DOCSLIB.ORG

The Higgs Boson As a Five-Dimensional Gauge Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Higgs Boson As a Five-Dimensional Gauge Field The Higgs boson as a five-dimensional gauge field Francesco Knechtli with Maurizio Alberti, Nikos Irges and Graham Moir Wuppertal – Athens – Cambridge DESY Theory Workshop, Hamburg, 28 Sep 2016 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Motivation Gauge-Higgs Unification I Origin of the potential responsible for the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism is unknown. I In Gauge-Higgs Unification (GHU) models the Higgs field is associated with some extra-dimensional components of a gauge field [ Manton, 1979 ]. I In the case of one extra dimension the Higgs potential is zero at tree level and is generated only through quantum effects. I At 1-loop, Higgs mass is finite. Fermions are necessary to obtain a symmetry breaking minimum through the Hosotani mechanism [ Hosotani, 1983 ]. I What happens non-perturbatively? lattice study. −! F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 1/14 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Lattice Formulation Wilson Gauge action for bulk gauge group SU(2): orb β4 X β5 X S = w tr 1 P4 + tr 1 P5 W 2 · f − g 2 f − g P4 P5 Boundary links satisfy gUg−1 = U with g = iσ3 − ( 1 plaquette on boundary w = 2 1 otherwise 5-d Orbifold U(1) U(1) I bare anisotropy is t p k=1,2,3 γ = β5/β4 a4=a5 5 ' I N5 is number of links n5 = 0 n5 = N5 in the fifth dimension SU(2) I N5a5 = πR, R radius of extra dimension. F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 2/14 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Lattice operators: Higgs l g−1 g l + x = 0 x = π R 55 5 Scalar Polyakov loop (defined at n = (nµ; 0)) p(n) = l(n) g ly(n) gy Higgs field y 1 1 2 2 h(n) = [p(n) p (n); g]=(4N5) A σ + A σ − ∼ 5 5 Higgs operators X y X (n0) = tr [hh ] ; (n0) = tr [p] H P n1;n2;n3 n1;n2;n3 F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 3/14 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Lattice operators: Gauge boson t α k=1,2,3 g 5 α π x 55 = 0 x 5 = R Gauge boson operators (defined at n = (nµ; 0)) X ^ y (n0; k) = tr [g U(n; k) α(n + a4k) U (n; k) α(n)] Z n1;n2;n3 0 X ^ y 0 y (n0; k) = tr [g U(n; k) l(n + a4k) U (n ; k) l (n)] Z n1;n2;n3 0 α is the SU(2) projection of h; n = (nµ;N5) F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 4/14 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Reminder Requirements for a viable model it should reproduce the right physics. the fifth dimension should be “hidden”. the physics should be cut-off independent. F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 5/14 Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Phase Diagram Notes 2 Bulk-driven phase transition On the torus Boundary-driven 1.8 1.8 phase transition Measured point I confined and 1.6 Coulomb phase. 1.4 1.4 On the orbifold 1.2 Higgs Phase 5 I One more phase: 1 β 1.0 U(1) gauge links 0.8 deconfine 0.6 0.6 Confined Phase separately. 0.4 Hybrid Phase I No compactification observed at γ > 1. 0.2 0.2 0 I Interesting physics 1.5 2 2.5 3 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 is found at γ < 1. β4 First order phase transitions [ Alberti, Irges, FK and Moir, 1506.06035 ] F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 6/14 1.4 β4=2.1 L = 32 1.2 L = 48 I But, in proximity of the ρ 1.0 0.8 Higgs-Hybrid phase β4=2.7 1.6 0.6 transition: ρ > 1! 1.6 L = 32 1.41.4 L = 48 0.4 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 bulk-driven phase transition 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 boundary-driven phase transition β5 1 1.3 ρ 1.0 ρ < 1 β =3.0 1 < ρ < 1.3 0.8 4 1.21.2 0.8 L = 32 ρ > 1.3 L = 32 1.6 0.6 1.1 5 simulated point 0.6 L = 48 1.4 L = 48 β 0.4 1.01 0.5 1.011.2 1.51.5 2.02 2.52.5 3.03 0.9 β5 ρ 1.0 0.80.8 0.8 0.7 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 0.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 0.5 3.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 β4 3.0 0.53.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 β5 [ Alberti, Irges, FK and Moir, 1506.06035 ] Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Spectrum 1.41.4 β4=1.9 1.3 Mass ratios L = 32 1.21.2 1.1 L = 48 I In general, in the Higgs 1.01 ρ 0.9 2 phase we measure 0.80.8 0.7 Bulk-driven 1.8 mH 0.60.6 phase transition 1.8 ρ = < 1. 