + (x)
1 1
L= v 2 2 v 3 - 4
4 + const
2
We see that the new field (x) has a mass term of the right sign, with
m = 2v2 = -22
whereas the higher order terms in (x) represent the interaction of the field (x)
with itself.
What about L and L ? The two Lagrangians describe the same physics. If we were
able to solve the two Lagrangians exactly, we would find the same results.
In particular the scalar particles under study when described by the Lagrangian L
have a well defined mass!
What about the reflection symmetry? Since the two Lagrangians are equivalent,
the symmetry is not lost. Whereas in L the symmetry is manifest, in L it is hidden,
but still present. In particular we find exactly the same results independently of
the specific choice of the minimum: = v or = - v.
ei
Considering the case > 0 and 2 < 0, we can re-write L in terms of 1 and 2
1 2 2
L= 1
2
(1)2 + 1 ( )2
2
2 2
(1 + 22 ) 41 (21 + 22 )2
with the potential which is now a function of the two fields 1 and 2:
V = V(1, 2)
q1
1 = v 2 = 0 j
d
as the minimum of V() and expand L around the vacuum in terms of the fields (x)
and (x) through the substitution
(x) =
1
2
[v + (x) + i (x)]
so obtaining
1 2 1 2
L= + 2
+ 22 + const + cubic and quartic terms in and
2
The first term in L is the kinetic term of (x), but there is no a corresponding mass
term for (x). This is the result of the
Goldstone theorem
which states that massless scalar particles occur whenever a continuous symmetry
of a physical system is spontaneously broken.
Neverthless, let us proceed from a global to a local gauge theory. A miracle is about
to happen.
1
(x) ei(x) (x) with = (1 i 2)
2
L = ()*() 2* (*)2
D = i e A
A A + 1e (x)
1
L = (+ i e A) * ( - i e A) 2* (*)2 - 4
FF
If 2 > 0, then this is just the QED Lagrangian for a charged scalar particle of mass
m, with the addition of a 4 self-interaction term.
But we take 2 < 0, since we want to generate mass terms through the spontaneous
symmetry breaking mechanism. In this case we have to translate the field (x) to
the ground state. With the same substitution as before
(x) =
1
2
[v + (x) + i (x)]
the Lagrangian becomes mass term mass term strange off-diagonal term
1 2 1 2 1 1
L= + 2
- v 2 2 + e2v2AA - e vA - F F + interaction terms
2 2 4
We have obtained a massive vector field, but we have still the occurrence of a
massless Goldstone boson.
However, the occurrence of a strange term off-diagonal in the vector field induces
to be careful in the interpretation of L .
Indeed, giving mass to A we have raised the number of degrees of freedom of the
system: the polarization degrees of freedom go from 2 to 3 (addition of the
longitudinal polarization of the massive vector boson) whereas the number of
degrees of freedom of the scalar fields seems to be the same.
Since we have one more degree of freedom in L , this means that the fields in L not
all correspond to distinct physical particles.
(x) =
1
2
[v + (x) + i (x)] 1
2
[v + (x)] e i (x)/v
This suggests the use of a different specific set of fields in the original Lagrangian:
(x)
1
2
[v + h(x) + i (x)] 21 [v + h(x)] e i (x)/v
A A + 1e (x)
1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1
L =
2
h - v 2h2 +
2
e v A A - v h3 - 4
h4 +
2
e2v2AA h2 + e2vAA h - F F
4
The Goldstone boson has disappeared. The extra degree of freedom is indeed
spurious, it corresponds to the freedom of making a gauge transformation.
L describes two interacting massive particles, a massive scalar field h(x) and a
massive gauge vector boson A(x).
The field h(x) is called Higgs particle. The unwanted massless Goldstone boson has
been turned into the longitudinal polarization of the massive vector boson. It is a
would be Goldstone boson and it has been eated by the vector boson.
