Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added 59 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

While refreshing my memory on details of the Standard Model, I ran into a muddle. I might not exist to ask bizarre questions if the neutron, neutrino, and hydrogen atom were not electrically neutral. Thanks to the cleverly contrived weak hypercharge assignments of the SM, they are.

Weinberg justified these assignments in terms of anomaly cancellation, but the discussion in his book QT of F (1996, v2, p387) assumed the nonexistence of a right-handed neutrino. He found the ratios of hypercharges to be totally constrained. (There were actually two discrete solutions, but one was clearly unphysical.) But nowadays, given the evidence of neutrino mixing, isn’t there one more continuously adjustable hypercharge parameter to worry about? It seems the SM is one constraint short of a unique solution.

Matthew Schwartz’s book QFT and SM (2014, p634) acknowledges the problem but offers three lame excuses for the right-handed neutrino’s orthodox Y=0$Y=0$ assignment: nonexistence (?), Majorana character (??), or any other reason (???). I gather that given a different value, the hydrogen atom would still be neutral, but the stability of heavy nuclei would be affected.

Can any of you δημιουργοιδημιουργοι offer a better rationale for the values of hypercharge, other than magnetic monopoles, empirical fact, or the anthropic principle? A grand unifying group, perhaps?

While refreshing my memory on details of the Standard Model, I ran into a muddle. I might not exist to ask bizarre questions if the neutron, neutrino, and hydrogen atom were not electrically neutral. Thanks to the cleverly contrived weak hypercharge assignments of the SM, they are.

Weinberg justified these assignments in terms of anomaly cancellation, but the discussion in his book QT of F (1996, v2, p387) assumed the nonexistence of a right-handed neutrino. He found the ratios of hypercharges to be totally constrained. (There were actually two discrete solutions, but one was clearly unphysical.) But nowadays, given the evidence of neutrino mixing, isn’t there one more continuously adjustable hypercharge parameter to worry about? It seems the SM is one constraint short of a unique solution.

Matthew Schwartz’s book QFT and SM (2014, p634) acknowledges the problem but offers three lame excuses for the right-handed neutrino’s orthodox Y=0 assignment: nonexistence (?), Majorana character (??), or any other reason (???). I gather that given a different value, the hydrogen atom would still be neutral, but the stability of heavy nuclei would be affected.

Can any of you δημιουργοι offer a better rationale for the values of hypercharge, other than magnetic monopoles, empirical fact, or the anthropic principle? A grand unifying group, perhaps?

While refreshing my memory on details of the Standard Model, I ran into a muddle. I might not exist to ask bizarre questions if the neutron, neutrino, and hydrogen atom were not electrically neutral. Thanks to the cleverly contrived weak hypercharge assignments of the SM, they are.

Weinberg justified these assignments in terms of anomaly cancellation, but the discussion in his book QT of F (1996, v2, p387) assumed the nonexistence of a right-handed neutrino. He found the ratios of hypercharges to be totally constrained. (There were actually two discrete solutions, but one was clearly unphysical.) But nowadays, given the evidence of neutrino mixing, isn’t there one more continuously adjustable hypercharge parameter to worry about? It seems the SM is one constraint short of a unique solution.

Matthew Schwartz’s book QFT and SM (2014, p634) acknowledges the problem but offers three lame excuses for the right-handed neutrino’s orthodox $Y=0$ assignment: nonexistence (?), Majorana character (?), or any other reason (?). I gather that given a different value, the hydrogen atom would still be neutral, but the stability of heavy nuclei would be affected.

Can any of you δημιουργοι offer a better rationale for the values of hypercharge, other than magnetic monopoles, empirical fact, or the anthropic principle? A grand unifying group, perhaps?

Source Link
Bert Barrois
Bert Barrois
  • 3.1k
  • 9
  • 21

Weak hypercharge assignments in the Standard Model

While refreshing my memory on details of the Standard Model, I ran into a muddle. I might not exist to ask bizarre questions if the neutron, neutrino, and hydrogen atom were not electrically neutral. Thanks to the cleverly contrived weak hypercharge assignments of the SM, they are.

Weinberg justified these assignments in terms of anomaly cancellation, but the discussion in his book QT of F (1996, v2, p387) assumed the nonexistence of a right-handed neutrino. He found the ratios of hypercharges to be totally constrained. (There were actually two discrete solutions, but one was clearly unphysical.) But nowadays, given the evidence of neutrino mixing, isn’t there one more continuously adjustable hypercharge parameter to worry about? It seems the SM is one constraint short of a unique solution.

Matthew Schwartz’s book QFT and SM (2014, p634) acknowledges the problem but offers three lame excuses for the right-handed neutrino’s orthodox Y=0 assignment: nonexistence (?), Majorana character (??), or any other reason (???). I gather that given a different value, the hydrogen atom would still be neutral, but the stability of heavy nuclei would be affected.

Can any of you δημιουργοι offer a better rationale for the values of hypercharge, other than magnetic monopoles, empirical fact, or the anthropic principle? A grand unifying group, perhaps?