1 — Classical Symmetries 2

1.1 Noether’s Theorem – Classical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1a — Quantum Field Theory 11

1a.1 Local Quantum Field Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1a.2 Composite Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1b — Gauge Symmetries 21

1b.1 Noether’s Theorem – Field Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1b.2 Gauge Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1b.3 Global Symmetries of Gauge Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2 — Weinberg’s Model of Leptons 29

2.1 The electron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.2 SU(2) U(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.3 Renormalizability? An Interlude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.4 Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.5 The Goldstone Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.6 The σ-Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.7 The Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.8 Neutral Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.9 e

+

e

−

→µ

+

µ

−

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3 — Quarks and QCD 49

3.1 Color SU(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2 A Toy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.3 Quark Doublets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.4 GIM and Charm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.5 The Standard Six–Quark Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.6 CP Violation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4 — SU(3) and Light Hadron Semileptonic Decays 63

4.1 Weak Decays of Light Hadrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.2 Isospin and the Determination of V

ud

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.3 f

π

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.4 Strangeness Changing Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.5 PT Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

i

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — ii

4.6 Second Class Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.7 The Goldberger-Treiman Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.8 SU(3) −D and F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5 — Chiral Lagrangians — Goldstone Bosons 76

5.1 SU(3) SU(3) →SU(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.2 Eﬀective Low–Momentum Field Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.4 Symmetry breaking and light quark masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.5 What Happened to the Axial U(1)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.6 Light Quark Mass Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.7 The Chiral Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.8 Semileptonic K Decays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.9 The Chiral Symmetry–Breaking Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.10 Important Loop Eﬀects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.11 Nonleptonic K Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

6 — Chiral Lagrangians — Matter Fields 93

6.1 How Do the Baryons Transform? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6.2 A More Elegant Transformation Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

6.3 Nonlinear Chiral Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

6.4 Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

6.5 Hyperon Nonleptonic Decays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

6a - Anomalies 105

6a.1 Electromagnetic Interactions and π

0

→2γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

6a.2 The Steinberger Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6a.3 Spectators, gauge invariance and the anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

7 — The Parton Model 123

7.1 Mode Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

7.2 Heavy Quark Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

7.3 Deep Inelastic Lepton-Hadron Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

7.4 Neutrino-Hadron Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

7.5 Neutral Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

7.6 The SLAC Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

8 — Standard Model Precision Tests 134

8.1 Choosing a Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

8.2 Eﬀective Field Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

8.3 The Symmetries of Strong and Electroweak Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

8.4 The ρ Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

8.5 M

W

and M

Z

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

8.6 Neutrino-hadron scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

8.7 Technicolor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 1

9 — Nonleptonic Weak Interactions 150

9.1 Why We Can’t Calculate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

9.2 The Renormalization Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

9.3 Charm Decays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

9.4 Penguins and the ∆I =

1

2

Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

10 — The Neutral K Mesons and CP Violation 161

10.1 K

0

−K

0

Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

10.2 The Box Diagram and the QCD Corrections) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

10.3 The Gilman-Wise ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

10.4 CP Violation and the Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

10.5 K

L

→ππ and the Parameter

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

A Review of Dimensional Regularization 175

A.1 n Dimensional Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

A.2 Regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

B Background Field Gauge 179

B.1 The β function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Chapter 1

— Classical Symmetries

The concept of symmetry will play a crucial role in nearly all aspects of our discussion of weak

interactions. At the level of the dynamics, the fundamental interactions (or at least that subset of

the fundamental interactions that we understand) are associated with “gauge symmetries”. But

more than that, the underlying mathematical language of relativistic quantum mechanics — quan-

tum ﬁeld theory — is much easier to understand if you make use of all the symmetry information

that is available. In this course, we will make extensive use of symmetry as a mathematical tool to

help us understand the physics. In particular, we make use of the language of representations of

Lie algebras.

1.1 Noether’s Theorem – Classical

At the classical level, symmetries of an action which is an integral of a local Lagrangian density are

associated with conserved currents. Consider a set of ﬁelds, φ

j

(x) where j = 1 to N, and an action

S[φ] =

L(φ(x), ∂

µ

φ(x)) d

4

x (1.1.1)

where L is the local Lagrangian density. The index, j, is what particle physicists call a “ﬂavor”

index. Diﬀerent values of j label diﬀerent types, or “ﬂavors”, of the ﬁeld φ. Think of the ﬁeld,

φ, without any explicit index, as a column vector in ﬂavor space. Assume, for simplicity, that the

Lagrangian depends only on the ﬁelds, φ, and their ﬁrst derivatives, ∂

µ

φ. The equations of motion

are

∂

µ

δL

δ(∂

µ

φ)

=

δL

δφ

. (1.1.2)

Note that (1.1.2) is a vector equation in ﬂavor space. Each side is a row vector, carrying the ﬂavor

index, j.

A symmetry of the action is some inﬁnitesimal change in the ﬁelds, δφ, such that

S[φ +δφ] = S[φ] , (1.1.3)

or

L(φ +δφ, ∂

µ

φ +δ∂

µ

φ) = L(φ, ∂

µ

φ) +∂

µ

V

µ

(φ, ∂

µ

φ, δφ) , (1.1.4)

where V

µ

is some vector function of the order of the inﬁnitesimal, δφ. We assume here that we can

throw away surface terms in the d

4

x integral so that the V

µ

terms makes no contribution to the

action. But

L(φ +δφ, ∂

µ

φ +δ∂

µ

φ) −L(φ, ∂

µ

φ) =

δL

δφ

δφ +

δL

δ(∂

µ

φ)

∂

µ

δφ, (1.1.5)

2

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 3

because δ∂

µ

φ = ∂

µ

δφ. Note that (1.1.5) is a single equation with no j index. The terms on the

right hand side involve a matrix multiplication in ﬂavor space of a row vector on the left with a

column vector on the right. From (1.1.2), (1.1.4) and (1.1.5), we have

∂

µ

N

µ

= 0 , (1.1.6)

where

N

µ

=

δL

δ(∂

µ

φ)

δφ −V

µ

. (1.1.7)

Often, we will be interested in symmetries that are symmetries of the Lagrangian, not just

the action, in which case V

µ

= 0. In particular, our favorite symmetry will be linear unitary

transformations on the ﬁelds, for which

δφ = i

a

T

a

φ, (1.1.8)

where the T

a

for a = 1 to m are a set of N N hermitian matrices acting on the ﬂavor space, and

the

a

are a set of inﬁnitesimal parameters. We can (and sometimes will) exponentiate (1.1.8) to

get a ﬁnite transformation:

φ →φ

= e

iaT

a

φ, (1.1.9)

which reduces to (1.1.8) for small

a

. The T

a

’s are then said to be the “generators” of the trans-

formations, (1.1.9)

We will be using the T

a

’s so much that it is worth pausing to consider their properties system-

atically. The fundamental property of the generators is their commutation relation,

[T

a

, T

b

] = i f

abc

T

c

, (1.1.10)

where f

abc

are the structure constants of the Lie algebra, deﬁned in any nontrivial representation (a

trivial representation is one in which T

a

= 0, for which (1.1.10) is trivially satisﬁed). The generators

can then be classiﬁed into sets, called simple subalgebras, that have nonzero commutators among

themselves, but that commute with everything else. For example, there may be three generators,

T

a

for a = 1 to 3 with the commutation relations of SU(2),

[T

a

, T

b

] = i

abc

T

c

, (1.1.11)

and which commute with all the other generators. Then this is an SU(2) factor of the algebra. The

algebra can always be decomposed into factors like this, called “simple” subalgebras, and a set of

generators which commute with everything, called U(1)’s.

The normalization of the U(1) generators must be set by some arbitrary convention. However,

the normalization of the generators of each simple subgroup is related to the normalization of the

structure constants. It is important to normalize them so that in each simple subalgebra,

¸

c,d

f

acd

f

bcd

= k δ

ab

. (1.1.12)

Then for every representation,

tr (T

a

T

b

) ∝ δ

ab

. (1.1.13)

The mathematician’s convention is to grant a special status to the structure constants and choose

k = 1 in (1.1.12). However, we physicists are more ﬂexible (or less systematic). For SU(n), for

example, we usually choose k so that

tr (T

a

T

b

) =

1

2

δ

ab

. (1.1.14)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 4

for the n dimensional representation. Then k = n.

A symmetry of the form of (1.1.8) or (1.1.9) which acts only on the ﬂavor space and not on

the space-time dependence of the ﬁelds is called an “internal” symmetry. The familiar Poincare

symmetry of relativistic actions is not an internal symmetry.

In this book we will distinguish two kinds of internal symmetry. If the parameters,

a

, are

independent of space and time, the symmetry is called a “global” symmetry. Global symmetries

involve the rotation of φ in ﬂavor space in the same way at all points in space and at all times.

This is not a very physically appealing idea, because it is hard to imagine doing it, but we will

see that the concept of global symmetry is enormously useful in organizing our knowledge of ﬁeld

theory and physics.

Later on, we will study what happens if the

a

depend on x. Then the symmetry is a “local”

or “gauge” symmetry. As we will see, a local symmetry is not just an organizing principle, but is

intimately related to dynamics.

For now, consider (1.1.7) for a global internal symmetry of L. Because the symmetry is a

symmetry of L, the second term, V

µ

is zero.

Thus we can write the conserved current as

N

µ

=

δL

δ(∂

µ

φ)

i

a

T

a

φ. (1.1.15)

Because the inﬁnitesimal parameters are arbitrary, (1.1.15) actually deﬁnes m conserved currents,

J

µ

a

= −i

δL

δ(∂

µ

φ)

T

a

φ for a = 1 to m. (1.1.16)

I stress again that this discussion is all at the level of the classical action and Lagrangian. We

will discuss later what happens in quantum ﬁeld theory.

1.2 Examples

Example 1

Let Φ

j

, for j = 1 to N, be a set of real scalar boson ﬁelds. The most general possible real quadratic

term in the derivatives of Φ in the Lagrangian is

L

KE

(Φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

Φ

T

S ∂

µ

Φ. (1.2.1)

where S is a real symmetric matrix. Note the matrix notation, in which, the Φ

j

are arranged

into an N-component column vector. In physical applications, we want S to be a strictly positive

matrix. Negative eigenvalues would give rise to a Hamiltonian that is not bounded below and zero

eigenvalues to scalars that do not propagate at all. If S is positive, then we can deﬁne a new set of

ﬁelds by a linear transformation

Lφ ≡ Φ, (1.2.2)

such that

L

T

S L = I . (1.2.3)

In terms of φ, the Lagrangian becomes

L

KE

(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ

T

∂

µ

φ. (1.2.4)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 5

This is the canonical form for the Lagrangian for a set of N massless free scalar ﬁelds. Under an

inﬁnitesimal linear transformation,

δφ = Gφ, (1.2.5)

where G is an N N matrix, the change in L

KE

is

δL

KE

(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ

T

(G+G

T

) ∂

µ

φ. (1.2.6)

If G is antisymmetric, the Lagrangian is unchanged! We must also choose G real to preserve the

reality of the ﬁelds. Thus the Lagrangian is invariant under a group of SO(N) transformations,

δφ = i

a

T

a

φ, (1.2.7)

where the T

a

, for a = 1 to N(N−1)/2 are the N(N−1)/2 independent, antisymmmetric imaginary

matrices. These matrices are a representation of the SO(N) algebra.

1

When exponentiated, (1.2.7)

produces an orthogonal transformation, a representation of the group SO(N)

φ →φ

= Oφ, (1.2.8)

where

O

T

= O

−1

. (1.2.9)

This is a rotation in a real N-dimensional space.

Notice that we have not had to do anything to impose this SO(N) symmetry ex-

cept to put the Lagrangian into canonical form. It was an automatic consequence of

the physical starting point, the existence of N free massless scalar ﬁelds. The canon-

ical form of the derivative term in the kinetic energy automatically has the SO(N)

symmetry.

The corresponding Noether currents are

J

µ

a

= −i(∂

µ

φ

T

)T

a

φ. (1.2.10)

The symmetry, (1.2.8), is the largest internal rotation symmetry that a set of N real spinless

bosons can have, because the kinetic energy term, (1.2.4), must always be there. However, the

symmetry may be broken down to some subgroup of SO(N). This can happen trivially because of

the mass term if the scalars are not all degenerate. The mass term has the general form:

L

mass

(φ) = −

1

2

φ

T

M

2

φ, (1.2.11)

where M

2

is a real symmetric matrix called the mass matrix. Its eigenvalues (if all are positive)

are the squared masses of the scalar particles. The mass term is invariant under an orthogonal

transformation, O, if

O

T

M

2

O = M

2

or equivalently [O, M

2

] = 0 . (1.2.12)

If M

2

is proportional to the identity matrix, then the entire SO(N) is unbroken. In general,

the transformations satisfying (1.2.12) form a representation of some subgroup of SO(N). The

subgroup is generated by the subset of the generators, T

a

, which commute with M

2

.

1

Usually, I will not be careful to distinguish an algebra or group from its representation, because it is almost

always the explicit representation that we care about.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 6

The mass matrix can be diagonalized by an orthogonal transformation that leaves the deriva-

tive term, (1.2.4), unchanged. Then the remaining symmetry is an SO() for each degenerate

eigenvalues. For example, if K of the ﬁelds have mass m

1

and the other N −K have mass m

2

, the

diagonal mass matrix can be taken to have to form

M

2

=

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

m

2

1

.

.

. 0

m

2

1

m

2

2

0

.

.

.

m

2

2

¸

. (1.2.13)

The symmetry is an SO(K) SO(N −K) which rotates the degenerate subsets, of the form

O =

O

1

0

0 O

2

, (1.2.14)

where O

1

and O

2

act on the ﬁelds with mass m

1

and m

2

respectively. The ﬁnite group elements,

(1.2.14), are generated by exponentiation of the K(K −1)/2 +(N −K)(N −K −1)/2 generators

S

1

0

0 0

and

0 0

0 S

2

, (1.2.15)

where S

1

and S

2

are antisymmetric imaginary matrices.

If the mass matrix is non-degenerate, that is with no pair of eigenvalues equal, the SO(N)

symmetry is completely broken and there is no continuous symmetry that remains, although the

Lagrangian is still invariant under the discrete symmetry under which any component of φ changes

sign.

The symmetry can also be broken down by interaction terms in the Lagrangian. With cubic and

quartic terms in φ, the symmetry can be broken in more interesting ways. Consider, as a simple

example that will be of use later, a Lagrangian with N = 8 scalars, with K = 4 with mass m

1

(the

φ

j

for j = 1 to 4) and the rest with mass m

2

(the φ

j

for j = 5 to 8). The kinetic energy and mass

terms then have the symmetry, SO(4) SO(4). Arrange the 8 real ﬁelds into two complex doublet

ﬁelds as follows:

ξ

1

≡

(φ

1

+iφ

2

)/

√

2

(φ

3

+iφ

4

)/

√

2

, ξ

2

≡

(φ

5

+iφ

6

)/

√

2

(φ

7

+iφ

8

)/

√

2

. (1.2.16)

Now consider an interaction term of the form

L

int

= λξ

†

1

ξ

2

ξ

†

2

ξ

1

. (1.2.17)

This interaction term is not invariant under the SO(4) SO(4), but it is invariant under an

SU(2) U(1) symmetry under which

ξ

j

→U ξ

j

for j = 1 to 2, (1.2.18)

where the 22 matrix, U, is unitary. The U can written as a phase (the U(1) part) times a special

unitary matrix V (det V = 1), so it is a representation of SU(2) U(1). This is the subgroup of

SO(4) SO(4) left invariant by the interaction term, (1.2.17).

The symmetry structure of a ﬁeld theory is a descending hierarchy of symmetry,

from the kinetic energy term down through the interaction terms. The kinetic energy

term has the largest possible symmetry. This is broken down to some subgroup by the

mass term and the interaction terms. This way of looking at the symmetry structure is

particularly useful when some of the interactions terms are weak, so that their eﬀects

can be treated in perturbation theory.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 7

Example 2

Let ψ

j

for j = 1 to N be free, massless, spin-

1

2

, four-component Dirac fermion ﬁelds with Lagrangian

L(ψ) = i ψ / ∂ψ . (1.2.19)

The Dirac fermion ﬁelds are complex, thus (1.2.19) has an obvious SU(N) U(1) symmetry under

which, for inﬁnitesimal changes,

δψ = i

a

T

a

ψ , (1.2.20)

where the T

a

are the N

2

hermetian N N matrices, which generate the deﬁning (or N) represen-

tation of SU(N) U(1). When exponentiated this gives

ψ →U ψ , (1.2.21)

where U is a unitary N N matrix

U = e

iaT

a

. (1.2.22)

The SU(N) part of U is generated by the N

2

−1 traceless hermetian matrices, while the generator

of the U(1) part, which commutes with everything, is proportional to the identity. The U(1) is just

fermion number.

In (1.2.19),

δL

δ(∂

µ

ψ)

= iψγ

µ

, (1.2.23)

hence the Noether current is

J

µ

a

= ψγ

µ

T

a

ψ . (1.2.24)

With T

a

= 1, the conserved Noether current associated with the U(1) is just the fermion number

current.

The transformation, (1.2.21), is by no means the largest internal symmetry of (1.2.19). To

see the rest of the symmetry, and for many other reasons later on, we will make extensive use of

two-component, Weyl fermion ﬁelds, which are related to ordinary spin-

1

2

, four-component fermion

ﬁelds, ψ, by projection with the projection operators

P

±

≡ (1 ±γ

5

)/2 . (1.2.25)

Deﬁne the left-handed (L) and right-handed (R) ﬁelds as

ψ

L

≡ P

+

ψ , ψ

R

≡ P

−

ψ . (1.2.26)

Then

ψ

L

= ψP

−

, ψ

R

= ψP

+

. (1.2.27)

But then because

P

+

γ

µ

= γ

µ

P

−

, (1.2.28)

we can write

L(ψ) = i ψ / ∂ψ = i ψ

L

/ ∂ψ

L

+i ψ

R

/ ∂ψ

R

. (1.2.29)

Evidently, we have the freedom to make separate SU(N) U(1) transformations on the L and R

fermions:

δψ

L

= i

L

a

T

a

ψ

L

, δψ

R

= i

R

a

T

a

ψ

R

, (1.2.30)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 8

or

ψ

L

→U

L

ψ

L

, ψ

R

→U

R

ψ

R

. (1.2.31)

The physical interpretation of the L and R states is that they are helicity eigenstates for on-mass-

shell fermions. Consider a plane wave moving in the 3 direction. The fermions are massless, thus

p

0

= p

3

while p

1

= p

2

= 0. The Dirac equation in momentum space is / pψ = 0, or p

0

(γ

0

−γ

3

)ψ = 0,

or

γ

0

ψ = γ

3

ψ . (1.2.32)

The spin angular momentum in the 3 direction is

J

3

=

σ

12

2

=

iγ

1

γ

2

2

. (1.2.33)

Then

J

3

ψ

L

=

i

2

γ

1

γ

2

ψ

L

=

i

2

γ

0

γ

0

γ

1

γ

2

ψ

L

=

i

2

γ

0

γ

1

γ

2

γ

0

ψ

L

=

i

2

γ

0

γ

1

γ

2

γ

3

ψ

L

= −

1

2

γ

5

ψ

L

= −

1

2

ψ

L

.

(1.2.34)

Thus ψ

L

describes a particle with helicity −

1

2

, that is a left handed particle, while ψ

R

describes a

particle with helicity

1

2

, that is a right handed particle.

The symmetry, (1.2.30), under which the L and R ﬁelds transform diﬀerently, is called a chiral

symmetry. Note that the generators of the chiral symmetry all commute with the fermion number.

The chiral symmetry is still not the largest internal symmetry of (1.2.19). To identify the largest

symmetry, we must introduce the idea of charge conjugate ﬁelds. Deﬁne

ψ

c

= Cψ

∗

, , (1.2.35)

and

ψ

cL

= P

+

ψ

c

, ψ

cR

= P

−

ψ

c

, (1.2.36)

where C is the charge conjugation matrix acting on the Dirac indices, satisfying

C

2

= 1 , C

†

= C , C γ

µ∗

C = −γ

µ

. (1.2.37)

We will sometimes take C to be nontrivial in ﬂavor space as well, but for now, we will assume that

it acts in the space of the Dirac indices. The form of C depends on the representation of the γ

matrices. For example, in the so-called Majorana representation in which all the γ’s are imaginary,

C = 1, while in the standard representation of Bjorken and Drell, C = iγ

2

.

The name “charge conjugation” comes originally from the eﬀect of the transformation (1.2.35)

on the Dirac equation for a particle in an electromagnetic ﬁeld. Such a particle, with mass m and

charge e, satisﬁes

i / ∂ψ −e / Aψ −mψ = 0 , (1.2.38)

where A

µ

is the (hermetian) electromagnetic ﬁeld. Taking the complex conjugate, multiplying by

C and using (1.2.35) gives

i / ∂ψ

c

+e / Aψ

c

−mψ

c

= 0 . (1.2.39)

The C operation changes the particle of charge e to its antiparticle, with the same mass but charge

−e.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 9

The interesting thing about charge conjugation from our present point of view is that it changes

L to R,

Cψ

∗

R

= C (P

−

)

∗

ψ

∗

= C

1−γ

∗

5

2

ψ

∗

= C

1−γ

∗

5

2

C C ψ

∗

= P

+

ψ

c

= ψ

cL

,

(1.2.40)

where we have used Cγ

∗

5

C = −γ

5

. This is what we need to ﬁnd a larger symmetry of (1.2.19).

The point is that with a purely internal symmetry, we cannot mix up the ψ

L

with the ψ

R

. A

transformation such as

δψ

L

= i

a

T

a

ψ

R

(1.2.41)

makes no sense at all. You can see this trivially by acting on both sides with P

−

.

But if we ﬁrst change the ψ

R

into ψ

cL

with charge conjugation, then we can mix them with the

ψ

L

. Such a transformation will not commute with the U(1) of fermion number, because ψ and ψ

c

have opposite fermion number, but at this point, we do not care.

We can use (1.2.40) to show that

L(ψ) = i ψ

L

/ ∂ψ

L

+i ψ

cL

/ ∂ψ

cL

+ total derivative. (1.2.42)

We drop the total derivative, which does not eﬀect the action, and then combine the L ﬁelds into

a 2N component column vector:

Ψ

L

=

ψ

L

ψ

cL

. (1.2.43)

In terms of Ψ, the Lagrangian is

L(Ψ) = i Ψ/ ∂Ψ. (1.2.44)

Clearly, the Lagrangian, (1.2.44), in invariant under SU(2N) U(1) transformations, generated by

hermetian 2N 2N matrices acting on the extended ﬂavor space of (1.2.43). Note that if fermion

number is not conserved, there is not even any reason that there should be an even number of L

ﬁelds!. For example, in the standard model, we seem to have 3 approximately massless left-handed

neutrinos, each described by a two-component Weyl ﬁeld.

Most of the Lagrangians that we actually deal with will have interactions that distinguish

between particles and their antiparticles, thus breaking the symmetries that mix fermions with

antifermions. For example, if the fermions have a charge, as in QED, the symmetry is broken

down to a chiral symmetry, (1.2.30), because the fact that the charge changes sign under charge

conjugation breaks the larger symmetry.

Fermion Masses

The most general fermion mass term that preserves fermion number has the form,

L

mass

= −ψ

L

M ψ

R

+ψ

R

M

†

ψ

L

, (1.2.45)

where

ψ

L

= (ψ

L

)

†

γ

0

, ψ

R

= (ψ

R

)

†

γ

0

, (1.2.46)

and the mass matrix, M, is an arbitrary complex matrix. Note that the two terms in (1.2.45)

are hermetian conjugates of one another. Because the ψ

L

and ψ

R

terms are coupled together, the

Lagrangian is not invariant under the chiral symmetry, (1.2.30). A chiral transformation changes

M

M →U

†

L

MU

R

. (1.2.47)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 10

However, that means that we can use the chiral symmetry to put the mass matrix, M, into a

canonical form. We can diagonalize it and make each of the eigenvalues real and positive!

2

The symmetry of the mass term that commutes with fermion number is then determined by

the degeneracy of the diagonal mass matrix. If all the masses are diﬀerent, then the only symmetry

that remains is a U(1)

N

symmetry, separate conservation of each of the fermion ﬂavors. If ﬂavors

have the same mass, there is a non-Abelian SU() symmetry. For example, if all N fermions are

degenerate, the mass matrix is proportional to

L

mass

= ψψ , (1.2.48)

This breaks the chiral symmetry, (1.2.30), but it is still invariant under the SU(N)U(1) symmetry,

(1.2.20), in which the L and R ﬁelds rotate together.

If fermion number is not conserved, so that the fermions are most appropriately described by

N left-handed Weyl ﬁelds, Ψ

L

, the most general mass term has the form

Ψ

cR

MΨ

L

, (1.2.49)

where M is a complex, symmetric matrix. The kinetic energy term is invariant under an SU(N)

U(1) symmetry:

Ψ

L

→UΨ

L

. (1.2.50)

Under (1.2.50), the mass matrix, M changes to

M →M

= U

T

M U , (1.2.51)

This can be used to make M diagonal and positive.

Problems

1.1. The Lagrangian for a set of N massless free scalar ﬁelds, (1.2.4), has a rather peculiar

symmetry under which

φ →φ +a ,

for any constant a. What is the Noether current? Note that this “symmetry” really is peculiar.

While it is a symmetry of the classical Lagrangian, it is not a symmetry of the corresponding quan-

tum theory. This is one of the simplest examples of a continuous symmetry that is spontaneously

broken. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a subject to which we will return many times.

1-2. Find a basis for the γ

µ

matrices in which the charge conjugation matrix, C, is the identity.

This is called a Majorana representation. In this representation, we can deﬁne real 4-component

ﬁelds

ψ

1

= (ψ +ψ

c

)/

√

2 = (ψ +ψ

∗

)/

√

2 ,

ψ

2

= i (ψ −ψ

∗

)/

√

2 .

Rewrite the mass term for N degenerate Dirac fermions, (1.2.48), in terms of these real ﬁelds,

and identify the symmetry of this term. What’s the symmetry group? Show that this is also a

symmetry of the kinetic energy term for free Dirac fermions.

1-3. Show that C in (1.2.37) is essentially unique in any given representation of the γ matrices.

2

This is all at the classical level — we will come back to the question of real masses later on when we discuss the

strong CP puzzle.

Chapter 1a

— Quantum Field Theory

Many of the results of the previous chapter can be carried over immediately to quantum ﬁeld

theory. However, the necessity of regularization and renormalization sometimes makes things more

interesting. In this chapter, we discuss an approach to quantum ﬁeld theory that is particularly

useful for the discussion of weak interactions and the Standard model in general. We will assume

that the reader is familiar with quantum ﬁeld theory, and has available an encyclopedic text such as

[Itzykson]. Here we will not pretend to anything like completeness, but will concentrate instead on

explaining what is really going on. The detail of our regularization and renormalization scheme will

seldom matter, but when it does, we will use dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction.

A brief review will be included in an appendix to this book.

1a.1 Local Quantum Field Theory

Local ﬁeld theory is a useful idealization. The only way we know to describe the quantum me-

chanical interactions of a ﬁnite number of types of particles in ordinary space-time is in a local

quantum ﬁeld theory characterized by a local Lagrangian density, with the interactions described

by products of ﬁelds at the same space-time point.

1

We strongly suspect that this picture is only approximate. It would be astonishing if our naive

picture of the space-time continuum, or quantum mechanics, or anything else that the human mind

can imagine, continued to make sense down to arbitrarily small distances. However, relativistic

quantum mechanics appears to be an excellent approximation at the distance we can probe today.

It is hard to see how deviations from the rules of relativistic quantum mechanics could have failed

to show up in any of the myriad of experiments at high energy accelerators around the world,

unless they are hidden because they are associated with physics at very tiny distances. Thus we

are justiﬁed in adopting local quantum ﬁeld theory as a provisional description of physics at the

distances we can probe for the foreseeable future.

The fact that unknown physics may be lurking at very small distances is related to the necessity

for regularization and renormalization of quantum ﬁeld theory. A local Lagrangian in a quantum

ﬁeld theory is not a priori well-deﬁned precisely because interactions that involve products of ﬁelds

at a single space-time point specify the physics down to arbitrarily small distances. In mathematical

language, the ﬁelds are distributions rather than functions, and multiplying them together at the

same space-time point is a dangerous act. In regularization and renormalization, the physics at

1

String theory may be a consistent description of the relativistic quantum mechanics of an inﬁnite number of

types of particles. However, because in a typical string theory, only a ﬁnite number of particles have masses small

compared to the Planck scale, we can describe the low energy physics by a ﬁeld theory.

11

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 12

small distances is modiﬁed in some way to make the theory well-deﬁned. Then the dependence on

the short distance physics is incorporated into a set of parameters that can be related to physical

quantities at measurable distances. A renormalizable theory is one in which only a ﬁnite number

of parameters are required to absorb all the dependence on short distance physics.

We will have much more to say about these issues as we develop the idea of eﬀective ﬁeld

theory. Eventually, we will make the idea of hiding unknown physics at small distances into one of

our principle tools. For now, we simply discuss renormalizable, local quantum ﬁeld theory as if it

were a God-given truth.

Let us begin by discussing a simple massless scalar ﬁeld theory, deﬁned by

L(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ∂

µ

φ −

λ

4!

φ

4

+s

φ

φ. (1a.1.1)

In addition to the quantum ﬁeld, φ, with mass dimension 1, we have included a c-number source,

s

φ

, with mass dimension 3 for the scalar ﬁeld φ. This is convenient, because it gives us a handle

with which to tweak the theory to see how it responds. All the Green functions are implicitly

present in the structure of the “vacuum” as a function of the source,

Z(s) = e

iW(s)

= '0 [ 0`

s

. (1a.1.2)

W(s) is the generating function for the connected Green functions. Actually, as we will discuss

later, it is not so easy to deﬁne this so-called λφ

4

theory beyond perturbation theory, because the

theory is sick at short distances, but for now, we will be happy with a perturbative deﬁnition.

Without the source term, the action derived from (1a.1.1) is classically scale invariant. This

means that it is invariant under the following transformation:

φ(x) →φ

(x

) (1a.1.3)

where

x

= e

λ

x φ

(x

) = e

−λ

φ(x) (1a.1.4)

The classical scale invariance would be broken if we put in a mass term. We will leave the mass

term out so that we have only one parameter to talk about — the coupling λ.

The ﬁrst interesting feature that we encounter when we look at a quantum ﬁeld theory deﬁned

by dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction (DRMS) is that scale invariance is broken.

All the parameters in the theory depend on the renormalization scale, µ, used to deﬁne their

dimensional extensions. The appearance of the parameter µ has an important physical consequence,

which is easy to understand in perturbation theory. Quantities calculated in DRMS depend on

ln µ. If all the other relevant dimensional parameters in the calculation are of the same order as

µ, these logs cause no problems. However, if some dimensional parameters are very diﬀerent from

µ, perturbation theory will break down before it should. Thus calculations should be organized so

that, as much as possible, all relevant dimensional parameters are of order µ. Fortunately, µ can

be chosen at our convenience, and given the parameters for one value of µ, we can calculate the set

of parameters for a diﬀerent value of µ that lead to the same physics.

The Renormalization Group

The process of changing µ while keeping the physics unchanged is associated with the name “the

renormalization group”. This is unfortunate, because it makes it sound as if something nontrivial

is going on, when in fact the process is quite simple. The only “group” structure involved is the

group of one dimensional translations. The important (and extremely trivial) fact is that a large

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 13

translation can be built up by putting small ones together! Consider the parameter λ in (1a.1.1).

If we know λ at µ

1

, then we can compute it at µ

2

using perturbation theory:

λ(µ

2

) = L(λ(µ

1

), ln(µ

2

/µ

1

)) , (1a.1.5)

for some function L. If both λ(µ

1

) and ln(µ

2

/µ

1

) are small, we can reliably compute L in per-

turbation theory. However, so long as both λ(µ

1

) and λ(µ

2

) are small, we can dispense with the

restriction that ln(µ

2

/µ

1

) is small. Instead of using (1a.1.5) directly, we can get from µ

1

to µ

2

in

a series of small steps. The lowest order perturbative result is

λ(µ

2

) = λ(µ

1

) +Bλ(µ

1

)

2

ln

µ

2

µ

1

+O(λ

3

) , (1a.1.6)

for some constant B.

Let

∆ = ∆(ln(µ)) ≡

1

N

ln

µ

2

µ

1

. (1a.1.7)

Then

λ(µ

1

e

∆

) = λ(µ

1

) +Bλ(µ

1

)

2

∆ +O(λ

3

) ,

λ(µ

1

e

2∆

) = λ(µ

1

e

∆

) +Bλ(µ

1

e

∆

)

2

∆ +O(λ

3

) ,

λ(µ

1

e

3∆

) = λ(µ

1

e

2∆

) +Bλ(µ

1

e

2∆

)

2

∆ +O(λ

3

) ,

(1a.1.8)

Putting these all together, we get

λ(µ

2

) = λ(µ

1

) +

N−1

¸

j=0

Bλ(µ

1

e

j∆

)

2

∆ +O(λ

3

) , (1a.1.9)

or in the limit as N →∞,

λ(µ

2

) = λ(µ

1

) +

µ

2

µ

1

Bλ(µ)

2

dµ

µ

+O(λ

3

) , (1a.1.10)

We have arrived, by a rather backwards route, at the lowest order integral equation for the “running”

coupling, λ(µ). Note that we have not done anything at all except to build up a large change in

µ out of inﬁnitesimal changes. If we diﬀerentiate with respect to µ

2

and set µ

2

= µ, we get the

standard diﬀerential equation for the running coupling:

µ

∂

∂µ

λ(µ) = β

λ

(λ(µ)) , (1a.1.11)

where

β

λ

(λ) = Bλ

2

+O(λ

3

) (1a.1.12)

is the β-function. We will see below that B > 0, so that λ is an increasing function of µ for small

λ.

Ignoring the terms of order λ

3

, we can solve (1a.1.12) to obtain

λ(µ) =

λ(µ

0

)

1 +Bλ(µ

0

) ln(µ

0

/µ)

=

1

B ln(Λ/µ)

. (1a.1.13)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 14

This solution exhibits the most interesting feature of the running coupling, dimensional transmuta-

tion[Coleman 73]. Because the dimensionless quantity, λ, is a calculable function of the dimensional

quantity, µ, the parameter that actually characterizes the physics is a dimensional one, Λ. (1a.1.13)

also shows the diﬃculty with this theory. The scale µ cannot be taken arbitrarily large. Above

µ ≈ Λ, the coupling is large and the theory is not deﬁned perturbatively. There are good reasons

to believe that this diﬃculty persists beyond perturbation theory and that the λφ

4

theory does not

make sense at short distances.

This is sometimes discussed in terms of the rather ridiculous word, “triviality”. The word is a

holdover from an old fashioned way of looking at ﬁeld theory. All it means is that the λφ

4

theory is

not a useful description of the physics at arbitrarily short distances. If you try to deﬁne the theory

in isolation, by cutting the physics oﬀ at some small distance, renormalizing, and then letting the

distance go to zero, the theory is “trivial” because the renormalized coupling is driven to zero. This

is simply the ﬂip side of (1a.1.13) in which a ﬁnite renormalized coupling leads to a disaster at a

ﬁnite small distance. In practice, this means that the physics has to change at some momentum

scale smaller than the Λ in (1a.1.13). However, as we will see in more detail later on, this does not

prevent us from making sense of the theory at scales at which λ(µ) is small.

The Renormalization Group Equation

We will begin by considering one particle irreducible (1PI) graphs. These are easy to calculate and

useful. Later we will also discuss connected Green functions and their generating functional, W(s).

Call a 1PI function with n external φ lines, Γ

n

(p

i

, λ, µ), where we have indicated the dependence

on the external momenta, p

i

for i = 1 to n, on the parameter λ, and on the scale µ. If we change

µ, we must change the wave function renormalization of each of the external lines and also the

coupling to maintain the same physics. This is the conveniently summarized in the renormalization

group equation:

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

−nγ

φ

Γ

n

= 0 . (1a.1.14)

In addition to β

λ

, (1a.1.14) depends on an “anomalous dimension”, γ

φ

, for the φ ﬁeld. Both of

these are functions of λ.

Let us now actually calculate β

λ

and γ

φ

to one-loop order. The simplest way to do this, is to

calculate the 1PI functions for small n, and demand that (1a.1.14) be satisﬁed.

To one loop, the Feynman graphs that contribute to the 2-point function, Γ

2

, are

+

(1a.1.15)

This vanishes in DRMS for a massless scalar (and in any sensible scheme, it does not depend on

the external momentum) and thus the wave function renormalization is 1 in one loop and γ

φ

= 0

to order λ.

The Feynman graphs that contribute the Γ

4

to one loop are

d

d

d

+

d

d

d

d

+

crossed

graphs

(1a.1.16)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 15

The result is (with all momenta going in)

Γ

4

(p

i

, λ, µ) = λ +

λ

2

32π

2

¸

ln

−(p

1

+p

2

)

2

µ

2

+ ln

−(p

1

+p

3

)

2

µ

2

+ln

−(p

1

+p

4

)

2

µ

2

¸

+ ,

(1a.1.17)

where the are non-logarithmic terms.

Now when (1a.1.17) is inserted into (1a.1.14), we ﬁnd

β

λ

−

3λ

2

16π

2

+O(λ

3

) = 0 , (1a.1.18)

or

β

λ

=

3λ

2

16π

2

+O(λ

3

) . (1a.1.19)

It is worth commenting on some minus signs that frequently cause confusion. Note that the µ

dependence of λ(µ) is opposite to that of Γ

4

. Because the wave function renormalization vanishes,

Γ

4

is a directly physical scattering amplitude, to this order. Thus when µ changes, Γ

4

remains

constant. That is a direct translation of (1a.1.14), with γ

φ

= 0.

On the other hand, the “solution”, to the renormalization group equation, is

Γ

4

(p

i

, λ(µ), µ) = Γ

4

(p

i

, λ(µ

0

), µ

0

) , (1a.1.20)

for λ(µ) satisfying (1a.1.13). Since λ(µ

0

) can be regarded as a function of λ(µ) and µ, (1a.1.20)

says that Γ

4

is not a function of λ(µ) and µ separately, but only of the combination, λ(µ

0

). The

µ dependence of λ is then related, in the absence of wave function renormalization, not to the µ

dependence of Γ

4

, but to its dependence on the scale of p, because it is when p ≈ µ, that Γ

4

≈ λ(µ).

Sources and Parameters

The form, (1a.1.14), obscures a connection between the anomalous dimension, γ

φ

, and the function,

β

λ

. First of all, the sign in front of the anomalous dimension term depends on the fact we are

studying 1PI functions, Γ

n

, rather than connected Green functions, G

n

, which satisfy

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

+nγ

φ

G

n

= 0 . (1a.1.21)

Secondly, because W(s) is the generating function for the connected Green functions, we can obtain

(1a.1.21) for all n from the single equation

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

+

β

s(x)

∂

∂s(x)

d

4

x

W(λ, s) = 0 . (1a.1.22)

We can get back to (1a.1.21) by functionally diﬀerentiating with respect to s. Thus

β

s(x)

= s(x) γ

φ

. (1a.1.23)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 16

The General Case — Mixing

In general, there are many couplings, λ

i

, many ﬁelds, φ

α

, and corresponding sources, s

α

. The nice

thing about the form, (1a.1.22), is that it generalizes trivially to the general case. The parameters,

λ

i

, may include mass terms, terms of dimension 3, whatever is around. In fact, as we will see,

this even makes sense in nonrenormalizable theories, properly deﬁned. The β’s depend on the λ

parameters and the sources, s

α

. In a mass independent renormalization scheme such as DRMS,

there is no µ dependence in any of these functions, and thus the dependence on the parameters is

strongly constrained by dimensional analysis. In perturbation theory, each β is a sum of products

of λ’s and s’s (derivatives acting on the s’s are also possible, although they do not appear in this

simple example). Dimensional consistency implies that the product in each term of β

λ

i

has the

same dimension as λ

i

, and that the product in each term of β

sα(x)

has the same dimension as s

α

(x).

The generalization is

µ

∂

∂µ

+

¸

i

β

λ

i

∂

∂λ

i

+

¸

α

β

sα(x)

∂

∂s

α

(x)

d

4

x

W(λ, s) = 0 . (1a.1.24)

In words, (1a.1.24) means that a change in µ can always be compensated by suitable changes in all

the parameters and the ﬁelds.

Of course this assumes, as usual, that we have included all the parameters required to absorb

the dependence on the physics at very short distances. Once all the relevant parameters have been

included, then µ is arbitrary, and (1a.1.24) is almost a tautology.

In the simple example, (1a.1.1), the ﬁeld, φ, is multiplicatively renormalized, because it is the

only ﬁeld around. In our renormalization group language, that statement is equivalent to (1a.1.23).

Note, in fact, that (1a.1.12) is the most general thing we can write down consistent with dimensional

analysis. However, in general, the situation is more complicated.

Suppose, for example, that your theory depends on several real scalar ﬁelds, φ

α

, for α = 1 to

K, with Lagrangian

L(φ) =

1

2

¸

α

(∂

µ

φ

α

∂

µ

φ

α

+s

α

φ

α

)

−

¸

α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

λ

α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

4!

φ

α

1

φ

α

2

φ

α

3

φ

α

4

,

(1a.1.25)

where λ

α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

is some symmetric tensor in the α’s. If all

(K+3)!

4!(K−1)!

of the independent α’s are

nonzero, then there are no symmetries that distinguish one φ from another. In this case, each of

the β

λ

-functions depends on all of the λ’s, and the most general form for β

s

is

β

sα(x)

=

¸

α

s

α

(x) γ

α

α

(λ) . (1a.1.26)

This exhibits the phenomenon of operator mixing. Of course, all of the γ’s are zero in one loop in

the scalar ﬁeld theory, but in higher order, a change in µ requires not just a rescaling of each of the

φ

α

’s, but a rotation in the ﬂavor space, to get the theory back into a canonical form. The ﬁelds

are not multiplicatively renormalized.

The failure of multiplicative renormalization in (1a.1.26) is an example of the general principle

that whatever can happen will happen. This is particularly true in quantum ﬁeld theory, where if

you fail to write down an appropriately general expression, the theory is likely to blow up in your

face, in the sense that you will not be able to absorb the dependence on short distance physics.

However, as long as you are careful to include everything (consistent, as we will emphasize time

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 17

and time again, with all the symmetries of the system), the situation is really no more diﬃcult

to understand than in a simple theory with multiplicative renormalization. You just have to keep

track of some indices.

As an example of operator mixing in action, we will show how to go back and forth from 1PI

2-point functions to connected 2-point functions. Consider the connected 2-point function

G

α

1

α

2

(x

1

, x

2

) = −

δ

2

δs

α

1

(x

1

)δs

α

2

(x

2

)

W(s)

= '0 [ T φ

α

1

(x

1

)φ

α

2

(x

2

) [ 0` .

(1a.1.27)

Because W(s) satisﬁes, (1a.1.24), we can diﬀerentiate twice and use (1a.1.26) to obtain with

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

≡ T, (1a.1.28)

¸

α

1

α

2

Tδ

α

1

α

1

δ

α

2

α

2

+γ

α

1

α

1

+γ

α

2

α

2

G

α

1

α

2

(x

1

, x

2

) = 0 . (1a.1.29)

Let

˜

G(p) be the Fourier transform of G(x, 0). To avoid getting lost in indices, it will be useful

to write (1a.1.29) for

˜

G (Fourier transforming commutes with applying T) in an obvious matrix

notation,

T

˜

G+γ

˜

G+

˜

Gγ

T

= 0 . (1a.1.30)

The 1PI two point function is the inverse of

˜

G — symbolically

Γ

˜

G =

˜

GΓ = I . (1a.1.31)

Now apply T to (1a.1.31).

(TΓ)

˜

G+ Γ(T

˜

G) = 0

= (TΓ)

˜

G−Γγ

˜

G−Γ

˜

Gγ

T

= (TΓ)

˜

G−Γγ

˜

G−γ

T

. (1a.1.32)

Multiplying by Γ on the right and using (1a.1.31) gives the renormalization group equation for the

1PI 2-point function:

TΓ −Γγ −γ

T

Γ = 0 . (1a.1.33)

Note not only the sign change, compared to (1a.1.30), but the change from γ to γ

T

as well.

Γ(Φ) and 1PI Graphs

We can get directly from (1a.1.22) to a similarly general expression for Γ(Φ), the generating func-

tional for 1PI graphs. Γ(Φ) is obtained by making a Legendre transformation on W(s),

Γ(Φ) = W(s) −

¸

α

s

α

(x) Φ

α

(x) d

4

x, (1a.1.34)

where

Φ

α

(x) =

δW

δs

α

(x)

, (1a.1.35)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 18

is the “classical ﬁeld” corresponding to the quantum ﬁeld, φ

α

.

Now

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

Γ(Φ) =

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

W(s) , (1a.1.36)

for ﬁxed Φ. We don’t have to worry about any implicit dependence of s on µ or λ, because the

contribution from the two terms on the right hand side cancel anyway — the Legendre transform

guarantees that Γ(Φ) doesn’t depend on s. But the right hand side of (1a.1.36) is (from (1a.1.24))

−

¸

α

β

sα(x)

∂

∂s

α

(x)

W(λ, s) d

4

x. (1a.1.37)

But

s(x) = −

δΓ

δΦ

, (1a.1.38)

which follows from (1a.1.34). Putting this into (1a.1.23) and using (1a.1.35), we ﬁnd

¸

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

−

¸

α,α

Φ

α

γ

α

α

∂

∂Φ

α

¸

Γ(Φ)

=

¸

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

λ

∂

∂λ

−

¸

α,α

Φ

α

γ

T

αα

∂

∂Φ

α

¸

Γ(Φ) = 0 .

(1a.1.39)

From this, (1a.1.33) follows immediately by diﬀerentiation twice with respect to Φ

α

.

An Example with Fermions

Consider the following Lagrangian, describing K pseudoscalar ﬁelds, and a massless Dirac fermion:

L(φ, ψ) = i ψ / ∂ ψ +ηψ +ψη +

¸

α

1

2

∂

µ

φ

α

∂

µ

φ

α

+s

φα

φ

α

−

¸

α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

λ

α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

4!

φ

α

1

φ

α

2

φ

α

3

φ

α

4

−

¸

α

g

α

ψ iγ

5

φ

α

ψ ,

(1a.1.40)

The quantum fermion ﬁelds, ψ, have dimension 3/2. Their sources, η, have dimension 5/2. Both

are anticommuting.

The Lagrangian, (1a.1.40), is the most general Lagrangian we can write down for massless ﬁelds

with these dimensions, consistent with a parity symmetry under which the φ

α

ﬁelds are odd. Thus,

(1a.1.24) will be satisﬁed, where the couplings now include the g

α

’s as well as the λ’s, and the

sources include the η and η, as well as the s

α

’s. A feature of this theory that makes it a nice

pedagogical example, is that all β-functions are nonzero at the one loop level. You will ﬁnd all of

these for yourselves in problem (1a-3).

1a.2 Composite Operators

In local ﬁeld theory, it is useful to discuss new local objects that are built out of the local ﬁelds

themselves. These things are called “composite operators”. One reason for considering them, of

course, is that the Lagrangian itself is built out of such things, but many other reasons will occur

to us as we go along. The question is, what do we mean by multiplying the ﬁelds together at the

same space time point. This is the same problem we faced in deﬁning the theory in the ﬁrst place.

It is most sensible to deal with it in precisely the same way.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 19

1. Couple a source, t, to each composite operator in the Lagrangian. We will ﬁnd that if we

include an operator of a given dimension, we will be forced to include sources for all the other

operators with the same dimension and the same quantum numbers under all the symmetries

of the theory. When masses are present, we may have to include others as well, but the theory

will complain if we do not have the right sources.

2. Renormalize the theory as usual. To do this, you will have to include extra parameters for

the new “interactions” that you can build with your new sources, one for each new dimension

4 object you can build. These will be required to absorb dependence on the unknown short

distance physics.

3. Once this is done, the generating functional, W, depends on the new sources, and we can

ﬁnd the eﬀect of an insertion of a composite operator in any Green function simply by

diﬀerentiating with respect to the appropriate source.

As a fairly simple example, but one which exhibits many of the interesting features of composite

operators, consider the fermion example, (1a.1.40), with K = 1 (dropping the unneeded subscripts),

and include a source for the operator ψ ψ. This is the only dimension 3 operator that is a scalar

under parity, so we do not need any other sources. The Lagrangian, constructed according to the

above rules, is

L(φ, ψ) = i ψ / ∂ ψ +ηψ +ψη +

1

2

∂

µ

φ∂

µ

φ +s

φ

φ

−

λ

4!

φ

4

−g ψ iγ

5

φψ +tψ ψ −

κ

1

2

∂

µ

t∂

µ

t −

κ

2

4!

t

4

−

κ

3

4

t

2

φ

2

,

(1a.2.1)

The point of the extra terms in (1a.2.1) is that they are require for the calculation of graphs

involving more than one insertion of the new operator. For example, consider the graph

(1a.2.2)

where the indicates the insertion of the operator ψ ψ. When computed using DRMS, the graph

is µ-dependent. This means that it depends on the details of how we constructed the ψ ψ operator

at short distances, so we have no right to calculate it. Thus we need a new, a priori unknown

parameter in the theory. This is κ

1

.

The κ parameters have β-functions just like the other coupling constants. The µ-dependence

of (1a.2.2) produces µ-dependence in κ

1

, which is just its β-function in the renormalization group.

If, somehow, we manage to discover the values of this and the other κ parameters at some µ (this

requires somehow specifying the physics — we will see some examples later on), then we can use

the renormalization group to ﬁnd its value at any other µ.

The κ parameters are the translation into our language of so-called “subtractions” which must be

made to deﬁne the Green functions of composite operators. We now see that they are something that

we already understand. The sources for the composite ﬁelds diﬀer from the sources for elementary

ﬁelds in that their dimensions are smaller. This is what allows us to build the nontrivial κ terms.

We will see many examples of composite operators as we explore the standard model. The thing

to remember is that in this way of looking at things, they are not so diﬀerent from other ﬁelds and

sources.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 20

Problems

1a-1. Find the one-loop β-functions for (1a.1.25). If you use (1a.1.19), no calculation should

be required, beyond drawing the graphs and keeping track of the indices.

1a-2. Show that (1a.1.21) follows from (1a.1.22).

1a-3. Find all the β-functions, both for the couplings and for the sources, for the theory

described by (1a.1.40), for K = 2.

Chapter 1b

— Gauge Symmetries

In this section, we will discuss theories with local or gauge symmetry. First, we will use gauge

symmetry as a device to deﬁne the Noether currents in a quantum ﬁeld theory. Then we will go

on the discuss dynamical gauge symmetry.

Given a symmetry of a classical Lagrangian without sources, we can always extend it to a

symmetry of the Lagrangian including sources, by requiring the sources to transform appropriately.

The interesting question is, can we always deﬁne a corresponding quantum theory that exhibits

the symmetry.

The answer is — sometimes! When it is possible to ﬁnd a regularization and renormalization

scheme that preserves the symmetry, then the symmetry can be extended into the quantum theory,

but sometimes this is not possible. We will discuss important examples of the “anomalies” that can

occur in quantum ﬁeld theory to prevent the realization of a classical symmetry later. For now we

will ignore this subtlety, and discuss symmetry in the language we have developed to discuss ﬁeld

theory, without asking whether any particular symmetry is consistent with our DRMS scheme.

1b.1 Noether’s Theorem – Field Theory

Consider, then, a quantum ﬁeld theory with N real scalar ﬁelds, φ, and real sources s and with K

fermion ﬁelds, ψ, and sources, η, and Lagrangian

1

L

0

(φ, ∂

µ

φ, ψ, ∂

µ

ψ) +s

T

φ +η ψ +ψ η , (1b.1.1)

Suppose that L

0

is invariant under a global internal symmetry group, G, as follows:

φ → T

φ

(g

−1

) φ,

ψ

L

→ T

L

(g

−1

) ψ

L

,

ψ

R

→ T

R

(g

−1

) ψ

R

,

(1b.1.2)

where g is and element of G and the T’s are unitary representations of the symmetry group. Note

that because the φ ﬁelds are real, the representation T

φ

must be a “real” representation. That is,

the matrices, T

φ

, must be real. Such a symmetry can then be extended to include the sources as

1

We use L0 for the Lagrangian without any sources.

21

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 22

well, as follows:

s → T

φ

(g

−1

) s ,

η

R

→ T

L

(g

−1

) η

R

,

η

L

→ T

R

(g

−1

) η

L

.

(1b.1.3)

Note the switching of L ↔ R for the fermion sources, because the fermions source terms are like

mass terms that couple ﬁelds of opposite chirality. Now if the regularization and renormalization

respect the symmetry, the vacuum amplitude, Z(s, η, η) will also be invariant under (1b.1.3).

Generators — T

a

It is often convenient to use the inﬁnitesimal version of (1b.1.2) and (1b.1.3), in terms of the

generators, T

a

,

δφ = i

a

T

a

φ

φ,

δψ

L

= i

a

T

a

L

ψ

L

,

δψ

R

= i

a

T

a

R

ψ

R

,

δs = i

a

T

a

φ

s ,

δη

R

= i

a

T

a

L

η

R

,

δη

L

= i

a

T

a

R

η

L

.

(1b.1.4)

The T

a

j

for j = φ, L and R, are generators of the representation of the Lie algebra of G, corre-

sponding to the representations,

T

j

(g

−1

) = e

iaT

a

j

. (1b.1.5)

A sum over repeated a indices is assumed. Often we will drop the subscript, and let the reader

ﬁgure out from the context which representation we are discussing.

Gauge Symmetry

In order to discuss the conserved Noether currents associated with a symmetry of the quantum

ﬁeld theory as composite operators, it is useful to convert the global symmetry, (1b.1.4), into a

gauge symmetry, that is a symmetry in which the parameters can depend on space-time,

a

→

a

(x) . (1b.1.6)

To do this, we must introduce a set of “gauge ﬁelds”, which in this case will be classical ﬁelds, like

the other sources. Call these ﬁelds, h

µ

a

. Under the symmetry, (1b.1.4), they transform as follows:

δh

µ

a

= −f

abc

b

h

µ

c

+∂

µ

a

. (1b.1.7)

Now we modify the Lagrangian, (1b.1.1), by replacing the derivatives by “covariant” derivatives,

D

µ

≡ ∂

µ

−i h

µ

a

T

a

, (1b.1.8)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 23

where the T

a

are the generators of the representation of the object on which the derivative acts.

Thus,

D

µ

φ ≡

∂

µ

−i h

µ

a

T

a

φ

φ,

D

µ

ψ ≡ (∂

µ

−iP

+

h

µ

a

T

a

L

−iP

−

h

µ

a

T

a

R

) ψ .

(1b.1.9)

The resulting Lagrangian is now invariant under (1b.1.4) and (1b.1.7), for space-time dependent

parameters,

a

.

Furthermore, the classical gauge ﬁelds, h

µ

a

, act as sources for composite ﬁelds in the quan-

tum ﬁeld theory. These are the classical Noether currents corresponding to the global symmetry,

(1b.1.2). To see this, note that

δ D

µ

φ

δh

ν

a

= −i δ

µ

ν

T

a

φ

φ (1b.1.10)

Suppose that the Lagrangian depended only on the φs. Then using (1b.1.10), the chain rule for

functional diﬀerentiation and the fact that φ doesn’t depend on h

µ

a

, we could write

δL

δ h

µ

a

=

δL

δ D

ν

φ

δ D

ν

φ

δ h

µ

a

= −i

δL

δ D

µ

φ

T

a

φ

φ (1b.1.11)

which is the classical Noether current.

This works in general, because for any ﬁeld ξ,

δ D

µ

ξ

δh

ν

a

= −i δ

µ

ν

T

a

ξ

ξ (1b.1.12)

where T

a

ξ

are the generators of the symmetry acting on the ﬁeld ξ. Thus

δL

δ h

µ

a

=

¸

ξ

δL

δ D

ν

ξ

δ D

ν

ξ

δ h

µ

a

= −i

¸

ξ

δL

δ D

µ

ξ

T

a

ξ

ξ (1b.1.13)

which is the general form of the classical Noether current.

We will ﬁnd that this deﬁnition of the Noether currents as the composite ﬁelds coupled to

external gauge ﬁelds is very convenient because gauge invariance is such a strong constraint. The

conservation of the Noether currents implies a set of relations for the Green functions known as Ward

identities. All of these follow from the gauge invariance of the vacuum functional, Z(φ, η, η, h

µ

a

).

Note that because the ﬁeld h

µ

a

has dimension 1, like a derivative, there is one kind of term of

dimension 4 that we can write, consistent with all the symmetries, that depends only on h

µ

a

. It is

κ

ab

4

h

µν

a

h

bµν

, (1b.1.14)

where h

µν

a

is the “gauge ﬁeld strength”,

h

µν

a

= ∂

µ

h

ν

a

−∂

ν

h

µ

a

+f

abc

h

µ

b

h

ν

c

. (1b.1.15)

Thus we expect such terms to be required by renormalization. With our convenient normalization,

(1.1.12), the parameter κ

ab

is

κ

ab

= δ

ab

κ

a

(1b.1.16)

where κ

a

is independent of a within each simple subalgebra.

2

2

For U(1) factors of the symmetry algebra, there is no normalization picked out by the algebra, and no constraint

of the form (1b.1.16).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 24

Some Useful Notation

It is often useful to get rid of the indices on the gauge ﬁeld and replace the set by a matrix ﬁeld

h

µ

≡ T

a

h

µ

a

. (1b.1.17)

The covariant derivative is

D

µ

≡ ∂

µ

−i h

µ

. (1b.1.18)

The ﬁeld strength is

h

µν

≡ T

a

h

µν

a

= ∂

µ

h

ν

−∂

ν

h

µ

−i [h

µ

, h

ν

] . (1b.1.19)

The ﬁeld strength can be obtained by commuting the covariant derivatives,

[D

µ

, D

ν

] = −i h

µν

. (1b.1.20)

In this notation, the gauge transformation, (1b.1.7), becomes

δh

µ

= i[, h

µ

] +∂

µ

, (1b.1.21)

where =

a

T

a

. In this form, the gauge transformation can be integrated to give the ﬁnite form

h

µ

→Ωh

µ

Ω

−1

+iΩ∂

µ

Ω

−1

, (1b.1.22)

where

Ω = e

i

. (1b.1.23)

1b.2 Gauge Theories

In this section, we consider what happens when we let the classical gauge ﬁeld, h

µν

, becomes a

quantum ﬁeld,

h

µ

→G

µ

,

h

µν

→G

µν

= ∂

µ

G

ν

−∂

ν

G

µ

−i [G

µ

, G

ν

] .

(1b.2.1)

The κ term of (1b.1.14) becomes the kinetic energy term for the gauge ﬁelds,

−

¸

a

1

4g

2

a

G

aµν

G

µν

a

. (1b.2.2)

Again, the normalization, that we have here called 1/4g

2

a

, is equal for a in each simple component

of the gauge group. The constant, g

a

, is the gauge coupling constant. We can rescale the ﬁelds

to make the coeﬃcient of the kinetic energy term the canonical 1/4 if we choose. Then the gauge

transformation law has g

a

dependence. Often, we will keep the form of the gauge transformations

ﬁxed and let the gauge coupling constant appear as the normalization of the kinetic energy term.

This is particularly convenient for the study of the symmetry structure of the theory.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 25

Gauge Fixing

The ﬁeld theory treatment of gauge theories is more complicated than that of theories without

dynamical gauge symmetry because the gauge symmetry must be broken in order to deﬁne the

theory, at least perturbatively. The kinetic energy term, (1b.2.2), does not involve the longitudinal

components of the gauge ﬁelds, and is not invertible in momentum space. Thus the propagator is

not well deﬁned.

In the functional integral formulation of ﬁeld theory, one tries to write the Green functions as

functional integrals:

'0 [ T g(G, φ) [ 0` =

'˜ g`

'

˜

1`

, (1b.2.3)

where

'˜ g` =

g(G, φ) e

iS(G,φ)

[dG][dφ] . (1b.2.4)

In the functional integral description, the diﬃculty with gauge invariance shows up in the indepen-

dence of the action on gauge transformation,

G

µ

→ΩG

µ

Ω

−1

+iΩ∂

µ

Ω

−1

. (1b.2.5)

This deﬁnes an “orbit” in the space of gauge ﬁeld conﬁgurations on which the action is constant. The

part of the gauge ﬁeld functional integral over the gauge transformations is completely unregulated,

and gives rise to inﬁnities that are the translation into the functional integral language of the

problem with the gauge ﬁeld propagator. Thus '˜ g` has spurious inﬁnities, and is not well deﬁned.

Having formulated the problem in this language, Fadeev and Popov suggested a general proce-

dure for solving it. They introduced 1 into (1b.2.3), in the following form:

1 = ∆(G, φ)

f(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) [dΩ] , (1b.2.6)

where f is a functional that is not gauge invariant and [dΩ] is the invariant measure over the gauge

transformations, satisfying

[dΩ] = [d(Ω

Ω)] = [d(ΩΩ

)] , (1b.2.7)

for ﬁxed Ω

**. The functional, ∆, called the Fadeev-Popov determinant, is gauge invariant. This can
**

be seen as follows (using (1b.2.7)):

∆(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) =

1

f(G

ΩΩ

, φ

ΩΩ

)

[dΩ

] (1b.2.8)

1

f(G

ΩΩ

, φ

ΩΩ

) [d(ΩΩ

)]

=

1

f(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) [d(Ω)]

= ∆(G, φ) . (1b.2.9)

Inserting (1b.2.6), we can write

'˜ g` =

e

iS(G,φ)

g(G, φ) ∆(G, φ) f(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) [dG][dφ][dΩ] . (1b.2.10)

If g(G, φ) is gauge invariant, then (1b.2.10) can be written with the integral over the gauge trans-

formations factored out, as

'˜ g` =

e

iS(G,φ)

g(G, φ) ∆(G, φ) f(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) [dG][dφ]

[dΩ] . (1b.2.11)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 26

The Fadeev-Popov suggestion is then to drop the factor of

[dΩ], and deﬁne

'g` =

e

iS(G,φ)

g(G, φ) ∆(G, φ) f(G

Ω

, φ

Ω

) [dG][dφ] . (1b.2.12)

This process is called “choosing a gauge”. The gauge is deﬁned by the choice of the ﬁxing function,

f. The important point to notice is that 'g` should be completely independent of the gauge ﬁxing

function, f(G, φ), so long as the Green function, g(G, φ), is gauge invariant. Because it is the gauge

invariant physical matrix elements that we actually want, this is a perfectly reasonable deﬁnition.

Of course, this means that in general, Green functions are not invariant for a given gauge ﬁxing

function, f. That means that the consequences of gauge symmetry are not as obvious as those of

a global symmetry. However, it is possible to organize the calculations in gauge theory in a way

that makes gauge invariance manifest, by using what is called “background ﬁeld gauge”. This is

discussed in Appendix B.

1b.3 Global Symmetries of Gauge Theories

Let us look again at the Lagrangian for a general gauge theory,

L

0

(φ, D

µ

φ, ψ, D

µ

ψ) −

¸

a

1

4g

2

a

G

aµν

G

µν

a

, (1b.3.1)

and study its global symmetries. Of course, the gauge symmetry itself deﬁnes a global symmetry,

but the theory may have additional symmetry. We will reserve the term “ﬂavor symmetry” to refer

only to those internal symmetries of the theory that are not gauged. The ﬁrst important comment

is that any such symmetry must map the gauge ﬁelds into themselves. Because the gauge ﬁelds are

associated with the generators of the gauge symmetry, this implies that the gauge symmetry is a

normal subgroup of the full symmetry group. For continuous ﬂavor symmetries, the constraint is

even stronger. The generators of continuous ﬂavor symmetries must commute with all the gauge

generators.

3

This, in turn, implies that the ﬂavor generators are constant within each irreducible

representation of the gauge group, and also that if two ﬁelds are rotated into one another by the

ﬂavor symmetry, they must belong to the same irreducible representation of the gauge group. If

we choose a canonical form for the gauge generators in each irreducible representation of the gauge

symmetry,

4

then we can regard the ψ and φ ﬁelds as having two sets of indices: gauge indices, on

which the gauge symmetries act; and ﬂavor indices, on which the ﬂavor symmetries act.

First consider the fermion kinetic energy term. In the basis in which all the fermions are left

handed, this has the general form

i

¸

r

ψ

rL

/ Dψ

rL

, (1b.3.2)

where the sums run over the diﬀerent irreducible representations of the gauge group, and where,

for each r, the fermions ﬁeld is a vector in a ﬂavor space with dimension d

r

. Each of these ﬂavor

vectors can be rotated without changing (1b.3.2). Thus, at least classically, (1b.3.2) has a separate

SU(d

r

) U(1) ﬂavor symmetry for each irreducible representation that appears in the sum (with

non-zero d

r

).

5

If we charge conjugate some of the left handed fermion ﬁelds to write them as right handed

ﬁelds, we must remember that the charged conjugate ﬁelds may transform diﬀerently under the

3

Discrete symmetries, like parity, my induce nontrivial automorphisms on the gauge generators.

4

See problem (3-2) for an example of what happens when you do not do this.

5

As we will see later, some of the U(1)s are broken by quantum mechanical eﬀect, “anomalies”.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 27

gauge transformations. If

δψ

L

= i

a

T

a

ψ

L

, (1b.3.3)

then

δψ

cR

= i

a

(−T

a∗

)ψ

cR

, (1b.3.4)

In a “real” representation, the generators can be taken to be imaginary, antisymmetric matrices, so

that −T

a∗

= T

a

, and the right handed ﬁelds transform the same way. However, if the representation

is “complex”, then −T

a∗

is a diﬀerent representation. Finally, the representation may be “pseudo-

real”, in which case the representation generated by −T

a∗

is equivalent to that generated by T

a

,

−T

a∗

= S T

a

S

−1

, (1b.3.5)

but the matrix S is antisymmetric, so the generators can not be made entirely real. In this case, one

can include the matrix S into the deﬁnition of charge conjugation to make the right handed ﬁelds

transform like the left handed ﬁelds. The most familiar example of a pseudo-real representation is

the Pauli matrices, generating the spin 1/2 representation of SU(2).

The situation with scalar ﬁelds is somewhat more subtle, because the global symmetry asso-

ciated with a given representation of the gauge group depends on whether it is real, complex, or

pseudo-real.

For d sets of scalars in a real irreducible representation, r

R

, of the gauge group, the ﬂavor

symmetry is SO(d). Here the kinetic energy term looks like

D

µ

Φ

T

D

µ

Φ, (1b.3.6)

where Φ is a vector in ﬂavor space (as well as the space of the gauge group representation).

If, instead, the scalar ﬁeld representation, r

C

, is complex, then because the elementary scalar

ﬁelds are real, both the r

C

representation and its complex conjugate, r

C

, appear in the theory.

Suppose that there are d copies of the representation, r

C

, which we can organize into a vector in

ﬂavor space, as usual. We can write the kinetic energy term as

D

µ

φ

†

D

µ

φ. (1b.3.7)

However, (1b.3.7) describes the r

C

representation as well, because we could just as well have used

the ﬁeld φ

∗

, which transforms under the r

C

representation. If the representation, r

C

(and r

C

) is

n dimensional, then there are actually 2nd real ﬁelds described by (1b.3.7), because each of the

components of φ is complex. The ﬂavor symmetry of (1b.3.7) is an SU(d) acting on the ﬂavor

indices of φ.

The most bizarre situation occurs for pseudo-real representations. It turns out that a pseudo-real

representation has an SU(2) structure built into it. The generators of a 2n dimensional irreducible

pseudo-real representation can be taken to have the form

6

T

a

= A

a

+τ

S

a

, (1b.3.8)

where τ are the Pauli matrices, and the nn matrix A is antisymmetric while the nn

S matrices

are symmetric. Then

τ

2

T

∗

a

τ

2

= −T

a

. (1b.3.9)

6

Note that all pseudo-real representations have even dimensionality.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 28

The ﬂavor structure of the theory involves the τ matrices in a non-trivial way. If there are d

identical representations, we can describe them by a 2n 2d matrix ﬁeld of the following form:

¸

¸

Σ

11

Σ

1d

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Σ

n1

Σ

nd

¸

, (1b.3.10)

where Σ

ij

is a 2 2 matrix in the Pauli space, of the special form

Σ

ij

= σ

ij

+iτ π

ij

, (1b.3.11)

for real σ

ij

and π

ij

. The gauge generators act on Σ on the left. Now the kinetic energy term has

the form

tr

D

µ

Σ

†

D

µ

Σ

. (1b.3.12)

This is invariant under an Sp(2d) ﬂavor symmetry, generated by acting on Σ on the right with

matrices of the form

T

x

= A

x

+τ

S

x

, (1b.3.13)

where the A and

S are d d matrices, antisymmetric and symmetric, respectively. Like the gauge

transformation, (1b.3.13) preserves the special form of Σ.

Thus the largest possible ﬂavor symmetry of a set of d pseudo-real representations of scalars is

Sp(2d). This apparently arcane fact will be important when we discuss the standard model with a

fundamental Higgs boson.

Problems

1b-1. In the theory described by (1b.1.1) modiﬁed by the replacement of ∂

µ

with the covariant

derivative (1b.1.8), ﬁnd the µ dependence of κ

ab

deﬁned in (1b.1.14) in the one loop approximation.

This does not involve any of the unspeciﬁed interactions, because it arises from one loops diagrams

like (1a.2.2). It will depend on the representation matrices, T

a

f

.

1b-2. Consider the Lagrangian

iψ

1

/ D

1

ψ

1

+iψ

2

/ D

2

ψ

2

where

D

µ

j

= ∂

µ

−iG

a

T

a

j

with

T

a

1

=

1

2

τ

a

where τ

a

are the Pauli matrices, but

T

1

2

=

1

2

τ

2

, T

2

2

=

1

2

τ

3

, T

3

2

=

1

2

τ

1

.

This theory has an SU(2) gauge symmetry, and also an SU(2) global ﬂavor symmetry, because ψ

1

and ψ

2

transform under equivalent representations of the gauge symmetry which we have chosen,

perversely, to write in diﬀerent forms. Find the generators of the SU(2) ﬂavor symmetry.

Chapter 2

— Weinberg’s Model of Leptons

2.1 The electron

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the quantum ﬁeld theory of electrons and photons. It gives

a spectacularly accurate description of the electron’s properties in terms of only two parameters,

the electron mass, m

e

, and the ﬁne structure constant, α. The success of QED derives from two

special characteristics of the electron:

1. that it is the lightest charged particle, by a large factor;

2. it does not carry color and therefore does not participate directly in the strong interactions.

This second property is a deﬁning characteristic of the class of spin 1/2 particles called “leptons”

comprising the electron e

−

and its neutrino ν

e

; the muon µ

−

and its neutrino ν

µ

and the tau

t

−

and its neutrino ν

τ

— and by their antiparticles. So far as we know today, the µ

−

and the

τ

−

seem to be heavier copies of the electron, distinguished only by their larger masses. As far

as we can tell, the weak and electromagnetic interactions act on the µ and τ exactly as they act

on the electron. Because they are heavier, they decay, by weak interactions. The electron, the

lightest charged particle, must be absolutely stable unless electromagnetic gauge invariance and

global charge conservation are violated.

The SU(2) U(1) theory of the weak and electromagnetic interactions was ﬁrst written down

as a model of leptons, simply because at the time the strong interactions the weak interactions of

the hadrons were not completely understood.

2.2 SU(2) U(1)

In its simplest and original version, the SU(2) U(1) model describes the weak interactions of the

leptons. Nine ﬁelds needed to describe the e, µ, and τ and their neutrinos.

ν

eL

, e

−

L

, e

−

R

(2.2.1)

ν

µL

, µ

−

L

, µ

−

R

(2.2.2)

ν

τL

, τ

−

L

, τ

−

R

(2.2.3)

There is no compelling evidence for right-handed ν’s or left-handed ν’s, so we do not need a ν

R

ﬁeld.

29

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 30

The neutrinos are known to be very light. They may be massless, but there are some (still

confusing) indications that they may have small masses. If the neutrinos are massless, the weak

interactions conserve electron number, µ number and τ number separately. Formally, this means

that the theory has global symmetries:

ν

eL

→e

iθe

ν

eL

, e

−

L

→e

iθe

e

−

L

, e

−

R

→e

iθe

e

−

R

;

ν

µL

→e

iθµ

ν

µL

, µ

−

L

→e

iθµ

µ

−

L

, µ

−

R

→e

iθµ

µ

−

R

;

ν

τL

→e

iθτ

ν

τL

, τ

−

L

→e

iθτ

τ

−

L

, τ

−

R

→e

iθτ

τ

−

R

.

(2.2.4)

We will come back in later chapters to the lepton number violating eﬀects that can occur if the

neutrino masses are non-zero. For now, we will ignore neutrino masses. Then the symmetries,

(2.2.4), simplify the construction of the model because the diﬀerent families do not mix with one

another.

Further, the interactions of the µ and τ are exact copies of those of the electron, so we can

discuss only the ﬁelds in the electron family (2.2.1).

The gauge group is SU(2) U(1), which means that there are four vector ﬁelds, three of which

are associated with the SU(2) group that we will call W

µ

a

, where a = 1, 2 or 3, and one X

µ

associated with the U(1).

The structure of the gauge theory is determined by the form of the covariant derivative:

D

µ

= ∂

µ

+igW

µ

a

T

a

+ig

X

µ

S (2.2.5)

where T

a

and S are matrices acting on the ﬁelds, called the generators of SU(2) and U(1), respec-

tively. Notice that the coupling constants fall into two groups: there is one g for all of the SU(2)

couplings but a diﬀerent one for the U(1) couplings. The SU(2) couplings must all be the same

(if the T

a

’s are normalized in the same way κ tr(T

a

T

b

) = δ

ab

) because they mix with one another

under global SU(2) rotations. But the U(1) coupling g

**can be diﬀerent because the generator S
**

never appears as a commutator of SU(2) generators. Even if we did start with equal g and g

,

we would be unable to maintain the equality in the quantum theory in any natural way. The two

couplings are renormalized diﬀerently and so require diﬀerent inﬁnite redeﬁnitions in each order of

perturbation theory. Since we need diﬀerent counterterms, it would be rather silly to relate the

couplings.

To specify the gauge structure completely, we must deﬁne the action of T

a

and S on the fermion

ﬁelds. Deﬁne the doublet

ψ

L

≡

ν

eL

e

−

L

(2.2.6)

Then the T

a

’s are deﬁned as

T

a

ψ

L

=

τ

a

2

ψ

L

, T

a

e

−

R

= 0 (2.2.7)

where τ

a

are the Pauli matrices. Both of these sets of T’s satisfy the SU(2) commutation relation

[T

a

, T

b

] = i

abc

T

c

(2.2.8)

although for the e

−

R

ﬁeld, which is called an SU(2) singlet, (2.2.8) is satisﬁed in a rather trivial way.

In order to incorporate QED into the theory we are building, we must make certain that some

linear combination of the generators is the electric-charge matrix Q. The matrix T

3

is clearly related

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 31

to the charge because the diﬀerence between the T

3

values of each multiplet (the doublet ψ

L

and,

trivially, the singlet e

−

R

) us the same as the charge diﬀerence. Thus, we deﬁne

Q = T

3

+S (2.2.9)

which deﬁnes S. We have done this very carefully so that S will be proportional to the unit matrix

on each multiplet.

Qν

eL

= 0 ; Qe

−

L

= −e

−

L

; Sψ

L

= −

1

2

ψ

L

; Qe

−

R

= Se

−

R

= −e

−

R

. (2.2.10)

We deﬁned S this way so it satisﬁes the SU(2) U(1) commutation relations

[T

a

, S] = 0 . (2.2.11)

(2.2.5)-(2.2.11) completely deﬁne the gauge couplings to the leptons. To see just what these

gauge couplings do, we will look ﬁrst at the interactions that change particle identity, the couplings

of W

µ

1

and W

µ

2

. If we write out the coupling of W

µ

1

and W

µ

2

to the fermions just by inserting the

standard forms of the Pauli matrices into (2.2.5)-(2.2.7), we ﬁnd the interaction terms

−

g

2

ν

eL

( / W

1

−i / W

2

)e

−

L

+e

−

L

( / W

1

+i / W

2

)ν

eL

¸

(2.2.12)

plus an analogous term for muons. The “charged” ﬁelds deﬁned by

W

µ

±

=

W

1

∓iW

2

√

2

(2.2.13)

create and annihilate charged intermediate vector bosons. W

µ

±

annihilates (creates) W

±

(W

∓

)

particles. (2.2.10) can give rise to µ decay as shown in Figure 2-1.

.............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

µ

−

ν

µ

e

−

ν

e

W

−

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2-1:

There are two things wrong with Figure 2-1 as a picture of the weak interactions. The µ

−

and

e

−

are massless, and the W

±

are massless. The SU(2) U(1) gauge symmetry does not allow a

lepton mass term e

−

L

e

−

R

or a W

±

mass term. The leptons must obviously get mass somehow for

the theory to be sensible. The W

±

must also be very heavy in order for the theory to agree with

data. A massless W

±

would give rise to a long-range weak force. In fact, the force has a very short

range.

Despite these shortcomings, we will press on and consider the neutral sector. If the theory is to

incorporate QED, one linear combination of the W

µ

3

and X

µ

ﬁelds must be the photon ﬁeld A

µ

.

Thus, we write

A

µ

= sin θ W

µ

3

+ cos θ X

µ

(2.2.14)

Then the orthogonal linear combination is another ﬁeld called Z

µ

:

Z

µ

= cos θ W

µ

3

−sin θ X

µ

(2.2.15)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 32

The two independent ﬁelds are orthogonal linear combinations of W

3

and X because I have taken

the kinetic-energy terms for the gauge ﬁelds to be

−

1

4

W

µν

a

W

aµν

−

1

4

X

µν

X

µν

(2.2.16)

where

W

µν

= ∂

µ

W

ν

a

−∂

ν

W

µ

a

−g

abc

W

µ

b

W

ν

c

X

µν

= ∂

µ

X

ν

−∂

ν

X

µ

. (2.2.17)

Thus, only the orthogonal combinations of W

3

and X have independent kinetic energy terms.

At this point, sin θ is an arbitrary parameter. But if we insert (2.2.14-2.2.15) into the covariant

derivative, we must obtain the photon coupling of QED. This determines the couplings of g and g

**in terms of sin θ and e.
**

Schematically, the couplings of the neutral gauge particles are

g / W

3

T

3

+g

/ XS (2.2.18)

Inserting (2.2.14)-(2.2.15) we get couplings

/ A(g sin θ T

3

+g

cos θ S) + / Z(g cos θ T

3

−g

sin θ S) . (2.2.19)

Since / A must couple to eQ = e(T

3

+S) [from (2.2.9)], we must have

g =

e

sin θ

, g

=

e

cos θ

(2.2.20)

Then the Z couplings are

/ Z(e cot θ T

3

−e tan θ S) = / Z

e

sin θ cos θ

(T

3

−sin

2

θ Q) (2.2.21)

The interesting thing about (2.2.21) is that the Z, unlike the photon, has non-zero couplings

to neutrinos. Z exchange produces so-called neutral-current weak interactions such as ν

µ

e

−

elastic

scattering, shown in Figure 2-2.

.............................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ν

µ

ν

µ

e

−

e−

Z

0

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2-2:

The SU(2) U(1) gauge structure was ﬁrst written down by Glashow in 1960. At the time, the

nature of the weak interactions was by no means obvious. That he got the right form at all was

a great achievement that had to wait over 12 years for experimental conﬁrmation. Of course, he

did not know how to give mass to the W

±

and Z without breaking the gauge symmetry explicitly.

The Z, like the W

±

, must be very heavy. That much was known immediately because a massless

Z would give rise to a peculiar parity-violating long-range force (see Figure 2-2.).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 33

2.3 Renormalizability? An Interlude

So why don’t we just add mass terms for the W

±

and Z by hand, even though it breaks the gauge

symmetry? The problem is not lack of symmetry. Nice as the idea of local symmetry is, it is not

what we care about. We are physicists, not philosophers. The real problem is that the theory

with mass terms is not renormalizable, so we don’t really know how to make sense of it. Before

discussing massive vector bosons, let’s go back an historical step and talk about the four-Fermi

theory.

Before SU(2) U(1), there was a phenomenological theory of the charged-current weak inter-

actions based on a four-fermion interaction. For the µ decay interaction, the form was as follows:

G

F

√

2

J

α

µ

J

∗

eα

(2.3.1)

where

J

α

µ

= ν

µ

γ

α

(1 +γ

5

)µ

−

(2.3.2)

and

J

α

e

= ν

e

γ

α

(1 +γ

5

)e

−

(2.3.3)

(2.3.1) is called a current-current interaction for obvious reasons.

The constant G

F

(F is for Fermi) is determined from the µ decay rate. It has units of 1/mass

2

m

2

p

G

F

· 10

−5

(2.3.4)

where m

p

is the proton mass.

(2.3.1) gives a perfectly adequate description of µ decay in tree approximation. The diﬃculty

is that it is a dimension-6 operator, where the dimension of the fermion ﬁeld is determined by the

requirement that the kinetic-energy term iψ / ∂ψ has dimension 4. The theory is not renormalizable

because quantum corrections produce an inﬁnite sequence of interactions with higher and higher

dimensions, all with inﬁnite coeﬃcients.

If we decide that we need a renormalizable theory (for example, we might regard the success of

the e and µ g −2 predictions in QED as evidence for renormalizability in general), the four-Fermi

theory is no good. We can do better by adding e

−

, µ

−

, and W

±

and Z terms to the gauge theory

of Section 2.2.1. Then there are no dimension-6 operators in the interaction Hamiltonian. But the

theory is still not renormalizable. To see this, consider the Z couplings (the W

±

would do as well).

The point is that the kinetic energy term is

−

1

4

(∂

µ

Z

ν

)(∂

µ

Z

ν

−∂

ν

Z

µ

) (2.3.5)

which doesn’t involve the longitudinal component of the Z

µ

ﬁeld, the component proportional to the

gradient of a scalar ﬁeld. Let’s call this longitudinal component Z

L

and the transverse component

Z

T

.

Z

µ

= Z

µ

T

+Z

µ

L

∂

µ

Z

µ

T

= 0, ∂

µ

Z

ν

L

−∂

ν

Z

µ

L

= 0 . (2.3.6)

The theory in which we add a Z mass term by hand, however, does involve Z

L

in the mass term.

Since Z

L

appears only in the mass term, not in the kinetic-energy term, it acts like an auxiliary

ﬁeld. The Z

L

propagator does not fall oﬀ with momentum. M

L

Z

L

then acts like a ﬁeld with

dimension 2 for purposes of power counting. Then the Z

L

couplings to other stuﬀ, such as ψ / Z

L

ψ

terms, are dimension 5 and not renormalizable.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 34

But all is not lost. If we somehow preserve the gauge-invariance structure and give mass to

the W

±

and Z, we may be able to preserve renormalizability. This is what Weinberg and Salam

did by making use of spontaneous symmetry breaking. We will return to the general discussion of

why (and whether) the theory should be renormalizable when we discuss eﬀective ﬁeld theories in

Chapter 8.

2.4 Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown

As a simple example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, consider the theory with a single Herme-

tian scalar ﬁeld and the Lagrangian

L(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ∂

µ

φ −

m

2

2

φ

2

−

λ

4

φ

4

(2.4.1)

With only a single ﬁeld, there can be no continuous internal symmetry, but this L(φ) is invariant

under the reﬂection

φ →−φ (2.4.2)

This has allowed us to omit a φ

3

(and φ) interaction term so that the theory has only two parameters,

m and λ. If λ is small, we can hope to treat the λφ

4

term as a perturbation.

But suppose the sign of the mass term is changed so that the L(φ) becomes (discarding a

constant)

L(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ∂

µ

φ −V (φ)

V (φ) =

λ

4

φ

2

−

m

2

λ

2

. (2.4.3)

In this case, we cannot perturb around the φ = 0 vacuum because the free theory contains a

tachyon, a particle with imaginary mass. Nor would we want to do so because the potential looks

like what we see in Figure 2-3. It is clear that the φ = 0 vacuum is unstable and that the theory

much prefers to spend its time near one of two degenerate minima, φ = ±

m

2

/λ. It doesn’t care

which.