L = () () 2 ( )2
= ei a a/2
But if we require invariance under a local phase transformation, then we have to
introduce the covariant derivative
a a
D = + i g W
2
a a
in terms of a triplet of vector fields W and the coupling constant g, the being
2
the SU(2) generators in the doublet representation.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 92
Under infinitesimal local gauge transformations
a
(x) (x) = 1 + i a(x) (x)
2
last term due to the non-
and
Abelian character of SU(2)
W W g1
W
1 1 1
L= + i g 2
W + i g 2
W V() - 4
WW
V() = 2 ( )2
and the kinetic energy of the vector fields given by last term due to the non-
Abelian character of SU(2)
W = W - W g W W
1 2 2 2 2 2
= ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ) = -
2
We choose a specific minimum
2 2
1 = 2 = 4 = 0 3 =- = v2
The choice introduces the spontaneous breaking of the SU(2) symmetry. We expand
around the specific vacuum
1 0
0 =
2 v
Gauge invariance, with the specific choice of the gauge, allows to simply substitute
in L the expansion
1 0
(x) =
2 v + h(x)
1
i (x)/v
0
(x) = 2
e v + h(x)
so fully parametrizing the deviation from the vacuum. On the other hand, the
Lagrangian is locally invariant: we can then gauge the three would-be Goldstone
bosons 1(x), 2(x), 3(x), with the appropriate choice of the gauge. We arrive to the
previous form of the shift, which is so justified
1 0
(x) =
2 v + h(x)
At this point, in L there remains only the Higgs field without any trace of the gauge
fields. They have been gauged away and disappear from the theory.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 95
The three gauge vector bosons are now massive. We can isolate the mass terms
MW = 1 gv
2
In conclusion, we have a theory characterized by one massive scalar field h(x) and
three massive gauge fields. The Goldstone bosons have been eated by the gauge
fields when they become massive.
The choice of the scalar field representation is crucial. If (x) instead than a
complex doublet is chosen to be a SU(2) triplet of real scalar fields, then, always
for > 0 and 2 < 0, we find that only two gauge bosons acquire a mass, whereas the
third remain massless.
em - Q ) A
- i e j A = - i e ( Q generator of U(1)em
We have seen that the interaction derives from demanding gauge invariance of the
Lagrangian of a free fermion
- (i m)
L=
= eia(x)Q
- (i m) e (- Q ) A -
L= 1
FF
4
- i g JW = - i g -
LTW L
The second interaction with the hypercharge current coupled to a vector boson B
- i g 1 Y
j B = - 1 Y B
-i g
2 2
R R = ei(x)Y L
1 1 Y
Q = T(3) + Y and then jem = J(3) + j
2
2
Accordingly, the neutral current of the SU(2)L U(1)Y interaction can be rewritten
by introducing W(3) and B in terms of A and Z through the mixing angle w
1 Y 1
- i g J(3) W(3) - i g j B = - i ( g sinw J(3) + 2
g cosw jY ) A +
2
1
- i ( g cosw J(3) - g sinw jY ) Z =
2
g
= - i e jem A - i JNC Z
cosw
so obtaining
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 100
From the requirement of gauge invariance under SU(2)L U(1)Y it is possible to
derive the electroweak gauge invariant lagrangian. Always in the case of the (e e-)
lepton pair, we have
L1 = - B L + -
L i - g 21
W - g (- 1
2
) eR i - g (- 1) B eR - 1 W W - 1
B B
4
4
where the values of the hypercharge have been explicitly inserted. The last two
terms correspond to kinetic energy and self-coupling of the W(i) fields and to the
kinetic energy of the B field, respectively.
Fermion masses. L1 describes massless gauge bosons. Mass terms for the gauge
bosons are not gauge invariant and cannot be added. The same is true also for
the fermions fields: a mass term, for example for the electron, is given by
- e = - m e-
- me e 1
(1 5) + 1
(1 - e + -e e )
+ 5) e = - me (e
e 2 2 R L L R
But this term breaks gauge invariance since eL is the member of an isospin
doublet and eR is an isospin singlet. The fermion masses will be introduced by
the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the theory.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 101
2. The Higgs field
We want to introduce the Higgs mechanism in such a way to have W and Z0 massive,
whereas the photon A remains massless.