0.5 mZ 0.4 Boundary-driven 1.6 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 Higgs Phase1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7phase1.8 transition1.9 2.0 Measured 1.4 β5 1.4 point 1.2 5 1 β 1.0 0.8 0.60.6 Confined Phase 0.4 Hybrid Phase 0.20.2 0 1.51.5 2.02 2.52.5 3.03 β4 F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 7/14 1.4 β4=2.1 L = 32 1.2 L = 48 ρ 1.0 0.8 β4=2.7 1.61.6 0.6 L = 32 1.41.4 L = 48 0.4 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 bulk-driven phase transition 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 boundary-driven phase transition β5 1 1.3 ρ 1.0 ρ < 1 β =3.0 1 < ρ < 1.3 0.8 4 1.21.2 0.8 L = 32 ρ > 1.3 L = 32 1.6 0.6 1.1 5 simulated point 0.6 L = 48 1.4 L = 48 β 0.4 1.01 0.5 1.011.2 1.51.5 2.02 2.52.5 3.03 0.9 β5 ρ 1.0 0.80.8 0.8 0.7 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 0.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 0.5 3.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 β4 3.0 0.53.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 β5 [ Alberti, Irges, FK and Moir, 1506.06035 ] Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Spectrum 1.41.4 β4=1.9 1.3 Mass ratios L = 32 1.21.2 1.1 L = 48 I In general, in the Higgs 1.01 ρ 0.9 2 phase we measure 0.80.8 0.7 Bulk-driven 1.8 mH 0.60.6 phase transition 1.8 ρ = < 1. 0.5 mZ 0.4 Boundary-driven 1.6 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 Higgs Phase1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7phase1.8 transition1.9 2.0 I But, in proximity of the Measured 1.4 β5 1.4 Higgs-Hybrid phase point 1.2 5 transition: ρ > 1! 1 β 1.0 0.8 0.60.6 Confined Phase 0.4 Hybrid Phase 0.20.2 0 1.51.5 2.02 2.52.5 3.03 β4 F. Knechtli, Higgs boson from 5d 7/14 1.4 β4=2.1 L = 32 1.2 L = 48 ρ 1.0 0.8 β4=2.7 1.61.6 0.6 L = 32 1.41.4 L = 48 0.4 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 bulk-driven phase transition 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 boundary-driven phase transition β5 1 1.3 ρ 1.0 ρ < 1 β =3.0 1 < ρ < 1.3 0.8 4 1.21.2 0.8 L = 32 ρ > 1.3 L = 32 1.6 0.6 1.1 5 simulated point 0.6 L = 48 1.4 L = 48 β 0.4 1.01 0.5 1.011.2 1.51.5 2.02 2.52.5 3.03 0.9 β5 ρ 1.0 0.80.8 0.8 0.7 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 0.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 0.5 3.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 β4 3.0 0.53.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 β5 [ Alberti, Irges, FK and Moir, 1506.06035 ] Motivation Orbifold Model Phase diagram Spectrum Dimensional Reduction LCPs Conclusions Spectrum 1.41.4 β4=1.9 1.3 Mass ratios L = 32 1.21.2 1.1 L = 48 I In general, in the Higgs 1.01 ρ 0.9 2 phase we measure 0.80.8 0.7 Bulk-driven 1.8 mH 0.60.6 phase transition 1.8 ρ = < 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Melting of the Higgs Vacuum: Conserved Numbers at High Temperature
    PURD-TH-96-05 CERN-TH/96-167 hep-ph/9607386 July 1996 Melting of the Higgs Vacuum: Conserved Numbers at High Temperature S. Yu. Khlebnikov a,∗ and M. E. Shaposhnikov b,† a Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA b Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland Abstract We discuss the computation of the grand canonical partition sum describing hot mat- ter in systems with the Higgs mechanism in the presence of non-zero conserved global charges. We formulate a set of simple rules for that computation in the high-temperature approximation in the limit of small chemical potentials. As an illustration of the use of these rules, we calculate the leading term in the free energy of the standard model as a function of baryon number B. We show that this quantity depends continuously on the Higgs expectation value φ, with a crossover at φ ∼ T where Debye screening overtakes the Higgs mechanism—the Higgs vacuum “melts”. A number of confusions that exist in the literature regarding the B dependence of the free energy is clarified. PURD-TH-96-05 CERN-TH/96-167 July 1996 ∗[email protected] †[email protected] Screening of gauge fields by the Higgs mechanism is one of the central ideas both in modern particle physics and in condensed matter physics. It is often referred to as “spontaneous breaking” of a gauge symmetry, although, in the accurate sense of the word, gauge symmetries cannot be broken in the same way as global ones can. One might rather say that gauge charges are “hidden” by the Higgs mechanism.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Quantum Field Theory on the Plane
