Timeline for Constraints on RH component of fermion triplet under $SU(2)_L$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2018 at 15:56 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 81 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2018 at 20:23 | vote | accept | Jasmeru | ||
| Dec 5, 2018 at 19:25 | comment | added | Cosmas Zachos | The parity preserving feature is perfectly consistent, as said. Also, by suitable Higgs multiplets and stunts, invariant Higgsed-mass terms could be written, for arbitrary R reps... unrenormalizable, of course.... Flavor SU(3) preserves chirality, so of course L and R are in the same, complex triplet, rep, as far as SU(3) is concerned. They are in the real triplet rep of the SU(2) subgroup (not isospin, the funny one I wrote down). | |
| Dec 5, 2018 at 19:20 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2018 at 18:17 | comment | added | Jasmeru | I know we haven't observed anything like this, but I'm more interested out of theoretical curiosity (namely are we totally free to chose any representation for LH and RH part, assuming we build the Lagrangian to be invariant under that choice). Having both components in the same representation makes the sector parity invariant which is why I was interested in this special case. Is that feature prohibited? Also, are the RH states of flavour SU(3) also in a triplet representation? (since we know flavour-changing interaction actually occurs through the weak interaction, where RH are singlets) | |
| Dec 5, 2018 at 17:18 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 5, 2018 at 16:48 | history | edited | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2018 at 16:35 | history | answered | Cosmas Zachos | CC BY-SA 4.0 |