−

m

2

/λ

0

m

2

/λ

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2-3:

If instead, we perturb around one of the minima, we get a sensible theory. The two are physically

equivalent, so we pick φ =

m

2

/λ. For the φ ﬁeld,

M

2

/λ is a “vacuum expectation value” (VEV).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 35

It is easier to see what is going on if we rewrite the theory in terms of a ﬁeld with zero VEV.

φ

= φ −

m

2

/λ (2.4.4)

The result is

L(φ

) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ

∂

µ

φ

−V (φ

)

V (φ

) =

λ

4

φ

2

+ 2

m

2

/λφ

2

=

λ

4

φ

4

+

m

2

/λφ

3

+m

2

φ

2

. (2.4.5)

Several points should stand out. The symmetry is hidden. It has been spontaneously broken by the

choice of vacuum. However, the theory is still described by only two parameters, for this relation

between the φ

4

, φ

3

and φ

2

terms will be preserved by quantum renormalization eﬀects. This

enhanced renormalizability, the fact that we need only two independent counterterms, is the legacy

of the spontaneously broken symmetry. The φ

**ﬁeld describes a massive scalar ﬁeld with mass
**

√

2m, with the original “imaginary” mass setting the scale, but not trivially related to the eventual

physical particle masses.

The existence of the other possible vacuum, φ = −

m

2

/λ or φ

= −2

m

2

/λ, does not show

up in perturbation theory. It is inﬁnitely far away because the ﬁeld must be changed everywhere

in space-time to get there. Note that spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs only in inﬁnite

space-time. In a ﬁnite space, the ground state would be a linear combination of the φ =

m

2

/λ

vacua, invariant under the discrete symmetry. In the inﬁnite space, such states are forbidden by

superselection rules. The existence of the other vacuum does give rise to a variety of interesting,

and sometimes even more important, nonperturbative eﬀects in the inﬁnite volume theory, but we

will ignore them for now and press on.

2.5 The Goldstone Theorem

For continuous symmetries, spontaneous symmetry breaking is slightly more subtle. Let us consider

the fairly general situation described by the Lagrangian

L(φ) =

1

2

∂

µ

φ∂

µ

φ −V (φ) (2.5.1)

where φ is some multiplet of spinless ﬁelds and V (φ) and thus L(φ) is invariant under some sym-

metry group

δφ = i

a

T

a

φ (2.5.2)

where the T

a

are imaginary antisymmetric matrices (because φ are Hermitian).

As in the previous section, we want to perturb around a minimum of the potential V (φ). We

expect the φ ﬁeld to have a VEV, 'φ` = λ, which minimizes V . To simplify the analysis, we deﬁne

V

j

1

···jn

(φ) =

∂

n

∂φ

j

1

. . . ∂φ

jn

V (φ) (2.5.3)

Then we can write the condition that λ be an extremum of V (φ) as

V

j

(λ) = 0 (2.5.4)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 36

Since λ is a minimum, V must also satisfy

V

jk

(λ) ≥ 0 (2.5.5)

The second derivative matrix V

jk

(λ) is the meson mass-squared matrix. We can see this by

expanding V (φ) in a Taylor series in the shifted ﬁelds φ

**= φ − λ and noting that the mass term
**

is

1

2

V

jk

(λ)φ

j

φ

k

. Thus, (2.5.5) assures us that there are no tachyons in the free theory about which

we are perturbing.

Now comes the interesting part, the behavior of the VEV λ under the transformations (2.5.2).

There are two cases. If

T

a

λ = 0 (2.5.6)

for all a, the symmetry is not broken. This is certainly what happens if λ = 0. But (2.5.6) is

the more general statement that the vacuum doesn’t carry the charge T

a

, so the charge cannot

disappear into the vacuum. But it is also possible that

T

a

λ = 0 for some a (2.5.7)

Then the charge T

a

can disappear into the vacuum even though the associated current is conserved.

This is spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Often there are some generators of the original symmetry that are spontaneously broken while

others are not. The set of generators satisfying (2.5.6) is closed under commutation (because

T

a

λ = 0 and T

b

λ ⇒[T

a

, T

b

] λ = 0) and generates the unbroken subgroup of the original symmetry

group.

Now let us return to the mass matrix. Because V is invariant under (2.5.2), we can write

V (φ +δφ) −V (φ) = iV

k

(φ)

a

(T

a

)

kl

φ

l

= 0 (2.5.8)

If we diﬀerentiate with respect to φ

j

, we get (since

a

are arbitrary)

V

jk

(φ)(T

a

)

kl

φ

l

+V

k

(φ)(T

a

)

kj

= 0 (2.5.9)

Setting φ = λ in (2.5.9), we ﬁnd that the second term drops out because of (2.5.4), and we obtain

V

jk

(λ)(T

a

)

kl

λ

l

= 0 (2.5.10)

But V

jk

(λ) is the mass-squared matrix M

2

jk

for the spinless ﬁelds, so we can rewrite (2.5.10) in

matrix form as

M

2

T

a

λ = 0 (2.5.11)

For T

a

in the unbroken subgroup, (2.5.11) is trivially satisﬁed. But if T

a

λ = 0, (2.5.11) requires

that T

a

λ is an eigenvector of M

2

with zero eigenvalue. It corresponds to a massless boson ﬁeld,

given by

φ

T

T

a

λ (2.5.12)

This is called a Goldstone boson after J. Goldstone, who ﬁrst established this connection between

spontaneously broken continuous symmetries and massless particles.

The existence of the massless particle can be understood qualitatively as follows. If the sym-

metry is spontaneously broken, we know that our vacuum is part of a continuous set of degenerate

vacua that can be rotated into one another by the symmetry. Physically, we cannot really get from

one vacuum to another because to do so would require transformation of our local ﬁelds everywhere

in space-time. But we can look at states that diﬀer from our vacuum by such a rotation in a ﬁnite

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 37

region and then go smoothly back to our vacuum outside. The point is that the energy of such a

state can be made arbitrarily close to the energy of our vacuum state by making the region larger

and the transition smoother. But if there are states in the theory with energy arbitrarily close

to the energy of the vacuum state, then there must be massless particles in the theory. These

are Goldstone bosons. Their masslessness is the translation into local ﬁeld theory of the global

degeneracy of the vacuum.

2.6 The σ-Model

Before discussing the spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in gauge theories, we will work out in

detail one example of global symmetry breakdown in the strong interactions that will be useful when

we discuss hadrons — and will turn out to have a curious connection with the weak interactions

as well. The example is the σ-model of Gell-Mann and Levy (Nuovo Cimento 16:705-713, 1960), a

toy model of nuclear forces and, in particular, of the π-nucleon coupling.

Let ψ be an isospin-doublet ﬁeld representing the nucleons, P and N,

ψ =

P

N

(2.6.1)

The theory should certainly be invariant under global rotations, with T

a

= τ

a

/2

δψ = i

a

T

a

ψ (2.6.2)

However, as we have seen, the kinetic-energy term for massless fermions is automatically invariant

under the larger group of symmetries, SU(2) SU(2):

δψ

L

= i

a

L

T

a

ψ

L

δψ

R

= i

a

R

T

a

ψ

R

. (2.6.3)

These are the chiral symmetries. (2.6.3) can be rewritten in terms of the inﬁnitesimal parameters

a

= (

a

R

+

a

L

)/2

a

5

= (

a

R

−

a

L

)/2

, (2.6.4)

in the following form

δψ = i(

a

−γ

5

a

5

)T

a

ψ (2.6.5)

If

a

5

= 0, this is a pure isospin rotation. If

a

= 0, it’s a pure chiral rotation.

This would all seem to be academic, since a nucleon mass term ψψ breaks the chiral symmetry

and leaves only isospin. But Gell-Mann and Levy found that they could build a Lagrangian with

chiral symmetry and a nucleon mass if the chiral symmetry was spontaneously broken. In the

process, the pion is interpreted as a Goldstone boson.

The Lagrangian involves a 2 2 matrix of spinless ﬁelds Σ that transforms as follows under the

chiral symmetries:

δΣ = i

a

L

T

a

Σ −iΣ

a

R

T

a

(2.6.6)

Then the Lagrangian has the following form:

L = iψ / ∂ψ −gψ

L

Σψ

R

−gψ

R

Σ

†

ψ

L

+L(Σ) (2.6.7)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 38

The invariance of the Yukawa couplings may be more transparent in terms of ﬁnite transformations.

The inﬁnitesimal transformations (2.6.3) and (2.6.6) can be integrated to obtain

ψ

L

→Lψ

L

, ψ

R

→Rψ

R

(2.6.8)

Σ →LΣR

†

(2.6.9)

where L and R are independent 2 2 unitary matrices with determinant 1,

L = exp (il

a

τ

α

) , R = exp (ir

a

τ

a

) (2.6.10)

with l

a

and r

a

arbitrary real 3-vectors.

The most general 2 2 matrix would have eight real components. The Σ ﬁeld is constrained to

depend only on four real ﬁelds, as follows:

Σ = σ +iτ

a

π

a

(2.6.11)

It is not obvious (at least to me) that this form is preserved by the transformations (2.6.6).

1

But

it is true, and you can work out by explicit calculation the transformations of the σ and π

a

ﬁelds:

δσ =

a

5

π

a

δπ

a

= −

abc

b

π

c

−

a

5

σ

. (2.6.12)

Another way to see this is to note that Σ

†

Σ = ΣΣ

†

=

σ

2

+π

2

I and det Σ = σ

2

+ π

2

. Thus

Σ is

√

σ

2

+π

2

times a unitary unimodular matrix. Obviously, if we multiply Σ on the left or on

the right by a unitary unimodular matrix, the result is still of the form

√

σ

2

+π

2

times a unitary

unimodular matrix.

Inserting (2.6.11) into L, we can write the Yukawa couplings as

−gσψψ +igπ

a

ψγ

5

τ

a

ψ (2.6.13)

From (2.6.13), you can see that the π

a

ﬁelds have the right form to describe the π’s. The coupling

g is the πNN coupling g

πNN

.

We still don’t have a nucleon mass term, but it is clear from (2.6.13) that if we can give σ

a VEV, we will be in good shape. To this end, we must ask how to build L(Σ) invariant under

SU(2) SU(2). It is clear from (2.6.9) that

1

2

tr

Σ

†

Σ

= σ

2

+π

2

a

(2.6.14)

is invariant. In fact, the most general invariant (without derivatives) is just a function of σ

2

+π

2

a

.

This can be seen by noting that more complicated traces just give powers of σ

2

+π

2

a

because

Σ

†

Σ =

σ

2

+π

2

a

(2.6.15)

and is proportional to the identity in the 2 2 space. Alternatively, we can recognize (2.6.12) as

the transformation law of a 4-vector in four-dimensional Euclidean space. The invariant (2.6.14) is

just the length of the vector, the only independent variant.

1

These objects are actually related to interesting things called quaternions.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 39

Without further introduction, we can write down the invariant L,

L(Σ) =

1

2

∂

µ

σ∂

µ

σ +

1

2

∂

µ

π

a

∂

µ

π

a

−V

σ

2

+π

2

a

(2.6.16)

To get a VEV, we take V to be

V (σ

2

+π

2

) =

λ

4

¸

σ

2

+π

2

a

2

−F

2

π

2

(2.6.17)

where λ is a dimensionless constant and F

π

has dimensions of mass (indeed, it is the only mass

scale in the theory so far). Then σ = π

a

= 0 is not a minimum. V is obviously minimized for

σ

2

+π

2

a

= F

2

π

(2.6.18)

Now we can use our freedom to make SU(2) SU(2) transformations to rotate any VEV into the

σ direction so that without any loss of generality we can assume

'σ` = F

π

, 'π

a

` = 0 (2.6.19)

and perturb around that vacuum.

Thus, we deﬁne the shifted ﬁeld

σ

= σ −F

π

, 'σ

` = 0 (2.6.20)

in terms of which L is

L = iψ / ∂ψ −gF

π

ψψ −gσ

ψψ

+igπ

a

ψτ

a

γ

5

ψ +

1

2

∂

µ

σ

∂

µ

σ

+

1

2

∂

µ

π

a

∂

µ

π

a

−

λ

4

σ

2

+π

2

a

+ 2F

π

σ

2

. (2.6.21)

This describes nucleons with mass gF

π

coupled to the scalar σ

**ﬁeld and massless pseudoscalar π
**

a

’s.

Why did Gell-Mann and Levy think (2.6.21) had anything to do with the world? For one thing,

the physical pion is very light compared to other hadrons. For example, m

2

π

/m

2

N

· 1/50. Perhaps

a theory in which it is massless is not such a bad approximation. But there was another reason.

The parameter g can clearly be measured in π-nucleon interactions. It turns out that F

π

can also

be measured. The reason is that, as we shall discuss in enormous detail later, it determines the

rate at which π

±

decay through the weak interactions. The crucial fact is that the axial vector

current, the current associated with

a

5

transformations, has the form

j

µ

5a

= −(∂

µ

π

a

) σ + (∂

µ

σ) π

a

−ψγ

µ

γ

5

τ

a

ψ (2.6.22)

which in terms of shifted ﬁelds has a piece proportional to ∂

µ

π

a

:

j

µ

5a

= −F

π

∂

µ

π

a

+ (2.6.23)

The other terms are all bilinear in the ﬁelds. The point is that this current has a nonzero matrix

element between the vacuum and a one-pion state

'0[j

µ

5a

[π

b

` = iF

π

p

µ

δ

ab

(2.6.24)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 40

where p

µ

is the pion momentum. This is odd. A normal current, like the charge with which it is

associated, just moves you around within multiplets. (2.6.24) is a sign of spontaneous symmetry

breaking. At any rate, the decay π

+

→ µ

+

ν

µ

is proportional to F

2

π

, and so F

π

can be measured.

Then the nucleon mass can be predicted according to

m

N

= g

πNN

F

π

(2.6.25)

This relation is called the Goldberger-Treiman relation, and it works fairly well (actually (2.6.25)

us a special case of the general Goldberger-Treiman relation that works even better).

The pion is a Goldstone boson in this model. This is probably obvious, but we can use the

formal machinery of Section 2.5 to see it directly. The Goldstone-boson directions are deﬁned by

T

a

λ where λ is the VEV. In this theory, the isospin generators annihilate the vacuum, so isospin is

not spontaneously broken and there is no scalar Goldstone boson. But the chiral transformations

rotate the VEV into the π directions (σπ

a

= +

a

5

F

π

from (2.6.12)), and thus the chiral symmetry

is broken and the π’s are Goldstone bosons.

We will discuss explicit chiral symmetry breaking later, but now notice that we can incorporate

a pion mass by adding to V the term

m

2

π

2

σ

2

+π

2

−2F

π

σ +F

2

π

(2.6.26)

which is not invariant because of the linear term m

2

π

F

π

σ.

2.7 The Higgs Mechanism

We now want to apply the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to the SU(2) U(1) model of

leptons. It seems clear that we can get an electron mass in much the same way we get nucleon

masses in the σ-model. It is probably not obvious that the W

±

and Z will get mass. But wait and

see. To give mass to the electron, we need an SU(2) U(1) multiplet of spinless ﬁelds that can

couple the ψ

L

to the e

−

R

in a Yukawa coupling,

−f e

−

R

φ

†

ψ

L

+ h.c. (2.7.1)

If the ﬁeld φ transforms under SU(2) U(1) with charges

Tφ =

τ

2

φ, Sφ =

1

2

φ, (2.7.2)

then (2.2.6) and (2.2.10) with (2.7.2) imply that (2.7.1) is invariant under the SU(2) transformation

δ = i

a

T

a

+iS. Evidently, φ must be a doublet ﬁeld

φ

+

φ

0

= φ (2.7.3)

where the superscripts are the Q values according to Q = T

3

+S. Note that

δφ

†

= −i

a

φ

†

T

a

−

i

2

φ

†

(2.7.4)

so that

δ

φ

†

ψ

L

= −i

φ

†

ψ

L

(2.7.5)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 41

φ

†

ψ

L

is an SU(2) singlet with S + −1, just like e

−

R

, so (2.7.1) is invariant. Now when φ

0

has a

nonzero VEV, (2.7.2) has a piece that looks like an electron mass.

Now that we have the SU(2) U(1) properties of φ determined, we know the couplings of the

gauge particles to the φ — they are determined by the covariant derivatives:

L

KE

(φ) = (D

µ

φ)

†

(D

µ

φ) (2.7.6)

We can do everything in this notation, but it is slightly more convenient to go over to a notation

in which the scalar ﬁelds are self-adjoint. We can easily do this by rewriting the complex φ

+

and

φ

0

ﬁelds in terms of their real and imaginary parts:

φ

+

φ

0

=

(φ

3

+iφ

4

)/

√

2

(φ

1

+iφ

2

)/

√

2

(2.7.7)

The conventional

√

2 is intended to ensure that the ﬁelds are normalized in the same way. At

any rate, we can arrange the real ﬁelds φ

j

in a real 4-vector and ask how the generators

T and S

translate into this notation. Thus, we write

Φ =

¸

¸

¸

φ

3

φ

4

φ

1

φ

2

¸

(2.7.8)

The space of the Φ ﬁeld has an obvious tensor-product structure. It is a tensor product of the two-

dimensional space of the original φ, on which the τ’s act, and a two-dimensional space corresponding

to the real and imaginary parts of the components of φ, on which we can deﬁne an independent set

of Pauli matrices σ. The 15 traceless Hermitian matrices acting on φ can be written as

σ

j

, τ

j

, and σ

j

τ

k

(where j, k = 1 to 3) (2.7.9)

In this notation, it is easy to write down the generators

T and S. The procedure is simple and quite

general: Leave antisymmetric matrices in φ space unchanged, but multiply symmetric matrices by

−σ

2

to make them antisymmetric. Thus

T

1

Φ = −

1

2

τ

1

σ

2

Φ

T

2

Φ =

1

2

τ

2

Φ

T

3

Φ = −

1

2

τ

3

σ

2

Φ

SΦ = −

1

2

σ

2

Φ

(2.7.10)

You can easily check that (2.7.10) gives the same transformation laws as (2.7.2) and (2.7.7). The

advantage of this notation is really marginal. For example, it makes it slightly easier to identify

the Goldstone bosons. But since it is so easy, we might as well use it.

In terms of Φ, the kinetic-energy term becomes

L

KE

(Φ) =

1

2

D

µ

Φ

T

D

µ

Φ

=

1

2

∂

µ

Φ

T

−iΦ

T

e

sin θ

T

W

µ

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

∂

µ

+i

e

sin θ

T

W

µ

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

Φ

(2.7.11)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 42

The point of all this is that (2.7.11) contains terms like Φ

T

W

µ

1

W

1µ

Φ. If Φ has a VEV, this looks

like a W

1

mass. Perhaps we will be able to give mass to the W

±

and Z. Of course, we hope to do

it without giving mass to the photon, and we still have the Goldstone bosons to worry about. But

let’s go on.

The most general SU(2) U(1) invariant potential depends only on the combination φ

†

φ. In

particular, if it has the form

V (φ) =

λ

2

φ

†

φ −v

2

/2

2

(2.7.12)

Then φ will develop a VEV.

We want the VEV of φ

0

to be real and positive to that (2.7.1) gives an electron mass term

that is real and positive. This is purely conventional, of course. We can make an SU(2) U(1)

transformation to make any VEV of φ

+

and φ

0

have the form

'φ

+

` = 0, 'φ

0

` = v/

√

2 (2.7.13)

for real v. Let’s prove that. Suppose

'φ` =

a

b

(2.7.14)

By making a transformation of the form

φ →exp(2iθ

3

T

3

)θ

we get

a →e

iθ

3

a, b →e

−1θ

3

b (2.7.15)

By a suitable choice of θ

3

we can make a and b have the same phase. Then

φ →exp(2iφ

2

T

2

)φ (2.7.16)

is an orthogonal transformation by which we can rotate the (a, b) vector into the φ

0

direction.

Then by another (2.7.15) transformation we can make the VEV real and positive. Thus, all we

have done is to choose a convenient form for the VEV so that our original labeling of the fermion

ﬁelds is consistent.

In any case, (2.7.13) is equivalent to

'Φ` =

¸

¸

¸

0

0

v

0

¸

(2.7.17)

Now we want to rewrite (2.7.13) in terms of the VEV, λ, and the shifted scalar ﬁeld:

Φ

= Φ −λ (2.7.18)

Of course, L

KE

(Φ) contains the kinetic energy term for the Φ

**ﬁelds. But for the moment we will
**

concentrate on the terms that are quadratic in the ﬁelds. There are two types:

1

2

λ

T

¸

e

sin θ

T

W

µ

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

¸

e

sin θ

T W

µ

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

λ (2.7.19)

and

i∂

µ

Φ

T

¸

e

sin θ

T

W

µ

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

λ (2.7.20)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 43

The (2.7.19) are the W and Z mass terms we want, as we will soon see. But (2.7.20) looks

dangerous. It describes some sort of mixing between the Goldstone bosons and the gauge ﬁelds.

The Goldstone-boson ﬁelds are

Φ

T

Tλ = Φ

T

Tλ (2.7.21)

The ﬁeld Φ

T

Sλ is not independent, since T

3

λ = −Sλ.

But we have not yet used all our freedom to make local SU(2) U(1) transformations. In

fact, we can choose a gauge, called the unitary gauge, in which the Goldstone-boson ﬁelds just

vanish, so we can throw (2.7.20) away. To see this, we need to return to the unbroken theory. We

saw in (2.7.14-17) that we use the global SU(2) U(1) symmetry to take an arbitrary VEV and

rotate it into the φ

3

direction. But since we have the freedom to make diﬀerent SU(2) U(1)

transformations at each point in space-time, we can take an arbitrary ﬁeld Φ(x) and rotate it into

the φ

1

direction! So that after these rotations

φ

2

(x) = φ

3

(x) = φ

4

(x) = 0 (2.7.22)

Of course, we now have no further freedom to rotate Φ without disturbing (2.7.22). In other

words, we have chosen a gauge. Comparing (2.7.21) and (2.7.22), we can see explicitly that the

Goldstone-boson ﬁelds vanish in this gauge. The VEV is a VEV of the single remaining ﬁeld φ

3

.

Having disposed of (2.7.20), we can now return to (2.7.19) and show that it is a mass term for

the W

±

and the Z. Note ﬁrst that we can separate the problem into a neutral-gauge boson mass

matrix and a separate-charged boson matrix. Electromagnetic charge conservation prevents mixing

between the two. The neutral sector is more complicated than the charged sector, so we will do it

ﬁrst. We saw in Section 2.2 that we could rewrite the covariant derivative in terms of A

µ

and Z

ﬁelds as follows:

e

sin θ

T

3

W

µ

3

+

e

cos θ

SX

µ

= eQA

µ

+

e

sin θ cos θ

T

3

−sin

2

θ Q

Z

µ

(2.7.23)

Now we can see why the photon ﬁeld doesn’t get a mass — because

Qλ = 0 (2.7.24)

so that A

µ

doesn’t appear in (2.7.19) and (2.7.20). This, of course, is the way it had to work

out. (2.7.24) is the statement that the electromagnetic gauge invariance is not broken by the

vacuum. Thus, it must imply that the photon remains massless, and it does. (2.7.24) also shows

that the sin

2

θQ term in the Z

µ

coupling is irrelevant to the mass. Putting (2.7.23)-(2.7.24) into

(2.7.19)-(2.7.20), we get

1

2

e

2

sin

2

θ cos

2

θ

Z

µ

Z

µ

λ

T

T

2

3

λ =

1

2

¸

ev

2 sin θ cos θ

2

Z

µ

Z

µ

(2.7.25)

Thus

M

Z

=

ev

2 sin θ cos θ

(2.7.26)

An even simpler analysis for the charged ﬁelds gives

1

2

¸

ev

2 sin θ

2

(W

µ

1

W

1µ

+W

µ

2

W

2µ

) (2.7.27)

Thus

M

W

=

ev

2 sin θ

= M

Z

cos θ (2.7.28)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 44

The gauge deﬁned by (2.7.22) is called “unitary” or “unitarity” gauge because all ﬁelds that

appear correspond to physical particles that appear in the S-matrix. In general, the unitary-gauge

requirement is that the Goldstone-boson ﬁelds vanish,

Φ

T

T

a

λ = 0 (2.7.29)

In this gauge, renormalizability is not obvious. But as ’t Hooft showed, the theory is renormalizable.

We will discuss other gauges and the question of radiative corrections in Chapter 8.

2.8 Neutral Currents

As you will show in Problem 2-1, at low-momentum transfers, W

±

exchange gives rise to the

eﬀective four-fermion interaction (2.3.1) with

G

F

=

√

2 e

2

8M

2

W

sin

2

θ

=

1

√

2v

2

(2.8.1)

This is just one term of the general charged-current interaction that has the following form:

G

F

√

2

(j

α

1

j

1α

+j

α

2

j

2α

) (2.8.2)

where the currents are

j

α

a

=

¸

ψ

ψ

L

T

a

γ

α

(1 +γ

5

) ψ

l

(2.8.3)

where T

a

are the SU(2) generators. So far, we have seen only the leptonic contribution to (2.8.3),

but as we will see later, there are others.

The coupling of the Z produces a neutral-current interaction analogous to (2.8.4). In the same

notation in which the W

±

coupling is

e

sin θ

T

a

(2.8.4)

the Z

µ

coupling is

e

sin θ cos θ

T

3

−sin

2

θ Q

(2.8.5)

However, since the Z is heavier that the W by a factor of 1/ cos θ, the extra factor of cos θ in (2.8.5)

cancels from the eﬀective four-fermion interaction, which has the form

G

F

√

2

j

α

3

−2 sin

2

θ j

α

EM

j

3α

−2 sin

2

θ j

EMα

where j

α

EM

= ψγ

α

Qψ

(2.8.6)

The normalization of (2.8.6) is easy to remember because the j

2

term has the same strength as

the j

2

1

and j

2

2

terms in (2.8.2).

The fact that the coeﬃcients of j

2

1

and j

2

2

, and j

2

3

are the same is really much more than

mnemonic. It is symptomatic of an important feature of the theory. In the limit in which the g

**coupling is turned oﬀ, the theory has a larger symmetry. Consider the substitutions
**

φ

1

= σ, φ

2

= −π

3

, φ

3

= π

2

, φ

4

= π

1

(2.8.7)

Comparing (2.7.2) and (2.6.12), we see that our φ doublet can be identiﬁed with the Σ ﬁeld of

the SU(2)

L

SU(2)

R

σ-model, and the weak SU(2) is just SU(2)

L

. If there were no g

coupling

and no Yukawa couplings, the theory would have a gauged SU(2)

L

symmetry and a global SU(2)

R

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 45

symmetry. When φ

1

(= σ) gets a VEV, the SU(2)

L

SU(2)

R

symmetry is broken down to the

diagonal SU(2), which remains as an unbroken global symmetry of the theory. This SU(2) is

sometimes called the “custodial” SU(2) symmetry. It requires the neutral currents to have the

form (2.8.6) because they must be part of an SU(2) singlet with (2.8.2) when sin

2

θ = 0.

The parameter G

F

, the Fermi constant, can be ﬁxed by a measurement of the µ decay rate (see

Problem 2-4). After appropriate radiative corrections, we ﬁnd

G

F

= 1.166 10

−5

GeV

−2

(2.8.8)

(2.8.6) has some interesting physics associated with it. Consider ﬁrst the general question of

weak cross sections. If some scattering process takes place purely through the weak interactions,

the amplitude is proportional to G

F

, and so the cross section is proportional to G

2

F

. Thus, σ is

proportional to G

2

F

times a function of s and the fermion masses, where s is the square of the

center of mass energy. Furthermore, there is no way for one of the fermion masses to get into the

denominator. Thus, for s large compared to fermion masses, we must have

σ · G

2

F

s (2.8.9)

on dimensional grounds.

(2.8.9) has important consequences for weak-scattering experiments. Since the only convenient

lepton ﬁxed target is the e

−

, it is hard to get a large s in ﬁxed-target experiments because

s · 2Em

e

(2.8.10)

where E is the beam energy. Thus, to see processes such as

ν

µ

+e

−

→ν

µ

+e

−

or µ

−

+ν

e

(2.8.11)

ν

µ

+e

−

→ν

µ

+e

−

(2.8.12)

ν

µ

+e

−

→ν

e

+e

−

(2.8.13)

is not easy. The ﬁrst two have been seen in high-energy neutrino-scattering experiments where the

neutrinos are primarily ν

µ

and ν

µ

from π

±

decay. (2.8.13) has been seen in low-energy antineu-

trino beams from reactors where enormous neutrino ﬂuxes are available. The advantage of these

experiments as tests of the model are that they only involve leptons — no strong interactions.

But the experiments are so hard that this is not the easiest way to get really detailed tests of the

SU(2) U(1) theory. It works, but there is also good evidence from neutrino-nucleon scattering,

which we will discuss in some detail later. The data are better for neutrino-nucleon scattering.

The cross sections are larger because s is larger for a given beam energy by m

Nucleon

/m

e

— a large

factor. We will study this in Chapter 7.

2.9 e

+

e

−

→µ

+

µ

−

The situation is more complicated in e

+

e

−

annihilation. At the low center of mass energies, the

process e

+

e

−

→ µ

+

µ

−

is dominated by electromagnetic interactions, the s-channel exchange of a

virtual proton shown in Figure 2-4.

This produces a total cross section for the process that falls with 1/s (s = 4E

2

, where E is the

center of mass energy of one of the particles). The cross section (at energies large compared to the

particle masses) is

σ

e

+

e

−

→µ

+

µ

− =

4πα

2

3s

(2.9.1)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 46

............................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

e

+

e

−

µ

+

µ

−

γ

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2-4:

............................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

e

+

e

+

µ

+

µ

−

Z

0

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2-5:

But the neutral-current weak interactions also contribute, as seen in Figure 2-5. Indeed, when the

total center of mass energy approaches the Z

0

mass, this becomes the dominant contribution to

the amplitude. Eventually, this process should be one of the best sources of information about the

Z

0

.

In the 70’s and early 80’s, the largest active e

+

e

−

machines were the PETRA machine in

Hamburg and the PEP machine in Palo Alto, with a total center of mass energy between 30 and

40 GeV. This was not enough to produce the Z

0

resonance. The largest eﬀect of what occurs in

Figure 2-5 at these energies is the interference between the processes in Figures 2-4 and 2-5. There

are two types of contribution to the interference in the total cross section. Since the Z

0

has both

vector (V) and axial vector (A) couplings, the process in Figure 2-5 has pieces of the form VV, AA,

and AV. But the photon has only V couplings, so (2.8.1) has the form VV. Thus the interference

has one of the following forms:

VV VV (2.9.2)

VV AA (2.9.3)

VV VA (2.9.4)

(2.9.4) does not contribute at all to the total cross section because it is a pseudoscalar. It does

contribute to various parity violating eﬀects, such as helicity dependence.

(2.9.2) shares an interesting property with the purely electromagnetic contribution in that it

looks the same if we interchange the µ

+

and the µ

−

in the ﬁnal state. If this were the only

contribution, as many µ

+

would scatter forward in the direction of the incoming e

+

as backward,

in the opposite direction (see Problem 2-7).

(2.9.3), on the other hand, changes sign under the interchange of µ

+

and µ

−

because the V

and A currents have opposite-charge conjugation. Thus, this term contributes to a front-back

asymmetry in the cross section (see Problem 2-7). The front-back asymmetry has been measured

and agrees with the SU(2) U(1) model, not only for e

+

e

−

→µ

+

µ

−

, but also for e

+

e

−

→τ

+

τ

−

.

This was exciting because it was the ﬁrst data we had on the τ neutral current.

Today, the largest e

+

e

−

machine is LEP at CERN which runs at a center of mass energy of

about M

Z

and today has produced millions of Zs. The SLC, the novel single pass collider at SLAC

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 47

also produces Zs in e

+

e

−

annihilation. In this machine, the electrons can be polarized, so the

interactions of the left-handed and right-handed electrons can be separately studied.

Problems

2-1. Derive the relation M

2

W

=

√

2e

2

/8 sin

2

θ G

F

.

2-2. Derive the analogous relation in a theory in which the left- handed electron and muon

ﬁelds are in triplets (with all right-handed ﬁelds in singlets) under SU(2) U(1) as follows:

ψ

eL

=

¸

E

+

L

ν

eL

e

−

L

¸

ψ

µL

=

¸

M

+

L

ν

µL

µ

−

L

¸

where E

+

and M

+

are heavy (unobserved) lepton ﬁelds.

The SU(2) generators of the triplet representation are

T

1

=

1

√

2

¸

0 1 0

1 0 1

0 1 0

¸

T

2

=

i

√

2

¸

0 −i 0

i 0 −i

0 i 0

¸

T

3

=

¸

1 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 −1

¸

Note that [T

a

, T

b

] = i

abc

T

c

2-3. Find the constants C

j

in the following relations:

(a) [γ

µ

P

±

]

ij

[γ

µ

P

±

]

kl

= C

1

[γ

µ

P

±

]

il

[γ

µ

P

±

]

kj

(b) [γ

µ

P

±

]

ij

[γ

µ

P

∓

]

kl

= C

2

[P

∓

]

il

[P

±

]

kj

(b

) Note that [σ

µν

P

∓

]

il

[σ

µν

P

±

]

kj

= 0

(c) [P

±

]

ij

[P

±

]

kl

= C

3

[P

±

]

il

[P

±

]

kj

+C

4

[σ

µν

P

±

]

il

[σ

µν

P

±

]

kj

(d) [σ

µν

P

±

]

ij

[σ

µν

P

±

]

kl

= C

5

[P

±

]

il

[P

±

]

kj

+C

6

[σ

µν

P

±

]

il

[σ

µν

P

±

]

kj

These six numbers are all there is to Fierz transformations.

Hint: For (a) and (b), multiply by γ

ν

lk

and sum over l and k. For (c) and (d), it’s easiest to

avoid taking traces of σ

µν

, so multiply by δ

lk

and sum over l and k to get one equation. Multiply

by δ

jk

and sum over j and k to get another. To prove (b

), multiply by γ

λ

lk

and sum over l and k.

2-4. Calculate the µ decay rate assuming M

W

m

µ

m

e

. Note that in this limit, the rate

depends only on G

F

and m

e

.

2-5. In the SU(2)U(1) theory, both W

±

and Z

0

exchange contribute to the elastic scattering

process, ν

e

e

−

→ ν

e

e

−

. For momentum transfers very small compared to M

W

, use the results of

Problem 2-3 to write the eﬀective interaction Hamiltonian for this process in the form:

G

F

√

2

ν

e

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν

e

e

−

γ

µ

(G

V

+G

A

γ

5

)e

−

.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 48

Find G

V

and G

A

.

2-6. Consider a variant of the SU(2) U(1) model in which the electron mixes with a heavy

charged lepton, E

−

. The gauge group is SU(2) U(1) with one left-handed doublet of fermions,

ψ

L

, and singlets e

−

R

, E

−

R

and c

−

R

(c

−

is not a mass eigenstate). E

−

R

and c

−

R

transform just like e

−

R

under SU(2) U(1). The Yukawa couplings are

−

m

e

a

cos ξ e

−

R

φ

†

ψ

L

+

m

E

a

sin ξ E

−

R

φ

†

ψ

L

+ h.c.

In addition, there are gauge-invariant mass terms

−m

e

sin ξ e

−

R

c

L

−m

E

cos ξ E

−

R

c

L

+ h.c.

Find ψ

L

and c

L

in terms of mass-eigenstate ﬁelds, e

L

and E

L

. Then calculate the decay rate for

the process

E

−

→e

−

+e

−

+e

+

from the neutral current interaction. Neglect m

e

compared to m

E

.

Note: Try to get the answer from the µ decay rate actually calculating anything new.

2-7. Calculate the diﬀerential cross section dσ/dθ for e

+

e

−

→ µ

+

µ

−

, in the center of mass

system where θ is the angle between the momentum of the incoming e

−

and the outgoing µ

−

.

Assume that the energy is large compared to m

µ

(so that the lepton masses can be ignored), but

not large compared to M

Z

(so that only electromagnetic and weak-electromagnetic interference

terms are relevant). Further assume that the incoming es are unpolarized and the polarization of

the outgoing µs is unmeasured. Integrate dσ/dθ to the contribution of the weak electromagnetic

interference to the total cross section, σ. Find the front-back asymmetry deﬁned by

1

σ

¸

1

0

dσ

dθ

d(cos θ) −

0

−1

dσ

dθ

d(cos θ)

**2-8. Consider a model of electrons and muons based on an SU(3) gauge symmetry in which
**

the left-handed fermion ﬁelds are a pair of SU(3) 3’s,

ψ

1L

=

¸

ν

e

L

e

−

L

µ

+

L

¸

ψ

2L

=

¸

ν

µ

L

µ

−

L

e

+

L

¸

where e

+

and µ

+

are the charge conjugated ﬁelds, µ

+

= (µ

−

)

c

and e

+

= (e

+

)

c

. Under an inﬁnites-

imal SU(3) transformation, the transform as follows:

δψ

jL

= i

a

T

a

ψ

jL

where T

a

are the Gell-Mann matrices. Show that this SU(3) contains the usual SU(2) U(1).

Calculate sin

2

θ in tree approximation. SU(3) can be broken down to SU(2) U(1) by an octet

ﬁeld, φ (a traceless Hermitian 3 3 matrix ﬁeld, transforming as δφ = i

a

[T

a

, φ]) with V EV

'φ` =

¸

M 0 0

0 M 0

0 0 −2M

¸

**Show that the SU(3) gauge bosons that have mass of order M mediate, among other things, µ
**

−

decay into right-handed electrons. How large does M have to be so that the rate for this decay is

less than 1% of the normal decay rate?

Chapter 3

— Quarks and QCD

In this section, we will give a semi-historical discussion of quantum chromodynamics, and the weak

interactions of the quarks. This is only the beginning of our discussion of the weak interactions of

strongly interacting particles. It is one thing to write down the model, as we will do in this chapter.

It is quite another to understand what it means and whether it is right — this will occupy us for

much of the rest of the book — and is one of the exciting issues in particle physics today.

3.1 Color SU(3)

Hadrons are built out of spin−

1

2

quarks. We now have a rather convincing, though not fully

quantitative, theory based on an SU(3) gauge theory. the quarks and their ﬁelds (I’ll call them q

generically) come in three colors:

q =

¸

q

red

q

green

q

blue

¸

(3.1.1)

In addition, the theory involves eight “gluon” ﬁelds G

µ

a

, the SU(3) gauge particles. The Lagrangian

is

L = −

1

4

G

µν

a

G

aµν

+

¸

ﬂavors

(iq / Dq −m

q

qq) (3.1.2)

where the G

µν

a

, the gluon ﬁeld–strength, and D

µ

, the covariant derivative, are

D

µ

= ∂

µ

+igT

a

G

µ

a

, igT

a

G

µν

a

= [D

µ

, D

ν

] . (3.1.3)

The T

a

are the eight 3 3 traceless Hermitian matrices, conventionally normalized so that

tr(T

a

T

b

) =

1

2

δ

ab

. (3.1.4)

The T

a

’s are “color” charges just like Q in QED. The net eﬀect of the exchange of all eight color

gluons is to bind the quarks and antiquarks into color–neutral combinations, much as the photon

exchange binds charged particles into electrically neutral atoms. The color–neutral combinations

are

qq (3.1.5)

and

jkl

q

j

q

k

q

l

(3.1.6)

49

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 50

where j, k, and l are color indices and repeated indices are summed. (3.1.5) describes mesons and

those in (3.1.6) are baryons (of course, there are antibaryons as well). All the hadrons we have seen

correspond to one of these combinations, where each q is one of the types or ﬂavors of quarks: u

(for “up”), d (for “down”), s (for “strange”), c (for “charm”), and b (for “bottom” or “beauty”).

A sixth quark ﬂavor t (for “top” or “truth”) almost certainly exists and may have been seen.

1

The ﬂavors u, c, and t have Q =

2

3

. Flavors d, s, b have Q = −

1

3

. In Table 3.1, I give the quark

composition of some representative hadrons.

2

Particle J

p

Mass(MeV) Quark Composition

π

+

(π

−

) 0

−

139.57 ud (du)

π

0

0

−

134.98 (uu −dd)/

√

2

K

+

(K

−

) 0

−

493.68 us (su)

K

0

(K

0

) 0

−

497.67 ds (sd)

η 0

−

547.45 ∼ (uu +dd −2ss)/

√

6

η

0

−

957.77 ∼ (uu +dd −2ss)

√

3

D

+

(D

−

) 0

−

1869.3 cd (dc)

D

0

(D

0

) 0

−

1864.5 cu (uc)

D

+

s

(D

−

s

) 0

−

1968.5 cs (sc)

η

c

0

−

2979.8 ∼ cc

B

+

(B

−

) 0

−∗

5279 ub (bu)

B

0

(B

0

) 0

−∗

5279 db (bd)

B

0

s

(B

o

s

) 0

−∗

5369 sb (bs)

p

1

2

+

938.77 ddu

n

1

2

+

939.57 ddu

Λ

1

2

+

1115.68 uds

Σ

+ 1

2

+

1189.37 uus

Σ

0 1

2

+∗

1192.55 uds

Σ

− 1

2

+

1197.44 dds

Ξ

0 1

2

+∗

1314.90 ssu

Ξ

− 1

2

+∗

1321.32 ssd

Ω

− 3

2

+∗

1672.45 sss

Λ

+

c

1

2

+∗

2284.9 udc

Λ

0

b

1

2

+∗

5641 udb

Table 3.1: Quark content of hadrons.

In perturbation theory, the QCD Lagrangian describes a world of quarks and massless gluons

coupled to the eight color changes. This world doesn’t look much like our own. The quarks carry

fractional charges. The gluons are apparently massless. And we don’t see any of these things in

the real world. Nevertheless, many people believe QCD is the best candidate yet proposed for a

theory of the strong interactions. Why doesn’t the world look like a world of quarks and gluons?

The QCD Lagrangian with no quarks or with massless quarks has no dimensional parameter,

only the dimensionless coupling constant g. Classically, therefore, the theory is scale–invariant. But

1

The t, however, is so heavy that it decays in to W

+

b so quickly that it hardly makes sense to talk about it being

conﬁned in hadrons.

2∗

These are quark model predictions. Jp is not yet measured.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 51

to deﬁne the quantum theory, it is necessary to break the scale invariance and deﬁne or renormalize

the coupling g and the ﬁelds at reference momenta of the order of a “renormalization mass: µ.

Because the theory is renormalizable, the renormalization mass is completely arbitrary. A change

in µ can be compensated by redeﬁning g and rescaling the ﬁelds. In this way, we can describe the

same physics with the theory deﬁned at any µ we choose. Conversely, if the physics is ﬁxed, the

coupling constant g becomes a function of µ, g(µ). Furthermore, if g(µ) is small for some particular

µ, we can ﬁnd the dependence of g on µ in some region using perturbation theory by expanding in

powers of the small coupling constant. When we do that in the theory with no quarks, we ﬁnd (to

lowest order)

α

s

(µ) ≡

g(µ)

2

4π

=

2π

11

1

ln(µ/Λ)

(3.1.7)

Notice that dimensional transmutation has taken place. The quantum theory is characterized not

by a dimensionless parameter, but by the dimensional parameter Λ. Dimensional transmutation

does not depend on the perturbation formula (3.1.7). In general, α

s

(µ) = f(µ/Λ) were f(x) is

some ﬁxed function.

(3.1.7) also exhibits the property of asymptotic freedom, which means formally that α

s

(µ)

decreases as the renormalization point µ increases. Roughly speaking, α

s

(µ) is the strength of the

QCD interactions between color charges separated by a distance of the order of 1/µ. Since we can

turn asymptotic freedom on its head and see that α

s

(µ) increases as µ decreases, this suggests that

something interesting happens for µ small, which is at large separations of color charges. The best

guess we have at the moment for what happens to the theory at long distances is that it conﬁnes

color.

What conﬁnement means is that we can never see a completely isolated colored quark. If we

could somehow pull a single quark away from an antiquark without creating quark–antiquark pairs,

then when we got to distances large compared to the fundamental length in the theory that is 1/Λ,

the theory is that the quark would be subject to a constant restoring force of the order of Λ

2

.

In other words, the potential energy of the quark–antiquark system would rise linearly with the

separation r, like Λ

2

r. The constant force conﬁnes quarks into systems of size ∼ 1/Λ (or smaller).

These are the hadrons.

It is sometimes said that it is quark conﬁnement that makes QCD complicated — that makes

it diﬃcult to see quarks and gluons directly. Rubbish! Actually, what makes QCD complicated is

the fact that the lightest quarks are, in a sense which we will discuss more precisely later, much

lighter than the proton that is built out of them.

It is true that conﬁnement means that it is impossible to isolate a quark. But then, we cannot

isolate an electron either. After all, every electron comes complete with its long–range electromag-

netic ﬁeld. Any attempt to isolate an electron without its electromagnetic ﬁeld is doomed because

the electromagnetic force has inﬁnite range. If our concept of “observation of a particle” is not

ﬂexible enough to apply to objects that cannot be entirely isolated, then it is not very useful.

The analogy between conﬁnement and electromagnetism is imperfect, to be sure. The electro-

magnetic force, while it is long–range, at least falls oﬀ with distance, whereas we believe that the

chromodynamic force between color charges goes to a constant at large distances. It is even more

impossible to isolate quarks than it is to isolate charged particles. To make sure that we are not

fooling ourselves with this analogy and convince ourselves that conﬁnement is not the whole answer

to the question of why we don’t see quarks, let’s do a little thought experiment and build a toy

world. For convenience, we’ll try to make this toy world look as much as possible like our own, but

we’ll leave open the possibility of adjusting the strength of the QCD force.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 52

3.2 A Toy Model

For simplicity, we’ll deal with a world with only two types of quarks, a µ quark with electric charge

+

2

3

and a d quark with charge −

1

3

. We’ll take them approximately degenerate and give both

a mass ∼ m

q

. That’s a reasonable approximation to our world because it wouldn’t make much

diﬀerence to our everyday lives if strange quarks and charmed quarks, and heavier quarks didn’t

exist. We will also include in our toy world an electron, with nonQCD interactions, just ordinary

electromagnetism, and a mass m

e

.

The QCD interactions in this toy world, as in our own, are such that the quarks tend to bind

together into color singlet states — states with no color charges. This is nothing complicated; it

happens for the same reasons that electromagnetic charges tend to bind together to form neutral

systems. In particular, we can build a proton state (P = uud) as a color singlet combination of

two u quarks and a d quark and a neutron state (N = ddu) as a color singlet combination of two

d quarks and a u quark, and these will be the lightest baryons.

In the microscopic toy world, that is in the Lagrangian, there are four parameters: m

e

, the

mass of the quarks; Λ, including dimensional transmutation of the QCD coupling; and α, the

electromagnetic coupling. To make this look as much like our world as possible, let’s take m

e

and

α to have the same values that they have in our world. Furthermore, let’s adjust the scale of m

q

and Λ so that the proton mass m

p

in the toy world is the same at it is in our world. After all this,

we still have one parameter left, the ratio of the dimensional parameter Λ, which characterizes the

coupling constant α

s

, to the quark mass m

q

.

So far, we haven’t done anything to make the toy world any diﬀerent from our own. But

that comes next. We will adjust the ratio Λ/m

q

so that the QCD coupling at the proton mass is

electromagnetic in size:

α

s

(m

p

) = α (3.2.1)

This makes quantum chromodynamics as easy as quantum electrodynamics. Perturbation theory

in QCD should be just as good and useful and accurate as perturbation theory in QED,

Now we can easily ﬁnd the quark mass. Since the chromodynamic forces are weak (like electro-

magnetic forces), the proton is a nonrelativistic bound state. The proton mass is just three times

the quark mass plus binding corrections of the order of αm

q

. Thus, the quark mass is

m

q

· m

p

/3 · 310 MeV (3.2.2)

The proton radius in the toy world is a Bohr radius, (αm

q

)

−1

· 10

−11

cm. Here is a major

diﬀerence between our world and the toy world. The toy nucleus is one hundred times bigger than

the nuclei in our world. Nevertheless, it is still very small compared to the atom as a whole, so

the chemistry of the toy world is probably just like what we are used to. Exactly what happens to

nuclear physics in the toy world is not at all clear. Indeed, there are many peculiar things about

nuclear physics in the toy world. For example, the baryon resonances ∆

++

and ∆

−

are stable if

we neglect the weak interactions.

At any rate, it is at least possible to imagine that people (or some higher form of life) may exist

in the toy world, and we can then ask — What will they think about quark conﬁnement? The

most likely answer is that they will not think about it very much at all. They will be perfectly

satisﬁed with their perturbative theory of quantum chromodynamics. Perhaps some very smart

creature will discover asymptotic freedom and speculate about what happens to the theory at very

large distances.

To see what kind of distances we are talking about, let’s calculate 1/Λ. That is roughly the

distance to which we must separate a quark from an antiquark before the conﬁning force becomes

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 53

important.

1

Λ

= exp

2π

11α

1

m

p

· 10

20

cm (3.2.3)

In (3.2.3), I have written (3.1.7) for α

s

(m

p

) and inserted (3.2.1). Because of the exponential

dependence on 1/α, Λ is tiny, and 1/Λ is a truly enormous distance. Obviously, there is no hope

of seeing any conﬁnement eﬀects in terrestrial laboratories.

Elementary particle physics looks deceptively familiar in the toy world. For example, look

at the mass spectrum of the hadrons, by which I mean color–singlet bound states of quarks and

gluons. All of the familiar quark model states are there, not including strange and charmed particles

because we have not included s and c quarks. In fact, the qualitative correspondence between the

lightest three quark states in this simple model with the lightest baryon states in our world is quite

remarkable. We do not understand quite why it should work as well as it does, and this is one of

the things we will discuss in later chapters. But in the toy world, the quark model is not just a

qualitative guide to the physics, it is the whole story. The ∆

++

and ∆

−

are stable, as mentioned

before, because they are split from P and N only by a mass of the order αm

q

and cannot decay by

pion emission (the ∆

+

(∆

0

) can decay electromagnetically into P +γ(N +γ) or chromodynamically

into P+ Gluons (N+ Gluons)). There is a whole sequence of “‘atomic” baryon resonances above

the P and N by mass splittings of the order of αm

q

.

There are qq bound states corresponding to pseudoscalar and vector mesons. Indeed, if the u

and d quarks are exactly degenerate, it makes sense to talk about a π and an “η” (an isospin–singlet

bound state of uu + dd). But in practice, if the u and d quarks diﬀer at all in mass, isospin is

irrelevant. For example, if m

d

−m

u

is a few MeV (as in our world), the mesons are predominantly

uu and dd bound states instead of neutral states of deﬁnite isospin. There is signiﬁcant mixing

between the two states because of perturbative QCD interactions (both can annihilate into gluons)

that are comparable to QED interactions (annihilation into photons). At any rate, these meson

states and their excitations all have a mass ∼ 2m

q

· 2m

p

/3. There is no light pion.

But there are light particles in the toy world. There are glueball states. The glueball states

would exist in the world independent of whether there are quarks, so their mass must be of order of

Λ, the only parameter in the quarkless theory. And Λ is a tiny mass, around 10

−30

GeV. Needless

to say, no one is going to measure the glueball mass in the toy world.

It is easy, in this toy world, to observe quarks. Just make them and look at them. For example,

if we collide an electron and a positron, some of the time they will annihilate and produce a quark

and an antiquark. The quarks will separate, and we can see them in our bubble chamber, fractional

charge and everything.

We can almost see gluons the same way. Some of the time in e

+

e

−

annihilation, the qq pair will

bremsstrahlung oﬀ a hard gluon. We can detect this thing by its collisions with nuclei. It may be

that the hard gluon would pick up a very soft gluon and bind it into a color–singlet state, but we

won’t be able to tell the diﬀerence between a massless gluon and a glueball with a mass of 10

−30

GeV.

I hope I have convinced you with this little fantasy that it is possible to see conﬁned quarks.

Of course, what makes the quarks visible is the same thing that makes the toy world so diﬀerent

from our own. The ratio of Λ to the quark mass m

q

is very small; on the natural scale of the QCD

interactions, the quarks are very heavy.

Now let’s see what happens as we increase the ratio Λ/m

q

to make the world look more like our

own. The ﬁrst thing that happens as we increase Λ in that conﬁnement eﬀects become measurable

in the laboratory, but the microscopic properties are essentially the same as in the toy world. A

turning point of sorts occurs for Λ of the order of 1 MeV, so conﬁnement eﬀects are important at

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 54

atomic distances. At nuclear distances, conﬁnement is still irrelevant, so particle physics is still

well described by QCD perturbation theory.

A more important change occurs for Λ · α

s

m

q

. At this point conﬁnement eﬀects become

important inside hadrons. This is the smallest value of Λ/m

q

for which we could reasonably say

that the quarks are unobservable, because here we cannot pull quarks far enough outside hadrons to

see them in a nonhadronic environment. Still, we would be on shaky ground because the structure

of elementary particles is still beautifully described by the nonrelativistic quark model. We just

have to include a conﬁning term in our quark–quark force law. By this time, it makes sense to

talk about isospin as an appropriate symmetry, because Λ is much larger than the few–MeV mass

diﬀerence between the d and u quarks. The η is now measurably heavier than the π.

Perhaps the next most important landmark is the point at which the pion becomes the lightest

particle in the theory. The hadrons are still qualitatively described by a nonrelativistic bound–state

picture, but now the spin–spin interactions that split the pion from the p are becoming important

and bring down the pion mass. Eventually, the pion becomes lighter than the lowest–mass glueball

state. The general downward trend of the pion mass as m

q

/Λ decreases is correctly predicted by

the quark model, but for Λ > m

q

, the pion is really a rather highly relativistic bound state. In fact,

we believe that as m

q

goes to zero, the pion mass goes to zero, and the pion becomes the Goldstone

boson associated with the spontaneous breakdown of chiral SU(2) SU(2) symmetry. This is

related to the fact that for Λ > m

q

, the proton mass is considerably greater than the sum of the

masses of its constituent quarks. The excess proton mass is the eﬀect of conﬁnement. Essentially,

it is the zero–point energy of quarks conﬁned in a region of size 1/Λ. When m

q

= 0, the proton

mass is entirely due to this zero–point energy.

A bit further down in m

q

/Λ, the pion becomes so light that all glueball states are unstable

against decay into pions. By now, the nonrelativistic picture of hadrons has broken down badly.

In our world the pion is by far the lightest particle. The quark mass is negligible compared to

Λ. Our world is not so diﬀerent from the world in which the quark mass is exactly zero. Certainly

we are much closer to m

q

= 0 than to the toy world with very small Λ that we considered at the

beginning.

The moral is that the reason that our world doesn’t look like a world of quarks and gluons is

not simply that the quarks are conﬁned, but that the conﬁned u and d quarks are light compared

to Λ.

Despite the fact that our world is very diﬀerent from the toy world in which the QCD in-

teractions are weak, the simple nonrelativistic quark model still gives a useful description of the

low–lying mesons and baryons. The quark–model picture is a useful complement to the theory of

spontaneously broken chiral symmetry that we will further explore in later chapters. There is a

sense, apparently, in which the u and d quarks do have a mass of a few hundred MeV, ∼ m

p

/3,

with the s quark about 150 MeV heavier. These are not masses that appear in the renormalized

QCD Lagrangian. They are “constituent quark masses”, which include the eﬀect of conﬁnement,

chiral symmetry breaking, or whatever.

Though its phenomenological success is undeniable, the quark model is still not understood from

ﬁrst principles. We have no satisfactory way, for example, of understanding the relation between

the picture of the pion as a bound state of quarks with constituent masses and the complementary

picture of the pion as a Goldstone boson. We will have more to say about this important puzzle in

Chapters 5 and 6.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 55

3.3 Quark Doublets

The quarks were not discovered all at once. In fact, the quark picture of hadrons grew up in the

same period as the SU(2) U(1) model. In describing the weak interactions of the quarks, I will

adopt a partially historical view in which we assume the SU(2) U(1) form and imbed the quarks

in it in order of increasing mass. This is not exactly what happened, but it will preserve some of

the ﬂavor of the history without incorporating all of the confusion.

The two lightest quarks are the u and d. They are the major constituents of normal nuclei.

The two left-handed quarks could be put into a SU(2) doublet

ψ

L

=

u

d

L

(3.3.1)

like the left-handed leptons. The charged–current interactions caused by W

±

exchange would then

include the β–decay interaction

d →u +e

−

+ν

e

(3.3.2)

This same interaction causes π

+

decay, because the ud can annihilate into a W

+

and decay into e

+

ν

e

or µ

+

ν

µ

. The electron mode is actually strongly suppressed in π decay because the electron mass

is small compared to the pion mass. The decay is forbidden by angular–momentum conservation in

the limit of zero lepton masses. Because of the 1 −λ

5

factor in the current, the e

+

wants to come

out right-handed and the ν

e

left-handed, which is impossible. The decay takes place because the

e

+

mass term allows transitions from right-handed to left-handed e

+

, but the amplitude is then

suppressed by a factor of m

e

.

(3.3.1) is inadequate to describe the interactions of the strange quark. But with two quarks with

charge −

1

3

, it becomes possible to generalize (3.3.1) so that the ﬁeld that appears in the doublet

with the u quark is a linear combination of d and s.

ψ

L

=

u

cos θ

c

d + sin θ

c

s

L

(3.3.3)

where θ

c

is a phenomenologically important parameter called the Cabibbo angle. For a doublet

of the form (3.3.3), the strangeness–conserving processes have strength cos θ

c

while the analogous

processes, in which the d quark is replaced by an s quark so that they are strangeness–changing, have

strength sin θ

c

. Experimentally sin θ

c

∼

1

5

, so that strangeness–changing processes are inherently

some 20 times weaker (∼ 1/ sin

2

θ

c

) than strangeness–conserving processes.

Another diﬀerence in s quark decay is that the process can produce not only leptons but also

light quarks. With these tools, we can understand most of the entries in the particle data book

describing K decays, at least qualitatively.

Things that we cannot understand at the moment include the preponderance of hadronic decays

in various systems over the semileptonic modes that we might expect to have a similar strength.

For example, the rate for Λ → pπ or nπ

0

is 10

3

times larger than for Λ → pe

−

ν. Apparently

something is enhancing the hadronic decays, probably some complicated strong interaction eﬀect.

The K

0

s

and K

0

L

are clearly peculiar. As we will see, these are diﬀerent coherent combinations of

K

0

and K

0

.

3.4 GIM and Charm

So far, we have discussed only W

±

exchange, but if (3.3.3) were the whole story, there would be

decay processes mediated by Z

0

exchange as well. For example, the Z

0

coupling (from (2.2.21))

sin θ

c

cos θ

c

Z

0

d

L

s

L

(3.4.1)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 56

can give rise to the decay

K

0

L

→µ

+

µ

−

(3.4.2)

at a rate comparable to the decay rate for

K

+

→µ

+

ν

µ

(3.4.3)

In fact, (3.4.2) is suppressed by a factor of 10

−8

!

This is one of the symptoms of a very general problem — the absence of ﬂavor–changing neutral

current eﬀects. The problem is particularly acute in the SU(2)U(1) theory where there are neutral

current eﬀects in tree approximation, but it is present in almost any theory of the weak interactions.

The problem prompted Glashow, Iliopoulos, and Maiani (GIM) to propose a radical solution, the

existence of a new quark, the charmed quark in an SU(2) doublet with the orthogonal combination

of s and d, so the doublet is

ψ

L

=

c

cos θ

c

s −sin θ

c

d

L

(3.4.4)

Now the Z

0

coupling to this doublet precisely cancels the strangeness–changing coupling from the

other doublet. This is easy to see directly. But we can also see it indirectly by rotating ψ

L

and ψ

L

into another so that the Cabibbo mixing is entirely on the c and u ﬁelds.

This eliminates (3.4.2) in tree approximation. As we will see in Chapter 10, the problem will

reappear in one loop if the charmed quark is too heavy. The charmed quark had to appear with a

mass of less than a few GeV. And it did! The D

+

, D

0

and Λ

+

c

have all been observed with just the

right properties. The charmed quark should decay primarily into s because of (3.4.4), and it does.

This was one of the great triumphs of theoretical physics. It made a tidy little world with a

correspondence between quarks and leptons — one light family with u, d, ν

e

, e

−

and one heavy

family with c, c, ν

µ

, µ

−

. Unfortunately, nature didn’t stop there. The τ

−

lepton ruined the

correspondence, and it didn’t come as much of as a surprise when a b quark was later discovered.

We now know that there is a t quark. God, I suppose, knows whether there will be any more.

There is some evidence (which we will discuss later) from the total width of the Z that we really

have now seen all the matter particles. We will assume this to be so, and in the next section we

will analyze the SU(2) U(1) theory for six quarks.

3.5 The Standard Six–Quark Model

We are now ready to embed the quarks in SU(2) U(1). We will assume that there are six quarks

and no more. To get charged–current weak interactions involving only the left-handed quarks,

we must assume that the left-handed quarks are in doublets while the right-handed quarks are in

singlets, just as for the leptons.

We will write down the most general theory coupling the quark and lepton ﬁelds to the Higgs

doublet. Let’s start by inventing a better notation. Call the lepton doublets

L

jL

=

ν

j

l

−

j

L

(3.5.1)

where j runs from 1 to 3 and labels the ﬁelds in a completely arbitrary way. The right-handed

singlets are

l

−

jR

(3.5.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 57

They satisfy

TL

jL

=

τ

2

L

jL

, SL

jL

= −

1

2

L

jL

Tl

−

jR

= 0, SL

−

jR

= −l

−

jR

. (3.5.3)

The most general SU(2) U(1) invariant Yukawa coupling of these ﬁelds to the Higgs ﬁeld φ is

−f

jk

l

−

jR

φ

†

L

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.4)

where f

jk

is a completely arbitrary complex matrix. When φ gets its VEV, (2.7.13), this becomes

the charge–lepton mass term

−f

jk

v

√

2

l

−

jR

l

−

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.5)

This doesn’t look like much, but we can use the fact that the kinetic–energy term has separate

SU(3) U(1) global symmetries for the l

−

jR

and the L

−

jL

. As we discussed in (1.2.45)–(1.2.47), we

can redeﬁne the l

−

R

and L

−

L

so that the mass matrix is real, diagonal, and positive. Thus, quite

generally, the L

−

L

and l

−

R

can be taken to be pure mass eigenstate ﬁelds. We have not mentioned

neutrino masses. Later on we will discuss the possibility that neutrinos have a very small mass but

for the moment we will assume they are massless. Then the neutrino ﬁelds are all identical, and

the ν

e

, for example, can simply be taken to be the ﬁeld that is in a doublet with the e

−

L

. Thus, the

theory of leptons described in Chapter 2 is just the most general broken SU(2) U(1) of the L’s

and φ. Let us then see what is the most general theory of quarks.

Call the left-handed quark doublets

ψ

jL

=

U

j

D

j

L

(3.5.6)

where U

j

are the charge

2

3

ﬁelds, and the D

j

are the charge −

1

3

ﬁelds. The right-handed ﬁelds are

singlets

U

jR

and D

jR

(3.5.7)

The SU(2) U(1) charges are

Tψ

jL

=

τ

2

ψ

jL

, Sψ

jL

=

1

6

ψ

jL

TU

jR

=

TD

jR

= 0

SU

jR

=

2

3

U

jR

, SD

jR

= −

1

3

D

jR

(3.5.8)

The Yukawa couplings responsible for the charge −

1

3

mass is

−g

jk

D

jR

φ

†

ψ

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.9)

When φ develops a VEV, this produces the mass term

−M

D

jk

D

jR

D

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.10)

where

M

D

jk

= g

jk

v/

√

2 (3.5.11)

It is easy to check that (3.5.9) is invariant under SU(2) U(1) by comparing (2.7.2) and (3.5.8).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 58

To construct a Yukawa coupling involving the U

jR

ﬁeld, we need to construct a modiﬁed Higgs

ﬁeld with the opposite S value. We deﬁne

˜

φ = iτ

2

φ

∗

(3.5.12)

It is easy to see that (2.7.4) implies

δ

˜

φ = i

a

τ

a

2

˜

φ −

i

2

˜

φ (3.5.13)

so that

T

˜

φ =

τ

2

˜

φ, S

˜

φ = −

1

2

˜

φ (3.5.14)

Then we can write the invariant Yukawa coupling

−h

jk

U

jR

˜

φ

†

ψ

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.15)

Of course, the

˜

φ ﬁeld is constructed so that the neutral element is on top of the doublet

˜

φ =

φ

0∗

φ

−

, φ

−

= −φ

+∗

(3.5.16)

Its VEV then produces the U term

−M

U

jk

U

jR

U

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.17)

M

U

jk

= h

jk

v/

√

2 (3.5.18)

Now we can use the symmetries of the kinetic–energy term to simplify the mass terms. Each

of the three types of quark ﬁelds, U

R

, D

R

, and ψ

L

can be redeﬁned by an SU(2) U(1) unitary

transformation. For example, we can redeﬁne the ﬁelds so that the M

U

mass term is diagonal

−M

U

jk

U

jR

U

kL

(3.5.19)

M

U

=

¸

m

u

0 0

0 m

c

0

0 0 m

t

¸

(3.5.20)

But now we cannot diagonalize M

D

because we have already ﬁxed the ψ

L

ﬁeld. We still have

freedom to redeﬁne the D

R

ﬁelds so that we can write the D mass term as

−M

D

jl

V

†

lk

D

jR

D

kL

+ h.c. (3.5.21)

M

D

=

¸

m

d

0 0

0 m

s

0

0 0 m

b

¸

(3.5.22)

and

V

†

is a unitary matrix (3.5.23)

The D

jR

are now simply mass eigenstate ﬁelds, but the D

kL

are related to mass eigenstates by the

unitary matrix V

†

.

¸

d

s

b

¸

L

= U

†

D

L

(3.5.24)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 59

Thus

D

L

= V

¸

d

s

b

¸

L

(3.5.25)

In terms of the mass eigenstate ﬁelds, the quark charged current is then

( u c t ) γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)V

¸

d

s

b

¸

(3.5.26)

The unitary matrix V is all the information that is left of the general mass matrices we started

with, except for the quark masses themselves.

A general unitary matrix V has nine parameters. However, we are still not ﬁnished redeﬁning

ﬁelds. We can still redeﬁne the phase of any mass eigenstate ﬁeld. This means that we can multiply

V on either side by a diagonal unitary matrix. Thus, we can eliminate some phases in V . Only ﬁve

of the six phases in the two diagonal matrices are relevant, so we are left with four real parameters

in V . To see how this works explicitly, let us repeat the analysis ﬁrst performed by Kobayashi and

Maskawa.

We can write a general unitary 3 3 matrix in a kind of complex Euler angle parametrization

as follows:

V = V

2

V

1

V

3

(3.5.27)

where matrices have the form

V

1

=

¸

X X 0

X X 0

0 0 X

¸

(3.5.28)

V

2, 3

=

¸

X 0 0

0 X X

0 X X

¸

(3.5.29)

We can show that by making diagonal phase redeﬁnitions, we can make V

2

and V

3

real and write

V

1

in a very simple form. First, let us show that any 2 2 unitary matrix can be made completely

real. A unitary 2 2 matrix must have the form

w =

c ηs

−ρs ρηc

(3.5.30)

where [[ = [η[ = [ρ[ = 1, c = cos θ, and s = sin θ. Then

∗

0

0 ρ

∗

w

1 0

0 η

∗

=

c s

−s c

(3.5.31)

Thus, we can redeﬁne

V →DV D

= DV

2

D

D

∗

V

1

D

∗

D

V

s

D

= V

2

V

1

V

3

(3.5.32)

where D, D

**. . . are diagonal unitary matrices, and
**

V

2

=

¸

1 0 0

0 c

2

−s

2

0 s

2

c

2

¸

=

¸

1 0 0

0 c

s

s

3

0 −s

3

c

3

¸

(3.5.33)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 60

with c

j

= cos θ

j

, s

j

= sin θ

j

. V

1

is still an arbitrary matrix with the block diagonal form (3.5.28).

We can still further redeﬁne V by multiplying on either side by matrices of the form

¸

α 0 0

0 β 0

0 0 β

¸

[α[ = [β[ = 1 (3.5.34)

which commute with V

2

and V

3

. It is easy to see that using (3.5.34), we can redeﬁne V

1

to have

the form

V

1

=

¸

c

1

s

1

0

−s

1

c

1

0

0 0 e

iδ

¸

(3.5.35)

(3.5.32), (3.5.33), and (3.5.35) deﬁne the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) matrix. The interesting feature

is the appearance of a single nontrivial phase δ. As we will see, if δ = 0, the theory violates CP.

In one sense, the six–quark model represents a retreat from the level of understanding of the

nature of the weak current in the four–quark model. In a four–quark model, there is automatically

a relation among the strengths of strangeness–conserving quark interactions, strangeness–violating

interactions, and the µ decay interaction, just because sin

2

θ

c

+ cos

2

θ

c

= 1. This relation is called

Cabibbo universality, and it is observed to be rather well satisﬁed. In the six–quark language, this

means that s

3

is observed to be small. We don’t know why it should be so small. But then, we

know almost nothing about why the quark masses and angles are what they are.

Note that the six–quark KM model, like the four–quark GIM model that it generalizes, has no

ﬂavor–changing neutral currents in tree approximation. This is simply because T

3

and S commute

with any matrix in ﬂavor space. Thus, in any basis, the Z

0

couples to the quark neutral current

(with x = sin

2

θ)

e

sin θ cos θ

¸

j

1

2

−

2

3

x

U

jL

γ

µ

U

jL

+

−

1

2

+

1

3

x

D

jL

γ

µ

D

jL

−

2

3

xU

jR

γ

µ

U

jR

+

1

3

xD

jR

γ

µ

D

jR

.

(3.5.36)

It is only the mismatch between the unitary matrices required to diagonalize M

U

and M

D

that

produces ﬂavor–changing eﬀects. And these eﬀects show up only in the charged–current weak

interactions that involve U and D simultaneously.

In general, the constraint that neutral currents will not change ﬂavor in tree approximation can

be stated precisely as follows: Every set of ﬁelds whose members mix among themselves must have

the same values of T

3

and S.

There is no universally used convention for the angles in the KM matrix. Nor does everyone

agree about where to put the nontrivial phase. However, everyone agrees about the form of the

current in (3.5.26). The matrix element V

jk

is the coeﬃcient of the term in the current with charged

2/3 quark ﬁeld j and charged −1/3 quark ﬁeld k. Thus in the convention and obvious basis of

(3.5.26), V has the form

V =

¸

V

ud

V

us

V

ub

V

cd

V

cs

V

cb

V

td

V

ts

V

tb

¸

(3.5.37)

and at least the meaning of the absolute value of the matrix elements is unambiguous.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 61

3.6 CP Violation

The unremovable phase in the KM matrix is a signal of CP violation. A CP transformation takes

a simple form in a special representation of the γ matrices called a Majorana representation. A

Majorana representation is one in which the γ matrices are imaginary. For example, we can take

γ

0

= σ

2

, γ

1

= iσ

2

τ

1

γ

2

= iσ

1

, γ

3

= iσ

2

τ

3

(3.6.1)

In this representation, charge conjugation is trivial, just complex conjugation.

Then the CP transformation is

ψ(x, t) →γ

0

ψ

∗

(−x, t) = −ψ

T

(−x, t)

ψ(x, t) →ψ

T

(−x, t)

(3.6.2)

Thus, it just interchanges ψ and ψ with a minus sign to make up for Fermi statistics.

A kinetic–energy term, even for a parity–violating state like a neutrino is invariant under (3.6.2).

This is why CP is interesting.

iψ/∂P

+

ψ (3.6.3)

is not invariant under C or P separately. But under (3.6.2), because γP

+

is symmetric and γ

0

P

+

is antisymmetric in a Majorana basis, (3.6.3) transforms into itself plus a total divergence.

A mass term or gauge coupling can be invariant under (3.6.3) if the masses and couplings are

real. In particular, consider the coupling of the W

+

to quarks. It has the form

gU/W

+

P

+

D +g

∗

D/W

−

P

+

U (3.6.4)

The CP operation interchanges the two terms (with appropriate interchange of the W

+

ﬁelds),

except that g and g

∗

are not interchanged. Thus, CP is a symmetry only if there is some basis in

which all the couplings (and masses) are real. If there were only the four quarks u, d, c and s, the

SU(2) U(1) interactions could not violate CP. As we have seen, we can ﬁnd a basis in which

masses and couplings are real. The important result of Kobayashi and Maskawa was that with

six quarks or more, the SU(2) U(1) interactions can violate CP. It is, of course, an important

experimental question whether the KM phase δ is in fact the source of observed CP violation. We

will discuss this question in detail when we study K

0

physics.

Problems

3-1. Suppose the t quark didn’t exist. How could you build a ﬁve-quark SU(2) U(1) theory?

What phenomenological diﬃculties would such a theory face if we did not know that the t existed?

3-2. Find the number of real angles and unremovable phases in the 4 4 generalization of the

KM matrix.

3-3. Find a copy of the most recent Particle Physics Booklet from the particle data group, or

the Review of Particle Properties. Look through the summary tables for Gauge and Higgs bosons,

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 62

Mesons, and Baryons. Identify each exclusive

3

decay mode with a branching ratio of more than

2% that is produced by the electroweak interactions. Be prepared to talk about each such mode

and draw a representative Feynman graph that contributes to the decay process.

3-4. Construct an alternative SU(2) U(1) model of the weak interactions of the u, d, s

and c quarks that involves a pair of heavy (unobserved) quarks, h and l, with charges

5

3

and −

4

3

,

respectively. One linear combination of the left-handed light-quark ﬁelds is in an SU(2) doublet:

ψ

L

=

U

1L

D

1L

**The other is an SU(2) quartet with the h and l:
**

X

L

=

¸

¸

¸

h

L

U

2L

D

2L

l

L

¸

**All right-handed ﬁelds are SU(2) singlets. Find T
**

a

X and SX. What Higgs ﬁelds are required to

give mass to these quarks. Can the SU(2) U(1) interactions in this theory violate CP? Explain.

3

An exclusive decay is one that involves a deﬁnite ﬁnal state, not something like Z → ΛX, which refers to an

inclusive decay into Λ plus anything.

Chapter 4

— SU(3) and Light Hadron

Semileptonic Decays

4.1 Weak Decays of Light Hadrons

In Chapters 2 and 3, I have written down the standard SU(3) SU(2) U(1) model of the

strong and electroweak (short for weak and electromagnetic) interactions of leptons and quarks. To

understand the theory fully, we need to understand two more things: hadrons and loops. That is,

we must understand how the weak interactions of quarks give rise to those of the hadrons. We have

seen that they work qualitatively. We would like to say something quantitative. Then we would

like to see the renormalizability of the theory in action by computing ﬁnite radiative corrections.

We will begin by using SU(3) symmetry to analyze some weak decays of hadrons. In the process,

we will determine some of the parameters in the KM matrix.

Historically, the weak decays of the hadrons are divided into three classes: leptonic decays,

which have only leptons (no hadrons) in the ﬁnal state, such as π

+

→ µ

+

ν

µ

or K

L

→ µ + µ

−

;

semileptonic decays, which have both leptons and hadrons in the ﬁnal state, such as K

+

→

i

0

µ

+

ν

µ

or n → pe

−

ν

e

; and nonleptonic decays, which have no leptons (only hadrons) in the ﬁnal

state, such as K

s

→π

+

π

−

or Λ →pπ

−

.

From our modern vantage point, this division misses the point. the important division is

between those decays that involve leptons (which are produced by four–fermion operators involving

two lepton ﬁelds and two quark ﬁelds) and the nonleptonic decays (produced by four–fermion

operators involving four quark ﬁelds).

4.2 Isospin and the Determination of V

ud

The piece of the quark charged current involving the light u and d quarks is

V

ud

(j

µ

+j

µ

5

) = V

ud

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)d. (4.2.1)

This is built out of the vector and axial isospin currents

j

µ

a

= ψγ

µ

τ

a

2

ψ (4.2.2)

and

j

u

5a

= ψγ

µ

γ

5

τ

a

2

ψ, (4.2.3)

63

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 64

where ψ is the isospin doublet

ψ =

u

d

. (4.2.4)

Because the u −d quark mass diﬀerence is very small compared to Λ, the isospin charges

Q

a

=

j

0

a

(x) d

3

x, (4.2.5)

almost commute with the Hamiltonian. Isospin is broken by the electromagnetic (and weak) in-

teractions and by the u −d mass diﬀerence, but it is observed to be an excellent symmetry of the

strong interactions.

Of course, we believe that the u and d quark masses themselves are not much bigger than the

mass diﬀerences. For the moment, we will bypass them because they are not realized in the usual

way but are spontaneously broken.

Anyway, we can use symmetry arguments to determine the matrix elements of the Q

a

, and this

in turn should tell us about matrix elements of the currents (4.2.2).

So we would like to identify processes in which only the vector current contributes. We must

look for a decay involving leptons, because the light quarks only decay into leptons and, besides, a

purely hadronic decay would involve the matrix element of a product and two quark currents. The

axial current contribution can be eliminated in a special case. If the decaying hadron A has spin

zero and decays into another spinless hadron B with the same parity, in the same isomultiplet, the

amplitude for decay is

V

ud

'B[j

µ

+j

µ

5

[A` l

µ

G

F

√

2

, (4.2.6)

where l

µ

is the lepton matrix element. But the matrix element of j

µ

5

vanishes because of the parity

invariance of strong interaction! There is no way to form an axial vector of only the two hadron

momenta.

Thus, the matrix element of interest is that of j

µ

. If the momenta of A and B are p and p

, and

we deﬁne the momentum transfer

q

µ

= p

µ

−p

µ

, (4.2.7)

we can write the matrix element

'B, p

[j

µ

(0)[A, p` = C(q

2

)(p

µ

+p

µ

) +D(q

2

)q

µ

. (4.2.8)

This form follows simply from Lorentz invariance. The invariant functions C and D also depend, in

general, on p

2

and p

2

, but since these are ﬁxed at the particle masses, we suppress this dependence.

We want to use symmetry arguments to say something about C and D. We will, therefore, do

a rather peculiar thing. We will look at the matrix element in the limit of exact isospin symmetry.

The reason that this is peculiar is that in this limit A and B are degenerate, since they are in the

same isospin multiplet. Thus, A doesn’t decay into B in this limit! Nevertheless, we will try to say

something about C and D in this limit, the extrapolate back to the real world, assuming that C

and D don’t change very much. Then we can use the real observed masses and calculate the decay

rate.

In the symmetry limit, the current j

µ

is conserved. Thus q

µ

, contracted with (4.2.8) must

vanish, and therefore we don’t have to worry about D because

q

2

D(q

2

) = 0 => D(q

2

) = 0 for q

2

= 0. (4.2.9)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 65

To get a handle on C, we note that the matrix element of the charge Q

a

between A and B is

completely determined. Since A and B are in the same multiplet, we can write

[A, p` = [j, m, p`

[B, p

` = [j, m

, p

`,

(4.2.10)

where j and m(m

**) are the isospin and Q
**

3

values. In general

Q

a

[j, m, p` = [j, m

, p`(T

a

)

m

m

, (4.2.11)

where T

a

are the isospin matrices for isospin j. In particular, we are interested in the raising

operator

Q

+

= Q

1

+iQ

2

=

j

0

(x) d

3

x =

u

†

(x)d(x) d

3

x, (4.2.12)

which satisﬁes

Q

+

[j, m, p` =

(j −m)(j +m+ 1) j, m+ 1, p`, (4.2.13)

so m

**in (4.2.10) is m + 1 (this is obvious — the charged–current weak interactions change the
**

charge by one). Thus

'B, p

[Q

+

[A, p` =

(j −m)(j +m+ 1) (2π)

3

2p

0

δ

(3)

( p − p

), (4.2.14)

for states with standard invariant normalization.

Now let us calculate (4.2.14) a diﬀerent way:

'B, p

[j

0

(x)[A, p` = e

ix(p

−p)

'B, p

[j

0

(0)[A, p`, (4.2.15)

from translation invariance. Thus, from (4.2.8)—(4.2.9)

'B, p

[Q

+

[A, p` = C(0)2p

0

(2π)

3

δ

(3)

( p − p

). (4.2.16)

Note, as expected, the time dependence of Q

+

goes away in the symmetry limit because p

0

= p

0

when p

**= p. Now we can compare (4.2.14) and (4.2.16) and ﬁnd
**

C(0) =

(j −m)(j +m+ 1). (4.2.17)

Thus, we know C(0) in the symmetry limit. This should be good enough to give an excellent

approximation to the decay rate. In ﬁrst approximation, we will just assume that C(q) is constant

and equal to its symmetry value (4.2.17). The diﬀerence between C(0) in the real world and in the

symmetric world should not be greater than ∆m/Λ, where ∆m is the u-d mass diﬀerence, a couple

of MeV, while Λ is a few hundred MeV.

1

The q

2

dependence of C should likewise be determined by

Λ, while the q

2

in the decay is less than the A−B mass diﬀerence squared, of the order of (∆m)

2

.

Of course, if we want very accurate predictions, we can do better by modeling (or measuring)

the q

2

dependence and the symmetry–breaking eﬀects. We could also include the eﬀect of photon

exchange and other radiative corrections (now that we have a renormalizable theory). So a decay

such as this can be characterized very accurately in terms of the single parameter V

ud

.

1

In fact, the contribution from the u-d mass diﬀerence is even smaller because of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem,

but we will discuss this later when we deal with strangeness changing currents.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 66

There are many such process. In particle physics, the decay

π

+

→π

0

e

+

ν

e

(4.2.18)

has been seen. In nuclear physics, there are lots of them. For example

14

O →

14

Ne

+

ν

e

34

Cl →

34

S e

+

ν

e

26

Al →

26

Mg e

+

ν

e

.

(4.2.19)

Since we are just using symmetry arguments to get our prediction, we don’t mind that the hadrons

are complex nuclei instead of nice simple “elementary particles”.

In fact, the most accurate data come from the nuclear decays and give, after suitable corrections,

the value shown in the particle data book.

V

ud

= 0.9747 to 0.9759

So we know at least one of the KM parameters rather well.

4.3 f

π

Having determined V

ud

by studying the vector part of (4.2.1), we can proceed to look at the simplest

process involving the axial vector part. This is π decay

π

−

→µ

−

ν

µ

or e

−

ν

e

, (4.3.1)

with amplitude

'0[j

µ

5

[π

−

` l

µ

V

ud

G

F

√

2

. (4.3.2)

Only the axial current contributes because of parity. We are not smart enough to calculate the

hadronic matrix element, but we can parametrize it:

'0[j

µ

5

[π

−

` = lf

π

p

µ

, (4.3.3)

where p

µ

is the π momentum, the current is

j

µ

5

= uγ

µ

γ

5

d, (4.3.4)

and f

π

is a constant with dimensions of mass. The π decay rate can then be calculated in terms of

f

π

so that f

π

can be determined from the observed rate. It is

f

π

· 0.93 m

π

. (4.3.5)

Be warned that there is another perfectly reasonable deﬁnition of f

π

that appears in the literature,

in terms of the self-adjoint isospin currents and ﬁelds. It is

'0[j

µ

5a

[π

b

` = iδ

ab

F

π

p

µ

. (4.3.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 67

I use capital F to distinguish it from (4.3.3), but this convention is not consistently used. The

literature is random. The relation between these two deﬁnitions is

if

π

p

µ

=

0

j

µ

51

+ij

µ

52

π

1

−iπ

2

√

2

= i

√

2 F

π

p

µ

. (4.3.7)

Thus

F

π

= f

π

/

√

2 · 93 MeV. (4.3.8)

Notice that if we tried to integrate the current in (4.3.2) over space to get a charge, we would

have the charge acting on the vacuum to produce not zero, but a zero–momentum pion state. If this

situation persists in the symmetry limit m

u

= m

d

= 0, it is an indication of spontaneous symmetry

breaking, since the charge doesn’t annihilate the vacuum state. Another way to see this is to note

that in the symmetry limit, the j

µ

5

current is conserved. Thus, if we contract (4.3.3) with p

µ

, we

must get zero, so

f

π

p

2

= 0 = f

π

m

2

π

. (4.3.9)

Either f

π

vanishes, or m

2

π

= 0 and the pion is the Goldstone boson associated with spontaneous

breakdown of the chiral isospin symmetry. We believe that it is the latter and that our world is

very close to a world with a Goldstone pion.