1 2
L2 = i g TW - g 2
YB - V()
+
1 1 + i 2
(x) =
=
0
2 3 + i 4
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 102
V() is the usual potential. We assume > 0 and 2 < 0 choosing the vacuum
expectation value
1 0 1
0 = with T= , Y=1 , Q=0
2 v 2
Q 0 = 0 0 0 = ei(x) Q 0 = 0
Since the vacuum 0 is still left invariant by some subgroup of the gauge group, then
the gauge bosons associated with this subgroup will remain massless.
With the previous choice, this is indeed the case of U(1)em with the photon expected
massless after the occurrence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The other three vector bosons associated to the remaining three generators of
SU(2)L U(1)Y will become massive and will be identified with W and Z0 .
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 103
2. Masses of the gauge bosons
The gauge boson masses come from L2 when the usual shift is applied
1 0 1 0
(x) = 0 +
2 v + h(x) 2 h(x)
(W(1)) 2 + (W )2
1 v2g2 (2)
=
2
+ v2 (gB gW(3) ) (gB gW (3) ) =
2 (+) (-) 1 2
g2 - gg B
= 1 vg W W + v ( W (3)
B )
2 2
- gg g2 W (3)
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 104
By comparing the first term with the expectation for the mass of a charged vector
boson M2 W (+)W (-) we find
W
MW = 1 v g
2
(3) 2 (3) 2
1 1 2
v2 g2 W(3) W(3) - 2 g g W(3)B + g2 BB = v gW - g B + 0 g W + g B
8 8
1 M 2 Z 2 + 1 M 2 A 2
Z A
2 2
g W(3) - g B 1
Z = with MZ = 2
v g2 + g2
g2 + g2
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 105
By taking into account that
g
g sinw = g cosw = e i.e. tg w =
g
we find
A = B cosw + W(3) sinw
Z = - B sinw + W(3) cosw
and
MW = cosw MZ
The two vector boson masses are different, and this appears an effect of the
mixing.
Note that the previous relation has been obtained in the Minimal Standard Model
(one Higgs doublet) and is specific of the Minimal Standard Model. Different
choices of the Higgs sector lead in general to different relations, even though the
existence of more than one Higgs doublet leads to the same numerical results.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 106
Making use of the relation which connects the vector boson masses to the low
energy Fermi coupling constant
G g2
=
2 8M2w
and comparing the the result obtained for MW, MW = 1 v g, one derives
2
1 g2 G
= =
2v2 8M2w 2
Making use of the experimental value of the Fermi coupling constant one obtains for
the vev v
v = 246 GeV
Similarly, making use of the value at low energy of w one can predict the vector
boson masses
37.3 74.6
MW = GeV MW = GeV
sinw sin2w
These relations are well verified experimentally. All the phenomenology strongly
supports the Standard Model in its minimal version (even though more Higgs
doublets leads to the same relations).
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 107
3. The parameter
We have just established the relation between MZ and MW, that we can rewrite in
the form
MW
= cosw
MZ
Let us remind that the parameter , introduced to specify the relative strenght of
the neutral and charged current, is expressed in terms of the vector boson
masses. Accordingly, for the Minimal Standard Model
M2w
= = 1
M2z cos2w
v i2 Ti(Ti+1) - 1 Y2
M2w 2 i vi , Ti , Yi are vev, weak isospin
= = and weak hypercharge of the
M2z cos2w 1 v i2 Y i2 generic Higgs representation
2
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 108
4. Masses for the fermions
-
A direct fermion mass term m cannot be assumed since it breaks gauge
invariance. But terms corresponding to fermion masses come from the piece of the
Lagrangian L3 which couples fermions to the Higgs sector.
Assuming the minimal version of the Standard Model, i.e. only one Higgs doublet, we
have for the fermion doublet (e e-) the following gauge invariant couplings
-e e- ) L -R ( - -0)
+
e
L3 = - Ge ( eR + e
0
e L
1 0 1 0
(x) = 0 +
2 v + h(x) 2 h(x)
transforms L3 into
L3 = -
1
Gv - LeR + e-ReL) -
(e
1 -
G (e LeR + -eReL) h
2 e 2 e
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 109
i.e. me -
-e -
L3 = - me e e e h
with me = 1
Gv
v 2 e
Ge g me
he+e- vertex factor -i = -i
2 2 MW
1
h0 (T= , Y= 1)
2
Quark masses are generated in the same way. In order to give mass also to the
upper member of the doublet (the u quark) we have to introduce the Higgs doublet
conjugate to
-
- 0 1 v + h(x)
c = -i 2 * = -
after SSB
2 0
- - - 0 -
- Gd ( - -
+
L4 = u d) L d - Gu ( u d)L u + h.c.
