Skip to main content
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

I am struggling with the definition of a unification. I read thisthis question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is $SU(3)$ invariant and a part that is $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in QFT?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?

I am struggling with the definition of a unification. I read this question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is $SU(3)$ invariant and a part that is $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in QFT?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?

I am struggling with the definition of a unification. I read this question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is $SU(3)$ invariant and a part that is $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in QFT?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?
edited tags
Link
Mr Puh
  • 655
  • 3
  • 15
deleted 14 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

Why does the Standard Model not unify SU$SU(3)$ and SU$SU(2)xU\times U(1)$?

I am struggling with the definition of a unificationunification. I read thisthis question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)$SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is SU(3)$SU(3)$ invariant and a part that is SU(2)xU(1)$SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in qftQFT?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)$SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?

Why does the Standard Model not unify SU(3) and SU(2)xU(1)

I am struggling with the definition of a unification. I read this question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is SU(3) invariant and a part that is SU(2)xU(1) invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in qft?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?

Why does the Standard Model not unify $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)\times U(1)$?

I am struggling with the definition of a unification. I read this question and i am wondering why the standard model is not unifying strong and weak force according to the given definition of a unification, namely that "'Unification' refers to explaining two sets of phenomena (theories) which were previously unrelated, and combining them into a single cohesive description."

Isn't the Standard Model exactly doing this with all three forces? It gives a frame (even in one lagrangian) that explains all three forces.

Regarding to this question I am wondering what we mean when we say the lagrangian of the SM is $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant. In my understanding there is a part which is $SU(3)$ invariant and a part that is $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant.

So my questions are:

  • What is the precise definition of a unification in QFT?
  • Why is the standard model not a unified theory for the strong and electroweak forces (and why is it for the electroweak theory?)
  • In which sense is the SM-lagrangian $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant? Or alternatively in which sense is it invariant if we define the charge of each field under each specific group?
Source Link
Mr Puh
  • 655
  • 3
  • 15
Loading