4.4 Strangeness Changing Currents

Now that we have determined the coeﬃcient of the piece of the quark current involving u and d

quarks, we turn our attention to the next lightest quark and look for the term

V

us

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s. (4.4.1)

We can measure V

us

(perhaps) by looking at the strangeness–changing semileptonic decays of

strange particles (since the current destroys an s quark and replaces it by a u quark).

The simplest such process that we can hope to calculate from symmetry principles is the K

l3

decays:

K

−

→π

0

e

−

ν

e

K

−

→π

0

µ

−

ν

µ

K

0

L

→π

+

e

−

ν

e

K

0

L

→π

+

µ

−

ν

µ

. (4.4.2)

We might hope to calculate these just as we calculated π

−

→π

0

e

−

ν

e

. The amplitude for K

−

decay,

for example, is

'π

o

[j

µ

[K

−

`l

µ

V

us

G

F

/

√

2, (4.4.3)

where j

µ

is j

µ

= uγ

µ

s. The charge associated with j

µ

is a generator of SU(3), which is a good

symmetry in the limit that the u, d, and s quarks are all degenerate. As in (4.2.8)m we can write

'π

0

[j

µ

[K

−

` = f

+

(q

2

)(p

µ

π

+p

µ

K

) +f

(

q

2

)(p

µ

K

−p

µ

π

), (4.4.4)

where q

µ

= p

µ

K

−p

µ

π

. As before, in the symmetry limit, we can argue that f

−

(q

2

) = 0, and we can

calculate f

+

(0) from symmetry arguments. Then if we ignore the symmetry breaking and the q

2

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 68

dependence of f

+

, we can calculate the decay rate and compare with experiment. This determines

V

us

. The result is 0.216 ± .003, as calculated by R. E. Schrock and L. L. Wang (Phys. Rev. Lett.

41:1692–1695, 1978).

We may not believe this result! SU(3) symmetry is not as good as SU(2). Furthermore, SU(3)

breaking in the pseudoscalar meson sector seems to be especially severe. The K-π mass diﬀerence

is more than twice as large as the π mass. However, the situation is not quite so bad as it seems.

As we will see later, the large K-π mass diﬀerence is a consequence of the fact that both the π and

the K are almost Goldstone bosons — it is the diﬀerence in the squared masses, m

2

K

−m

2

π

that is

proportional to the SU(3) breaking quark mass diﬀerence, m

s

− m

d

(or m

s

− m

u

). Furthermore,

the Ademollo-Gatto theorem

2

implies that the symmetry breaking eﬀect on the matrix elements of

the current is actually quadratic in the symmetry breaking — the linear terms cancel. The physics

of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem is that any symmetry breaking that eﬀects the vector current also

eﬀects the derivative terms in the Lagrangian. For symmetry breaking due to the quark masses,

the ﬁrst order eﬀect on the derivative terms changes the wave-function renormalization of the ﬁelds

in the same way it changes the currents, so the symmetry breaking to this order can be removed by

redeﬁning the ﬁelds and there is no physical eﬀect in ﬁrst order. We will be able to see this easily

later, in chapter 6, when we explicitly write down the chiral Lagrangian that describes the πs and

Ks.

It worth looking at other places to get a handle on V

us

. SU(3) breaking in the baryon family,

the octet with spin−

1

2

, seems much less violent. Furthermore, there are several semileptonic decays

we can look at.

n →pe

−

ν

e

Λ →pe

−

ν

e

or pµ

−

ν

µ

Σ

+

→Λe

+

ν

e

Σ

−

→ne

−

ν

e

or nµ

−

ν

µ

or Λe

−

ν

e

Ξ

−

→Λe

−

ν

e

or Λµ

−

ν

µ

. (4.4.5)

This looks like a good system to study.

4.5 PT Invariance

We are thus led to consider the matrix element of the charged weak current between baryon states.

Since both the vector and axial vector parts contribute, we must evaluate both

'B

, p

, s

[j

µ

[B, p, s` = u(p

, s

) [f

1

γ

µ

−if

2

σ

µν

q

ν

+f

3

q

µ

] u(p, s) (4.5.1)

and

'B

, p

, s

[j

µ

5

[B, p, s` = u(p

, s

) [g

1

γ

µ

γ

5

−ig

2

σ

µν

γ

5

q

ν

+g

3

γ

5

q

µ

] u(p, s) (4.5.2)

where f

i

and g

i

depend only on q

2

= (p − p

)

2

. These forms follow from Lorentz invariance and

parity invariance of the strong interactions. The other tensor forms such as p

µ

−p

µ

can be reduced

2

M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 264, 1964.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 69

to these using the Dirac algebra. For example, when between u(p

, s

) and u(p, s)

p

µ

+p

µ

=

1

2

¦/ p, γ

µ

¦ +

1

2

¦/ p

, γ

µ

¦

= γ

µ

/ p +

1

2

[/ p, γ

µ

] + / p

γ

µ

−

1

2

[/ p

, γ

µ

]

= (m+m

)γ

µ

+iσ

µν

q

ν

. (4.5.3)

Note that the spin polarization vectors s

µ

and s

**are not real physical objects. The physical
**

description of the spin state of the system is completely contained in the spinors u(p, s) and

u(p

, s

). So no s

µ

’s appear in the matrix element, and the invariant functions f

i

and g

i

only

depend on q

2

, not p s

**, etc. The spin polarization vectors s
**

µ

and s

µ

are just convenient devices

invented to describe the spinors.

Now let us use the fact that the strong interactions are invariant under time reversal invariance

to show that f

i

and g

i

are all real. To simplify our lives, we will actually use invariance under PT.

This is simpler because it involves changing the sign of all the coordinates, so we do not have to

keep separate track of the time and space components of vectors. They all do the same thing.

Suppose we PT transform a matrix element (4.5.1):

'B

, p

, s

[j

µ

(5)

[B, p, s`

PT

= ±'B, p, −s[j

µ†

(5)

[B

, p

, −s

`

= ±'B

, p

, −s

[j

µ

(5)

[B, p, −s`

∗

. (4.5.4)

This needs some explanation. The PT is antiunitary, so it interchanges bras and kets and takes

operators into their adjoints. The +(−) sign for the vector (axial) current is not obvious, but we

will come back to it. T changes the signs of momenta and spins, but then P changes the momenta

back.

To see what PT does to spinor ﬁelds, consider the Dirac equation in a Majorana basis:

(i/ ∂ −m)ψ(x) = 0. (4.5.5)

We expect the PT–transformed ﬁeld to be proportional to ψ

∗

(−x). In this basis ∗ doesn’t do

much because the γ’s are imaginary, but to change the sign of x. We also need something that

anticommutes with the γ

µ

’s. This just γ

5

, so

ψ(x)

PT

→γ

5

ψ

∗

(−x). (4.5.6)

The currents then transform as

j

µ

(0) = ψ

1

γ

µ

ψ

2

→ψ

†

2

[γ

0

γ

µ

]

T

ψ

1

= ψ

2

γ

µ

ψ

1

= j

µ

(0)

∗

(4.5.7)

and

j

µ

5

(0) = ψ

1

γ

µ

γ

5

ψ

2

→ψ

†

2

[γ

0

γ

µ

γ

5

]

T

ψ

1

= −ψ

2

γ

µ

γ

5

ψ

1

= j

µ

5

(0)

∗

. (4.5.8)

Note that there is no (−) sign due to Fermi statistics when we interchange 1 and 2, because this is

done not by us, but by the antiunitary transformation that reverses all operator products.

Now the spinors describing the PT–transformed states are obtained similarly:

u(p, −s) = γ

5

u(p, s)

∗

. (4.5.9)

Notice that

(/ p −m)u(p, −s) = 0 (4.5.10)

and the γ

5

changes the spin because in anticommutes with / s. Putting all this together, we ﬁnd

(4.5.1)–(4.5.2), (4.5.4), and (4.5.7)–(4.5.9) yield the desired result that f

i

and g

i

are real.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 70

4.6 Second Class Currents

We can use the results of Section 4.5 to eliminate two of the coeﬃcients in the matrix elements

(4.5.1)–(4.5.2), at least in the SU(3) symmetry limit. First, let’s consider the matrix element of a

diagonal current

j

µ

(5)

= ψγ

µ

(γ

5

)ψ

ψ = u, d, or s

, (4.6.1)

with B

− B, since the currents do not change quark ﬂavors. Note that both the vector and axial

currents are Hermitian. Thus

'B, p

, s

[j

µ

(5)

[B, p, s` = 'B, p, s [j

µ

(5)

[B, p

, s

`

∗

. (4.6.2)

These can only be satisﬁed if

f

3

= g

2

= 0. (4.6.3)

The other terms are all allowed, f

1

and f

2

obviously so, since they are just like the electromagnetic

form factors.

Now for the oﬀ–diagonal currents, the situation is the same in the symmetry limit. For example,

consider

uγ

µ

(γ

5

)d, (4.6.4)

which is a linear combination of isospin currents. But the diagonal isospin current

j

µ

(5)3

= ψγ

µ

(γ

5

)

τ

3

2

ψ (4.6.5)

has vanishing f

3

(g

2

) by the preceding argument. If isospin is a good symmetry, (4.6.4) must also

have f

3

and g

2

equal to zero. Similarly

dγ

µ

(γ

5

)s (4.6.6)

gives vanishing f

3

(g

2

) in the limit that the SU(2) that mixes d and s (it is called U–spin) is a good

symmetry. And

uγ

µ

(γ

5

)s (4.6.7)

has f

3

(g

2

) = 0 when the SU(2) that mixes x and s (V –spin) is a good symmetry.

The f

3

and g

2

terms in the matrix elements of the oﬀ–diagonal currents are called “second–class

currents” for obscure historical reasons.

4.7 The Goldberger-Treiman Relation

In the symmetry limit, the currents are conserved, so if we contract (4.5.1)–(4.5.2) with q

µ

, we

must get zero. For (4.5.1), current conservation is automatic if f

3

= 0, so it gives us nothing new.

We already knew that f

3

= 0 in the symmetry limit. But (4.5.2) gives a peculiar relation

(m+m

)g

1

(q

2

) = q

2

g

3

(q

2

). (4.7.1)

It is peculiar because of the explicit power of q

2

on the RHS. Either g

1

goes to zero as q

2

→ 0 or

g

3

(q

2

) has a pole. To be speciﬁc, let the current be the axial current in neutron decay,

j

µ

5

= uγ

µ

γ

5

d. (4.7.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 71

We have repeatedly argued that because the u and d quark masses are very small compared to Λ,

this current is approximately conserved. Thus, g

1

(0) in the symmetric world should be very close

to g

1

(q

2

) measured at very small momenta (q

2

· m

2

e

) in neutron decay in the real world. Then

g

1

(0) · −g

A

· 1.25. We therefore believe that in the symmetric world, g

3

(q

2

) has a pole. In fact,

this is another signal of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The pole is due to the process shown in

Figure 4–1.

................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................ ................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............

.............

.............

.............

.............

.............

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............

P N

π

−

Figure 4-1:

Where indicates the current annihilating the π

−

. This diagram contributes

u(p

, s

)

q

µ

q

2

f

π

√

2 g

πNN

u(p, s) (4.7.3)

to the matrix element of the axial vector current. So it contributes the pole term to g

3

(q

2

).

Comparing (4.7.1) and (4.7.3), we ﬁnd

m

N

g

A

=

f

π

g

πNN

√

2

= F

π

g

πNN

. (4.7.4)

This is the Goldberger-Treiman relation again, now in a more sophisticated version including

strong–interactions eﬀects in g

A

, the renormalization of the axial vector current (compare (2.6.24)).

4.8 SU(3) −D and F

Let us summarize what we know about the parameters in semileptonic baryon decay. The term

f

1

(0) can be calculated from ﬁrst principles similar to those used in Section 4.2. Furthermore,

f

1

(q

2

) and f

2

(q

2

) can be related to the electromagnetic form factors in the SU(3) symmetry limit.

The principle here is not really diﬀerent from the general discussion that follows, but it is simpler

to say in this case, so we will illustrate it separately. The electromagnetic current can be written

in terms of the SU(3) currents as

j

µ

EM

= j

µ

3

+

1

√

3

j

µ

8

. (4.8.1)

The j

µ

3

part is an isospin partner of the current we are actually interested in:

j

µ

= j

µ

1

+ij

µ

2

= uγ

µ

d. (4.8.2)

So we can use isospin considerations to show

'P[j

µ

[N` = 'P[j

EM

[P` −'N[j

EM

[N`. (4.8.3)

Thus, the matrix element of interest in vector–current weak interactions is determined by the

matrix element of the electromagnetic current. This relation was noticed long ago by Feynman

and Gell-Mann. It was very important historically because it was a clue to the current–current

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 72

structure of the weak interactions. In an analogous way we can use V –spin arguments to relate the

matrix elements of the strangeness changing current uγ

µ

s to the electromagnetic current matrix

elements.

Of the functions g

i

(q

2

), we can safely ignore g

2

(q

2

) because it vanishes in the SU(3) symmetry

limit. g

3

(q

2

) can be calculated in terms of g

1

(q

2

) in the chiral symmetry limit (4.7.3). However, we

should not trust the pole at q

2

= 0. It is due to Goldstone–boson exchange, as shown by Figure

4–1. But in the real world, the lightest hadrons are the π and K, so we might expect the q

−2

to be

replaced by (q

2

−m

2

π

)

−1

. Because of the rapid q

2

dependence of the pole, there is a big diﬀerence

between a pole at q

2

= 0 and a pole at q

2

= m

4

π

. When we discuss nonlinear chiral Lagrangians

in the next section, we will learn how to include chiral symmetry–breaking (and SU(3) breaking)

eﬀects in a systematic way. For now, we can ignore the g

3

term completely, so long as we stick to

decays with electrons in the ﬁnal state. This is a good approximation because the contribution of

the g

3

term is proportional to q

µ

l

µ

, where l

µ

is the matrix element of the leptonic current in (4.2.6).

But the divergence of the electron current is proportional to m

e

, which is very small.

Finally, we can use SU(3) symmetry to calculate g

1

(q

2

) for all the baryons in terms of just two

functions. To see this, notice that the currents and the baryon states in the matrix element

'B

[j

µ

[B` (4.8.4)

are all SU(3) octets. There are only two ways to put three octets together in an SU(3) invariant

way.

The SU(3) invariant couplings of octets are very easy to write down in a matrix notation. The

quark triplet

ψ =

¸

u

d

s

¸

(4.8.5)

act like a column vector under SU(3) transformations. The conjugate ﬁelds

ψ = (u, d, s) (4.8.6)

act like a row vector. We can put these together to form a matrix

psiψ that contains both SU(3) singlet and octet pieces. We can get rid of the singlet part by

making it traceless.

ψψ −

1

3

Itr (ψψ) ≡ M =

¸

(2uu −dd −ss)/3 ud us

du (−uu + 2dd −ss)/3 ds

su sd (−uu −dd + 2ss)/3

¸

∝

¸

π

0

/

√

2 +η/

√

6 π

+

k

+

π

−

−π

0

/

√

2 +η/

√

6 K

0

K

−

K

0

−2η/

√

6

¸

, (4.8.7)

where we have identiﬁed the quark wave functions with the appropriate pseudoscalar mesons. Note

that

π

0

= (uu −dd)/

√

2 , η = (uu −dd −2ss)/

√

6 . (4.8.8)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 73

In (4.8.5)–(4.8.8) we are ignoring all Dirac indices and coordinate dependence; this matrix notation

is just a way of keeping track of the SU(3) properties.

M is a pseudoscalar meson wave function. We can ﬁnd an octet baryon wave function in two

ways. the simplest is just to replace each meson in (4.8.7) with the baryon with the same isospin

and hypercharge: η →Λ, π

−

→Σ

−

, K

+

→P, and so forth. Alternatively, we can construct quark

wave functions by replacing ψ by

(ds −sd, su −us, ud −du), (4.8.9)

which also behaves like a row vector. Either way, we ﬁnd a baryon matrix

B =

¸

Σ

0

/

√

2 + Λ/

√

6 Σ

+

P

Σ

−

−Σ

0

/

√

2 + Λ/

√

6 N

Ξ

−

Ξ

0

−2Λ/

√

6

¸

. (4.8.10)

Note that the meson matrix is Hermitian in the sense that if we transpose it and charge conju-

gate, we get the same states back again. But the baryon matrix is not Hermitian because charge

conjugation does not give back the same states; it changes baryons to antibaryons.

To build an SU(3) invariant out of these matrices, we just saturate all the indices by taking

traces of products. For example, the SU(3) invariant meson–baryon coupling

'B

[MB` (4.8.11)

is proportional to the matrices M and B and to the Hermitian conjugate matrix B

(because B

**appears in a bra). There are two diﬀerent ways of combining these three matrices to form an SU(3)
**

singlet:

tr MBB

or tr MB

B.(4.8.12) (4.8.12)

These are conventionally combined into combinations involving the commutator and anticommu-

tator of two of the matrices and called F and D, so that

'B

[MB` = Dtr

M¦B, B

¦

+Ftr

M[B, B

]

, (4.8.13)

up to conventional normalization. The reason for the names is that the F coupling is proportional

to the structure constant f

abc

while the D coupling is proportional to the symmetric invariant

tensor d

abc

= 2tr (T

a

¦T

b

, T

c

¦).

Similarly, if we write a current in an SU(3) notation in terms of a traceless 3 3 matrix T such

that

γ

µ

(5)

= ψγ

µ

(γ

5

)Tψ, (4.8.14)

then the SU(3) invariant matrix element is

'B

[j

µ

5

[B` = Dtr

T¦B, B

¦

+Ftr

T[B, B

]

. (4.8.15)

All the spinors, momentum dependence, and the rest of the matrix elements like (4.5.1)–(4.5.2) are

contained in D and F. All the particle and current labels are in the traces. Thus, this enables us

to relate the invariants (for example, g

1

) in one matrix element to those in another.

Let us illustrate its use by explicity writing out (4.8.5) for the current of interest in the charged–

current weak interactions with

T =

¸

0 V

ud

V

us

0 0 0

0 0 0

¸

. (4.8.16)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 74

If we explicitly evaluate (4.8.15) using (4.8.10) and its Hermitian conjugate B (we will drop the

prime because B

**always appears barred because it is in a bra), we get
**

F

V

ud

√

2Σ

0

Σ

−

−

√

2Σ

+

Σ

0

+PN −Ξ

0

Ξ

−

+V

us

¸

1/2Σ

0

Ξ

−

+

3/2ΛΞ

−

+ Σ

+

Ξ

0

−

1/2Σ

0

Ξ

−

−

3/2PΛ −NΣ

−

+D

V

ud

2/3Σ

+

Λ +PN + Ξ

0

Ξ

−

+V

us

¸

1/2Σ

0

Ξ

−

−

1/6ΛΞ

−

+

1/2PΣ

0

−

1/6PΛ +NΣ

−

. (4.8.17)

Notice the F term for the V

ud

current is just an isospin raising–operator matrix element.

As we have discussed above, the f

1

and f

2

terms are very well constrained because they are

related to the electromagnetic current associated with

T =

¸

2

3

0 0

0 −

1

3

0

0 0 −

1

3

¸

. (4.8.18)

The axial vector current is not so well determined. One combination that is very well measured is

g

A

, which appears in neutron decay. Thus

V

ud

(D +F) = g

1

N→P

= −g

A

· 1.25. (4.8.19)

Only the ratio D/F for the axial vector current remains to be determined. This can be ﬁt to all

the semileptonic baryon decay rates. This also, of course, determined the KM parameter V

us

. This

is where the value in your particle data book comes from.

V

us

= 0.218 to 0.224 (4.8.20)

Problems

4-1. Calculate the rate for the decay K

+

→ π

0

e

+

ν

e

in terms of G

F

and V

us

. Assume the

SU(3) value for the hadronic matrix element, and set m

π

= m

e

= 0 in your calculation.

4-2. Calculate the rate for π

+

→ µ

+

ν

µ

and π

+

→ e

+

ν

e

in terms of f

π

, G

F

, and the lepton

masses.

4-3. The energy-momentum tensor, T

µν

(x), is symmetric, conserved, and related to the 4-

momentum operators by

P

µ

=

T

µ0

(x) d

3

x

Use arguments analogous to (4.2.8-4.2.17) to calculate the matrix elements of T

µν

between spinless

particle states.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 75

4-4. Show that (4.5.1) and (4.5.2) are the most general matrix elements consistent with Lorentz

invariance and parity invariance of the strong interactions.

4-5. Derive (4.8.3). Give an example of a similar relation involving the strangeness-changing

current uγ

µ

s.

Chapter 5

— Chiral Lagrangians — Goldstone

Bosons

5.1 SU(3) SU(3) →SU(3)

In Section 2.6 we discussed the σ–model of nucleons and pions with spontaneously broken SU(2)

SU(2) chiral symmetry. In an obvious way, we could recast the model into a more modern language

by replacing the nucleon doublet (P, N) by the light quark doublet (u, d). To describe the strange

quark, we must extend the model to encompass an SU(3) SU(3) chiral symmetry. The obvious

way to do this is simply to replace the 2 2 σ ﬁeld by a 3 3 Σ ﬁeld, transforming like

Σ →LΣR

†

= Σ

(5.1.1)

under independent SU(3) transformations of the left- and right-handed quark triplets by the unitary

unimodular matrices L and R.

However, it turns out that the 2 2 case is rather special. In the 3 3 case, we cannot restrict

the ﬁeld as we did in (2.6.11). We can require that det Σ is real. But if the components of Σ are

to transform linearly into one another under (5.1.1), Σ must be a general 3 3 matrix, except for

the reality of the determinant. Thus it depends on 17 real parameters. The reason is that the 3–

dimensional representation of SU(3) is complex. There is no matrix S that satisﬁes −ST

∗

a

S

−1

= T

a

for the SU(3) generators T

a

.

We suspect from our experience with the σ–model and f

π

that the SU(3) SU(3) symmetry

will have to be spontaneously broken if this model is to have anything to do with our world. There

is now a tremendous amount of phenomenological and theoretical evidence that the symmetry is

spontaneously broken down to SU(3) with a VEV

'Σ` =

¸

f 0 0

0 f 0

0 0 f

¸

. (5.1.2)

For (5.1.2), since there is a broken SU(3) symmetry, all the ordinary SU(3) generators annihilate

the vacuum. The chiral SU(3) generators are associated with Goldstone bosons. The Goldstone

bosons are therefore an SU(3) octet of pseudoscalars. There are good candidates for all of these,

and indeed they are the lightest meson states, the pseudoscalar octet, π, K, K, and η (see Table

3.1).

76

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 77

5.2 Eﬀective Low–Momentum Field Theories

We can easily build a renormalizable theory based on the 3 3 Σ ﬁeld in which the ﬁeld develops

a VEV of the form (5.1.2) and spontaneously breaks the the SU(3) SU(3) symmetry down to

SU(3). But we have no particular reason to believe that has anything to do with QCD. These

two ﬁeld theories share a spontaneously broken SU(3) SU(3) symmetry (in the limit of QCD

in which m

µ

= m

d

= m

s

= 0), and thus, as we will discuss in more detail, they both contain

an SU(3) octet of Goldstone bosons. But they have little else in common. The key fact about

Goldstone bosons is that they are massless because they are related to the vacuum state by the

chiral symmetries. We expect QCD to give such Goldstone bosons just because the symmetry is

spontaneously broken, but until we get smarter, we can’t say much about them that depends on the

details of the dynamics. So we would like to learn everything we can about the Goldstone bosons

without assuming anything but the spontaneously broken chiral symmetries.

A chiral charge (if such a thing actually made sense) would act on the vacuum state to produce

a zero–momentum Goldstone boson. This is why the charge doesn’t exist — the particle state and

vacuum state are normalized diﬀerently. Thus, we would expect the chiral symmetries to relate

processes involving diﬀerent numbers of zero–energy Goldstone bosons. We want, therefore, to

study Goldstone bosons at low energies. In fact, at suﬃciently low energies, only the Goldstone

bosons can be produced because they are the lightest particles around, so we can start by studying

a theory involving only Goldstone–boson ﬁelds.

We know that a QCD theory with three light quarks has a spontaneously broken SU(3)SU(3)

symmetry, but that is all we can know without understanding the dynamics in detail. Therefore,

to incorporate the information about the symmetry without making unwarranted assumptions

about the dynamics, we would like to build the most general low–energy theory we can, consistent

with SU(3) SU(3) symmetry. We will do this with two basic ideas: we will use a nonlinear

representation of the chiral SU(3) symmetry, and we will expand the Lagrangian in powers of the

momentum — in order to concentrate on low–momentum physics.

Consider an exponential function of the eight Goldstone–boson ﬁelds π

a

, the unitary, unimodular

matrix

U = exp[2iΠ

∼

/f]

Π

∼

= π

a

T

a

,

(5.2.1)

where f is a constant with dimensions of mass. We will require that U transform linearly under

SU(3) SU(3):

U →U

= LUR

†

, (5.2.2)

just as in (5.2.1). But now the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds transform nonlinearly:

π

a

→π

a

, Π

∼

= π

a

T

a

→Π

∼

= π

a

T

a

(5.2.3)

where

U

= exp[2iΠ

∼

/f]. (5.2.4)

(5.2.2)–(5.2.4) deﬁne π

a

as a complicated nonlinear function of the π’s and L and R.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 78

To see what this looks like in detail, let us parametrize L and R as follows:

L = e

i c

∼

e

i

∼

R = e

−i c

∼

e

i

∼

,

(5.2.5)

where e

a

and c

a

are real parameters. This parametrization is entirely general. We can calculate c

a

by noting

LR

†

= e

2i c

∼

, (5.2.6)

then

a

can be calculated from (5.2.5).

If c

a

= 0, the transformation is an ordinary SU(3) transformation

U →e

i

∼

Ue

−i

∼

, (5.2.7)

under which the π’s transform linearly

Π

∼

→e

i

∼

Π

∼

e

−i

∼

. (5.2.8)

Thus

a

describes the ordinary SU(3) subgroup of SU(3) SU(3). The Goldstone bosons are just

an octet under the SU(3) subgroup as they should be.

If

∼

= 0, (5.2.2) is a pure chiral transformation.

U

= e

i c

∼

Ue

i c

∼

. (5.2.9)

To get a feeling for the meaning of (5.2.9), let us take c to be inﬁnitesimal and write Π

as a power

series in c and Π.

(1 + 2iΠ

∼

/f + ) = (1 +i c

∼

+ )(1 + 2iΠ

∼

/f + )(1 +i c

∼

+ ). (5.2.10)

Comparing the two sides, we see

π

∼

= π

∼

+f c

∼

+ or π

a

= π

a

+fc

a

+ . (5.2.11)

All the terms in the (5.2.11) are odd in π and c because of parity invariance. Both c and π change

signs if we interchange L and R. The inhomogeneous term in (5.2.11) is a signal of spontaneous

symmetry breakdown, as we will see later.

This special exponential form for the nonlinear representation is the simplest of an inﬁnite

number of possibilities. All the others are equivalent, however, in the sense that theories constructed

out of them will have the same S–matrix as the theories we will write down. This is discussed

(along with other interesting things) in an elegant pair of papers by S. Coleman et al. Phys.Rev.

177:2239–2247 and 2247–2250, 1969).

The idea is as follows. Suppose we build the most general Lagrangian involving the Π’s (or,

equivalently, U) that is invariant under SU(3) SU(3) (5.2.2)–(5.2.4). Since all we have used is

the symmetry, our theory should be equivalent to a theory based on any other realization of the

SU(3)SU(3) symmetry on the Goldstone bosons. We use nonlinear realizations of SU(3)SU(3)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 79

because we can then describe only the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds, not any extraneous ﬁelds introduced

by a linear realization.

The Lagrangians we build will be complicated nonlinear functions of the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds.

They will not be renormalizable. That does not concern us. They are designed to describe the

low–energy behavior of the theory. Renormalizability has to do with the high–energy behavior.

We are going to organize the Lagrangian in terms of increasing powers of momentum or, equiva-

lently, in terms of increasing numbers of derivatives. Thus, we look ﬁrst at terms with no derivatives,

then two, then four, and so on.

The terms with no derivatives are easy. There aren’t any. Every invariant function of U

without derivatives is just a constant. This will probably be obvious if you try to make one.

Alternatively, you can note that the terms with no derivatives actually have a local SU(3) SU(3)

symmetry, which is enough to transform away from the Goldstone bosons completely (as in the

Higgs mechanism). Thus, the non-derivative terms can have no dependence at all on the Goldstone–

boson ﬁelds.

There is only one term with two derivatives. It is

f

2

4

tr

∂

µ

U

†

∂

µ

U

. (5.2.12)

It is easy to see that all the other two derivative terms can be massaged into this same form. We

have chosen the constant in front of (5.2.12) so that it contains the conventionally normalized π

a

kinetic energy,

1

2

∂

µ

π

a

∂

µ

π

a

. (5.2.13)

The other terms in (5.2.12) describe the most important self–interactions of the π’s. They are

interesting but have little to do with weak interactions.

5.3 Sources

To discuss symmetry breaking and the currents in the low energy theory describing the Goldstone

bosons, it is convenient to start with the massless QCD theory for the triplet q of light quarks,

with the explicit SU(3) SU(3) symmetry, and add classical sources in the following way

L = L

0

QCD

+qγ

µ

(v

µ

+a

µ

γ

5

)q −q(s +ipγ

5

)q

= L

0

QCD

+q

L

γ

µ

µ

q

L

+q

R

γ

µ

r

µ

q

R

−q

R

(s +ip)q

L

−q

L

(s −ip)q

R

(5.3.1)

where L

0

QCD

is the massless QCD Lagrangian and v

µ

, a

µ

, r

µ

,

µ

, s and p are classical Hermitian

3 3 matrix ﬁelds (we can take the vector ﬁelds to be traceless), and

r

µ

= v

µ

−a

µ

,

µ

= v

µ

+a

µ

. (5.3.2)

The r

µ

and

µ

ﬁelds are classical gauge ﬁelds for the SU(3)

R

and SU(3)

L

symmetries, and also the

sources for the corresponding Noether currents.

The theory described by (5.3.1) is invariant under an SU(3) SU(3) gauge symmetry under

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 80

which the ﬁelds and sources transform as follows:

q

R

→Rq

R

q

L

→Lq

L

r

µ

→Rr

µ

R

†

+iR∂

µ

R

†

µ

→L

µ

L

†

+iL∂

µ

L

†

s +ip →R(s +ip) L

†

(5.3.3)

where R and L are unitary 3 3 matrices describing the SU(3)

R

and SU(3)

L

symmetries.

Thus we want to build a low energy theory with the same symmetries —

U →LU R

†

r

µ

→Rr

µ

R

†

+iR∂

µ

R

†

µ

→L

µ

L

†

+iL∂

µ

L

†

s +ip →R(s +ip) L

†

(5.3.4)

The low energy theory will be described by an eﬀective Lagrangian that depends on U and the

classical sources,

L(U, r, , s, p) (5.3.5)

As usual, we want to build the most general such eﬀective Lagrangian consistent with the symme-

tries, (5.3.4). This is only useful because the sources, like derivatives, can be thought of as small.

Thus we can expand (5.3.5) in powers of the sources and truncate the expansion after a small

number of terms.

Because the symmetry, (5.3.4), is a gauge symmetry, the derivatives in (5.2.12) must be pro-

moted to covariant derivatives,

f

2

4

tr

D

µ

U

†

D

µ

U

. (5.3.6)

where

D

µ

U = ∂

µ

U −i

µ

U +iUr

µ

D

µ

U

†

= ∂

µ

U −ir

µ

U +iU

µ

(5.3.7)

Note also that the QCD theory is invariant under a parity transformation, which on the ﬁelds

of the low energy theory takes the form

U ↔U

†

µ

↔r

µ

s →s

p →−p

(5.3.8)

along with the parity transformation in space, r →−r.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 81

5.4 Symmetry breaking and light quark masses

We do not want massless Goldstone bosons. We expect the masses of the observed pseudoscalar

octet to be due to the SU(3) SU(3) symmetry breaking. In QCD, we know precisely what breaks

the symmetry. It is the quark term

q

L

Mq

R

+ h.c., (5.4.1)

where M is the quark mass matrix

M =

¸

m

u

0 0

0 m

d

0

0 0 m

s

¸

(5.4.2)

But it is easy to incorporate the quark mass matrix in the theory with sources, with the symmetries

of (5.3.4). We simply have to build a low energy theory with the right symmetries, and then set

s = M. Of course, M is a constant and doesn’t transform under SU(3) SU(3), so setting s = M

actually breaks the symmetry. By itself, this is not very useful because with an arbitrary function

of M, we can break the symmetry in an arbitrarily complicated way. To extract information, we

assume that we can expand (5.3.5) in powers of s and p (which always appear in the combination

s + ip or its adjoint, which transform simply under (5.3.4)) and truncate the expansion assuming

that the symmetry breaking is small. We expect this to be an excellent approximation for the u

and d quark masses, which seem to be very small compared to the QCD scale parameter Λ. It is

plausible, but not obviously justiﬁed for m

s

. We will see how it works.

To ﬁrst approximation, we want to ﬁnd the invariant function of U and s ±ip that is linear in

s ±ip. This is unique. It is

v

3

tr [U(s +ip)] + h.c. (5.4.3)

To see what this means, we again expand in powers of Π, and we set s = M and p = 0. If v and

M are real, the linear term cancels and the quadratic term is

−4

v

3

f

2

tr (MΠ

2

∼

), (5.4.4)

which corresponds to a mass term

8

v

3

f

2

tr (MΠ

2

∼

) (5.4.5)

for the pseudoscalar mesons.

We will ﬁrst evaluate these masses in the limit of isospin invariance, ignoring weak and electro-

magnetic interactions and setting m

u

= m

d

= m. Then

m

2

π

= 8

v

3

f

2

tr

¸

M

¸

1

4

0 0

0

1

4

0

0 0 0

¸

¸

= 4

v

3

f

2

m

m

2

K

= 8

v

3

f

2

tr

¸

M

¸

1

4

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

1

4

¸

¸

= 2

v

3

f

2

(m+m

s

)

m

2

η

= 8

v

3

f

2

tr

¸

M

¸

1

12

0 0

0

1

12

0

0 0

1

3

¸

¸

= 4

v

3

f

2

m

3

+ 2

ms

3

(5.4.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 82

The m

2

determined in this way satisfy the Gell-Mann Okubo relation

3m

2

η

+m

2

π

= 4m

2

K

. (5.4.7)

The interesting thing about this is that we have derived the GMO relation for m

2

speciﬁcally. In

an ordinary SU(3) symmetry argument, the relation should apply equally well for linear masses.

In fact, the GMO us much better satisﬁed for m

2

than for m for the pseudoscalars. The only

coherent explanations of this fact are equivalent to the derivation we have just given. So this is

some evidence for the validity of the nonlinear chiral theory. Notice that the approximation we

have used of keeping two derivative terms in the invariant part of L and the term linear in M in

the symmetry breaking part makes a kind of sense. As (5.4.5) shows, if the pseudoscalar boson

momentum is of the order of its mass, the two terms are of the same order of magnitude.

Note also that (5.4.6) does not determine the scale of the quark masses. If we deﬁne the

parameter µ by

µ = 2v

3

/f

2

, (5.4.8)

then the pseudoscalar meson mass squares are proportional to µM. In the expansion in powers of

momenta and quark masses, µM counts as two powers of momentum or two derivatives.

To this order, the eﬀective Lagrangian has the form

L = f

2

1

4

tr

D

µ

U

†

D

µ

U

+

1

2

tr

U

†

µ(s −ip)

+

1

2

tr [Uµ(s +ip)]

. (5.4.9)

5.5 What Happened to the Axial U(1)?

If something is bothering you about this treatment of Goldstone bosons from QCD, you are to be

commended. The free massless quark theory has a chiral SU(3) U(1) SU(3) U(1). Why don’t

we include a Goldstone boson corresponding to a spontaneously breaking chiral U(1)? This would

mean adding a ninth π, π

0

corresponding to a U(1) generator

T

0

=

1/6

¸

1 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 1

¸

(5.5.1)

It is not hard to see that this is a phenomenological disaster. There is a ninth pseudoscalar, the

η

**at 958 MeV. It seems to be an SU(3) singlet, primarily. But if we followed the analysis of
**

Section 5.3, we would ﬁnd something very diﬀerent. Instead of an SU(3) octet and singlet like the

η and η

**, there would be an ideally mixed pair like the ω and φ in the vector meson system, an
**

isoscalar degenerate with the pion and another consisting of almost pure ss with mass proportion

to m

s

. Even if the f constant is allowed to be diﬀerent for the π

0

, the mass spectrum of the almost

Goldstone bosons does not look like what we see for the pseudoscalar mesons (see Problem 5–1).

This was a serious problem for many years until it was discovered that the axial U(1) is actually

not a symmetry of the QCD theory. The symmetry breakdown can be traced to the appearance of

a peculiar gauge invariant interaction term,

θ

64π

2

g

2

µνλσ

G

µν

a

G

λσ

a

. (5.5.2)

This term had always been neglected because it had been a total divergence. But using semiclassical

“instanton” techniques, ’t Hooft showed that it could not be neglected, essentially because the gauge

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 83

ﬁelds relevant in the quantum theory do not fall oﬀ fast enough at inﬁnity to allow neglect of surface

terms.

This is related to the axial U(1) problem because of yet another peculiar eﬀect, the anomaly.

The gauge–invariant axial current

j

µ

5

= qγ

µ

γ

5

Tq (5.5.3)

in the massless quark QCD theory is not conserved unless tr T = 0, even though canonical ma-

nipulations would lead us to believe it is. The problem is that the triangle diagrams in which the

current couples to two gluons through a quark loop are linear divergent. So the canonical reasoning

that leads to ∂

µ

j

µ

5

= 0 breaks down and we ﬁnd instead that

∂

µ

j

µ

5

= tr T

g

2

32π

2

µνλσ

G

µν

a

G

λσ

a

. (5.5.4)

Because the divergence of the current involves the term (5.5.2), the associated symmetry does not

leave the Lagrangian invariant, it changes θ (this follows from our Noether’s theorem argument

[1.4.6]).

This doesn’t eﬀect the SU(3) currents because tr T = 0, but it eliminates the axial U(1) as a

symmetry! Thus the analysis of the previous sections, in which do not include the π

0

as a Goldstone

boson, is all right.

5.6 Light Quark Mass Ratios

To extract reliable values for the ratios of m

u

, m

d

, and m

3

to one another, we must include a

treatment of isospin breaking. There are two important sources of isospin breaking, the u — d

mass diﬀerence and the electromagnetic interactions. We will take them one at a time.

If we perform the analysis of Section 5.3 without assuming m

u

= m

d

, we ﬁnd

m

2

π

±

= µ(m

u

+m

d

)

m

2

K

±

= µ(m

u

+m

s

)

m

2

K

0

= µ(m

d

+m

s

)

. (5.6.1)

And for the π

s

, π

8

system, we ﬁnd a 2 2 mass–squared matrix:

µ

m

u

+m

d

(m

u

−m

d

)/

√

3

(m

u

−m

d

)/

√

3 (4m

s

+m

u

+m

d

)/3

. (5.6.2)

The oﬀ–diagonal terms in (5.6.2) produce ﬁrst–order mixing of the isovector and isoscalar states,

but their eﬀect on the eigenvalues is second order in isospin breaking and very small. So we will

ignore it and write

m

2

π

0

· µ(m

u

+m

d

)

m

2

η

·

µ

3

(4m

s

+m

u

+m

d

)

. (5.6.3)

The easiest way to understand the eﬀect of the electromagnetic interactions is to think of them

as an additional chiral symmetry–breaking eﬀect. Because the electric charge matrix

Q =

¸

2

3

0 0

0 −

1

3

0

0 0 −

1

3

¸

(5.6.4)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 84

commutes with the chiral SU(3) generators associated with π

0

, K

0

, K

0

, and η ﬁelds, the EM

interactions do not break the associated chiral symmetries. Thus, if there were no quark mass

terms, the π

0

, K

0

, K

0

, and η would remain as exactly massless Goldstone bosons. They would get

no contribution to their masses from electromagnetism. In the spirit of chiral perturbation theory,

we will assume that this situation persists approximately in the presence of quark masses. This

amounts to ignoring contributions that are suppressed both by quark masses and α.

The chiral symmetries associated with the K

±

and π

±

ﬁelds are broken by the electromagnetic

interactions, so that the K

±

and π

±

do get a mass contribution from electromagnetism. But

because the d and s charges are the same, the K

±

and π

±

get the same contribution (at least in

the limit that the quark masses vanish). The arguments of the last two paragraphs are part of an

analysis called Dashen’s theorem. It enables us to parametrize the eﬀect of the EM interactions in

terms of a single number, the contribution to the π

±

mass–squared, which will call ∆m

2

. Thus, we

can write all the masses as follows:

m

2

π

±

= µ(m

u

+m

d

) + ∆m

2

m

2

K

±

= µ(m

u

+m

s

) + ∆m

2

m

2

K

0

= µ(m

d

+m

s

)

m

2

π

0

= µ(m

u

+m

d

)

m

2

η

0

= µ(4m

s

+m

u

+m

d

)/3.

(5.6.5)

Putting in observed π and K masses, we get

µm

u

= 0.00649GeV

2

µm

d

= 0.01172GeV

2

µm

s

= 0.23596GeV

2

.

(5.6.6)

This gives the ratios

m

s

m

d

= 20,

m

u

m

d

= 0.55 . (5.6.7)

Putting (5.6.6) into (5.6.5) gives an η mass of 566 MeV compared to the observed 549, about 3%

oﬀ, but not bad.

5.7 The Chiral Currents

In this section, we derive and discuss the currents associated with chiral SU(3) SU(3) transfor-

mations on our eﬀective Lagrangian. The currents can be obtained easily by taking the functional

derivative with respect to the classical gauge ﬁelds, as in (1b.1.13). If we are interested in matrix

elements of a single current, we can then set the classical gauge ﬁelds to zero. Using (5.3.6) and

(5.3.7), with

µ

=

µ

a

T

a

r

µ

= r

µ

a

T

a

(5.7.1)

we ﬁnd for the left-handed current (which is involved in the semi-leptonic decays)

j

µ

La

=

δL

δ

aµ

= i

f

2

4

tr

U

†

T

a

∂

µ

U −∂

µ

U

†

T

a

U

. (5.7.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 85

But since U

†

U = 1, it follows that

(∂

µ

U)U

†

= −U∂

µ

U

†

, (5.7.3)

so we can rewrite (5.7.2) as

j

µ

La

= i

f

2

2

tr (U

†

T

a

∂

µ

U). (5.7.4)

The right-handed current can be easily obtained by the parity transformation, (5.3.8), which in

this instance means interchanging U and U

†

.

We now want to evaluate (5.7.4) as a power series in Π. We can do it easily by means of a

marvelous identity for the derivative of the exponential of a matrix (see Problem 5–2)

∂

µ

e

M

=

1

0

e

sM

∂

µ

Me

(1−s)M

ds. (5.7.5)

I love this identity because it is so easy to guess, yet rather nontrivial. At any rate, using (5.7.5),

we ﬁnd

j

µ

La

= −f

1

0

tr

T

a

e

2isΠ

∼

/f

∂

µ

Π

∼

e

−2isΠ

∼

/f

ds . (5.7.6)

It is now easy to expand in powers of Π

∼

:

j

µ

La

= −ftr

T

a

∂

µ

Π

∼

−itr

T

a

[Π

∼

, ∂

µ

Π

∼

]

+

2

3f

tr

T

a

¸

Π

∼

, [Π

∼

∂

µ

Π

∼

]

¸

+ .

(5.7.7)

These terms alternate. The terms odd in Π

∼

are axial vectors while those even in Π

∼

are vectors.

The right-handed current is obtained trivially by switching the signs of all the odd terms.

In the quark theory, the corresponding current is

j

µ

La

= qT

a

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)

2

q. (5.7.8)

If we compare (5.7.7)–(5.7.8), we see that the axial isospin current is

j

µ

5a

= −f∂

µ

π

a

+ , (5.7.9)

where a = 1 to 3. Thus, from (4.3.6)

f = F

π

= 93 MeV. (5.7.10)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 86

5.8 Semileptonic K Decays

The semileptonic decay amplitudes for K → µν, eν, µνπ, eνπ, eνππ, and so on, are all propor-

tional to matrix elements of the strangeness–changing charged current

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s. (5.8.1)

In terms of SU(3) SU(3) currents,

j

µ

a

= qγ

µ

T

a

q

j

µ

5a

= qγ

µ

γ

5

T

a

q.

(5.8.2)

This is

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s = qγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)(T

4

+iT

5

)q

= j

µ

4

+ij

µ

5

+j

µ

54

+ij

µ

55

,

(5.8.3)

because

T

4

+iT

5

=

¸

0 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

¸

. (5.8.4)

The currents associated with transformations on the left-handed quarks contain the projection

operator (1 +γ

5

)/2, so they are

qγ

µ

1 +γ

5

2

T

a

q. (5.8.5)

These are the currents that correspond to the j

µ

L

in our eﬀective theory. This correspondence

depends only on the symmetry, and it determines the normalization as well as the form of the

currents. Thus

j

µ

La

↔

1

2

(j

µ

a

+j

µ

5a

) , (5.8.6)

and in particular

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s ↔2(j

µ

L4

+ij

µ

L5

). (5.8.7)

To evaluate this in terms of explicit pseudoscalar meson ﬁelds, we note that

Π

∼

=

M

√

2

, (5.8.8)

where M is the SU(3) matrix, (4.8.7). We are only interested (for now) in the terms of (5.7.7)

involving one K ﬁeld and zero, and one or two pion ﬁelds. Here we will write down the terms

involving the charged K ﬁeld:

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s →−

√

2 f∂

µ

K

−

−i

1

√

2

K

−

∂

µ

π

0

−

1

√

2

π

0

∂

µ

K

−

¸

+

2

3f

1

√

2

K

−

π

+

∂

µ

π

0

−

√

2K

−

π

−

∂

µ

π

+

−

1

2

√

2

K

−

π

0

∂

µ

π

0

+

1

2

√

2

π

0

π

0

∂

µ

K

−

+

1

√

2

π

+

π

−

∂

µ

K

−

+

(5.8.9)

To calculate the decay amplitudes, we now have only to calculate the matrix elements of (5.8.9)

between the initial and ﬁnal hadronic states in a theory with the interactions given by (5.4.9). To

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 87

calculate to lowest order in an expansion in momentum, we need only include tree diagrams. The

reason is that any loop diagram can be expanded in powers of momentum. The leading term is just

a renormalization of the corresponding tree diagram. The other terms involve more powers of the

momenta and are irrelevant in the approximation in which we are working. Thus, the eﬀect of the

loop diagram is included just by using renormalized parameters in the current and the Lagrangian

(see Section 5.8).

In Feynman–diagram language, the amplitudes are shown in Figure 5–1, where the x represents

the current (5.8.9).

Notice that the tree diagram contributions involve not only the current (5.8.9) but also the

nontrivial interactions terms in the nonlinear Lagrangian (5.4.9). Both are required to make the

matrix element of the current divergenceless in the limit M = 0 (see Problem 5–3).

K

−

→µ

−

ν

K

− ............. ............. .............

K

−

→π

0

µ

−

ν

............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............

K

−

π

0

K

−

→π

0

π

0

µ

−

ν

............. ............. ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

K

−

π

0

π

0

+

............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............

.............

.............

.............

K

−

π

0

π

0

Figure 5-1:

We have seen that to lowest order in powers of momentum, the semileptonic K decays are

completely determined by the chiral SU(3) SU(3) symmetry. The predictions of Figure 5–1 are

in fairly good agreement with the observed decay rates.

5.9 The Chiral Symmetry–Breaking Scale

Why should it work? To understand the success of (5.4.9) as a description of the interactions of the

pseudoscalar mesons, we must discuss the corrections to (5.4.9) in a systematic way. These arise

from SU(3) SU(3) invariant couplings involving more powers of derivatives or quark masses. The

next most important terms, at low momentum, have one additional power of D

2

or µM compared

to (5.4.9), such as the following:

tr

D

µ

D

ν

U

†

D

µ

D

ν

U

tr

D

ν

U

†

D

ν

UU

†

µM

tr

U

†

µMU

†

µM

(5.9.1)

Terms with more powers of D

2

or µM are even less important.

We might expect that powers of D

2

and µM will be associated with inverse powers of some

dimensional parameter that characterizes the convergence of the momentum expansion. We will

call this parameter Λ

CSB

, the chiral symmetry–breaking scale. Thus, the terms (5.9.1) would have

coupling constants of order f

2

/Λ

2

CSB

, down by two powers of Λ

CSB

compared to (5.4.9). In general,

we would expect a term involving 2n derivatives and m powers of µM to have a coupling of order

f

2

/Λ

2(n+m)

CSB

. (5.9.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 88

If these guesses are correct, then the convergence of the momentum expansion is determined

by the size of the chiral symmetry–breaking scale. If Λ

CSB

is large compared to the pseudoscalar

meson masses, the higher order terms are negligible compared to (5.4.9) at any momentum involved

in weak decays.

Unfortunately, it is unreasonable to suppose that Λ

CSB

is very large because the radiative

corrections to (5.4.9) produce terms like (5.9.1) and higher–order terms with inﬁnite coeﬃcients.

Thus, even if these terms are absent for some choice of renormalization scale, they will be there for

another. Under such circumstances, it would clearly be unreasonable to assume that the couplings

(5.9.2) are small compared to the changes induced in them by a change in renormalization scale by

some factor of order 1.

Let us explore these ideas in the example of π–π scattering. (5.9.10) predicts a four–pion vertex

proportional to two powers of momentum (or one power of µm — we will concentrate on the

momentum dependence). Schematically, it is

p

2

f

2

π

4

. (5.9.3)

The quantum corrections induce additional contributions to π–π scattering from one–loop diagrams.

The loop integral is horribly divergent. But if we cut oﬀ the divergent integral with some procedure

that preserves the nonlinear chiral symmetry, the divergent contributions to the eﬀective action

should all be associated with invariant interaction terms such as (5.4.9) or (5.9.1).

There should be no quartic divergence, appropriately deﬁned, because a quartic divergence

could arise only if all the powers of momentum from (5.9.3) were loop momenta. But that would

yield a term in the eﬀective action proportional to π ﬁelds with no derivatives, which must vanish

because of the chiral symmetry.

There is a quadratically divergent contribution proportional to two powers of external momenta.

Schematically, this contribution is

1

(4π)

2

p

2

f

4

Λ

2

CO

π

4

, (5.9.4)

where Λ

CO

is a cut–oﬀ scale and the 1/(4π)

2

is associated with the loop–momentum integration.

This has the same form as (5.9.3), and so the quadratically divergent part can be absorbed into

(5.9.3). It just renormalizes (5.4.9).

Finally, there is a logarithmically divergent term involving four powers of the external momenta.

Schematically, it is

1

(4π)

2

p

4

f

4

ln (Λ

CO

/κ) π

4

, (5.9.5)

where κ is some arbitrary renormalization scale. This has the same form as the ﬁrst term in (5.9.1).

A change in the renormalization scale of order 1 (for example, e), will thus induce a change in (5.9.5)

of order

1

(4π)

2

p

4

f

4

π

4

, (5.9.6)

which corresponds to a change in the coupling

f

2

/Λ

2

CSB

(5.9.7)

of order 1/(4π)

2

. Thus, we cannot reasonably assume that

f

2

/Λ

2

CSB

<< 1/(4π)

2

, (5.9.8)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 89

because if this were true for one renormalization scale, it would not be true for another. But we

could imagine that

f

2

/Λ

2

CSB

≈ 1/(4π)

2

. (5.9.9)

If this were true in any reasonable renormalization scheme, it would be true in others. Indeed,

(5.9.9) seems a reasonable guess for the chiral symmetry–breaking scale. If we assume

Λ

CSB

≈ 4πf, (5.9.10)

and cut oﬀ our loop integrals at momentum of order ΛCSB so that ΛCO ≈ Λ

CSB

, then the quantum

corrections are of the same order of magnitude as the renormalized interaction terms. You can see

this explicitly in (5.9.5) and (5.9.6) and can easily prove it in general. This is what we would

expect on the basis of dimensional analysis in a strongly interacting theory in which there is no

relevant small adjustable parameter. The factor of 4π in (5.9.10) comes from the dimensionality of

space–time and is simply the appropriate connection between the constant f which appears in U

and the scale Λ

CSB

which appears in loop eﬀects. Hence, we will adopt (5.9.10) as a guess for the

chiral symmetry–breaking scale.

1

If these ideas make sense, we can understand the success of (5.4.9). 4πf is about 1 GeV,

considerably larger than the typical momentum in K decay and more than a factor of two larger

than the K mass. Thus we may hope that neglect of terms like (5.9.1) in our nonlinear Lagrangian

will be a good approximation. Similarly, we can ignore all divergent loop eﬀects.

Many of the ideas in this section were stimulated by a very nice paper by S. Weinberg (Physica

96A:327–340 1979).

5.10 Important Loop Eﬀects

Loop eﬀects in eﬀective chiral theories can often be ignored, as we have shown. But there are

situations in which the loop eﬀects are important because they can be qualitatively distinguished

from the tree–diagram eﬀects. All of these situations arise from the analytic structure of the loop

eﬀects. The most important are loops that produce infrared logs and imaginary parts.

Consider, as a simple example, π–π scattering amplitude in the chiral symmetry limit. The

contribution from the diagram (for massless pions)

π

b

π

a

π

d

π

c

.............

.............

.............

.............

............. ....

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............

.............

.............

.............

............. ....

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

+ cross terms

(5.10.1)

=

−δ

ab

δ

cd

s

2

32π

2

−δ

ac

δ

bd

3s

2

+u

2

−t

2

196π

2

−δ

ad

δ

bc

3s

2

+t

2

−u

2

196π

2

ln(−s/κ

2

)

+cross terms + polynomial in s

2

, t

2

, u

2

.

(5.10.2)

In (5.10.2), s, t, and u are the Mandelstam variables, s = (p

a

+p

b

)

2

, t = (p

a

−p

c

)

2

, u = (p

a

−p

d

)

2

;

and κ is an arbitrary renormalizable scale. The polynomial comes from the matrix elements of

1

Note that there are also corrections to the lowest–order chiral Lagrangian from things like ρ exchange, which are

not obviously related to chiral loop eﬀects. But these are down by 1/m

2

ρ

, which is again 1/Λ

2

CSB

.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 90

interaction terms involving terms with four derivatives. Its coeﬃcients cannot be calculated. But

the logarithmic terms cannot arise from tree diagrams, so they are completely determined.

The real part of the ln(−s) term in (5.10.2) is an infrared logarithm. It diverges as the momenta

go to zero. At very small momenta, it is more important than the terms with four derivatives from

tree diagrams because the logarithm is large.

The imaginary part of the ln(−s) term in (5.10.2) arises from the unitarity of the S matrix. It

is related to the total cross section.

Infrared logarithms can also play a role in the small symmetry breaking terms. For example,

there is a contribution to the eﬀective action with two derivatives (coming from a single Goldstone–

boson loop) that has the form

f

2

64π

2

m

2

ln m

2

/κ

2

ab

δ

2

δπ

a

δπ

b

tr

D

µ

UD

µ

U

†

, (5.10.3)

where M

2

is Goldstone–boson mass–squared matrix

m

2

ab

= tr (¦T

a

, T

b

¦µM) .

In principle, for light Goldstone bosons, this is the most important correction to the kinetic energy

term (5.2.12) because the logarithm is large when κ is any reasonable renormalization scale (∼

Λ

CSB

). In practice, however, they are not tremendously useful. If the logarithm is large, the

symmetry breaking is small anyway. Thus, the terms proportional to m

2

π

ln m

2

π

are very small

while the terms proportional to m

2

K

ln m

2

K

or m

2

η

ln m

2

η

are no more important than the terms

without logarithms, because m

κ

/Λ

CSB

and m

η

/Λ

CSB

are not much smaller than 1.

The general subject of renormalization in theories of this kind is a beautiful one which is

part of the modern treatment, which is called, CHIRAL PERTURBATION THEORY. For more

information, I suggest that you look in a very nice review of the subject (by the same name) by G.

Ecker, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, Vol. 35, 1995, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

5.11 Nonleptonic K Decay

The nonleptonic K decays, K

−

into π

0

π

−

, π

−

π

−

π

+

, and π

0

π

0

π

−

, K

s

into π

+

π

−

and π

0

π

0

, and

K

L

into 3π

0

and π

+

π

−

π

0

, are not as well understood as the semileptonic and leptonic decays. The

reason is that the form of decay Hamiltonian is not completely determined by the SU(3) SU(3)

symmetry. In tree approximation in terms of quarks, the relevant term is

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u. (5.11.1)

Formally, this is just the product of two currents. But QCD corrections can change it in important

ways, as we will see in detail later. From the point of view of the chiral symmetry, all we can

say comes from the symmetry properties. (5.11.1) is a linear combination of terms that transform

like an 8 and a 27 under the SU(3)

L

. We can form several terms with the right transformation

properties, and their renormalization is completely undetermined.

Nevertheless, we can say something. All of the terms we can build with right symmetry have

a simple property that we can use to relate the K

−

→2π and 3π decays. We will use this system

to exemplify another method for obtaining chiral symmetry predictions. The technique is called

“current algebra”.

Consider a K →3π amplitude, for example

'π

+

π

−

π

0

[H

W

[K

0

` = A(p

+

, p

−

, p

0

), (5.11.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 91

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. ............. ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.............

.............

.............

.............

π

+

K

0

π

3

π

−

Figure 5-2:

where H

W

is the term in the weak Hamiltonian responsible for the decay and the p’s are the pion

momenta, in an obvious notation. Now for reasons that are not entirely obvious, we consider the

following:

e

ip

0

x

'π

+

π

−

[T (j

µ

53

(x) H

W

) [K

0

` d

4

x = A

µ

(p

+

, p

−

, p

0

), (5.11.3)

where j

µ

53

is the axial isospin current. We will analyze this matrix element in the chiral symmetry

limit, and calculate the quantity

lim

p

0

→0

p

µ

0

A

µ

(p

+

, p

−

, p

0

). (5.11.4)

This can be calculated in two diﬀerent ways. The p

µ

0

can be turned into a derivative and taken

inside the time–ordered product. The current is conserved, but we are left with an equal–time

commutator

i

e

ip

0

x

δ(x

0

) 'π

+

π

−

[[j

0

53

(x), H

W

][K

0

` d

4

x = −

i

2

'π

+

π

−

[H

W

[K

0

`. (5.11.5)

The form of the equal–time commutator follows purely from the symmetry. The other way of

evaluating (5.11.4) relies on the fact that the limit vanishes except for contributions from the pion

pole due to the diagram shown in Fig 5.2. This contribution is

iF

π

A(p

+

, p

−

, 0). (5.11.6)

Thus, the 3π amplitude is related to the 2π amplitude. This relation works pretty well and is a

good example of old–fashioned current algebra.

The eﬀective Lagrangian technique is a systematic and reliable way of doing the same thing

but, in simple cases like this, the current–algebra reduction formula can actually be faster.

Problems

5-1. If the axial U(1) were a symmetry of QCD, there would be an SU(3) singlet Goldstone-

boson ﬁeld, π

0

, which in the SU(3) symmetry limit transforms under a U(1) transformation by a

translation, δπ

0

= c

0

. In the presence of SU(3) SU(3) symmetry breaking, the analog of (5.4.9)

would be

L(π) =

1

2

∂

µ

π

o

∂

µ

π

0

+f

2

1

4

tr (∂

µ

Σ

†

∂

µ

Σ)

+

1

2

tr

µMΣ

†

e

−iλπ

0

/f

+

1

2

tr

µMΣe

−iλπ

0

/f

¸

(5 −1)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 92

where λ is an unknown constant that determines the strength of the spontaneous breaking of the

U(1) symmetry. Clearly when M → 0, there are nine Goldstone bosons. Prove that (5-1) cannot

describe the pseudoscalar mesons in our world for any value of λ. Assume m

u

= m

d

= m and

consider the 2 2 mass-squared matrix that describes π

0

and π

8

. Show that the lightest isoscalar

meson has a mass less than km

π

for some k. What is k?

5-2. Prove (5.7.5).

5-3. Calculate the matrix element

π

+

π

−

j

µ

5

K

−

where the K

−

, π

+

and π

−

momenta are P

µ

, p

µ

+

, and p

µ

−

, respectively, and j

µ

5

is the current

corresponding to uγ

µ

γ

5

s in (5.8.9). Check your result by showing that the current is conserved in

the chiral limit.

5-4. Suppose that (5.9.2) is satisﬁed for the coupling of higher order terms in the momentum

expansion. Construct a power-counting argument to show that if a divergent loop diagram is cut oﬀ

at momentum of order Λ

CSB

≈ 4πf, it contributes terms to the eﬀective action of the same order

of magnitude as the bare interaction terms. Hint: Restrict yourself to the derivative interactions.

Terms with derivatives replaced by µM clearly act the same way. Then a vertex has the form

(2π)

4

δ

4

(Σp

i

) f

2

p

2

p

2

Λ

2

CSB

n

1

f

2

n

where p is a typical momentum and m is the number of π lines emanating from the vertex. Explain

this, then take N such vertices for various n and m. Call the loop momenta k and external momenta

p. For each internal meson line, include a factor

1

k

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

Suppose there are l such lines. Consider a contribution in which there is a k

2j

from the momentum

factors and the rest involves only external momenta, p

2M

, for M = N +Σn−j. Take it from there.

5-5. Write down the terms involving a K

0

ﬁeld and 0, 1, or 2 pions, in the current, (5.8.9).

5-6. Use chiral Lagrangian arguments to relate the following two matrix elements:

π

+

π

0

sγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)uuγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)d

K

+

and

K

0

sγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)d sγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)d

K

0

Be sure to justify any assumptions you make about the form of the operators in the eﬀective chiral

theory.

Chapter 6

— Chiral Lagrangians — Matter

Fields

6.1 How Do the Baryons Transform?

Now that we have learned how to construct nonlinear Lagrangians that incorporate SU(3) SU(3)

symmetry for Goldstone bosons, we would like to do the same thing for the rest of the low–lying

hadrons. I will illustrate some of the issues involved by considering the SU(3) octet of spin–

1

2

baryons.

To construct a theory describing the baryons, we must solve two problems. We need a sensible

transformation law for the baryon ﬁelds, and we must somehow deal with the fact that masses of

the baryons are not small compared to the chiral symmetry breaking scale. In this chapter, we

will address the ﬁrst of these issues and we will apply what we learn to a diﬀerent problem — the

constituent mass of the quarks.

We have some freedom to choose how the baryon ﬁelds transform under chiral SU(3) SU(3) .

We might, for example, decide that the left- and right-handed baryon ﬁelds transform like an octet

under SU(3)

L

and SU(3)

R

, respectively. We could describe such baryons by chiral traceless 3 3

matrix ﬁelds Ψ

1L

and Ψ

1R

that transform as follows:

Ψ

1L

→LΨ

1L

L

†

, Ψ

1R

→RΨ

1R

R

†

. (6.1.1)

Alternatively, we could take both the left- and right-handed baryons to transform like octets under

SU(3)

L

. We could describe such baryons by a four–Dirac–component traceless 3 3 matrix ﬁeld

Ψ

2

that transforms as follows:

Ψ

2

→LΨ

2

L

†

. (6.1.2)

We could also take the baryons (left-handed or right-handed, or both) to transform under SU(3)

SU(3) like a (3, 3), described by a 3 3 matrix ﬁeld Ψ

3

that transforms as follows:

Ψ

3

→LΨ

3

R

†

. (6.1.3)

There are eight such possibilities. We can take the left- and right-handed baryon ﬁelds indepen-

dently to transform in any of four ways, like

(8, 1), (1, 8), (3, 3), or (3, 3)

under chiral SU(3) SU(3) .

93

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 94

It might seem that each of these possibilities would lead to diﬀerent physics. Not only do they

transform diﬀerently under SU(3) SU(3) , but they even have diﬀerent numbers of independent

components. A (3, 3) ﬁeld cannot be traceless, so it has nine components, while (8, 1) or (1, 8)

has eight components.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter which representation of baryons we choose. We can describe the

low–momentum interactions of baryons and Goldstone bosons equally well with any of them. The

reason is that the Goldstone boson matrix U can be used to transform from one representation to

another. For example, we can take

Ψ

2L

= Ψ

1L

, Ψ

2R

= UΨ

1R

U

†

. (6.1.4)

This gives the correct transformation properties for Ψ

2

. For Ψ

3

, although we cannot require that

the trace vanish because tr Ψ

3

is not invariant, we can require

tr

U

†

Ψ

3

= 0. (6.1.5)

Then we can take

Ψ

3

= Ψ

2

U, (6.1.6)

which satisﬁes both (6.1.3) and (6.1.5).

The point is that the SU(3) SU(3) symmetry is spontaneously broken down to SU(3). In

the low energy theory, it is only the SU(3) transformation properties of the baryons that matter.

Ψ

1

, Ψ

2

, and Ψ

3

(once (6.1.6) is imposed) all transform like SU(3) octets.

6.2 A More Elegant Transformation Law

I argued in the previous section that we can build a nonlinear chiral theory with baryons in any

SU(3) SU(3) representation that reduces to an octet under the unbroken SU(3) subgroup. Thus,

we can decide on a baryon representation that is maximally convenient. All of the representations

we have discussed so far are slightly inconvenient.

Ψ

2

and Ψ

3

are inconvenient because the representations are not parity invariant. Parity can

be imposed, but the parity transformation is nonlinear because it involves the Goldstone–boson

matrix U,

Ψ

1

is slightly inconvenient for a diﬀerent reason. We saw in Chapter 5 that, in the limit of exact

chiral symmetry, the Goldstone bosons have only derivative interactions because the chiral–invariant

terms with no derivatives are just constants. This is an important feature of Goldstone–boson inter-

actions. You can see it easily for the couplings of baryons to Goldstone bosons in the representation

Ψ

2

. To couple to baryons, the Goldstone bosons must be in an SU(3)

R

singlet because the baryons

transform only under SU(3)

L

. But if there are no derivatives, every SU(3)

R

invariant function

of the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds is constant, because with a local SU(3)

R

transformation, all the π’s

in U can be transformed away. But in the parity invariant Ψ

1

representation, this feature of the

Goldstone–boson interactions is not explicit. In this representation, the SU(3) SU(3) invariant

baryon mass term looks like

tr

Ψ

1L

UΨ

1R

U

†

+ h.c. (6.2.1)

In addition to the SU(3) invariant baryon mass term, (6.2.1) describes some π–baryon couplings.

Of course, there is nothing really wrong with this representation. The pseudoscalar π–baryon

coupling is equivalent to an axial–vector derivative coupling. But it might be nice to see it coming

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 95

out explicitly. We can do this as follows. Deﬁne the matrix ξ as

ξ = e

i Π

∼

/f

, (6.2.2)

so that ξ is a square root of U,

ξ

2

= U. (6.2.3)

The transformation properties of the Π

∼

ﬁelds (5.2.1)–(5.2.4) induce a well-deﬁned transformation

of ξ under an SU(3) SU(3) transformation. We can write it as

ξ →ξ

= Lξu(π)

†

= u(π)ξR

†

. (6.2.4)

This deﬁnes u(π) as a nonlinear function of L, R, and Π

∼

.

The matrix u(π) is invariant under the parity transformation L ↔R, Π

∼

→−Π

∼

. If c

∼

= 0 (that

is, L = R), then the critical transformation is just an ordinary SU(3) transformation, and u(π) is

the associated SU(3) matrix (u(π) = L = R). If c

a

= 0, then u(π) depends on

∼

, c

∼

, and Π

∼

in a

complicated nonlinear way.

This is the desired connection between the broken and unbroken subgroups. An arbitrary chiral

transformation is represented by an ordinary SU(3) matrix

u(π) = e

i v

∼

, (6.2.5)

where the Hermitian matrix

v

∼

(

∼

, c

∼

, Π

∼

) (6.2.6)

encodes the chiral SU(3) SU(3) in a nonlinear way.

Now we take our baryon ﬁelds Ψ to transform as

Ψ →u(π)Ψu(π)

†

. (6.2.7)

The form of (6.2.7) is determined by the transformation properties of the baryon ﬁeld under ordinary

SU(3). All of the chiral nature of the transformation is contained in u(π). Note that u(π) depends

implicitly on the space–time coordinate x because it depends on Π

∼

(x). In the transformation (6.2.7),

the u(π), Ψ, and u(π)

†

ﬁelds are all to be evaluated at the same x. Thus, this chiral transformation

is a local transformation. Derivatives of Ψ will not transform simply.

To see what is going on more explicitly, calculate v

∼

for an inﬁnitesimal chiral transformation,

given by (5.2.5) for

∼

and c

∼

inﬁnitesimal. The result is (see Problem 6–1)

v

∼

=

∼

+i[ c

∼

, Π

∼

]/f + 0(π

2

). (6.2.8)

For a chiral transformation c

∼

= 0, the transformation (6.2.7) multiplies the baryon ﬁeld by functions

of Π

∼

. This is an explicit realization of the vague statement that chiral transformations are associated

with emission and absorption of Goldstone bosons.

It must be admitted that the advantages of this notation over another parity–invariant deﬁni-

tion, such as Ψ

1

, are rather slight. The most important diﬀerence is psychological. In this notation,

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 96

all the Goldstone boson interactions in the chiral–symmetry limit are derivative interactions and

obviously on the same footing. Whereas, if the baryons are described by Ψ

1

, some are derivative in-

teractions while some come from (6.2.1), and we may be misled into treating them diﬀerently (that

is, assuming one set is small). At any rate, (6.2.2)–(6.2.7) deﬁne a simply and elegant notation,

and we will use it.

Later, we will discuss the baryon Lagrangian that we can construct with this procedure. This

involves an additional idea to deal with the large mass of the baryons (large, that is, compared to

the chiral symmetry breaking scale) — the nonrelativistic eﬀective theory — that we will introduce

later. In the rest of this chapter, we will apply similar ideas to the quark model.

6.3 Nonlinear Chiral Quarks

In Section 3.2, I remarked that the nonrelativistic quark model gives a surprisingly useful description

of the light baryon and meson states. In this section, I suggest a partial explanation of the success

of the quark model. The problem is that the nonrelativistic quark model only makes sense if quarks

have “constituent” masses, a few hundred MeV for the u and d quarks and about 500 Mev for the

s quark. Whereas, we have learned from the arguments of Section 5.5 that the light quark masses

that appear in the QCD Lagrangian are very diﬀerent.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the bulk of the constituent mass of the light quarks is

the eﬀect of chiral symmetry breaking, like the baryon mass in the previous section. But then to

incorporate SU(3) SU(3) , we must include Goldstone bosons and realize the chiral symmetry

nonlinearly. Thus, “nonlinear chiral quarks” would seem to be a reasonable starting point in our

search for an understanding of the success of the nonrelativistic quark model.

Let us, therefore, illustrate the ideas about thre transformation of matter ﬁeld by building a

matter Lagrangian describing the u, d, and s quark, in a triplet q, transforming as a triplet under

the ordinary SU(3). We will also assume that q is a triplet under color SU(3), but for the moment

we will not worry about the color SU(3) gauge symmetry. Presumably, all derivatives should be

color SU(3) covariant derivatives, but since color SU(3) and ﬂavor SU(3) commute, this shouldn’t

make much diﬀerence.

We require the quark ﬁeld, q, to transform under SU(3) SU(3) as

q →u(π)q. (6.3.1)

Then the term in a quark Lagrangian with no derivatives is unique:

L

q

0

= −mqq. (6.3.2)

The parameter m is the constituent mass of a (hypothetical) massless quark.

There are two ways to construct the chiral–invariant terms with a single derivative. We can use

the ξ matrices to construct ﬁelds that transform linearly under SU(3) SU(3) :

ξ q

L

and ξ q

R

= (3, 1) , ξ

†

q

L

and ξ

†

q

R

= (1, 3) . (6.3.3)

Note that because the chiral transformation properties come from the ξs and ξ

†

s, there is no

correlation with the handedness of the quark ﬁelds. All of these ﬁelds transform only under global

SU(3) SU(3) , so derivatives cause no special problem. We can simply put them together to form

chiral invariant and parity invariant terms as follows:

1+g

A

2

i q

L

ξ

†

/ ∂ (ξ q

L

) +i q

R

ξ / ∂

ξ

†

q

R

+

1 −g

A

2

i q

R

ξ

†

/ ∂ (ξ q

R

) +i q

L

ξ / ∂

ξ

†

q

L

(6.3.4)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 97

An alternative method is to deal directly with the nonlinear local transformation (6.2.4)–(6.2.7).

With the ξ matrices, we can build two vector ﬁelds with simple transformation properties. The

vector ﬁeld

V

∼

µ

=

1

2

ξ

†

∂

µ

ξ +ξ∂

µ

ξ

†

(6.3.5)

is a gauge ﬁeld for the local transformation. It transforms as

V

∼

µ

→u(π)V

∼

µ

u(π)

†

+u(π)∂

µ

u(π)

†

. (6.3.6)

The axial vector ﬁeld

A

∼

µ

=

i

2

ξ

†

∂

µ

ξ −ξ∂

µ

ξ

†

(6.3.7)

is an SU(3) octet ﬁeld. It transforms as

A

∼

µ

→u(π)A

∼

µ

u(π)

†

. (6.3.8)

With the gauge ﬁeld V

∼

µ

, we can make a covariant derivative

D

µ

Ψ = ∂

µ

Ψ +

¸

V

∼

µ

, Ψ

¸

, (6.3.9)

which transforms homogeneously under the local transformation:

D

µ

Ψ →u(π)D

µ

Ψu(π)

†

. (6.3.10)

With these tools, we can easily write down the terms with one derivative in the baryon La-

grangian

There are two terms involving one derivative:

L

q

1

= iq / Dq +g

A

q / A

∼

γ

5

q, (6.3.11)

where

D

µ

= ∂

µ

+V

∼

µ

, (6.3.12)

and V

∼

µ

and A

∼

µ

are deﬁned as follows:

If truncated at this point, the nonlinear chiral quark Lagrangian describes three degenerate

quarks with a constituent mass and couplings to Goldstone bosons. The noteworthy thing about

the Lagrangian is that is depends on only two new parameters m and g

A

. As you will show in

Problem 6–3, g

A

is related to the renormalization of the quark contribution to the axial vector

current. The point is that while the matrix elements of the vector SU(3) currents are guaranteed

to have their canonical form (at nonzero–momentum transfer) by the unbroken SU(3) symmetry,

there is no such constraint for the axial vector currents. SU(3) considerations require them to have

the form

g

A

qT

a

γ

µ

γ

5

q + , (6.3.13)

but the constant g

A

is not determined by the symmetry. It is a parameter that must be calculated

from the QCD dynamics (too hard!) or simply ﬁt to the experiment. But this is the only freedom

allowed in the nonlinear chiral quark theory to this order in the momentum expansion.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 98

There are several terms that contain either two derivatives or one power of µM. We would

expect, on the basis of the arguments (and assumptions) of Section 5.8 that these terms will have

a “dimensional coupling” constant of the order of

m/Λ

2

CSB

. (6.3.14)

The most important such term is the symmetry–breaking term

−

fm

Λ

2

CSB

q

ξµMξ +ξ

†

µMξ

†

q, (6.3.15)

where f is a dimensionless constant or order 1. This term splits the s quark mass from the u and

d masses by an amount

∆m ·

2fmm

2

K

Λ

2

CSB

· 150 MeV. (6.3.16)

The 150 MeV is a rough estimate of the mass diﬀerence from quark model phenomenology, for

example, the mass splitting between states of diﬀerent strangeness in the spin–

1

2

baryon decuplet.

Note that if the constituent mass m is about 350 MeV, then f is indeed of order 1.

In general, we should also consider interaction terms involving more than two quark ﬁelds.

However, these are higher dimension operators than those that we have considered so far, and we

might expect their coeﬃcients to be suppressed by additional powers of 1/Λ

CSB

. If we generalize

the analysis of Section 5.8 to include quark couplings, we conclude that we should include an extra

factor of Λ

CSB

for each pair of quark ﬁelds. In practice, this makes the terms with additional quark

ﬁelds less important. Their matrix elements are proportional (roughly) to powers of f

π

, while their

coeﬃcients are suppressed by powers of 1/Λ

CSB

. Thus, we will usually ignore such operators.

6.4 Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model

The hope is that now that we have included the eﬀect of chiral symmetry breaking in the constituent

quark mass, the interquark forces will be correspondingly weakened in our eﬀective theory. Thus,

we may try to identify the low–lying hadrons with nonrelativistic bound states of the quarks

described in Section 6.4. Presumably, the quarks are bound by conﬁning QCD interactions, along

with eﬀects of multiquark and multigluon operators that appear in high orders of 1/Λ

CSB

in the

eﬀective Lagrangian.

This picture of the baryons is attractive for several reasons. The ﬁrst striking success is that

the baryon masses are given correctly by this picture. The spin–

1

2

octet and spin–

3

2

decuplet are

interpreted as color–singlet bound states of three quarks in a ground–state wave function with total

angular momentum equal to zero. The leading contribution to the baryon mass in the nonrelativistic

limit is just the sum of the constituent quark masses. The most interesting relativistic correction

is a spin–dependent contribution to the mass of the form of a sum of quark pairs

κ

¸

ij

S

i

S

j

m

i

m

j

, (6.4.1)

where

S

i

and m

i

are the spin and mass of the ith quark and κ is a parameter that depends on the

detailed dynamics. (6.4.1) arises primarily from gluon exchange, which gives a contribution of the

right sign. It splits the decuplet from the octet by a few hundred MeV. Furthermore, it explains

the sign and magnitude of the Σ −Λ diﬀerence.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 99

Baryon µ

Quark model

µ

Exp

∗

p 2.61 2.79

n −1.74 −1.91

Λ −0.58 −0.61

Σ

+

2.51 2.36 ±0.01

Σ

−

−0.97 −1.15 ±0.02

Ξ

0

−1.35 −1.25 ±0.02

Ξ

−

−0.48 −0.69 ±0.04

Table 6.1: Baryon magnetic moments.

∗

Source: L. C. Pondrom, AIP Conference Proceedings,

No. 95, New York: AIP, 1982. See also articles by R. Handler, J. Mariner, and B. L. Roberts in

the same publication.

A second success of the quark picture is the prediction of the magnetic moments. In leading

order in v/c, the baryon moment is simply the sum of the contributions from the individual quarks,

µ

S =

¸

i

µ

i

S

i

=

¸

i

Q

i

S

i

/m

i

, (6.4.2)

where Q

i

is the quark change. A good picture of the baryon masses is obtained if we take

m

u

· m

d

≈ m = 360 MeV, m

s

· 540 MeV, (6.4.3)

(see Problem 6–5). With these masses, the octet baryon magnetic moments are those given in the

second column in Table 6.1 (in nuclear magnetons). The agreement with the data shown in the

third column is excellent.

The success of (6.4.2) in giving not only the ratios of the baryon magnetic moments, but even

their overall scale, seems to me to be very signiﬁcant. The interesting thing about it is that (6.4.2)

depends on the approximate renormalizability of the eﬀective chiral theory. Nonrenormalizable

terms, such as terms describing anomalous magnetic moments for the quarks, complicate the ex-

pression for µ of the baryons. Thus, the success of (6.4.2) shown in Table 6.1 is an indication that

these renormalizable terms are small. This is what we expect if Λ

CSB

is of the order of 1 GeV. We

would expect an anomalous magnetic moment term of the form

mf

Λ

2

CSB

F

µν

qσ

µν

q, (6.4.4)

where f is of order 1. This gives an anomalous moment of order

m

2

/Λ

2

CSB

, (6.4.5)

which we expect to be about 10%. Other nonrelativistic terms and relativistic corrections give

similar contributions to the moments. Thus, in context, we can understand the success of the

magnetic moment predictions of the quark model.

We can also use the quark model to calculate the matrix elements of the vector and axial

currents. The f

1

values for the vector currents are guaranteed to work at zero momentum to

the extent that the wave functions are SU(3) symmetrical. The axial vector currents are more

subtle. If we had built our quark model naively, without thinking about spontaneously broken

chiral symmetry, we might have expected the axial currents to be given by

qT

a

γ

µ

γ

5

q. (6.4.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 100

This would give a value 5/3 for g

1

neutron decay, whereas the experimental value is 1.25, over 30%

oﬀ. Thus, it is a good sign that in a properly constructed chiral theory, the normalization of the

axial current can be diﬀerent. The neutron decay value determines g

A

to be

g

A

= .75 (6.4.7)

In the language of Section 6.3, the overall scale of D and F are related to g

A

. But the ratio D/F

must now be ﬁxed because we have no further freedom to change the form of the axial vector

current (see Problem 6–6). Again, this prediction works rather well.

We have seen that a chiral nonlinear quark model gives a very attractive picture of the properties

of the octet and decuplet baryons. But this model is probably not the most useful way of thinking

about the low–lying mesons. I say this because in a nonchiral quark model, one naturally interprets

the π and the ρ, for example, as the spin–1 and spin–0 states of a quark–antiquark pair in a zero

orbital angular–momentum state. As in the baryon sector, the spin–dependent interaction (6.4.1)

splits these states. And it has the right sign to make the ρ heavier. If we bravely apply the same

sort of nonrelativistic reasoning to this system, we get a nice simple picture of the mesons as well

as the baryons.

In our picture, however, the spin–0 bound state of quark and antiquark is not the pion. The

pion is an elementary Goldstone boson. Presumably, what happens is that s–channel pion exchange

in the quark–antiquark interaction produces a repulsive force that pushes up the qq state. Thus,

the connection between ρ and π is not very useful. The mystery of the connection between QCD

and the quark model remains, at least for the meson states.

6.5 Hyperon Nonleptonic Decays

As an example of the application of chiral–quark–model ideas to weak interactions, consider the

nonleptonic decays of the strange baryons, the hyperons Λ, Σ, and Xi. The observed decays are

(along with the conventional shorthand):

Λ

0

0

: Λ → π

0

n

Λ

0

−

: Λ → π

−

p

Σ

+

+

: Σ

+

→ π

+

n

Σ

+

0

: Σ

+

→ π

0

p

Σ

−

−

: Σ

−

→ π

−

n

Ξ

0

0

: Ξ

0

→ π

0

Λ

Ξ

−

−

: Ξ

−

→ π

−

Λ.

(6.5.1)

We can write the invariant amplitude for a nonleptonic decay as

M = G

F

m

2

π

[u

f

(p

f

)(A+Bγ

5

)u

i

(p

i

)], (6.5.2)

where u

i

(u

f

) is the spinor describing the initial (ﬁnal) baryon state with momentum p

i

(p

f

) and m

π

is the π

±

mass. The A amplitude describes the parity–violating s–wave decay, the B amplitude

the parity–conserving p–wave.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 101

All these decays are produced by the ∆S = 1 weak Hamiltonian that, ignoring QCD and other

radiative corrections, looks like

G

F

√

2

s

1

c

1

c

3

uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u. (6.5.3)

We will see in Chapter 9 how this is modiﬁed by QCD. At the moment, what is important is its

transformation property under SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

. It transforms as a linear combination of SU(3)

L

8 and 27. In the eﬀective chiral–quark Lagrangian, (6.5.3) will appear as a sum of operators that

transform the same way. As with the terms in the Lagrangian, we can order the terms in increasing

numbers of derivatives, symmetry–breaking parameters, and quark ﬁelds.

Before we discuss the chiral–quark model, it may be useful to set the historical context by

discussing the nonleptonic decays in the chiral mode of baryons discussed in Sections 6.1–3. We

will concentrate on the SU(3) octet operator because, as we will see in Chapter 9, there is reason

to believe that it is enhanced by the QCD interactions.

It is helpful to consider a matrix h,

h

i

j

= δ

i

2

δ

3

j

, (6.5.4)

which is a symmetry–breaking parameter whose coeﬃcient is the operator of interest. That is, is

we imagine that h transforms under SU(3)

L

as

h →LhL

†

, (6.5.5)

and build all the SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

invariants that are linear in h, we will have the operators that

we want. For example, in the chiral Goldstone–boson theory, the leading octet contributions are

tr

h(∂

µ

U)∂

µ

U

†

tr [hUµM], (6.5.6)

which involve derivatives or explicit symmetry breaking (note that the second term can be absorbed

into a redeﬁnition of the π masses, so it does not contribute to decays).