0
R - R
- -u u - md - mu -
L4 = - md d d mu ddh - uuh
v v
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 111
4. The Higgs mass
The Higgs mass cannot be predicted from the theory. Starting from the potential
and considering it as an effective potential
V() = 2 ( )2 + .
mh2 = 2v2
On the other hand, mh cannot be smaller than, say, ~10 GeV, otherwise radiative
corrections would wash out the minimum at v 0.
It is matter of facts that the Higgs mass has been calculated through its quantum
effects well before its recent measurement at LHC.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 112
7. Renormalization and running coupling constants
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 113
1. A loop diagram and the photon propagator
Let us consider the Feynman graph for the Rutherford scattering of an electron
from a static charge Ze (a nucleus, typically).
i.e.
-i(Ze,0)
-iM = (ie uf 0 ui)
-i
(- i Ze)
q2
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 114
Let us now introduce a loop along the photon propagator. We can apply the
Feynman rules and obtain
(-1)n for a diagram with n fermion loops
e-
J e-
g
-iM = (-1) (ie uf ui) -i
ui uf q2
ie
g
d 4p i(p + m)
i(q - p + m)
-i 2 q (2) (ie)
(ie)
q 4
(q-p)2 m2
p2 m2
ie
p q-p g
-i ( ))
- i j ( q
q2
ie
g
-i 2
q where p is the four-momentum circulating around the
loop. Since p is not observable, we have to sum over all
-i j( q ) possible values of p.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 115
Comparing with the lowest order, the effect of the loop can be regarded as a
modification of the propagator: we can write
g
g
g
g
g
(-i) (-i)
-i -i + -i I -i -i + q2 I
q2
q2 q2 q2 q2 q2
where
d 4p i(p + m)
i(q - p + m)
I (q2) = (-1)1 (2) 4
Tr (ie)
(ie)
p2 m2 (q-p)2 m2
Symbolically
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 116
In the integral we have terms that diverge as p . It can be shown that I can
be written (after a lenghty calculation)
these terms vanish when coupled
with external currents because
I = -i g q2 I(q2) + (terms qq) of charge conservation
with
dp2 2
1 q2z(1-z)
-
I(q2) =
dz z (1-z) ln 1 -
3
m2 p2
0 m2
In I(q2):
M2
-q2
M2
for (-q2) large I(q2) = ln - ln = ln
3
m2
3
m2
3
-q2
Apparently, the divergence spoils of any meaning the result. But let us consider
the invariant amplitude including the loop contribution in the small (-q2) limit
-iM = - 0 u)
(ie u
(-i)
1-
ln M2
2
-
q
2
+ O (e4) (-iZe)
q2 3
m
15
m
2
- 0 u) (-i) eR2 q2
-iM = (ieR u 1- (-iZeR)
q2 60 2 m2
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 118
if we assume 1
e2 M2 2
eR = e 1 - ln
122 m2
It is easy verified that the two expressions of the invariant amplitude are
equivalent at the O(e2).
We assume eR as the physically measured electric charge in any long range Coulomb
experiment as the Thomson scattering or the Rutherford scattering
e
e
e e
Z
Thomson scattering Rutherford scattering
So, interpreting
eR2
=
4
we introduce a measurable parameter into the play, in terms of which the invariant
amplitude is finite.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 119
2. The g 2
Can we verify that this approach is meaningfull and leads to a physically observable
effect?
The answer is yes. There are several examples. One of the most significant concerns
the magnetic moment of the electron, the so-called g-2.