    8. Quantum Field Theory on the Plane In this section, we step up a dimension. We will discuss quantum field theories in d =2+1dimensions.Liketheird =1+1dimensionalcounterparts,thesetheories have application in various condensed matter systems. However, they also give us further insight into the kinds of phases that can arise in quantum field theory. 8.1 Electromagnetism in Three Dimensions We start with Maxwell theory in d =2=1.ThegaugefieldisAµ,withµ =0, 1, 2. The corresponding field strength describes a single magnetic field B = F12,andtwo electric fields Ei = F0i.Weworkwiththeusualaction, 1 S = d3x F F µ⌫ + A jµ (8.1) Maxwell − 4e2 µ⌫ µ Z The gauge coupling has dimension [e2]=1.Thisisimportant.ItmeansthatU(1) gauge theories in d =2+1dimensionscoupledtomatterarestronglycoupledinthe infra-red. In this regard, these theories di↵er from electromagnetism in d =3+1. We can start by thinking classically. The Maxwell equations are 1 @ F µ⌫ = j⌫ e2 µ Suppose that we put a test charge Q at the origin. The Maxwell equations reduce to 2A = Qδ2(x) r 0 which has the solution Q r A = log +constant 0 2⇡ r ✓ 0 ◆ for some arbitrary r0. We learn that the potential energy V (r)betweentwocharges, Q and Q,separatedbyadistancer, increases logarithmically − Q2 r V (r)= log +constant (8.2) 2⇡ r ✓ 0 ◆ This is a form of confinement, but it’s an extremely mild form of confinement as the log function grows very slowly. For obvious reasons, it’s usually referred to as log confinement. –384– In the absence of matter, we can look for propagating degrees of freedom of the gauge field itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Verlinde's Emergent Gravity and Whitehead's Actual Entities
    The Founding of an Event-Ontology: Verlinde's Emergent Gravity and Whitehead's Actual Entities by Jesse Sterling Bettinger A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Faculty of Religion and Economics Claremont, California 2015 Approved by: ____________________________ ____________________________ © Copyright by Jesse S. Bettinger 2015 All Rights Reserved Abstract of the Dissertation The Founding of an Event-Ontology: Verlinde's Emergent Gravity and Whitehead's Actual Entities by Jesse Sterling Bettinger Claremont Graduate University: 2015 Whitehead’s 1929 categoreal framework of actual entities (AE’s) are hypothesized to provide an accurate foundation for a revised theory of gravity to arise compatible with Verlinde’s 2010 emergent gravity (EG) model, not as a fundamental force, but as the result of an entropic force. By the end of this study we should be in position to claim that the EG effect can in fact be seen as an integral sub-sequence of the AE process. To substantiate this claim, this study elaborates the conceptual architecture driving Verlinde’s emergent gravity hypothesis in concert with the corresponding structural dynamics of Whitehead’s philosophical/scientific logic comprising actual entities. This proceeds to the extent that both are shown to mutually integrate under the event-based covering logic of a generative process underwriting experience and physical ontology. In comparing the components of both frameworks across the epistemic modalities of pure philosophy, string theory, and cosmology/relativity physics, this study utilizes a geomodal convention as a pre-linguistic, neutral observation language—like an augur between the two theories—wherein a visual event-logic is progressively enunciated in concert with the specific details of both models, leading to a cross-pollinized language of concepts shown to mutually inform each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Gauge-Independent Higgs Mechanism and the Implications for Quark Confinement
    EPJ Web of Conferences 137, 03009 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/ epjconf/201713703009 XIIth Quark Confinement & the Hadron Spectrum Gauge-independent Higgs mechanism and the implications for quark confinement Kei-Ichi Kondo1;a 1Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan Abstract. We propose a gauge-invariant description for the Higgs mechanism by which a gauge boson acquires the mass. We do not need to assume spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry signaled by a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value of the scalar field. In fact, we give a manifestly gauge-invariant description of the Higgs mechanism in the operator level, which does not rely on spontaneous symmetry breaking. For concrete- ness, we discuss the gauge-Higgs models with U(1) and SU(2) gauge groups explicitly. This enables us to discuss the confinement-Higgs complementarity from a new perspec- tive. 1 Introduction Spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) is an important concept in physics. It is known that SSB occurs when the lowest energy state or the vacuum is degenerate [1]. First, we consider the SSB of the global continuous symmetry G = U(1). The complex scalar field theory described by the following Lagrangian density Lcs has the global U(1) symmetry: ! 2 2 ∗ µ ∗ ∗ λ ∗ µ L = @µϕ @ ϕ − V(ϕ ϕ); V(ϕ ϕ) = ϕ ϕ − ; ϕ 2 C; λ > 0; (1) cs 2 λ where ∗ denotes the complex conjugate and the classical stability of the theory requires λ > 0. Indeed, this theory has the global U(1) symmetry, since Lcs is invariant under the global U(1) transformation, i.e., the phase transformation: ϕ(x) ! eiθϕ(x): (2) If the potential has the unique minimum (µ2 ≤ 0) as shown in the left panel of Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories and the Coset Construction
    Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories and the Coset Construction Garrett Goon,a Austin Joyce,b and Mark Troddena aCenter for Particle Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA bEnrico Fermi Institute and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 Abstract The methods of non-linear realizations have proven to be powerful in studying the low energy physics resulting from spontaneously broken internal and spacetime symmetries. In this paper, we reconsider how these techniques may be applied to the case of spontaneously broken gauge theories, concentrating on Yang–Mills theories. We find that coset methods faithfully reproduce the description of low energy physics in terms of massive gauge bosons and discover that the St¨uckelberg replacement commonly employed when treating massive gauge theories arises in a natural manner. Uses of the methods are considered in various contexts, including general- izations to p-form gauge fields. We briefly discuss potential applications of the techniques to theories of massive gravity and their possible interpretation as a Higgs phase of general relativity. arXiv:1405.5532v2 [hep-th] 5 Jun 2014 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 General Coset Methods 4 2.1 InternalSymmetryBreaking. ........ 4 2.2 SpacetimeSymmetryBreaking . ....... 6 3 Yang–Mills As A Nonlinear Realization 7 3.1 TheLocalYang–MillsAlgebra . ....... 8 3.2 UnbrokenPhase ................................... 9 3.2.1 Maurer–Cartan Form and Inverse Higgs . ....... 9 3.2.2 Symmetries .................................... 10 3.2.3 Construction of the Action . ..... 10 3.2.4 Chern–SimonsasaWess–ZuminoTerm . ..... 11 3.3 SpontaneouslyBrokenPhase . ....... 13 3.3.1 Maurer–Cartan Form and Inverse Higgs .
    [Show full text]
  • Gauge Theory
    Preprint typeset in JHEP style - HYPER VERSION 2018 Gauge Theory David Tong Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 OBA, UK http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gaugetheory.html [email protected] Contents 0. Introduction 1 1. Topics in Electromagnetism 3 1.1 Magnetic Monopoles 3 1.1.1 Dirac Quantisation 4 1.1.2 A Patchwork of Gauge Fields 6 1.1.3 Monopoles and Angular Momentum 8 1.2 The Theta Term 10 1.2.1 The Topological Insulator 11 1.2.2 A Mirage Monopole 14 1.2.3 The Witten Effect 16 1.2.4 Why θ is Periodic 18 1.2.5 Parity, Time-Reversal and θ = π 21 1.3 Further Reading 22 2. Yang-Mills Theory 26 2.1 Introducing Yang-Mills 26 2.1.1 The Action 29 2.1.2 Gauge Symmetry 31 2.1.3 Wilson Lines and Wilson Loops 33 2.2 The Theta Term 38 2.2.1 Canonical Quantisation of Yang-Mills 40 2.2.2 The Wavefunction and the Chern-Simons Functional 42 2.2.3 Analogies From Quantum Mechanics 47 2.3 Instantons 51 2.3.1 The Self-Dual Yang-Mills Equations 52 2.3.2 Tunnelling: Another Quantum Mechanics Analogy 56 2.3.3 Instanton Contributions to the Path Integral 58 2.4 The Flow to Strong Coupling 61 2.4.1 Anti-Screening and Paramagnetism 65 2.4.2 Computing the Beta Function 67 2.5 Electric Probes 74 2.5.1 Coulomb vs Confining 74 2.5.2 An Analogy: Flux Lines in a Superconductor 78 { 1 { 2.5.3 Wilson Loops Revisited 85 2.6 Magnetic Probes 88 2.6.1 't Hooft Lines 89 2.6.2 SU(N) vs SU(N)=ZN 92 2.6.3 What is the Gauge Group of the Standard Model? 97 2.7 Dynamical Matter 99 2.7.1 The Beta Function Revisited 100 2.7.2 The Infra-Red Phases of QCD-like Theories 102 2.7.3 The Higgs vs Confining Phase 105 2.8 't Hooft-Polyakov Monopoles 109 2.8.1 Monopole Solutions 112 2.8.2 The Witten Effect Again 114 2.9 Further Reading 115 3.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Role of the Higgs Boson in the Early Universe