The interesting thing about the chiral baryon theory is that there are operators that do not

involve any derivatives or µM. There are two such operators involving only two baryon ﬁelds whose

matrix elements are not proportional to momenta or µM. They can be written as

G

F

m

2

π

f

π

tr Ψ

d¦ξ

†

hξ, Ψ¦ +f[ξ

†

hξ, Ψ]

. (6.5.7)

There are other terms that involve no explicit derivatives, such as

tr Ψγ

5

ξ

†

hξΨ. (6.5.8)

But their matrix elements vanish in the symmetry limit because of the γ

5

. They contain an implicit

factor of the symmetry breaking, or pion momentum.

It is reasonable to suppose that (6.5.7) gives the dominant contribution to the baryon nonlep-

tonic decays (assuming octet enhancement), with the eﬀect of operators like (6.5.8) suppressed by

powers of p

π

/Λ

CSB

. This assumption gives the standard current algebra results for the nonleptonic

decays. It works very well for the s–wave amplitudes. For example, with

d = −

1

2

, f =

3

2

, (6.5.9)

the result for the s–wave decay amplitudes is shown in Table 6.2, along with the experimental value

(where the signs have been chosen consistent with the conventions used in the particle data book).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 102

Decay A(Th) A(exp)

Λ

0

−

1.63 1.47 ±.01

Λ

0

0

−1.15 −1.07 ±.01

Σ

+

+

0 0.06 ±.01

Σ

+

0

1.41 1.48 ±.05

Σ

−

−

2.00 1.93 ±.01

Ξ

0

0

1.44 1.55 ±.03

Ξ

−

−

2.04 2.04 ±.01

Table 6.2: Baryon decay amplitudes.

No ﬁt has been attempted here, but it is clear that everything works to 10% or so, which is all we

can expect from the eﬀective theory (see Problem 6–7).

The theoretical predictions exhibit ﬁve relations among the seven amplitudes that follow from

(6.5.7). Three of these are ∆I =

1

2

relations.

A(Λ

0

−

) = −

√

2 A(Λ

0

0

)

A(Ξ

−

−

) = −

√

2 A(Ξ

0

0

)

√

2 A(Σ

+

0

) +A(Σ

+

+

) = A(Σ

−

−

).

(6.5.10)

One is the Lee-Sugawara relation

√

3 A(Σ

+

0

) +A(Λ

0

−

) = 2A(Ξ

−

−

) (6.5.11)

and one is the simple relation

A(Σ

+

+

) = 0. (6.5.12)

All are satisﬁed as well as we could expect (or better).

Unfortunately, we can now take (6.5.9) from the s–waves and predict the p–waves. The p–wave

decays, in this picture, arise from so-called pole diagrams in which the hyperon changes strangeness

through the ψψ term in (6.5.7) before or after a pion is emitted. The pion emission is accompanied

by a factor of pion momentum, proportional to symmetry breaking. But this is compensated by

the pole in the baryon propagator that is inversely proportional to the symmetry breaking, so the

contribution is large. The only trouble is that the predictions for the p–wave decay look absolutely

nothing like the data (see Problem 6–7). This has been a puzzle for nearly twenty years. Is this a

general problem for the eﬀective Lagrangian idea, or is there something more speciﬁc wrong with

the assumption that (6.5.7) dominates the nonleptonic decays?

Can we ﬁnd our way out of this diﬃculty in the chiral–quark model? As in the baryon theory,

there are octet operators in the quark theory that do not involve derivatives or µM. With two

quark ﬁelds there is a unique operator,

ψξ

†

hξψ. (6.5.13)

With four quark ﬁelds, there are a variety of operators, such as

ψξ

†

hξγ

µ

T

a

ψψγ

µ

T

a

ψ. (6.5.14)

We expect (6.5.13) to be more important than (6.5.14), but because (6.5.13) is chirality–violating,

the detailed power–counting analysis of Section 5.8 (and Problem 5–4) suggests that the suppression

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 103

of (6.5.14) compared to (6.5.13) is only

∼

F

π

m

·

1

3

. (6.5.15)

The most penetrating way to analyze the chiral–quark theory is to use it to construct a chiral–

baryon theory by comparing the matrix elements of the corresponding interactions between various

states. For example, the matrix elements that give rise to the s–wave amplitudes in the quark

theory from the two–quark operator (6.5.13) are obtained by acting with ψ[h, Π

∼

]ψ on each of the

quark lines. Any s quark can emit a π

0

or π

−

and turn into a d or u. This produces a baryon matrix

element like (6.5.7), but because the quark–ﬂavor dependence is like that of an SU(3) generator,

the matrix is pure f. Thus (6.5.13) makes a contribution to (6.5.7) with

d = 0. (6.5.16)

The four–quark operators like (6.5.14) produce similar terms, but with both f and d contributions.

Thus, we expect a slight suppression of the d amplitude, by a factor of about

1

3

(from (6.5.15)),

which is just what is observed (in (6.5.9)).

The same terms, (6.5.7), (6.5.13), and (6.5.14) give rise to p–wave amplitudes through pole

diagrams in both the baryon and quark theories. But here the correspondence is not exact. If we

look at the baryon pole diagram in the quark–model language with the operator given by (6.5.14),

the transition induced by (6.5.14) and the pion emission are uncorrelated events. For example, in

the decay Λ → π

0

N, in the pole diagram with an intermediate N, the π

0

emission amplitude is

a coherent sum of π

0

emission from each of the three quarks in the N. But in the quark model,

while all the same diagrams exist, the s to d transition and pion emission are not independent.

Now we must keep track of the energy and momentum of each quark. Typically, the QCD binding

forces must redistribute the energy produced in the transition in order for the decay to take place.

For example, it clearly makes a diﬀerence whether the transition and the emission occur on the

same quark line or not. The momentum redistribution that must take place to get from the initial–

state to ﬁnal–state baryons is quite diﬀerent in the two cases. Thus, while the quark theory with

operators (6.5.13) and (6.5.14) gives s–wave amplitudes that can be interpreted in a baryon theory

as coming from the operator (6.5.7), there is no reason to believe that the p–wave amplitudes

produced by (6.5.14) are the same as those produced by (6.5.7).

If this is correct, then one theory or the other, or both, must contain additional contributions

to the ∆S = 1 octet operator that makes up the diﬀerence. The leading contributions must involve

an explicit Goldstone–boson ﬁeld with vector coupling because the mismatch does not occur in the

s–wave amplitudes. For example, in the baryon theory, there are the six such SU(3) singlets that

we can make by taking traces in various orders of the four octets

Ψ, γ

µ

γ

5

Ψ, ξ

†

hξ, A

∼

µ

, (6.5.17)

where A

∼

µ

(deﬁned by (6.3.7) is the chiral version of the derivative of the Π

∼

ﬁeld. Similar operators

are possible in the quark theory.

These extra contributions are peculiar in the sense that they involve a derivative but are designed

to produce an eﬀect that is not proportional to the symmetry breaking. Their coeﬃcients must be

inversely proportional to the symmetry breaking. The moral is that we cannot avoid such terms

in both theories simultaneously. They are certainly absent in the fundamental QCD–quark theory,

and it is hard to see how they could get induced in the transition to the chiral–quark model.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 104

If (6.5.13) and (6.5.14) dominate in the chiral–quark model, then the extra operators with large

coeﬃcients will be induced in the baryon theory.

Of course, this doesn’t make much sense in the limit in which the symmetry breaking goes to

zero. When the quark mass diﬀerences become very small compared to typical momenta in the

baryon bound state, the distinction between diﬀerent energy and momentum redistributions in the

decay disappears. Then the coeﬃcients of the extra terms level oﬀ so that they can approach ﬁnite

but large limits as the symmetry breaking vanishes.

The result of all this is what we expect, in the baryon theory, the operators constructed out

of (6.5.17) to appear with large coeﬃcients. Four of these contribute independently to the p–wave

decays. This eliminates all relations for the p–wave amplitudes except the isospin relations, which

are well satisﬁed.

In a suﬃciently explicit quark model, it should be possible to ﬁnd relations among some of

these extra parameters and test these ideas in detail. For now, we will content ourselves with the

negative result that the p–wave amplitudes cannot be simply predicted.

Problems

6-1. Derive (6.3.6).

6-2. With L

B

= L

B

0

+L

B

1

, calsulate the axial vector currents, and calculate their matrix ele-

ments between baryon states. Derive the Goldberger-Treiman relations. Use the meson Lagrangian

including the chiral symmetry-breaking term.

6-3. Find the quark-current contribution to the vector and axial-vector currents from L

q

=

L

q

0

+L

q

1

, (6.3.2) and (6.3.11). Derive a Goldberger-Treiman relation for constituent quark masses.

6-4. Find all the SU(3) SU(3) invariant terms in the chiral-quark Lagrangian with two

derivatives or one µM, and no more than two quark ﬁelds.

6-5. If we include only the spin-dependent relativistic corrections, the masses of the ground-

state baryons have the form

¸

i

m

i

+κ

¸

i,j

S

i

S

j

m

i

m

j

Show that (6.4.3) gives a good ﬁt to the octet and decuplet masses.

6-6. Use the chiral-quark model to ﬁnd d/f in the chiral-baryon Lagrangian (6.5.7). Note that

in the nonrelativistic limit, the matrix elements of j

µ

5a

are nonzero only for the space components,

and these have the form

¸

quark T

a

σ

6-7. Calculate the s-wave and p-wave amplitudes for the observed hyperon nonleptonic decays

from (6.5.7) and compare with the data in the “Review of Particle Properties.” You will need to

understand their sign conventions. Find the four operators built from (6.5.17) that contribute to

the observed decays. Calculate their contributions and ﬁnd the coeﬃcients such that together with

(6.5.7) and (6.5.9) they give a reasonable picture of both s-wave and p-wave amplitudes.

Chapter 6a

- Anomalies

6a.1 Electromagnetic Interactions and π

0

→2γ

The π

0

decay into two photons obviously involves electromagnetic interactions, not weak inter-

actions. Nevertheless, I cannot resist discussing it here. It aﬀords a beautiful illustration of the

chiral Lagrangian technique together with a good excuse to study some of the history of the axial

anomaly (which we used in Section 5.4) to argue away the axial U(1) symmetry).

It would seem fairly trivial to incorporate the eﬀects of electromagnetism into our chiral La-

grangian. In the underlying QCD theory, we merely replace the usual color SU(3) covariant deriva-

tive (3.1.3) with one that incorporates the photon ﬁeld

D

µ

→D

µ

+ieQA

µ

, (6a.1.1)

where Q is the quark charge matrix

Q =

¸

2

3

0 0

0 −

1

3

0

0 0 −

1

3

¸

. (6a.1.2)

In our chiral Lagrangian, we can simply impose electromagnetic gauge invariance in the same way.

For example, we replace ∂

µ

U with

D

µ

U = ∂

µ

U +ieA

µ

Q, U

. (6a.1.3)

The commutator in (6a.1.3) arises because Q acts on both left-handed and right-handed quarks.

That is, the electromagnetic charge is in the ordinary SU(3) subgroup of SU(3) SU(3) .

The replacement (6a.1.3) has a variety of eﬀects. In Section 5.5, for example, we discussed the

eﬀect of such interactions on the pseudoscalar masses. These arose because the electromagnetic

interactions explicitly break the chiral (and ordinary) isospin and V –spin symmetries. We thus

expect a variety of symmetry–breaking terms proportional to the quark charges. However, these

classical electromagnetic eﬀects are not very eﬃcient in producing the decay π

0

→2γ.

From angular momentum and parity considerations, it is clear that the two photons in the π

0

decay are in an l = 1, j = 0 state associated with the pseudoscalar operator

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

. (6a.1.4)

For example, an interaction of the form

π

3

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

(6a.1.5)

105

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 106

would produce π

0

decay.

The pseudoscalar photon operator is contained in terms like

ie

µνλσ

tr U

†

D

µ

D

ν

D

λ

D

σ

U + h.c. (6a.1.6)

However, such terms never contain the interaction (6a.1.5). The reason is the commutator (6a.1.3).

The quark charge matrix QCD commutes with T

3

because both are diagonal. Quite generally, in

the limit of exact chiral symmetry, terms like (6a.1.5) are impossible. This follows simply from the

fact that, at least classically, electromagnetism doesn’t break the chiral symmetry associated with

the π

3

ﬁeld. The argument should by now be familiar. If there is no derivative acting on the π ﬁelds,

the unbroken chiral symmetries can be taken to be local, and the corresponding Goldstone bosons

can be transformed away. Thus, as before, the Goldstone bosons have only derivative interactions.

(6a.1.5) is ruled out!

This reasoning is called the Sutherland theorem, after David Sutherland who derived an equiv-

alent statement using current algebra. It worried people for a long time because it seemed to

imply that electromagnetism could not account for the π

0

→ 2γ decay, at least if current–algebra

reasoning was correct.

In our modern language, we can see that there are possible interaction terms with derivatives,

such as

i

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

tr

Q

2

U

†

∂

α

∂

α

U

+ h.c. (6a.1.7)

There are also terms involving the explicit chiral symmetry breaking, such as

i

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

tr

Q

2

µMU

+ h.c. (6a.1.8)

But the contribution of these terms to the π

0

decay amplitude is suppressed by a power of m

2

π

(over Λ

2

CSB

, presumably) compared to the contribution of a term like (6a.1.5). For any reasonable

coeﬃcient, they are just too small to account for the observed decay rate.

The resolution of this puzzle is the anomaly. In fact, the chiral symmetry associated with π

3

is broken by the electromagnetic interaction, but only through a triangle diagram like (5.5.4) with

the gluons replaced by photons. The axial T

3

current is not conserved. Rather it satisﬁes

∂

µ

j

µ

5

=

3e

2

16π

2

tr

T

3

Q

2

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

. (6a.1.9)

The factor of 3 in (6a.1.9) comes from the sum over the three colors of the quarks. Thus, there must

be an extra term in our chiral Lagrangian with the property that under a T

3

chiral transformation

this extra term changes by

−c

3

3e

2

16π

2

tr

T

3

Q

2

µνλσ

F

µν

F

λσ

. (6a.1.10)

The extra term must also have appropriate transformation properties under all the other SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

transformations. This is not trivial to implement. Wess and Zumino (Physics Letters

37B:95–97, 1971) determined the form of the extra term by imagining a theory in which not only

the electromagnetic U(1) is gauged, but also the full SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

, as we did in (5.3.1). The

form of the anomaly in this theory, with all of its dependence on the non-Abelian structure of

the group, is determined by the algebra of the inﬁnitesimal gauge transformations. The anomaly

equation can then be formally integrated to give the extra term.

Let

l

µ

= l

µ

a

T

a

, r

µ

= r

µ

a

T

a

(6a.1.11)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 107

be conventionally normalized SU(3)

L

and SU(3)

R

gauge ﬁelds. Then an SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

gauge

transformation in the eﬀective theory has the form:

U →LUR

†

l

µ

→Ll

µ

L

†

−iL∂

µ

L

†

r

µ

→Rr

µ

R

†

−iR∂

µ

R

†

(6a.1.12)

It is convenient to work with the vector and axial vector ﬁelds that we introduced in (5.3.2),

v

µ

=

l

µ

+r

µ

/2, a

µ

=

l

µ

−r

µ

/2, (6a.1.13)

which are gauge ﬁelds for the ordinary and chiral SU(3) transformations, respectively. In the

notation of Wess and Zumino, an inﬁnitesimal SU(3) gauge transformation looks as follows (with

all space–time variables evaluated at the same point):

L = R = 1 +i

∼

δ

U = i

∼

, U

δ

v

µ

= i

∼

, v

µ

−∂

µ

∼

δ

a

µ

= i

∼

, a

µ

. (6a.1.14)

An inﬁnitesimal chiral gauge transformation looks as follows:

L = R

†

= 1 +i c

∼

δ

c

U = i

c

∼

, U

δ

c

v

µ

= i

c

∼

, a

µ

δ

c

a

µ

= i

c

∼

, v

µ

−∂

µ

c

∼

. (6a.1.15)

In this notation, the commutation relations of the SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

gauge algebra take the form

δ

1

δ

2

−δ

2

δ

1

= δ

3

,

∼

3

= −i

∼

1

,

∼

2

δ

δ

c

1

−δ

c

1

δ

= δ

c

2

, c

∼

2

= −i

∼

, c

∼

1

δ

c

1

δ

c

2

−δ

c

2

δ

c

1

= δ

,

∼

= −i

c

∼

1

, c

∼

2

.

(6a.1.16)

In the absence of the anomaly, the algebra (6a.1.16) is realized trivially on the eﬀective action of

the chiral theory, which is simply invariant. But the extra term that we must add to incorporate the

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 108

eﬀect of the anomaly is not annihilated by the δ’s. Call this term W(U, v

µ

, a

µ

). If we renormalize

the theory so as to maintain invariance under ordinary SU(3) gauge transformations, then

δ

W = 0, δ

c

W = F

c

∼

, v

µ

, a

∼

µ

. (6a.1.17)

Now, (6a.1.17), (6a.1.16), and the Abelian anomaly (6a.1.10) are suﬃcient to determine the full

non-Abelian anomaly. The result of a straightforward but tedious calculation is (again ala Wess

and Zumino)

F

c

∼

, v

µ

, a

µ

=

f

c

∼

(x), v

µ

(x), a

µ

(x)

d

4

x, (6a.1.18)

where

f = −

1

16π

2

µναβ

tr

c

∼

3v

µν

v

αβ

+a

µν

a

αβ

−8i(a

µ

a

ν

v

αβ

+a

µ

v

να

a

β

+v

µν

a

α

a

β

)

−32a

µ

a

ν

a

α

a

β

,

(6a.1.19)

with

v

µν

= ∂

µ

v

ν

−∂

ν

v

µ

+i

v

µ

, v

ν

+i

a

µ

, a

ν

,

a

µν

= ∂

µ

a

ν

−∂

ν

a

µ

+i

v

µ

, a

ν

+i

a

µ

, v

ν

.

(6a.1.20)

This is Bardeen’s form for the non-Abelian anomaly. We will give a more elementary derivation of

parts of this, using Feynman graphs, later in this chapter, and will show you how to derive the rest.

There are other forms that are not what we want because they do not satisfy ordinary SU(3) gauge

invariance, but they can be obtained from (6a.1.19) with the addition of polynomials in v

µ

and

a

µ

to the action. These correspond to diﬀerent schemes for renormalizing the underlying theory.

However, there is no way of removing the anomaly entirely by such manipulations.

Now we can integrate the anomaly to obtain W. Deﬁne

U(s) = e

2isΠ

∼

/f

, ξ(s) = e

isΠ

∼

/f

,

l

µ

(s) = ξ

†

(1 −s)l

µ

ξ(1 −s) −iξ

†

(1 −s)∂

µ

ξ(1 −s),

r

µ

(s) = ξ(1 −s)r

µ

ξ

†

(1 −s) −iξ(1 −s)∂

µ

ξ

†

(1 −s),

v

µ

(s) =

l

µ

(s) +r

µ

(s)

/2,

a

µ

(s) =

l

µ

(s) −r

µ

(s)

/2.

(6a.1.21)

The point of (6a.1.21) is that the diﬀerent values of s are related by chiral gauge transformations,

which depend on the Goldstone boson ﬁeld Π

∼

. In particular

d

ds

W

U(s), v

µ

(s), a

µ

(s)

ds

= δ

dsΠ

∼

/f

W = ds F

Π

∼

/f, v

µ

(s), a

µ

(s)

.

(6a.1.22)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 109

This we can integrate to obtain

W

U, v

µ

, a

µ

= W

U(1), v

µ

(1), a

µ

(1)

=

1

0

F

Π

∼

/f, v

µ

(s), a

µ

(s)

ds −W

U(0), v

µ

(0), a

µ

(0)

.

(6a.1.23)

The second term on the right-hand side is actually an SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

invariant. To see this,

note that

U(0) = 1

l

µ

(0) = ξ

†

l

µ

ξ −iξ

†

∂

µ

ξ

r

µ

(0) = ξr

µ

ξ

†

−iξ∂

µ

ξ

†

,

(6a.1.24)

where

ξ

2

= U. (6a.1.25)

A local SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

transformation on U deﬁnes a local SU(3) transformation u on the ξ’s

as follows:

U →LUR

†

ξ →Lξu

†

= uξR

†

.

(6a.1.26)

This deﬁnes the u matrix as a local SU(3) transformation that depends on L, R, and ξ. From

(6a.1.24)–(6a.1.26) it follows that

l

µ

(0) →ul

µ

(0)u

†

−u∂

µ

u

†

r

µ

(0) →ur

µ

(0)u

†

−iu∂

µ

u

†

.

(6a.1.27)

But (6a.1.27) has the form of an ordinary SU(3) gauge transformation, and W

(1, l

µ

(0), v

µ

(0)

is

invariant under ordinary SU(3) gauge transformations. Thus, it can be absorbed into the ordinary

terms in the action that are invariant under SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

. Hence, we can write the extra term

that incorporates the eﬀect of the anomaly as

W

U, v

µ

, a

µ

=

1

0

F

Π

∼

, v

µ

(s), a

µ

(s)

ds . (6a.1.28)

Now that we have solved the problem (at least formally) for a general SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

gauge

theory, we can specialize to the case in which we are actually interested by setting

v

µ

= eQA

µ

, a

µ

= 0 (6a.1.29)

in (6a.1.21) and (6a.1.28) to obtain the eﬀect of the electromagnetic anomaly.

Speciﬁc interaction terms (such as (6a.1.5) can be obtained by expanding ξ(s) in a power series

in Π

∼

before doing the s integration.

That was a lot of work, but the result is rather remarkable. Not only does it answer the question

that we posed originally, but several others. It gives a term of the form(6a.1.5) (see Problem 5–6),

but also a term which produces a γ → 3π transition. Even when the gauge ﬁeld is turned oﬀ

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 110

completely, an eﬀect of the anomaly remains like the Cheshire cat’s smile. The leading operator

that does not involve the gauge ﬁeld is

2

5π

2

f

5

µναβ

tr

Π

∼

∂

µ

Π

∼

∂

ν

Π

∼

∂

α

Π

∼

∂

β

Π

∼

. (6a.1.30)

This term is interesting because it is the leading term in the eﬀective Lagrangian that requires

the Goldstone bosons to be pseudoscalars (note that it is absent in SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

because of

G parity). No such term with only four derivatives can be built simply as an SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

invariant function of the U’s.

There is a subtlety hidden in the Wess-Zumino analysis, Our expression for the extra term

seems to depend on our ability to deﬁne the Goldstone boson ﬁeld Π

∼

. But in general, the U ﬁeld

does not uniquely determine the Π

∼

ﬁeld. In perturbation theory, this doesn’t bother us. We always

assume that the Π

∼

ﬁeld is “small”. In fact, E. Witten (Nuclear Physics B223, 422–432, 1983) has

shown that the analysis makes sense even for large ﬁelds, provided the coeﬃcient of the anomaly

(and therefore of the extra term in the action) is properly quantized. His analysis clariﬁes the

signiﬁcance of the Wess-Zumino term.

6a.2 The Steinberger Calculation

Jack Steinberger is an outstanding experimental physicist. He did one important piece of theoret-

ical physics. He considered a ﬁeld theory in which pions are coupled to massive fermions (proton

and neutron at the time, although they could just as well have been quarks) with the interaction

term

−igψ γ

5

T

a

π

a

ψ . (6a.2.1)

Steinberger calculated the contribution of a fermion loop to the decay π

0

→γγ — from the diagram

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............. ............. .............

π

0

..............................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

...... .............

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .............

.............

...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

γ

Figure 6a-1:

He found a result that (for the case of three colors of quarks) reproduces the result of the

Wess-Zumino calculation, (6a.1.28) (see also problem 6a-1). This has caused some confusion. If

the π

0

→ γγ decay can be produced either by the anomaly or by a quark loop, what happens in

the chiral quark model? And for that matter, what about baryon loops? In particular, what does

this do to the discussion at the beginning of chapter 6 of how the baryons transform.

Thus we must answer the following question. When should we include the Wess-Zumino term?

The way to think about it is to note that the term always appears when the quarks are integrated

out of the theory to produce a low-energy theory of the Goldstone boson ﬁelds alone. What happens

when the quarks are left in the theory as in the chiral quark model depends on how the quarks

transform under the chiral symmetry. If the quarks transform nonlinearly as discussed in above, so

that all their interactions explicitly involve derivatives, then the Wess-Zumino term must be there,

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 111

just as in the case when the quarks are integrated out. The reason is simply that in this case, the

quark interactions go away at low momentum, so quark loops are harmless at low momenta — they

do not produce any new interactions. We can ﬁgure out what happens for other transformation

laws by actually building the ﬁelds with the desired transformation laws using the Goldstone boson

ﬁelds.

For example, suppose we want to from quark ﬁelds, q, transforming nonlinearly under SU(3)

SU(3) , to quark ﬁelds, q

, transforming linearly as

q

L

→Lq

L

, q

R

→Rq

R

. (6a.2.2)

The q

**quarks are related to the q quarks by a chiral transformation
**

q

L

= ξ q

L

, q

R

= ξ

†

. (6a.2.3)

In terms of the q

**quarks, the mass term becomes
**

−mqq →−mq

R

U

†

q

L

−mq

L

Uq

R

(6a.2.4)

which contains nonderivative couplings of the Goldstone bosons to the quarks. You can check that

the couplings are determined by the Goldberger-Trieman relation, in its naive form, (2.6.25) (with

no factor of g

A

).

But we saw in the previous section that the Wess-Zumino term is precisely the response of

the Lagrangian to such a chiral transformation. The transformation (6a.2.3) precisely cancels the

Wess-Zumino term. Thus we expect the Steinberger calculation to reproduce the eﬀects of the

Wess-Zumino term when the nonderivative coupling is given by (6a.2.4).

6a.3 Spectators, gauge invariance and the anomaly

Here is a diagramatic way to determine the form of the anomaly. It is really just another way of

seeing that the Steinberger calculation must give the right answer, but is perhaps a little cleaner

and more convincing than the argument we gave in the previous section. Suppose that we add to

the QCD theory of three massless ﬂavors, three sets of three spectator fermions, to cancel the chiral

ﬂavor anomalies. Speciﬁcally, add to the theory of colored quarks,

q =

¸

u

d

s

¸

(6a.3.1)

a set of three massless spectator fermions

Q

j

=

¸

U

j

U

j

U

j

¸

for j = 1 to 3. (6a.3.2)

These massless fermions have their own chiral symmetries, but we can break the symmetry down

to SU(3) SU(3) with a four-fermion interaction of the following form:

1

Λ

2

q

R

Q

j

L

Q

j

R

q

L

+ h.c. (6a.3.3)

This term ensures that q

L

and Q

j

R

rotate under the same SU(3)

L

, and that q

R

and Q

j

L

rotate under

the same SU(3)

R

. It is not renormalizable, but that doesn’t matter to our argument. We could

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 112

generate such a term by exchange of a scalar ﬁeld, but since we will only use it a low energy scales,

it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. Notice also that this term is constructed to be a

color singlet, and also a singlet under a global SU(3) acting on the j index (this global symmetry

is unneccesary, but simpliﬁes the tableaux).

Now there are no anomalies to break the chiral ﬂavor symmetries, so if we couple in classical

ﬂavor gauge ﬁelds, as usual, the theory is guage invariant. Now QCD gets strong and the chiral

symmetry is spontaneously broken, and realized nonlinearly.

Now what happens to the term (6a.3.3) in the low energy theory? This is actually easy to see

from (5.3.1) and (5.4.3). The point is that because the spectator fermions do not carry the color

SU(3), the term

1

Λ

2

Q

j

L

Q

j

R

(6a.3.4)

enters into the theory in exactly the same way as s +ip in (5.3.1). Thus in the low energy theory,

it also must appear in the same way as s + ip. The leading term a low energies that does not

involve derivatives of Π is therefore one in which the term (6a.3.4) appears in the same way as

s +ip appears in (5.4.3). Thus the term is

M Q

j

R

U Q

j

L

+ h.c. (6a.3.5)

where M = v

3

/Λ

2

. This is a spectator mass term in the low energy theory, along with a speciﬁc

set of Goldstone bosons couplings consistent with the Goldberger-Treiman relation.

Now as we go down further down in energy scale, below the spectator mass, we must get a gauge

invariant theory involving only Goldstone bosons. Spectator loops must cancel any gauge variant

eﬀects in the low energy chiral theory. Thus the spectator loops must give minus the WZ term.

This has the virtue that we can regularize it to preserve the vector symmetry, and that should give

the conventional WZ term. We can now take the spectator mass, M, to inﬁnity, because the theory

has to make sense at arbitrarily long distances, so the only things that can matter are the terms

that are independent of the mass.

This analysis shows that we can get any coupling in the Wess-Zumino term from a Steinberger-

like loop calculation. But we can also just calculate the coupling of a single Goldstone boson

to the external gauge ﬁelds. This is actually equivalent to ﬁnding the result of an inﬁnitesimal

chiral transformation, because that is what the Goldstone boson ﬁeld represents. Thus this should

reproduce the Wess-Zumino analysis that leads to Bardeen form for the anomaly. The we can

get the rest of the Wess-Zumino term by integrating the anomaly, as we did in the ﬁrst section.

What graphs can contribute? The Goldstone boson coupling is proportional to 1/f. Thus to get a

contribution that is independent of M, we need a dimension ﬁve operators. Thus only the three-,

four- and ﬁve-point functions can contribute on dimensional grounds (any operator with dimension

higher than ﬁve will be suppressed by powers M). There are only a few possibilities that are

proportional to

µναβ

and consistent with the vector SU(3), parity and Lorentz invariance. They

are

µναβ

tr

ΠV

µν

V

αβ

,

µναβ

tr

ΠA

µν

A

αβ

,

µναβ

tr

ΠV

µν

a

α

a

β

,

µναβ

tr

Πa

µ

V

να

a

β

,

µναβ

tr

Πa

µ

a

ν

V

αβ

,

µναβ

tr

Πa

µ

a

ν

a

α

a

β

,

(6a.3.6)

where

V

µν

= ∂

µ

v

ν

−∂

ν

v

µ

+i

v

µ

, v

ν

, A

µν

= ∂

µ

a

ν

−∂

ν

a

µ

+i

v

µ

, a

ν

+i

a

µ

, v

ν

. (6a.3.7)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 113

In terms of the these objects, the Bardeen anomaly, (6a.1.19), with c

∼

→Π becomes

f = −

1

16π

2

µναβ

tr

Π

3V

µν

V

αβ

+A

µν

A

αβ

−2i(a

µ

a

ν

V

αβ

+V

µν

a

α

a

β

) −8ia

µ

V

να

a

β

+

+4a

µ

a

ν

a

α

a

β

,

(6a.3.8)

Below, we will verify each of these terms.

Let us start by calculating the terms proportional to two ﬁeld-strengths, the ﬁrst two terms

in (6a.3.6). To do that we consider the three point function for SU(3) SU(3) vector and axial

currents and a Goldstone ﬁeld.

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

µ

1

v

µ

1

(p

1

) (or γ

5

a

µ

1

(p

1

)) γ

µ

2

v

µ

2

(p

2

) (or γ

5

a

µ

2

(p

2

))

γ

5

Π(−p

1

−p

2

)

k −p

1

k

k +p

2

(6a.3.9)

The ΠV V term is

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

µ

1

v

µ

1

(p

1

) γ

µ

2

v

µ

2

(p

2

)

γ

5

Π(−p

1

−p

2

)

k −p

1

k

k +p

2

(6a.3.10)

2M

f

tr

Π(−p

1

−p

2

) v

µ

1

(p

1

) v

µ

2

(p

2

)

tr

γ

5

/ k −/ p

1

+M

(k −p

1

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k + / p

2

+M

(k +p

2

)

2

−M

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

(6a.3.11)

We are interested in a term in the integrand which is linear in each of the momenta, because there

is no other way to get a term with an symbol in it that will survive as M → ∞. Expanding in

powers of momentum and keeping only the relevant term, we can write the integrand as

−tr

γ

5

p

ν

1

¸

∂

∂k

ν

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

¸

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

p

λ

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

¸

(6a.3.12)

We can do the trace before performing the diﬀerentiations. One of the propagators must

contribute an M and the two others must contribute γs. Using

tr

γ

5

γ

µ

γ

ν

γ

α

γ

β

= 4i

µναβ

(6a.3.13)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 114

we have

−4i

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

ν

1

p

λ

2

−

¸

∂

∂k

ν

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

+

¸

∂

∂k

ν

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

−

¸

∂

∂k

ν

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸¸

(6a.3.14)

At least one of the derivatives must act on the k with an index in each term, otherwise the

vanishes, so we can write this as

−4i

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

ν

1

p

λ

2

2

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

M k

λ

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

+

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸

−2

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

λ

k

β

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

−2

¸

k

ν

k

α

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸

+2

¸

M k

ν

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸¸

(6a.3.15)

Now since 2 k

α

k

β

→

1

2

k

2

g

αβ

, this is

−2i M

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

1α

p

2β

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+ 2

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

3

−

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

−

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

¸

(6a.3.16)

The integrals in (6a.3.16) are

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

3

d

4

k

(2π)

4

= −i

1

32π

2

M

2

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

d

4

k

(2π)

4

= −i

1

48π

2

M

2

(6a.3.17)

Using this and putting in the factors from (6a.3.11), and multiplying by three, because we need

three diﬀerent kinds of spectators because there are three colors of quarks, we get, in momentum

space,

−

3

4π

2

f

tr

Π(−p

1

−p

2

) v

µ

1

(p

1

) v

µ

2

(p

2

)

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

1α

p

2β

(6a.3.18)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 115

which corresponds to

−

3

16π

2

f

µναβ

tr

ΠV

µν

V

αβ

. (6a.3.19)

The calculation of the term with two axial vector currents proceeds similarly. The relevant

integral is

2M

f

tr

Π(−p

1

−p

2

) a

µ

1

(p

1

) a

µ

2

(p

2

)

tr

γ

5

/ k −/ p

1

+M

(k −p

1

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k + / p

2

+M

(k +p

2

)

2

−M

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

(6a.3.20)

We can proceed as before. In fact, we can immediately turn (6a.3.20) into something very like

(6a.3.12) by moving the γ

5

s around —

−tr

γ

5

p

ν

1

¸

∂

∂k

ν

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

¸

γ

µ

1

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

p

λ

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

¸

(6a.3.21)

The only diﬀerence between (6a.3.21) and (6a.3.12) is the sign of the M in the middle propagator.

Thus the terms proportional to this factor of M just change sign:

−4i

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

ν

1

p

λ

2

−

¸

∂

∂k

ν

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

−

¸

∂

∂k

ν

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

−

¸

∂

∂k

ν

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

∂

∂k

λ

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸¸

(6a.3.22)

which we can write this as

−4i

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

ν

1

p

λ

2

2

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

β

k

2

−M

2

¸

M k

λ

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

−

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸

+2

¸

g

να

k

2

−M

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

λ

k

β

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

+2

¸

k

ν

k

α

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

¸

M

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸

+2

¸

M k

ν

k

2

−M

2

¸

k

α

k

2

−M

2

¸

g

λβ

k

2

−M

2

¸¸

(6a.3.23)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 116

Now since 2 k

α

k

β

→

1

2

k

2

g

αβ

, this is

−2i M

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

1α

p

2β

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

−2

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

3

+

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

¸

(6a.3.24)

Thus the result is

−

1

4π

2

f

tr

Π(−p

1

−p

2

) a

µ

1

(p

1

) a

µ

2

(p

2

)

µ

1

µ

2

αβ

p

1α

p

2β

(6a.3.25)

corresponding to

−

1

16π

2

f

µναβ

tr

ΠA

µν

A

αβ

. (6a.3.26)

Now let us look for the terms proportional to one ﬁeld-strength. For that we need to look

at four-point functions. We could do all of these at once by putting in a general momentum

dependence, but it is a little simpler to keep track of what is going on if we restrict ourselves to

external momentum dependence that picks out a single term in (6a.3.6). We can do this by having

the external momentum carried only by the Π and v ﬁelds, because we know from (6a.3.6) that

if picked out terms proportional to the momenta of the a ﬁelds, the terms would either vanish or

reproduce what we already calculated in (6a.3.26). So for example, we look at the following graph:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

........................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

5

Π(−p

1

)

γ

µ

1

v

µ

1

(p

1

)

γ

µ

2

γ

5

a

µ

2

(0)

γ

µ

3

γ

5

a

µ

3

(0)

k −p

1

k k

k

(6a.3.27)

The Feynman integral is

2M

f

tr

Π(−p

1

) v

µ

1

(p

1

) a

µ

2

(0) a

µ

3

(0)

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

5

/ k −/ p

1

+M

(k −p

1

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

(6a.3.28)

Begin by writing the integrand as follows:

−tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k −p

1

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

(k −p

1

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.29)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 117

In the second term, because the numerator is explicitly proportional to p

1

and since we are looking

for a term involving only one power of p

1

we can drop the p

1

dependence in denominator. In the

ﬁrst term, we must expand in powers of p

1

and pick out the ﬁrst term:

−tr

γ

µ

3

2k

µ

p

1µ

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.30)

We now average over the k directions, replacing k

µ

k

ν

→

1

4

g

µν

and dropping terms odd in k to

obtain

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

+

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

+

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

−

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

−tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.31)

In the third through ﬁfth terms in (6a.3.31), we can use the standard identities,

γ

µ

γ

α

γ

β

γ

µ

= 4g

αβ

, γ

µ

γ

α

γ

µ

= −2γ

α

, γ

µ

γ

α

γ

5

γ

µ

= 2γ

α

γ

5

, (6a.3.32)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 118

to get rid of pairs of γs, to obtain

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

+k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

p

1

µ

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

1

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

1

k

2

−M

2

−tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.33)

The third term vanishes. In the rest, we can use (6a.3.13) to obtain

4i

µµ

1

µ

2

µ

3

p

1µ

¸

M k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

−

1

2

−

1

2

+

1

2

+

1

2

+

M

3

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

¸

= 4i

µµ

1

µ

2

µ

3

p

1µ

M

3

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

.

(6a.3.34)

Now using

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

d

4

k

(2π)

4

= i

1

96π

2

M

4

(6a.3.35)

we get (putting in the color factor)

−

1

4π

2

f

tr

Π(−p

1

) p

1µ

v

µ

1

(p

1

) a

µ

2

(0) a

µ

3

(0)

µµ

1

µ

2

µ

3

(6a.3.36)

which corresponds to

i

8π

2

f

µµ

1

µ

2

µ

3

tr

ΠV

µµ

1

a

µ

2

a

µ

3

.

(6a.3.37)

Now look at the following graph:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

........................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

5

Π(−p

2

)

γ

µ

1

γ

5

a

µ

1

(0)

γ

µ

2

v

µ

2

(p

2

)

γ

µ

3

γ

5

a

µ

3

(0)

k −p

2

k −p

2 k

k

(6a.3.38)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 119

The Feynman integral is

2M

f

tr

Π(−p

2

) a

µ

1

(0) v

µ

2

(p

2

) a

µ

3

(0)

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

5

/ k −/ p

2

+M

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k −/ p

2

+M

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

(6a.3.39)

Again, we start by writing the integrand as follows:

−tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k −/ p

2

+M

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k −/ p

2

+M

(k −p

2

)

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.40)

Now we expand in powers of p

2

and pick out the ﬁrst term:

−tr

γ

µ

3

2k

µ

p

2µ

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

−tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

(/ k +M) 2k

µ

p

2µ

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.41)

We again average over the k directions, replacing k

µ

k

ν

→

1

4

g

µν

and dropping terms odd in k to

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 120

obtain

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

+tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ p

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

2

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

M

(k

2

−M

2

)

2

γ

µ

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

−tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

+

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

−

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

M

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

+

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

3

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

/ p

2

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.42)

In the last three terms in (6a.3.42), we can again use (6a.3.32) to get rid of pairs of γs. Then

we can perform all the traces (the last term vanishes)

4i

µ

1

µµ

2

µ

3

p

2µ

¸

1

2

−

1

2

M k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

−

M

(k

2

−M

2

)

3

+

1

2

−

1

2

M k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

M

3

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

1

2

−

1

2

M k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

¸

(6a.3.43)

Now using (6a.3.17) and (6a.3.35) and putting in the color factor, we get

−

1

π

2

f

tr

Π(−p

2

) a

µ

1

(0) p

2µ

v

µ

2

(p

2

) a

µ

3

(0)

µ

1

µµ

2

µ

3

p

2µ

(6a.3.44)

which corresponds to

i

2π

2

f

µ

1

µµ

2

µ

3

tr

Πa

µ

1

. V

µµ

2

a

µ

3

(6a.3.45)

Finally, let us consider the ﬁve-point function with four a ﬁelds, the last of the possible terms

in (6a.3.6). Here, there are no derivatives, so we can take all the ﬁelds to be constant. The relevant

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 121

Feynman integral is

2M

f

tr

Πa

µ

1

a

µ

2

a

µ

3

a

µ

4

tr

γ

µ

4

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

d

4

k

(2π)

4

(6a.3.46)

The integrand is

−tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

= −tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

/ k −M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

/ k +M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.47)

Averaging over directions of k gives

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

−

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

+

1

4

k

2

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

γ

µ

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.48)

The third term vanishes and the second and fourth and equal, so this is

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

M

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

+k

2

tr

γ

µ

4

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

1

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

2

1

k

2

−M

2

γ

µ

3

γ

5

M

k

2

−M

2

(6a.3.49)

which gives

−4i

µ

1

µ

2

µ

3

µ

4

M

3

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

+

M k

2

(k

2

−M

2

)

4

¸

(6a.3.50)

Now again using (6a.3.17) and (6a.3.35) and putting in the color factor, we get

−

1

4π

2

f

tr

Πa

µ

1

a

µ

2

a

µ

3

a

µ

4

µ

1

µ

2

µ

3

µ

4

(6a.3.51)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 122

Problems

6a-1. Repeat the Steinberger calculation of π

0

→γγ.

6a-2. Do the analog of the Steinberger calculation for the “anomalous” interaction term of

(6a.1.30). That is, compute the contribution to such a term from a loop of quarks coupled (non-

derivatively) to the Goldstone bosons, as in the q

**quarks of (6a.2.4). Show that it reproduces the
**

Wess-Zumino result. Hint: If you think carefully about all the simpliﬁcations that are possible

because of the factor of

µναβ

, the Feynman graph is extremely simple. Think, rather than working

too hard.

6a-3. Use (6a.1.28) to calculate the decay rates for π

0

→ 2γ and η → 2γ. Compare your

results with the data in the particle data book. Can you suggest any reason why the π

0

rate should

be more reliably given by (6a.1.28) than the η rate?

Chapter 7

— The Parton Model

7.1 Mode Counting

The basic idea of the parton model can be easily understood in the toy QCD model of Section

3.2. In the imaginary world with weak QCD, it is easy to calculate, for example, all weak decay

rates. Just calculate in the quark theory using perturbation theory. This gives a perfectly adequate

description of what happens during the short time that the particles are actually decaying. Much

later (very much later in the imaginary world) when the decay products separate to distances

at which conﬁnement becomes important, complicated things happen (glueball emission, in the

imaginary world), but these don’t eﬀect the total rate. The same ideas can be applied to our world.

Many processes involving quarks in the real world can be characterized by two separate time

scales: a short time during which the quarks and gluons interact relatively weakly because of

asymptotic freedom, and a longer time scale at which conﬁnement eﬀects become important. When

these two scales can be cleanly separated, we can give the process a parton-model interpretation.

.............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

e

+

e

−

q

q

γ

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 7-1:

The simplest parton-model process is the e

+

e

−

total cross section into hadrons. The relevant

Feynman diagram is Figure 7-1 , where q is any quark that is light enough to be produced. If we

compare this with e

+

e

−

→ µ

+

µ

−

(Figure 2-4), we see that if the center of mass energy is large

compared to the µ and quark masses, the only diﬀerence between the Feynman diagrams is the

charge and color of the quark. The charge Q produces an extra factor of Q

2

in the quark cross

section. The color produces an extra factor of 3, just because we must sum over the three colors in

the ﬁnal state. Thus, the ratio of the quark to muon total cross sections in lowest order is

R =

¸

quarks

3Q

2

, (7.1.1)

where the sum runs over all quarks with mass less than half the center of mass energy (that is the

electron or positron beam energy , of course) , E/2.

123

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 124

.............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

e

+

e

+

q

q

γ

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

G

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 7-2:

This prediction for the total cross section can be improved by including QCD corrections, such

as the single-gluon emission diagram (Figure 7-2). This is rather easy. When the appropriate

virtual gluon diagrams are included, the result is

R =

¸

sQ

2

1 +α

s

/π + 0

(α

s

/π)

2

. (7.1.2)

The higher-order terms are harder, but the order (α

s

/π)

2

terms have been calculated. The

coupling in (7.1.2) should be evaluated at the center of mass energy, thus the QCD corrections go

to zero as the energy gets Large. There are also corrections to (7.1.2) that cannot be calculated in

perturbation theory in α

s

. But these all involve the conﬁnement time scale, and they faIl oﬀ like

powers of (Λ/E)

2

Thus, at large E, the simple parton prediction (7.1.1) should be accurate.

Indeed, the data bears out this simple picture. Except at low energies or near the threshold

for production of new quark states, the cross section is roughly ﬂat and roughly given by (7.1.1).

In fact, the observed cross sections are always a bit Larger than (7.1.1), as we would expect from

the form of the QCD corrections in (7.1.2). Near thresholds, complicated things happen, most

conspicuously production of quark-antiquark resonances like ρ

0

, ω, φ, J/ψ, and Υ all of which

give rise to large, relatively narrow peaks in R.

.............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

τ

−

ν

τ

e

−

ν

e

µ

−

ν

µ

d

u

or or

W

−

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 7-3:

As discussed in Section 2.9, weak-interaction eﬀects have already been seen in e

+

e

−

→ µ

+

µ

−

.

It is somewhat more diﬃcult to see (and interpret) the analogous eﬀects in e

+

e

−

→ qq. However,

there are processes in which exactly the same parton-model ideas can be employed to predict weak

eﬀects, for example, decay of a heavy lepton such as the τ

−

. In this process, the τ

−

decays into

a ν

τ

, and a virtual W

−

. The subsequent splitting of the virtual W

−

is precisely analogous to the

decay of the virtual photon shown in Figure 7-1. Here the appropriate Feynman diagram is shown

in Figure 7-3, where d

**is the combination of d and s (the b is too heavy to be produced) that
**

appears in the SU(2) doublet with the u quark. To ﬁrst approximation, we can take d

= d. Now

the same kind of mode counting applies as in e

+

e

−

annihilation, but it is even easier here because all

the couplings are the same. Thus, we expect branching ratios of 20% each into electrons and muons

and 60% into primarily nonstrange hadrons. QCD corrections will modify this picture slightly by

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 125

enhancing the hadronic modes as in (7.1.2). Thus, the leptonic modes should be somewhat smaller

than 20% but, of course, still equal.

This is exactly what is observed. The leptonic branching ratios are about 18% each, and the

hadronic modes consist primarily of nonstrange hadrons.

There is even some evidence that the d

**linear combinations of d and s is the same as that
**

measured in decays of strange particles. There we found, with

d

= cos θ

1

d + sin θ

1

cos θ

3

s, (7.1.3)

that

cos θ

1

= 0.97, sin θ

1

, cos θ

3

= 0.22, (7.1.4)

so that the ratio of us to rd in the ﬁnal state of hadronic τ

−

decay should be

sin

2

θ

1

cos

2

θ

s

cos

2

θ

1

= 0.05. (7.1.5)

The decay

τ

−

→ν

τ

+K

∗−

(892) (7.1.6)

has been observed. The K

∗−

(892) is a us bound-state vector meson that is the analog of the ud

bound-state ρ

−

(770). Thus, we would expect the decay (7.1.6) to have a branching ratio smaller

by a factor of 20 than the decay

τ

−

→ν

τ

+ρ

−

(770). (7.1.7)

Again, this is just what is seen. (7.1.6) has branching ratio (1.45 ± 0.18)% while (7.1.7) has

branching ratio about 25% (the π

−

π

0

ν

τ

mode, with branching ratio (25.2 ±0.4)% is essentially all

ρ

−

ν

τ

). Apparently, both the parton model and the SU(2) U(1) model work very well for heavy

lepton decay.

7.2 Heavy Quark Decay

One might imagine that the decay of a hadron containing a heavy quark such as a t, b, or c might

be described in the same way by a diagram such as Figure 7-4. In this diagram the q

light

plays

no role. Even higher-order QCD corrections, in which gluons are exchanged between q

light

and

everything else, do not depend on the identity of q

light

. Thus, the q

light

is just a spectator. We will

call processes like that in Figure 7-4 “spectator processes”.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

q

light

q

heavy

q

light

q

light

W

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 7-4:

It is clear that lots of other things can happen in the decay of a hadron containing a heavy

quark. In particular, the presence of the other quark or antiquark in the initial state can inﬂuence

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 126

the gross structure of the decay. The most extreme example of this is a purely leptonic decay . We

would expect, for example, that the F

+

meson will decay occasionally into µ

+

ν through a diagram

(Figure 7-5) in which the c and s in the F

+

annihilate into a virtual W

+

.

However, this “annihilation diagram” will be suppressed because of angular-momentum conser-

vation, just like the decay π

+

→e

+

ν. However, there is a class of generalized annihilation processes

that are not as suppressed as what we ﬁnd in Figure 7-5, for example, the processes in Figures 7-6

and 7-7.

.............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

c

s

µ

+

ν

µ

W

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 7-5:

............................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

Figure 7-6:

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................

Figure 7-7:

Indeed, there is evidence that the process in Figure 7-7 is important in charmed particle decay.

To understand the evidence, notice that in Figure 7-7 the process is possible for D

0

decay but not

for D

+

decay. The process in Figure 7-6 is possible for D

+

decay, but it is suppressed because

the angle associated with the cd current is small. Thus, we expect only spectator interactions to

be important for D

+

decay, but both spectator and annihilation to be important in D

0

decay.

Experiment suggests that the annihilation process is about as important as the spectator process.

The evidence for this comes from a measurement of the semileptonic branching ratios of the D

0

and D

+

and from measurements that suggest that the D

+

lifetime is longer than that of the D

0

.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 127

The semileptonic branching ratios are measured to be

B(D

+

→e

+

+anything) (17.2 ±1.9)%

B(D

0

→e

+

+anything) (7.7 ±1.2)%.

(7.2.1)

The D

+

decay is about what we would expect on the basis of the spectator process. This is

reasonable because the annihilation contribution is suppressed. But the D

0

decay is quite diﬀerent.

Presumably, the spectator decay contributes to D

0

→ e

+

+ anything at the same rate as D

+

→

e

+

+anything anything. The branching ratio in D

0

decay must be smaller because the annihilation

process is making a large contribution to the nonleptonic modes. This, of course, must make the

D

0

decay rate larger.

Frankly, the size of the annihilation eﬀect in (7.2.1) is something of an embarrassment. No

one really knows how to calculate it, but theoretical estimates before the measurement put the

annihilation contribution as smaller than or perhaps at most equal to the spectator contribution.

But that means that the ratio of the D

+

to D

0

branching ratios in (7.2.1) should have been no

more than a factor of two. We have now gotten used to the experimental ratio, but I still believe

that we don’t know how to calculate it.

The data from direct measurements of the D

+

and D

0

lifetimes are now pretty good. Because

of improvement in detector technology, we can now measure these very short lifetimes. On the

basis of the spectator model and mode counting, we would expect a lifetime of order

τ

µ

m

µ

m

c

5

1

5

· 8 10

−13

sec, (7.2.2)

where m

c

is the charmed quark mass, about 1.5 GeV. Initially, the experiments showed a D

0

lifetime

much shorter than this, consistent with the semileptonic decay data. But more recent experiments

tend to support the view that the D

0

lifetime is about a factor of two shorter than that of the D

+

.

The most recent numbers are:

τ

D

+ = (1.057 ±0.015) 10

−12

sec

τ

D

0 = (.415 ±0.004) 10

−12

sec.

(7.2.3)

Note that τ

D

+ is roughly consistent with the spectator-model prediction, (7.2.2).

For the b quark (and heavier quarks), we expect the spectator model to work well Fragmentary

data on b-quark decay suggests that the b is rather long-lived, with a lifetime of order 10

−12

sec.

This would imply small values for s

2

and s

3

in the KM matrix.

7.3 Deep Inelastic Lepton-Hadron Scattering

One reason for the tension that you may have noticed between theorists and experimentalists is

a very natural diﬀerence between their short-term goals. Experimenters want to do experiments

that are doable while theorists want to interpret experiments that are interpretable. This is a real

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 128

problem in experiments with hadrons because the quantities that are easy to measure are typically

related to the long-distance structure of the theory that is too hard for the theorists to deal with.

Deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering experiments are a class of experiments about which

experimenters and theorists can both be enthusiastic. The idea is to scatter a high-energy lepton

beam oﬀ a hadron target and measure the four momentum of the scattered lepton but not the

details of the hadronic ﬁnal state. A typical process is electron-proton scattering, ﬁrst studied

extensively with the high-energy electron beam from the two-mile-long linear accelerator at SLAC

in Stanford.

.............................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..............................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

hadrons e

−

(k)

e

−

(k

)

p(P)

γ

Figure 7-8:

The dominant process is the electromagnetic scattering described by the diagram in Figure

7-8. The momentum P

**of the hadronic ﬁnal state is determined by momentum conservation,
**

P

= P +k −k

**, but no other information about the state is used. This is just as well because it is
**

usually very complicated, involving lots of pions. The virtual photon carries momentum q, which

is spacelike, so −q

2

is positive. The product Pq is the proton mass m times the virtual photon

energy, so it is positive (the photon energy is sometimes called ν). It is conventional and useful to

deﬁne the dimensionless variables:

x

H

= −

q

2

2Pq

, y =

Pq

Pk

. (7.3.1)

Both of these are bounded between zero and one. If E and E

**are the energies of the initial and
**

ﬁnal electron, y is

y =

E −E

E

, (7.3.2)

the fractional energy loss of the lepton. When y = 0, no energy is transferred to the hadronic

system (which is impossible kinematically, but one can get very close to y = 0 at high lepton

energies). When y = 1, the initial lepton energy is almost all transferred.

To see that x

H

must be less than 1 , note that P

= P +q and

P

2

= m

2

+ 2Pq +q

2

≥ m

2

, (7.3.3)

since there is always at least one proton in the ﬁnal state. This immediately gives x

H

≤ 1.

We will study the diﬀerential cross sections d

2

σ/dx

H

dy. To interpret the results, we need a

theoretical model that describes the process in QCD. The key idea, due to Feynman, is that there

are two distinct time scales characterizing this process. The virtual photon that is far oﬀ its mass

shell scatters oﬀ a quark, antiquark, or gluon in a short time of order 1/

√

−q2. The hadronic time

scale Λ enters in two ways. The quarks have been bound in the hadron for a long time, and they

may be oﬀ their mass shell by a momentum of order Λ. Also, after scattering, the quarks recombine

into hadrons in a time of order 1/Λ.

When Feynman invented the idea, he wasn’t sure what kind of particles inside the proton were

scattering. He just called them partons, the parts of the proton. Gell-Mann, meanwhile, knew all

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 129

about quarks, but it took almost ten years for the two of them to get together. (J. D. Bjorken was

one of the ﬁrst to put these ideas together.)

At any rate, the presence of these two scales suggests that we view the scattering as a two-step

process in which ﬁrst the short-distance scattering occurs, then later the scattered parton and the

debris of the shattered proton recombine into hadrons. As in e

+

e

−

, we assume that the cross section

is determined by the short-distance scattering. To calculate it, we need to know two things: the

probability of ﬁnding a given parton in the proton carrying a given momentum, and the probability

of the parton scattering from the virtual photon.

.............................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

j

e

−

e

−

j

γ

Figure 7-9:

We will analyze the process in the center of mass frame of the proton and the virtual photon

because it is only through the virtual photon that momentum is transferred to the hadronic system.

At high Pq, the proton is going very fast in this frame, and the partons have momenta that are

parallel to the proton’s momentum P up to terms of order Λ. We will ignore these (because they

change the cross section only by ∼ Λ

2

/ −q

2

and write the momentum of the a parton as

p

µ

= ξP

µ

, (7.3.4)

where 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. Then we can describe the distribution of parton in the proton as a function of

the single variable ξ. We write

f

j

(ξ) dξ (7.3.5)

is the probability of ﬁnding a parton of type j (j runs over each type of quark and antiquark and

gluon) with momentum between ξP and (ξ + dξ)P. This deﬁnes the distribution function f

j

(ξ).

These cannot be calculated with our present theoretical tools. They depend on the structure of the

proton, which we do not understand in terms of QCD perturbation theory.

We can, however, calculate the probability for parton scattering. We do this just by calculating

the cross section dσ

j

/dx dy, where x and y are deﬁned in terms of the parton momentum p

µ

= ξP

µ

,

x = −

q

2

2pq

= x

H

/ξ

y =

pq

pk

=

Pq

Pk

,

(7.3.6)

and the j-type parton is the target. The lowest-order diagram contributing to this process is that

in Figure 7-9, where j is a quark or antiquark. I will not calculate this in detail, but it is fairly

easy to ﬁgure out its general form. dσ

j

is clearly proportional to e

4

Q

2

j

/q

4

, where Q

j

is the quark

or antiquark charge. The kinematics produces a factor of

(1 + (1 −y)

2

**for reasons that we will
**

describe in detail later. There is also a δ function that expresses the fact that the ﬁnal quark in

Figure 7-9 is on its mass shell,

δ(p

2

) = δ(2pq +q

2

) ∝ δ(1 −x), (7.3.7)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 130

(where we have neglected the quark mass, though it wouldn’t matter). Finally, to get the dimensions

right, we need a factor of k p = ξk P = ξmE. Thus, putting the factors of π and 2 in, we get

dσ

1

dx dy

=

e

4

Q

2

j

4q

4

ξmE

π

1 + (1 −y)

2

δ(x −1). (7.3.8)

We now can put this together just by combining the probabilities, using the fact that x

H

= ξx,

to obtain (see Problem 7-1)

dσ

H

dx

H

dy

=

¸

j

f

j

(ξ)

dσ

j

dx dy

δ(x

H

−xξ) dξ dx

=

e

4

mE

4πq

4

[1 + (1 −y)

2

]

¸

j

Q

2

j

xf

j

(x).

(7.3.9)

The striking thing about this result is that the dependence on q

2

is like that in electron scattering

oﬀ a pointlike target. This is just what is observed.

Higher-order QCD eﬀects change this simple prediction only slightly. The distribution func-

tions actually are predicted to depend weakly on q

2

. Something very much like the predicted q

2

dependence has actually been observed. This subject is very interesting but should be discussed in

a course on strong interactions. Here we will work only to zeroth order in QCD and use (7.3.9).

7.4 Neutrino-Hadron Scattering

Precisely the same reasoning can be applied to neutrino-hadron or anti-neutrino-hadron scattering.

The new elements here are W

±

or Z

0

exchange rather than photon exchange and the parity-violating

nature of the couplings.

We will ﬁrst consider the charged-current process ν

µ

(or ν

µ

) +hadron →µ

−

or µ

+

) +anything.

This is easier to see experimentally than the neutral-current processes we will discuss later. The

parton processes diﬀer depending on whether the beam is ν

µ

, or ν

m

u. For ν

µ

, the important

processes are

ν

µ

+d →µ

−

+u

ν

µ

+u →µ

−

+d,

(7.4.1)

while for ν

µ

, they are

ν

µ

+u →µ

+

+d

ν

µ

+d →µ

+

u.

(7.4.2)

The cross sections for these parton processes are similar to those for e

−

-quark scattering, but

they diﬀer in two ways. The W

±

propagator gives a G

2

F

rather than e

4

/q

4

, at least at −q

2

small

compared to M

2

W

. And the (1 + γ

5

)’s in the weak coupling aﬀect the y distribution. The rule

is the following: when particles of the same handedness scatter, as ν

µ

+ d (both left-handed) or

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 131

ν

µ

+bard (both right-handed), the cross section is independent of y; when particles of the opposite

handedness scatter, as ν

µ

+u or ν

µ

+u, the cross section vanishes at y = 1 like (1 −y)

2

.

Putting all this together, we ﬁnd for the hadronic cross sections

dσ

ν

H

dx

H

dy

=

2mEG

2

F

π

xd(x) + (1 −y)

2

xu(x)

¸

(7.4.3)

dσ

ν

H

dx

H

dy

=

2mEG

2

F

π

(1 −y)

2

xu(x) +xd(x)

¸

. (7.4.4)

We have ignored various small eﬀects, such as the distribution functions of strange and charmed

quarks and the strangeness-changing and charm-changing parts of the u and d currents, but (7.4.3)-

(7.3.4) is a good ﬁrst approximation, and the other eﬀects can be included by the same techniques.

The distribution functions depend on the target. Things are particularly simple for targets that

consist of equal numbers of protons and neutrons. Then isospin symmetry implies

u = d ≡ q, u = d ≡ q. (7.4.5)

We expect q to be much larger than q and perhaps also to have a diﬀerent shape. What is seen

is that q(x) is smaller than q(x) and vanishes faster as x goes to one.

Notice that the total cross sections are (with f

q

=

dx 2xq(x), and so on)

σ

ν

=

mE

π

G

2

F

[f

q

+f

q

/3]

σ

ν

=

mE

π

G

2

F

[f

q

/3 +f

q

],

(7.4.6)

where f

q

(and f

q

) are the fraction of the proton and neutron momentum carried by quarks (and

antiquarks). This can be directly compared with the e

−

cross section n the same approximation of

ignoring heavy quarks:

σ

e

−

=

e

4

mE

4πq

4

4

3

5

18

(f

q

+f

q

). (7.4.7)

Thus, we ﬁnd the relation (which works)

σ

e

−

=

5

72

e

4

q

4

G

2

F

(σ

ν

+σ

ν

). (7.4.8)

From the observed cross sections, we can also extract the normalized values of f

q

and f

q

. The

results are (very roughly, since we have not included heavy quarks or QCD corrections)

f

q

≈ 0.5, f

q

≈ 0.1 (7.4.9)

The amusing thing here is that the quarks and antiquarks carry only about half of the nucleon’s

momentum. Most of the rest is carried by gluons. Heavy quarks and antiquarks carry a small

fraction.

The fact that the parton-lepton scattering vanishes as y →1 when the lepton and parton have

opposite handedness can be seen easily by a helicity argument. y = 1 corresponds to a lepton that

loses aIl its energy in the lab frame. In the center of mass frame, that means the particles are

scattered backwards. It is then easy to see that the scattering is allowed by angular-momentum

conservation about the beam axis if the parton and lepton have the same handedness, but not if they

have opposite handedness. This is the physical reason for the factors of (1 − y)

2

in (7.3.8)-(7.3.9)

and (7.4.3)-(7.4.4).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 132

7.5 Neutral Currents

In much the same way, we can study neutral-current processes

ν

µ

+P or N →ν

µ

+ anything

ν

µ

+P or N →ν

µ

+ anything.

(7.5.1)

The cross sections are similar to the charged current but involve the coupling of the Z

0

to the

quarks, T −3 → sin

2

θQ. This time both left- and right-handed quarks scatter, but T

3

is nonzero

only for the left-handed quarks. Thus, in the same approximation we used for (7.4.3)-(7.4.4), we

have

d˜ σ

H

dx

H

dy

=

2mEG

2

F

π

¦

L

(u) + (1 −y)

2

R

(u)

x u(x)

+

(1 −y)

2

L

(u) +

R

(u)

xu(x)

+

L

(d) + (1 −y)

2

R

(d)

x d(x)

+

(1 −y)

2

L

(d) +

R

(d)

x d(x)¦,

(7.5.2)

where

L,R

(q) is (T

3

−sin

2

θ Q)

2

for the appropriate quark state.

L

(u) =

1

2

−

2

3

sin

2

θ

2

L

(d) =

−

1

2

+

1

3

sin

2

θ

2

R

(u) =

−

2

3

sin

2

θ

2

R

(d) =

1

3

sin

2

θ

2

.

(7.5.3)

The antineutrino cross section d˜ σ

ν

/dx

H

dy can be obtained from (7.5.2) by interchange of the quark

and antiquark distributions.

Things simplify if we look at the total cross-sections oﬀ matter targets (u = d). Then

σ

ν

=

mEG

2

F

π

(

L

(u) +

L

(d))

¸

f

q

+

1

3

f

q

+ (

R

(u) +

R

(d))

¸

1

3

f

q

+f

q

(7.5.4)

and again ˜ σ

ν

is obtained by interchanging q and q. The ratios of the neutral to charged-current

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 133

cross sections are useful because some experimental uncertainties drop out. The predictions are

R

ν

= ˜ σ

ν

/σ

ν

= (

L

(u) +

L

(d)) +x

−1

(

R

(u) +

R

(d))

R

ν

= ˜ σ

ν

/σ

ν

= (

L

(u) +

L

(d)) +x(

R

(u) +

R

(d)) .

(7.5.5)

where

x = σ

ν

/σ

ν

=

f

q

+

1

3

f

q

1

3

f

q

+f

q

. (7.5.6)

The measured values of R

ν

and R

ν

agree with the predictions of the standard SU(2) U(1) model

and the quark-parton model for sin

2

θ · 0.23.

7.6 The SLAC Experiment

The linear accelerator at SLAC, which was responsible for most of the early experimental work on

e

−

P scattering that gave rise to the parton model, was also the site of the crucial experiment that

convinced us of the correctness of the SU(2)U(1) model. The experiment measured the diﬀerence

between the scattering cross sections for left-handed and right-handed electrons on protons. This is

a parity-violating eﬀect, obviously, so the leading electromagnetic contribution to the cross section

cancels out in the diﬀerence. What is left is a weak-electromagnetic interference that can be

calculated using standard parton-model techniques. This provides very diﬀerent information from

neutrino scattering, since it is linear in the quark-Z

0

coupling and probes the structure of the e

−

neutral current. The results are in agreement with the SU(2) U(1) predictions with sin

2

θ · 0.23

(see C. Y. Prescott et al., Physics Letters 84B, 524-528, 1979) (see Problem 7-2).

Problems

7-1. Derive (7.3.9) and (7.4.3)-(7.4.4).

7-2. By including Z

0

exchange in the e

−

p-scattering cross section, calculate the parity-violating

γ − Z

0

interference contribution to the diﬀerence in diﬀerential cross sections for left- and right-

handed electrons,

∂σ

L

∂dx

H

dy

−

∂σ

R

∂dx

H

dy

Chapter 8

— Standard Model Precision Tests

Since the original version of this text was written, experimental tests of the standard model have

progressed to the point that there is overwhelming evidence for the basic picture of a spontaneously

broken SU(2) U(1) gauge theory. The Z and W have been studied extensively, and their static

properties (masses, partial widths into various decay channels, and so on) have been measured.

There are still details that we are unsure about (such as the precise couplings of the W to quarks),

but in general, the experimental results agree with the theoretical predictions of the simplest version

of the standard model not just in the tree approximation but beyond, to the level of the radiative

corrections. Nevertheless, we will argue that it is still unclear what the physics is that spontaneously

breaks the SU(2) U(1) gauge symmetry, for two reasons:

1. The largest radiative corrections are independent of the details of electroweak symmetry

breaking, depending only on the particle content of the theory below the symmetry breaking

scale; and

2. The leading low-energy eﬀects of the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking are relatively

small, and tightly constrained by the symmetries of the model. They can be gathered into

the values of a few eﬀective interactions.

We will only know for sure what breaks the electroweak symmetry when we can see the scattering

of Ws and Z at very high energies, of the order of 1 TeV. This should be possible at the LHC - the

Large Hadron Collider, expected to operate at CERN in the ﬁrst decade of the next millennium.

It this chapter, we will review some of the issues involved in the calculation of radiative cor-

rections, and show in what sense the largest corrections are simple, and independent of the details

of symmetry breaking. We will also brieﬂy discuss two alternatives to the simplest version of elec-

troweak symmetry breaking — technicolor and a composite Higgs boson. We will not attempt to

give a complete account of modern calculations of radiative corrections. This has become a large

industry, and the details are beyond the scope of this course.

8.1 Choosing a Gauge

In a theory like SU(2) U(1) with spontaneously broken gauge symmetry, the unitary gauge that

we introduced in Section 2.7 is not very convenient for explicit loop calculations. This formalism has

the advantage that the only ﬁelds that appear correspond to physical particles. But the resulting

Lagrangian involves massive vector ﬁelds coupled to nonconserved currents. As we discussed in

Section 2.3, this is a potentially dangerous situation. The renormalizability of the theory is not

obvious. In this section, we will discuss a class of gauges in which renormalizability is more explicit.

134

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 135

In chapter 1b, we discussed the necessity of choosing a gauge and the Fadeev-Popov recipe for

constructing a gauge ﬁxing term.

The Fadeev-Popov “derivation” discussed in chapter 1b was very formal. The functional integral

we started with was not well deﬁned, and it is certainly not obvious that the result of interchanging

order of functional integrations and canceling inﬁnite quantities has anything to do with the gauge

theory we started with. Physicists were impressed with the derivation because it incorporated all

of the techniques that had been developed (unsystematically) over the years to deal with QED,

Yang-Mills theories, and gravity. It was not taken for granted that it would be adequate to properly

deﬁne spontaneously broken gauge theories. But at least for the gauge–ﬁxing terms we will describe

below, it does work. It yields theories that are unitary and renormalizable in perturbation theory.

We will now discuss some explicit gauge–ﬁxing terms. The unitary gauge that we have already

discussed in chapter 2 corresponds to a choice of the Fadeev-Popov function

f(A

µ

, φ) =

¸

x

¸

broken

generators

δ

'φ

T

`g

a

T

a

φ

. (8.1.1)

In this case ∆ depends only on the surviving Higgs ﬁelds.

A gauge that is simple and convenient for some purposes is Landau gauge, which corresponds

to

f(A

µ

, φ) =

¸

x

¸

a

δ (∂

µ

A

µ

a

) . (8.1.2)

To calculate ∆(A

µ

), note that because of the appearance of the δ function (8.1.2) in the integral

(1b.2.12), we need to know ∆(A

µ

) only for A

µ

satisfying ∂

µ

A

µ

a

= 0. Thus, it is enough to consider

inﬁnitesimal transformations of the form

Ω = 1 +iω

a

T

a

+ (8.1.3)

under which

A

µ

Ωa

= A

µ

a

−f

abc

ω

b

A

µ

c

−

1

g

∂

µ

ω

a

(8.1.4)

and

[dΩ] =

¸

a, x

[dω

a

(x)]. (8.1.5)

Then

f(A

µ

Ω

, φ

Ω

)[dΩ] =

¸

a, x

[dω

a

(x)]

¸

b, y

δ

∂

µ

A

µ

Ωb

(g)

. (8.1.6)

If we insert (8.1.4) into (8.1.6) and ignore terms proportional to ∂

µ

A

µ

a

, we can write

∆(A

µ

)

−1

=

¸

b, y

δ

M

bc

(y, z)ω

c

(z)d

4

z

¸

a, x

[dω

a

(x)] , (8.1.7)

where

M

bc

(y, z) = −

1

g

∂

µ

∂

µ

δ

bc

−gf

bdc

A

µ

d

δ(y −z) = −

1

g

∂

µ

D

µ

bc

(y −z). (8.1.8)

Then

∆(A

µ

) = det M. (8.1.9)

We could calculate det M directly, but it is more fun to express it as a functional integral over

anticommuting variables η

a

and η

a

in the adjoint representation of the gauge group:

det M ∝

exp¦iS

Ghost

¦ [dη][dη] , (8.1.10)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 136

where

S

Ghost

=

η

a

(x)∂

µ

D

µ

ab

η

b

(x) d

4

x. (8.1.11)

Thus, this term can simply be added to the action to produce the Fadeev-Popov determinant ∆.

The η and η ﬁelds are the Fadeev-Popov ghost particles. They are massless scale fermions that

(fortunately) do not appear in the physical states.

In the Landau gauge, the gauge–boson propagator is

−g

µν

+k

µ

k

ν

/k

2

k

2

−M

2

, (8.1.12)

where M

2

is the gauge–boson mass–squared matrix. This gauge is extremely convenient for calcu-

lations in unbroken non-Abelian gauge theories, and it is also often useful in spontaneously broken

gauge theories. In Landau gauge, the mixing terms between the gauge bosons and the Goldstone

bosons, (2.6.21), are irrelevant because they are total divergences. Thus, while the Goldstone

bosons are not eliminated, at least they do not complicate the gauge–boson propagators. However,

for some applications, the appearance of the massless Goldstone bosons and the corresponding

appearance of the pole at k

2

= 0 in the longitudinal part of the gauge–boson propagator is in-

convenient. In such applications, it is often useful to use one of a set of gauges which interpolate

continuously between Landau gauge and unitary gauge. These are the renormalizable ξ–gauges.

We will discuss them in some detail, both because they are often useful and because they will give

us some insight into the nature of the Higgs mechanism.

We start with an f(A

µ

, φ) of the form

¸

x

¸

a

δ

∂

µ

A

µ

a

+iξ'Φ

T

`g

a

T

a

Φ −c

a

, (8.1.13)

where Φ is the unshifted Higgs ﬁeld, c

a

is an external ﬁeld, and ξ is a positive constant. It may

not be obvious why we have added the second and third terms in the δ functions at this point, but

eventually we will use them to simplify the propagators. Calculating ∆ by the techniques discussed

above, we ﬁnd (see Problem 8–1):

∆(A

µ

, φ) ∝

exp

−i

η

a

(x)

∂

µ

D

µ

ab

+ξ'Φ

T

`g

a

T

a

g

b

T

b

Φ

η

b

(x) d

4

x

¸

[dη][dη] .

(8.1.14)

Note that ∆ is independent of c

a

. Notice, also, that when we write Φ in terms of shifted ﬁelds, we

are left in (8.1.14) with a mass term for the ghost ﬁelds. The mass–squared matrix is just

µ

2

ab

= ξ'Φ

T

`g

a

T

a

g

b

T

b

'Φ` = ξM

2

ab

, (8.1.15)

where M

2

ab

is the gauge–boson mass–squared matrix.

Now consider the c

a

dependence of a gauge–invariant Green’s function, (1b.2.12). Clearly there

isn’t any, because the whole point of the Fadeev-Popov construction is that when ∆ is properly

chosen, it is irrelevant which gauge–ﬁxing term we choose. Both W and G are independent of c

a

,

so long as g is gauge–invariant. Thus, in particular, we can multiply W and G by the quantity

exp

−

1

2ξ

c

2

a

(x)d

4

x

[dc

a

] (8.1.16)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 137

without changing anything. But then interchanging integration orders, we can do the integration of

c

a

and eliminate the δ functions. The result is a description of the theory in terms of a Lagrangian

with the same ghost term (8.1.14), but with a gauge–ﬁxing term of the form (in the Lagrangian)

−

1

2ξ

∂

µ

A

µ

a

+iξ'Φ

T

`g

a

T

a

Φ

2

. (8.1.17)

Notice that we can write (8.1.17) in terms of the shifted ﬁeld Φ

**because of the antisymmetry of
**

T

a

:

'Φ

T

`g

a

T

a

'Φ` = 0. (8.1.18)

Now ﬁnally, we can get to the physics. The cross term is (8.1.17) combines with the term

(2.7.21) from the Higgs meson kinetic–energy term to form an irrelevant total–derivative term.

Thus, we have succeeded in eliminating the mixing between gauge bosons and Goldstone bosons.

The other terms in (8.1.17) ﬁx the gauge and give mass to the Goldstone bosons. The mass matrix

for the Goldstone boson ﬁelds is the same as that of the ghosts, µ

2

ab

in (8.1.15). It sounds peculiar

to speak of Goldstone–boson masses, but remember that the Goldstone bosons are gauge artifacts.

With an appropriate choice of gauge, we can give them mass if we choose, or even eliminate them

entirely as in unitary gauge. To underscore this point, I will usually refer to the Goldstone bosons

in ξ–gauges as “unphysical Goldstone bosons”.

The quadratic terms in the gauge ﬁelds are now

1

4

(∂

µ

A

aν

−∂

ν

A

aµ

)(∂

µ

A

ν

a

−∂

ν

A

µ

a

)

−

1

2ξ

(∂

µ

A

µ

a

)

2

+

1

2

M

2

ab

A

µ

a

A

bµ

.

(8.1.19)

This gives a propagator

−g

µν

+ (1 −ξ)k

µ

k

ν

/(k

2

−ξM

2

)

[k

2

−M

2

]

(8.1.20)

or equivalently

=

−g

µν

+k

µ

k

ν

/M

2

k

2

−M

2

−

k

µ

k

ν

/M

2

k

2

−ξM

2

. (8.1.21)

(8.1.21) is extremely suggestive. The ﬁrst term is simply the propagator for the massive vector

ﬁelds. The second term modiﬁes the longitudinal part of the gauge–boson propagator to make it

well-behaved at large k

2

. But this second term by itself looks as if it is related to propagation

of derivatively coupled scalars with mass µ

2

= ξM

2

, the same mass as the unphysical Goldstone

bosons and the Fadeev-Popov ghosts. Indeed, the eﬀects of these three gauge artifacts conspire to

cancel in all physical processes so that unitarity is maintained in these gauges.

Practically speaking, the advantage of the ξ–gauges is that all gauge artifacts have nonzero

masses. The simplest such gauge corresponds to xi = 1, for which the gauge–boson propagator is

just

−

g

µν

k

2

−M

2

(8.1.22)

and the unphysical Goldstone bosons and ghosts have the same masses as the corresponding gauge

particles. This is the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge. For many purposes, it is the most convenient gauge

for explicit calculations in a model like SU(2) U(1). Some physicists prefer to keep ξ arbitrary,

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 138

however, because the cancellation of all ξ dependence provides a useful check for complicated

calculations.

Note that, as promised, these gauges interpolate between the Landau gauge (ξ = 0) and unitary

gauge (ξ = ∞). The unitary–gauge limit is obtained by simply pushing all the gauge artifacts up

to inﬁnite mass.

Finally, note that the whole issue of gauge ﬁxing is really not dependent on the assumption

that a fundamental Higgs boson exists. It does depend on the Higgs mechanism, that describes

how the Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of SU(2) U(1) become

the longitudinal components of the W and Z gauge bosons. But only the Goldstone bosons are

directly involved — not the Higgs boson. The Goldstone bosons are always there whenever a

continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken. But the existence of the Higgs boson depends on

the dynamics of symmetry breaking. While the simplest weak-coupling versions of this dynamics

(that we described in chapter 2) involves a fundamental Higgs boson, we will argue later that in

some strong-coupling models of symmetry breaking, there is no Higgs boson at all, while in others,

the Higgs boson exists, but is a composite state.

8.2 Eﬀective Field Theories

Before we try to apply the results of the previous section to actual calculations, we will introduce

some more machinery, the idea of an eﬀective ﬁeld theory. We have already used parts of the

idea in Chapters 5 and 6 on chiral Lagrangians. There we used it in desperation and ignorance

in order to concentrate on that part of the physics that we could hope to understand. Beginning

with this section, we will sharpen the idea to the point where it will become an extremely useful

calculational tool. It will make hard calculations easy and impossible calculations doable. In fact,

however, the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory idea is much more. It is one of the great unifying concepts in

modern quantum ﬁeld theory. Learn the language and it will serve you well.

The eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory idea is important because physics involves particles with very dis-

parate masses and because we study physics in experiments involving various energies. If we had

to know everything about all the particles, no matter how heavy, we would never get anywhere.

But we don’t.

Quantum electrodynamics, for example, describes the properties of electrons and photons at

energies of the order of 1 MeV or less pretty well, even if we ignore the muon, quarks, the weak

interactions, and anything else that may be going on at high energy. This works because we

can write an eﬀective ﬁeld theory involving only the electron ﬁeld and the photon ﬁeld. With a

completely general quantum ﬁeld theory involving these ﬁelds, including arbitrary renormalizable

interactions, we could describe the most general possible interactions consistent with relativistic

invariance, unitarity of the S–matrix, and other general properties like TCP symmetry. Thus, we

do not give up any descriptive power by going to an eﬀective theory.

It might seem that we have given up predictive power because an arbitrary eﬀective theory has

an inﬁnite number of nonrenormalizable interactions and thus an inﬁnite number of parameters.

But this is not quite right for two reasons, one quantitative and one qualitative. Quantitatively, if we

know the underlying theory at high energy, then we can calculate all the renormalizable interactions.

Indeed, as we will discuss, there is a straightforward and useful technology for performing these

calculations. Thus, quantitative calculations can be done in eﬀective theory language.

The qualitative message is even more interesting. As we will see in detail, so long as the

underlying theory makes sense, all of the nonrenormalizable interactions in the eﬀective theory

are due to the heavy particles. Because of this, the dimensional parameters that appear in the

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 139

nonrenormalizable interactions in the eﬀective theory are determined by the heavy particle masses.

If these masses are all very large compared to the electron mass and the photon and electron

energies, the eﬀects of the nonrenormalizable interactions will be small, suppressed by powers of

the small mass or momenta over the large masses.

Thus, not only do we not lose any quantitative information by going to the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory

language, but we gain an important qualitative insight. When the heavy particle masses are large,

the eﬀective theory is approximately renormalizable. It is this feature that explains the success of

renormalizable QED.

To extract the maximum amount of information from the eﬀective theory with the minimum

eﬀort, we will renormalize the theory to minimize the logarithms that appear in perturbation theory.

In practice, we will use a mass–independent renormalization scheme such as the MS scheme, and

choose the renormalization scale µ appropriately. If all the momenta in a process of interest are of

order µ, there will be no large logarithms in perturbation theory. The standard technology of the

renormalization group can be used to change from one µ to another.

In the extreme version of the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language, we can associate each particle

mass with a boundary between two eﬀective theories. For momenta less than the particle mass, the

corresponding ﬁeld is omitted from the eﬀective theory. For larger momenta, the ﬁeld is included.

The connection between the parameters in the eﬀective theories on either side of the boundary is

now rather obvious. We must relate them so that the description of the physics just below the

boundary (where no heavy particles can be produced) is the same in the two eﬀective theories. In

lowest order, this condition is simply that the coupling constants for the interactions involving the

light ﬁelds are continuous across the boundary. Heavy–particle exchange and loop eﬀects introduce

corrections as well as new nonrenormalizable interactions. The relations between the couplings

imposed by the requirement that the two eﬀective theories describe the same physics are called

“matching conditions”. The matching conditions are evaluated with the renormalization scale µ in

both theories of the order of the boundary mass to eliminate large logarithms.

If we had a complete renormalizable theory at high energy, we could work our way down to

the eﬀective theory appropriate at any lower energy in a totally systematic way. Starting with the

mass M of the heaviest particles in the theory, we could set µ = M and calculate the matching

conditions for the parameters describing the eﬀective theory with the heaviest particles omitted.

Then we could use the renormalization group to scale µ down to the mass M

**of the next heaviest
**

particles. Then we would match onto the next eﬀective theory with these particles omitted and then

use the renormalization group again to scale µ down further, and so on. In this way, we obtain a

descending sequence of eﬀective theories, each one with fewer ﬁelds and more small renormalizable

interactions than the last. We will discuss several examples of this procedure in the sections to

come.

There is another way of looking at it, however, that corresponds more closely to what we

actually do in physics. We can look at this sequence of eﬀective theories from the bottom up.

In this view, we do not know what the renormalizable theory at high energy is, or even that

it exists at all. We can replace the requirement of renormalizability with a condition on the

nonrenormalizable terms in the eﬀective theories. In the eﬀective theory that describes physics at

a scale µ, all the nonrenormalizable interactions must have dimensional couplings less than 1/µ

to the appropriate power (1/µ

D−4

for operators of dimension D). If there are nonrenormalizable

interactions with coupling 1/M to a power, for some mass M > µ, there must exist heavy particles

with mass m <

∼

M that produce them, so that in the eﬀective theory including these particles,

the nonrenormalizable interactions disappear. Thus, as we go up in energy scale in the tower of

eﬀective ﬁeld theories, the eﬀects of nonrenormalizable interactions grow and become important on

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 140

the boundaries between theories, at which point they are replace by renormalizable (or, at least,

nonrenormalizable) interactions involving heavy particles.

The condition on the eﬀective theories is probably a weaker condition than renormalizability.