1
uf ui = uf (pf + pi) + i(pf - pi) ui
with = i ( )
2m 2
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 120
If we now consider the correction to the vertex related to the
loop diagram in the figure, it is possible to verify that the
diagram modifies the structure of the electromagnetic current
in the following form
- e u-fui -f
q2 m 3
1
-eu 1+ ln - - i q
ui
3
m2
m
8 2
2m
This implies a contribution of order to the gyromagnetic ratio coming from the
second term: i.e.
= - e 1+
g=2+
2m 2
g2
= (1159657.7 3.5) 10-9
2 exper
which proves relativistic quantum field theory at the level of quantum effects.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 121
3. Renormalization in QED
Renormalization is a rather complex procedure and cannot be developed here. The
various diagrams lead to the redefinition of charge, mass and wave function of the
electron, by re-absorbing the divergent parts of the diagrams.
The radiative corrections come from the finite terms and can be tested
experimentally.
In particular the loop diagrams in the photon propagator, known as
vacuum polarization
modify the charge of the electron. We can include the loops at higher order in the
form
e e0 2
=
1 - +
e e0
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 122
which corresponds to the expansion
e e0
1
=
e e0 1 +
e2 = e20 1
1 + I(q2 )
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 123
This shows that we can introduce a renormalized coupling constant (Q2) = e2(Q2)
for different values of Q2 = - q2, where Q2 is the physical value of the momentum
transfer of the process we are considering. The coupling behaves as a
(Q2) = 0 1
running coupling constant
1+ I(q2 )
In the large Q2 = - q2 limit we can use the expression obtained for I(q2) and write
0
(Q ) =
2
0 Q2
1- ln
3
M2
There remains the dependence on the cut-off M2. But it can be eliminated by taking
a renormalization momentum as reference and subtracting (2) from (Q2):
(2)
(Q2) =
(2) Q2
1- ln
3
2
The presence of the pairs e+e- in the perturbative expansion of the electron
propagator gives rise to a electromagnetic screening when we measure the electric
charge of the electron with a test charge.
- -
+ + Therefore, the closer one approaches the
test charge
R electron, the larger is the charge one
- + - + measures. One expects a behaviour of the
Coulomb charge as that shown in the figure.
+ +
- -
low energy
probe
1
=
137
R
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 125
3. Running coupling constant in QCD
A similar approach can be applied in QCD, but with very different results. This
depends on the effects of the additional graphs that contain the self-interaction
effects of gluons.
The running coupling constant as(Q2) for QCD is characterized by a coefficient
s(2) (2)
- 2
n 5
3 f
+ 16 to be compared with
the QED coefficient
- 43
4
4
The first term is essentially the same: in the QED case we have the photon which
- to be
can fluctuate in the pair e+e-, in QCD the gluon can fluctuate in the pair qq,
multiplied for the number of flavors. Moreover, there is a factor 2 in the definition
of the two coupling constants.
The factor 5 comes from the fermion loops of transverse gluons. It can be shown
that these terms contribute always with a negative sign.
Finally, we have a factor + 16, related to the introduction of ghost particles that
cancel the unphysical polarizations but do not lead to the production of physical
particles, and then contribute with a positive term.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 126
In conclusion, the QCD running coupling constant is given by
s(2)
s(Q2) =
s(2) Q2
1+ 33 2nf ln
12
2
The coefficient is positive. It needs to have more than 16 quark flavors to change
the sign and then the behaviour of as(Q2), which decreases with increasing Q2 and
becomes small for short-distance interactions. We refer to this property as
asymptotic freedom
Conversely, at sufficiently low Q2 the coupling becomes large, i.e. of order O(1). It is
usual to denote the value of Q2 at which this occurs as 2. It follows that
- 12
2 = 2 exp
(33 - 2nf) as(2)
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 127
It follows that s(Q2) can be written in terms of 2 in the form
12
s(Q2) =
Q2
33 2nf ln
2
For Q2 much larger than 2, s(Q2) is small and a perturbative description of quarks
and gluons is possible. This is the regime of perturbative QCD.