    About the role of the Higgs boson in the early universe Fred Jegerlehner, DESY Zeuthen/Humboldt University Berlin ' $ Fourth Quantum Universe Symposium, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, April 16-17, 2014 & % F. Jegerlehner – QU4 Groningen University – April 16-17, 2014 Outline of Talk: vIntroduction vThe Standard Model completed vThe SM running parameters vIs the Standard Model sick? vEmergence Paradigm vGravitation and Cosmological Models vThe Cosmic Microwave Background vInflation vThe issue of quadratic divergences in the SM vThe cosmological constant in the SM vThe Higgs is the inflaton! vReheating and baryogenesis vWhat about the hierarchy problem? vConclusion F. Jegerlehner – QU4 Groningen University – April 16-17, 2014 1 Introduction “Four Infinity” My talk is anti-infinity! r Infinities in Physics are the result of idealizations and show up as singularities in formalisms or models. r A closer look usually reveals infinities to parametrize our ignorance or mark the limitations of our understanding or knowledge. r My talk is about taming the infinities we encounter in the theory of elementary particles, quantum field theories. r I discuss a scenario of the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles in which ultraviolet singularities which plague the precise definition as well as concrete calculations in quantum field theories are associated with a physical cutoff, represented by the Planck length. F. Jegerlehner – QU4 Groningen University – April 16-17, 2014 2 r Thus in my talk infinities are replaced by eventually very large but finite numbers, and I will show that sometimes such huge effects are needed in describing reality. Our example is inflation of the early universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Higgs-Confinement Phase Transitions with Fundamental Representation
    Higgs-confinement phase transitions with fundamental representation matter Aleksey Cherman,1 Theodore Jacobson,1 Srimoyee Sen,2 Laurence G. Yaffe3 1School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN 55455, USA 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames IA 50011, USA 3Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195-1560, USA E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: We discuss the conditions under which Higgs and confining regimes in gauge theories with fundamental representation matter fields can be sharply distin- guished. It is widely believed that these regimes are smoothly connected unless they are distinguished by the realization of global symmetries. However, we show that when a U(1) global symmetry is spontaneously broken in both the confining and Higgs regimes, the two phases can be separated by a phase boundary. The phase transition between the two regimes may be detected by a novel topological vortex order param- eter. We first illustrate these ideas by explicit calculations in gauge theories in three spacetime dimensions. Then we show how our analysis generalizes to four dimensions, where it implies that nuclear matter and quark matter are sharply distinct phases of QCD with an approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry. arXiv:2007.08539v3 [hep-th] 30 Nov 2020 Contents 1 Introduction1 2 The model4 2.1 Action and symmetries4 2.2 Analogy to dense QCD8 2.3 Symmetry constraints on the phase structure8 3 Vortices and holonomies
    [Show full text]
  • Top–Bottom Condensation Model: Symmetries and Spectrum of the Induced 2HDM
    S S symmetry Article Top–Bottom Condensation Model: Symmetries and Spectrum of the Induced 2HDM Alexander A. Osipov 1 , Brigitte Hiller 2,*, Alex H. Blin 2 and Marcos Sampaio 3 1 Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980 Dubna, Russia; [email protected] 2 CFisUC, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, P-3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal; [email protected] 3 CCNH Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas, Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André 09210-580, SP, Brazil; [email protected] * Correspondence: brigitte@fis.uc.pt Abstract: Here, we use the Schwinger–DeWitt approach to address the four-fermion composite Higgs effective model proposed by Miransky, Tanabashi and Yamawaki (MTY). The surprising benefit of such an approach is that it is possible to ascribe to a SM-type Higgs a quark–antiquark structure of predominantly a bb¯ nature with a small tt¯ admixture, which in turn yields a Higgs mass compatible with the observed value of 125 GeV. We discuss this result in a detailed and pedagogical way, as it goes against the common belief that this model and akin composite descriptions should predict a Higgs mass-of-order of twice the top quark mass, contrary to empirical evidence. A further aspect of this approach is that it highlights the link of the SU(2)L × U(1)R symmetric four-fermion MTY model interactions of the heavy quark family to a specific two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM), and the necessity to go beyond the one Higgs doublet to obtain the empirical Higgs mass within composite models. By appropriately fixing the symmetry-defining interaction parameters, we show Citation: Osipov, A.A.; Hiller, B.; that the resulting CP-preserving spectrum harbors the following collective states at the electroweak Blin, A.H.; Sampaio, M.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
    SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 11 (2019) An introduction to spontaneous symmetry breaking Aron J. Beekman1, Louk Rademaker2,3 and Jasper van Wezel4? 1 Department of Physics, and Research and Education Center for Natural Sciences, Keio University, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan 2 Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland 3 Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada 4 Institute for Theoretical Physics Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands ? [email protected] Abstract Perhaps the most important aspect of symmetry in physics is the idea that a state does not need to have the same symmetries as the theory that describes it. This phenomenon is known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. In these lecture notes, starting from a careful definition of symmetry in physics, we introduce symmetry breaking and its conse- quences. Emphasis is placed on the physics of singular limits, showing the reality of sym- metry breaking even in small-sized systems. Topics covered include Nambu-Goldstone modes, quantum corrections, phase transitions, topological defects and gauge fields. We provide many examples from both high energy and condensed matter physics. These notes are suitable for graduate students. Copyright A. J. Beekman et al. Received 05-09-2019 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Accepted 04-11-2019 Check for Attribution 4.0 International License. Published 04-12-2019 updates Published by the SciPost Foundation. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.11 Contents Preface 3 1 Symmetry 6 1.1 Definition6 1.1.1 Symmetries of states6 1.1.2 Symmetries of Hamiltonians7 1.2 Noether’s theorem7 1.2.1 Conserved quantities8 1.2.2 Continuity equations8 1.2.3 Proving Noether’s theorem9 1.2.4 Noether charge 11 1.3 Examples of Noether currents and Noether charges 11 1.3.1 Schrödinger field 11 1.3.2 Relativistic complex scalar field 12 1.3.3 Spacetime translations 13 1.4 Types of symmetry transformations 14 1 SciPost Phys.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work Title FINITE TEMPERATURE BEHAVIOR OF THE LATTICE ABELIAN HIGGS MODEL Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6t62q5kt Author Banks, T. Publication Date 1979 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ., Submitted to Nuclear Physics B LBL-8963 c.·..... Preprint FINITE TEMPERATURE BEHAVIOR OF THE LATTICE ABELIAN HIGGS MODEL _ C' ..... FIVED 1 .. -~.- .. \W~r:~·ICE ~f:Rr.; 5;"',' I.A nORA TORY MAY 91979 Thomas Banks and E1iezer Rabinovici LlBRARY AND DOCUMENT.S s.e:.CTION. January 1979 Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract W-7405-ENG-48 TWO-WEEK lOAN COPY This is a library Circulatin9 Copy which may be borrowed for two weeks. For a personal retention copy, call Tech. Info. Dioision, Ext. 6782 1 -'. ;.' . DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Topological Order, Emergent Gauge Fields, and Fermi Surface
    arXiv:1801.01125 Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction Subir Sachdev Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 2Y5 Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305, USA E-mail: [email protected] December 2017 Abstract. This review describes how topological order associated with the presence of emergent gauge fields can reconstruct Fermi surfaces of metals, even in the absence of translational symmetry breaking. We begin with an introduction to topological order using Wegner's quantum Z2 gauge theory on the square lattice: the topological state is characterized by the expulsion of defects, carrying Z2 magnetic flux. The interplay between topological order and the breaking of global symmetry is described by the non-zero temperature statistical mechanics of classical XY models in dimension D = 3; such models also describe the zero temperature quantum phases of bosons with short-range interactions on the square lattice at integer filling. The topological state is again characterized by the expulsion of certain defects, in a state with fluctuating symmetry-breaking order, along with the presence of emergent gauge fields. The phase diagrams of the Z2 gauge theory and the XY models are obtained by embedding them in U(1) gauge theories, and by studying their Higgs and confining phases. These ideas are then applied to the single-band Hubbard model on the square lattice. A SU(2) gauge theory describes the fluctuations of spin-density-wave order, and its phase diagram is presented by analogy to the XY models.
    [Show full text]