We can imagine, I suppose, that this tower of eﬀective theories goes up to arbitrarily high energies

in a kind of inﬁnite regression. This is a peculiar scenario in which there is really no complete

theory of physics, just a series of layers without end. More likely, the series does terminate, either

because we eventually come to the ﬁnal renormalizable theory of the world, or (most plausible)

because at some very large energy scale (the Planck mass?) the laws of relativistic quantum ﬁeld

theory break down and an eﬀective quantum ﬁeld theory is no longer adequate to describe physics.

Whatever happens at high energies, it doesn’t eﬀect what we actually do to study the low–energy

theory. This is the great beauty of the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language.

8.3 The Symmetries of Strong and Electroweak Interactions

As a trivial example of the utility of the eﬀective Lagrangian language, we will interpret and answer

the following question: What are the symmetries of the strong and electromagnetic interactions?

This question requires some interpretation because the strong and electromagnetic do not exist in

isolation. Certainly the electromagnetic interactions, and probably the strong interactions as well,

are integral parts of larger theories that violate ﬂavor symmetries, parity, charge conjugation, and

so on. The eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language allows us to deﬁne the question in a very natural way.

If we look at the eﬀective theory at a momentum scale below the W and Higgs mass, only the

leptons, quarks, gluons, and the photon appear. The only possible renormalizable interactions of

these ﬁelds consistent with the SU(3) U(1) gauge symmetry are the gauge invariant QED and

QCD interactions with arbitrary mass terms for the leptons and quarks. All other interactions

must be due to nonrenormalizable couplings in the eﬀective theory and are suppress at least by

powers of 1/M

W

. Thus it makes sense to deﬁne what we mean by the strong and electromagnetic

interactions as the QED and QCD interactions in the eﬀective theory. Indeed, this deﬁnition is very

reasonable. It is equivalent to saying that the strong and electromagnetic interactions are what is

left when the weak interactions (and any weaker interactions) are turned oﬀ (by taking M

W

→∞).

Now that we have asked the question properly, the answer is rather straightforward. If there

are n doublets of quarks and leptons, the classical symmetries of the gauge interactions are an

SU(n) U(1) for each chiral component of each type of quark. These SU(n) symmetries of the

gauge interactions do not depend on any assumptions about the ﬂavor structure of the larger theory.

They are automatic properties of the eﬀective theory.

Now the most general mass terms consistent with SU(3) U(1) gauge symmetry are arbitrary

mass matrices for the charge

2

3

quarks, the charge −

1

3

quarks, and the charged leptons and an

arbitrary Majorana mass matrix for the neutrinos.

The Majorana neutrino masses, if they are present, violate lepton number conservation. In

fact, such masses have not been seen. If they exist, they must by very small. It is not possible to

explain this entirely in the context of the eﬀective SU(3) U(1) theory. However, if we go up in

scale and look at SU(3) SU(2) U(1) symmetric theory above M

W

and M

Z

and if the only ﬁelds

are the usual fermion ﬁelds, the gauge ﬁelds, and SU(2) doublet Higgs ﬁelds, the renormalizable

interactions in the theory automatically conserve lepton number.

1

Thus, there cannot be any

neutrino mass terms induced by these interactions. If neutrino mass terms exist, they must be

1

Classically, they conserve lepton number and baryon number separately. The quantum eﬀects of the SU(2)×U(1)

instantons produce very weak interactions that violate lepton number and baryon number but conserve the diﬀerence.

Conservation of B −L is enough to forbid neutrino masses.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 141

suppressed by powers of an even larger mass. Presumable, this is the reason they are so small.

The quark and lepton masses can be diagonalized by appropriate SU(n) transformations on the

chiral ﬁelds. Thus, ﬂavor quantum numbers are automatically conserved. Strong and electromag-

netic interactions, for example, never change a d quark into an s quark. This statement is subtle,

however. It does not mean that the ﬂavor–changing SU(2) U(1) interactions have no eﬀect on

the quark masses. It does mean that any eﬀect that is not suppressed by powers of M

W

can only

amount to a renormalization of the quark ﬁelds or mass matrix, and thus any ﬂavor–changing eﬀect

is illusory and can be removed by redeﬁning the ﬁelds.

With arbitrary SU(n) transformations on the chiral ﬁelds, we can make the quark mass matrix

diagonal and require that all the entries have a common phase. We used to think that we could

remove this common phase with a chiral U(1) transformation so that the eﬀective QCD theory

would automatically conserve P and CP. We now know that because of quantum eﬀects such as

instantons this U(1) is not a symmetry of QCD. A chiral transformation changes the θ parameter

deﬁned in (5.5.2), Thus, for example, we can make a chiral U(1) transformation to make the quark

masses completely real. In this basis, the θ parameter will have some value. Call this value θ. If

θ = 0, QCD conserves parity and CP. But if θ = 0, it does not.

Experimentally, we know that CP is at least a very good approximate symmetry of QCD. The

best evidence for this comes from the very strong bound the neutron electric dipole moment, less

than 6 10

−25

e cm and going down. This implies that θ is less than about 10

−9

, a disturbingly

small number. This situation is sometimes referred to as the strong CP puzzle. The puzzle is: why

is θ so small if the underlying theory violates CP?

8.4 The ρ Parameter

An interesting and important application of eﬀective ﬁeld theory ideas arises because the t quark is

very heavy. It is observed in high-energy collider experiments to have a mass nearly twice that of

the W and Z, about 175 GeV. Since the heavy t is not present in the eﬀective theory below M

W

,

its only possible eﬀect would be to change the structure of the theory at the W scale.

At this point, it is important to distinguish between fermions like the quarks and leptons that

get mass due to their couplings to the Higgs ﬁeld and fermions that have SU(2) U(1) invariant

masses. The latter might include, for example, a heavy Dirac doublet, in which both the left-

and right-handed ﬁelds are SU(2) doublets. Such heavy particles do not aﬀect the low–energy

theory very much. Their SU(2) U(1) invariant masses ensure that they are removed from the

eﬀective theory in complete, degenerate SU(2)U(1) multiplets. This does not aﬀect the structure

of the low–energy SU(2) U(1) invariant theory, except to renormalize parameters and produce

nonrenormalizable terms that are suppressed by powers of the large mass. Certainly, there are no

eﬀects of such particles that grow as their masses increase.

The situation is entirely diﬀerent for the t quark or other particles with SU(2) U(1)–breaking

mass terms. Below m

t

, but above M

Z

, the theory looks very peculiar. The SU(2) U(1) gauge

invariance is explicitly broken in the couplings of the W and Z to quarks because the t has been

removed from the (t, b) doublet. And because the gauge invariance is broken, the other couplings

in the eﬀective theory are not constrained by it!

The most interesting terms in the eﬀective Lagrangian from this point of view are the mass

terms for the W

±

and W

3

gauge bosons that determine the relative strength of neutral– and

charged–current weak interactions. They are interesting because they are dimension–2 operators

and their coeﬃcients can be proportional to the large m

2

t

. A term that is the same for W

±

and W

3

is not interesting because it can be absorbed into a renormalization of the VEV of the Higgs ﬁeld.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 142

But a diﬀerence between the W

±

and W

3

mass term is a real physical eﬀect. When the t quark

is removed from the theory, exactly such an eﬀect is produced in the matching condition onto the

theory below m

t

. The diﬀerence is

m

2

W

± −m

2

W

3

= δM

2

W

≡

3α

16π sin

2

θ

m

2

t

. (8.4.1)

This is an eﬀect of the heavy particle that actually grows with the heavy mass! It is easiest to

interpret (8.4.1) as an additional correction to the W

±

mass, because the W

3

mass term gets mixed

up with the X mass in the spontaneous symmetry breaking, so this is what we will do.

Another way to understand (8.4.1) is to notice that since m

t

arises from a Yukawa coupling

f

t

=

√

2 m

t

ν

, (8.4.2)

we can write (8.4.1) as

m

2

W

±

−m

2

W

3

m

3

W

±

=

3f

2

t

32π

2

. (8.4.3)

This shows that the eﬀect is a radiative correction that depends on the Yukawa coupling.

(8.4.1) is phenomenologically important (as well as theoretically interesting) not only because

it aﬀects the W and Z masses, but because it changes the relative strength of neutral– to charged–

current process. It is conventional to deﬁne a parameter ρ that is the measured ratio of the coeﬃ-

cient of j

α

3

j

α

3α

to j

α

1, 2

j

1, 2α

(see (2.8.6)) in the eﬀective weak Hamiltonian for neutrino interactions.

ρ is known to be very close to 1 in neutrino–hadron scattering. Actually, we there is a negative

contribution to ρ because of the QED renormalization of charged–current scattering (Figure 8–4

and (8.6.2)). The heavy t gives a positive contribution to ρ (in all processes):

∆ρ =

3α

16π sin

2

θ

m

2

t

M

2

W

. (8.4.4)

It is interesting to note that a doublet (t

, b

) in which the t

and b

**were heavy and degener-
**

ate, there would be no such eﬀect. Removing the t

and b

**from the theory produces a common
**

renormalization of m

W

± and m

W

3

that is not physically interesting. Even though the t and b

masses break the SU(2) U(1) symmetry, they do not break the custodial SU(2) symmetry see

(2.8.7) that keeps ρ = 1. However, there are other interesting eﬀects of this doublet that grow like

ln(m

t

,b

/M

W

). We will return to these below.

The analysis of the ρ parameter was done (in a diﬀerent language) by M. B. Einhorn, D. R. T. Jones,

and M. Veltman (Nuclear Physics B191, 146–172, 1981), who also noticed that contributions to

ρ of this kind all have the same sign, no matter how the heavy particles transform. This puts an

interesting constraint on possible heavy weakly interacting matter.

8.5 M

W

and M

Z

In Chapter 2, we learned that the W and Z masses are predicted in the SU(2) U(1) model. In

the tree approximation, we ﬁnd from (2.8.1) and (2.7.28)

M

2

W

=

√

2 e

2

8G

F

sin

2

θ

, M

Z

= M

W

/ cos θ. (8.5.1)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 143

We have discussed the experiments that determine the parameters in (8.5.1). We know from QED

that

α =

e

2

4π

=

1

137.036

(8.5.2)

We can determine G

F

from the µ decay rate,

τ

−1

µ

=

G

2

F

m

5

µ

192π

3

, (8.5.3)

which for measured τ

µ

and m

µ

gives

G

F

= 1.164 10

−5

GeV

−2

. (8.5.4)

Finally, sin

2

θ as measured in neutral–current experiments (from a more sophisticated version of

(7.5.5), is

sin

2

θ · 0.23 (8.5.5)

Putting (8.5.2), (8.5.4), and (8.5.5) into (8.5.1) gives

M

W

= 77.8 GeV, M

Z

= 88.7 GeV. (8.5.6)

The tree level predictions, (8.5.6), are signiﬁcantly oﬀ from the measured values in the particle

data book:

M

W

= 80.33 GeV, M

Z

= 91.187 GeV. (8.5.7)

We would like to calculate the leading radiative corrections to (8.5.6) to see whether they account

for this discrepancy. By far the easiest way to do this is to adopt an eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language.

One important correction is the contribution from the heavy t that we discussed in the previous

sections. The other dominant eﬀects can be understood as follows. Below M

W

the eﬀective theory

involves QCD and QED, with the weak interactions appearing only as nonrenormalizable four–

fermion interactions. In lowest order, the matching condition that determines these four–fermion

interactions comes from single W and Z exchanges. That means that in leading order, G

F

, e

2

,

and sin

2

θ should be interpreted as parameters renormalized at µ · M

W

and the coeﬃcients of the

various four–fermion operators are given by the tree–approximation formulae discussed in Chapters

2 and 3 (including the eﬀect of the t quark on the W mass). Higher–order contributions will be a

power of series in the SU(2) and U(1) coupling constants, of order

α

4π sin

2

θ

,

α

4π cos

2

θ

. (8.5.8)

These eﬀects are less than 1%.

There are, however, much more important eﬀects. The most important is that the α that

appears in (8.5.1) is not given by (7.4.2). It should be interpreted as α(M

W

), where α(µ) is the

running coupling constant in the eﬀective QED theory renormalized at µ. The other eﬀects are

similar. The eﬀective four–fermion operators obtained from the matching condition are renormal-

ized at M

W

, but the experiments that are used to determine the parameters are done at smaller

momentum. The renormalization group must be used to ﬁnd the form of four–fermion operators

renormalized at the µ appropriate for each experiment.

Actually, the renormalization group is an aﬀectation in these calculations. The important point

is that these corrections involve large logarithms,

α

4π

ln

M

W

µ

, (8.5.9)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 144

and that all ﬂavors of quarks and charged leptons give contributions. The renormalization group

automatically adds up the higher powers of αln M

W

/µ, but here α is small enough to make the

higher–order terms negligible. The terms proportional to (8.5.9) can be extracted directly from

one–loop diagrams.

We will ﬁrst the renormalization of α. The conventional α given in (8.5.2) is renormalized on

the electron mass shell. However, the diﬀerence between this deﬁnition and a reasonable running

coupling (like the MS scheme) evaluated with µ = m

e

is not very large because it has no large

logarithm in it. Thus, to a good approximation, we can take

α(m

e

) = 1/137. (8.5.10)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................

γ γ

light charged particles

Figure 8-1:

Now we can follow α(µ) up to µ · M

W

. The µ dependence comes from the vacuum polarization

diagram, as shown in Figure 8–1. All charged particles that have masses less than µ contribute in

this process (Figure 8–1) because these are the charged particles in the eﬀective QED theory at

the scale µ. A standard calculation gives

α(µ

2

) = α(µ

1

)

¸

1 +

2α

3π

¸

i

Q

2

i

ln

µ

2

µ

1

¸

, (8.5.11)

where the sum runs over all light fermions in the eﬀective theory. Thus, we ﬁnd

α(M

W

) = α(m

e

)

¸

1 +

2α

3π

¸

i

Q

2

i

ln

M

W

m

i

¸

· 1/129.

(8.5.12)

Here I have used constituent masses for the quarks (because quarks should not be in the eﬀective

theory for momenta much smaller than the mass of the bound states containing those quarks).

This is a 6% increase in α(M

W

) compared to (8.5.2), which translates to a 3% increase in M

W

and

M

Z

in (8.5.1).

The Fermi constant G

F

is determined from the µ decay rate, so we must look at the renormal-

ization of the four–fermion operator

G

F

√

2

ν

e

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)e

−

u

−

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν

µ

. (8.5.13)

For convenience, we will work in Landau gauge where the fermion–wave–function renormalization

from the diagram seen in Figure 8–2 has no µ dependence. Then the renormalization of (8.5.13)

comes only from the diagram in Figure 8–3 where the arrows indicate the direction in which the

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 145

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

Figure 8-2:

lepton number “ﬂows”. That is, the e

−

line with the arrow pointing towards the vertex means

either an incoming electron or outgoing positron. In this case, because only left-handed ﬁelds are

involved in (8.5.13), the arrows could also indicate the ﬂow of left-handedness. The photon can

couple only as shown because the neutrinos have no electric charge. But the diagram in Figure 8–3

gives no ln µ dependence. The diagram is ﬁnite.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ..............

.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

ν

µ µ

−

ν

e

e

− ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

Figure 8-3:

We can see this by direct calculation or note that we could have used Fierz transformations

(Problem 2–3) to write (8.5.13) in so-called charge retention form:

G

F

√

2

ν

e

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν

µ

µ

−

γ

m

u(1 +γ

5

)e

−

. (8.5.14)

Here it is clear that the µ and e ﬁelds appear only in the form of the left chiral current, which

is conserved in the limit that the µ and e masses vanish. But a conserved current does not get

multiplicatively renormalized. It is related by Noether’s theorem to a charge that is a physical

observable.

Thus, there are no corrections of order αln M

W

/µ to (8.5.13). That means that the G

F

deter-

mined by the µ decay rate is the same as the G

F

that appears in (8.5.1).

We can now put these corrections together to get one test of the standard model that incorpo-

rates the leading radiative corrections. We will use the measured values of M

Z

, m

t

and G

F

, and

the corrected α(M

W

) of (8.5.12) to predict M

W

. We begin by incorporating the corrections we

have discussed, into (8.5.1), and using this to determine sin

2

θ:

cos

2

θM

2

Z

+δM

2

W

=

√

2 e

2

8G

F

sin

2

θ

, cos θ. (8.5.15)

Solving for sin

2

θ gives

sin

2

θ = 0.228 (8.5.16)

Then

M

W

= M

Z

cos θ = 80.1 GeV (8.5.17)

which agrees with the measured value to within a fraction of a percent!

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 146

8.6 Neutrino-hadron scattering

In this section, we will brieﬂy discuss the radiative corrections to low-energy neutrino hadron

scattering. The operator that contributes to charged–current neutrino hadron scattering is

G

F

√

2

ν

−

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν

µ

Uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)D. (8.6.1)

It gets renormalized because of the diagram in Figure 8–4 that gives for the coeﬃcient

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

γ

D U

ν

µ µ

−

........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

Figure 8-4:

C(µ) =

G

F

√

2

1 +

α

π

ln

M

W

µ

. (8.6.2)

Note that there is an eﬀect only when the photon is exchanged between legs with the same outgoing

handedness. Otherwise, as discussed above, there is no large logarithmic renormalization.

The four–fermion operator relevant in neutral–current neutrino scattering is

G

F

√

2

ν

f

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν

f

¸

j=f

ψ

j

γ

µ

T

3

(1 +γ

5

) −2 sin

2

θQ

ψ

j

+fγ

µ

1

2

(1 +γ

5

) + 2 sin

2

θ

f

(8.6.3)

where the sum runs over all ﬂavors of leptons and quarks, and the f refers to the lepton ﬂavor, e,

µ or τ. The f is necessary because there is a contribution from W exchange as well as the contri-

bution from Z exchange (see problem (2-5)). This is like (8.5.13) in that there is no multiplicative

renormalization. Here, however, there is a new eﬀect produced by the diagram in Figure 8–5.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

ν

f

ν

f j

j

..............................................................................................................................

γ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................................................................................

j

j

Figure 8-5:

One might think (for a ﬂeeting moment) that the photon operator would produce at pole for

momentum transfer q

2

= 0, which would give rise to a long–range neutral–current momentum

interaction. This cannot happen, because the subdiagram shown in Figure 8–6, where x is the

electromagnetic current, must vanish as the momentum transfer goes to zero because the neutrino

has zero electric charge. Thus, in (8.6.3) the Feynman integral produces a factor of q

2

that kills

the pole.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 147

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

ν

f

ν

f j

j

Figure 8-6:

The result is a four–fermion interaction that is a product of the neutrino current times the

electromagnetic current. In other words, it simply renormalizes sin

2

θ in (8.6.3):

sin

2

θ = sin

2

θM

W

¸

1 +

α

3π

¸

j=f

Q

j

T

3

1

sin

2

θ

M

W

−2Q

j

ln M

W

/max(µ, m

j

)

−

1

2 sin

2

θ

M

W

+ 2

ln M

W

/max(µ, m

f

)

¸

(8.6.4)

The renormalization group interpretation of (8.6.4) is slightly subtle. The diagram (Figure 8–5)

is not one–particle irreducible, so it would not normally be included in the analysis of operator

mixing. In fact, the relevant diagram is seen in Figure 8–7, which produces mixing between (8.6.3)

and the dimension–6 operator

1

e

νγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ν∂

λ

F

λµ

. (8.6.5)

But ∂

λ

F

λµ

/e is related to the electromagnetic current by the equations of motion. In general, it

is not true that the equations of motion can be used to replace one operator with another. The

classical equations of motion are not as true as operator statements. But we can use the equations

of motion to evaluate physical, on–shell matrix elements of the operators.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

..............

ν

f

ν

f j

j

..............................................................................................................................

γ

Figure 8-7:

The net eﬀect of the corrections to the four–fermion operators for neutrino–hadron scattering

is to reduce the value of sin

2

θ relevant in (8.5.1). The neutral–current expression (8.6.4) reduces

sin

2

θ by a few percent if the experiments that determine sin

2

θ have q

2

of a few Gev

2

. The result

agrees well with the value of sin

2

θ extracted from M

Z

in the previous section.

8.7 Technicolor

We have seen that the leading radiative corrections to the standard model give rather good agree-

ment with the measured values of the W and Z masses and the weak mixing angle. We could go

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 148

on and calculate W and Z partial width and other measurable quantities with similar success. As

discussed in the introduction to this chapter, one can do even better by doing a complete analysis

of all the radiative corrections, and the result agrees beautifully with the simplest version of the

standard model, with a relatively light, fundamental Higgs boson (for a review available on the

web, see G. Altarelli etal, hep-ph/9712368). In my view, however, one should be wary of inter-

preting this success as evidence that the Higgs boson actually exists. The really important moral

of the radiative corrections to the standard model is precisely that the most important radiative

corrections are independent of most of the details of electroweak symmetry breaking. In fact, in

our analysis above, the only really important constraint on this physics is that it must preserve a

custodial SU(2) symmetry in the limit that the U(1) gauge coupling is turned oﬀ. Otherwise, we

would not be able rule out large corrections to the relation M

W

= M

Z

cos θ. All other contributions

from the physics of symmetry breaking are generically of the size of matching corrections to the

low energy theory below the weak scale, at the level of fractions of a percent.

Because the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking is so diﬃcult to see in the low energy

physics of the standard model, it is very useful to separate the two and deﬁne what we mean by

the standard model to be the physics of the quarks and leptons, the SU(3) SU(2) U(1) gauge

interactions, and the Goldstone bosons that are eaten to become the longitudinal components of

the W and Z. As we have seen, essentially the only thing we have to know about the Goldstone

bosons is that the spontaneous breaking that produces them preserves a custodial SU(2) symmetry.

Then the standard model emerges, including the large radiative corrections. In this language, we

distinguish between the “Higgs mechanism” and the “Higgs boson.” The Higgs mechanism is a

crucial part of the standard model. It is the process by which the Goldstone bosons that must

arise because of the Goldstone theorem from the spontaneous breaking of SU(2) U(1) combine

with the gauge degrees of freedom to become the massive W and Z. We see these Goldstone

bosons when we produce the W and Z. The Higgs boson, on the other hand, is still a hypothetical

particle. Whether or not anything like a Higgs boson exists depends on what the Goldstone bosons

are actually made of. If the Goldstone bosons are fundamental particles, then they must be part

of Higgs multiplet that transforms linearly under the SU(2) U(1) symmetry. In this case, the

Higgs boson exists, and is the partner of the Goldstone bosons. However, if the Goldstone bosons

are composite states, like the pions in QCD, then there may be nothing like a Higgs boson at all.

Consider the situation in QCD with two massless ﬂavors. The Goldstone bosons appear in

the eﬀective theory below the symmetry breaking scale in a 2 2 version of the U ﬁeld that we

used to describe the pion interactions in the eﬀective chiral theory in chapter 5. They transform

nonlinearly. Above the symmetry breaking scale, the appropriate language to describe the theory

is the language of the constituents (quarks) and the force that binds them (QCD and gluons).

Neither the Goldstone bosons nor anything like a Higgs boson appears in the high energy theory.

Note that in QCD, there is an analog of custodial SU(2) — it is simply isospin symmetry.

One can imagine that a similar thing happens for the electroweak interaction. If the Goldstone

bosons of SU(2) U(1) breaking are bound states of constituent “techniquarks” bound by a very

strong gauge interaction, “technicolor”, then we can describe the low energy theory in terms of a

22 unitary U ﬁeld that contains the Goldstone bosons. It is very easy to see that in leading order

in the momentum expansion, this exactly reproduces the standard model masses and couplings of

the gauge bosons, so long as the technicolor dynamics preserves a custodial SU(2). This follows

simply from the discussion following (2.8.7), where we showed that the Higgs doublet in Weinberg’s

original model of leptons could be rewritten in terms of a 2 2 Σ ﬁeld, and that the theory then

automatically has a custodial SU(2) symmetry when the U(1) gauge interactions are turned oﬀ.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 149

The relation between the Higgs doublet, Σ, and the U ﬁeld is simply

Σ = (v +h) U (8.7.1)

where v is the vacuum expectation value of Σ, and h is shifted ﬁeld associated with the Higgs

boson. Thus if we ignore h, the standard model kinetic energy of the Higgs doublet reduces to the

leading kinetic energy term for the Goldstone bosons.

The diﬃculty with technicolor models is not with the W and Z properties, which are well

described in a technicolor theory, but with the generation of masses for the matter particles. In

a model with a fundamental Higgs doublet, and thus a Higgs boson, these masses arise from

the Yukawa couplings of the Higgs doublet to the quarks and leptons, which is a renormalizable

interaction. No one has found a totally convincing alternative mechanism for mass generation in a

model without fundamental scalar ﬁelds. It is not clear whether this is a problem with technicolor

models, or simply the lack of imagination of theorists. It seems to be impossible to build models

based on simple rescaled versions of QCD, for a variety of reasons. But it is entirely possible that

Nature has other tricks up her sleeve.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that there is an intermediate possibility, in which the Higgs boson

exists, but is a composite state (see D. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 136B, 183 (1984)). A

particularly interesting possibility is the idea that the constituents of the Higgs might include

the t quark. Work in this direction is continuing (see for example, B.A. Dobrescu and C.T. Hill,

hep-ph/9712319).

Problems

8-1. Derive (8.1.14).

8-2. Derive (8.1.20) and (8.1.21) from (8.1.19).

8-3. Write a nonrenormalizable SU(2)U(1) invariant interaction between lepton doublets and

Higgs doublets that gives a Majorana mass to the neutrino after spontaneous symmetry breaking.

8-4. Calculate the diagrams in Figures 8-1, 8-4 and 8-5.

Chapter 9

— Nonleptonic Weak Interactions

9.1 Why We Can’t Calculate

Thus far, I have not said very much about the nonleptonic weak decays of light hadrons. The reason

is that theoretical understanding of the nonleptonic weak interactions is rather limited. We saw in

Chapter 7 that we can calculate certain interesting quantities in the decay of a state containing a

suﬃciently heavy quark using the parton model, but we cannot discuss individual modes in this

way. For strange–particle nonleptonic decays, we can say very little that is quantitative, apart

from a few relations between diﬀerent modes obtained from chiral Lagrangians or current algebra

considerations (see Section 5.10).

The reason for our ignorance is simple. We just do not understand the low–energy strong QCD

interactions in quantitative detail. Most of our understanding is based on symmetry arguments, as

in the chiral Lagrangian techniques of Chapters 5 and 6. Even when supplemented by dynamical

guesses, as in the chiral–quark model of 6.4, these techniques cannot be used to reliably calculate

nonleptonic decay rates. I will make this argument very explicit at the end of this section.

To begin with, I will formulate the discussion of nonleptonic decays in the eﬀective Lagrangian

language. This will probably be the most convenient way to do calculations if anyone ever does

actually achieve a quantitative understanding of strong interactions. Like good scouts, we will be

prepared. The more serious reason for the eﬀective Lagrangian analysis is that it allows us to

divide the problem into two parts, the ﬁrst of which we understand. This will enable us to make

interesting qualitative statements, even without a detailed quantitative understanding.

The exchange of virtual W produces a variety of four–quark operators in the eﬀective La-

grangian just below M

W

. All we have to do to construct the eﬀective Lagrangian that is relevant

at low energies is to use the renormalization group to bring down the renormalization scale µ from

M

W

to the scale of interest. This produces an eﬀective low–energy Lagrangian in which the orig-

inal four–quark operators appear along with other dimension–6 operators that are produced by

the renormalization group. Each coeﬃcient (a coupling constant in the eﬀective theory) is given

explicitly by the renormalization group in terms of the QCD coupling constant and the W and

quark masses. This is the part of the problem that we understand.

To use the eﬀective Lagrangian to actually calculate a physical decay rate, we must calculate

the matrix element of the eﬀective Hamiltonian between the relevant physical states. This is the

hard part. We do not know how to calculate the matrix elements of operators between physical

hadron states, even when the operators are renormalized at the appropriate small momentum scale.

We might try to calculate the matrix elements of the appropriate operators by appealing to

the chiral Lagrangian arguments of Chapter 5. This was very useful in the study of leptonic

150

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 151

and semileptonic decays. But here it doesn’t help. In the eﬀective Lagrangian for semileptonic

charged–current interactions, the part involving quarks is a ﬂavor current. Thus, we know the

corresponding operator in the eﬀective chiral Lagrangian by pure symmetry arguments. Both the

form and the normalization of the current operator are determined by the symmetry. But the

nonleptonic operators are not currents. They look like products of currents at M

W

, but all that

tells us is that they transform in a particular way under the ﬂavor symmetries. We must choose the

corresponding operator in the chiral theory to transform the same way. But that only constrains

the form of the chiral operator. It tells us nothing about the normalization.

One might think that the situation would be better in a chiral–quark model. The quark ﬁelds

appear explicitly, so perhaps we can simply take over four–quark operators directly into the eﬀective

chiral–quark Lagrangian. But this is cheating! In going from the QCD theory with light quarks to

the chiral theory with constituent mass quarks, we have changed the description of the theory, and

we must calculate the matching conditions. These can change the form and normalization of the

weak Hamiltonian. Indeed, we have seen an example of this in Section 6.5 in the renormalization

of the axial vector current for chiral quarks.

Although we don’t understand in detail how to do the calculations, it seems reasonable to

suppose that the renormalizations induced by the matching conditions in going to the chiral–quark

model are given by a power series in α

s

(Λ

CSB

). This parameter could be small enough to make the

renormalization factors manageable, like the 0.75 for g

A

, but there will clearly be large uncertainties

remaining.

Another promising direction in the calculation of these matrix elements is the development of

numerical methods in lattice gauge theories. Eventually the techniques developed there may lead

to direct evaluation of the weak interaction matrix elements. But don’t hold your breath.

For now we will content ourselves with a calculation of the coeﬃcients, the coupling constants

of the eﬀective theory. These already contain some interesting physics.

9.2 The Renormalization Group

Here I give a quick review of the renormalization group. We start by considering an eﬀective

theory with many couplings g

i

with various physical dimensions. Now consider a set of physical

quantities g

0

i

. These may be scattering cross sections or particle masses. Or they may be more

derived quantities, such as the (suitably regulated) bare parameters in the Lagrangian. At any rate,

in perturbation theory, the quantities are functions G

0

i

(deﬁned as a power series) of an arbitrary

renormalization scale µ and the couplings renormalized at µ, which we denote by g

i

(µ),

G

0

i

(g(µ), µ) . (9.2.1)

Any physical quantity behaves this way, but I have chosen a set of physical quantities g

0

i

in

one-to-one correspondence with the couplings g

i

because I want to use the measured values of the

g

0

i

to determine g

i

(µ). This is easy. Just ﬁnd g

i

(µ) such that

g

0

i

= G

0

i

(g(µ), µ) . (9.2.2)

These equations implicitly deﬁne the g

i

(µ) that we can then use to calculate any physical quantity.

In principle, this works for any µ. But in practice, for a given set of physical quantities, some µ’s

will be more convenient than others. We want to choose µ to minimize the logarithms that appear

in perturbation theory. That, after all, is the whole point. Perturbation theory will work best for

the appropriate value of µ. After we have obtained g

i

(µ), we can choose µ to make the calculation

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 152

of any given physical quantity as convenient as possible. This also explains why we don’t actually

calculate g

i

(µ) by solving (9.2.2), which would require calculating G

0

i

(g(µ), µ) accurately for all µ.

Instead, we ﬁnd diﬀerential equations for g

i

(µ), which we can determine by calculating G

0

i

in the

neighborhood of the most convenient µ.

We can write the µ dependence of g

i

(µ) in diﬀerential form as

µ

d

dµ

g

i

(µ) = β

i

(g(µ), µ) . (9.2.3)

To determine the β functions, we can diﬀerentiate (9.2.2) with respect to µ and use (9.2.3) to

obtain

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

i

∂

∂g

i

G

0

i

(g, µ) = 0. (9.2.4)

This is a renormalizable group equation. It expresses the fact that a change in the renormalization

scale can be compensated by a corresponding change in the coupling constants, leaving physical

quantities unchanged. (9.2.4) allows us to determine the functions β

i

from the functional form of

G

0

i

. The important point is that to determine β

i

, we need to know G

0

i

only in a neighborhood of a

given µ.

It is often convenient to calculate the β

i

by studying not physical quantities, but Green’s

functions or one–particle–irreducible functions. These also satisfy renormalization group equations.

But here there are additional terms because of wave–function renormalization. The n 1PI function

Γ

n

for a multiplicatively renormalized ﬁeld φ satisﬁes

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

i

∂

∂g

i

−nγ

φ

Γ

n

= 0, (9.2.5)

where γ

φ

is the “anomalous dimension” of the φ ﬁeld.

Composite operators, such as those that appear in the weak Hamiltonian, also have anomalous

dimensions. However, in general, such operators are not multiplicatively renormalized but mix

under renormalization. Suppose O

x

for x = 1 to k is a set of operators that mix with one another

under renormalization. Then we can write a renormalization group equation for an n point 1PI

function with an o

x

insertion Γ

n

x

m as follows:

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

i

∂

∂g

i

−nγ

φ

Γ

n

x

+γ

xy

Γ

n

y

= 0, (9.2.6)

where γ

xy

is the anomalous dimension matrix of the o

x

operators. Note that the diﬀerence in

the sign between the nγ

φ

term and the γ

xy

term is due to the fact that we are studying a 1PI

function in which the φ legs have been amputated. In the renormalization group equation for the

corresponding Green’s functions, both would appear with a plus sign.

In general, β

i

will depend explicitly on µ. But for a class of particularly convenient renor-

malization prescriptions, there is no explicit µ dependence. These are the “mass–independent”

renormalization schemes, such as dimensional regularization with minimal subtraction. The im-

portant thing about these schemes is that the µ dependence is only logarithmic. Thus, β

i

(g) is a

polynomial in the g’s in which each term has the same physical dimension, the dimension of g

i

.

In the full ﬁeld theory of the world, a mass–independent renormalization scheme is rather useless.

The problem is that heavy particles continue to inﬂuence the renormalization of coupling constants

even at scales much smaller than their masses. This leads at such scales to large logarithms in the

perturbation theory.

One alternative is to adopt a momentum subtraction scheme in which the scale µ is deﬁned

directly in terms of momenta. This avoids the theoretical diﬃculty of large logarithms at small

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 153

scales, but it introduces a serious practical diﬃculty. The β functions have explicit µ dependence,

and it is much harder to solve and use the renormalization group equations. Beyond one–loop

order, it is practically impossible.

Fortunately, in the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language, a mass–independent renormalization scheme

does not cause problems. The physical requirement that heavy particles must not contribute to

renormalization at small scales is automatic because the heavy particles are simply removed from

the eﬀective theory. The combination of the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory idea with mass–independent

renormalization gives a scheme that is both physically sensible and practical. In what follows, we

will always assume that we are working in such a scheme, although to lowest order it will not make

very much diﬀerence. The real advantages of such schemes show up in two loops and beyond.

In the application of these ideas to the QCD corrections to the weak Hamiltonian, by far the

most important coupling is the QCD coupling g. We will seldom be interested in going beyond ﬁrst

order in any other coupling constants. Thus, in the β function for g itself, we can ignore all other

couplings and write

µ

∂

∂µ

g(µ) = β(g(µ)). (9.2.7)

In lowest–order perturbation theory in QCD

β(g) = −Bg

3

B =

(11−2n/3)

16π

2

.

(9.2.8)

where n is the number of quarks in the eﬀective theory. If we ignore higher–order terms in β and

solve (9.2.7), we get

g(µ)

−2

= 2β ln µ/Λ, (9.2.9)

or

α

s

(µ) =

2π

(11 −2n/3) ln µ/Λ

. (9.2.10)

This holds in any one eﬀective theory. To obtain the coupling in the eﬀective theory at a given

scale, we evaluate (9.2.10) with n equal to the number of quark species with mass smaller than µ

and choose Λ to that α

s

is continuous on the boundaries between regions. Thus, Λ changes from

region to region. In terms of the Λ appropriate at low energies (for the three light quarks), we can

write

α

s

(µ) = 6π/

¸

27 ln µ/Λ −2

¸

mq<µ

ln µ/m

q

¸

, (9.2.11)

which automatically incorporates matching conditions at the quark threshold.

Having determined α

s

(µ), we can now proceed to look at the weak Hamiltonian. The dominant

contribution comes from dimension–6 operators, like the four–fermion operators induced by W

exchange at M

W

. At scales below M

W

, the eﬀective weak Hamiltonian is a linear combination of

all of the operators that mix with the four–quark operators. Call these O

x

. Then the eﬀective weak

Hamiltonian has the form

h

x

(µ)O

x

, (9.2.12)

where h

x

(µ) are the couplings.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 154

The β

x

functions that describe the µ evolution of the h

x

(µ)s must also have dimension m

−2

.

If we ignore quark masses (which is a sensible thing to do, because their eﬀects are suppressed by

powers of m

q

/M

W

), the only way that this can happen is to have β

x

of the form

β

x

(h, g) = γ

xy

(g)h

y

, (9.2.13)

where the γ

xy

(g) are dimensionless functions of g. Such β functions describe the renormalization

and mixing of the h

x

s under the inﬂuence of QCD. To lowest order,

γ

xy

(g) = A

xy

g

2

+ 0(g

4

). (9.2.14)

If we ignore the g

4

terms, it is easy to solve the evolution equations

µ

d

dµ

h

x

(µ) = A

xy

g(µ)

2

h

y

(µ). (9.2.15)

If A∼

is the matrix with components A

ij

and h(µ) is a column vector, we can write the solution as

h(µ) = exp

µ

µ

0

Ag(µ

)

2

dµ

µ

h(µ

0

). (9.2.16)

Because

g(µ

)

2

= −

β(g(µ

))

Bg(µ

)

= −

1

Bg(µ

)

µ

d

dµ

g(µ

), (9.2.17)

we can do the integral in (9.2.11) and write

h(µ) = exp

1(A

∼

/Bln

g(µ)

g(µ

0

)

h(µ

0

). (9.2.18)

Linear combinations of the h’s corresponding to eigenvalues of A are multiplicatively renormal-

ized. That is, if ν is a ﬁxed row vector such that

ν A

∼

= aν, (9.2.19)

then

νh(µ) = (g(µ)/g(µ

0

))

−a/B

νh(µ

0

). (9.2.20)

Of course, (9.2.17)–(9.2.20) are valid in any one eﬀective theory. Appropriate matching conditions

must be imposed at the boundaries.

9.3 Charm Decays

In the remainder of this chapter, we will ignore the mixing of the four light quarks with the b and

t quarks. In this limit, as in a world with only four quarks, the weak interactions depend on only

a single real parameter, the Cabibbo angle θ

c

. The weak interactions do not violate CP. We will

return and discuss CP violation in the general six–quark world in Chapter 10.

The simplest process from the point of view of the eﬀective ﬁeld theory is the ∆S = +1 decay

of the c antiquarks, for which the eﬀective coupling to lowest order at the W scale is

cos

2

θ

c

G

F

√

2

cγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u. (9.3.1)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 155

The Hermitian conjugate is associated with c decay.

The renormalization of this coupling comes from the diagrams in which a gluon is exchanged

between the c and d legs or the s and u legs. This is analogous to the electromagnetic renormal-

ization of the charged–current semileptonic coupling that we discussed in Chapter 8 (see Figure

8–4), with photon exchange replaced by gluon exchange. Here, gluon exchange between legs with

opposite handedness does not produce a logarithmic renormalization. Gluon exchange between legs

of the same handedness increases the strength of the coupling as the scale decreases (that is, it

gives a negative β function) if it produces an attractive force, and it decreases the strength of the

coupling with decreasing scale for a repulsive force.

Gluon exchange in (9.3.1) is neither purely attractive nor purely repulsive because the ﬁelds of

the same handedness are not in states of deﬁnite color. To simplify the analysis, we can form the

combinations

2O

xy

±

= xγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)y

±xγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ydγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s,

(9.3.2)

where x and y run over the various quark ﬁelds. Here we are interested in

2O

cu

±

= cγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u

±cγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)udγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s.

(9.3.3)

If we put in explicit color indices, α, β = 1 to 3, and make a Fierz transformation, we can write

2O

cu

±

= cγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

α

d

β

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u

β

±c

β

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

α

d

α

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u

β

,

(9.3.4)

which exhibits the symmetry (antisymmetry) of O

+

(O

−

) in the color indices of the c and d ﬁelds.

Thus, in O

+

the c and d are combined into a 6 of color SU(3) while in O

−

they are in a 3. Thus,

in O

+

(O

−

), gluon exchange is repulsive (attractive).

Quantitatively, the anomalous dimension of (9.3.2) is proportional to

T

c

a

T

d

a

+T

s

a

T

u

a

, (9.3.5)

where T

F

a

are the color SU(3) generators acting on the F ﬁeld. The operators O

±

are eigenstates

of (9.3.5) with eigenvalues

2

3

for O

+

and −

4

3

for O

−

. Thus, to order g

2

, the operators O

+

and O

−

are multiplicatively renormalized.

If we write the eﬀective couplings as

h

+

(µ)O

cu

+

+h

−

(µ)O

cu

−

cos

2

θ

c

G

F

/

√

2, (9.3.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 156

the β functions for h

+

are

β

+

=

1

4π

2

g

2

h

+

β

−

= −

1

2π

2

g

2

h

−

.

(9.3.7)

(9.3.1) gives the boundary condition h

+

(M

W

) = h

−

(M

W

) = 1. Then (9.2.20) and appropriate

matching conditions (for m

t

< M

W

) gives

h

+

(m

c

) =

αs(mc)

αs(m

b

)

−6/25

αs(m

b

)

αs(mt)

−6/23

αs(mt)

αs(M

W

)

−6/21

,

h

−

(m

c

) =

αs(mc)

αs(m

b

)

12/25

αs(m

b

)

αs(mt)

12/23

αs(mt)

αs(M

W

)

12/21

.

(9.3.8)

For example, for Λ = 100 MeV, m

c

= 1.4 GeV, m

b

= 4.6 GeV, and m

t

= 30 GeV, this gives

h

+

(m

c

) · 0.8

h

−

(m

c

) · 1.5

(9.3.9)

Clearly, the QCD corrections enhance h

−

compared to h

+

. Thus, barring some accident in the

matrix elements, we would expect decays produced by the O

−

operator to be more important than

those produced by the O

+

operator.

The O

±

operators are distinguished by their internal symmetry properties as well as their

color properties. They transform according to diﬀerent irreducible representations of left–chiral

SU(3), O

−

as a (2, 0) (the 6) and O

+

as a (1, 2) (the 15). Indeed, things had to work out this

way. Since the QCD interactions conserve the internal SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

symmetry, the operators

that are multiplicatively renormalized must transform like irreducible representations. Thus, here

and in general, the operators that are enhanced or suppressed by QCD eﬀects will be distinguished

by diﬀerent internal–symmetry properties. In this case, we expect a modest enhancement of the

SU(3)

L

6. Because the momenta involved in charm decay are large, the chiral structure of the

operator is probably not terribly relevant. But O

+

and O

−

also transform as 15 and 6, respectively.

The most striking thing about the O

−

operator is that it is a V –spin singlet. V –spin is the

SU(2) subgroup of SU(3) under which the u and s quarks form a doublet. The d and c are singlets

under V –spin, and in the O

−

the u and s ﬁelds are combined antisymmetrically into a V –spin

singlet. Thus, we expect the charm decays that do not change V –spin, so-called ∆V = 0 decays,

to be enhanced. The experimental situation is still obscure.

9.4 Penguins and the ∆I =

1

2

Rule

Now that we have seen the renormalization group in action in enhancing the ∆I = 0 decays of

charmed particles, we can go on to discuss the interesting and more complicated subject of strange–

particle decays. At the W scale, the four–fermion coupling that produces the nonleptonic s–quark

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 157

decay has the form (ignoring mixing to the t and b)

sin θ

c

cos θ

c

G

F

√

2

(dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)uuγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ccγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s).

(9.4.1)

As we will see, the new feature here that makes it qualitatively diﬀerent from (9.3.1) is the appear-

ance of quark ﬁelds (u, c) along with the corresponding quark ﬁeld (u, c).

Under SU(3)

L

and ordinary SU(3), (9.4.1) transforms like a linear combination of a 27, which

contains both isospin-

3

2

and isospin-

1

2

terms, and an 8, which is pure isospin-

1

2

. Phenomenologi-

cally, it is clear that there is a large enhancement of the isospin-

1

2

decays. Consider, for example,

nonleptonic K decay. K

0

decay into 2 π’s (as seen in the decay of the K

s

, which is a linear super-

position of K

0

and K

0

) is much faster than K

+

decay into 2 π’s. The two pions in the ﬁnal state

are symmetric in their space wave functions (l = 0) and therefore symmetric in isospin. Thus the

isospin of the ﬁnal state is either 0 or 2. But while the neutral ﬁnal state in K

0

decay can have

isospin 0, the charged ﬁnal state in K

+

decay cannot. Therefore the isospin in the ﬁnal state in

K

+

→π

+

π

0

is 2, and the decay is pure ∆I =

3

2

. K

0

decay, on the other hand, can be ∆I =

1

2

, and

indeed the ratio ofπ

0

π

0

to π

+

π

−

is about 1 : 2, as one would expect if the isospin of the ﬁnal state

is 0. Furthermore, the K

0

→ππ is much faster than any semileptonic decays while the K

+

→ππ

decay is smaller than the two–body leptonic decay. All this suggests that the ∆I =

3

2

decays are

suppressed while the ∆I =

1

2

decays are enhanced by a large factor.

The same pattern appears in the nonleptonic hyperon decays. The ∆I =

1

2

amplitudes are

consistently larger by at least an order of magnitude. There is also some evidence from the chi-

ral Lagrangian analysis of the nonleptonic decays that it is the SU(3) octet part of the weak

Hamiltonian that is enhanced (see Section 6.6). Let us try to understand this enhancement in the

eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language.

For scales above the charmed quark mass, the analysis is precisely the same as the analysis

of charm decay. The reason is that in this region we ignore the charmed quark mass and the

eﬀective theory has an SU(4) symmetry (of course, there are larger symmetries above the b and t

masses, but these don’t concern us because our operators do not involve b and t quarks). Under

this SU(4) symmetry both (9.3.1) and (9.4.1) transform as linear combinations of components of

20 and 84 dimensional irreducible representations of SU(4). The operators in SU(4) representation

are related by the SU(4) symmetry and so, of course, must be renormalized in the same way. The

O

cu

±

operators in (9.3.3) are in the 84 and 20, respectively. The corresponding operators here are

the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations:

2

O

uu

±

−O

cc

±

= dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)uuγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

±dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)suγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u

−dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ccγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

±dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)scγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)c.

(9.4.2)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 158

The coeﬃcients of these operators satisfy the same renormalization group equations as the h

+

in Section 9.3. Thus, the coeﬃcient of )

−

at µ = m

c

is enhanced while the coeﬃcient of O

+

is

suppressed. Notice that under SU(3)

L

, O

+

is a linear combination of 27 and 8 while O

−

is pure

8. Thus, while this mechanism already enhances the octet contribution, but not by an enormous

factor. Something more is required to explain the observed dominance of ∆I =

1

2

decays.

For scales below the charmed quark mass, the c quark is removed from the eﬀective theory,

thus the structure of the eﬀective ∆S = 1 Hamiltonian changes. In lowest order, the matching

conditions are that the coeﬃcients of operators that do not involve c or c are continuous at µ = m

c

while operators containing c or c ﬁelds are just dropped, their coeﬃcients set to zero at µ = m

c

.

Thus, for µ = m

c

in the eﬀective theory below m

c

, the ∆S = 1 eﬀective Hamiltonian is

h

+

(m

c

)O

uu

+

+h

−

(m

c

)O

uu

−

sin θ

c

cos θ

c

G

F

/

√

2, (9.4.3)

where the h

±

(m

c

) are given by (9.3.9). Above m

c

, (9.4.2) are the only dimension–6 operators

transforming like 84 and 20 of SU(4)

L

with appropriate quantum numbers. Thus, they must be

multiplicatively renormalized. The situation for the (9.4.3) in the eﬀective theory below m

c

is more

complicated. The O

uu

+

operator transforms like a linear combination of 27 and 8 under SU(3)

L

while O

uu

−

is pure 8. The 27 part is multiplicatively renormalized, but the 8’s can mix with a variety

of other operators that transform similarly under SU(3)

L

. Any dimension–6, SU(3)

L

–octet (and

SU(3)

R

singlet), color–singlet operator is a linear combination of the operators

O

1

= dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sqγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)q (9.4.4)

O

2

= dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sqγ

µ

(1 −γ

5

)q (9.4.5)

O

3

= dT

a

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sqT

a

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)q (9.4.6)

O

4

= dT

a

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sqT

a

γ

µ

(1 −γ

5

)q (9.4.7)

O

5

=

1

8

dT

a

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s[D

ν

G

µν

]

a

, (9.4.8)

where qq means the SU(3) invariant sum uu + dd + ss, T

a

are the color SU(3) charges, and G

µν

is the gluon–ﬁeld strength. (9.4.4) and (9.4.6) have nonzero coeﬃcients at µ = m

c

. But nonzero

coeﬃcients for all of these are induced by renormalization. Note that the 1/g is included in (9.4.8)

because (9.4.6), (9.4.7), and (9.4.8) are related by the equation of motion

(D

µ

G

µν

)

a

= gqT

a

γ

ν

q. (9.4.9)

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................................................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................................

d

u

G

Figure 9-1:

We will not discuss the β function in detail here (but see Problem 9–4). The important thing

is that all terms (9.4.4)–(9.4.8) are produced at low momenta. Thus, there are many sources of

∆I =

1

2

, SU(3)

L

octet decay. For example, O

5

is produced from O

3

by the diagram shown in ﬁgure

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 159

9–1. If we hook the gluon in (Figure 9–1) onto a quark line and take the O

3

vertex apart to indicate

that O

3

is produced by W exchange, this becomes the so-called “Penguin” diagram (Figure 9–2).

This may be interesting as an example of capricious use of jargon, but what does it have to do with

the ∆I =

1

2

? The hope is that the matrix elements of O

2

, O

4

, and O

5

that involve gluon ﬁelds or

both the left-handed and right-handed quark ﬁelds are much larger than the corresponding matrix

elements of O

1

and O

3

that involve only left-handed quarks. There is no very good theoretical

reason to believe that this is true. But it is not unreasonable. The basis for the speculation is

called the “vacuum insertion approximation”. Consider, for example, the two operators

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 9-2:

dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)uuγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s

d(1 −γ

5

)uu(1 +γ

5

)s.

(9.4.10)

These are contained (in Fierzed form) in O

3

and O

4

, respectively. Consider the matrix elements

between a K

−

and π

−

of these operators. In the vacuum insertion approximation, one inserts a

complete set of states in the middle of the operators (9.4.10). This is already a peculiar thing to

do, since the renormalized operator cannot really be considered as a product of two factors. But

then in the sum over states, only the vacuum state is kept. This is an even more peculiar thing to

do, but at least it makes the calculation easy:

'π

−

[dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)uuγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s[K

−

`

· 'π

−

[dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)u[0`'0[uγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s[K

−

`

= f

π

f

k

p

µ

π

p

kµ

(9.4.11)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 160

'π

−

[d(1 −γ

5

)uu(1 +γ

5

)s[K

−

` · 'π

−

[d(1 −γ

5

)u[0`'0[u(1 +γ

5

)s[K

−

`

= −'π

−

[dγ

5

u[0`'0[uγ

5

s[K

−

`

= −

1

(m

d

+mu)

1

(mu+ms)

'π

−

[∂

µ

dγ

5

γ

µ

u[0` '0[∂

ν

uγ

5

γ

ν

s[K

−

`

= −f

π

f

K

m

2

π

(m

d

+mu)

m

2

K

(mu+ms)

.

(9.4.12)

If the quark mass are small, say ∼ 10 MeV for m

d

and m

u

and ∼ 200 MeV for m

s

, (9.4.12) can be

signiﬁcantly enhanced compared to (9.4.11),

Clearly, the vacuum insertion approximation does not make a great deal of sense. In fact, it is

inconsistent with chiral perturbation theory, which requires that the matrix element vanish as the

quark masses go to zero. The best we can say given our present level of theoretical understanding

is that short–distance renormalization eﬀects provide some enhancement of the ∆I =

1

2

amplitude.

The rest must come from the enhancement of the matrix elements of one or more of the octet

operators. As we will see in the next chapter, it may be possible to test the idea that the “Penguin”

operator is the culprit by studying the detailed form of CP violation in the K mesons.

Problems

9-1. Derive (9.3.7). Work in Landau gauge.

9-2. Write (9.4.1) as a linear combination of terms which transform like a component of an

SU(3) 27 with I = 3/2, a component of a 27 with I = 1/2, and a component of an 8.

9-3. Below m

c

, the ∆S = 1 Hamiltonian has the form h

x

(µ) O

x

, where the O

x

are the operators

in (9.4.4-9.4.8). The β functions for the h

x

in lowest order have the form

β

x

= g

2

A

xy

h

y

Find all the components of A

xy

.

9-4. Find h

±

(µ) such that α

s

(µ) = 1.

Chapter 10

— The Neutral K Mesons and CP

Violation

10.1 K

0

−K

0

Mixing

We have postponed until now a detailed discussion of the neutral K mesons because we will need

most of the theoretical ideas we have discussed in the previous chapters to understand it. Indeed,

the study of the neutral K–meson system played a crucial role in the development of many of these

ideas.

The most striking feature of the neutral K mesons is the mixing of the K

0

and K

0

. The K

0

mesons with strangeness S = 1 and K

0

with S = −1 are the states that are produced by the

strangeness–conserving QCD strong interactions. They are antiparticles of one another and there-

fore have identical mass terms because of CPT invariance. If strangeness were exactly conserved,

there would be no interactions that could cause mixing between K

0

and K

0

. The K

0

and K

0

would be exactly degenerate mass eigenstates like the electron and positron. States that are lin-

ear combinations of K

0

and K

0

would be forbidden by superselection rules, which simply means

that there would be no reason to consider such states. But the weak interactions do not conserve

strangeness. Thus, they can cause mixing between K

0

and K

0

. Of course, they also cause the K

0

and K

0

to decay. As we will see in detail, the amusing thing about this system is that the neutral

K mesons mix as fast as they decay.

In this section and the next, we will discuss K

0

-K

0

mixing, ignoring the Kobayashi-Maskawa

mixing of the third family. In this theory, CP is conserved, and the mass eigenstates behave simply

under CP. In the most natural basis, K

0

and K

0

are charged conjugates, thus

C[K

0

` = [K

0

`, C[K

0

` = [K

0

`. (10.1.1)

Then, because the K’s are pseudoscalar, the states with zero three–momentum satisfy

CP[K

0

` = −[K

0

`, CP[K

0

` = [K

0

`. (10.1.2)

The mass eigenstates are therefore the CP even and odd states

[K

1

` =

[K

0

` −[K

0

`

√

2

, [K

2

` =

[K

0

` −

√

K

0

`

√

2

. (10.1.3)

These states have very diﬀerent properties because their nonleptonic decay modes are radically

diﬀerent. Two pions, π

0

π

0

or π

+

π

−

, in an l = 0 state must be CP even. Thus, if CP is conserved,

161

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 162

only K

1

can decay into two π’s. In the simpliﬁed world we are considering, with no mixing of the

third family, this statement is exactly true. In the real world, CP violation is a very small eﬀect,

thus, the picture that emerges in the limit of CP invariance will look very much like the real world.

The importance of the two–pion ﬁnal states is simply that there is a much larger phase space

for it than for the three–pion ﬁnal state. Thus, K

1

, which can decay into 2π’s, decays much faster

than K

2

, which cannot. The two mass eigenstates have very diﬀerent lifetimes. This, of course, is

just what is observed. The K

s

(S for short) and K

L

(L for long) are linear combinations of K

0

and K

0

with very diﬀerent lifetimes. A beam of neutral K’s produces a splash of two–pion decays

and a trickle of three–pion decays farther downstream, where essentially only the K

L

component

survives.

When a K

L

beam passes through matter, the K

0

and the K

0

components behave diﬀerently.

This regenerates a K

s

component of the beam, producing another splash of 2π’s. This phenomenon

can be used to make an accurate measurement of the mass diﬀerence between the K

s

and K

L

. If two

regenerators (pieces of matter) are placed in a K

L

beam some distance apart, the K

s

component

produced by the ﬁrst regenerator interferes with the K

s

component produced by the second. When

the distance between the regenerators is varied, the K

s

amplitude and thus the 2π yield oscillates

with a wave number proportional to the mass diﬀerence between K

L

and K

s

, The result of such

experiments is

∆m = m

K

L

−m

Ks

= 0.535 ±.002 10

10

sec

−1

= 3.52 10

−6

eV.

(10.1.4)

It is the fact that the mass diﬀerence is so small that makes regeneration experiments interesting.

The quantum–mechanical interference eﬀects are spread out over macroscopic distances.

Theoretically, the smallness of ∆m is equally interesting. It played an important role in the

prediction of the charmed quark. Today, it provides one of the most important constraints on

models in which the Higgs doublet of the standard SU(2) U(1) model is replaced by a dynamical

symmetry–breaking mechanism and on other variants of the standard model.

It is useful to describe the mixing and decay of a neutral K meson in terms of a two–state wave

function

[ψ(t)` = A(t)[K

0

` +B[K

0

`, (10.1.5)

where ψ(t) is a column vector

ψ(t) =

A(t)

B(t)

(10.1.6)

A(t) B(t) is the amplitude for ﬁnding the system as a K

0

(K

0

). The time development of the system

can now be described by a matrix Hamiltonian:

i

d

dt

ψ(t) = Hψ(t) (10.1.7)

H =

M −iΓ/2 M

12

−iΓ

12

/2

M

∗

12

−iΓ

∗

12

/2 M −iΓ/2

(10.1.8)

where M and Γ are real. The form of (10.1.8) may require some explanation. The anti-Hermitian

part of H describes the exponential decay of the K–meson system due to weak interaction processes.

Because the weak decay amplitudes are proportional to G

F

, all the Γ’s are of order G

2

F

. The

Hermitian part is called a mass matrix. If all the Γ’s were zero, the system would evolve without

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 163

decay, but the oﬀ-diagonal elements in the mass matrix would still cause mixing of K

0

with K

0

.

M is just the K

0

mass. M

12

, however, is a ∆S = 2 eﬀect. It must be of order G

2

F

, because the

weak interactions in lowest order change strangeness only by ±1 (once the GIM mechanism has

been incorporated). If this were not the case, the mass diﬀerence ∆m (which we will see below is

∼ 2M

12

) would be much larger than what is observed.

In (10.1.8), we have assumed CPT invariance by taking the two diagonal elements to be equal.

If we also, for the moment, impose CP invariance, we must take

M

12

= M

∗

12

, Γ

12

= Γ

∗

12

, CP. (10.1.9)

Then the K

1

and K

2

states correspond to wave functions

ψ

1

(τ) =

1

√

2

a(t)

−a(t)

, ψ

2

(τ) =

1

√

2

a(t)

a(t)

. (10.1.10)

They have masses M∓M

12

and decay rates Γ∓Γ

12

. Thus, the fact that the K

1

decays much faster

than the K

2

implies

Γ

12

· −Γ. (10.1.11)

10.2 The Box Diagram and the QCD Corrections)

We would like to calculate the parameters in (10.1.8) from the underlying SU(3) SU(2) U(1)

model of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions. In this, as in so many other applications,

we will be frustrated by our inability to deal with the low–energy strong interactions. But as usual,

we can gather most of our ignorance into a few strong interaction matrix elements. The new feature

here, compared with the analysis of Chapter 9, is that we must work to second order in the weak

interactions. The only parameter in (10.1.8) in which this new feature appears is M

12

.

Let us write the Hamiltonian of the world is a power series in G

F

,

H = H

0

+H

1

+H

2

+ (10.2.1)

where H

j

contains all the interactions proportioned to G

j

F

. The [K

0

` and [K

0

` states are eigenstates

of H

0

because they are degenerate, stable particles when the weak interactions are turned oﬀ. For

zero–momentum states normalized to 1, perturbation theory gives

M

12

= 'K

0

[H

2

[K

0

` +

¸

n

'K

0

[H

1

[n`'n[H

1

[K

0

`

m

K

0 −E

n

. (10.2.2)

The leading contributions are both second order in G

F

because H

1

only changes strangeness by

±1. In terms of states with the conventional relativistically invariant–continuum normalization,

the ﬁrst term is

M

12

·

1

2m

K

'K

0

[H

2

(0)[K

0

` + (10.2.3)

where H

2

(0) is the second–order weak Hamiltonian density. We should be able to get some idea

of magnitude of this term by using the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory technology and estimating the matrix

element. The second term in (10.2.2), however, depends even more sensitively on the details of

low–energy strong interactions because it involves a sum over all the low–lying S = 0 mesonic

states. Thus, even if we manage a reliable estimate of (10.2.3), we will still not know M

12

very

well. Nevertheless, this estimate is interesting and important, as we will see.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 164

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

. . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . .

...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ..............

..............

...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ..............

..............

d

d

s

s

u or c

u or c

W

+

W

−

Figure 10-1:

At the scale M

W

and just below, there is no ∆S = 2 term in the eﬀective Lagrangian in order

G

2

F

because of the GIM mechanism. To see how this works in detail, consider the box diagram

in Figure 10–1. The important point is that for large loop momentum, the contributions of the

u and c quarks cancel on each quark line. This is a consequence of the GIM mechanism. All

strangeness–changing interactions would disappear if the charge-

2

3

quarks were degenerate. Thus,

each strangeness–changing interaction, each quark line in Figure 10–1, is proportional to m

2

c

−m

2

u

and the diagram is quadratically convergent. Because of the extra convergence produced by the

GIM mechanism, (10.2.4) receives no order G

2

F

contribution from momenta much larger than m

c

.

For m

t

< µ < M

W

, the pieces of H

1

get renormalized by the QCD interactions as discussed in

Chapter 9.

In the simpliﬁed theory with no mixing to the third family, nothing very exciting happens at

µ · m

t

. As µ drops below the t and b quark thresholds, the β functions change, but no ∆S = 2

terms are introduced.

At µ · m

c

, a ∆S = 2 term is induced. At this point, the c quark is removed from the theory,

and the GIM mechanism no longer operates. Thus, the box diagram and its QCD corrections

induce a ∆S = 2 term in the eﬀective Lagrangian at µ · m

c

. In other words, the ∆S = 2 term is

produced in the matching condition between the eﬀective theories above and below the charmed–

quark mass. In the ﬁrst, the ∆S = 1 Hamiltonian involves the operators O

uu

±

− O

cc

±

[see (9.4.2)]

and the corresponding ∆C = ±1 operators O

cu

±

and O

uc

±

[see (9.3.2)]. The combinations

sin θ

c

cos θ

c

(O

uu

±

−O

cc

±

) + cos

2

θ

c

O

cu

±

−sin

2

θ

c

O

uc

±

(10.2.4)

retain the GIM structure. But in the eﬀective theory below m

c

, the relevant ∆S = 1 operators are

sin θ

c

cos θ

c

O

uu

±

, from which terms involving c quark ﬁelds have been expanded. In a second–order

calculation, the ∆S = 2 eﬀect produced by squaring (10.2.4) is ﬁnite and proportional to M

2

c

−m

2

u

because of GIM, but that produced by two O

uu

±

operators has no term proportional to m

2

c

(after a

quadratic divergence is removed by dimensional regularization). The ∆S = 2 term in the eﬀective

theory below m must be present to reproduce the ﬁnite result in the theory above m

c

. A simple

generalization of the box diagram calculation yields the result of the ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian density

renormalized at µ < m

c

(ignoring terms proportional to m

2

u

),

H = sin

2

θ

c

cos

2

θ

c

m

2

c

G

2

F

16π

2

η

1

dγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)s,

(10.2.5)

where

η

1

=

¸

α

s

(m

c

)

α

s

(µ)

6/27

¸

3

2

h

+

(m

c

)

2

−h

+

(m

c

)h

−

(m

c

) +

1

2

h

−

(m

c

)

2

. (10.2.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 165

Note that we have included in η

1

a factor that incorporates the renormalization down to a scale

µ of the ∆S = 2 operator in the theory below m

c

. The operator is actually O

ds

+

. Here, as in the

undressed box diagram, the ∆S = 2 eﬀect is proportional to m

2

c

(renormalized at µ ∼ m

c

). It was

this feature that led Lee and Gaillard to suggest in 1974 that the charmed quark and the hadron

states built out of it had to be relatively light. Otherwise, the contribution to M

12

from (10.2.5)

would be too large. Such a statement requires some estimate of the matrix element of the ∆S = 2

operator. Gaillard and Lee used a version of the vacuum insertion approximation [see (9.4.11) and

(9.4.12)]. If we insert a vacuum state between all possible pairs of quark ﬁelds in O

ds

+

, we get

'K

0

[O

ds

+

[K

0

` ·

8

3

f

2

K

m

2

K

. (10.2.7)

To evaluate ∆m, we need to know η

1

and thus decide what value of the renormalization scale

µ to take. Of course, if we really knew how to calculate the matrix elements, it would not matter

because the matrix element of O

ds

+

renormalized at µ would have an explicit µ dependence that

would cancel the µ dependence of η

1

. Here, all we can do is to guess what value of µ is most likely

to make (10.2.7) approximately correct. Presumably, we should choose some small µ such that

α

s

(µ) · 1. To be deﬁnite (and for ease of comparison with the papers of Gilman and Wise), we

choose µ such that

α(µ) = 1.

Then

η

a

· 0.7 (10.2.8)

Combining (10.2.5), (10.2.7), and (10.2.8) gives a contribution to ∆m,

∼ (m

c

/1.4 GeV)

2

1.7 10

−6

eV. (10.2.9)

This led Gaillard and Lee and others to believe that m

c

was less than a few GeV, well before there

was any clear experimental indication of the existence of charm.

In fact, it is possible to do a better job of estimating the matrix elements by using the measured

value of the ∆I =

3

2

decay rate of K

+

→π

+

π

0

. The argument goes as follows. The ∆I =

3

2

, ∆S = 1

part of the weak Hamiltonian density is

h

+

(µ)

3

(2O

uu

+

−O

dd

+

) sin θ

c

cos θ

c

G

F

/

√

2. (10.2.10)

The operator 2O

uu

+

−O

dd

+

is an SU(3)

L

27, like O

ds

+

. Both have the form

T

jk

lm

ψ

j

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ψ

l

ψ

k

γ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)ψ

m

, (10.2.11)

where T is a traceless tensor, symmetric in upper and lower indices. For 2O

uu

+

− O

dd

+

the nonzero

components of T are

T

12

13

= T

21

13

= T

12

31

= T

21

31

=

1

2

T

22

23

= T

22

32

= −

1

2

.

(10.2.12)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 166

For O

ds

+

, the nonzero component is

T

22

33

= 1. (10.2.13)

From the measured K

+

→π

+

π

0

width, we can determine the magnitude of the matrix element

['π

+

π

0

[2O

dd

+

[K

+

`[ ·

3 10

−2

GeV

3

h

+

(µ)

. (10.2.14)

This estimate includes a small correction from η

1

−π mixing.

To determine the matrix element of O

ds

+

, we compare the two matrix elements in an eﬀective

chiral theory of the Goldstone bosons at low energies. Here the operator (10.2.11) can be represented

by a sum over all operators with the same SU(3)

L

SU(3)

R

properties with coeﬃcients that are

unknown (although in principle they could be determined by nonperturbative matching conditions).

But for the SU(3)

L

27, there is a unique operator in the eﬀective theory that involves only two

derivatives or one power of µM. Thus, all the matrix elements of (10.2.11) are determined in terms

of a single parameter. Explicitly, (10.2.11) becomes

aT

jk

lm

(Σ∂

µ

Σ

†

)

l

j

(Σ∂

µ

Σ

†

)

m

k

. (10.2.15)

Then

['π

+

π

0

[2O

uu

+

−O

dd

+

[K

+

`[ = 6[a[

√

2

m

2

K

−m

2

π

f

3

π

(10.2.16)

and

'K

0

[O

ds

+

[K

0

` = 8am

2

K

/f

2

π

. (10.2.17)

Note that only f

π

appears, not f

K

, because we are working to lowest order in symmetry breaking

and our chiral theory doesn’t know the diﬀerence. Comparing (10.2.14), (10.2.16), and (10.2.17),

we ﬁnd

['K

0

[O

ds

+

[K

0

`[ ·

4 10

−3

GeV

4

h

+

(µ)

. (10.2.18)

Note that this argument does not determine the sign of the matrix elements. But it does have the

appropriate dependence on µ because it was determined consistently from a physical quantity. For

µ such that α

s

(µ) = 1, (10.2.18) is smaller than the vacuum insertion result by a factor of more

than 2.

With this estimate for the matrix element, (10.2.5) gives only a small fraction of the measured

value of ∆m. The mixing to the third family, which we have ignored so far, can give an additional

contribution. The rest must come from the second term in (10.2.2).

10.3 The Gilman-Wise ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian

1

When mixing with the third family is turned on, the discussion of the previous section must be

generalized. The general case has been studied by Gilman and Wise in a diﬀerent language. In

this section, I explain and interpret their results in the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language.

In the standard six–quark model, the ∆S = 1 Hamiltonian density just below M

W

is

H =

G

F

√

2

¸

x, y

U

x

s

U

†d

y

xγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)sdγ

µ

(1 +γ

5

)y

=

G

F

√

2

¸

x, y

U

x

s

U

†d

y

(O

xy

+

+O

xy

−

),

(10.3.1)

1

F. Gilman and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D27:1128–1141, 1983.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 167

where the sums run over the charge-

2

3

quark ﬁelds, u, c, and t and where U is the KM matrix

(3.5.32). The ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian density produced to second order in U has the form

H = ξ

2

c

H

c

+ξ

2

t

H

t

+ 2ξ

c

ξ

t

H

ct

, (10.3.2)

where

ξ

c

= U

c

s

U

†d

c

= −s

1

c

2

c

1

c

2

c

3

+s

2

s

e

iδ

3

ξ

t

= U

t

s

U

†d

t

= −s

1

s

2

c

1

c

2

c

3

−c

2

s

e

iδ

3

.

(10.3.3)

The striking fact that the ﬂavor structure of H

2

depends only on the two parameters ξ

c

and ξ

t

can

be understood as follows. The terms in H

1

with x = y have ∆S = 1 but do not change u, c, or t

number; thus, they can mix with each other and with other ∆S = 1 terms due to QCD interactions.

But they depend only on ξ

c

and ξ

t

because the unitarity of U implies

U

u

s

U

†d

u

= −ξ

c

−ξ

t

. (10.3.4)

The terms with x = y carry nonzero, u, c, and t number. Thus, to produce a ∆S = 2 term with

zero, u, c, and t number, O

xy

±

must appear together with O

yx

±

, so the ∆S = 2 eﬀect depends on

(U

x

s

U

†d

y

)(U

y

s

U

†d

x

) = (U

x

s

U

†d

x

)(U

y

s

U

†d

y

), (10.3.5)

which in turn, depends only on ξ

c

and ξ

t

by virtue of (10.3.3) and (10.3.4).

H

c

is the term that we have already calculated in the previous section, since it is all that survives

when s

2

and s

3

go to zero. In the limit s

2

= s

3

= 0, s + 1 = sin θ)c, ξ

c

= −sin

c

cos theta

c

, and

ξ

t

= 0, and comparing (10.2.5) and (10.3.3) we can write

H = m

2

c

G

F

16π

2

η

1

O

ds

+

, (10.3.6)

where η

1

is still given by (10.2.6).

H

t

is a similar term. It would be the only term present if c and b formed a doublet that did not

mix with u, d, s, and t. When the t quark is removed at µ · m

t

, a ∆S = 2 term is produced that

is analogous to (10.2.5), but proportional to m

2

t

. Below m

t

, the induced ∆S = 2 is renormalized by

the QCD interactions. In addition, the remaining ∆S = 2 terms, but because there are no t–quark

ﬁelds left, none are proportional to m

2

t

. Presumably, in the real world, ξ

t

is much smaller than ξ

c

.

The only reason that the H

t

term is important at all is that there is a term proportional to m

2

t

.

Thus, we can safely neglect the terms in H

t

that are not proportional to m

2

t

. The we can write

H

t

= m

2

t

G

F

16π

2

η

2

O

ds

+

, (10.3.7)

where

η

2

=

αs(mc)

αs(µ)

6/27

αs(m

b

)

αs(mc

6/25

αs(mt)

αs(m

b

6/23

3

2

h

+

(m

t

)

2

−h

+

(m

t

)h

−

(m

t

) +

1

2

h

−

(m

t

)

2

.

(10.3.8)

For α

s

= 1, ; η

2

· 0.6.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 168

The H

ct

term is very diﬀerent from ξ

c

and ξ

t

. If we ignore QCD corrections, it comes from a

box diagram with one internal c and one t (plus GIM related graphs), and it is

H

ct

· m

2

c

ln(m

2

t

/m

2

c

)

G

2

F

16π

2

O

ds

+

. (10.3.9)

The logarithm and factor of m

2

c

(rather than m

2

t

) indicate that this term is not produced by

the matching condition at µ = m

t

, but rather it evolves due to the form of the β functions for

m

t

> µ > m

c

. We expect QCD corrections to modify (10.3.9), so we write

H

ct

= m

2

c

ln(m

2

t

/m

2

c

)

G

2

F

16π

2

η

3

O

ds

+

. (10.3.10)

Numerical evaluation of η

s

(by Gilman and Wise) gives η

3

· 0.4 for α

s

(µ) = 1.

To get an idea of how the QCD corrections work for such a term, deﬁne the coupling constant

h

ct

that is the coeﬃcient of O

ds

+

in H

ct

at the scale µ. Note that this can be separated uniquely

from the coeﬃcients in ξ

c

and ξ

t

, even though the operator structure is the same because its ξ

c

and

ξ

t

dependence is diﬀerent. Explicit calculation of the one–loop MS matching condition at µ ∼ m

t

yields h

ct

(µ) ∝ ln(µ/m

t

), and thus

h

ct

(m

t

) = 0, (10.3.11)

as expected. The renormalization group equation for h

ct

in one loop has contributions not only

from QCD, but also from second–order weak interactions

µ

d

dµ

= β

ct

=

g

2

4π

2

h

ct

+

¸

j, k

λ

jk

m

2

c

h

j

h

k

, (10.3.12)

where h

j

are the relevant ∆S = 1 couplings, m

2

c

is also treated as a µ–dependent coupling, and λ

jk

are constants that are nonzero in the region µ > m

c

. Notice that if QCD is turned oﬀ, the ﬁrst

term in β

ct

is absent and the second is constant so that (10.3.12) integrates trivially to a logarithm.

This is the origin (in the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language) of the ln(m

2

t

/M

2

c

) in (10.3.9).

With QCD turned on, part of (10.3.12) is intractable. The relevant couplings are the coeﬃcients

of the operators O

cu

±

, O

uc

±

, O

uu

±

− O

cc

±

, O

uu

±

, and the operators O

1

through O

4

of (9.4.4)–(9.4.8).

The last six mix with one another and make a complete analytic integration of (10.3.12) impossible.

But their contributions to h

ct

is small because the combinations that appear in (10.3.12) are not

present at µ = m

t

. They are induced only by mixing. The remaining contribution can be integrated

analytically. It depends only on m

2

c

and the coeﬃcients of O

cu

±

, O

uc

±

, which are proportional to h

ct

[of (9.3.6)]. We ﬁnd for this contribution

β

ct

= −

G

2

F

8π

2

m

2

c

¸

3

2

h

2

+

+

1

2

h

2

−

−h

+

h

−

+

g

2

4π

2

h

ct

. (10.3.13)

Integration of (10.3.13), using the explicit forms of h

±

(µ) and m

2

c

(µ), yields the analytic expression

found by Gilman and Wise.

10.4 CP Violation and the Parameter

In general, in the presence of CP violation in the weak interactions, M

12

and Γ

12

in (10.1.8) cannot

be made simultaneously real. By changing the relative phases of the K

0

and K

0

states, which

amounts to making a diagonal unitary transformation of (10.1.8), we can change the overall phase

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 169

of M

12

and Γ

12

, but we cannot change the relative phase. In the real world, the relative phase is

nonzero, that is, M

12

Γ

∗

12

is complex, and CP violation shows up in the neutral K decays.

The eigenstates of H are not ψ

1

and ψ

2

, but

ψ

L, S

=

1

2(1 +[[

2

)

(1 +)

±(1 −)

, (10.4.1)

where is the so-called CP impurity parameter. The corresponding eigenvalues are

M

K

L, S

−

i

2

Γ

K

L, S

= M −

i

2

Γ ±

∆M −i∆Γ/2

2

. (10.4.2)

The parameters and ∆M −i∆Γ/2 satisfy

(1 +)

(1 −)

= 2

M

12

−iΓ

12

/2

∆M −i∆Γ/2

=

1

2

∆M −i∆Γ/2

M

∗

12

−iΓ

∗

12

/2

. (10.4.3)

Note that (10.4.1) and (10.4.3) depend on CPT invariance, which also makes H very easy to

diagonalize because the diagonal terms are equal. Note that the observable quantities ∆M and ∆Γ

depend only on the relative phase of M

12

and Γ

12

, as they should. In fact,

∆M

2

−∆Γ

2

/4 = 4[M

12

[

2

−[Γ

12

[

2

, ∆M∆Γ = 4Re(M

12

Γ

∗

12

). (10.4.4)

On the other hand, the parameter does depend on the choice of phase. The standard conven-

tion is to choose the phase of the K

0

and K

0

states to remove the phases from their ∆I =

1

2

decay

amplitudes except for the eﬀect of the ﬁnal–state interactions between the pions. Thus

'ππ(I = 0)[H

W

[K

0

` = −'ππ(I = 0)[H

W

[K

0

` ≡ A

0

e

iδ

0

. (10.4.5)

For A

0

> 0, where δ

0

is the I = 0, π − π phase shift. In this basis, M

12

and Γ

12

would be real if

there were no CP violation. Then because CP violation is a small eﬀect, the phases of M

12

and

Γ

12

are small, and we can usefully work to ﬁrst order in . Then (10.4.3) implies

·

i Im M

12

+ Im Γ

12

/2

∆M −iΓ/2

. (10.4.6)

In the standard basis, we expect Im Γ

12

to be much smaller than Im M

12

. This follows because

(10.4.5) implies that the contribution to Γ

12

from the 2π, I = 0 states that dominate the decay are

real. Thus, on top of the usual suppression of CP–violating eﬀects, Im Γ

12

should have an additional

suppression of at least a few hundred (the ratio of the 2π, I = 0 decay rate to everything else).

Thus, the phase of is determined by the phase of the denominator in (10.4.6),

arg(∆M −i∆Γ/2) · 46.2

◦

(10.4.7)

By pure coincidence, this is close to 45

◦

because experimentally

∆M · −∆Γ/2. (10.4.8)

It has become standard, if sometimes confusing, to use these empirical relations to simplify the

expression for ,

·

e

iπ/4

2

√

2

Im M

12

Re M

12

·

e

iπ/4

Im M

12

√

2∆M

. (10.4.9)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 170

One of the striking implications of (10.4.1), the form of the K

L, S

states, is that a K

L

beam

should decay into positively and negatively charged leptons at diﬀerent rates. The decays into

positive leptons (antileptons actually) such as K

0

L

→π

−

e

+

ν

e

, come only from the K

0

component,

while the decays into negative leptons, such as K

0

L

→π

+

e

−

ν

e

come only from the K

0

component.

Thus, there is an asymmetry

δ =

Γ(+) −Γ(−)

Γ(+) + Γ(−)

=

[1 +[

2

−[1 −[

2

[1 +[

2

+[1 −[

2

· 2 Re . (10.4.10)

This asymmetry has been observed. The experimental value of δ, δ = 0.330 ±0.012% gives

Re · 1.65 10

−3

. (10.4.11)

We can now use this measurement to get a potentially interesting constraint on the CP–violating

phase in the KM matrix.

Using the results of Section 10.2 and 10.3, we ﬁnd

Im M

12

·

1

2m

K

G

2

F

16pi

2

Im

−ξ

2

c

m

2

c

η

1

+ξ

2

t

m

2

t

η

2

+ 2ξ

c

ξ

t

m

2

c

ln(m

2

t

/m

2

c

)η

3

'K

0

[O

ds

+

[K

0

`

¸

.

(10.4.12)

In Section 10.2, when we discussed the matrix element of O

ds

+

, we assumed that it was real. In the

presence of CP violation, as we will discuss in detail in the next section, that is not necessarily

true. Thus, we have allowed for the possibility that the matrix element is complex. We have also

assumed that the second term in(10.2.2) does not make a signiﬁcant contribution to IM M

12

in

this basis. This is reasonable because we might expect it to be real in the basis in which Γ

12

is

real, since they are related by analyticity. Γ

12

and the second term in (10.2.2) are related to the

absorptive and dispersive parts, respectively, of the matrix element

'K

0

[T(H

1

(x)H

1

(0))[K

0

` d

4

x. (10.4.13)

Nevertheless, this is not a very strong argument because H

1

involves several diﬀerent operators

with diﬀerent phases that could contribute diﬀerently to the absorptive and dispersive parts. But

it is probably the best we can do.

If we give the phase of the matrix element a name,

arg('K

0

[O

ds

+

[K

0

`) = 2ξ, (10.4.14)

we can combine (10.4.9), (10.4.11), and (10.4.12) with the numerical results found in Section 10.3

to ﬁnd the constraint

10

−3

· Im

e

2iξ

−0.7ξ

2

c

+ 0.6(m

2

t

/m

2

c

)ξ

2

t

+ 0.4 ln(m

2

t

/m

2

c

)ξ

c

ξ

t

¸

. (10.4.15)

We do not yet know enough about the parameters ξ, the KM angles, and m

t

to check (10.4.15).

But as more information becomes available, (10.4.15) will become an increasingly important check

on this picture of CP violation.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 171

10.5 K

L

→ππ and the Parameter

/

The parameter describes CP violation in the mixing of K

0

and K

0

, which shows up experimentally

because of the for (10.4.1) of the eigenstates of H. One can also imagine that CP violation might

show up directly in the weak decays of K

0

and K

0

. Consider, for example, the two–pion ﬁnal state,

which is particularly important because of the ∆I =

1

2

enhancement. We have already chosen the

phase of the ∆I =

1

2

decay amplitude (10.4.5) as part of our deﬁnition of . But in principle, the

∆I =

3

2

might have a diﬀerent phase. Deﬁne

'ππ(I = 2)[H

W

[K

0

` = A

2

e

iδ

2

'ππ(I = 2)[H

W

[K

0

` = A

∗

2

e

iδ

2

,

(10.5.1)

where the form follows from CPT invariance and δ

2

is the I = 2, ππ phase shift, incorporating the

eﬀect of the ﬁnal–state interactions. If A

2

is complex in the basis in which A

0

is real, then there is

CP violation in the decay. This eﬀect is unlikely to be large. Not only is it CP–violating, but it

goes away in the limit in which the ∆I =

1

2

rule is exact.

To analyze the eﬀect quantitatively in K →2π decays, form the measurable quantities

η

+−

=

π

+

π

−

|H

W

|K

L

π

+

π

−

|H

W

|K

S

η

00

=

π

0

π

0

|H

W

|K

L

π

0

π

0

|H

W

|K

S

.

(10.5.2)

Both are direct measures of CP violation, since they are proportional to the K

L

→ 2π decay

amplitude. Evaluation (10.5.2) using (10.4.1) and (10.4.5), (10.5.1) and

'π

+

π

−

[ =

2

3

'2π(I = 0)[ +

1

3

'2π(I = 2)[

'π0 +π

0

[ =

2

3

'2π(I = 2)[ −

1

3

'2π(I = 0)[,

(10.5.3)

we ﬁnd

η

+

· +

, η

00

· −2

,

= i Im A

2

e

(iδ

2

−δ

0

)

/

√

2 A

0

, (10.5.4)

where we have neglected terms of order

A

2

/A

0

and smaller. Experiments so far are consistent

with

**/ from zero to a few percent, but experiments in progress should either see it or push the
**

bound on

**/ down well below the 1% level. The experimental measurement of the phase of η
**

+−

agrees with the prediction(10.4.9) for the phase of .

The CP violation in the decays measured by

**vanishes trivially in so-called superweak models
**

of CP violation in which the CP violation is associated with an interaction that is of order G

2

F

in

strength. Such an interaction would be too small to show up anywhere except in the ∆S = 2 mass

mixing, M

12

. A superweak force can produce a nonzero , but it cannot produce CP violation in

decay amplitudes (because they are of order G

F

).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 172

The six–quark SU(2) U(1) model is not a superweak model, since CP violation appears in

the order G

F

interactions. However, for some time it was thought to be very nearly superweak.