For Q2 of order 2, the perturbative approach does not make sense: quarks and
gluons arrange themselves into hadrons. This is the regime of confinement.
color
charge
confinement
region
high energy
probe s = 1
1 Fermi
R
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 128
4. Grand Unification
Is it possible to go beyond the Standard Model searching for an unifying group
g , g , gs
(where we assume s = g2s /4) seems to agree with the possibility that for some
large-momentum (or short-distance) scale Q = MX the three couplings merge into a
single coupling gG, so that the group G describes a unified interactions with coupling
gG(Q) at Q = MX
Indeed, the two non-Abelian groups are asymptotically free, whereas the coupling of
the Abelian group increases with Q, so suggesting a convergence towards a common
value.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 129
Let us identify the couplings according to
running coupling constants
g1(Q) = C g(Q) 3
It is convenient to make use of the quantities 1/i = 1/g2i since they depend linearly
on ln Q. For example, in the case of g3 = gs we obtain, by rewriting the relation
previously found for s,
1 1 Q 1 2
=
+ 2b3 ln with b3 = nf 11
g32() g32(Q)
42 3
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 130
Similar expressions can be found for the other two couplings, so that, by identifying
Q with MX and gi(MX) = gG, we can write
1 1 MX
=
+ 2bi ln
gi2 () gG2
with
b1 = 1 2n 1 22 b3 = 1 11 + b1
3 f
b2 = - 3
+ b1
42 42 42
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 131
Assuming = 10 GeV, we can use the actual values = 1/137 and s = 0.1. Concerning
C, it can be taken C2 = 5/3, the value relative to the unification group SU(5). We
obtain
MX = 5 1014 GeV
g12(Q)
sin2 w =
g12(Q) + C2g22 (Q)
On the other hand, it is possible to derive, with a simple calculation, the value of
sin2w at Q = 10 GeV, to be compared with its actual value. We have
1
sin2 W = 1 + 2C2
1 + 3C2 s
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 132
4. SU(5) and proton decay
The simplest grand unification group is SU(5), proposed by Georgi and Glashow in
1974.
SU(5) can accomodate all the known fermions (leptons and quarks) in two distinct
irreducible representations of the group, according to
- -
5 = (1 , 2) + (3 , 1) = (e , e-)L + dL
- in terms of IRs of
10 =
-
(1 , 1) + (3 , 1) + (3 , 2) = e+L + -
uL + (u ,d)L
SU(3)c SU(2)L
24 = (8 + 1) + (1 , 3) + (1 , 1) + (3 , 2) + (3 , 2)
-
gluons W, Z0,
leptoquarks X, Y
The leptoquarks X and Y are two colored heavy gauge bosons, SU(2)L doublets. They
mediate interactions that turn quarks into leptons and viceversa, with violation of
leptonic and baryonic number.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 133
In particular leptoquarks are expected to mediate proton decay. We can estimate
the decay rate, by comparing the process to the -decay: from
G g2
=
2 8M2w
it follows
W e-
-
g
m5
(- e-e) = . G2m5 = .
2
4
MW g -
2
e
GG gG2
=
u e+
2 8MX
2
gG gG
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 134
We can compare in the range of values of s going from 0.1 to 0.2 the corresponding
values of MX, sin2w, and p. We find it difficult to reconcile the results: either
sin2w is too small, or it is the proton which decays too fast.
As said before, there are other, larger, groups that are even better candidates for
the unification. In particular, they have the possibility of including also right handed
neutrinos. But it is clear that we need more experimental information to say
something of more convincing on grand unification.
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 135
5. The quantization of the electric charge
This is one of the more interesting results related to GUTs, in particular to SU(5).
Indeed, within SU(5) the photon is one of the gauge bosons of the group and, as a
consequence, the electric charge Q is one of the generators. Since the group is a
simple group, the trace of each generator, and then also of the electric charge Q, is
zero for any representation of the group.
-
For the representation 5 this means that
Tr Q = 3Q d- + Q + Qe- = 0 Qd = 1 Q e-
3
Qu = -2Qd
The combination of the two results solves one of the most intriguing mistery of
particle physics: why it is
Qp = - Q e-
Gianluigi Fogli An Introduction to the Standard Model, Canfranc, July 2013 136