The point is that in the four–quark interactions induced by W exchange at µ ∼ M

W

, all phases can

be removed from the ∆S = 1 interactions involving only the light quarks (as is done in the usual

parametrization of the KM matrix). Then the weak decays are real (up to ﬁnal–state interactions)

in the standard quark–model basis for the hadron states.

Gilman and Wise were the ﬁrst to realize that this argument might be seriously wrong. While

the couplings of O

uu

±

are real at µ ∼ M

W

, those of the ∆S = 1 operators O

tt

±

and O

cc

±

are, in general,

complex. QCD interactions mix O

tt

±

and O

cc

±

with the SU(3)

L

octet operators (9.4.4)–(9.4.8) that

involve only light quarks and gluons. Thus, nontrivial phases can occur in the low–energy ∆S = 1

weak Hamiltonian. Indeed, there is reason to expect their contribution to be important because

they are associated with the “Penguin” operator [O

4

in (9.4.7)] whose matrix elements may be

large enough to produce much of the observed ∆I =

1

2

enhancement.

Explicitly, suppose we work in the quark basis. Then the K

0

→ 2π decay amplitudes are real

except for the eﬀect of the “Penguin” operator. Assuming that it is O

4

that has the large matrix

element and working to ﬁrst order in CP–violating phases, we can write

A

Q

0

· A

0

e

iξ

, (10.5.5)

where

ξ · (Im h

4

(µ))'2π(I = 0)[O

4

[K

0

`

Q

/A

0

, (10.5.6)

and the superscript Q indicates the quark basis. Note that ξ is proportional to s

2

s

2

sin δ because

it depends on Im ξ

c

= −Im ξ

t

. This is the same small parameter that suppresses all CP–violating

eﬀects.

The ξ deﬁned in (10.5.5) and (10.5.6) is the same as that in (10.4.14) because the matrix element

'K

0

[O

ds

±

[K

0

` is real in the quark basis, but to transform to the basis in which A

0

is real, we must

redeﬁne the states as follows:

[K

0

` →e

−iξ

[K

0

`, [K

0

` →e

−iξ

[K

0

`. (10.5.7)

This multiplies the matrix element by e

2iξ

.

The A

2

amplitude is not infested with “Penguins”. It comes purely from the ∆I =

3

2

part of

the weak Hamiltonian that has a real coeﬃcient. Thus, it is real in the quark basis. But then the

transformation to the basis in which A

0

is real introduces a factor of e

−iξ

, thus

A

2

= e

−iξ

[A

2

[, (10.5.8)

and for small ξ, the parameter

is

= −ξe

i(δ

2

−δ

0

)

[A

2

[/

√

2 A

0

· −e

iπ/4

ξ/20

√

2, (10.5.9)

where we have put in the experimental values of [A

2

[A

0

· 1/20 and δ

0

− δ

2

· π/4 (actually it is

53

◦

±6

◦

).

Eventually, data on

**/ and the KM angles will continue to improve, m
**

t

will be measured, and

perhaps we will even be able to calculate some strong–interaction matrix elements. Progress on

any of these fronts could transform (10.5.9) and (10.4.15) into crucial tests of the six–quark model

of CP violation. Perhaps the most exciting possible outcome of all this would be some evidence

that new physics is required to understand CP violation.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 173

Problems

10-1. Derive (10.2.5) and (10.2.6).

10-2. Reproduce (“derive” is too strong a term) (10.2.7). Note that there are four diﬀerent

ways of inserting the vacuum state.

10-3. In the alternative SU(2) U(1) theory of Problem 3-4, suppose that

U

1

= c

1

u +s

1

c , U

2

= c

1

c −s

1

u

D

1

= c

2

d +s

2

s , D

2

= c

2

s −s

2

d

In tree approximation, there is no ﬂavor-changing neutral-current eﬀect. But what about radiative

corrections? Calculate the leading contribution to the ∆S = 2 part of the eﬀective Lagrangian just

below M

W

. Assume that all the quark masses are small compared to the W mass and keep only

the leading terms. You will probably ﬁnd it easiest to calculate the appropriate Feynman diagrams

in ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge. Be sure to explain why the diagrams you calculate give the leading

contribution.

10-4. Integrate the renormalization group equation for h

ct

, with β

ct

given by (10.3.13).

10-5. Derive (10.4.3) and (10.4.4).

10-6. Relate (10.4.13) to Γ

12

and the second term in (10.2.2).

10-7. Derive (10.5.4).

10-8. Suppose that some very weak interaction at a large scale M

I

produces a ∆S = 2,

CP-violating interaction of the form

i

M

2

I

O

ds

+

Estimate how large M

I

would have to be in order for this term to produce all the CP-violating

eﬀects that have been observed.

10-9. Consider the eﬀect of the ρ parameter (see Section 8.5) of a doublet of very heavy quarks

h and l with usual SU(2) U(1) properties but with masses m

h

, m

l

M

W

. First show that if

both quarks are removed from the theory at the same large scale, µ ≈ m

h

, m

l

, the eﬀect on ρ is a

matching correction that has the form

∆ρ =

eα

16π]sin

2

θM

2

W

m

2

h

+m

2

l

−

2m

2

h

m

2

l

m

2

h

−m

2

l

ln

m

2

h

m

2

l

¸

Now consider the case m

h

m

l

M

W

, and remove the quarks from the theory one at a time.

You should ﬁnd that the ﬁrst and the second terms in the bracket are still matching corrections,

while the third arises from the form of the β function in the region m

l

< µ < m

h

. Calculate it

using the renormalization group, and show that it reduces to the result above when you turn oﬀ

QCD.

Bibliography

[Abbott 81] L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981) 189. See also L. F. Abbot, M.. T. Grisaru and

R. K. Schaﬀer, Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983) 372.

[Pais] A. Pais, Inward Bound.

[Coleman 73] S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888, 1973. A classic! The eﬀective

action, the renormalization group, introduces dimensional transmutation, and more, are all

discussed in the inimitable Coleman style.

[Itzykson] C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, 1980. Almost

everything is here, but it is often presented without a global point of view.

174

Appendix A

Review of Dimensional Regularization

In dimensional regularization (DR), the quantum ﬁeld theory of interest is extended to 4 −

dimensions.

1

Because this extension changes the dimensions of the ﬁelds, if the couplings are

to retain their canonical dimension, appropriate fractional powers of a dimensional parameter, µ,

must be introduced into the couplings of the theory. We will discuss the physical signiﬁcance of

this parameter, and the related question of “In what sense is dimensional regularization a sensible

regularization scheme?” However, before we get to these interesting questions, we will brieﬂy review

the formalism.

A.1 n Dimensional Integration

Begin with the standard calculation of the n-dimensional volume:

π

n/2

=

∞

−∞

e

−p

2

dp

n

=

e

−p

2

d

n

p = Ω(n)

∞

0

e

−p

2

p

n−1

dp

=

1

2

Ω(n)

∞

0

(p

2

)

n

2

−1

e

−p

2

d(p

2

) =

1

2

Ω(n) Γ

n

2

⇒Ω(n) =

2 π

n/2

Γ(n/2)

(A.1.1)

Now use this to compute the canonical Feynman graph in κ dimensions:

(p

2

)

β

(p

2

+A

2

)

α

d

κ

p

(2π)

κ

=

Ω(κ)

(2π)

κ

∞

0

p

κ+2β

(p

2

+A

2

)

α

dp

p

=

Ω(κ)

(2π)

κ

A

κ+2β−2α

∞

0

y

κ+2β

(1 +y

2

)

α

dy

y

(A.1.2)

1

I will think of as a negative number. This makes no diﬀerence. The dimensionally regualrized integrals are

deﬁned by analytic continuation anyway. I simply prefer to think of the − dimensions as “extra” dimensions, beyond

the usual 4.

175

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 176

Let

x =

y

2

1 +y

2

, y

2

=

x

1 −x

, 1 +y

2

=

1

1 −x

,

2 ln y = ln x −ln(1 −x) ,

2

dy

y

= dx

1

x

+

1

1 −x

=

dx

x(1 −x)

.

(A.1.3)

Then (A.1.2) becomes

=

Ω(κ)

(2π)

κ

A

κ+2β−2α

1

2

1

0

x

β+κ/2−1

(1 −x)

α−β−κ/2−1

dx

=

Ω(κ)

(2π)

κ

A

κ+2β−2α

1

2

Γ(β +κ/2) Γ(α −β −κ/2)

Γ(α)

.

(A.1.4)

or

(k

2

)

β

(k

2

+A

2

)

α

d

κ

k

(2π)

κ

=

A

κ+2β−2α

(4π)

κ/2

Γ(β +κ/2) Γ(α −β −κ/2)

Γ(κ/2) Γ(α)

.

(A.1.5)

Finally, taking κ = 4 −, and dividing by µ

−

to get the dimensions right, we have the ﬁnal result

(k

2

)

β

(k

2

+A

2

)

α

d

4−

k

(2π)

4−

µ

−

=

A

4+2β−2α−

(4π)

2−/2

µ

−

Γ(β + 2 −/2) Γ(α −β −2 +/2)

Γ(2 −/2) Γ(α)

.

(A.1.6)

Often, for example in calculations of anomalous dimensions, we are only interested in the µ

dependence of the diagram. In that case, the only relevant dependence at the one loop level comes

from the 1/µ

−

and the 1/ pole in (A.1.6). In this case, we can rewrite (A.1.6) (for nonnegative

integer α and β such that β + 2 ≥ α) in the simpler form:

d

4−

k

(2π)

4−

µ

−

(k

2

)

β

(k

2

+A

2

)

α

=

A

4+2β−2α−

(4π)

2

µ

−

Γ(β + 2) Γ(α −β −2 +/2)

Γ(α)

+ .

=

A

4+2β−2α−

(4π)

2

1

µ

−

2 (−1)

β−α

(β + 1)!

(α −1)! (β + 2 −α)!

+ .

(A.1.7)

where are ﬁnite terms independent of µ. This piece has all the information about renormalization

in it.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 177

A.2 Regularization

The physical idea of a regularization scheme is that it is a modiﬁcation of the physics of the theory

at short distances that allows us to calculate the quantum corrections. If we modify the physics

only at short distances, we expect that all the eﬀects of the regularization can be absorbed into

the parameters of the theory. That is how we chose the parameters in the ﬁrst place. However, it

is not obvious that DR is a modiﬁcation of the physics at short distances. To see to what extent it

is, consider a typical Feynman graph in the unregularized theory in Euclidean space:

2

I =

1

(p

2

+A

2

)

α

d

4

p

(2π)

4

[dx] , (A.2.8)

where [dx] indicates the integration over Feynman parameter, and A

2

is an function of the external

momenta and the particle masses, and of the Feynman parameters. α is some integer. All graphs

ultimately reduce to sums of objects of this form.

In DR, these objects are replaced by integrals over 4 − dimensional momentum space:

I

= c()

1

(p

2

+p

2

+A

2

)

α

d

4−

p

µ

−

(2π)

4−

[dx] , (A.2.9)

where c() is some function that goes to 1 as → 0. In (A.2.9), p

2

retains its meaning as the 4

dimensional length. To see the relation between (A.2.9) and (A.2.8), rewrite (A.2.9) as follows

c()

1

(p

2

+p

2

+A

2

)

α

d

−

p

(2πµ)

−

d

4

p

(2π)

4

[dx] , (A.2.10)

I have explicitly separated out the “extra” − dimensions, so that p

2

is the 4 dimensional length

of p.

Now use (A.1.5) to do the integral over the − extra dimensions (of course this is not the way

we would actually calculate the graph – but it will help us to understand what is happening). The

result is

I

=

1

(p

2

+A

2

)

α

r()

p

2

+A

2

4πµ

2

−/2

d

4

p

(2π)

4

[dx] , (A.2.11)

where

r() = c()

Γ(α +/2)

Γ(α)

. (A.2.12)

The multiplicative factor, r(), goes to 1 as →0. The important factor is

ρ

−/2

where ρ =

p

2

+A

2

4πµ

2

. (A.2.13)

This factor also goes to 1 as →0, but here the convergence depends on p and A. Because

ρ

−/2

= e

−( ln ρ)/2

, (A.2.14)

it follows that

ρ

−/2

≈ 1 for [ ln ρ[ <

1

. (A.2.15)

2

We discuss one loop graphs, for simplicity. The extension to arbitrary loops is trivial.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 178

Equation (A.2.15) is the crucial result. It shows that when we compute quantum corrections

using dimensional regularization, we do not change the physics for p (the loop momentum) and A

(which involves external momenta and masses) of the order of µ. However, we introduce signiﬁcant

modiﬁcations if either p or A is much larger than µ for ﬁxed , or if they are both much smaller

than µ. The second is an important caveat. DR changes the physics in the infrared as well as

the ultraviolet region. If all the particles are massive and all momenta spacelike, that causes no

problems, because A

2

is bounded away from zero. However, in general, we will need to keep our

wits about us and make sure that we understand what is happening in the infrared regime, in order

to use dimensional regularization. As long as the infrared region is under control, dimensional

regularization should be a perfectly good regularization technique.

Appendix B

Background Field Gauge

With (1b.2.12), the theory is well deﬁned, but the gauge symmetry has been explicitly broken. That

is OK, because we know that gauge invariant Green functions are independent of the breaking,

however, it makes the analysis of theory more complicated. There is a way of choosing the gauge

that deﬁnes the theory, but nevertheless preserves the advantages of explicit gauge invariance. This

is the so-called “background ﬁeld gauge” [Abbott 81]. The idea is to include a classical gauge ﬁeld,

A

µ

, and build the gauge ﬁxing term as a function of the quantity

G

L

≡ ∂

µ

G

µ

−∂

µ

A

µ

−i[G

µ

, A

µ

] . (B.0.1)

The L is a reminder that this quantity depends on the longitudinal component of the gauge ﬁeld.

The point is that while G

L

transforms inhomogeneously under (1b.2.5), it is covariant under the

simultaneous transformations of (1b.2.5) and

A

µ

→ΩA

µ

Ω

−1

+iΩ∂

µ

Ω

−1

. (B.0.2)

Thus we can build a gauge ﬁxing term, f(G, A), (in fact, a function of G

L

) that is invariant under

the simultaneous gauge transformations, for example,

1

exp

−i

tr

1

αg

2

G

L

2

. (B.0.3)

The Fadeev-Popov determinant deﬁned with such a gauge-ﬁxing term, f(G, A), is separately

invariant under (1b.2.5) and (B.0.2). The ﬁrst follows from (1b.2.8) and (1b.2.9). The second follows

immediately from the simultaneous invariance of f(G, A). Thus the whole action in (1b.2.12) has

the simultaneous gauge invariance.

To see how this symmetry constrains the form of the Green functions of the theory, add a source

term,

2 tr G

µ

J

µ

, (B.0.4)

and use (1b.2.12) to construct the generating functional, W(J, A), that now depends on both the

source and on the classical gauge ﬁeld. There is also dependence on sources for matter ﬁelds, but

we will not write this explicitly. The symmetry properties can be seen more readily if we rewrite

the source term as

2 tr (G

µ

−A

µ

)J

µ

+ 2 tr A

µ

J

µ

. (B.0.5)

1

from here on, we assume the normalization, (1.1.14), unless explicitly stated to the contrary

179

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 180

The ﬁrst term in (B.0.5) is invariant under (1b.2.5), (B.0.2), and

J

µ

→ΩJ

µ

Ω

−1

. (B.0.6)

The second term, when exponentiated, simply gives a constant factor that can be taken outside

the functional integral. Thus we can write

W(J, A) =

˜

W(J, A) + 2 tr A

µ

J

µ

, (B.0.7)

where

˜

W(J, A) is invariant under (1b.2.5) and (B.0.6).

When we construct the generating functional for 1PI graphs, the eﬀective action, we get

Γ((, A) = W(J, A) −2 tr (

µ

J

µ

=

˜

W(J, A) −2 tr ((

µ

−A

µ

)J

µ

, (B.0.8)

where ( is the classical ﬁeld corresponding to the quantum gauge ﬁeld, G, deﬁned by

( =

δW

δJ

=

δ

˜

W

δJ

+A. (B.0.9)

These two relations show that Γ((, A) is invariant under the simultaneous gauge transformations,

(B.0.2) and

(

µ

→Ω(

µ

Ω

−1

+iΩ∂

µ

Ω

−1

. (B.0.10)

Now even though the Γ function has the gauge symmetry, it is still not very useful, because

with two gauge ﬁelds, ( and A, we can build many more invariant terms than with one alone.

However, we have not yet used the fact that the classical gauge ﬁeld, A, is arbitrary, because it is

part of the gauge ﬁxing. In particular, we can choose

A

µ

= (

µ

, (B.0.11)

and use

Γ

BF

(() ≡ Γ((, () , (B.0.12)

which is invariant under (1b.2.5) alone.

Next, let us show that we can use the object, Γ

BF

((), to calculate the gauge invariant physical

quantities of interest. We begin by including in our Lagrangian a set of sources, J, for gauge

invariant operators. These operators are constructed out of the quantum gauge ﬁeld, G, and any

matter ﬁelds that are relevant. The advantage of including these sources is that we can then look

only at the vacuum energy in the presence of the sources, and by diﬀerentiation with respect to the

sources, reconstruct the matrix elements of gauge invariant operators. Any physical quantity can

be related to suitable matrix elements of gauge invariant operators, thus the vacuum energy in the

presence of arbitrary gauge invariant sources contains all the information we need to do physics.

The quantization of the theory proceeds in the same way in the presence of the sources. The

only diﬀerence is that now the Γ functions we construct depend on the sources, J. Now the object

Γ(G, A, J) (B.0.13)

has the property of independence of A at an extremum with respect to G because at such an

extremum, it a vacuum energy. Thus for example, if

Γ

1

(G

0

(A, J), A, J) = 0 (B.0.14)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 181

then Γ(G

0

(A, J), A, J) is independent of A. Thus

d

dA

Γ(G

0

(A, J), A, J) = 0 (B.0.15)

∂G

0

∂A

Γ

1

(G

0

(A, J), A, J) + Γ

2

(G

0

(A, J), A, J) (B.0.16)

and therefore

⇒Γ

2

(G

0

(A, J), A, J) = 0 . (B.0.17)

Now in particular, we can choose

A = g

0

(J) (B.0.18)

which is a solution to the equation

g

0

(J) = G

0

(g

0

(J), J) . (B.0.19)

Then

Γ(G

0

(A, J), A, J) = Γ(g

0

(J), g

0

(J), J) = Γ

BF

(g

0

(J), J) (B.0.20)

and

∂

∂A

Γ

BF

(A, J)[

A=g

0

(J)

(B.0.21)

= Γ

1

(g

0

(J), g

0

(J), J) + Γ

2

(g

0

(J), g

0

(J), J) = 0 . (B.0.22)

So the vacuum energy in the presence of gauge invariant sources is given by Γ

BF

at an extremum.

Thus we can use ΓBF to compute arbitrary vacuum matrix elements of gauge invariant operators,

from which we can construct any physical quantity.

In fact, the way the background ﬁeld gauge is used in practice, is to compute anomalous dimen-

sions of gauge invariant operators. In such calculations, it is convenient to deal with objects that

are not gauge invariant, such as matrix elements of the gauge invariant operators with gauge ﬁelds

or matter ﬁelds. It is often easiest to ﬁnd the renormalization group equations by studying these

gauge variant objects. But the anomalous dimensions of the gauge invariant operators obtained by

this procedure must be gauge invariant in background ﬁeld gauge because they could have been

obtained by studying only the matrix elements of gauge invariant operators from Γ

BF

.

The only problem with Γ

BF

, as deﬁned in (B.0.12), is that it is unnecessarily diﬃcult to cal-

culate. We must evaluate diagrams with both external gauge ﬁeld lines and with insertions of

the classical gauge ﬁeld, A. We can calculate Γ

BF

much more easily by changing variables in the

original Lagrangian, and taking the quantum ﬁeld to be

˜

G

µ

≡ G

µ

−A

µ

. (B.0.23)

In the eﬀective action, the classical ﬁeld gets translated in the same way,

2

˜

(

µ

≡ (

µ

−A

µ

, (B.0.24)

and the eﬀective action in the translated theory is

˜

Γ(

˜

(, A) = Γ(

˜

( +A, A) . (B.0.25)

Now clearly, we can calculate Γ

BF

as

Γ

BF

(A) ≡ Γ(A, A) =

˜

Γ(0, A) , (B.0.26)

2

This is one of the great advantages of the eﬀective action in the study of symmetry breaking – see [Coleman 73].

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 182

This is a great improvement. Now we must calculate 1PI diagrams with insertions of the classical

gauge ﬁeld, but we do not need to have any external quantum gauge ﬁeld lines! We will use this

form. Our deﬁnitions have been chosen to agree with those of [Abbott 81], except that we have

normalized the ﬁelds so that the gauge transformations do not involve the gauge coupling, so that

the coupling appears in the coeﬃcient of the kinetic energy term, (1b.2.2) and (B.0.3), and the

ghost kinetic energy term in the Fadeev-Popov determinant. The Feynman rules are shown below,

with gauge ﬁelds indicated by double lines and ghost ﬁelds by dotted lines. The external gauge

ﬁeld is denoted by a double line ending in A

**. We have not shown any vertices with a single
**

quantum gauge ﬁeld, because these do not contribute to the 1PI diagrams that we must calculate

to evaluate Γ

BF

.

a, µ

b, ν

k

−i g

2

δ

ab

k

2

+i

¸

g

µν

−

k

µ

k

ν

k

2

(1 −α)

(B.0.27)

> a

b

k

i g

2

δ

ab

k

2

+i

(B.0.28)

d

d

d

d

d

d

T

d

d

©

A

a, µ

p

r

q

b, ν c, λ

1

g

2

f

abc

[g

µλ

(p −r −q/α)

ν

+g

νλ

(r −q)

µ

+g

µν

(q −p +r/α)

λ

]

(B.0.29)

d

d

d

d

d

d

T

d

d

©

a, µ

p

r

q

b, ν c, λ

1

g

2

f

abc

[g

µλ

(p −r)

ν

+g

νλ

(r −q)

µ

+g

µν

(q −p)

λ

]

(B.0.30)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 183

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

A

`

b, ν c, λ

a, µ

d, ρ

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

b, ν c, λ

a, µ

d, ρ

and

−i

g

2

[f

abx

f

xcd

(g

µλ

g

νρ

−g

µρ

g

νλ

)

+f

adx

f

xbc

(g

µν

g

λρ

−g

µλ

g

νρ

)

+f

acx

f

xbd

(g

µν

g

λρ

−g

µρ

g

νλ

)]

(B.0.31)

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

A

`

A

`

b, ν c, λ

a, µ

d, ρ

−i

g

2

[f

abx

f

xcd

(g

µλ

g

νρ

−g

µρ

g

νλ

+

1

α

g

µν

g

λρ

)

+f

adx

f

xbc

(g

µν

g

λρ

−g

µλ

g

νρ

−

1

α

g

µρ

g

νλ

)

+f

acx

f

xbd

(g

µν

g

λρ

−g

µρ

g

νλ

)]

(B.0.32)

∧

∧

q

p

b

a

A

c, µ

−

1

g

2

f

abc

(p +q)

µ

(B.0.33)

∧

∧

q

p

b

a

c, µ

−

1

g

2

f

abc

p

µ

(B.0.34)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 184

A

<

∧

c, µ

d, ν

a

b

−i

g

2

f

acx

f

xdb

g

µν

(B.0.35)

A

A

<

∧

c, µ

d, ν

a

b

−i

g

2

g

µν

(f

acx

f

xdb

+f

adx

f

xcb

)

(B.0.36)

B.1 The β function

The normalization of the background gauge ﬁeld, A

µ

, is ﬁxed, in our notation, by the form of

gauge transformations. The translated quantum ﬁeld,

˜

G

µ

, transforms homogeneously under gauge

transformations and may be multiplicatively renormalized. However, in calculating the eﬀective

action, Γ

BF

(A), using (B.0.26), we do not need to worry about renormalization of the quantum

gauge ﬁeld, because we do not need to couple sources to it. It can be left unrenormalized.

Calculating in background ﬁeld gauge still involves the gauge ﬁxing parameter α, which is also

renormalized. Landau gauge, which corresponds to α = 0, does not requires such a renormalization,

but we cannot go to Landau gauge directly because of the 1/α factors in Feynman rules. One way of

dealing with this is to calculate with arbitrary α. In a calculation of any gauge invariant quantity,

in particular the background ﬁeld eﬀective action, all the 1/α terms cancel, because the gauge

dependence can appear only in the form of renormalizations of α, and then α can be set to zero.

Thus one can ignore the renormalization of α as well.

3

The only remaining renormalizations, in a pure gauge theory, are the renormalizations of the

gauge couplings, deﬁned by (1b.2.2). At tree level, the eﬀective action looks just like (1b.2.2),

−

¸

a

1

4g

2

a

A

aµν

A

µν

a

. (B.1.1)

The β functions are determined by the inﬁnite loop corrections to the eﬀective action which can

3

In practice, it may be easier to calculate in Feynman gauge, as in [Abbott 81], and include counterterms for α,

but it is not necessary.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 185

renormalize (B.1.1). At one loop, these are completely determined by the two point diagrams,

>

<

A

A

(B.1.2)

A

A

(B.1.3)

Note that the fact that only 2-point functions are required to ﬁnd β is a consequence of the explicit

gauge invariance of the eﬀective action that guarantees that the inﬁnite contributions will have the

form of (B.1.1). This makes the calculation of β in background ﬁeld gauge much simpler than a

calculation in a standard covariant gauge.

Another way of saying this is that because the explicit gauge invariance ﬁxes the normalization

of A

µ

, the renormalization group equation satisﬁed by the eﬀective action is

µ

∂

∂µ

+β

g

∂

∂g

Γ

BF

(A) = 0 . (B.1.4)

Since (B.1.4) does not involve derivatives with respect to A, we can calculate β by looking at the

any n-point function, in particular the 2-point function. Including the one loop corrections from

(B.1.2) and (B.1.3), we have

Γ

µν

2ab

(p) = δ

ab

¸

1

g

2

a

+b ln

−p

2

µ

2

+ ﬁnite terms

¸

g

µν

p

2

−p

µ

p

ν

, (B.1.5)

where

b =

11

3

C

a

16π

2

, (B.1.6)

with

C

a

δ

ab

=

¸

de

f

ade

f

bde

. (B.1.7)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 4.6 4.7 4.8 5

ii

Second Class Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 The Goldberger-Treiman Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 SU (3) − D and F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 76 76 77 79 81 82 83 84 86 87 89 90 93 93 94 96 98 100

— Chiral Lagrangians — Goldstone Bosons 5.1 SU (3) × SU (3) → SU (3) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Eﬀective Low–Momentum Field Theories . . 5.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Symmetry breaking and light quark masses . 5.5 What Happened to the Axial U (1)? . . . . . 5.6 Light Quark Mass Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 The Chiral Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Semileptonic K Decays . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 The Chiral Symmetry–Breaking Scale . . . . 5.10 Important Loop Eﬀects . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11 Nonleptonic K Decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Chiral Lagrangians — Matter Fields How Do the Baryons Transform? . . . . . . . A More Elegant Transformation Law . . . . . Nonlinear Chiral Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model Hyperon Nonleptonic Decays . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

6

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

6a - Anomalies 6a.1 Electromagnetic Interactions and π 0 → 2γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a.2 The Steinberger Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a.3 Spectators, gauge invariance and the anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 — 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 — 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 The Parton Model Mode Counting . . . . . . . . Heavy Quark Decay . . . . . Deep Inelastic Lepton-Hadron Neutrino-Hadron Scattering . Neutral Currents . . . . . . . The SLAC Experiment . . . .

105 . 105 . 110 . 111 123 123 125 127 130 132 133

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

8

Standard Model Precision Tests Choosing a Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eﬀective Field Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Symmetries of Strong and Electroweak Interactions The ρ Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MW and MZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neutrino-hadron scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technicolor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

134 . 134 . 138 . 140 . 141 . 142 . 146 . 147

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — 9 — 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Nonleptonic Weak Interactions Why We Can’t Calculate . . . . . The Renormalization Group . . . . Charm Decays . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Penguins and the ∆I = 2 Rule . .

1 150 . 150 . 151 . 154 . 156 161 . 161 . 163 . 166 . 168 . 171

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

10 — The Neutral K Mesons and CP Violation 0 10.1 K 0 − K Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 The Box Diagram and the QCD Corrections) . 10.3 The Gilman-Wise ∆S = 2 Hamiltonian . . . . . 10.4 CP Violation and the Parameter . . . . . . . 10.5 KL → ππ and the Parameter . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

A Review of Dimensional Regularization 175 A.1 n Dimensional Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 A.2 Regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 B Background Field Gauge 179 B.1 The β function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

5) δφ δ(∂µ φ) 2 (1. symmetries of an action which is an integral of a local Lagrangian density are associated with conserved currents. φj (x) where j = 1 to N . or L(φ + δφ.2) δ(∂µ φ) δφ Note that (1. that the Lagrangian depends only on the ﬁelds. as a column vector in ﬂavor space. ∂µ φ + δ∂µ φ) = L(φ. for simplicity.1. j. carrying the ﬂavor index.1 Noether’s Theorem – Classical At the classical level. Each side is a row vector.1. we will make extensive use of symmetry as a mathematical tool to help us understand the physics. (1. Consider a set of ﬁelds. But more than that.3) . The index. without any explicit index. Assume. But δL δL L(φ + δφ. Diﬀerent values of j label diﬀerent types. φ. ∂µ φ) + ∂µ V µ (φ.1. In this course. δφ.1) where L is the local Lagrangian density.2) is a vector equation in ﬂavor space.1. j. At the level of the dynamics. δφ. and an action S[φ] = L(φ(x). φ. we make use of the language of representations of Lie algebras. A symmetry of the action is some inﬁnitesimal change in the ﬁelds. the underlying mathematical language of relativistic quantum mechanics — quantum ﬁeld theory — is much easier to understand if you make use of all the symmetry information that is available. ∂µ φ(x)) d4 x (1. We assume here that we can throw away surface terms in the d4 x integral so that the V µ terms makes no contribution to the action. such that S[φ + δφ] = S[φ] .1. is what particle physicists call a “ﬂavor” index. or “ﬂavors”. 1. the fundamental interactions (or at least that subset of the fundamental interactions that we understand) are associated with “gauge symmetries”. ∂µ φ. (1. δφ) . The equations of motion are δL δL ∂µ = . Think of the ﬁeld.Chapter 1 — Classical Symmetries The concept of symmetry will play a crucial role in nearly all aspects of our discussion of weak interactions. of the ﬁeld φ. ∂µ φ) = δφ + ∂µ δφ . ∂µ φ + δ∂µ φ) − L(φ.1. In particular. and their ﬁrst derivatives.4) where V µ is some vector function of the order of the inﬁnitesimal. (1. ∂µ φ.

6) (1.14) .1. (1. called “simple” subalgebras. called simple subalgebras.8) where the T a for a = 1 to m are a set of N × N hermitian matrices acting on the ﬂavor space. The fundamental property of the generators is their commutation relation. the normalization of the generators of each simple subgroup is related to the normalization of the structure constants.10) where fabc are the structure constants of the Lie algebra. we usually choose k so that tr (T a T b ) = 1 δab .13) The mathematician’s convention is to grant a special status to the structure constants and choose k = 1 in (1.10) is trivially satisﬁed).1. For SU (n). tr (T a T b ) ∝ δab . [T a . we physicists are more ﬂexible (or less systematic). T a for a = 1 to 3 with the commutation relations of SU (2).7) Often. (1. we have ∂µ N µ = 0 . [T a . T b ] = i abc T c . there may be three generators.12).1.1.February 10. that have nonzero commutators among themselves.1. In particular. (1. However. for which δφ = i a T a φ . where Nµ = δL δφ − V µ . 2009 — 3 because δ∂µ φ = ∂µ δφ. The algebra can always be decomposed into factors like this. We can (and sometimes will) exponentiate (1.1. (1.1. and a set of generators which commute with everything. It is important to normalize them so that in each simple subalgebra. c.d (1. 2 (1. our favorite symmetry will be linear unitary transformations on the ﬁelds.2). not just the action. for example. called U (1)’s. δ(∂µ φ) (1. The T a ’s are then said to be the “generators” of the transformations. Then this is an SU (2) factor of the algebra. The generators can then be classiﬁed into sets.5) is a single equation with no j index.1.1. However.1.4) and (1.1.9) We will be using the T a ’s so much that it is worth pausing to consider their properties systematically.1.5). in which case V µ = 0. (1. deﬁned in any nontrivial representation (a trivial representation is one in which T a = 0.1. facd fbcd = k δab .1.8) for small a . For example.9) which reduces to (1. (1. From (1. The normalization of the U (1) generators must be set by some arbitrary convention.8) to get a ﬁnite transformation: a φ → φ = ei a T φ .1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .1.11) and which commute with all the other generators. (1. but that commute with everything else. T b ] = i fabc T c .1. Note that (1.12) Then for every representation. The terms on the right hand side involve a matrix multiplication in ﬂavor space of a row vector on the left with a column vector on the right. we will be interested in symmetries that are symmetries of the Lagrangian. for which (1. and the a are a set of inﬁnitesimal parameters.1.

1. If S is positive. the Lagrangian becomes LKE (φ) = 1 ∂µ φT ∂ µ φ . are independent of space and time. Then the symmetry is a “local” or “gauge” symmetry. In physical applications. Global symmetries involve the rotation of φ in ﬂavor space in the same way at all points in space and at all times. be a set of real scalar boson ﬁelds. for j = 1 to N . we want S to be a strictly positive matrix. we will study what happens if the a depend on x. δ(∂µ φ) (1. A symmetry of the form of (1. If the parameters.2.2 Examples Example 1 Let Φj . the Φj are arranged into an N -component column vector. 2009 — 4 for the n dimensional representation.1.2) such that LT S L = I . because it is hard to imagine doing it.9) which acts only on the ﬂavor space and not on the space-time dependence of the ﬁelds is called an “internal” symmetry. in which. 2 (1. V µ is zero. Later on.1.2.2. then we can deﬁne a new set of ﬁelds by a linear transformation Lφ ≡ Φ. This is not a very physically appealing idea.8) or (1.3) .15) Because the inﬁnitesimal parameters are arbitrary. In terms of φ. Because the symmetry is a symmetry of L. the symmetry is called a “global” symmetry. Negative eigenvalues would give rise to a Hamiltonian that is not bounded below and zero eigenvalues to scalars that do not propagate at all. 1. (1. 2 (1.16) I stress again that this discussion is all at the level of the classical action and Lagrangian. For now. Thus we can write the conserved current as Nµ = δL i aT aφ . (1. but is intimately related to dynamics. Then k = n. µ Ja = −i δL T aφ δ(∂µ φ) for a = 1 to m.1. In this book we will distinguish two kinds of internal symmetry. As we will see. The familiar Poincare symmetry of relativistic actions is not an internal symmetry.4) (1. We will discuss later what happens in quantum ﬁeld theory. The most general possible real quadratic term in the derivatives of Φ in the Lagrangian is LKE (Φ) = 1 ∂µ ΦT S ∂ µ Φ . (1.7) for a global internal symmetry of L. a local symmetry is not just an organizing principle.2.February 10. a . consider (1. but we will see that the concept of global symmetry is enormously useful in organizing our knowledge of ﬁeld theory and physics.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . the second term.1.1.1) where S is a real symmetric matrix. Note the matrix notation.15) actually deﬁnes m conserved currents.

I will not be careful to distinguish an algebra or group from its representation. 1 . Thus the Lagrangian is invariant under a group of SO(N ) transformations. the Lagrangian is unchanged! We must also choose G real to preserve the reality of the ﬁelds.7) produces an orthogonal transformation. then the entire SO(N ) is unbroken. In general.2.11) where M 2 is a real symmetric matrix called the mass matrix. Its eigenvalues (if all are positive) are the squared masses of the scalar particles. O. which commute with M 2 .2. (1. 2009 — 5 This is the canonical form for the Lagrangian for a set of N massless free scalar ﬁelds. if OT M 2 O = M 2 or equivalently [O. The mass term is invariant under an orthogonal transformation.2. The subgroup is generated by the subset of the generators.1 When exponentiated. These matrices are a representation of the SO(N ) algebra.7) where the T a . where OT = O−1 . Under an inﬁnitesimal linear transformation. 2 (1. a representation of the group SO(N ) φ → φ = Oφ. is the largest internal rotation symmetry that a set of N real spinless bosons can have.6) If G is antisymmetric. the symmetry may be broken down to some subgroup of SO(N ). The canonical form of the derivative term in the kinetic energy automatically has the SO(N ) symmetry. (1. δφ = G φ .2. (1. The corresponding Noether currents are µ Ja = −i(∂ µ φT )T a φ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .12) form a representation of some subgroup of SO(N ). T a . antisymmmetric imaginary matrices.8). must always be there.February 10. the transformations satisfying (1. This can happen trivially because of the mass term if the scalars are not all degenerate.12) If M 2 is proportional to the identity matrix.8) (1.5) where G is an N × N matrix.2. It was an automatic consequence of the physical starting point.2. the change in LKE is δLKE (φ) = 1 ∂µ φT (G + GT ) ∂ µ φ .2. δφ = i a T a φ . M 2 ] = 0 . (1.10) The symmetry.2.9) This is a rotation in a real N -dimensional space. The mass term has the general form: 1 Lmass (φ) = − φT M 2 φ . for a = 1 to N (N −1)/2 are the N (N −1)/2 independent. because the kinetic energy term.2. (1.2. Notice that we have not had to do anything to impose this SO(N ) symmetry except to put the Lagrangian into canonical form. (1. Usually.2. However. because it is almost always the explicit representation that we care about.2. (1. the existence of N free massless scalar ﬁelds. 2 (1. (1.4).

a Lagrangian with N = 8 scalars.. The symmetry structure of a ﬁeld theory is a descending hierarchy of symmetry. m2 2 O1 0 0 O2 0 .14).17). With cubic and quartic terms in φ. 2009 — 6 The mass matrix can be diagonalized by an orthogonal transformation that leaves the derivative term.15) where S1 and S2 are antisymmetric imaginary matrices.17) This interaction term is not invariant under the SO(4) × SO(4). that is with no pair of eigenvalues equal. The ﬁnite group elements.2.2.2. the diagonal mass matrix can be taken to have to form M2 = m2 1 . so it is a representation of SU (2) × U (1). although the Lagrangian is still invariant under the discrete symmetry under which any component of φ changes sign. (1. but it is invariant under an SU (2) × U (1) symmetry under which ξj → U ξj for j = 1 to 2. if K of the ﬁelds have mass m1 and the other N − K have mass m2 . the symmetry can be broken in more interesting ways. from the kinetic energy term down through the interaction terms. The symmetry can also be broken down by interaction terms in the Lagrangian.February 10. (1. (1. (1.4). .2. The kinetic energy term has the largest possible symmetry. The kinetic energy and mass terms then have the symmetry.2.16) (φ3 + iφ4 )/ 2 (φ7 + iφ8 )/ 2 Now consider an interaction term of the form † † Lint = λ ξ1 ξ2 ξ2 ξ1 . SO(4) × SO(4).2. Arrange the 8 real ﬁelds into two complex doublet ﬁelds as follows: √ √ (φ1 + iφ2 )/√2 (φ5 + iφ6 )/√2 ξ1 ≡ . (1.2. so that their eﬀects can be treated in perturbation theory.. with K = 4 with mass m1 (the φj for j = 1 to 4) and the rest with mass m2 (the φj for j = 5 to 8). . the SO(N ) symmetry is completely broken and there is no continuous symmetry that remains. (1. (1. of the form O= . unchanged. This is broken down to some subgroup by the mass term and the interaction terms. are generated by exponentiation of the K(K − 1)/2 + (N − K)(N − K − 1)/2 generators S1 0 0 0 and 0 0 0 S2 . For example.18) where the 2×2 matrix. If the mass matrix is non-degenerate. ξ2 ≡ .2. Consider. This is the subgroup of SO(4) × SO(4) left invariant by the interaction term. (1. This way of looking at the symmetry structure is particularly useful when some of the interactions terms are weak. m2 1 0 m2 2 .14) where O1 and O2 act on the ﬁelds with mass m1 and m2 respectively.2.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . .13) The symmetry is an SO(K) × SO(N − K) which rotates the degenerate subsets. (1. Then the remaining symmetry is an SO( ) for each degenerate eigenvalues. as a simple example that will be of use later. is unitary. The U can written as a phase (the U (1) part) times a special unitary matrix V (det V = 1). U .

(1. (1. (1. which generate the deﬁning (or N ) representation of SU (N ) × U (1).23) = iψγ µ .2 . we will make extensive use of 1 two-component.2. where U is a unitary N × N matrix U = ei aT a (1.24) With T a = 1. 2009 — Example 2 7 1 Let ψj for j = 1 to N be free.2. The transformation. (1. δL (1. When exponentiated this gives ψ → U ψ.30) a a (1.27) ψ R ≡ P− ψ . for inﬁnitesimal changes. (1.2. But then because P+ γ µ = γ µ P− . by projection with the projection operators P± ≡ (1 ± γ5 )/2 .21) . we have the freedom to make separate SU (N ) × U (1) transformations on the L and R fermions: δψL = i L T a ψL .2. massless. ψ.2.22) The SU (N ) part of U is generated by the N 2 − 1 traceless hermetian matrices.29) Evidently. is by no means the largest internal symmetry of (1.February 10. Then ψL = ψP− .2.28) ψR = ψP+ . To see the rest of the symmetry. The U (1) is just fermion number.2. four-component Dirac fermion ﬁelds with Lagrangian / L(ψ) = i ψ ∂ ψ .2.2. spin. (1. and for many other reasons later on. In (1. which commutes with everything.2 .21). (1.2. four-component fermion ﬁelds.2.19).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . δψR = i R T a ψR .20) where the T a are the N 2 hermetian N × N matrices.2. δψ = i a T a ψ .2.19) The Dirac fermion ﬁelds are complex. (1. (1.25) . while the generator of the U (1) part.19).19) has an obvious SU (N ) × U (1) symmetry under which. the conserved Noether current associated with the U (1) is just the fermion number current. δ(∂µ ψ) hence the Noether current is µ Ja = ψγ µ T a ψ .2. Weyl fermion ﬁelds.2. is proportional to the identity. we can write / / / L(ψ) = i ψ ∂ ψ = i ψL ∂ ψL + i ψR ∂ ψR .26) (1. which are related to ordinary spin. thus (1. Deﬁne the left-handed (L) and right-handed (R) ﬁelds as ψL ≡ P+ ψ .2.

(1.39) The C operation changes the particle of charge e to its antiparticle.30). but for now.31) The physical interpretation of the L and R states is that they are helicity eigenstates for on-massshell fermions.2. C = iγ 2 . Note that the generators of the chiral symmetry all commute with the fermion number. ψR → UR ψR . Deﬁne ψc = Cψ ∗ . (1. we will assume that it acts in the space of the Dirac indices. or γ0ψ = γ3ψ .19). we must introduce the idea of charge conjugate ﬁelds. 8 (1.2. ψcR = P− ψc .35) We will sometimes take C to be nontrivial in ﬂavor space as well.2. that is a right handed particle.35) on the Dirac equation for a particle in an electromagnetic ﬁeld. (1. The chiral symmetry is still not the largest internal symmetry of (1.2. and ψcL = P+ ψc . that is a left handed particle. C† = C . The form of C depends on the representation of the γ matrices.32) The spin angular momentum in the 3 direction is J3 = Then J 3 ψL = = i 2 i 2 σ 12 iγ 1 γ 2 = .2. 2 Thus ψL describes a particle with helicity − 1 . with the same mass but charge −e. in the so-called Majorana representation in which all the γ’s are imaginary.2. with mass m and charge e. (1.2.33) γ 1 γ 2 ψL = γ 0 γ 0 γ 1 γ 2 ψL (1.2. 2 2 i 2 i 2 (1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . while ψR describes a 2 1 particle with helicity 2 . satisfying C2 = 1 . C = 1.38) where Aµ is the (hermetian) electromagnetic ﬁeld. The fermions are massless. 2009 — or ψL → UL ψL .2.2.February 10. or p0 (γ 0 − γ 3 )ψ = 0. C γ µ∗ C = −γ µ .34) γ 0 γ 1 γ 2 γ 0 ψL = γ 0 γ 1 γ 2 γ 3 ψL 1 = − 2 γ5 ψL = − 1 ψL . while in the standard representation of Bjorken and Drell. Consider a plane wave moving in the 3 direction. Taking the complex conjugate.37) (1. .35) gives / / i ∂ ψc + eAψc − mψc = 0 .2. (1.2. is called a chiral symmetry. under which the L and R ﬁelds transform diﬀerently. For example. Such a particle. . multiplying by C and using (1. The Dirac equation in momentum space is pψ = 0. The name “charge conjugation” comes originally from the eﬀect of the transformation (1.36) where C is the charge conjugation matrix acting on the Dirac indices. To identify the largest symmetry. satisﬁes / / i ∂ ψ − eAψ − mψ = 0 . (1.2. thus / p0 = p3 while p1 = p2 = 0. The symmetry.

For example. This is what we need to ﬁnd a larger symmetry of (1. ψR = (ψR )† γ 0 . (1. Fermion Masses The most general fermion mass term that preserves fermion number has the form.46) and the mass matrix. (1.41) makes no sense at all. (1. the Lagrangian is / L(Ψ) = i Ψ ∂ Ψ .2.40) =C ∗ 1−γ5 2 CC ψ∗ = P+ ψc = ψcL .2. generated by hermetian 2N × 2N matrices acting on the extended ﬂavor space of (1.2. M .2. You can see this trivially by acting on both sides with P− . (1. Most of the Lagrangians that we actually deal with will have interactions that distinguish between particles and their antiparticles. then we can mix them with the ψL .44).2. because the fact that the charge changes sign under charge conjugation breaks the larger symmetry.30). because ψ and ψc have opposite fermion number. each described by a two-component Weyl ﬁeld.2.2. (1.2.2.43). thus breaking the symmetries that mix fermions with antifermions.2.2. we cannot mix up the ψL with the ψR . Such a transformation will not commute with the U (1) of fermion number. where ψL = (ψL )† γ 0 .42) We drop the total derivative. But if we ﬁrst change the ψR into ψcL with charge conjugation. there is not even any reason that there should be an even number of L ﬁelds!. The point is that with a purely internal symmetry. For example. We can use (1.2. ∗ where we have used Cγ5 C = −γ5 . Note that if fermion number is not conserved.30). we do not care.February 10. 2009 — 9 The interesting thing about charge conjugation from our present point of view is that it changes L to R. ∗ CψR = C (P− )∗ ψ ∗ = C ∗ 1−γ5 2 ψ∗ (1.2. Note that the two terms in (1. but at this point. the Lagrangian. which does not eﬀect the action. A transformation such as δψL = i a T a ψR (1.40) to show that / / L(ψ) = i ψL ∂ ψL + i ψcL ∂ ψcL + total derivative. in the standard model.19). (1.43) ψcL In terms of Ψ. (1.45) .2. the symmetry is broken down to a chiral symmetry. and then combine the L ﬁelds into a 2N component column vector: ψL ΨL = .44) Clearly. as in QED.2. A chiral transformation changes M † M → UL M UR . the Lagrangian is not invariant under the chiral symmetry. we seem to have 3 approximately massless left-handed neutrinos. (1. is an arbitrary complex matrix. Because the ψL and ψR terms are coupled together.45) are hermetian conjugates of one another.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .47) (1. in invariant under SU (2N ) × U (1) transformations. if the fermions have a charge. Lmass = −ψL M ψR + ψR M † ψL .

has a rather peculiar symmetry under which φ → φ + a. While it is a symmetry of the classical Lagrangian. In this representation. the mass matrix is proportional to Lmass = ψψ . We can diagonalize it and make each of the eigenvalues real and positive!2 The symmetry of the mass term that commutes with fermion number is then determined by the degeneracy of the diagonal mass matrix. into a canonical form. so that the fermions are most appropriately described by N left-handed Weyl ﬁelds. If fermion number is not conserved. for any constant a.37) is essentially unique in any given representation of the γ matrices.50) Under (1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . M changes to M → M = UT M U . What’s the symmetry group? Show that this is also a symmetry of the kinetic energy term for free Dirac fermions.2. (1.2. is the identity. in terms of these real ﬁelds. there is a non-Abelian SU ( ) symmetry. M . (1.2. but it is still invariant under the SU (N )×U (1) symmetry.February 10. 2 Show that C in (1. ΨL . Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a subject to which we will return many times. 1-3. 2009 — 10 However.51) Problems 1. (1. we can deﬁne real 4-component ﬁelds √ √ ψ1 = (ψ + ψc )/ 2 = (ψ + ψ ∗ )/ 2 . if all N fermions are degenerate. then the only symmetry that remains is a U (1)N symmetry. C. (1. (1. The kinetic energy term is invariant under an SU (N ) × U (1) symmetry: ΨL → U ΨL . the mass matrix. Rewrite the mass term for N degenerate Dirac fermions. .2. For example. (1. that means that we can use the chiral symmetry to put the mass matrix. What is the Noether current? Note that this “symmetry” really is peculiar.2. This can be used to make M diagonal and positive.48). √ ψ2 = i (ψ − ψ ∗ )/ 2 .1.2.20).30).2. it is not a symmetry of the corresponding quantum theory. (1.49) where M is a complex. Find a basis for the γ µ matrices in which the charge conjugation matrix.2.4).2.50). If ﬂavors have the same mass. If all the masses are diﬀerent. This is one of the simplest examples of a continuous symmetry that is spontaneously broken.48) This breaks the chiral symmetry. (1. the most general mass term has the form ΨcR M ΨL . symmetric matrix. and identify the symmetry of this term. The Lagrangian for a set of N massless free scalar ﬁelds. This is called a Majorana representation. in which the L and R ﬁelds rotate together. separate conservation of each of the fermion ﬂavors. 1-2.2. This is all at the classical level — we will come back to the question of real masses later on when we discuss the strong CP puzzle.

In mathematical language. unless they are hidden because they are associated with physics at very tiny distances. because in a typical string theory. In regularization and renormalization. Thus we are justiﬁed in adopting local quantum ﬁeld theory as a provisional description of physics at the distances we can probe for the foreseeable future. We will assume that the reader is familiar with quantum ﬁeld theory. the physics at 1 String theory may be a consistent description of the relativistic quantum mechanics of an inﬁnite number of types of particles. In this chapter. the ﬁelds are distributions rather than functions. the necessity of regularization and renormalization sometimes makes things more interesting. and has available an encyclopedic text such as [Itzykson]. The only way we know to describe the quantum mechanical interactions of a ﬁnite number of types of particles in ordinary space-time is in a local quantum ﬁeld theory characterized by a local Lagrangian density. with the interactions described by products of ﬁelds at the same space-time point. It would be astonishing if our naive picture of the space-time continuum.1 We strongly suspect that this picture is only approximate. only a ﬁnite number of particles have masses small compared to the Planck scale. A brief review will be included in an appendix to this book.1 Local Quantum Field Theory Local ﬁeld theory is a useful idealization. However. but will concentrate instead on explaining what is really going on. The detail of our regularization and renormalization scheme will seldom matter. or anything else that the human mind can imagine. A local Lagrangian in a quantum ﬁeld theory is not a priori well-deﬁned precisely because interactions that involve products of ﬁelds at a single space-time point specify the physics down to arbitrarily small distances.Chapter 1a — Quantum Field Theory Many of the results of the previous chapter can be carried over immediately to quantum ﬁeld theory. or quantum mechanics. However. Here we will not pretend to anything like completeness. we will use dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction. continued to make sense down to arbitrarily small distances. However. 1a. The fact that unknown physics may be lurking at very small distances is related to the necessity for regularization and renormalization of quantum ﬁeld theory. It is hard to see how deviations from the rules of relativistic quantum mechanics could have failed to show up in any of the myriad of experiments at high energy accelerators around the world. and multiplying them together at the same space-time point is a dangerous act. we can describe the low energy physics by a ﬁeld theory. we discuss an approach to quantum ﬁeld theory that is particularly useful for the discussion of weak interactions and the Standard model in general. but when it does. 11 . relativistic quantum mechanics appears to be an excellent approximation at the distance we can probe today.

Fortunately. The ﬁrst interesting feature that we encounter when we look at a quantum ﬁeld theory deﬁned by dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction (DRMS) is that scale invariance is broken. if some dimensional parameters are very diﬀerent from µ. The only “group” structure involved is the group of one dimensional translations. sφ .3) The Renormalization Group The process of changing µ while keeping the physics unchanged is associated with the name “the renormalization group”. 2009 — 12 small distances is modiﬁed in some way to make the theory well-deﬁned. we have included a c-number source. (1a. The appearance of the parameter µ has an important physical consequence. This is unfortunate. because it gives us a handle with which to tweak the theory to see how it responds. φ. µ can be chosen at our convenience. as we will discuss later. The important (and extremely trivial) fact is that a large . We will have much more to say about these issues as we develop the idea of eﬀective ﬁeld theory.4) The classical scale invariance would be broken if we put in a mass term. because the theory is sick at short distances.1) is classically scale invariant. Let us begin by discussing a simple massless scalar ﬁeld theory. This is convenient. but for now. with mass dimension 3 for the scalar ﬁeld φ. deﬁned by L(φ) = 1 µ λ ∂ φ∂µ φ − φ4 + sφ φ . it is not so easy to deﬁne this so-called λφ4 theory beyond perturbation theory. we simply discuss renormalizable. we will make the idea of hiding unknown physics at small distances into one of our principle tools. local quantum ﬁeld theory as if it were a God-given truth. with mass dimension 1. µ. (1a. Eventually. used to deﬁne their dimensional extensions. Then the dependence on the short distance physics is incorporated into a set of parameters that can be related to physical quantities at measurable distances. A renormalizable theory is one in which only a ﬁnite number of parameters are required to absorb all the dependence on short distance physics. Actually.2) W (s) is the generating function for the connected Green functions.1.1. This means that it is invariant under the following transformation: φ(x) → φ (x ) where x = eλ x φ (x ) = e−λ φ(x) (1a. All the Green functions are implicitly present in the structure of the “vacuum” as a function of the source. the action derived from (1a.1. For now.1.February 10.1. because it makes it sound as if something nontrivial is going on. Quantities calculated in DRMS depend on ln µ.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Thus calculations should be organized so that. as much as possible. All the parameters in the theory depend on the renormalization scale. and given the parameters for one value of µ. all relevant dimensional parameters are of order µ. we can calculate the set of parameters for a diﬀerent value of µ that lead to the same physics. which is easy to understand in perturbation theory. 2 4! (1a. We will leave the mass term out so that we have only one parameter to talk about — the coupling λ. However. we will be happy with a perturbative deﬁnition. Without the source term. when in fact the process is quite simple. Z(s) = eiW (s) = 0 | 0 s . If all the other relevant dimensional parameters in the calculation are of the same order as µ. these logs cause no problems. perturbation theory will break down before it should.1) In addition to the quantum ﬁeld.

8) e2∆ )2 ∆ + O(λ3 ) .1. The lowest order perturbative result is λ(µ2 ) = λ(µ1 ) + B λ(µ1 )2 ln for some constant B.7) (1a.5) directly. If both λ(µ1 ) and ln(µ2 /µ1 ) are small. we get N −1 µ2 µ1 + O(λ3 ) .1. λ(µ1 e3∆ ) = λ(µ1 e2∆ ) + B λ(µ1 ··· Putting these all together. Instead of using (1a. (1a.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . we can reliably compute L in perturbation theory. λ(µ2 ) = λ(µ1 ) + j=0 B λ(µ1 ej∆ )2 ∆ + O(λ3 ) .10) We have arrived. (1a.5) for some function L. so long as both λ(µ1 ) and λ(µ2 ) are small. we get the standard diﬀerential equation for the running coupling: µ where βλ (λ) = B λ2 + O(λ3 ) (1a. Ignoring the terms of order λ3 . then we can compute it at µ2 using perturbation theory: λ(µ2 ) = L(λ(µ1 ). ∂µ (1a.1. (1a.12) is the β-function.1. we can get from µ1 to µ2 in a series of small steps. 1 + B λ(µ0 ) ln(µ0 /µ) B ln(Λ/µ) (1a. µ2 λ(µ2 ) = λ(µ1 ) + µ1 B λ(µ)2 dµ + O(λ3 ) . Note that we have not done anything at all except to build up a large change in µ out of inﬁnitesimal changes.1.1. so that λ is an increasing function of µ for small λ.9) or in the limit as N → ∞. by a rather backwards route. we can dispense with the restriction that ln(µ2 /µ1 ) is small. at the lowest order integral equation for the “running” coupling. If we diﬀerentiate with respect to µ2 and set µ2 = µ.1. If we know λ at µ1 . 2009 — 13 translation can be built up by putting small ones together! Consider the parameter λ in (1a. (1a. λ(µ). µ (1a.1).1.12) to obtain λ(µ) = λ(µ0 ) 1 = .6) 1 µ2 ln N µ1 . ln(µ2 /µ1 )) . We will see below that B > 0. However.11) .1. Let ∆ = ∆(ln(µ)) ≡ Then λ(µ1 e∆ ) = λ(µ1 ) + B λ(µ1 )2 ∆ + O(λ3 ) .February 10. λ(µ1 e2∆ ) = λ(µ1 e∆ ) + B λ(µ1 e∆ )2 ∆ + O(λ3 ) . we can solve (1a.1.1.1.13) ∂ λ(µ) = βλ (λ(µ)) .

renormalizing. pi for i = 1 to n. it does not depend on the external momentum) and thus the wave function renormalization is 1 in one loop and γφ = 0 to order λ. This is simply the ﬂip side of (1a. These are easy to calculate and useful.1. W (s). The Renormalization Group Equation We will begin by considering one particle irreducible (1PI) graphs. If we change µ. the Feynman graphs that contribute to the 2-point function.February 10.13) in which a ﬁnite renormalized coupling leads to a disaster at a ﬁnite small distance. However. the theory is “trivial” because the renormalized coupling is driven to zero. Call a 1PI function with n external φ lines.1. are + (1a. Because the dimensionless quantity. Γn (pi .16) . and demand that (1a. dimensional transmutation[Coleman 73]. (1a. this does not prevent us from making sense of the theory at scales at which λ(µ) is small. the parameter that actually characterizes the physics is a dimensional one. is to calculate the 1PI functions for small n.14) ∂µ ∂λ In addition to βλ . this means that the physics has to change at some momentum scale smaller than the Λ in (1a.1. (1a.14) depends on an “anomalous dimension”. Λ. γφ . and then letting the distance go to zero.1. µ).15) This vanishes in DRMS for a massless scalar (and in any sensible scheme. The word is a holdover from an old fashioned way of looking at ﬁeld theory. This is sometimes discussed in terms of the rather ridiculous word. In practice. All it means is that the λφ4 theory is not a useful description of the physics at arbitrarily short distances. as we will see in more detail later on. and on the scale µ. There are good reasons to believe that this diﬃculty persists beyond perturbation theory and that the λφ4 theory does not make sense at short distances. µ. Above µ ≈ Λ. for the φ ﬁeld. “triviality”. λ. is a calculable function of the dimensional quantity.1. The Feynman graphs that contribute the Γ4 to one loop are d d d + d d + d d crossed graphs (1a. The scale µ cannot be taken arbitrarily large. Both of these are functions of λ. we must change the wave function renormalization of each of the external lines and also the coupling to maintain the same physics. If you try to deﬁne the theory in isolation. λ. the coupling is large and the theory is not deﬁned perturbatively. on the parameter λ. Later we will also discuss connected Green functions and their generating functional.1. 2009 — 14 This solution exhibits the most interesting feature of the running coupling.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .14) be satisﬁed. by cutting the physics oﬀ at some small distance. This is the conveniently summarized in the renormalization group equation: ∂ ∂ µ + βλ − n γφ Γn = 0 . where we have indicated the dependence on the external momenta. Let us now actually calculate βλ and γφ to one-loop order.13) also shows the diﬃculty with this theory.13). The simplest way to do this. Γ2 .1.1. (1a. To one loop.

µ) = Γ4 (pi . Γ4 is a directly physical scattering amplitude. (1a. rather than connected Green functions.13).1. we ﬁnd βλ − or 3λ2 + O(λ3 ) = 0 . but to its dependence on the scale of p. Gn . µ) = λ + −(p1 + p2 )2 −(p1 + p3 )2 + ln µ2 µ2 2 −(p1 + p4 ) + ··· .1.1. and the function. because it is when p ≈ µ. with γφ = 0. is βλ = Γ4 (pi . we can obtain (1a. 16π 2 (1a. (1a. µ0 ) . s) = 0 . not to the µ dependence of Γ4 .14). the “solution”.20) says that Γ4 is not a function of λ(µ) and µ separately.21) by functionally diﬀerentiating with respect to s.1.1.17) is inserted into (1a.1. (1a. Now when (1a. Because the wave function renormalization vanishes.1. (1a.18) 3λ2 + O(λ3 ) . because W (s) is the generating function for the connected Green functions.1. which satisfy µ ∂ ∂ + βλ + n γφ ∂µ ∂λ Gn = 0 . to this order. but only of the combination. λ. βλ . γφ . in the absence of wave function renormalization.19) 16π 2 It is worth commenting on some minus signs that frequently cause confusion.22) We can get back to (1a.20) for λ(µ) satisfying (1a. (1a. Thus when µ changes. λ(µ0 ).1. obscures a connection between the anomalous dimension. the sign in front of the anomalous dimension term depends on the fact we are studying 1PI functions. Γ4 remains constant. + ln µ2 ln λ2 32π 2 15 (1a. That is a direct translation of (1a.1. that Γ4 ≈ λ(µ).1.21) for all n from the single equation µ ∂ ∂ + βλ + ∂µ ∂λ βs(x) ∂ d4 x ∂s(x) W (λ.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . First of all. Thus βs(x) = s(x) γφ . (1a.1.1. Note that the µ dependence of λ(µ) is opposite to that of Γ4 .21) Secondly.1.23) .17) where the · · · are non-logarithmic terms. On the other hand. Sources and Parameters The form.14). 2009 — The result is (with all momenta going in) Γ4 (pi . λ(µ0 ).February 10.1. (1a. Since λ(µ0 ) can be regarded as a function of λ(µ) and µ. The µ dependence of λ is then related.14). to the renormalization group equation. λ(µ). Γn .

1. then there are no symmetries that distinguish one φ from another. and that the product in each term of βsα (x) has the same dimension as sα (x). sα . However. and (1a. each of the βλ -functions depends on all of the λ’s. In fact. λi . In the simple example. this even makes sense in nonrenormalizable theories.1.24) is almost a tautology. in the sense that you will not be able to absorb the dependence on short distance physics.1.24) means that a change in µ can always be compensated by suitable changes in all the parameters and the ﬁelds. all of the γ’s are zero in one loop in the scalar ﬁeld theory. to get the theory back into a canonical form. in fact. This is particularly true in quantum ﬁeld theory. but a rotation in the ﬂavor space. The generalization is µ ∂ + ∂µ βλi i ∂ + ∂λi βsα (x) α ∂ d4 x ∂sα (x) W (λ.24) In words. that (1a. and the most general form for βs is βsα (x) = α sα (x) γα α (λ) .1. The nice thing about the form. 4! α1 α2 α3 α4 (K+3)! where λα1 α2 α3 α4 is some symmetric tensor in the α’s.26) This exhibits the phenomenon of operator mixing. Dimensional consistency implies that the product in each term of βλi has the same dimension as λi . with Lagrangian 1 (∂ µ φα ∂µ φα + sα φα ) L(φ) = 2 α (1a. although they do not appear in this simple example). In this case.1. λi . φ.26) is an example of the general principle that whatever can happen will happen. because it is the only ﬁeld around. as we will see.23).1.25) λ α1 α2 α3 α4 − φα1 φα2 φα3 φα4 .1). φα . that we have included all the parameters required to absorb the dependence on the physics at very short distances. In our renormalization group language. for example. (1a.22). as usual. for α = 1 to K. In perturbation theory. then µ is arbitrary. φα . Of course.1.February 10. each β is a sum of products of λ’s and s’s (derivatives acting on the s’s are also possible. s) = 0 . terms of dimension 3. is multiplicatively renormalized. The parameters. and corresponding sources. In a mass independent renormalization scheme such as DRMS. properly deﬁned. whatever is around. Note. but in higher order. that your theory depends on several real scalar ﬁelds. where if you fail to write down an appropriately general expression. the ﬁeld. Of course this assumes. there is no µ dependence in any of these functions. If all 4!(K−1)! of the independent α’s are nonzero. may include mass terms. The failure of multiplicative renormalization in (1a. (1a.12) is the most general thing we can write down consistent with dimensional analysis. (1a. Suppose. there are many couplings.1. many ﬁelds.1. (1a. in general. (1a. However. The β’s depend on the λ parameters and the sources. Once all the relevant parameters have been included. The ﬁelds are not multiplicatively renormalized. as long as you are careful to include everything (consistent.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . and thus the dependence on the parameters is strongly constrained by dimensional analysis. a change in µ requires not just a rescaling of each of the φα ’s. is that it generalizes trivially to the general case. sα . the situation is more complicated. that statement is equivalent to (1a. the theory is likely to blow up in your face.1. as we will emphasize time . 2009 — 16 The General Case — Mixing In general.

1.34) where Φα (x) = δW .22) to a similarly general expression for Γ(Φ).1. we will show how to go back and forth from 1PI 2-point functions to connected 2-point functions. Γ(Φ) is obtained by making a Legendre transformation on W (s). Γ(Φ) = W (s) − α sα (x) Φα (x) d4 x .1. but the change from γ to γ T as well.1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . we can diﬀerentiate twice and use (1a. (1a. x2 ) = − δ2 W (s) δsα1 (x1 )δsα2 (x2 ) (1a.1. Because W (s) satisﬁes. (1a.26) to obtain with µ ∂ ∂ + βλ ∂µ ∂λ ≡ D. the situation is really no more diﬃcult to understand than in a simple theory with multiplicative renormalization.32) (1a. the generating functional for 1PI graphs.31) gives the renormalization group equation for the 1PI 2-point function: D Γ − Γ γ − γT Γ = 0 .30) ˜ The 1PI two point function is the inverse of G — symbolically ˜ ˜ ΓG = GΓ = I .1.1. You just have to keep track of some indices. 2009 — 17 and time again. it will be useful ˜ to write (1a. compared to (1a. (1a.33) Note not only the sign change. ˜ ˜ ˜ D G + γ G + G γT = 0 .35) .1. α1 α2 ˜ Let G(p) be the Fourier transform of G(x. (1a.29) D δα1 α1 δα2 α2 + γα1 α1 + γα2 α2 Gα1 α2 (x1 . Now apply D to (1a.27) = 0 | T φα1 (x1 )φα2 (x2 ) | 0 .1.31) Γ(Φ) and 1PI Graphs We can get directly from (1a.1.1. x2 ) = 0 . To avoid getting lost in indices.28) (1a. Consider the connected 2-point function Gα1 α2 (x1 .1.1.1. 0). with all the symmetries of the system). (1a.31).1. (1a.February 10.30).24).29) for G (Fourier transforming commutes with applying D) in an obvious matrix notation. ˜ ˜ (D Γ) G + Γ (D G) = 0 ˜ ˜ ˜ = (D Γ) G − Γ γ G − Γ G γ T . As an example of operator mixing in action.1. ˜ ˜ = (D Γ) G − Γ γ G − γ T Multiplying by Γ on the right and using (1a. δsα (x) (1a.

37) δΓ . Their sources. of course. It is most sensible to deal with it in precisely the same way. But the right hand side of (1a. A feature of this theory that makes it a nice pedagogical example.23) and using (1a. Both are anticommuting.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .1. is that all β-functions are nonzero at the one loop level. φα . where the couplings now include the gα ’s as well as the λ’s.24) will be satisﬁed. . Putting this into (1a. ∂µ ∂λ α.1. 2009 — 18 is the “classical ﬁeld” corresponding to the quantum ﬁeld. (1a. s) d4 x .2 Composite Operators In local ﬁeld theory.α ∂Φα From this. (1a. δΦ which follows from (1a. it is useful to discuss new local objects that are built out of the local ﬁelds themselves. (1a.40).40) The quantum fermion ﬁelds. Thus.1.38) ∂ ∂ ∂ + βλ − Φα γα α Γ(Φ) ∂µ ∂λ α.39) ∂ ∂ ∂ T = µ + βλ − Φα γαα Γ(Φ) = 0 . because the contribution from the two terms on the right hand side cancel anyway — the Legendre transform guarantees that Γ(Φ) doesn’t depend on s. ∂sα (x) (1a.1. ψ) = i ψ ∂ ψ + ηψ + ψη + α 1 µ ∂ φα ∂µ φα + sφα φα 2 gα ψ iγ5 φα ψ .36) is (from (1a.1. α − α1 α2 α3 α4 λ α1 α2 α3 α4 φ α1 φ α2 φ α3 φ α4 − 4! (1a.α ∂Φα (1a.1. describing K pseudoscalar ﬁelds.34).36) µ + βλ + βλ ∂µ ∂λ ∂µ ∂λ for ﬁxed Φ. we ﬁnd s(x) = − µ But (1a.1. 1a. Now ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ Γ(Φ) = µ W (s) .24)) − α βsα (x) ∂ W (λ. as well as the sα ’s. An Example with Fermions Consider the following Lagrangian. have dimension 5/2. have dimension 3/2.1. ψ. The question is. and the sources include the η and η. but many other reasons will occur to us as we go along. You will ﬁnd all of these for yourselves in problem (1a-3). and a massless Dirac fermion: / L(φ.1.February 10.1.1. We don’t have to worry about any implicit dependence of s on µ or λ. is that the Lagrangian itself is built out of such things.1.33) follows immediately by diﬀerentiation twice with respect to Φα .35). This is the same problem we faced in deﬁning the theory in the ﬁrst place. (1a. what do we mean by multiplying the ﬁelds together at the same space time point.1. These things are called “composite operators”. η. The Lagrangian. is the most general Lagrangian we can write down for massless ﬁelds with these dimensions. One reason for considering them. consistent with a parity symmetry under which the φα ﬁelds are odd.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . the generating functional. Renormalize the theory as usual. To do this. ψ) = i ψ ∂ ψ + ηψ + ψη + (1a. This is the only dimension 3 operator that is a scalar under parity. and we can ﬁnd the eﬀect of an insertion of a composite operator in any Green function simply by diﬀerentiating with respect to the appropriate source. These will be required to absorb dependence on the unknown short distance physics.2.1.2. but one which exhibits many of the interesting features of composite operators. they are not so diﬀerent from other ﬁelds and sources. (1a. We will ﬁnd that if we include an operator of a given dimension. so we have no right to calculate it. The κ parameters are the translation into our language of so-called “subtractions” which must be made to deﬁne the Green functions of composite operators. Thus we need a new. We will see many examples of composite operators as we explore the standard model. with K = 1 (dropping the unneeded subscripts). For example. to each composite operator in the Lagrangian. one for each new dimension 4 object you can build. This means that it depends on the details of how we constructed the ψ ψ operator at short distances. The thing to remember is that in this way of looking at things. This is what allows us to build the nontrivial κ terms.2) where the × indicates the insertion of the operator ψ ψ. and include a source for the operator ψ ψ. 2. We now see that they are something that we already understand. we manage to discover the values of this and the other κ parameters at some µ (this requires somehow specifying the physics — we will see some examples later on).2. Couple a source. This is κ1 . is 1 µ ∂ φ∂µ φ + sφ φ 2 λ κ2 4 κ3 2 2 κ1 µ − φ4 − g ψ iγ5 φ ψ + tψ ψ − ∂ t∂µ t − t − t φ . . consider the fermion example. 4! 2 4! 4 / L(φ. When masses are present. constructed according to the above rules. The κ parameters have β-functions just like the other coupling constants. When computed using DRMS. but the theory will complain if we do not have the right sources. As a fairly simple example.1) The point of the extra terms in (1a. The µ-dependence of (1a. then we can use the renormalization group to ﬁnd its value at any other µ.1) is that they are require for the calculation of graphs involving more than one insertion of the new operator.2. W . a priori unknown parameter in the theory. t.February 10.2) produces µ-dependence in κ1 . The sources for the composite ﬁelds diﬀer from the sources for elementary ﬁelds in that their dimensions are smaller. we will be forced to include sources for all the other operators with the same dimension and the same quantum numbers under all the symmetries of the theory. so we do not need any other sources. depends on the new sources.40). If. we may have to include others as well. you will have to include extra parameters for the new “interactions” that you can build with your new sources. The Lagrangian. 2009 — 19 1. somehow. which is just its β-function in the renormalization group. the graph is µ-dependent. Once this is done. consider the graph × × (1a. 3.

19). Find all the β-functions. 1a-2.1.February 10. both for the couplings and for the sources. .1.25). no calculation should be required. If you use (1a. 2009 — 20 Problems 1a-1.40). 1a-3. Find the one-loop β-functions for (1a.1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Show that (1a. beyond drawing the graphs and keeping track of the indices. for the theory described by (1a.1.21) follows from (1a. for K = 2.1.22).

ψ. The answer is — sometimes! When it is possible to ﬁnd a regularization and renormalization scheme that preserves the symmetry. We will discuss important examples of the “anomalies” that can occur in quantum ﬁeld theory to prevent the realization of a classical symmetry later. Then we will go on the discuss dynamical gauge symmetry. must be real. we will discuss theories with local or gauge symmetry. and Lagrangian1 L0 (φ. the matrices. where g is and element of G and the D’s are unitary representations of the symmetry group. Dφ .1.1 Noether’s Theorem – Field Theory Consider.1. G. 21 . we will use gauge symmetry as a device to deﬁne the Noether currents in a quantum ﬁeld theory. but sometimes this is not possible. First. without asking whether any particular symmetry is consistent with our DRMS scheme. Given a symmetry of a classical Lagrangian without sources. Note that because the φ ﬁelds are real. φ. For now we will ignore this subtlety.Chapter 1b — Gauge Symmetries In this section. Such a symmetry can then be extended to include the sources as 1 (1b. 1b. and sources. ψR → DR (g −1 ) ψR . we can always extend it to a symmetry of the Lagrangian including sources. and real sources s and with K fermion ﬁelds. can we always deﬁne a corresponding quantum theory that exhibits the symmetry. then. ∂ µ φ. ψ. and discuss symmetry in the language we have developed to discuss ﬁeld theory. as follows: φ → Dφ (g −1 ) φ . ∂ µ ψ) + sT φ + η ψ + ψ η . by requiring the sources to transform appropriately. The interesting question is. then the symmetry can be extended into the quantum theory. the representation Dφ must be a “real” representation.2) We use L0 for the Lagrangian without any sources. That is.1) (1b. a quantum ﬁeld theory with N real scalar ﬁelds. ψL → DL (g −1 ) ψL . Suppose that L0 is invariant under a global internal symmetry group. η.

(1b.1. a δs = i a Tφ s .4).4).1. a δηL = i a TR ηL . (1b.8) . a (1b. ηR → DL (g −1 ) ηR . (1b.1. a δηR = i a TL ηR .1. like the other sources. we must introduce a set of “gauge ﬁelds”. a δψL = i a TL ψL .3).2) and (1b. Call these ﬁelds. hµ . Dµ ≡ ∂ µ − i hµ T a . 22 (1b. by replacing the derivatives by “covariant” derivatives.3) Note the switching of L ↔ R for the fermion sources. because the fermions source terms are like mass terms that couple ﬁelds of opposite chirality. (1b.1. 2009 — well. which in this case will be classical ﬁelds.1).1.7) Now we modify the Lagrangian. the vacuum amplitude.1. (1b. η) will also be invariant under (1b.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .1. Gauge Symmetry In order to discuss the conserved Noether currents associated with a symmetry of the quantum ﬁeld theory as composite operators. Under the symmetry. T a . L and R.February 10. they transform as follows: a δhµ = −fabc b hµ + ∂ µ a c a. a Dj (g −1 ) = ei a Tj .1. Z(s.3).1. corresponding to the representations.1. a → a (x) . Generators — T a It is often convenient to use the inﬁnitesimal version of (1b. it is useful to convert the global symmetry.6) To do this. Often we will drop the subscript. as follows: s → Dφ (g −1 ) s . that is a symmetry in which the parameters can depend on space-time.4) The Tja for j = φ. ηL → DR (g −1 ) ηL .5) A sum over repeated a indices is assumed. (1b. in terms of the generators. (1b. η. into a gauge symmetry. are generators of the representation of the Lie algebra of G. and let the reader ﬁgure out from the context which representation we are discussing. a δφ = i a Tφ φ . Now if the regularization and renormalization respect the symmetry.1. a δψR = i a TR ψR .

1.1. we could write a δL δL δ Dν φ δL = −i Ta φ µ = δ ha δ Dν φ δ hµ δ Dµ φ φ a which is the classical Noether current.15) (1b.1. 2 .9) a iP− hµ TR ) a (∂ µ − a iP+ hµ TL a − ψ.16) where κa is independent of a within each simple subalgebra.1. because for any ﬁeld ξ.1.12) δL = δ hµ a ξ δL δ Dν ξ = −i δ Dν ξ δ hµ a ξ δL Ta ξ δ Dµ ξ ξ (1b. hµ .7). there is no normalization picked out by the algebra.1. act as sources for composite ﬁelds in the quana tum ﬁeld theory. Z(φ. This works in general. 2009 — 23 where the T a are the generators of the representation of the object on which the derivative acts. Then using (1b. the parameter κab is κab = δab κa (1b. To see this. the chain rule for functional diﬀerentiation and the fact that φ doesn’t depend on hµ . the classical gauge ﬁelds.10) δhν a Suppose that the Lagrangian depended only on the φs.1.12).2 For U (1) factors of the symmetry algebra.1.1. The conservation of the Noether currents implies a set of relations for the Green functions known as Ward identities. hµ ). a hµν = ∂ µ hν − ∂ ν hµ + fabc hµ hν . η. that depends only on hµ . δ Dµ ξ µ a = −i δν Tξ ξ δhν a a where Tξ are the generators of the symmetry acting on the ﬁeld ξ. Thus. η. With our convenient normalization. there is one kind of term of a dimension 4 that we can write.16). The resulting Lagrangian is now invariant under (1b.13) which is the general form of the classical Noether current. and no constraint of the form (1b. Furthermore. We will ﬁnd that this deﬁnition of the Noether currents as the composite ﬁelds coupled to external gauge ﬁelds is very convenient because gauge invariance is such a strong constraint.10).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .11) (1b.1. Thus (1b. note that δ Dµ φ µ a = −i δν Tφ φ (1b. a . 4 a where hµν is the “gauge ﬁeld strength”.1.14) Thus we expect such terms to be required by renormalization. Dµ φ ≡ Dµ ψ ≡ a ∂ µ − i hµ Tφ φ . like a derivative. It is a κab µν h hbµν .1. for space-time dependent parameters.February 10. a a a b c (1b. consistent with all the symmetries.1. (1. a Note that because the ﬁeld hµ has dimension 1. (1b. a (1b.2). All of these follow from the gauge invariance of the vacuum functional. These are the classical Noether currents corresponding to the global symmetry.4) and (1b.1.

22) where Ω = ei . a The ﬁeld strength can be obtained by commuting the covariant derivatives.1) 1 Gaµν Gµν . − a (1b.1.1. In this notation. (1b.1.18) (1b.1. Gν ] . hµ → G µ . where = a Ta . The ﬁeld strength is hµν ≡ T a hµν = ∂ µ hν − ∂ ν hµ − i [hµ . the gauge transformation can be integrated to give the ﬁnite form hµ → Ωhµ Ω−1 + iΩ∂ µ Ω−1 .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . the normalization. that we have here called 1/4ga . We can rescale the ﬁelds to make the coeﬃcient of the kinetic energy term the canonical 1/4 if we choose.2. Dν ] = −i hµν .23) 1b. becomes δhµ = i[ . becomes a quantum ﬁeld. (1b. is equal for a in each simple component of the gauge group. a The covariant derivative is Dµ ≡ ∂ µ − i hµ . The constant. ga .7).2 Gauge Theories In this section.1. we consider what happens when we let the classical gauge ﬁeld. hµν .21) In this form.1.1.20) (1b. [Dµ .17) (1b.19) (1b.1. . we will keep the form of the gauge transformations ﬁxed and let the gauge coupling constant appear as the normalization of the kinetic energy term. Then the gauge transformation law has ga dependence. is the gauge coupling constant. hµ ] + ∂ µ . The κ term of (1b. This is particularly convenient for the study of the symmetry structure of the theory.February 10. hµν → Gµν = ∂ µ Gν − ∂ ν Gµ − i [Gµ . (1b.1.14) becomes the kinetic energy term for the gauge ﬁelds. a 2 4ga (1b. 2009 — 24 Some Useful Notation It is often useful to get rid of the indices on the gauge ﬁeld and replace the set by a matrix ﬁeld hµ ≡ T a hµ . Often.2.2) 2 Again. the gauge transformation. hν ] . (1b.

the diﬃculty with gauge invariance shows up in the independence of the action on gauge transformation. and is not well deﬁned.2. (1b. then (1b.2. in the following form: 1 = ∆(G.7) for ﬁxed Ω .5) This deﬁnes an “orbit” in the space of gauge ﬁeld conﬁgurations on which the action is constant.2.2.2.2. φΩ ) [dΩ] . φΩ ) [dG][dφ] [dΩ] . Fadeev and Popov suggested a general procedure for solving it. In the functional integral formulation of ﬁeld theory.9) 1 = ∆(G. The kinetic energy term. (1b.10) 1 f (GΩΩ . at least perturbatively. ∆.φ) [dG][dφ] . as g = ˜ eiS(G.8) (1b. called the Fadeev-Popov determinant.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . φ) is gauge invariant.2.10) can be written with the integral over the gauge transformations factored out. (1b. (1b. and is not invertible in momentum space. φΩΩ ) [d(ΩΩ )] Inserting (1b. φ) f (GΩ .2). φΩΩ ) [dΩ ] (1b. The part of the gauge ﬁeld functional integral over the gauge transformations is completely unregulated.11) . (1b. φ) | 0 = . satisfying [dΩ] = [d(Ω Ω)] = [d(ΩΩ )] .7)): ∆(GΩ . does not involve the longitudinal components of the gauge ﬁelds.February 10.φ) g(G.2. φΩ ) = 1 = f (GΩΩ .2. 2009 — 25 Gauge Fixing The ﬁeld theory treatment of gauge theories is more complicated than that of theories without dynamical gauge symmetry because the gauge symmetry must be broken in order to deﬁne the theory.2.6). one tries to write the Green functions as functional integrals: g ˜ 0 | T g(G. φΩ ) [dG][dφ][dΩ] .2. is gauge invariant. φ) f (GΩ . Thus g has spurious inﬁnities.2. f (GΩ .2. and gives rise to inﬁnities that are the translation into the functional integral language of the problem with the gauge ﬁeld propagator. φ) ∆(G.φ) g(G. (1b. we can write g = ˜ eiS(G. This can be seen as follows (using (1b.6) where f is a functional that is not gauge invariant and [dΩ] is the invariant measure over the gauge transformations.3). (1b. They introduced 1 into (1b. Thus the propagator is not well deﬁned. Gµ → ΩGµ Ω−1 + iΩ∂ µ Ω−1 . φΩ ) [d(Ω)] If g(G.4) In the functional integral description. φ) f (GΩ . φ) eiS(G.3) ˜ 1 where g = ˜ g(G. ˜ Having formulated the problem in this language. The functional.2. φ) ∆(G. (1b. φ) .

The important point to notice is that g should be completely independent of the gauge ﬁxing function. some of the U (1)s are broken by quantum mechanical eﬀect. so long as the Green function.4 then we can regard the ψ and φ ﬁelds as having two sets of indices: gauge indices. in turn. 1b. Dµ ψ) − a (1b. the constraint is even stronger. φ). g(G. 26 (1b. they must belong to the same irreducible representation of the gauge group.3 This. Thus. In the basis in which all the fermions are left handed.1) and study its global symmetries. ψ. However. . Each of these ﬂavor vectors can be rotated without changing (1b.3. the gauge symmetry itself deﬁnes a global symmetry. Of course. The ﬁrst important comment is that any such symmetry must map the gauge ﬁelds into themselves.5 If we charge conjugate some of the left handed fermion ﬁelds to write them as right handed ﬁelds. (1b. 2009 — The Fadeev-Popov suggestion is then to drop the factor of [dΩ]. (1b. Green functions are not invariant for a given gauge ﬁxing function. Dµ φ. this has the general form / i ψ rLD ψrL . this implies that the gauge symmetry is a normal subgroup of the full symmetry group.2.2). we must remember that the charged conjugate ﬁelds may transform diﬀerently under the 3 4 Discrete symmetries. f (G. L0 (φ. my induce nontrivial automorphisms on the gauge generators. and where. and ﬂavor indices. φ) ∆(G. That means that the consequences of gauge symmetry are not as obvious as those of a global symmetry.φ) g(G. This is discussed in Appendix B. For continuous ﬂavor symmetries. The generators of continuous ﬂavor symmetries must commute with all the gauge generators. 5 As we will see later. Of course. is gauge invariant. on which the gauge symmetries act. like parity. f .3. by using what is called “background ﬁeld gauge”. φΩ ) [dG][dφ] .2) has a separate SU (dr ) × U (1) ﬂavor symmetry for each irreducible representation that appears in the sum (with non-zero dr ). Because the gauge ﬁelds are associated with the generators of the gauge symmetry.February 10.12) This process is called “choosing a gauge”. but the theory may have additional symmetry.2) r where the sums run over the diﬀerent irreducible representations of the gauge group. If we choose a canonical form for the gauge generators in each irreducible representation of the gauge symmetry. it is possible to organize the calculations in gauge theory in a way that makes gauge invariance manifest. Because it is the gauge invariant physical matrix elements that we actually want. φ) f (GΩ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . for each r. We will reserve the term “ﬂavor symmetry” to refer only to those internal symmetries of the theory that are not gauged. “anomalies”. at least classically. φ).3.3. and also that if two ﬁelds are rotated into one another by the ﬂavor symmetry. See problem (3-2) for an example of what happens when you do not do this. The gauge is deﬁned by the choice of the ﬁxing function. a 2 4ga Let us look again at the Lagrangian for a general gauge theory. First consider the fermion kinetic energy term. this means that in general. this is a perfectly reasonable deﬁnition. on which the ﬂavor symmetries act. implies that the ﬂavor generators are constant within each irreducible representation of the gauge group. f .3 Global Symmetries of Gauge Theories 1 Gaµν Gµν . and deﬁne g = eiS(G. the fermions ﬁeld is a vector in a ﬂavor space with dimension dr .

the scalar ﬁeld representation. in which case the representation generated by −T a∗ is equivalent to that generated by T a . instead. (1b. The most familiar example of a pseudo-real representation is the Pauli matrices.3.7) However. then there are actually 2nd real ﬁelds described by (1b. (1b. The situation with scalar ﬁelds is somewhat more subtle. If δψL = i a T a ψL .4) In a “real” representation. − T a∗ = S T a S −1 .8) where τ are the Pauli matrices. rC . Finally.February 10. (1b. However. appear in the theory. generating the spin 1/2 representation of SU (2). The most bizarre situation occurs for pseudo-real representations. complex. 2009 — gauge transformations. (1b. one can include the matrix S into the deﬁnition of charge conjugation to make the right handed ﬁelds transform like the left handed ﬁelds.7) is an SU (d) acting on the ﬂavor indices of φ.7) describes the rC representation as well. 27 (1b. then because the elementary scalar ﬁelds are real. If the representation. and the right handed ﬁelds transform the same way. (1b. of the gauge group.3. In this case.3. the generators can be taken to be imaginary.3. which we can organize into a vector in ﬂavor space. then δψcR = i a (−T a∗ )ψcR .6) where Φ is a vector in ﬂavor space (as well as the space of the gauge group representation).5) but the matrix S is antisymmetric. We can write the kinetic energy term as D µ φ† Dµ φ . The generators of a 2n dimensional irreducible pseudo-real representation can be taken to have the form6 Ta = Aa + τ · Sa .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . rC . so that −T a∗ = T a . the representation may be “pseudoreal”. so the generators can not be made entirely real. antisymmetric matrices. rC (and rC ) is n dimensional. and the n × n matrix A is antisymmetric while the n × n S matrices are symmetric. which transforms under the rC representation. if the representation is “complex”.3. Here the kinetic energy term looks like Dµ ΦT Dµ Φ . because the global symmetry associated with a given representation of the gauge group depends on whether it is real.3.3.3.3.7). The ﬂavor symmetry of (1b. rR . both the rC representation and its complex conjugate. It turns out that a pseudo-real representation has an SU (2) structure built into it. rC . is complex.3. For d sets of scalars in a real irreducible representation. as usual. Suppose that there are d copies of the representation. If. Then ∗ τ2 Ta τ2 = −Ta . (1b.9) 6 Note that all pseudo-real representations have even dimensionality. or pseudo-real. because we could just as well have used the ﬁeld φ∗ . then −T a∗ is a diﬀerent representation. because each of the components of φ is complex. the ﬂavor symmetry is SO(d).3) (1b. .

13) preserves the special form of Σ.1) modiﬁed by the replacement of ∂ µ with the covariant derivative (1b. ﬁnd the µ dependence of κab deﬁned in (1b. ··· Σ1d . 2 1 3 T2 = τ1 .2. generated by acting on Σ on the right with matrices of the form Tx = Ax + τ · Sx . The gauge generators act on Σ on the left. This does not involve any of the unspeciﬁed interactions. but This theory has an SU(2) gauge symmetry. because it arises from one loops diagrams a like (1a. . of the special form Σij = σij + iτ · πij .3. because ψ1 and ψ2 transform under equivalent representations of the gauge symmetry which we have chosen. to write in diﬀerent forms.1. 2 1 2 T2 = τ3 . and also an SU(2) global ﬂavor symmetry. (1b.. .13) where the A and S are d × d matrices.3. 2009 — 28 The ﬂavor structure of the theory involves the τ matrices in a non-trivial way. (1b. Like the gauge transformation. Σn1 ··· . Σnd (1b. (1b. we can describe them by a 2n × 2d matrix ﬁeld of the following form: Σ11 .2). In the theory described by (1b. Tf . If there are d identical representations. Find the generators of the SU(2) ﬂavor symmetry.12) This is invariant under an Sp(2d) ﬂavor symmetry. antisymmetric and symmetric. Problems 1b-1. 1b-2. 2 where τa are the Pauli matrices. perversely.11) for real σij and πij . .February 10.8). .3. . Consider the Lagrangian / / iψ 1D1 ψ1 + iψ 2D2 ψ2 where µ Dj = ∂ µ − iGa Tja with 1 a T1 = τa 2 1 1 T2 = τ2 . This apparently arcane fact will be important when we discuss the standard model with a fundamental Higgs boson.3.1.14) in the one loop approximation. (1b.10) where Σij is a 2 × 2 matrix in the Pauli space.3.1. It will depend on the representation matrices. respectively. . . Thus the largest possible ﬂavor symmetry of a set of d pseudo-real representations of scalars is Sp(2d). Now the kinetic energy term has the form tr Dµ Σ† Dµ Σ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .

distinguished only by their larger masses. the µ− and the τ − seem to be heavier copies of the electron. νµL . Because they are heavier. 2. the lightest charged particle. they decay.2. µ. ντ L . the weak and electromagnetic interactions act on the µ and τ exactly as they act on the electron. The SU (2) × U (1) theory of the weak and electromagnetic interactions was ﬁrst written down as a model of leptons.Chapter 2 — Weinberg’s Model of Leptons 2. 2.2) (2.3) There is no compelling evidence for right-handed ν’s or left-handed ν’s. It gives a spectacularly accurate description of the electron’s properties in terms of only two parameters. This second property is a deﬁning characteristic of the class of spin 1/2 particles called “leptons” comprising the electron e− and its neutrino νe .2. the muon µ− and its neutrino νµ and the tau t− and its neutrino ντ — and by their antiparticles. As far as we can tell. L µ− . e− . Nine ﬁelds needed to describe the e. must be absolutely stable unless electromagnetic gauge invariance and global charge conservation are violated. The success of QED derives from two special characteristics of the electron: 1. so we do not need a νR ﬁeld.2 SU (2) × U (1) In its simplest and original version. the electron mass. it does not carry color and therefore does not participate directly in the strong interactions. 29 . me . and τ and their neutrinos.2. and the ﬁne structure constant. L − τL . νeL . the SU (2) × U (1) model describes the weak interactions of the leptons. e− R µ− R − τR (2. by a large factor. by weak interactions. α.1) (2.1 The electron Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the quantum ﬁeld theory of electrons and photons. So far as we know today. The electron. simply because at the time the strong interactions the weak interactions of the hadrons were not completely understood. that it is the lightest charged particle.

Deﬁne the doublet νeL ψL ≡ (2. Both of these sets of T ’s satisfy the SU (2) commutation relation Ta ψL = [Ta .8) although for the e− ﬁeld. − − τL → eiθτ τL .1). The matrix T3 is clearly related .7) R 2 where τa are the Pauli matrices. we must deﬁne the action of Ta and S on the fermion ﬁelds.4) νµL → eiθµ νµL . − − τR → eiθτ τR . Formally. The SU (2) couplings must all be the same (if the Ta ’s are normalized in the same way κ tr(Ta Tb ) = δab ) because they mix with one another under global SU (2) rotations.2. so we can discuss only the ﬁelds in the electron family (2.2. but there are some (still confusing) indications that they may have small masses.8) is satisﬁed in a rather trivial way. If the neutrinos are massless. 2 or 3. µ− → eiθµ µ− . The structure of the gauge theory is determined by the form of the covariant derivative: µ Dµ = ∂ µ + igWa Ta + ig X µ S (2. Ta e− = 0 (2. L L e− → eiθe e− .2. the weak interactions conserve electron number. simplify the construction of the model because the diﬀerent families do not mix with one another.5) where Ta and S are matrices acting on the ﬁelds.2. where a = 1. But the U (1) coupling g can be diﬀerent because the generator S never appears as a commutator of SU (2) generators. We will come back in later chapters to the lepton number violating eﬀects that can occur if the neutrino masses are non-zero. Even if we did start with equal g and g . we will ignore neutrino masses. we must make certain that some linear combination of the generators is the electric-charge matrix Q. this means that the theory has global symmetries: νeL → eiθe νeL . it would be rather silly to relate the couplings. and one Xµ associated with the U (1). R In order to incorporate QED into the theory we are building.2.6) e− L τa ψL .February 10. which means that there are four vector ﬁelds. The two couplings are renormalized diﬀerently and so require diﬀerent inﬁnite redeﬁnitions in each order of perturbation theory. µ− → eiθµ µ− . e− → eiθe e− . respectively. Tb ] = i abc Tc Then the Ta ’s are deﬁned as (2. (2. They may be massless. we would be unable to maintain the equality in the quantum theory in any natural way. 2009 — 30 The neutrinos are known to be very light. which is called an SU (2) singlet. µ number and τ number separately.2. R R (2. three of which µ are associated with the SU (2) group that we will call Wa . (2.4).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Since we need diﬀerent counterterms. Notice that the coupling constants fall into two groups: there is one g for all of the SU (2) couplings but a diﬀerent one for the U (1) couplings. L L R R ντ L → eiθτ ντ L . The gauge group is SU (2) × U (1). To specify the gauge structure completely. the interactions of the µ and τ are exact copies of those of the electron.2. Then the symmetries. called the generators of SU (2) and U (1).2. For now. Further.

.2.. trivially...10) can give rise to µ decay as shown in Figure 2-1.. ..12) plus an analogous term for muons...... If the theory is to µ incorporate QED..... ... .. QνeL = 0 . (2....2.. The SU (2) × U (1) gauge symmetry does not allow a lepton mass term e− e− or a W ± mass term. ..15) .... ....2... ... . Thus.2. µ− . we write µ Aµ = sin θ W3 + cos θ X µ (2. R R R (2...10) We deﬁned S this way so it satisﬁes the SU (2) × U (1) commutation relations [Ta . Qe− = −e− ..... we ﬁnd the interaction terms − g / / / / L νeL (W1 − iW2 )e− + e− (W1 + iW2 )νeL L 2 W1 iW2 2 (2....2....... The W ± must also be very heavy in order for the theory to agree with data.2. ......2....2.... ..2....... W± annihilates (creates) W ± (W ) particles..... L L 1 SψL = − ψL . A massless W ± would give rise to a long-range weak force.5)-(2..13) µ create and annihilate charged intermediate vector bosons.... W− . the force has a very short range...14) e− Then the orthogonal linear combination is another ﬁeld called Z µ : µ Z µ = cos θ W3 − sin θ X µ (2... ...... Despite these shortcomings.. .11) (2.. we deﬁne R Q = T3 + S (2. To see just what these gauge couplings do.. µ e ... Thus. ......7). the couplings µ µ µ µ of W1 and W2 ... ..5)-(2....... In fact. The “charged” ﬁelds deﬁned by µ W± = √ (2.. one linear combination of the W3 and X µ ﬁelds must be the photon ﬁeld Aµ . ν − νe Figure 2-1: There are two things wrong with Figure 2-1 as a picture of the weak interactions... ... 2009 — 31 to the charge because the diﬀerence between the T3 values of each multiplet (the doublet ψL and. The leptons must obviously get mass somehow for L R the theory to be sensible.. If we write out the coupling of W1 and W2 to the fermions just by inserting the standard forms of the Pauli matrices into (2. We have done this very carefully so that S will be proportional to the unit matrix on each multiplet.. The µ− and are massless.... .2.. . . . S] = 0 .. and the W ± are massless..February 10...2. 2 Qe− = Se− = −e− . the singlet e− ) us the same as the charge diﬀerence..... .. ............9) which deﬁnes S. we will press on and consider the neutral sector..Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft ...11) completely deﬁne the gauge couplings to the leptons. . ... (2... we will look ﬁrst at the interactions that change particle identity..2......

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

32

The two independent ﬁelds are orthogonal linear combinations of W3 and X because I have taken the kinetic-energy terms for the gauge ﬁelds to be 1 µν 1 − Wa Waµν − X µν Xµν 4 4 where

ν µ W µν = ∂ µ Wa − ∂ ν Wa − g µ ν abc Wb Wc

(2.2.16)

.

(2.2.17)

X µν = ∂ µ X ν − ∂ ν X µ Thus, only the orthogonal combinations of W3 and X have independent kinetic energy terms. At this point, sin θ is an arbitrary parameter. But if we insert (2.2.14-2.2.15) into the covariant derivative, we must obtain the photon coupling of QED. This determines the couplings of g and g in terms of sin θ and e. Schematically, the couplings of the neutral gauge particles are / / gW3 T3 + g XS Inserting (2.2.14)-(2.2.15) we get couplings / / A(g sin θ T3 + g cos θ S) + Z(g cos θ T3 − g sin θ S) . / Since A must couple to eQ = e(T3 + S) [from (2.2.9)], we must have g= Then the Z couplings are / / Z(e cot θ T3 − e tan θ S) = Z e (T3 − sin2 θ Q) sin θ cos θ (2.2.21) e , sin θ g = e cos θ (2.2.20) (2.2.19) (2.2.18)

The interesting thing about (2.2.21) is that the Z, unlike the photon, has non-zero couplings to neutrinos. Z exchange produces so-called neutral-current weak interactions such as νµ e− elastic scattering, shown in Figure 2-2.

µ ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .............................................. − νµ ................................................. ... ... ... ....... . . e ... Z..0...... .. . ..... ......

ν

e−

Figure 2-2: The SU (2) × U (1) gauge structure was ﬁrst written down by Glashow in 1960. At the time, the nature of the weak interactions was by no means obvious. That he got the right form at all was a great achievement that had to wait over 12 years for experimental conﬁrmation. Of course, he did not know how to give mass to the W ± and Z without breaking the gauge symmetry explicitly. The Z, like the W ± , must be very heavy. That much was known immediately because a massless Z would give rise to a peculiar parity-violating long-range force (see Figure 2-2.).

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

33

2.3

Renormalizability? An Interlude

So why don’t we just add mass terms for the W ± and Z by hand, even though it breaks the gauge symmetry? The problem is not lack of symmetry. Nice as the idea of local symmetry is, it is not what we care about. We are physicists, not philosophers. The real problem is that the theory with mass terms is not renormalizable, so we don’t really know how to make sense of it. Before discussing massive vector bosons, let’s go back an historical step and talk about the four-Fermi theory. Before SU (2) × U (1), there was a phenomenological theory of the charged-current weak interactions based on a four-fermion interaction. For the µ decay interaction, the form was as follows: GF α ∗ √ Jµ Jeα 2 where

α Jµ = νµ γ α (1 + γ5 )µ−

(2.3.1)

(2.3.2) (2.3.3)

and

α Je = νe γ α (1 + γ5 )e−

(2.3.1) is called a current-current interaction for obvious reasons. The constant GF (F is for Fermi) is determined from the µ decay rate. It has units of 1/mass2 m 2 GF p 10−5 (2.3.4)

where mp is the proton mass. (2.3.1) gives a perfectly adequate description of µ decay in tree approximation. The diﬃculty is that it is a dimension-6 operator, where the dimension of the fermion ﬁeld is determined by the / requirement that the kinetic-energy term iψ ∂ ψ has dimension 4. The theory is not renormalizable because quantum corrections produce an inﬁnite sequence of interactions with higher and higher dimensions, all with inﬁnite coeﬃcients. If we decide that we need a renormalizable theory (for example, we might regard the success of the e and µ g − 2 predictions in QED as evidence for renormalizability in general), the four-Fermi theory is no good. We can do better by adding e− , µ− , and W ± and Z terms to the gauge theory of Section 2.2.1. Then there are no dimension-6 operators in the interaction Hamiltonian. But the theory is still not renormalizable. To see this, consider the Z couplings (the W ± would do as well). The point is that the kinetic energy term is 1 − (∂ µ Z ν )(∂µ Zν − ∂ν Zµ ) 4 (2.3.5)

which doesn’t involve the longitudinal component of the Z µ ﬁeld, the component proportional to the gradient of a scalar ﬁeld. Let’s call this longitudinal component ZL and the transverse component ZT . µ µ µ µ ν Z µ = ZT + ZL ∂µ ZT = 0, ∂ µ ZL − ∂ ν ZL = 0 . (2.3.6) The theory in which we add a Z mass term by hand, however, does involve ZL in the mass term. Since ZL appears only in the mass term, not in the kinetic-energy term, it acts like an auxiliary ﬁeld. The ZL propagator does not fall oﬀ with momentum. ML ZL then acts like a ﬁeld with / dimension 2 for purposes of power counting. Then the ZL couplings to other stuﬀ, such as ψZL ψ terms, are dimension 5 and not renormalizable.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

34

But all is not lost. If we somehow preserve the gauge-invariance structure and give mass to the W ± and Z, we may be able to preserve renormalizability. This is what Weinberg and Salam did by making use of spontaneous symmetry breaking. We will return to the general discussion of why (and whether) the theory should be renormalizable when we discuss eﬀective ﬁeld theories in Chapter 8.

2.4

Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown

As a simple example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, consider the theory with a single Hermetian scalar ﬁeld and the Lagrangian 1 m2 2 λ 4 L(φ) = ∂ µ φ∂µ φ − φ − φ 2 2 4 (2.4.1)

With only a single ﬁeld, there can be no continuous internal symmetry, but this L(φ) is invariant under the reﬂection φ → −φ (2.4.2) This has allowed us to omit a φ3 (and φ) interaction term so that the theory has only two parameters, m and λ. If λ is small, we can hope to treat the λφ4 term as a perturbation. But suppose the sign of the mass term is changed so that the L(φ) becomes (discarding a constant)

1 L(φ) = 2 ∂ µ φ∂µ φ − V (φ)

V (φ) =

λ 4

φ2 −

m2 λ

2

.

(2.4.3)

In this case, we cannot perturb around the φ = 0 vacuum because the free theory contains a tachyon, a particle with imaginary mass. Nor would we want to do so because the potential looks like what we see in Figure 2-3. It is clear that the φ = 0 vacuum is unstable and that the theory much prefers to spend its time near one of two degenerate minima, φ = ± m2 /λ. It doesn’t care which.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .. .... . .. ..... . ..... .... .. . .. . ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .... .. ... .... ... ..... ... ............. ...........

− m2 /λ

0 Figure 2-3:

m2 /λ

If instead, we perturb around one of the minima, we get a sensible theory. The two are physically equivalent, so we pick φ = m2 /λ. For the φ ﬁeld, M 2 /λ is a “vacuum expectation value” (VEV).

φ = − m2 /λ or φ = −2 m2 /λ. This enhanced renormalizability. It has been spontaneously broken by the choice of vacuum. nonperturbative eﬀects in the inﬁnite volume theory. 2 (2. such states are forbidden by superselection rules. for this relation between the φ 4 . and sometimes even more important. which minimizes V . the ground state would be a linear combination of the φ = m2 /λ vacua. does not show up in perturbation theory.4) V (φ ) = λ 4 φ 4 2 + 2 m2 /λ φ m2 /λ φ 3 . However. the fact that we need only two independent counterterms. To simplify the analysis. 2.5. The existence of the other possible vacuum. The φ ﬁeld describes a massive scalar ﬁeld with mass 2m. In the inﬁnite space. In a ﬁnite space. but we will ignore them for now and press on.5) = λφ 4 + + m2 φ Several points should stand out. but not trivially related to the eventual physical particle masses. φ 3 and φ 2 terms will be preserved by quantum renormalization eﬀects.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Note that spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs only in inﬁnite space-time. φ = λ.4.5 The Goldstone Theorem For continuous symmetries.February 10.5. Let us consider the fairly general situation described by the Lagrangian 1 L(φ) = ∂µ φ ∂ µ φ − V (φ) 2 (2. we deﬁne Vj1 ···jn (φ) = ∂n V (φ) ∂φj1 . invariant under the discrete symmetry. As in the previous section. ∂φjn (2.1) where φ is some multiplet of spinless ﬁelds and V (φ) and thus L(φ) is invariant under some symmetry group δφ = i a T a φ (2. The symmetry is hidden. . . we want to perturb around a minimum of the potential V (φ).5. φ =φ− The result is 1 L(φ ) = 2 ∂ µ φ ∂µ φ − V (φ ) 2 35 m2 /λ (2. the theory is still described by only two parameters.5. It is inﬁnitely far away because the ﬁeld must be changed everywhere in space-time to get there. spontaneous symmetry breaking is slightly more subtle. 2009 — It is easier to see what is going on if we rewrite the theory in terms of a ﬁeld with zero VEV.4) . is the legacy of √ the spontaneously broken symmetry. with the original “imaginary” mass setting the scale. We expect the φ ﬁeld to have a VEV.2) where the T a are imaginary antisymmetric matrices (because φ are Hermitian). The existence of the other vacuum does give rise to a variety of interesting.3) Then we can write the condition that λ be an extremum of V (φ) as Vj (λ) = 0 (2.4.

It corresponds to a massless boson ﬁeld.5. who ﬁrst established this connection between spontaneously broken continuous symmetries and massless particles. given by φT T a λ (2.5.5.9). so the charge cannot disappear into the vacuum.5. If the symmetry is spontaneously broken.5. 2009 — Since λ is a minimum. Now let us return to the mass matrix. we cannot really get from one vacuum to another because to do so would require transformation of our local ﬁelds everywhere in space-time. But if T a λ = 0. Tb ] λ = 0) and generates the unbroken subgroup of the original symmetry group.11) is trivially satisﬁed.5. But it is also possible that Ta λ = 0 for some a (2.5.5) The second derivative matrix Vjk (λ) is the meson mass-squared matrix.2). and we obtain Vjk (λ)(T a )kl λl = 0 (2. But (2.5. This is spontaneous symmetry breaking. we get (since a (2. Now comes the interesting part.6) for all a.6) is the more general statement that the vacuum doesn’t carry the charge Ta . the behavior of the VEV λ under the transformations (2. we can write V (φ + δφ) − V (φ) = iVk (φ) a (T a )kl φl = 0 If we diﬀerentiate with respect to φj .11) requires that T a λ is an eigenvector of M 2 with zero eigenvalue. (2. Goldstone.5. If Ta λ = 0 (2.8) are arbitrary) (2. But we can look at states that diﬀer from our vacuum by such a rotation in a ﬁnite .9) Vjk (φ)(T a )kl φl + Vk (φ)(T a )kj = 0 Setting φ = λ in (2. we know that our vacuum is part of a continuous set of degenerate vacua that can be rotated into one another by the symmetry. (2.11) For Ta in the unbroken subgroup.5) assures us that there are no tachyons in the free theory about which 2 we are perturbing.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Thus. (2.6) is closed under commutation (because Ta λ = 0 and Tb λ ⇒ [Ta .10) 2 But Vjk (λ) is the mass-squared matrix Mjk for the spinless ﬁelds.5. There are two cases.5.2). This is certainly what happens if λ = 0.5.February 10. the symmetry is not broken.12) This is called a Goldstone boson after J.5.5. The set of generators satisfying (2. Physically.5. we ﬁnd that the second term drops out because of (2.5. so we can rewrite (2. The existence of the massless particle can be understood qualitatively as follows. We can see this by expanding V (φ) in a Taylor series in the shifted ﬁelds φ = φ − λ and noting that the mass term is 1 Vjk (λ)φj φk . V must also satisfy Vjk (λ) ≥ 0 36 (2.5.10) in matrix form as M 2T aλ = 0 (2. Because V is invariant under (2.4). Often there are some generators of the original symmetry that are spontaneously broken while others are not.5.7) Then the charge Ta can disappear into the vacuum even though the associated current is conserved.

the kinetic-energy term for massless fermions is automatically invariant under the larger group of symmetries.6. But Gell-Mann and Levy found that they could build a Lagrangian with chiral symmetry and a nucleon mass if the chiral symmetry was spontaneously broken. (2. in particular.4) in the following form δψ = i( If a 5 a − γ5 a )Ta ψ 5 (2. 2009 — 37 region and then go smoothly back to our vacuum outside.6. of the π-nucleon coupling. This would all seem to be academic. SU (2) × SU (2): δψL = i a Ta ψL L δψR = i aT ψ R a R . These are Goldstone bosons. (2. ψ= P N (2. 2. The example is the σ-model of Gell-Mann and Levy (Nuovo Cimento 16:705-713.6.3) These are the chiral symmetries. as we have seen. it’s a pure chiral rotation.6. But if there are states in the theory with energy arbitrarily close to the energy of the vacuum state. a toy model of nuclear forces and. the pion is interpreted as a Goldstone boson. since a nucleon mass term ψψ breaks the chiral symmetry and leaves only isospin.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . In the process. If a = 0.6.2) However.6.6. Let ψ be an isospin-doublet ﬁeld representing the nucleons. P and N . this is a pure isospin rotation. with Ta = τa /2 δψ = i a Ta ψ (2. we will work out in detail one example of global symmetry breakdown in the strong interactions that will be useful when we discuss hadrons — and will turn out to have a curious connection with the weak interactions as well. (2. The point is that the energy of such a state can be made arbitrarily close to the energy of our vacuum state by making the region larger and the transition smoother.6. The Lagrangian involves a 2 × 2 matrix of spinless ﬁelds Σ that transforms as follows under the chiral symmetries: δΣ = i a Ta Σ − iΣ a Ta (2.3) can be rewritten in terms of the inﬁnitesimal parameters a a 5 =( =( a R a R + − a )/2 L a )/2 L . then there must be massless particles in the theory. 1960).5) = 0.6 The σ-Model Before discussing the spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in gauge theories.1) The theory should certainly be invariant under global rotations.February 10.7) .6) L R Then the Lagrangian has the following form: / L = iψ ∂ ψ − gψL ΣψR − gψR Σ† ψL + L(Σ) (2. Their masslessness is the translation into local ﬁeld theory of the global degeneracy of the vacuum.

you can see that the πa ﬁelds have the right form to describe the π’s.6. Thus √ Σ is σ 2 + π 2 times a unitary unimodular matrix.6. the most general invariant (without derivatives) is just a function of σ 2 + πa .6.10) with la and ra arbitrary real 3-vectors.6). The inﬁnitesimal transformations (2.6. we can recognize (2.6.1 But it is true.13).6.6. The invariant (2. We still don’t have a nucleon mass term. we will be in good shape.12) as the transformation law of a 4-vector in four-dimensional Euclidean space.13) that if we can give σ a VEV. and you can work out by explicit calculation the transformations of the σ and πa ﬁelds: δσ = aπ 5 a abc bπ c . The most general 2 × 2 matrix would have eight real components. Alternatively. 2009 — 38 The invariance of the Yukawa couplings may be more transparent in terms of ﬁnite transformations.6.6.6. the only independent variant. 1 These objects are actually related to interesting things called quaternions.6. R = exp (ira τa ) (2.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .6. It is clear from (2. . but it is clear from (2. as follows: Σ = σ + iτa πa (2.6. the result is still of the form σ 2 + π 2 times a unitary unimodular matrix.13) From (2. − aσ 5 (2. Obviously.14) 2 is invariant. The Σ ﬁeld is constrained to depend only on four real ﬁelds.9) Σ → LΣR† where L and R are independent 2 × 2 unitary matrices with determinant 1.3) and (2. we must ask how to build L(Σ) invariant under SU (2) × SU (2).6) can be integrated to obtain ψL → LψL .9) that 1 2 tr Σ† Σ = σ 2 + πa 2 (2. The coupling g is the πN N coupling gπN N .14) is just the length of the vector. ψR → RψR (2.12) δπa = − Another way to see this is to note that Σ† Σ = ΣΣ† = σ 2 + π 2 I and det Σ = σ 2 + π 2 .6. 2 + π 2 because This can be seen by noting that more complicated traces just give powers of σ a 2 Σ† Σ = σ 2 + π a (2. To this end. Inserting (2. L = exp (ila τα ) . In fact.15) and is proportional to the identity in the 2 × 2 space.6.11) into L. we can write the Yukawa couplings as − gσψψ + igπa ψγ5 τa ψ (2.6.February 10.6.8) (2. if we multiply Σ on the left or on √ the right by a unitary unimodular matrix.11) It is not obvious (at least to me) that this form is preserved by the transformations (2.

has the form 5 µ j5a = − (∂ µ πa ) σ + (∂ µ σ) πa − ψγ µ γ5 τa ψ (2.6.19) σ =0 (2.6.20) (2. Why did Gell-Mann and Levy think (2.18) Now we can use our freedom to make SU (2) × SU (2) transformations to rotate any VEV into the σ direction so that without any loss of generality we can assume σ = Fπ . V is obviously minimized for 2 2 σ 2 + πa = Fπ (2. and perturb around that vacuum. Thus. The reason is that.6. we take V to be V (σ 2 + π 2 ) = λ 4 2 σ 2 + πa 2 2 − Fπ 2 39 (2. 2 πa = 0 (2.February 10. we deﬁne the shifted ﬁeld σ = σ − Fπ .22) which in terms of shifted ﬁelds has a piece proportional to ∂ µ πa : µ j5a = −Fπ ∂ µ πa + · · · (2. But there was another reason. Then σ = πa = 0 is not a minimum.16) (2. The crucial fact is that the axial vector current. it is the only mass scale in the theory so far).21) −λ σ 4 2 2 + πa + 2Fπ σ 2 This describes nucleons with mass gFπ coupled to the scalar σ ﬁeld and massless pseudoscalar πa ’s.6. m2 /m2 1/50.17) where λ is a dimensionless constant and Fπ has dimensions of mass (indeed. The parameter g can clearly be measured in π-nucleon interactions. 2009 — Without further introduction.23) The other terms are all bilinear in the ﬁelds.6.6. as we shall discuss in enormous detail later. The point is that this current has a nonzero matrix element between the vacuum and a one-pion state µ 0|j5a |πb = iFπ pµ δab (2. It turns out that Fπ can also be measured.6.6. Perhaps π N a theory in which it is massless is not such a bad approximation. in terms of which L is / L = iψ ∂ ψ − gFπ ψψ − gσ ψψ 1 +igπa ψτa γ5 ψ + 2 ∂ µ σ ∂µ σ + 1 ∂ µ πa ∂ µ πa .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .21) had anything to do with the world? For one thing. the physical pion is very light compared to other hadrons. it determines the rate at which π ± decay through the weak interactions. For example. the current associated with a transformations. 1 1 2 L(Σ) = ∂ µ σ∂µ σ + ∂ µ πa ∂µ πa − V σ 2 + πa 2 2 To get a VEV.6. we can write down the invariant L.24) .6.

5) i † φ 2 (2.1) is invariant under the SU (2) transformation δ = i a T a + i S. The pion is a Goldstone boson in this model. 2009 — 40 where pµ is the pion momentum.February 10. 2 (2.7. the isospin generators annihilate the vacuum.2) (2. But wait and see. π (2.25) This relation is called the Goldberger-Treiman relation.5 to see it directly.7. At any rate.7. This is odd.26) 2. φ must be a doublet ﬁeld φ+ φ0 =φ (2.6. the decay π + → µ+ νµ is proportional to Fπ . like the charge with which it is associated.10) with (2. But the chiral transformations rotate the VEV into the π directions (σπa = · · ·+ a Fπ from (2.7.6.6) and (2.2.6. Note that δφ† = −i a φ† Ta − so that δ φ† ψL = −i φ† ψL (2. and it works fairly well (actually (2.6. and thus the chiral symmetry 5 is broken and the π’s are Goldstone bosons. It is probably not obvious that the W ± and Z will get mass.7. so isospin is not spontaneously broken and there is no scalar Goldstone boson. just moves you around within multiplets. we need an SU (2) × U (1) multiplet of spinless ﬁelds that can couple the ψL to the e− in a Yukawa coupling.c. (2. We will discuss explicit chiral symmetry breaking later. It seems clear that we can get an electron mass in much the same way we get nucleon masses in the σ-model.2. Then the nucleon mass can be predicted according to mN = gπN N Fπ (2. To give mass to the electron. R − f e− φ† ψL + h. This is probably obvious. but now notice that we can incorporate a pion mass by adding to V the term m2 π 2 σ 2 + π 2 − 2Fπ σ + Fπ 2 which is not invariant because of the linear term m2 Fπ σ.3) where the superscripts are the Q values according to Q = T3 + S.12)).24) is a sign of spontaneous symmetry 2 breaking.6. In this theory.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Evidently. and so Fπ can be measured.2) imply that (2.4) . but we can use the formal machinery of Section 2.1) then (2.25) us a special case of the general Goldberger-Treiman relation that works even better).7. The Goldstone-boson directions are deﬁned by Ta λ where λ is the VEV. 2 1 Sφ = φ . R If the ﬁeld φ transforms under SU (2) × U (1) with charges Tφ = τ φ.7. A normal current.7 The Higgs Mechanism We now want to apply the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to the SU (2) × U (1) model of leptons.

6) We can do everything in this notation. we write φ3 φ4 Φ= φ1 φ2 (2. It is a tensor product of the twodimensional space of the original φ. We can easily do this by rewriting the complex φ+ and φ0 ﬁelds in terms of their real and imaginary parts: √ φ+ (φ3 + iφ4 )/√2 (2. The advantage of this notation is really marginal.7).10) gives the same transformation laws as (2. it makes it slightly easier to identify the Goldstone bosons.7. on which the τ ’s act. we might as well use it.11) ∂µ + i T · Wµ + SXµ Φ .7. but it is slightly more convenient to go over to a notation in which the scalar ﬁelds are self-adjoint. and a two-dimensional space corresponding to the real and imaginary parts of the components of φ. τj .7.7.February 10.2) and (2. Now that we have the SU (2) × U (1) properties of φ determined. so (2.7. 2009 — 41 φ† ψL is an SU (2) singlet with S + −1.7) = φ0 (φ1 + iφ2 )/ 2 √ The conventional 2 is intended to ensure that the ﬁelds are normalized in the same way. on which we can deﬁne an independent set of Pauli matrices σ. But since it is so easy.7. At any rate. Now when φ0 has a R nonzero VEV. (2. k = 1 to 3) (2. it is easy to write down the generators T and S.7.2) has a piece that looks like an electron mass. In terms of Φ. For example.7.10) You can easily check that (2. we know the couplings of the gauge particles to the φ — they are determined by the covariant derivatives: LKE (φ) = (Dµ φ)† (Dµ φ) (2. just like e− . and σj τk (where j.8) The space of the Φ ﬁeld has an obvious tensor-product structure. The 15 traceless Hermitian matrices acting on φ can be written as σj . we can arrange the real ﬁelds φj in a real 4-vector and ask how the generators T and S translate into this notation. but multiply symmetric matrices by −σ2 to make them antisymmetric.1) is invariant. Thus. Thus 1 T1 Φ = − 2 τ1 σ2 Φ 1 T2 Φ = 2 τ2 Φ 1 T3 Φ = − 2 τ3 σ2 Φ 1 SΦ = − 2 σ2 Φ (2.7.9) In this notation. The procedure is simple and quite general: Leave antisymmetric matrices in φ space unchanged.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .7. the kinetic-energy term becomes 1 LKE (Φ) = 2 Dµ ΦT Dµ Φ = 1 2 ∂ µ ΦT − iΦT e sin θ e sin θ T · Wµ + e cos θ e cos θ SXµ (2.7.

February 10.7.7. Perhaps we will be able to give mass to the W ± and Z.7. Let’s prove that. The most general SU (2) × U (1) invariant potential depends only on the combination φ† φ. Of course. if it has the form 2 λ † V (φ) = φ φ − v 2 /2 (2. all we have done is to choose a convenient form for the VEV so that our original labeling of the fermion ﬁelds is consistent.19) e e SXµ λ T · Wµ + sin θ cos θ (2.7. we hope to do it without giving mass to the photon. This is purely conventional. We can make an SU (2) × U (1) transformation to make any VEV of φ+ and φ0 have the form √ φ+ = 0. and we still have the Goldstone bosons to worry about. of course. In particular. and the shifted scalar ﬁeld: Φ =Φ−λ (2.13) in terms of the VEV.15) By a suitable choice of θ3 we can make a and b have the same phase.17) 0 Now we want to rewrite (2.7. If Φ has a VEV. 2009 — 42 µ The point of all this is that (2. There are two types: 1 T e e e e λ T · Wµ + SX µ · T · Wµ + SXµ λ 2 sin θ cos θ sin θ cos θ and i∂ µ Φ T (2.7.1) gives an electron mass term that is real and positive.7. Then by another (2.20) .18) Of course. We want the VEV of φ0 to be real and positive to that (2. LKE (Φ) contains the kinetic energy term for the Φ ﬁelds.14) is an orthogonal transformation by which we can rotate the (a.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .15) transformation we can make the VEV real and positive.7. φ0 = v/ 2 (2. Thus. λ.7. (2.13) is equivalent to 0 Φ = v 0 (2. But let’s go on.12) 2 Then φ will develop a VEV.16) a b (2. But for the moment we will concentrate on the terms that are quadratic in the ﬁelds. In any case. b → e−1θ3 b (2.7.13) for real v.7. Then φ → exp(2iφ2 T2 )φ (2.11) contains terms like ΦT W1 W1µ Φ. b) vector into the φ0 direction.7. Suppose φ = By making a transformation of the form φ → exp(2iθ3 T3 )θ we get a → eiθ3 a.7.7. this looks like a W1 mass.

we can choose a gauge.7.19) and (2. is the way it had to work out.7.7.26) (2.28) .20) looks dangerous. (2.7. Note ﬁrst that we can separate the problem into a neutral-gauge boson mass matrix and a separate-charged boson matrix.19) and show that it is a mass term for the W ± and the Z. Comparing (2. The neutral sector is more complicated than the charged sector.7.7. and it does. it must imply that the photon remains massless.27) ev = MZ cos θ 2 sin θ (2. Having disposed of (2. we can take an arbitrary ﬁeld Φ(x) and rotate it into the φ1 direction! So that after these rotations φ2 (x) = φ3 (x) = φ4 (x) = 0 (2.7. 2009 — 43 The (2. called the unitary gauge.7. The VEV is a VEV of the single remaining ﬁeld φ3 .24) into (2. in which the Goldstone-boson ﬁelds just vanish.19)-(2.20). We saw in (2. we need to return to the unbroken theory. as we will soon see. we get 1 e2 1 ev 2 Z µ Zµ λT T3 λ = 2 2θ 2 sin θ cos 2 2 sin θ cos θ Thus ev 2 sin θ cos θ An even simpler analysis for the charged ﬁelds gives MZ = 1 ev 2 2 sin θ Thus MW = 2 µ µ (W1 W1µ + W2 W2µ ) 2 Z µ Zµ (2. we can now return to (2. we can see explicitly that the Goldstone-boson ﬁelds vanish in this gauge.24) is the statement that the electromagnetic gauge invariance is not broken by the vacuum. But (2.24) also shows that the sin2 θQ term in the Z µ coupling is irrelevant to the mass.2 that we could rewrite the covariant derivative in terms of Aµ and Z ﬁelds as follows: e e e µ T3 W3 + SX µ = eQAµ + T3 − sin2 θ Q Z µ sin θ cos θ sin θ cos θ Now we can see why the photon ﬁeld doesn’t get a mass — because Qλ = 0 (2. so we can throw (2. But we have not yet used all our freedom to make local SU (2) × U (1) transformations. To see this.7.7. But since we have the freedom to make diﬀerent SU (2) × U (1) transformations at each point in space-time.7. since T3 λ = −Sλ. so we will do it ﬁrst.23) so that Aµ doesn’t appear in (2.21) Φ T T λ = ΦT T λ The ﬁeld Φ T Sλ is not independent.7. we now have no further freedom to rotate Φ without disturbing (2.21) and (2.19) are the W and Z mass terms we want.25) (2.7.7. we have chosen a gauge.22).23)-(2.February 10.7. Thus.7.24) (2. It describes some sort of mixing between the Goldstone bosons and the gauge ﬁelds.7. This.20). In fact.7.20) away.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .7. of course. Electromagnetic charge conservation prevents mixing between the two. The Goldstone-boson ﬁelds are (2.7.22).14-17) that we use the global SU (2) × U (1) symmetry to take an arbitrary VEV and rotate it into the φ3 direction. In other words. Putting (2.7.20). We saw in Section 2.7.7.22) Of course. (2.7.7.

3) where Ta are the SU (2) generators. which has the form GF √ 2 α α j3 − 2 sin2 θ jEM · j3α − 2 sin2 θ jEM α α where jEM = ψγ α Qψ (2. 2009 — 44 The gauge deﬁned by (2.8.1) 2 sin2 θ 8MW 2v This is just one term of the general charged-current interaction that has the following form: GF α α √ (j1 j1α + j2 j2α ) 2 where the currents are α ja = ψ (2.3). the unitary-gauge requirement is that the Goldstone-boson ﬁelds vanish.8.7) Comparing (2. ΦT Ta λ = 0 (2.4) sin θ the Z µ coupling is e T3 − sin2 θ Q (2.22) is called “unitary” or “unitarity” gauge because all ﬁelds that appear correspond to physical particles that appear in the S-matrix.7. But as ’t Hooft showed.8. φ4 = π1 (2. the theory would have a gauged SU (2)L symmetry and a global SU (2)R . we see that our φ doublet can be identiﬁed with the Σ ﬁeld of the SU (2)L × SU (2)R σ-model.5) sin θ cos θ However.6) is easy to remember because the j 2 term has the same strength as 2 2 the j1 and j2 terms in (2. φ2 = −π3 .7.2).4). there are others. since the Z is heavier that the W by a factor of 1/ cos θ. renormalizability is not obvious.29) In this gauge.6.8. φ3 = π2 .8. 2 2 2 The fact that the coeﬃcients of j1 and j2 .12).7.8. but as we will see later.1) with √ 2 2e 1 GF = =√ 2 (2.6) The normalization of (2. at low-momentum transfers.February 10. We will discuss other gauges and the question of radiative corrections in Chapter 8. the theory has a larger symmetry.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . In the same notation in which the W ± coupling is e Ta (2.8. The coupling of the Z produces a neutral-current interaction analogous to (2. the extra factor of cos θ in (2. Consider the substitutions φ1 = σ.2) ψL Ta γ α (1 + γ5 ) ψl (2.3. So far. the theory is renormalizable. 2. It is symptomatic of an important feature of the theory.8.8.8. W ± exchange gives rise to the eﬀective four-fermion interaction (2.8.8 Neutral Currents As you will show in Problem 2-1.8. we have seen only the leptonic contribution to (2.5) cancels from the eﬀective four-fermion interaction.2) and (2. In the limit in which the g coupling is turned oﬀ. and the weak SU (2) is just SU (2)L . If there were no g coupling and no Yukawa couplings. In general. and j3 are the same is really much more than mnemonic.

If some scattering process takes place purely through the weak interactions. This produces a total cross section for the process that falls with 1/s (s = 4E 2 . (2.11) (2. The cross section (at energies large compared to the particle masses) is 4πα2 (2. It requires the neutral currents to have the form (2.1) σe+ e− →µ+ µ− = 3s . Thus.8. for s large compared to fermion masses. The parameter GF .9 e+ e− → µ+ µ− The situation is more complicated in e+ e− annihilation.8. The data are better for neutrino-nucleon scattering.9) on dimensional grounds.February 10. we must have σ G2 s F (2. It works.8.8. After appropriate radiative corrections.9. The ﬁrst two have been seen in high-energy neutrino-scattering experiments where the neutrinos are primarily νµ and νµ from π ± decay. σ is F proportional to G2 times a function of s and the fermion masses.6) because they must be part of an SU (2) singlet with (2. Consider ﬁrst the general question of weak cross sections. where s is the square of the F center of mass energy. to see processes such as νµ + e− → νµ + e− or µ− + νe νµ + e− → νµ + e− νµ + e− → νe + e− (2.12) (2. but there is also good evidence from neutrino-nucleon scattering. Since the only convenient lepton ﬁxed target is the e− . Thus. there is no way for one of the fermion masses to get into the denominator.6) has some interesting physics associated with it.13) is not easy. The advantage of these experiments as tests of the model are that they only involve leptons — no strong interactions. 2.8. Furthermore. the process e+ e− → µ+ µ− is dominated by electromagnetic interactions.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .8. we ﬁnd GF = 1.8.8) (2. the SU (2)L × SU (2)R symmetry is broken down to the diagonal SU (2). Thus. We will study this in Chapter 7.13) has been seen in low-energy antineutrino beams from reactors where enormous neutrino ﬂuxes are available. which remains as an unbroken global symmetry of the theory.8. (2. the Fermi constant. This SU (2) is sometimes called the “custodial” SU (2) symmetry. 2009 — 45 symmetry. the s-channel exchange of a virtual proton shown in Figure 2-4. At the low center of mass energies. it is hard to get a large s in ﬁxed-target experiments because s 2Eme (2. When φ1 (= σ) gets a VEV.8.166 × 10−5 GeV−2 (2.9) has important consequences for weak-scattering experiments. which we will discuss in some detail later.10) where E is the beam energy. can be ﬁxed by a measurement of the µ decay rate (see Problem 2-4). The cross sections are larger because s is larger for a given beam energy by mNucleon /me — a large factor. the amplitude is proportional to GF .8. where E is the center of mass energy of one of the particles). But the experiments are so hard that this is not the easiest way to get really detailed tests of the SU (2) × U (1) theory.2) when sin2 θ = 0. and so the cross section is proportional to G2 .8.

But the photon has only V couplings. not only for e+ e− → µ+ µ− ..... with a total center of mass energy between 30 and 40 GeV....... . .... ......... . ........ The front-back asymmetry has been measured and agrees with the SU (2) × U (1) model..... ......... ...... ... Thus... .....8..... ...February 10. − µ− Figure 2-4: e+ .. ....2) VV AA VV VA (2.. ... as many µ+ would scatter forward in the direction of the incoming e+ as backward.... . ... .. In the 70’s and early 80’s. .. Indeed. so (2.. . . . This was exciting because it was the ﬁrst data we had on the τ neutral current..9.4) (2.. ...... the largest e+ e− machine is LEP at CERN which runs at a center of mass energy of about MZ and today has produced millions of Zs.. this becomes the dominant contribution to the amplitude. . and AV. ....9.9..... ..... Thus the interference has one of the following forms: VV VV (2. .. on the other hand... .. ..1) has the form VV..... .. but also for e+ e− → τ + τ − .. .. . γ .. changes sign under the interchange of µ+ and µ− because the V and A currents have opposite-charge conjugation..... (2...... .......... This was not enough to produce the Z 0 resonance.. ..... .. in the opposite direction (see Problem 2-7)......3) (2.. . The largest eﬀect of what occurs in Figure 2-5 at these energies is the interference between the processes in Figures 2-4 and 2-5........ .. .. Z0 ... The SLC. There are two types of contribution to the interference in the total cross section... ........ . ... .... .. ..... . ... the novel single pass collider at SLAC . ...... .. (2. ....Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft ......9.. Today. .... . .2) shares an interesting property with the purely electromagnetic contribution in that it looks the same if we interchange the µ+ and the µ− in the ﬁnal state. Eventually. such as helicity dependence..... .... as seen in Figure 2-5. . . + µ− µ+ e Figure 2-5: But the neutral-current weak interactions also contribute..........9. this term contributes to a front-back asymmetry in the cross section (see Problem 2-7).... AA......3).. the process in Figure 2-5 has pieces of the form VV....4) does not contribute at all to the total cross section because it is a pseudoscalar..9... ... Since the Z 0 has both vector (V) and axial vector (A) couplings...... .... . the largest active e+ e− machines were the PETRA machine in Hamburg and the PEP machine in Palo Alto... ....... . 2009 — e+ .. µ+ 46 e ... ....... . If this were the only contribution.. this process should be one of the best sources of information about the Z 0.. ... It does contribute to various parity violating eﬀects. when the total center of mass energy approaches the Z 0 mass.... .

To prove (b ). the electrons can be polarized. In the SU (2)×U (1) theory. both W ± and Z 0 exchange contribute to the elastic scattering process. Tb ] = i 2-3. 2009 — 47 also produces Zs in e+ e− annihilation.February 10. Derive the analogous relation in a theory in which the left. (a) (b) (b ) (c) (d) abc Tc 0 0 0 0 0 −1 Find the constants Cj in the following relations: [γ µ P± ]ij [γµ P± ]kl = C1 [γ µ P± ]il [γµ P± ]kj [γ µ P± ]ij [γµ P ]kl = C2 [P ]il [P± ]kj Note that [σ µν P ]il [σµν P± ]kj = 0 [P± ]ij [P± ]kl = C3 [P± ]il [P± ]kj + C4 [σ µν P± ]il [σµν P± ]kj [σ µν P± ]ij [σµν P± ]kl = C5 [P± ]il [P± ]kj + C6 [σ µν P± ]il [σµν P± ]kj These six numbers are all there is to Fierz transformations. For (c) and (d). For momentum transfers very small compared to MW . Problems 2-1. 2 Derive the relation MW = √ 2e2 /8 sin2 θ GF . Multiply avoid taking traces of σ lk λ by δjk and sum over j and k to get another. The SU (2) generators of the triplet representation are 0 1 1 T1 = √ 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 i T2 = √ i 2 0 −i 0 0 −i i 0 1 0 T3 = 0 Note that [Ta . multiply by γlk and sum over l and k. ν Hint: For (a) and (b). multiply by γlk and sum over l and k. Note that in this limit. 2 . it’s easiest to µν .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . νe e− → νe e− . In this machine. 2-2. use the results of Problem 2-3 to write the eﬀective interaction Hamiltonian for this process in the form: GF √ νe γµ (1 + γ5 )νe e− γ µ (GV + GA γ5 )e− . so multiply by δ and sum over l and k to get one equation. Calculate the µ decay rate assuming MW depends only on GF and me . so the interactions of the left-handed and right-handed electrons can be separately studied. mµ me .handed electron and muon ﬁelds are in triplets (with all right-handed ﬁelds in singlets) under SU (2) × U (1) as follows: ψeL + EL = νeL e− L ψµL + ML = νµL µ− L where E + and M + are heavy (unobserved) lepton ﬁelds. 2-4. the rate 2-5.

Calculate the diﬀerential cross section dσ/dθ for e+ e− → µ+ µ− . How large does M have to be so that the rate for this decay is less than 1% of the normal decay rate? .c.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Calculate sin2 θ in tree approximation. 48 2-6. E − . The gauge group is SU (2) × U (1) with one left-handed doublet of fermions. Show that this SU (3) contains the usual SU (2) × U (1). σ. Assume that the energy is large compared to mµ (so that the lepton masses can be ignored). Consider a model of electrons and muons based on an SU (3) gauge symmetry in which the left-handed fermion ﬁelds are a pair of SU (3) 3’s. R a a In addition. Find the front-back asymmetry deﬁned by 1 σ 1 0 dσ d(cos θ) − dθ 0 −1 dσ d(cos θ) dθ 2-8. Then calculate the decay rate for the process E − → e− + e− + e+ from the neutral current interaction. ψ1L νeL e− = L µ+ L ψ2L νµL µ− = L e+ L where e+ and µ+ are the charge conjugated ﬁelds. φ (a traceless Hermitian 3 × 3 matrix ﬁeld. eL and EL . and singlets e− . µ+ = (µ− )c and e+ = (e+ )c . in the center of mass system where θ is the angle between the momentum of the incoming e− and the outgoing µ− . 2009 — Find GV and GA .February 10. φ]) with V EV M φ = 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 −2M Show that the SU (3) gauge bosons that have mass of order M mediate. Neglect me compared to mE . Note: Try to get the answer from the µ decay rate actually calculating anything new. but not large compared to MZ (so that only electromagnetic and weak-electromagnetic interference terms are relevant). among other things. Under an inﬁnitesimal SU (3) transformation. ER and ER transform just like e− R R under SU (2) × U (1). there are gauge-invariant mass terms − −me sin ξ e− EL − mE cos ξ ER EL + h. − − − − ψL . the transform as follows: δψjL = i a Ta ψjL where Ta are the Gell-Mann matrices. 2-7. Further assume that the incoming es are unpolarized and the polarization of the outgoing µs is unmeasured. R Find ψL and EL in terms of mass-eigenstate ﬁelds. µ− decay into right-handed electrons. SU (3) can be broken down to SU (2) × U (1) by an octet ﬁeld. ER and ER (E − is not a mass eigenstate). transforming as δφ = i a [Ta .c. The Yukawa couplings are me mE − − cos ξ e− φ† ψL + sin ξ ER φ† ψL + h. Consider a variant of the SU (2) × U (1) model in which the electron mixes with a heavy charged lepton. Integrate dσ/dθ to the contribution of the weak electromagnetic interference to the total cross section.

4) The Ta ’s are “color” charges just like Q in QED. the quarks and their ﬁelds (I’ll call them q generically) come in three colors: qred (3. conventionally normalized so that 1 tr(Ta Tb ) = δab . The Lagrangian a is 1 / L = − Gµν Gaµν + (iqDq − mq qq) (3. It is quite another to understand what it means and whether it is right — this will occupy us for much of the rest of the book — and is one of the exciting issues in particle physics today. The color–neutral combinations are qq (3. We now have a rather convincing.1) q = qgreen qblue In addition. 3. and Dµ .3) The Ta are the eight 3 × 3 traceless Hermitian matrices.Chapter 3 — Quarks and QCD In this section. the covariant derivative.1 Color SU (3) 1 Hadrons are built out of spin− 2 quarks. we will give a semi-historical discussion of quantum chromodynamics. the theory involves eight “gluon” ﬁelds Gµ .5) and jkl qj qk ql (3.1.2) 4 a ﬂavors where the Gµν . a igTa Gµν = [Dµ . as we will do in this chapter. the gluon ﬁeld–strength. and the weak interactions of the quarks.1. theory based on an SU (3) gauge theory.1. It is one thing to write down the model. are a Dµ = ∂ µ + igTa Gµ .6) 49 . This is only the beginning of our discussion of the weak interactions of strongly interacting particles.1. a (3. much as the photon exchange binds charged particles into electrically neutral atoms. the SU (3) gauge particles. The net eﬀect of the exchange of all eight color gluons is to bind the quarks and antiquarks into color–neutral combinations.1.1. 2 (3. though not fully quantitative. Dν ] .

k.February 10.77 939.2 Particle π + (π − ) π0 + (K − ) K 0 K 0 (K ) η η D+ (D− ) 0 D0 (D ) + (D − ) Ds s ηc B + (B − ) 0 B 0 (B ) 0 (B o ) Bs s p n Λ Σ+ Σ0 Σ− Ξ0 Ξ− Ω− Λ+ c Λ0 b Jp 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0− 0−∗ 0−∗ 0−∗ 1+ 2 1+ 2 1+ 2 1+ 2 1 +∗ 2 1+ 2 1 +∗ 2 1 +∗ 2 3 +∗ 2 1 +∗ 2 1 +∗ 2 Mass(MeV) Quark Composition 139. Jp is not yet measured. But The t. there are antibaryons as well). b have Q = − 1 . c (for “charm”). Classically.5) describes mesons and those in (3. however. This world doesn’t look much like our own. where each q is one of the types or ﬂavors of quarks: u (for “up”).6) are baryons (of course.98 (uu − dd)/ 2 493. many people believe QCD is the best candidate yet proposed for a theory of the strong interactions. (3. All the hadrons we have seen correspond to one of these combinations. therefore. and b (for “bottom” or “beauty”). and t have Q = 2 .68 1189. The quarks carry fractional charges. The gluons are apparently massless. d (for “down”). And we don’t see any of these things in the real world.1.44 1314.90 1321.3 cd (dc) 1864.5 cs (sc) 2979. 2∗ These are quark model predictions. is so heavy that it decays in to W + b so quickly that it hardly makes sense to talk about it being conﬁned in hadrons.57 ud (du) √ 134.68 us (su) 497.45 ∼ (uu + dd − 2ss)/ 6 √ 957.1.9 5641 ddu ddu uds uus uds dds ssu ssd sss udc udb Table 3. only the dimensionless coupling constant g.8 ∼ cc 5279 ub (bu) 5279 db (bd) 5369 sb (bs) 938. 2009 — 50 where j.67 ds (sd) √ 547.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . s. c.1.45 2284. 1 . the QCD Lagrangian describes a world of quarks and massless gluons coupled to the eight color changes. In Table 3.37 1192. and l are color indices and repeated indices are summed.5 cu (uc) 1968. Nevertheless. the theory is scale–invariant.77 ∼ (uu + dd − 2ss) 3 1869.57 1115. I give the quark 3 3 composition of some representative hadrons. Flavors d.1: Quark content of hadrons. In perturbation theory.1 The ﬂavors u.32 1672. Why doesn’t the world look like a world of quarks and gluons? The QCD Lagrangian with no quarks or with massless quarks has no dimensional parameter.55 1197. s (for “strange”). A sixth quark ﬂavor t (for “top” or “truth”) almost certainly exists and may have been seen.

February 10. If we could somehow pull a single quark away from an antiquark without creating quark–antiquark pairs. it is necessary to break the scale invariance and deﬁne or renormalize the coupling g and the ﬁelds at reference momenta of the order of a “renormalization mass: µ. what makes QCD complicated is the fact that the lightest quarks are. (3. If our concept of “observation of a particle” is not ﬂexible enough to apply to objects that cannot be entirely isolated. Rubbish! Actually.1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . then when we got to distances large compared to the fundamental length in the theory that is 1/Λ. The analogy between conﬁnement and electromagnetism is imperfect. if g(µ) is small for some particular µ. The electromagnetic force. In this way. After all. we’ll try to make this toy world look as much as possible like our own. we cannot isolate an electron either. but we’ll leave open the possibility of adjusting the strength of the QCD force. while it is long–range. In general. In other words.1. But then.7) 4π 11 ln(µ/Λ) Notice that dimensional transmutation has taken place. Because the theory is renormalizable. the coupling constant g becomes a function of µ. g(µ). When we do that in the theory with no quarks. every electron comes complete with its long–range electromagnetic ﬁeld. the potential energy of the quark–antiquark system would rise linearly with the separation r. to be sure. These are the hadrons. αs (µ) = f (µ/Λ) were f (x) is some ﬁxed function. It is even more impossible to isolate quarks than it is to isolate charged particles. For convenience. Roughly speaking. if the physics is ﬁxed. To make sure that we are not fooling ourselves with this analogy and convince ourselves that conﬁnement is not the whole answer to the question of why we don’t see quarks. let’s do a little thought experiment and build a toy world. Since we can turn asymptotic freedom on its head and see that αs (µ) increases as µ decreases. then it is not very useful.7). The quantum theory is characterized not by a dimensionless parameter. Conversely. Dimensional transmutation does not depend on the perturbation formula (3. It is sometimes said that it is quark conﬁnement that makes QCD complicated — that makes it diﬃcult to see quarks and gluons directly. much lighter than the proton that is built out of them.7) also exhibits the property of asymptotic freedom. the renormalization mass is completely arbitrary. The constant force conﬁnes quarks into systems of size ∼ 1/Λ (or smaller). It is true that conﬁnement means that it is impossible to isolate a quark. this suggests that something interesting happens for µ small. we ﬁnd (to lowest order) g(µ)2 1 2π αs (µ) ≡ = (3. which is at large separations of color charges. The best guess we have at the moment for what happens to the theory at long distances is that it conﬁnes color. in a sense which we will discuss more precisely later. . What conﬁnement means is that we can never see a completely isolated colored quark. 2009 — 51 to deﬁne the quantum theory. which means formally that αs (µ) decreases as the renormalization point µ increases. Furthermore. we can ﬁnd the dependence of g on µ in some region using perturbation theory by expanding in powers of the small coupling constant. whereas we believe that the chromodynamic force between color charges goes to a constant at large distances. but by the dimensional parameter Λ. we can describe the same physics with the theory deﬁned at any µ we choose. αs (µ) is the strength of the QCD interactions between color charges separated by a distance of the order of 1/µ. Any attempt to isolate an electron without its electromagnetic ﬁeld is doomed because the electromagnetic force has inﬁnite range. at least falls oﬀ with distance.1. like Λ2 r. the theory is that the quark would be subject to a constant restoring force of the order of Λ2 . A change in µ can be compensated by redeﬁning g and rescaling the ﬁelds.

Perhaps some very smart creature will discover asymptotic freedom and speculate about what happens to the theory at very large distances. and these will be the lightest baryons. The proton mass is just three times the quark mass plus binding corrections of the order of αmq . it is still very small compared to the atom as a whole. Indeed. We’ll take them approximately degenerate and give both 3 a mass ∼ mq . let’s take me and α to have the same values that they have in our world.February 10. After all this. that is in the Lagrangian. So far. Λ. Furthermore. a µ quark with electric charge 1 + 2 and a d quark with charge − 3 . so the chemistry of the toy world is probably just like what we are used to. This is nothing complicated. We will adjust the ratio Λ/mq so that the QCD coupling at the proton mass is electromagnetic in size: αs (mp ) = α (3. For example.1) This makes quantum chromodynamics as easy as quantum electrodynamics. We will also include in our toy world an electron.2 A Toy Model For simplicity. let’s adjust the scale of mq and Λ so that the proton mass mp in the toy world is the same at it is in our world. which characterizes the coupling constant αs . there are four parameters: me . Perturbation theory in QCD should be just as good and useful and accurate as perturbation theory in QED. the mass of the quarks. Now we can easily ﬁnd the quark mass. Here is a major diﬀerence between our world and the toy world. to the quark mass mq . let’s calculate 1/Λ. That’s a reasonable approximation to our world because it wouldn’t make much diﬀerence to our everyday lives if strange quarks and charmed quarks. But that comes next. Thus. the proton is a nonrelativistic bound state. as in our own.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . They will be perfectly satisﬁed with their perturbative theory of quantum chromodynamics. Since the chromodynamic forces are weak (like electromagnetic forces). To make this look as much like our world as possible. the quark mass is mq mp /3 310 MeV (3. 2009 — 52 3. just ordinary electromagnetism. At any rate. Nevertheless. the electromagnetic coupling. and we can then ask — What will they think about quark conﬁnement? The most likely answer is that they will not think about it very much at all.2) The proton radius in the toy world is a Bohr radius. Exactly what happens to nuclear physics in the toy world is not at all clear. it happens for the same reasons that electromagnetic charges tend to bind together to form neutral systems. we still have one parameter left. including dimensional transmutation of the QCD coupling. and a mass me . are such that the quarks tend to bind together into color singlet states — states with no color charges. with nonQCD interactions. the baryon resonances ∆++ and ∆− are stable if we neglect the weak interactions. The QCD interactions in this toy world. it is at least possible to imagine that people (or some higher form of life) may exist in the toy world. That is roughly the distance to which we must separate a quark from an antiquark before the conﬁning force becomes . the ratio of the dimensional parameter Λ. To see what kind of distances we are talking about. we’ll deal with a world with only two types of quarks. The toy nucleus is one hundred times bigger than the nuclei in our world. and α. In particular.2. (αmq )−1 10−11 cm. we haven’t done anything to make the toy world any diﬀerent from our own.2. we can build a proton state (P = uud) as a color singlet combination of two u quarks and a d quark and a neutron state (N = ddu) as a color singlet combination of two d quarks and a u quark. there are many peculiar things about nuclear physics in the toy world. In the microscopic toy world. and heavier quarks didn’t exist.

no one is going to measure the glueball mass in the toy world. the mesons are predominantly uu and dd bound states instead of neutral states of deﬁnite isospin. But in practice. Now let’s see what happens as we increase the ratio Λ/mq to make the world look more like our own. so their mass must be of order of Λ.2. fractional charge and everything. in this toy world. But there are light particles in the toy world. it makes sense to talk about a π and an “η” (an isospin–singlet bound state of uu + dd). if we collide an electron and a positron. I hope I have convinced you with this little fantasy that it is possible to see conﬁned quarks. We can almost see gluons the same way. the quark model is not just a qualitative guide to the physics. There is a whole sequence of “‘atomic” baryon resonances above the P and N by mass splittings of the order of αmq . look at the mass spectrum of the hadrons. not including strange and charmed particles because we have not included s and c quarks.3). It is easy. Of course.2. The ﬁrst thing that happens as we increase Λ in that conﬁnement eﬀects become measurable in the laboratory.1).2. And Λ is a tiny mass.1.3) In (3. Just make them and look at them. to observe quarks. We can detect this thing by its collisions with nuclei. We do not understand quite why it should work as well as it does. There is signiﬁcant mixing between the two states because of perturbative QCD interactions (both can annihilate into gluons) that are comparable to QED interactions (annihilation into photons). For example. Because of the exponential dependence on 1/α. In fact. the qualitative correspondence between the lightest three quark states in this simple model with the lightest baryon states in our world is quite remarkable. For example. Needless to say. and 1/Λ is a truly enormous distance. on the natural scale of the QCD interactions. by which I mean color–singlet bound states of quarks and gluons. if md − mu is a few MeV (as in our world). At any rate. Indeed. but the microscopic properties are essentially the same as in the toy world. some of the time they will annihilate and produce a quark and an antiquark. But in the toy world. around 10−30 GeV. The quarks will separate. but we won’t be able to tell the diﬀerence between a massless gluon and a glueball with a mass of 10−30 GeV. I have written (3. what makes the quarks visible is the same thing that makes the toy world so diﬀerent from our own. Some of the time in e+ e− annihilation.7) for αs (mp ) and inserted (3. if the u and d quarks are exactly degenerate. as mentioned before. The ratio of Λ to the quark mass mq is very small. it is the whole story. so conﬁnement eﬀects are important at . There are glueball states. The glueball states would exist in the world independent of whether there are quarks. There is no light pion. The ∆++ and ∆− are stable. Elementary particle physics looks deceptively familiar in the toy world. because they are split from P and N only by a mass of the order αmq and cannot decay by pion emission (the ∆+ (∆0 ) can decay electromagnetically into P + γ(N + γ) or chromodynamically into P + Gluons (N + Gluons)). if the u and d quarks diﬀer at all in mass. and this is one of the things we will discuss in later chapters. there is no hope of seeing any conﬁnement eﬀects in terrestrial laboratories. isospin is irrelevant. Obviously. For example. A turning point of sorts occurs for Λ of the order of 1 MeV. It may be that the hard gluon would pick up a very soft gluon and bind it into a color–singlet state. these meson states and their excitations all have a mass ∼ 2mq 2mp /3. the qq pair will bremsstrahlung oﬀ a hard gluon. There are qq bound states corresponding to pseudoscalar and vector mesons.February 10. 2009 — important. and we can see them in our bubble chamber. Λ is tiny.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . 1 2π = exp Λ 11α 1 mp 1020 cm 53 (3. the quarks are very heavy. the only parameter in the quarkless theory. All of the familiar quark model states are there.

so particle physics is still well described by QCD perturbation theory. We will have more to say about this important puzzle in Chapters 5 and 6. Though its phenomenological success is undeniable. it makes sense to talk about isospin as an appropriate symmetry. the pion is really a rather highly relativistic bound state. apparently. The hadrons are still qualitatively described by a nonrelativistic bound–state picture. chiral symmetry breaking. the pion mass goes to zero. or whatever. which include the eﬀect of conﬁnement. the pion becomes lighter than the lowest–mass glueball state. because Λ is much larger than the few–MeV mass diﬀerence between the d and u quarks. the proton mass is entirely due to this zero–point energy. for example. In fact. These are not masses that appear in the renormalized QCD Lagrangian. When mq = 0. The excess proton mass is the eﬀect of conﬁnement. the quark model is still not understood from ﬁrst principles. and the pion becomes the Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breakdown of chiral SU (2) × SU (2) symmetry. Eventually. the pion becomes so light that all glueball states are unstable against decay into pions. There is a sense. The general downward trend of the pion mass as mq /Λ decreases is correctly predicted by the quark model. In our world the pion is by far the lightest particle. This is related to the fact that for Λ > mq . ∼ mp /3. The moral is that the reason that our world doesn’t look like a world of quarks and gluons is not simply that the quarks are conﬁned. but now the spin–spin interactions that split the pion from the p are becoming important and bring down the pion mass. we believe that as mq goes to zero. with the s quark about 150 MeV heavier. . A more important change occurs for Λ αs mq . it is the zero–point energy of quarks conﬁned in a region of size 1/Λ. Despite the fact that our world is very diﬀerent from the toy world in which the QCD interactions are weak. of understanding the relation between the picture of the pion as a bound state of quarks with constituent masses and the complementary picture of the pion as a Goldstone boson. At nuclear distances. Perhaps the next most important landmark is the point at which the pion becomes the lightest particle in the theory. but that the conﬁned u and d quarks are light compared to Λ. the proton mass is considerably greater than the sum of the masses of its constituent quarks. At this point conﬁnement eﬀects become important inside hadrons. They are “constituent quark masses”. The quark mass is negligible compared to Λ. By now. the nonrelativistic picture of hadrons has broken down badly. We have no satisfactory way. we would be on shaky ground because the structure of elementary particles is still beautifully described by the nonrelativistic quark model. A bit further down in mq /Λ.February 10. The η is now measurably heavier than the π. We just have to include a conﬁning term in our quark–quark force law. Still. conﬁnement is still irrelevant. By this time. but for Λ > mq . Our world is not so diﬀerent from the world in which the quark mass is exactly zero. This is the smallest value of Λ/mq for which we could reasonably say that the quarks are unobservable. in which the u and d quarks do have a mass of a few hundred MeV. the simple nonrelativistic quark model still gives a useful description of the low–lying mesons and baryons. because here we cannot pull quarks far enough outside hadrons to see them in a nonhadronic environment. Certainly we are much closer to mq = 0 than to the toy world with very small Λ that we considered at the beginning. Essentially. 2009 — 54 atomic distances. The quark–model picture is a useful complement to the theory of spontaneously broken chiral symmetry that we will further explore in later chapters.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .

the Z 0 coupling (from (2. but if (3. In describing the weak interactions of the quarks. the quark picture of hadrons grew up in the same period as the SU (2) × U (1) model.3.1) .3) were the whole story.2) This same interaction causes π + decay. in which the d quark is replaced by an s quark so that they are strangeness–changing. we can understand most of the entries in the particle data book describing K decays. With these tools. because the ud can annihilate into a W + and decay into e+ νe or µ+ νµ . 2009 — 55 3. But with two quarks with 1 charge − 3 . Because of the 1 − λ5 factor in the current. the rate for Λ → pπ or nπ 0 is 103 times larger than for Λ → pe− ν. For example. This is not exactly what happened. but it will preserve some of the ﬂavor of the history without incorporating all of the confusion. it becomes possible to generalize (3.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . The decay is forbidden by angular–momentum conservation in the limit of zero lepton masses. we have discussed only W ± exchange. ψL = u cos θc d + sin θc s (3. the strangeness–conserving processes have strength cos θc while the analogous processes. The two left-handed quarks could be put into a SU (2) doublet ψL = u d (3.3. Apparently something is enhancing the hadronic decays. have 1 strength sin θc . Things that we cannot understand at the moment include the preponderance of hadronic decays in various systems over the semileptonic modes that we might expect to have a similar strength. the e+ wants to come out right-handed and the νe left-handed. (3. The charged–current interactions caused by W ± exchange would then include the β–decay interaction d → u + e− + ν e (3. The electron mode is actually strongly suppressed in π decay because the electron mass is small compared to the pion mass. there would be decay processes mediated by Z 0 exchange as well.21)) sin θc cos θc Z 0 dL sL (3. so that strangeness–changing processes are inherently 2 some 20 times weaker (∼ 1/ sin θc ) than strangeness–conserving processes. As we will see.3. 0 0 The Ks and KL are clearly peculiar. Another diﬀerence in s quark decay is that the process can produce not only leptons but also light quarks. For a doublet of the form (3. The two lightest quarks are the u and d.2.1) so that the ﬁeld that appears in the doublet with the u quark is a linear combination of d and s. Experimentally sin θc ∼ 5 .1) L like the left-handed leptons.February 10. In fact. probably some complicated strong interaction eﬀect.1) is inadequate to describe the interactions of the strange quark. these are diﬀerent coherent combinations of 0 K 0 and K .3.4 GIM and Charm So far.3. 3.3. but the amplitude is then suppressed by a factor of me .3.4. at least qualitatively. They are the major constituents of normal nuclei. which is impossible.3 Quark Doublets The quarks were not discovered all at once.3) L where θc is a phenomenologically important parameter called the Cabibbo angle. I will adopt a partially historical view in which we assume the SU (2) × U (1) form and imbed the quarks in it in order of increasing mass. The decay takes place because the e+ mass term allows transitions from right-handed to left-handed e+ . For example.3).

4. 3.5. c. The charmed quark had to appear with a mass of less than a few GeV. There is some evidence (which we will discuss later) from the total width of the Z that we really have now seen all the matter particles.2) in tree approximation.4.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . As we will see in Chapter 10. nature didn’t stop there. And it did! The D+ .5 The Standard Six–Quark Model We are now ready to embed the quarks in SU (2) × U (1). µ− .4) cos θc s − sin θc d L Now the Z 0 coupling to this doublet precisely cancels the strangeness–changing coupling from the other doublet.2) . To get charged–current weak interactions involving only the left-handed quarks. so the doublet is c ψL = (3. The charmed quark should decay primarily into s because of (3. and it does. knows whether there will be any more.5. We will write down the most general theory coupling the quark and lepton ﬁelds to the Higgs doublet. The right-handed singlets are − ljR (3.1) L where j runs from 1 to 3 and labels the ﬁelds in a completely arbitrary way. We will assume that there are six quarks and no more. we must assume that the left-handed quarks are in doublets while the right-handed quarks are in singlets. But we can also see it indirectly by rotating ψL and ψL into another so that the Cabibbo mixing is entirely on the c and u ﬁelds. The problem prompted Glashow. the existence of a new quark. and it didn’t come as much of as a surprise when a b quark was later discovered.2) at a rate comparable to the decay rate for K + → µ+ νµ (3. (3.2) is suppressed by a factor of 10−8 ! This is one of the symptoms of a very general problem — the absence of ﬂavor–changing neutral current eﬀects. We now know that there is a t quark. and in the next section we will analyze the SU (2) × U (1) theory for six quarks.3) In fact. 2009 — can give rise to the decay 0 KL → µ+ µ− 56 (3.4. νe .4. νµ .4. This eliminates (3. just as for the leptons. Call the lepton doublets LjL = νj − lj (3. Unfortunately. Let’s start by inventing a better notation. e− and one heavy family with c. We will assume this to be so. God.February 10. This is easy to see directly. and Maiani (GIM) to propose a radical solution. The problem is particularly acute in the SU (2)×U (1) theory where there are neutral current eﬀects in tree approximation. I suppose. D0 and Λ+ have all been observed with just the c right properties. The τ − lepton ruined the correspondence.4. the charmed quark in an SU (2) doublet with the orthogonal combination of s and d. d. Iliopoulos. This was one of the great triumphs of theoretical physics. It made a tidy little world with a correspondence between quarks and leptons — one light family with u. the problem will reappear in one loop if the charmed quark is too heavy.4). but it is present in almost any theory of the weak interactions.

8) 1 The Yukawa couplings responsible for the charge − 3 mass is − gjk DjR φ† ψkL + h.February 10.4) where fjk is a completely arbitrary complex matrix.5. and the νe .47).3) The most general SU (2) × U (1) invariant Yukawa coupling of these ﬁelds to the Higgs ﬁeld φ is − − fjk ljR φ† LkL + h. As we discussed in (1.c. we jL − can redeﬁne the lR and L− so that the mass matrix is real. quite L − generally.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .8). 2009 — They satisfy T LjL = − T ljR 57 τ 1 LjL . Call the left-handed quark doublets ψjL = where Uj are the charge singlets 2 3 Uj Dj (3.5. (3.2) and (3.45)–(1.9) is invariant under SU (2) × U (1) by comparing (2. (3. When φ develops a VEV. When φ gets its VEV.5. this produces the mass term D − Mjk DjR DkL + h.7) T UjR = T DjR = 0 2 SUjR = UjR .2.7. Let us then see what is the most general theory of quarks. Thus. and the Dj are the charge − 3 ﬁelds. (2. the L− and lR can be taken to be pure mass eigenstate ﬁelds. Then the neutrino ﬁelds are all identical. SLjR = −ljR (3.13).9) (3.2. 3 1 SDjR = − DjR 3 (3. and positive.5.c.5.c.5. The right-handed ﬁelds are UjR and DjR The SU (2) × U (1) charges are T ψjL = τ ψjL . this becomes the charge–lepton mass term v − − − fjk √ ljR lkL + h.6) L 1 ﬁelds. .5.7. We have not mentioned L neutrino masses. Later on we will discuss the possibility that neutrinos have a very small mass but for the moment we will assume they are massless.5. for example. the L theory of leptons described in Chapter 2 is just the most general broken SU (2) × U (1) of the L’s and φ. can simply be taken to be the ﬁeld that is in a doublet with the e− . SLjL = − LjL 2 2 . − − = 0.11) It is easy to check that (3. Thus.c. diagonal.5) 2 This doesn’t look like much.5. (3. 2 1 SψjL = ψjL 6 (3.5.10) where √ D Mjk = gjk v/ 2 (3.5. but we can use the fact that the kinetic–energy term has separate − SU (3) × U (1) global symmetries for the ljR and the L− .

4) implies ˜ δφ = i so that a (3. the φ ﬁeld is constructed so that the neutral element is on top of the doublet ˜ φ= Its VEV then produces the U term U − Mjk U jR UkL + h.5.20) But now we cannot diagonalize M D because we have already ﬁxed the ψL ﬁeld. we can redeﬁne the ﬁelds so that the M U mass term is diagonal U − Mjk U jR UkL (3. 2009 — 58 To construct a Yukawa coupling involving the UjR ﬁeld.5.16) (3. Each of the three types of quark ﬁelds.24) b L . S φ = − φ 2 2 Then we can write the invariant Yukawa coupling ˜ Tφ = ˜ − hjk U jR φ† ψkL + h.14) (3. ˜ Of course.5. and ψL can be redeﬁned by an SU (2) × U (1) unitary transformation. (3.15) φ0∗ φ− .5.13) 1˜ τ˜ ˜ φ. but the DkL are related to mass eigenstates by the unitary matrix V † .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .5. For example. (3.7. UR . we need to construct a modiﬁed Higgs ﬁeld with the opposite S value. φ− = −φ+∗ (3. We still have freedom to redeﬁne the DR ﬁelds so that we can write the D mass term as D † − Mjl Vlk DjR DkL + h. DR .5.22) V † is a unitary matrix (3.5.19) MU mu = 0 0 0 mc 0 0 0 mt (3.c.c.5.February 10.5. d s = U † DL (3.12) τa ˜ i ˜ φ− φ 2 2 (3.18) √ U Mjk = hjk v/ 2 Now we can use the symmetries of the kinetic–energy term to simplify the mass terms.23) The DjR are now simply mass eigenstate ﬁelds.21) MD and md = 0 0 0 ms 0 0 0 mb (3.5.17) (3.5.c.5.5. We deﬁne ˜ φ = iτ2 φ∗ It is easy to see that (2.

Only ﬁve of the six phases in the two diagonal matrices are relevant. let us show that any 2 × 2 unitary matrix can be made completely real.5. we can eliminate some phases in V .5. so we are left with four real parameters in V . and s = sin θ. First.28) V2.33) .February 10. 3 X = 0 0 0 X X (3.31) V → DV D = DV2 D D ∗ V1 D where D. D . To see how this works explicitly.29) We can show that by making diagonal phase redeﬁnitions. the quark charged current is then d ( u c t ) γ µ (1 + γ5 )V s b (3. let us repeat the analysis ﬁrst performed by Kobayashi and Maskawa. We can still redeﬁne the phase of any mass eigenstate ﬁeld. This means that we can multiply V on either side by a diagonal unitary matrix. and 1 V2 = 0 0 ∗ D Vs D = V2 V1 V3 (3. Then ∗ 0 Thus. Thus. .5.26) The unitary matrix V is all the information that is left of the general mass matrices we started with. we can make V2 and V3 real and write V1 in a very simple form. c = cos θ. We can write a general unitary 3 × 3 matrix in a kind of complex Euler angle parametrization as follows: V = V2 V1 V3 (3. A general unitary matrix V has nine parameters. A unitary 2 × 2 matrix must have the form w= c −ρs ηs ρηc (3.5.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . . we can redeﬁne 0 ρ∗ w 1 0 0 η∗ = c −s s c (3.25) In terms of the mass eigenstate ﬁelds. except for the quark masses themselves.5.27) where matrices have the form X X V1 = 0 X X 0 0 X X 0 0 X (3. 2009 — Thus 59 d DL = V s b L (3. we are still not ﬁnished redeﬁning ﬁelds. are diagonal unitary matrices. However.5.30) where | | = |η| = |ρ| = 1.32) 0 c2 s2 0 1 −s2 = 0 c2 0 0 cs −s3 0 s3 c3 (3.5.5.5.

We can still further redeﬁne V by multiplying on either side by matrices of the form α 0 0 0 β 0 0 0 |α| = |β| = 1 β (3. like the four–quark GIM model that it generalizes. in any basis. the constraint that neutral currents will not change ﬂavor in tree approximation can be stated precisely as follows: Every set of ﬁelds whose members mix among themselves must have the same values of T3 and S. In general.5.37) V = Vcd Vcs Vcb Vtd Vts Vtb and at least the meaning of the absolute value of the matrix elements is unambiguous.33). 2009 — 60 with cj = cos θj . This relation is called Cabibbo universality.32). The interesting feature is the appearance of a single nontrivial phase δ. But then.35) deﬁne the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) matrix. We don’t know why it should be so small.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . There is no universally used convention for the angles in the KM matrix. This is simply because T3 and S commute with any matrix in ﬂavor space. j (3.5. (3.36) . we know almost nothing about why the quark masses and angles are what they are. everyone agrees about the form of the current in (3. In one sense.5.5. Thus in the convention and obvious basis of (3. Thus. In the six–quark language.28). and (3.34). 3 3 It is only the mismatch between the unitary matrices required to diagonalize M U and M D that produces ﬂavor–changing eﬀects.5.26). In a four–quark model. we can redeﬁne V1 to have s1 c1 0 0 0 eiδ (3.5. V has the form Vud Vus Vub (3. the six–quark model represents a retreat from the level of understanding of the nature of the weak current in the four–quark model. the theory violates CP.34) which commute with V2 and V3 . if δ = 0. and the µ decay interaction. And these eﬀects show up only in the charged–current weak interactions that involve U and D simultaneously. The matrix element Vjk is the coeﬃcient of the term in the current with charged 2/3 quark ﬁeld j and charged −1/3 quark ﬁeld k. there is automatically a relation among the strengths of strangeness–conserving quark interactions. just because sin2 θc + cos2 θc = 1. However.5.February 10.5. this means that s3 is observed to be small. Nor does everyone agree about where to put the nontrivial phase. strangeness–violating interactions.5. sj = sin θj .5. V1 is still an arbitrary matrix with the block diagonal form (3. the Z 0 couples to the quark neutral current (with x = sin2 θ) e sin θ cos θ 1 2 1 1 − x U jL γ µ UjL + − + x DjL γ µ DjL 2 3 2 3 2 1 − xU jR γ µ UjR + xDjR γ µ DjR . and it is observed to be rather well satisﬁed.35) (3.5. It is easy to see the form c1 V1 = −s1 0 that using (3. As we will see. has no ﬂavor–changing neutral currents in tree approximation.26). Note that the six–quark KM model.

γ 3 = iσ2 τ3 In this representation.3) if the masses and couplings are real. But under (3. As we have seen. t) → γ 0 ψ ∗ (−x. How could you build a ﬁve-quark SU (2) × U (1) theory? What phenomenological diﬃculties would such a theory face if we did not know that the t existed? 3-2.6 CP Violation The unremovable phase in the KM matrix is a signal of CP violation. we can take γ 0 = σ2 .6. 2009 — 61 3.6. charge conjugation is trivial. Find the number of real angles and unremovable phases in the 4 × 4 generalization of the KM matrix. c and s. consider the coupling of the W + to quarks.6. This is why CP is interesting. t) T Thus. t) (3.3) transforms into itself plus a total divergence. d. because γP+ is symmetric and γ 0 P+ is antisymmetric in a Majorana basis. of course. Thus. (3. it just interchanges ψ and ψ with a minus sign to make up for Fermi statistics.6. Suppose the t quark didn’t exist. Then the CP transformation is ψ(x.2). t) = −ψ (−x. γ 1 = iσ2 τ1 (3.2) ψ(x.February 10. 3-3.6. except that g and g ∗ are not interchanged.6. It has the form gU / + P+ D + g ∗ D/ − P+ U W W (3. the SU (2) × U (1) interactions can violate CP . The important result of Kobayashi and Maskawa was that with six quarks or more. iψ/ P+ ψ ∂ (3. Find a copy of the most recent Particle Physics Booklet from the particle data group.4) The CP operation interchanges the two terms (with appropriate interchange of the W + ﬁelds). A Majorana representation is one in which the γ matrices are imaginary.6. A kinetic–energy term.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . an important experimental question whether the KM phase δ is in fact the source of observed CP violation. In particular. even for a parity–violating state like a neutrino is invariant under (3. We will discuss this question in detail when we study K 0 physics.6. A mass term or gauge coupling can be invariant under (3. Look through the summary tables for Gauge and Higgs bosons. It is. A CP transformation takes a simple form in a special representation of the γ matrices called a Majorana representation. If there were only the four quarks u. we can ﬁnd a basis in which masses and couplings are real. t) → ψ T (−x. the SU (2) × U (1) interactions could not violate CP . CP is a symmetry only if there is some basis in which all the couplings (and masses) are real. or the Review of Particle Properties. For example. Problems 3-1.1) γ 2 = iσ1 .3) is not invariant under C or P separately.2). . just complex conjugation.

with charges 5 and − 4 . Can the SU (2) × U (1) interactions in this theory violate CP? Explain.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .February 10. Be prepared to talk about each such mode and draw a representative Feynman graph that contributes to the decay process. Identify each exclusive3 decay mode with a branching ratio of more than 2% that is produced by the electroweak interactions. and Baryons. 3-4. s and c quarks that involves a pair of heavy (unobserved) quarks. 2009 — 62 Mesons. What Higgs ﬁelds are required to give mass to these quarks. One linear combination of the left-handed light-quark ﬁelds is in an SU (2) doublet: ψL = The other is an SU (2) quartet with the h and l: hL U2L XL = D2L lL U1L D1L All right-handed ﬁelds are SU (2) singlets. which refers to an inclusive decay into Λ plus anything. Construct an alternative SU (2) × U (1) model of the weak interactions of the u. d. h and l. An exclusive decay is one that involves a deﬁnite ﬁnal state. 3 3 respectively. not something like Z → ΛX. 3 . Find Ta X and SX.

1 Weak Decays of Light Hadrons In Chapters 2 and 3. which have both leptons and hadrons in the ﬁnal state. we need to understand two more things: hadrons and loops. we must understand how the weak interactions of quarks give rise to those of the hadrons.2. such as K + → i0 µ+ νµ or n → pe− ν e . I have written down the standard SU (3) × SU (2) × U (1) model of the strong and electroweak (short for weak and electromagnetic) interactions of leptons and quarks. We have seen that they work qualitatively. and nonleptonic decays. which have no leptons (only hadrons) in the ﬁnal state. Historically.2) and u j5a = ψγ µ γ5 (4.Chapter 4 — SU (3) and Light Hadron Semileptonic Decays 4. 2 (4. The piece of the quark charged current involving the light u and d quarks is (4. We will begin by using SU (3) symmetry to analyze some weak decays of hadrons. such as Ks → π + π − or Λ → pπ − .2 Isospin and the Determination of Vud µ Vud (j µ + j5 ) = Vud uγ µ (1 + γ5 )d. In the process. which have only leptons (no hadrons) in the ﬁnal state. semileptonic decays. 4.2.3) 63 . the weak decays of the hadrons are divided into three classes: leptonic decays. the important division is between those decays that involve leptons (which are produced by four–fermion operators involving two lepton ﬁelds and two quark ﬁelds) and the nonleptonic decays (produced by four–fermion operators involving four quark ﬁelds).2. That is.1) This is built out of the vector and axial isospin currents µ ja = ψγ µ τa ψ 2 τa ψ. From our modern vantage point. such as π + → µ+ νµ or KL → µ + µ− . Then we would like to see the renormalizability of the theory in action by computing ﬁnite radiative corrections. To understand the theory fully. we will determine some of the parameters in the KM matrix. We would like to say something quantitative. this division misses the point.

besides.8) must vanish. (4. the extrapolate back to the real world. If the momenta of A and B are p and p . 64 (4. in the same isomultiplet. (4.2. a purely hadronic decay would involve the matrix element of a product and two quark currents. contracted with (4. So we would like to identify processes in which only the vector current contributes.5) almost commute with the Hamiltonian.2.2. The reason that this is peculiar is that in this limit A and B are degenerate.2. 2009 — where ψ is the isospin doublet ψ= u d . We want to use symmetry arguments to say something about C and D. For the moment.2. we will bypass them because they are not realized in the usual way but are spontaneously broken.4) Because the u − d quark mass diﬀerence is very small compared to Λ. in general. A doesn’t decay into B in this limit! Nevertheless. but it is observed to be an excellent symmetry of the strong interactions. assuming that C and D don’t change very much.9) . Isospin is broken by the electromagnetic (and weak) interactions and by the u − d mass diﬀerence. and therefore we don’t have to worry about D because q 2 D(q 2 ) = 0 => D(q 2 ) = 0 for q 2 = 0. (4.2. Thus. and this in turn should tell us about matrix elements of the currents (4. do a rather peculiar thing.8) This form follows simply from Lorentz invariance.February 10. But the matrix element of j5 vanishes because of the parity invariance of strong interaction! There is no way to form an axial vector of only the two hadron momenta. The axial current contribution can be eliminated in a special case.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . p |j µ (0)|A. the matrix element of interest is that of j µ . on p2 and p 2 . We will look at the matrix element in the limit of exact isospin symmetry. In the symmetry limit. Thus. We will. we will try to say something about C and D in this limit. since they are in the same isospin multiplet. therefore.7) we can write the matrix element B. p = C(q 2 )(pµ + p µ ) + D(q 2 )q µ .2. (4. but since these are ﬁxed at the particle masses. Then we can use the real observed masses and calculate the decay rate.2). (4. because the light quarks only decay into leptons and. the current j µ is conserved. we suppress this dependence. Of course. the amplitude for decay is GF µ Vud B|j µ + j5 |A lµ · √ . we believe that the u and d quark masses themselves are not much bigger than the mass diﬀerences. we can use symmetry arguments to determine the matrix elements of the Qa . If the decaying hadron A has spin zero and decays into another spinless hadron B with the same parity. Thus qµ .6) 2 µ where lµ is the lepton matrix element.2. Anyway. The invariant functions C and D also depend. and we deﬁne the momentum transfer q µ = pµ − p µ . We must look for a decay involving leptons. the isospin charges Qa = 0 ja (x) d3 x.

In general Qa |j. p |j 0 (0)|A. if we want very accurate predictions. m . p = (j − m)(j + m + 1) j. we note that the matrix element of the charge Qa between A and B is completely determined. as expected. This should be good enough to give an excellent approximation to the decay rate.2. (4. we can write |A.14) j 0 (x) d3 x = u† (x)d(x) d3 x. from (4.10) is m + 1 (this is obvious — the charged–current weak interactions change the charge by one).2. p |j 0 (x)|A. In ﬁrst approximation. p .February 10. while Λ is a few hundred MeV.16) (4.2.2. So a decay such as this can be characterized very accurately in terms of the single parameter Vud . (4. (4.13) so m in (4. p |Q+ |A. p . m. we know C(0) in the symmetry limit.2. where j and m(m ) are the isospin and Q3 values.9) B. m + 1.17) Thus. we are interested in the raising operator Q+ = Q1 + iQ2 = which satisﬁes Q+ |j.2. Of course.17). p (Ta )m m . p |B. 1 .11) where Ta are the isospin matrices for isospin j.12) for states with standard invariant normalization.2. p (4.2.15) Note. of the order of (∆m)2 .2. where ∆m is the u-d mass diﬀerence. (4. Thus B.2. In fact.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .2. p = C(0)2p0 (2π)3 δ (3) (p − p ). Now let us calculate (4. (4.1 The q 2 dependence of C should likewise be determined by Λ.10) = |j.2. p |Q+ |A.2. the contribution from the u-d mass diﬀerence is even smaller because of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem. Thus.14) a diﬀerent way: B. the time dependence of Q+ goes away in the symmetry limit because p 0 = p0 when p = p.2. m. m . p .16) and ﬁnd C(0) = (j − m)(j + m + 1). m. we will just assume that C(q) is constant and equal to its symmetry value (4. (4.8)—(4. Since A and B are in the same multiplet. but we will discuss this later when we deal with strangeness changing currents. from translation invariance. while the q 2 in the decay is less than the A − B mass diﬀerence squared. p = |j. 2009 — 65 To get a handle on C. we can do better by modeling (or measuring) the q 2 dependence and the symmetry–breaking eﬀects. p = (j − m)(j + m + 1) (2π)3 2p0 δ (3) (p − p ). The diﬀerence between C(0) in the real world and in the symmetric world should not be greater than ∆m/Λ.14) and (4. Now we can compare (4. We could also include the eﬀect of photon exchange and other radiative corrections (now that we have a renormalizable theory). p = |j.2. a couple of MeV. p = eix(p −p) B. In particular.

after suitable corrections.1).3.6) .3. we don’t mind that the hadrons are complex nuclei instead of nice simple “elementary particles”. Vud = 0.18) → 14 N e+ νe → 34 S e+ νe → 26 Mg e+ νe .4) and fπ is a constant with dimensions of mass. the most accurate data come from the nuclear decays and give. In particle physics.5) Be warned that there is another perfectly reasonable deﬁnition of fπ that appears in the literature. 2 (4. It is µ 0|j5a |πb = iδab Fπ pµ . there are lots of them. the value shown in the particle data book. with amplitude Vud GF µ 0|j5 |π − lµ √ . we can proceed to look at the simplest process involving the axial vector part.3.9747 to 0. (4. In nuclear physics. (4.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . but we can parametrize it: µ 0|j5 |π − = lfπ pµ . For example 14 O 34 Cl 26 Al 66 (4.February 10.2.3 fπ Having determined Vud by studying the vector part of (4. 4. the decay π + → π 0 e+ νe has been seen. 2009 — There are many such process.9759 So we know at least one of the KM parameters rather well. in terms of the self-adjoint isospin currents and ﬁelds. (4. We are not smart enough to calculate the hadronic matrix element. In fact.1) Only the axial current contributes because of parity.3.3) where pµ is the π momentum.19) Since we are just using symmetry arguments to get our prediction.3.3. (4. This is π decay π − → µ− ν µ or e− ν e .93 mπ .2. It is fπ 0.2. the current is µ j5 = uγ µ γ5 d. The π decay rate can then be calculated in terms of fπ so that fπ can be determined from the observed rate. (4.2) (4.

3.8)m we can write π 0 |j µ |K − = f+ (q 2 )(pµ + pµ ) + f( q 2 )(pµ − pµ ). The charge associated with j µ is a generator of SU (3).4. As in (4. Thus. since the charge doesn’t annihilate the vacuum state. for example. (4. we turn our attention to the next lightest quark and look for the term Vus uγ µ (1 + γ5 )s. the j5 current is conserved. If this situation persists in the symmetry limit mu = md = 0. but a zero–momentum pion state. The relation between these two deﬁnitions is µ µ ifπ pµ = 0 j51 + ij52 π1 − iπ2 √ 2 √ = i 2 Fπ pµ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . (4.7) Thus √ Fπ = fπ / 2 93 MeV.1) We can measure Vus (perhaps) by looking at the strangeness–changing semileptonic decays of strange particles (since the current destroys an s quark and replaces it by a u quark).4.2) We might hope to calculate these just as we calculated π − → π 0 e− ν e . (4. 2009 — 67 I use capital F to distinguish it from (4. Another way to see this is to note µ that in the symmetry limit. (4.4) where q µ = pµ − pµ . (4. we can argue that f− (q 2 ) = 0.3). we would have the charge acting on the vacuum to produce not zero. which is a good symmetry in the limit that the u.3.2) over space to get a charge. we must get zero.4 Strangeness Changing Currents Now that we have determined the coeﬃcient of the piece of the quark current involving u and d quarks.9) π Either fπ vanishes. π π K K (4. but this convention is not consistently used. The amplitude for K − decay.3. in the symmetry limit. is √ π o |j µ |K − lµ · Vus GF / 2. Then if we ignore the symmetry breaking and the q 2 .4.3. and s quarks are all degenerate.8) Notice that if we tried to integrate the current in (4.3.3) where j µ is j µ = uγ µ s. We believe that it is the latter and that our world is very close to a world with a Goldstone pion. and we can π K calculate f+ (0) from symmetry arguments. 4. The simplest such process that we can hope to calculate from symmetry principles is the Kl3 decays: K − → π 0 e− ν e K − → π 0 µ− ν µ 0 KL → π + e− ν e 0 KL → π + µ− ν µ . or m2 = 0 and the pion is the Goldstone boson associated with spontaneous π breakdown of the chiral isospin symmetry.2.February 10.3. so fπ p2 = 0 = fπ m2 .3) with pµ . it is an indication of spontaneous symmetry breaking.4. if we contract (4. d. The literature is random. (4. As before.

It worth looking at other places to get a handle on Vus . n → pe− ν e Λ → pe− ν e or pµ− ν µ Σ+ → Λe+ νe Σ− → ne− ν e or nµ− ν µ or Λe− ν e Ξ− → Λe− ν e or Λµ− ν µ This looks like a good system to study. We will be able to see this easily later.5. the ﬁrst order eﬀect on the derivative terms changes the wave-function renormalization of the ﬁelds in the same way it changes the currents.February 10. as calculated by R. . ms − md (or ms − mu ). s |j µ |B. p . s ) [g1 γ µ γ5 − ig2 σ µν γ5 qν + g3 γ5 q µ ] u(p. the large K-π mass diﬀerence is a consequence of the fact that both the π and the K are almost Goldstone bosons — it is the diﬀerence in the squared masses. 1964. the octet with spin− 1 . The physics of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem is that any symmetry breaking that eﬀects the vector current also eﬀects the derivative terms in the Lagrangian. p. the Ademollo-Gatto theorem2 implies that the symmetry breaking eﬀect on the matrix elements of the current is actually quadratic in the symmetry breaking — the linear terms cancel.5 P T Invariance We are thus led to consider the matrix element of the charged weak current between baryon states. s |j5 |B.5. L. there are several semileptonic decays 2 we can look at. Gatto. 13 264. SU (3) breaking in the pseudoscalar meson sector seems to be especially severe. . when we explicitly write down the chiral Lagrangian that describes the πs and Ks. SU (3) breaking in the baryon family. so the symmetry breaking to this order can be removed by redeﬁning the ﬁelds and there is no physical eﬀect in ﬁrst order. Since both the vector and axial vector parts contribute. s) and µ B . we can calculate the decay rate and compare with experiment. Furthermore. (4. Phys. s = u(p . Ademollo and R. E.1) (4. m2 − m2 that is π K proportional to the SU (3) breaking quark mass diﬀerence.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . The result is 0. The K-π mass diﬀerence is more than twice as large as the π mass. However. The other tensor forms such as pµ − p µ can be reduced 2 M. Lett. we must evaluate both B .216 ± . Schrock and L.2) where fi and gi depend only on q 2 = (p − p )2 . 2009 — 68 dependence of f+ . p . Furthermore. Rev. in chapter 6. 41:1692–1695. For symmetry breaking due to the quark masses. s ) [f1 γ µ − if2 σ µν qν + f3 q µ ] u(p. seems much less violent. the situation is not quite so bad as it seems. Wang (Phys.5) 4. This determines Vus . s = u(p . Rev. s) (4. As we will see later. These forms follow from Lorentz invariance and parity invariance of the strong interactions. Furthermore.4. We may not believe this result! SU (3) symmetry is not as good as SU (2). 1978). p. Lett.003.

This just γ5 . Suppose we P T transform a matrix element (4. To see what P T does to spinor ﬁelds. 2 = (m + m )γ µ + iσ µν qν (4.7) (4. so ψ(x)P T → γ5 ψ ∗ (−x).February 10. We also need something that anticommutes with the γ µ ’s. So no sµ ’s appear in the matrix element. The currents then transform as † j µ (0) = ψ 1 γ µ ψ2 → ψ2 [γ 0 γ µ ]T ψ1 = ψ 2 γ µ ψ1 = j µ (0)∗ (4. when between u(p . Note that there is no (−) sign due to Fermi statistics when we interchange 1 and 2. but to change the sign of x. not p · s .5) We expect the P T –transformed ﬁeld to be proportional to In this basis ∗ doesn’t do much because the γ’s are imaginary.5. The spin polarization vectors sµ and s µ are just convenient devices invented to describe the spinors.2). To simplify our lives. p. This is simpler because it involves changing the sign of all the coordinates. γ µ } 2 2 / / / 1/ = γ µp + 2 [p. −s |j(5) |B. p .7)–(4.5. p .8) and µ † µ j5 (0) = ψ 1 γ µ γ5 ψ2 → ψ2 [γ 0 γ µ γ5 ]T ψ1 = −ψ 2 γ µ γ5 ψ1 = j5 (0)∗ . (4.5. s |j(5) |B. because this is done not by us. s ) and u(p. −s µ = ± B . p . s)∗ . etc.9) yield the desired result that fi and gi are real. γ µ ] + p γ µ − 1 [p . Now the spinors describing the P T –transformed states are obtained similarly: u(p. Putting all this together.3) Note that the spin polarization vectors sµ and s are not real physical objects.5. p.5. (4. (4. but we will come back to it. we will actually use invariance under P T . The P T is antiunitary. −s ∗ .5.5. The +(−) sign for the vector (axial) current is not obvious.9) .5. s) and u(p . Now let us use the fact that the strong interactions are invariant under time reversal invariance to show that fi and gi are all real.6) (4. but by the antiunitary transformation that reverses all operator products.1)–(4. and the invariant functions fi and gi only depend on q 2 . consider the Dirac equation in a Majorana basis: / (i∂ − m)ψ(x) = 0. s ). p.5.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . −s) = 0 (4. −s) = γ5 u(p. 2009 — to these using the Dirac algebra. but then P changes the momenta back. γ µ } + 1 {p .5. and (4. Notice that / (p − m)u(p. The physical description of the spin state of the system is completely contained in the spinors u(p. They all do the same thing. ψ ∗ (−x). s PT µ† = ± B. (4. we ﬁnd (4.4). so we do not have to keep separate track of the time and space components of vectors.5. For example. −s|j(5) |B .5.10) / and the γ5 changes the spin because in anticommutes with s.5. s) pµ + p µ 69 / / = 1 {p.5.4) This needs some explanation. so it interchanges bras and kets and takes operators into their adjoints. γ µ ] .1): µ B . T changes the signs of momenta and spins.

f1 and f2 obviously so.3) The other terms are all allowed. The f3 and g2 terms in the matrix elements of the oﬀ–diagonal currents are called “second–class currents” for obscure historical reasons.2) . µ j5 = uγ µ γ5 d.February 10.5 to eliminate two of the coeﬃcients in the matrix elements (4.1) It is peculiar because of the explicit power of q 2 on the RHS.5. let the current be the axial current in neutron decay.2) gives a peculiar relation (m + m )g1 (q 2 ) = q 2 g3 (q 2 ). p. p .5) has vanishing f3 (g2 ) by the preceding argument. or s with B − B. (4. But the diagonal isospin current µ j(5)3 = ψγ µ (γ5 ) τ3 ψ 2 (4. since the currents do not change quark ﬂavors.7. let’s consider the matrix element of a diagonal current µ j(5) = ψγ µ (γ5 )ψ . But (4.6. since they are just like the electromagnetic form factors.5. p. s |j(5) |B. (4. For example. so it gives us nothing new. (4.2) These can only be satisﬁed if f3 = g2 = 0. For (4.6) gives vanishing f3 (g2 ) in the limit that the SU (2) that mixes d and s (it is called U –spin) is a good symmetry.4) which is a linear combination of isospin currents. s |j(5) |B.1)–(4.5.6. (4.5. If isospin is a good symmetry. at least in the SU (3) symmetry limit. To be speciﬁc.5. Note that both the vector and axial currents are Hermitian. Thus µ µ B. We already knew that f3 = 0 in the symmetry limit.6 Second Class Currents We can use the results of Section 4.2) with qµ . (4. consider uγ µ (γ5 )d.7) has f3 (g2 ) = 0 when the SU (2) that mixes x and s (V –spin) is a good symmetry.6. the currents are conserved. so if we contract (4. And uγ µ (γ5 )s (4.1). p . current conservation is automatic if f3 = 0. 4.7 The Goldberger-Treiman Relation In the symmetry limit.4) must also have f3 and g2 equal to zero.6.6. s ∗ . 2009 — 70 4.5.2). the situation is the same in the symmetry limit.6.1)–(4.7.6. (4.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Either g1 goes to zero as q 2 → 0 or g3 (q 2 ) has a pole. d. Now for the oﬀ–diagonal currents.1) ψ = u. s = B. we must get zero.6. (4. First. Similarly dγ µ (γ5 )s (4.

..25. this current is approximately conserved....... ...... the matrix element of interest in vector–current weak interactions is determined by the matrix element of the electromagnetic current.. s ) qµ √ fπ 2 gπN N u(p..7. (4.. now in a more sophisticated version including strong–interactions eﬀects in gA ...8.8. . So it contributes the pole term to g3 (q 2 )..7. ..2. This diagram contributes u(p . f1 (q 2 ) and f2 (q 2 ) can be related to the electromagnetic form factors in the SU (3) symmetry limit. . ....1) and (4.. this is another signal of spontaneous symmetry breaking.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .. we ﬁnd mN gA = fπ gπN N √ = Fπ gπN N .. s) q2 (4.. 4.. . P N Figure 4-1: Where × indicates the current annihilating the π − ...3) to the matrix element of the axial vector current... but it is simpler to say in this case. The electromagnetic current can be written in terms of the SU (3) currents as 1 µ µ µ jEM = j3 + √ j8 . Furthermore....... 2009 — 71 We have repeatedly argued that because the u and d quark masses are very small compared to Λ..3).. the renormalization of the axial vector current (compare (2.. π− ...... This relation was noticed long ago by Feynman and Gell-Mann.February 10. Then e g1 (0) −gA 1.. It was very important historically because it was a clue to the current–current . ........24))..7.... .. . .8 SU (3) − D and F Let us summarize what we know about the parameters in semileptonic baryon decay..4) This is the Goldberger-Treiman relation again.3) Thus.. . In fact. Comparing (4. We therefore believe that in the symmetric world. (4....... The principle here is not really diﬀerent from the general discussion that follows... The term f1 (0) can be calculated from ﬁrst principles similar to those used in Section 4. ....7...2) So we can use isospin considerations to show P |j µ |N = P |jEM |P − N |jEM |N ...6.8. .. × . g3 (q 2 ) has a pole. 2 (4. The pole is due to the process shown in Figure 4–1.. g1 (0) in the symmetric world should be very close to g1 (q 2 ) measured at very small momenta (q 2 m2 ) in neutron decay in the real world. .1) 3 µ The j3 part is an isospin partner of the current we are actually interested in: µ µ j µ = j1 + ij2 = uγ µ d.. so we will illustrate it separately.. (4. Thus. .....

The conjugate ﬁelds ψ = (u. as shown by Figure 4–1.8. There are only two ways to put three octets together in an SU (3) invariant way. we can use SU (3) symmetry to calculate g1 (q 2 ) for all the baryons in terms of just two functions.8.7.4) are all SU (3) octets.3). When we discuss nonlinear chiral Lagrangians π in the next section. But in the real world. 1 ψψ − 3 Itr (ψψ) ≡ M = (2uu − dd − ss)/3 du su ud (−uu + 2dd − ss)/3 sd us ds . Note that √ √ π 0 = (uu − dd)/ 2 .February 10. 2009 — 72 structure of the weak interactions. Because of the rapid q 2 dependence of the pole. (−uu − dd + 2ss)/3 (4. we should not trust the pole at q 2 = 0. (4. We can get rid of the singlet part by making it traceless. which is very small. we can safely ignore g2 (q 2 ) because it vanishes in the SU (3) symmetry limit.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . so we might expect the q −2 to be replaced by (q 2 − m2 )−1 . The quark triplet u ψ = d (4. We can put these together to form a matrix psiψ that contains both SU (3) singlet and octet pieces. there is a big diﬀerence π between a pole at q 2 = 0 and a pole at q 2 = m4 .8. so long as we stick to decays with electrons in the ﬁnal state. the lightest hadrons are the π and K. To see this. where lµ is the matrix element of the leptonic current in (4. It is due to Goldstone–boson exchange. However.8. g3 (q 2 ) can be calculated in terms of g1 (q 2 ) in the chiral symmetry limit (4.8) . Finally. But the divergence of the electron current is proportional to me .7) √ 0 √ π / 2 + η/ 6 ∝ π− K− + √π √ −π 0 / 2 + η/ 6 K0 k+ K 0√ −2η/ 6 where we have identiﬁed the quark wave functions with the appropriate pseudoscalar mesons. notice that the currents and the baryon states in the matrix element B |j µ |B (4. For now. In an analogous way we can use V –spin arguments to relate the matrix elements of the strangeness changing current uγ µ s to the electromagnetic current matrix elements. we can ignore the g3 term completely. s) (4. Of the functions gi (q 2 ). The SU (3) invariant couplings of octets are very easy to write down in a matrix notation.6) act like a row vector. d.8. η = (uu − dd − 2ss)/ 6 . This is a good approximation because the contribution of the g3 term is proportional to qµ lµ . we will learn how to include chiral symmetry–breaking (and SU (3) breaking) eﬀects in a systematic way.6).2.5) s act like a column vector under SU (3) transformations.

The reason for the names is that the F coupling is proportional to the structure constant fabc while the D coupling is proportional to the symmetric invariant tensor dabc = 2tr (Ta {Tb .(4.8. But the baryon matrix is not Hermitian because charge conjugation does not give back the same states. − 0 Ξ Ξ −2Λ/ 6 (4. if we write a current in an SU (3) notation in terms of a traceless 3 × 3 matrix T such that µ γ(5) = ψγ µ (γ5 )T ψ. (4. Tc }).5. To build an SU (3) invariant out of these matrices. this enables us to relate the invariants (for example. so that B |M B = Dtr M {B.5) for the current of interest in the charged– current weak interactions with 0 Vud Vus T = 0 0 0 . momentum dependence. B } + F tr T [B.5.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .13) up to conventional normalization.8.8.8. B } + F tr M [B. g1 ) in one matrix element to those in another.8.15) All the spinors. (4. Thus.8) we are ignoring all Dirac indices and coordinate dependence.8. K + → P .1)–(4. ud − du). which also behaves like a row vector. We can ﬁnd an octet baryon wave function in two ways. Let us illustrate its use by explicity writing out (4. Either way.14) then the SU (3) invariant matrix element is µ B |j5 |B = Dtr T {B.5)–(4. π − → Σ− . 2009 — 73 In (4. we get the same states back again.8. the SU (3) invariant meson–baryon coupling B |M B (4. Similarly. M is a pseudoscalar meson wave function. B ] . Alternatively.February 10.8. For example.12) (4. There are two diﬀerent ways of combining these three matrices to form an SU (3) singlet: tr M BB or tr M B B. (4.16) 0 0 0 .10) Note that the meson matrix is Hermitian in the sense that if we transpose it and charge conjugate. we just saturate all the indices by taking traces of products.9) (4.2) are contained in D and F . we can construct quark wave functions by replacing ψ by (ds − sd. and the rest of the matrix elements like (4. B ] .8. and so forth. (4.8.8. it changes baryons to antibaryons. su − us.7) with the baryon with the same isospin and hypercharge: η → Λ. All the particle and current labels are in the traces. the simplest is just to replace each meson in (4.8.8. we ﬁnd a baryon matrix √ 0 √ + P Σ / 2 + Λ/ 6 √Σ √ Σ− −Σ0 / 2 + Λ/ 6 B= N √ . this matrix notation is just a way of keeping track of the SU (3) properties.12) These are conventionally combined into combinations involving the commutator and anticommutator of two of the matrices and called F and D.11) is proportional to the matrices M and B and to the Hermitian conjugate matrix B (because B appears in a bra).

18) The axial vector current is not so well determined. 4-2.20) Problems 4-1. masses.17) to calculate the matrix elements of T µν between spinless particle states. Calculate the rate for the decay K + → π 0 e+ νe in terms of GF and Vus .8.8. the f1 and f2 terms are very well constrained because they are related to the electromagnetic current associated with 2 3 T =0 0 0 1 −3 0 0 0 .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Assume the SU (3) value for the hadronic matrix element.10) and its Hermitian conjugate B (we will drop the prime because B always appears barred because it is in a bra). Vus = 0. This is where the value in your particle data book comes from.25. (4.15) using (4. conserved. 2009 — 74 If we explicitly evaluate (4. As we have discussed above. Calculate the rate for π + → µ+ νµ and π + → e+ νe in terms of fπ .8-4.2. Thus Vud (D + F ) = g1N →P = −gA 1. we get F Vud +Vus √ 2Σ Σ− − 0 0 √ 2Σ Σ0 + P N − Ξ Ξ− + + 0 1/2Σ Ξ− + 0 3/2ΛΞ− + Σ Ξ0 − 1/2Σ Ξ− − +D Vud +Vus 3/2P Λ − N Σ− . One combination that is very well measured is gA . This can be ﬁt to all the semileptonic baryon decay rates. and set mπ = me = 0 in your calculation.8.8. .224 (4. The energy-momentum tensor. −1 3 (4. determined the KM parameter Vus .February 10. is symmetric. GF . of course. and related to the 4momentum operators by Pµ = T µ0 (x) d3 x Use arguments analogous to (4. which appears in neutron decay.218 to 0.17) + 0 Ξ Ξ− 2/3Σ Λ + P N + 0 1/2Σ Ξ− − 1/6ΛΞ− + 1/2P Σ0 − 1/6P Λ + N Σ− Notice the F term for the Vud current is just an isospin raising–operator matrix element.8. and the lepton 4-3.19) Only the ratio D/F for the axial vector current remains to be determined.8. T µν (x). This also.2. (4.

Show that (4.2) are the most general matrix elements consistent with Lorentz invariance and parity invariance of the strong interactions. Give an example of a similar relation involving the strangeness-changing current uγ µ s.5.8.3).February 10.5.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . 2009 — 75 4-4. Derive (4. . 4-5.1) and (4.

1. f (5. it turns out that the 2 × 2 case is rather special.6. 76 . since there is a broken SU (3) symmetry. we must extend the model to encompass an SU (3) × SU (3) chiral symmetry. The reason is that the 3– ∗ dimensional representation of SU (3) is complex.2) For (5.1. transforming like Σ → LΣR† = Σ (5.6 we discussed the σ–model of nucleons and pions with spontaneously broken SU (2) × SU (2) chiral symmetry. the pseudoscalar octet. we could recast the model into a more modern language by replacing the nucleon doublet (P. There is no matrix S that satisﬁes −STa S −1 = Ta for the SU (3) generators Ta . To describe the strange quark. d). and indeed they are the lightest meson states.and right-handed quark triplets by the unitary unimodular matrices L and R.1 SU (3) × SU (3) → SU (3) In Section 2. N ) by the light quark doublet (u.Chapter 5 — Chiral Lagrangians — Goldstone Bosons 5. However. The chiral SU (3) generators are associated with Goldstone bosons. In an obvious way. But if the components of Σ are to transform linearly into one another under (5.1).1. There is now a tremendous amount of phenomenological and theoretical evidence that the symmetry is spontaneously broken down to SU (3) with a VEV f 0 Σ = 0 0 f 0 0 0 . K. In the 3 × 3 case. K.11). we cannot restrict the ﬁeld as we did in (2. except for the reality of the determinant.1.1). There are good candidates for all of these.1) under independent SU (3) transformations of the left. The Goldstone bosons are therefore an SU (3) octet of pseudoscalars. and η (see Table 3.2). We can require that det Σ is real. all the ordinary SU (3) generators annihilate the vacuum. Σ must be a general 3 × 3 matrix. The obvious way to do this is simply to replace the 2 × 2 σ ﬁeld by a 3 × 3 Σ ﬁeld. We suspect from our experience with the σ–model and fπ that the SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry will have to be spontaneously broken if this model is to have anything to do with our world. Thus it depends on 17 real parameters. π.

Thus. the unitary.4) Π = πa Ta → Π = πa Ta ∼ ∼ (5. (5. so we can start by studying a theory involving only Goldstone–boson ﬁelds.2)–(5.2. But they have little else in common. These two ﬁeld theories share a spontaneously broken SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry (in the limit of QCD in which mµ = md = ms = 0). Therefore. they both contain an SU (3) octet of Goldstone bosons. Consider an exponential function of the eight Goldstone–boson ﬁelds πa . So we would like to learn everything we can about the Goldstone bosons without assuming anything but the spontaneously broken chiral symmetries. consistent with SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry. at suﬃciently low energies.2. The key fact about Goldstone bosons is that they are massless because they are related to the vacuum state by the chiral symmetries. We expect QCD to give such Goldstone bosons just because the symmetry is spontaneously broken. to study Goldstone bosons at low energies.2. We know that a QCD theory with three light quarks has a spontaneously broken SU (3)×SU (3) symmetry. We want.2) and spontaneously breaks the the SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry down to SU (3). A chiral charge (if such a thing actually made sense) would act on the vacuum state to produce a zero–momentum Goldstone boson.2) just as in (5. but until we get smarter. but that is all we can know without understanding the dynamics in detail.3) .2.2. we can’t say much about them that depends on the details of the dynamics. to incorporate the information about the symmetry without making unwarranted assumptions about the dynamics. where U = exp[2iΠ /f ].2.1.1) Π = πa Ta . (5. as we will discuss in more detail. But we have no particular reason to believe that has anything to do with QCD. This is why the charge doesn’t exist — the particle state and vacuum state are normalized diﬀerently. We will require that U transform linearly under SU (3) × SU (3): U → U = LU R† . 2009 — 77 5. unimodular matrix U = exp[2iΠ/f ] ∼ (5. and thus.February 10.2. only the Goldstone bosons can be produced because they are the lightest particles around. therefore. But now the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds transform nonlinearly: πa → πa . and we will expand the Lagrangian in powers of the momentum — in order to concentrate on low–momentum physics. ∼ (5. we would expect the chiral symmetries to relate processes involving diﬀerent numbers of zero–energy Goldstone bosons.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .4) deﬁne πa as a complicated nonlinear function of the π’s and L and R.1). We will do this with two basic ideas: we will use a nonlinear representation of the chiral SU (3) symmetry. In fact. ∼ where f is a constant with dimensions of mass. we would like to build the most general low–energy theory we can.2 Eﬀective Low–Momentum Field Theories We can easily build a renormalizable theory based on the 3 × 3 Σ ﬁeld in which the ﬁeld develops a VEV of the form (5.

equivalently. Coleman et al.2. Phys. (5.2. This is discussed (along with other interesting things) in an elegant pair of papers by S.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .Rev. This special exponential form for the nonlinear representation is the simplest of an inﬁnite number of possibilities. (5. Suppose we build the most general Lagrangian involving the Π’s (or.2.11) is a signal of spontaneous symmetry breakdown.2)–(5. If ∼ = 0. our theory should be equivalent to a theory based on any other realization of the SU (3)×SU (3) symmetry on the Goldstone bosons.2. (5. let us take c to be inﬁnitesimal and write Π as a power series in c and Π.2) is a pure chiral transformation. as we will see later.5) ∼ e .11) (5. the transformation is an ordinary SU (3) transformation i U →e under which the π’s transform linearly i ∼ −i Ue ∼ . 2009 — To see what this looks like in detail.2. Both c and π change signs if we interchange L and R.9). (1 + 2iΠ /f + · · ·) = (1 + i ∼ + · · ·)(1 + 2iΠ/f + · · ·)(1 + i ∼ + · · ·). 177:2239–2247 and 2247–2250. The Goldstone bosons are just an octet under the SU (3) subgroup as they should be. in the sense that theories constructed out of them will have the same S–matrix as the theories we will write down.6) then a can be calculated from (5. let us parametrize L and R as follows: ic 78 L=e R=e ∼ i e ∼ ∼ −i c i (5.2. The idea is as follows. where ea and ca are real parameters.11) are odd in π and c because of parity invariance.10) All the terms in the (5.2.5). ic ∼ ic U =e Ue ∼ . 1969). The inhomogeneous term in (5.2.2. c c ∼ ∼ Comparing the two sides.9) To get a feeling for the meaning of (5.8) Thus a describes the ordinary SU (3) subgroup of SU (3) × SU (3).2. Since all we have used is the symmetry.7) Π→e ∼ ∼ −i Πe ∼ ∼ . If ca = 0.2.2.4). we see π = π + f ∼ + ··· c ∼ ∼ or πa = πa + f ca + · · · .2.February 10. We can calculate ca by noting LR† = e 2i c ∼ . (5. (5. All the others are equivalent.2. however. (5. We use nonlinear realizations of SU (3)×SU (3) . This parametrization is entirely general. U ) that is invariant under SU (3) × SU (3) (5.

the non-derivative terms can have no dependence at all on the Goldstone– boson ﬁelds. 2009 — 79 because we can then describe only the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds.12) describe the most important self–interactions of the π’s.2. rµ . in terms of increasing numbers of derivatives. we look ﬁrst at terms with no derivatives.2) The rµ and µ ﬁelds are classical gauge ﬁelds for the SU (3)R and SU (3)L symmetries.1) where L0 QCD is the massless QCD Lagrangian and vµ . The theory described by (5. This will probably be obvious if you try to make one. They are interesting but have little to do with weak interactions. They are designed to describe the low–energy behavior of the theory. Every invariant function of U without derivatives is just a constant. equivalently. and add classical sources in the following way µ L = L0 QCD + qγ (vµ + aµ γ5 )q − q(s + ipγ5 )q µ µ = L0 QCD + q L γ µ qL + q R γ rµ qR − q R (s + ip)qL − q L (s − ip)qR (5. it is convenient to start with the massless QCD theory for the triplet q of light quarks. 4 (5.3. Thus. not any extraneous ﬁelds introduced by a linear realization. and rµ = vµ − aµ .1) is invariant under an SU (3) × SU (3) gauge symmetry under . Alternatively. There is only one term with two derivatives. That does not concern us. µ = vµ + aµ . which is enough to transform away from the Goldstone bosons completely (as in the Higgs mechanism). with the explicit SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry. you can note that the terms with no derivatives actually have a local SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry.3. then two. (5. and also the sources for the corresponding Noether currents. We have chosen the constant in front of (5. then four.2. and so on. 1 ∂µ πa ∂ µ πa . There aren’t any. 5. We are going to organize the Lagrangian in terms of increasing powers of momentum or.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . aµ .February 10. Renormalizability has to do with the high–energy behavior. µ . Thus. It is f2 tr ∂ µ U † ∂µ U .2.12) so that it contains the conventionally normalized πa kinetic energy.3 Sources To discuss symmetry breaking and the currents in the low energy theory describing the Goldstone bosons. The Lagrangians we build will be complicated nonlinear functions of the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds.3. s and p are classical Hermitian 3 × 3 matrix ﬁelds (we can take the vector ﬁelds to be traceless). (5.13) 2 The other terms in (5.2. The terms with no derivatives are easy. They will not be renormalizable.12) It is easy to see that all the other two derivative terms can be massaged into this same form.

2009 — which the ﬁelds and sources transform as follows: qR → R q R qL → L qL rµ → R rµ R† + iR ∂µ R† µ 80 (5.7) Note also that the QCD theory is invariant under a parity transformation.4).3.3. can be thought of as small. f2 tr Dµ U † Dµ U . the derivatives in (5. we want to build the most general such eﬀective Lagrangian consistent with the symmetries. L(U. is a gauge symmetry.5) in powers of the sources and truncate the expansion after a small number of terms. (5.2. r.3.3.6) 4 where Dµ U = ∂ µ U − i µ U + iU rµ Dµ U † = ∂ µ U − irµ U + iU µ (5.3.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3.3. Thus we want to build a low energy theory with the same symmetries — U → L U R† rµ → R rµ R† + iR ∂µ R† µ (5. This is only useful because the sources. .12) must be promoted to covariant derivatives.February 10.3.8) s→s p → −p along with the parity transformation in space. like derivatives.3) →L µL † + iL ∂µ L† s + ip → R (s + ip) L† where R and L are unitary 3 × 3 matrices describing the SU (3)R and SU (3)L symmetries. . Thus we can expand (5.4) →L † † µ L + iL ∂µ L s + ip → R (s + ip) L† The low energy theory will be described by an eﬀective Lagrangian that depends on U and the classical sources.5) As usual.4). (5. p) (5. r → −r. (5.3. s. which on the ﬁelds of the low energy theory takes the form U ↔ U† µ ↔ rµ (5. Because the symmetry.

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

81

5.4

Symmetry breaking and light quark masses

We do not want massless Goldstone bosons. We expect the masses of the observed pseudoscalar octet to be due to the SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry breaking. In QCD, we know precisely what breaks the symmetry. It is the quark term q L M qR + h.c., (5.4.1) where M is the quark mass matrix mu 0 M= 0

0 md 0

0 0 ms

(5.4.2)

But it is easy to incorporate the quark mass matrix in the theory with sources, with the symmetries of (5.3.4). We simply have to build a low energy theory with the right symmetries, and then set s = M . Of course, M is a constant and doesn’t transform under SU (3) × SU (3), so setting s = M actually breaks the symmetry. By itself, this is not very useful because with an arbitrary function of M , we can break the symmetry in an arbitrarily complicated way. To extract information, we assume that we can expand (5.3.5) in powers of s and p (which always appear in the combination s + ip or its adjoint, which transform simply under (5.3.4)) and truncate the expansion assuming that the symmetry breaking is small. We expect this to be an excellent approximation for the u and d quark masses, which seem to be very small compared to the QCD scale parameter Λ. It is plausible, but not obviously justiﬁed for ms . We will see how it works. To ﬁrst approximation, we want to ﬁnd the invariant function of U and s ± ip that is linear in s ± ip. This is unique. It is v 3 tr [U (s + ip)] + h.c. (5.4.3) To see what this means, we again expand in powers of Π, and we set s = M and p = 0. If v and M are real, the linear term cancels and the quadratic term is −4 which corresponds to a mass term 8 v3 tr (M Π2 ) ∼ f2 (5.4.5) v3 tr (M Π2 ), ∼ f2 (5.4.4)

for the pseudoscalar mesons. We will ﬁrst evaluate these masses in the limit of isospin invariance, ignoring weak and electromagnetic interactions and setting mu = md = m. Then

1

m2 = 8 π

v3 f2

4

tr M 0 0

1

4

m2 = 8 K m2 = 8 η

v3 f2

tr M 0 0

1

12

v3 f2

tr M 0 0

0 1 v3 0 = 4 f 2 m 4 0 0 0 0 v3 0 0 = 2 f 2 (m + ms ) 0 1 4 0 0 1 v3 0 = 4 f 2 m + 2 ms 12 3 3 0 1 3

0

(5.4.6)

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — The m2 determined in this way satisfy the Gell-Mann Okubo relation 3m2 + m2 = 4m2 . η π K

82

(5.4.7)

The interesting thing about this is that we have derived the GMO relation for m2 speciﬁcally. In an ordinary SU (3) symmetry argument, the relation should apply equally well for linear masses. In fact, the GMO us much better satisﬁed for m2 than for m for the pseudoscalars. The only coherent explanations of this fact are equivalent to the derivation we have just given. So this is some evidence for the validity of the nonlinear chiral theory. Notice that the approximation we have used of keeping two derivative terms in the invariant part of L and the term linear in M in the symmetry breaking part makes a kind of sense. As (5.4.5) shows, if the pseudoscalar boson momentum is of the order of its mass, the two terms are of the same order of magnitude. Note also that (5.4.6) does not determine the scale of the quark masses. If we deﬁne the parameter µ by µ = 2v 3 /f 2 , (5.4.8) then the pseudoscalar meson mass squares are proportional to µM . In the expansion in powers of momenta and quark masses, µM counts as two powers of momentum or two derivatives. To this order, the eﬀective Lagrangian has the form L = f2 1 1 1 tr Dµ U † Dµ U + tr U † µ(s − ip) + tr [U µ(s + ip)] . 4 2 2 (5.4.9)

5.5

What Happened to the Axial U (1)?

If something is bothering you about this treatment of Goldstone bosons from QCD, you are to be commended. The free massless quark theory has a chiral SU (3) × U (1) × SU (3) × U (1). Why don’t we include a Goldstone boson corresponding to a spontaneously breaking chiral U (1)? This would mean adding a ninth π, π0 corresponding to a U (1) generator T0 = 1 1/6 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 1

(5.5.1)

It is not hard to see that this is a phenomenological disaster. There is a ninth pseudoscalar, the η at 958 MeV. It seems to be an SU (3) singlet, primarily. But if we followed the analysis of Section 5.3, we would ﬁnd something very diﬀerent. Instead of an SU (3) octet and singlet like the η and η , there would be an ideally mixed pair like the ω and φ in the vector meson system, an isoscalar degenerate with the pion and another consisting of almost pure ss with mass proportion to ms . Even if the f constant is allowed to be diﬀerent for the π0 , the mass spectrum of the almost Goldstone bosons does not look like what we see for the pseudoscalar mesons (see Problem 5–1). This was a serious problem for many years until it was discovered that the axial U (1) is actually not a symmetry of the QCD theory. The symmetry breakdown can be traced to the appearance of a peculiar gauge invariant interaction term, θ g2 64π 2

µν λσ µνλσ Ga Ga .

(5.5.2)

This term had always been neglected because it had been a total divergence. But using semiclassical “instanton” techniques, ’t Hooft showed that it could not be neglected, essentially because the gauge

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

83

ﬁelds relevant in the quantum theory do not fall oﬀ fast enough at inﬁnity to allow neglect of surface terms. This is related to the axial U (1) problem because of yet another peculiar eﬀect, the anomaly. The gauge–invariant axial current µ j5 = qγ µ γ5 T q (5.5.3) in the massless quark QCD theory is not conserved unless tr T = 0, even though canonical manipulations would lead us to believe it is. The problem is that the triangle diagrams in which the current couples to two gluons through a quark loop are linear divergent. So the canonical reasoning µ that leads to ∂µ j5 = 0 breaks down and we ﬁnd instead that

µ ∂µ j5 = tr T

g2 32π 2

µν λσ µνλσ Ga Ga .

(5.5.4)

Because the divergence of the current involves the term (5.5.2), the associated symmetry does not leave the Lagrangian invariant, it changes θ (this follows from our Noether’s theorem argument [1.4.6]). This doesn’t eﬀect the SU (3) currents because tr T = 0, but it eliminates the axial U (1) as a symmetry! Thus the analysis of the previous sections, in which do not include the π0 as a Goldstone boson, is all right.

5.6

Light Quark Mass Ratios

To extract reliable values for the ratios of mu , md , and m3 to one another, we must include a treatment of isospin breaking. There are two important sources of isospin breaking, the u — d mass diﬀerence and the electromagnetic interactions. We will take them one at a time. If we perform the analysis of Section 5.3 without assuming mu = md , we ﬁnd m2 ± π m2 ± K m2 0 K = µ(mu + md ) = µ(mu + ms ) . = µ(md + ms ) (5.6.1)

And for the πs , π8 system, we ﬁnd a 2 × 2 mass–squared matrix: √ mu + md√ (mu − md )/ 3 µ (mu − md )/ 3 (4ms + mu + md )/3

.

(5.6.2)

The oﬀ–diagonal terms in (5.6.2) produce ﬁrst–order mixing of the isovector and isoscalar states, but their eﬀect on the eigenvalues is second order in isospin breaking and very small. So we will ignore it and write m2 0 π m2 η µ(mu + md )

µ 3 (4ms

.

(5.6.3)

+ mu + md )

The easiest way to understand the eﬀect of the electromagnetic interactions is to think of them as an additional chiral symmetry–breaking eﬀect. Because the electric charge matrix

2

3

Q=0 0

0 −1 3 0

0 0 1 −3

(5.6.4)

01172GeV2 µms = 0. But because the d and s charges are the same.6. If we are interested in matrix elements of a single current.6. The chiral symmetries associated with the K ± and π ± ﬁelds are broken by the electromagnetic interactions. the K ± and π ± get the same contribution (at least in the limit that the quark masses vanish).February 10. (5.55 . but not bad. we will assume that this situation persists approximately in the presence of quark masses. about 3% oﬀ.5) gives an η mass of 566 MeV compared to the observed 549.1. the π 0 . which will call ∆m2 .6) and (5.7).3. = 0. the EM interactions do not break the associated chiral symmetries.6. we can write all the masses as follows: m2 ± π m2 ± K m2 0 K m2 0 π m20 η = µ(mu + md ) + ∆m2 = µ(mu + ms ) + ∆m2 = µ(md + ms ) = µ(mu + md ) = µ(4ms + mu + md )/3.7 The Chiral Currents In this section. 2009 — 84 commutes with the chiral SU (3) generators associated with π 0 .6.3.6. The currents can be obtained easily by taking the functional derivative with respect to the classical gauge ﬁelds.2) . They would get no contribution to their masses from electromagnetism. In the spirit of chiral perturbation theory. we derive and discuss the currents associated with chiral SU (3) × SU (3) transformations on our eﬀective Lagrangian. and η would remain as exactly massless Goldstone bosons. This amounts to ignoring contributions that are suppressed both by quark masses and α.6) into (5. (5. Using (5. K 0 . we can then set the classical gauge ﬁelds to zero. K 0 . and η ﬁelds.5) Putting in observed π and K masses. The arguments of the last two paragraphs are part of an analysis called Dashen’s theorem.00649GeV2 µmd = 0. with µ µ = µ Ta rµ = ra Ta (5. Thus.1) a we ﬁnd for the left-handed current (which is involved in the semi-leptonic decays) µ jLa = f2 δL = i tr U † Ta ∂ µ U − ∂ µ U † Ta U . as in (1b. δ aµ 4 (5. if there were no quark mass terms.13).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . (5. It enables us to parametrize the eﬀect of the EM interactions in terms of a single number. K 0 .7) md md Putting (5. so that the K ± and π ± do get a mass contribution from electromagnetism. Thus. This gives the ratios ms mu = 20. K 0 .6) 5. the contribution to the π ± mass–squared. we get µmu = 0.7.23596GeV2 .7.

We now want to evaluate (5.5) I love this identity because it is so easy to guess. 2009 — But since U † U = 1.February 10. Thus. from (4.7) +··· . We can do it easily by means of a marvelous identity for the derivative of the exponential of a matrix (see Problem 5–2) µ jLa = i ∂ µ eM = 0 1 esM ∂ µ M e(1−s)M ds.7.7.7)–(5.9) where a = 1 to 3.7.4) as a power series in Π. 2 (5. In the quark theory.7. (5. These terms alternate. (5. it follows that (∂ µ U )U † = −U ∂ µ U † . The terms odd in Π are axial vectors while those even in Π are vectors. using (5.3.4) 2 The right-handed current can be easily obtained by the parity transformation.7. At any rate. we see that the axial isospin current is µ j5a = −f ∂ µ πa + · · · . [Π∂ µ Π] ∼ ∼ ∼ −itr 2 + 3f tr (5. (5.7.8) If we compare (5. we ﬁnd µ jLa = −f 1 2is Π /f ∼ −2is Π /f ∼ tr 0 Ta · e ∂ µ Πe ∼ ds .7. ∂ µ Π] ∼ ∼ Ta Π. so we can rewrite (5. (5. yet rather nontrivial. (5.7.7.7.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3) f2 tr (U † Ta ∂ µ U ). (5.7.7.6) It is now easy to expand in powers of Π: ∼ µ jLa = −f tr Ta ∂ µ Π ∼ Ta [Π.5).10) .6) f = Fπ = 93 MeV.8).7. which in this instance means interchanging U and U † . the corresponding current is µ jLa = qTa γ µ (1 + γ5 ) q. ∼ ∼ The right-handed current is obtained trivially by switching the signs of all the odd terms.2) as 85 (5.3.8).

8.8. and so on.9) + ··· + 1 √ π0π0∂ µK − 2 2 + 1 √ π+π−∂ µK − 2 To calculate the decay amplitudes. µ ja = qγ µ Ta q µ j5a (5.7) involving one K ﬁeld and zero.8) where M is the SU (3) matrix.8 Semileptonic K Decays The semileptonic decay amplitudes for K → µν.8. so they are 1 + γ5 qγ µ Ta q. 0 (5. 2 and in particular µ µ uγ µ (1 + γ5 )s ↔ 2(jL4 + ijL5 ).9). are all proportional to matrix elements of the strangeness–changing charged current uγ µ (1 + γ5 )s. we note that M Π= √ .7).8. Thus 1 µ µ µ (5.8.7. Here we will write down the terms involving the charged K ﬁeld: √ 1 uγ µ (1 + γ5 )s → − 2 f ∂ µ K − − i √2 K − ∂ µ π 0 − √ 2 1 + 3f √2 K − π + ∂ µ π 0 − 2K − π − ∂ µ π + − 1 √ K −π0∂ µπ0 2 2 1 √ π0∂ µK − 2 (5. (5.9) between the initial and ﬁnal hadronic states in a theory with the interactions given by (5.8. and it determines the normalization as well as the form of the currents. (4. eνπ.7) To evaluate this in terms of explicit pseudoscalar meson ﬁelds.4.8.February 10.2) = qγ µ γ 5 Ta q. µνπ.3) + µ ij5 + µ j54 + µ ij55 .8.6) jLa ↔ (ja + j5a ) . (5. We are only interested (for now) in the terms of (5. we now have only to calculate the matrix elements of (5. This is uγ µ (1 + γ5 )s = qγ µ (1 + γ5 )(T4 + iT5 )q = because µ j4 (5. To . and one or two pion ﬁelds. eν.1) (5. 0 0 T4 + iT5 = 0 0 0 0 1 0. This correspondence depends only on the symmetry.4) The currents associated with transformations on the left-handed quarks contain the projection operator (1 + γ5 )/2.5) 2 µ These are the currents that correspond to the jL in our eﬀective theory.8.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . eνππ. In terms of SU (3) × SU (3) currents.8.8. ∼ 2 (5. 2009 — 86 5.

.. .. In Feynman–diagram language.. . .. .9) but also the nontrivial interactions terms in the nonlinear Lagrangian (5..... . the amplitudes are shown in Figure 5–1. .4.... .9) as a description of the interactions of the pseudoscalar mesons.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .9.. . .. In general... ..... such as the following: tr Dµ Dν U † Dµ Dν U tr Dν U † Dν U U † µM tr U † µM U † µM Terms with more powers of D2 or µM are even less important..9).. ..9) in a systematic way. the terms (5. (5. ...9... K − → µ− ν K − → π 0 µ− ν K − → π 0 π 0 µ− ν π0 .8). ... we need only include tree diagrams..9). We might expect that powers of D2 and µM will be associated with inverse powers of some dimensional parameter that characterizes the convergence of the momentum expansion...February 10.... ...9 The Chiral Symmetry–Breaking Scale Why should it work? To understand the success of (5...4.1) . The reason is that any loop diagram can be expanded in powers of momentum... ... . the eﬀect of the loop diagram is included just by using renormalized parameters in the current and the Lagrangian (see Section 5.9.......8... The predictions of Figure 5–1 are in fairly good agreement with the observed decay rates.4. Thus... . . π 0.. The next most important terms.. . Notice that the tree diagram contributions involve not only the current (5. .K − .. . We will call this parameter ΛCSB .×. . 2009 — 87 calculate to lowest order in an expansion in momentum. π. CSB we would expect a term involving 2n derivatives and m powers of µM to have a coupling of order f 2 /ΛCSB 2(n+m) (5. at low momentum... have one additional power of D2 or µM compared to (5. × .. ..K − + ×. we must discuss the corrections to (5. The other terms involve more powers of the momenta and are irrelevant in the approximation in which we are working.2) ...9).... ...... the semileptonic K decays are completely determined by the chiral SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry.K − π 0 . These arise from SU (3) × SU (3) invariant couplings involving more powers of derivatives or quark masses.8.1) would have coupling constants of order f 2 /Λ2 ....4. . The leading term is just a renormalization of the corresponding tree diagram..9).. π0 Figure 5-1: 0 We have seen that to lowest order in powers of momentum. the chiral symmetry–breaking scale. .4. down by two powers of ΛCSB compared to (5. ×.. where the x represents the current (5.... Both are required to make the matrix element of the current divergenceless in the limit M = 0 (see Problem 5–3).... Thus.K − . . 5.....

9. Unfortunately. (5. There should be no quartic divergence. Thus. it is 1 p4 ln (ΛCO /κ) π 4 . the divergent contributions to the eﬀective action should all be associated with invariant interaction terms such as (5.9. will thus induce a change in (5. (5.9. this contribution is 1 p2 2 4 Λ π . then the convergence of the momentum expansion is determined by the size of the chiral symmetry–breaking scale.10) predicts a four–pion vertex proportional to two powers of momentum (or one power of µm — we will concentrate on the momentum dependence). it is p2 f2 π4. it is unreasonable to suppose that ΛCSB is very large because the radiative corrections to (5.1).3) The quantum corrections induce additional contributions to π–π scattering from one–loop diagrams. Schematically. they will be there for another.5) (4π)2 f 4 where κ is some arbitrary renormalization scale.3).4. which must vanish because of the chiral symmetry.9. There is a quadratically divergent contribution proportional to two powers of external momenta.3).5) of order 1 p4 4 π . This has the same form as (5.9. But if we cut oﬀ the divergent integral with some procedure that preserves the nonlinear chiral symmetry. because a quartic divergence could arise only if all the powers of momentum from (5.9) or (5.4) (4π)2 f 4 CO where ΛCO is a cut–oﬀ scale and the 1/(4π)2 is associated with the loop–momentum integration.9.9) at any momentum involved in weak decays. the higher order terms are negligible compared to (5. there is a logarithmically divergent term involving four powers of the external momenta. 2009 — 88 If these guesses are correct.9.7) .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .9). Schematically. The loop integral is horribly divergent.9. e). It just renormalizes (5. Let us explore these ideas in the example of π–π scattering. CSB (5.9.9. even if these terms are absent for some choice of renormalization scale.4. it would clearly be unreasonable to assume that the couplings (5.1).9. Under such circumstances.February 10. If ΛCSB is large compared to the pseudoscalar meson masses. and so the quadratically divergent part can be absorbed into (5.8) (5.9. appropriately deﬁned. A change in the renormalization scale of order 1 (for example.9.4. Finally. (5.1) and higher–order terms with inﬁnite coeﬃcients. Schematically. (5.2) are small compared to the changes induced in them by a change in renormalization scale by some factor of order 1. But that would yield a term in the eﬀective action proportional to π ﬁelds with no derivatives.3) were loop momenta.4.9.6) (4π)2 f 4 which corresponds to a change in the coupling f 2 /Λ2 CSB of order 1/(4π)2 . This has the same form as the ﬁrst term in (5. (5.9) produce terms like (5. Thus. we cannot reasonably assume that f 2 /Λ2 << 1/(4π)2 .9.

.. . it would not be true for another.February 10.4.. we can ignore all divergent loop eﬀects.... ..9. Many of the ideas in this section were stimulated by a very nice paper by S. The contribution from the diagram (for massless pions) π b. . But these are down by 1/m2 . t2 . .... The most important are loops that produce infrared logs and imaginary parts.9). . 5..9. ρ CSB 1 ... ... But there are situations in which the loop eﬀects are important because they can be qualitatively distinguished from the tree–diagram eﬀects.6) and can easily prove it in general.10. . .. .. u = (pa − pd )2 ... . . But we could imagine that f 2 /Λ2 ≈ 1/(4π)2 ...10) comes from the dimensionality of space–time and is simply the appropriate connection between the constant f which appears in U and the scale ΛCSB which appears in loop eﬀects.. .. . ... as we have shown. . .9....5) and (5. . .. ..9.. . . ... Hence. which are not obviously related to chiral loop eﬀects. . πc = −δab δcd s2 3s2 + u2 − t2 − δac δbd 32π 2 196π 2 3s2 + t2 − u2 ln(−s/κ2 ) −δad δbc 196π 2 +cross terms + polynomial in s2 . Weinberg (Physica 96A:327–340 1979). and u are the Mandelstam variables. . .1 If these ideas make sense. You can see this explicitly in (5.. it would be true in others.2).. ...10) and cut oﬀ our loop integrals at momentum of order ΛCSB so that ΛCO ≈ ΛCSB .1) in our nonlinear Lagrangian will be a good approximation.10) as a guess for the chiral symmetry–breaking scale.10. u2 . This is what we would expect on the basis of dimensional analysis in a strongly interacting theory in which there is no relevant small adjustable parameter. as a simple example... .... . . . and κ is an arbitrary renormalizable scale.9) seems a reasonable guess for the chiral symmetry–breaking scale.... (5. . . Consider. .. .10. .. . ... (5. . . Thus we may hope that neglect of terms like (5.9..10 Important Loop Eﬀects Loop eﬀects in eﬀective chiral theories can often be ignored. then the quantum corrections are of the same order of magnitude as the renormalized interaction terms.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft ...9.. The factor of 4π in (5. . t = (pa − pc )2 . . 2009 — 89 because if this were true for one renormalization scale. . Indeed. . s = (pa + pb )2 . .. . Similarly. .... (5. The polynomial comes from the matrix elements of Note that there are also corrections to the lowest–order chiral Lagrangian from things like ρ exchange. .2) In (5. π a. 4πf is about 1 GeV. . . t. . considerably larger than the typical momentum in K decay and more than a factor of two larger than the K mass. π–π scattering amplitude in the chiral symmetry limit.9.. (5.... . All of these situations arise from the analytic structure of the loop eﬀects. s.1) . If we assume ΛCSB ≈ 4πf.. . we can understand the success of (5. . . .......9.9) CSB If this were true in any reasonable renormalization scheme... ... we will adopt (5.. . . .. which is again 1/Λ2 .. . . .. πd + cross terms (5....

because mκ /ΛCSB and mη /ΛCSB are not much smaller than 1.11 Nonleptonic K Decay The nonleptonic K decays. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics. If the logarithm is large. 1995. Pergamon Press. Nevertheless. (5.11. 5. Oxford. p− . (5. Ks into π + π − and π 0 π 0 . we can say something. All of the terms we can build with right symmetry have a simple property that we can use to relate the K − → 2π and 3π decays. and π 0 π 0 π − . The technique is called “current algebra”. Vol. The imaginary part of the ln(−s) term in (5. so they are completely determined. 35. this is the most important correction to the kinetic energy term (5. as we will see in detail later. But QCD corrections can change it in important ways. CHIRAL PERTURBATION THEORY.11. are not as well understood as the semileptonic and leptonic decays.1) is a linear combination of terms that transform like an 8 and a 27 under the SU (3)L . For more information. Ecker. Tb }µM ) . The reason is that the form of decay Hamiltonian is not completely determined by the SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry. In tree approximation in terms of quarks. We can form several terms with the right transformation properties. π − π − π + . It diverges as the momenta go to zero. I suggest that you look in a very nice review of the subject (by the same name) by G.11. this is just the product of two currents. the relevant term is uγ µ (1 + γ5 )sdγµ (1 + γ5 )u. the symmetry breaking is small anyway. The general subject of renormalization in theories of this kind is a beautiful one which is part of the modern treatment.10. But the logarithmic terms cannot arise from tree diagrams. In practice. For example. it is more important than the terms with four derivatives from tree diagrams because the logarithm is large.1) Formally. The real part of the ln(−s) term in (5. and KL into 3π 0 and π + π − π 0 . p0 ). which is called. δπa δπb (5. From the point of view of the chiral symmetry. they are not tremendously useful. and their renormalization is completely undetermined. It is related to the total cross section. Its coeﬃcients cannot be calculated. for light Goldstone bosons. At very small momenta. for example π + π − π 0 |HW |K 0 = A(p+ . ab In principle. K − into π 0 π − .2) .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .10. 2009 — 90 interaction terms involving terms with four derivatives. the terms proportional to m2 ln m2 are very small π π while the terms proportional to m2 ln m2 or m2 ln m2 are no more important than the terms η η K K without logarithms.12) because the logarithm is large when κ is any reasonable renormalization scale (∼ ΛCSB ).2) arises from the unitarity of the S matrix. Thus. Infrared logarithms can also play a role in the small symmetry breaking terms. We will use this system to exemplify another method for obtaining chiral symmetry predictions.3) ab where M 2 is Goldstone–boson mass–squared matrix m2 = tr ({Ta . (5.10. all we can say comes from the symmetry properties. there is a contribution to the eﬀective action with two derivatives (coming from a single Goldstone– boson loop) that has the form f2 64π 2 m2 ln m2 /κ2 · δ2 tr Dµ U Dµ U † .February 10.2. Consider a K → 3π amplitude. however.2) is an infrared logarithm.

.... ........ .... ..4) relies on the fact that the limit vanishes except for contributions from the pion pole due to the diagram shown in Fig 5. the current–algebra reduction formula can actually be faster.. .. . .6) Thus. We will analyze this matrix element in the chiral symmetry limit.. This relation works pretty well and is a good example of old–fashioned current algebra. ...... ... 91 π3 .......2..... .. the 3π amplitude is related to the 2π amplitude. 2009 — ... ....... The current is conserved...3) µ where j53 is the axial isospin current...... .......... . Problems 5-1.... δπ0 = c0 ... the analog of (5.... ......... ........... π + .......... π0 .... ...... 0 .4. in an obvious notation. but we are left with an equal–time commutator i 0 eip0 x δ(x0 ) π + π − |[j53 (x)....... ... .11........... p− ... .. π− Figure 5-2: where HW is the term in the weak Hamiltonian responsible for the decay and the p’s are the pion momenta. .. The pµ can be turned into a derivative and taken 0 inside the time–ordered product...... If the axial U (1) were a symmetry of QCD.. ... . ........ (5... ...11..... K ... ..5) The form of the equal–time commutator follows purely from the symmetry...... The eﬀective Lagrangian technique is a systematic and reliable way of doing the same thing but.......... ...... HW ]|K 0 d4 x = − i + − π π |HW |K 0 ... ... In the presence of SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry breaking........... there would be an SU (3) singlet Goldstoneboson ﬁeld.. we consider the following: µ eip0 x π + π − |T (j53 (x) HW ) |K 0 d4 x = Aµ (p+ .... .. p0 ).. . ... ....11....... . .....4) This can be calculated in two diﬀerent ways. .. .... p− ... p0 )...9) would be 1 1 L(π) = ∂ µ πo ∂µ π0 + f 2 tr (∂ µ Σ† ∂µ Σ) 2 4 1 1 + tr µM Σ† e−iλπ0 /f + tr µM Σe−iλπ0 /f 2 2 (5 − 1) ...11. which in the SU (3) symmetry limit transforms under a U (1) transformation by a translation........ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . ...... 2 (5.. .. 0).. This contribution is iFπ A(p+ ... The other way of evaluating (5..... ... .......... in simple cases like this... 0 (5... .... ................. (5..... . .... ................ . ............. p− .. Now for reasons that are not entirely obvious... ..February 10.11.......... and calculate the quantity p0 →0 lim pµ Aµ (p+ ............................. ... ........

Explain this. Prove (5.February 10. Check your result by showing that the current is conserved in the chiral limit. then take N such vertices for various n and m. or 2 pions. Take it from there. Use chiral Lagrangian arguments to relate the following two matrix elements: π + π 0 sγ µ (1 + γ5 )u uγµ (1 + γ5 )d K + and K 0 sγ µ (1 + γ5 )d sγµ (1 + γ5 )d K 0 Be sure to justify any assumptions you make about the form of the operators in the eﬀective chiral theory. Suppose that (5. for M = N + Σn − j. include a factor 1 d4 k k 2 (2π)4 Suppose there are l such lines.9. Clearly when M → 0. 5-5. .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . 2009 — 92 where λ is an unknown constant that determines the strength of the spontaneous breaking of the U (1) symmetry.9). 5-6. π + and π − momenta are P µ . Calculate the matrix element µ π + π − j5 K − µ where the K − .5). pµ . Prove that (5-1) cannot describe the pseudoscalar mesons in our world for any value of λ. respectively. in the current. 1.7. it contributes terms to the eﬀective action of the same order of magnitude as the bare interaction terms. 5-4. Assume mu = md = m and consider the 2 × 2 mass-squared matrix that describes π0 and π8 . there are nine Goldstone bosons.8. Call the loop momenta k and external momenta p. Hint: Restrict yourself to the derivative interactions.2) is satisﬁed for the coupling of higher order terms in the momentum expansion.9). Write down the terms involving a K 0 ﬁeld and 0. For each internal meson line. p2M . Then a vertex has the form (2π)4 δ 4 (Σpi ) f 2 p2 p2 Λ2 CSB n 1 f2 n where p is a typical momentum and m is the number of π lines emanating from the vertex.8. Consider a contribution in which there is a k 2j from the momentum factors and the rest involves only external momenta. Construct a power-counting argument to show that if a divergent loop diagram is cut oﬀ at momentum of order ΛCSB ≈ 4πf . Terms with derivatives replaced by µM clearly act the same way. and pµ . 5-3. and j5 is the current − + corresponding to uγ µ γ5 s in (5. (5. What is k? 5-2. Show that the lightest isoscalar meson has a mass less than kmπ for some k.

1).1) Alternatively. (3. we must solve two problems. We could describe such baryons by a four–Dirac–component traceless 3 × 3 matrix ﬁeld Ψ2 that transforms as follows: Ψ2 → LΨ2 L† .and right-handed baryon ﬁelds transform like an octet under SU (3)L and SU (3)R . respectively. for example.1. We have some freedom to choose how the baryon ﬁelds transform under chiral SU (3) × SU (3) .1. described by a 3 × 3 matrix ﬁeld Ψ3 that transforms as follows: Ψ3 → LΨ3 R† . 93 . 3). like (8.3) There are eight such possibilities. (6.and right-handed baryons to transform like octets under SU (3)L . We can take the left. 3). we could take both the left. We need a sensible transformation law for the baryon ﬁelds.Chapter 6 — Chiral Lagrangians — Matter Fields 6. 3) under chiral SU (3) × SU (3) .1. To construct a theory describing the baryons. In this chapter. Ψ1R → RΨ1R R† . We might. (6. we will address the ﬁrst of these issues and we will apply what we learn to a diﬀerent problem — the constituent mass of the quarks.2) We could also take the baryons (left-handed or right-handed.and right-handed baryon ﬁelds independently to transform in any of four ways.1 How Do the Baryons Transform? Now that we have learned how to construct nonlinear Lagrangians that incorporate SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry for Goldstone bosons. or both) to transform under SU (3) × SU (3) like a (3. 8). or (3. and we must somehow deal with the fact that masses of the baryons are not small compared to the chiral symmetry breaking scale. (1. I will illustrate some of the issues involved by considering the SU (3) octet of spin– 2 baryons. decide that the left. (6. We could describe such baryons by chiral traceless 3 × 3 matrix ﬁelds Ψ1L and Ψ1R that transform as follows: Ψ1L → LΨ1L L† . we would like to do the same thing for the rest of the low–lying 1 hadrons.

2009 — 94 It might seem that each of these possibilities would lead to diﬀerent physics. we can take Ψ2L = Ψ1L .6) is imposed) all transform like SU (3) octets. Ψ2R = U Ψ1R U † . (6.1. But in the parity invariant Ψ1 representation. this feature of the Goldstone–boson interactions is not explicit. while (8. but the parity transformation is nonlinear because it involves the Goldstone–boson matrix U . 8) has eight components. Ψ1 .February 10.2. The pseudoscalar π–baryon coupling is equivalent to an axial–vector derivative coupling. For Ψ3 .1) In addition to the SU (3) invariant baryon mass term.1. To couple to baryons. (6. 3) ﬁeld cannot be traceless. Of course. We can describe the low–momentum interactions of baryons and Goldstone bosons equally well with any of them.2 A More Elegant Transformation Law I argued in the previous section that we can build a nonlinear chiral theory with baryons in any SU (3) × SU (3) representation that reduces to an octet under the unbroken SU (3) subgroup. the Goldstone bosons must be in an SU (3)R singlet because the baryons transform only under SU (3)L . Thus. we can require tr U † Ψ3 = 0. A (3.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . You can see it easily for the couplings of baryons to Goldstone bosons in the representation Ψ2 . Nevertheless. the SU (3) × SU (3) invariant baryon mass term looks like tr Ψ1L U Ψ1R U † + h. In the low energy theory. Ψ2 and Ψ3 are inconvenient because the representations are not parity invariant.1) describes some π–baryon couplings. in the limit of exact chiral symmetry. Not only do they transform diﬀerently under SU (3) × SU (3) . every SU (3)R invariant function of the Goldstone–boson ﬁelds is constant. because with a local SU (3)R transformation. In this representation. there is nothing really wrong with this representation. The point is that the SU (3) × SU (3) symmetry is spontaneously broken down to SU (3). (6. We saw in Chapter 5 that. although we cannot require that the trace vanish because tr Ψ3 is not invariant.1.1. Ψ2 . and Ψ3 (once (6. For example. but they even have diﬀerent numbers of independent components.1. The reason is that the Goldstone boson matrix U can be used to transform from one representation to another.3) and (6.c. all the π’s in U can be transformed away. This is an important feature of Goldstone–boson interactions.5) 6.5). Then we can take Ψ3 = Ψ2 U. Parity can be imposed.6) which satisﬁes both (6.2. But it might be nice to see it coming . Ψ1 is slightly inconvenient for a diﬀerent reason. it doesn’t matter which representation of baryons we choose. 1) or (1. All of the representations we have discussed so far are slightly inconvenient. But if there are no derivatives.1. so it has nine components. we can decide on a baryon representation that is maximally convenient. (6. the Goldstone bosons have only derivative interactions because the chiral–invariant terms with no derivatives are just constants.4) This gives the correct transformation properties for Ψ2 . (6. it is only the SU (3) transformation properties of the baryons that matter.

(6. This deﬁnes u(π) as a nonlinear function of L.2. and Π in a c ∼ complicated nonlinear way. Derivatives of Ψ will not transform simply.2. Π) c ∼ encodes the chiral SU (3) × SU (3) in a nonlinear way. In this notation.2. ∼ . We can do this as follows.2.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . We can write it as ξ → ξ = Lξu(π)† = u(π)ξR† . ∼ .2. The result is (see Problem 6–1) c ∼ v = ∼ + i[ ∼ . Ψ. then u(π) depends on ∼ . the transformation (6. (6.2) (6.February 10. Note that u(π) depends implicitly on the space–time coordinate x because it depends on Π(x). Π → −Π.5) (6.1)–(5. It must be admitted that the advantages of this notation over another parity–invariant deﬁnition. ∼ The matrix u(π) is invariant under the parity transformation L ↔ R. Now we take our baryon ﬁelds Ψ to transform as Ψ → u(π)Ψu(π)† .4) u(π) = e where the Hermitian matrix ∼ ∼ . Thus. such as Ψ1 . The most important diﬀerence is psychological. The transformation properties of the Π ﬁelds (5.5) for ∼ and ∼ inﬁnitesimal. and Π. .2. calculate ∼ for an inﬁnitesimal chiral transformation. then the critical transformation is just an ordinary SU (3) transformation.4) induce a well-deﬁned transformation ∼ of ξ under an SU (3) × SU (3) transformation. ∼ the u(π). This is the desired connection between the broken and unbroken subgroups.7) is determined by the transformation properties of the baryon ﬁeld under ordinary SU (3). are rather slight.2.7). L = R). 2009 — out explicitly.7) The form of (6. Deﬁne the matrix ξ as i Π /f 95 ξ=e so that ξ is a square root of U . Π]/f + 0(π 2 ). All of the chiral nature of the transformation is contained in u(π).2.6) v ( ∼ . this chiral transformation is a local transformation.2. An arbitrary chiral transformation is represented by an ordinary SU (3) matrix iv (6. c ∼ (6.7) multiplies the baryon ﬁeld by functions c of Π. In the transformation (6.2. (6.2. To see what is going on more explicitly. v given by (5.2. This is an explicit realization of the vague statement that chiral transformations are associated ∼ with emission and absorption of Goldstone bosons.8) For a chiral transformation ∼ = 0. and u(π) is the associated SU (3) matrix (u(π) = L = R). If ∼ = 0 (that c ∼ ∼ is. ∼ .3) ξ 2 = U.2. If ca = 0. R. and u(π)† ﬁelds are all to be evaluated at the same x.

a few hundred MeV for the u and d quarks and about 500 Mev for the s quark. In this section.5 that the light quark masses that appear in the QCD Lagrangian are very diﬀerent. (6.2. some are derivative interactions while some come from (6. 0 (6. We can use the ξ matrices to construct ﬁelds that transform linearly under SU (3) × SU (3) : ξ qL and ξ qR = (3. and s quark.2. and we will use it.4) . and we may be misled into treating them diﬀerently (that is. There are two ways to construct the chiral–invariant terms with a single derivative.1). this shouldn’t make much diﬀerence. all derivatives should be color SU (3) covariant derivatives. but for the moment we will not worry about the color SU (3) gauge symmetry. we have learned from the arguments of Section 5.3.2.2. Thus. 6. All of these ﬁelds transform only under global SU (3) × SU (3) . we will discuss the baryon Lagrangian that we can construct with this procedure.3.3. In the rest of this chapter. 2009 — 96 all the Goldstone boson interactions in the chiral–symmetry limit are derivative interactions and obviously on the same footing.February 10. ξ † qL and ξ † qR = (1. (6. Whereas. if the baryons are described by Ψ1 . But then to incorporate SU (3) × SU (3) . so derivatives cause no special problem. We require the quark ﬁeld. therefore. transforming as a triplet under the ordinary SU (3). 3) . that is. illustrate the ideas about thre transformation of matter ﬁeld by building a matter Lagrangian describing the u. d. Presumably. to transform under SU (3) × SU (3) as q → u(π)q. we will apply similar ideas to the quark model. I remarked that the nonrelativistic quark model gives a surprisingly useful description of the light baryon and meson states. At any rate. compared to the chiral symmetry breaking scale) — the nonrelativistic eﬀective theory — that we will introduce later. assuming one set is small). We can simply put them together to form chiral invariant and parity invariant terms as follows: 1+gA 2 / / i qL ξ † ∂ (ξ qL ) + i qR ξ ∂ ξ † qR + 1 − gA / / i qR ξ † ∂ (ξ qR ) + i qL ξ ∂ ξ † qL 2 (6. Whereas.2) (6. It seems reasonable to suppose that the bulk of the constituent mass of the light quarks is the eﬀect of chiral symmetry breaking. Let us.3 Nonlinear Chiral Quarks In Section 3.1) The parameter m is the constituent mass of a (hypothetical) massless quark. there is no correlation with the handedness of the quark ﬁelds. The problem is that the nonrelativistic quark model only makes sense if quarks have “constituent” masses. This involves an additional idea to deal with the large mass of the baryons (large. Then the term in a quark Lagrangian with no derivatives is unique: Lq = −mqq. Later. I suggest a partial explanation of the success of the quark model. “nonlinear chiral quarks” would seem to be a reasonable starting point in our search for an understanding of the success of the nonrelativistic quark model.3. We will also assume that q is a triplet under color SU (3). 1) .3) Note that because the chiral transformation properties come from the ξs and ξ † s. like the baryon mass in the previous section. but since color SU (3) and ﬂavor SU (3) commute. in a triplet q.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . q. we must include Goldstone bosons and realize the chiral symmetry nonlinearly.7) deﬁne a simply and elegant notation.2)–(6.

3.2.7). It transforms as A µ → u(π)A µ u(π)† . It is a parameter that must be calculated from the QCD dynamics (too hard!) or simply ﬁt to the experiment. The noteworthy thing about the Lagrangian is that is depends on only two new parameters m and gA . The point is that while the matrix elements of the vector SU (3) currents are guaranteed to have their canonical form (at nonzero–momentum transfer) by the unbroken SU (3) symmetry. ∼ and V ∼ µ (6. ∼ which transforms homogeneously under the local transformation: Dµ Ψ → u(π)Dµ Ψu(π)† . The vector ﬁeld 1 † µ V µ= ξ ∂ ξ + ξ∂ µ ξ † (6.2. As you will show in Problem 6–3.3.10) (6. gA is related to the renormalization of the quark contribution to the axial vector current.3.8) µ → u(π)V µ u(π)† + u(π)∂ µ u(π)† . But this is the only freedom allowed in the nonlinear chiral quark theory to this order in the momentum expansion. 2009 — 97 An alternative method is to deal directly with the nonlinear local transformation (6. we can easily write down the terms with one derivative in the baryon Lagrangian There are two terms involving one derivative: / / Lq = iq D q + gA q A γ5 q.4)–(6.3. (6.5) ∼ 2 is a gauge ﬁeld for the local transformation.11) (6. ∼ ∼ With the gauge ﬁeld V µ .3.3.3. With the ξ matrices. ∼ i † µ ξ ∂ ξ − ξ∂ µ ξ † 2 (6.February 10.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .9) With these tools. 1 ∼ where Dµ = ∂ µ + V µ . It transforms as V ∼ The axial vector ﬁeld Aµ= ∼ is an SU (3) octet ﬁeld. . we can build two vector ﬁelds with simple transformation properties.12) and A µ are deﬁned as follows: ∼ If truncated at this point. (6. we can make a covariant derivative ∼ Dµ Ψ = ∂ µ Ψ + V µ . Ψ .7) (6. there is no such constraint for the axial vector currents.3. the nonlinear chiral quark Lagrangian describes three degenerate quarks with a constituent mass and couplings to Goldstone bosons.6) (6.3.13) but the constant gA is not determined by the symmetry. SU (3) considerations require them to have the form gA qTa γ µ γ5 q + · · · .

4.3. the mass splitting between states of diﬀerent strangeness in the spin– 2 baryon decuplet. mi mj (6. CSB The most important such term is the symmetry–breaking term − fm q ξµM ξ + ξ † µM ξ † q.4. In general. However.8 that these terms will have a “dimensional coupling” constant of the order of m/Λ2 . It splits the decuplet from the octet by a few hundred MeV. Furthermore. this makes the terms with additional quark ﬁelds less important. and we might expect their coeﬃcients to be suppressed by additional powers of 1/ΛCSB . If we generalize the analysis of Section 5. we conclude that we should include an extra factor of ΛCSB for each pair of quark ﬁelds. 2009 — 98 There are several terms that contain either two derivatives or one power of µM . In practice. we should also consider interaction terms involving more than two quark ﬁelds. Note that if the constituent mass m is about 350 MeV.14) where f is a dimensionless constant or order 1. 6. (6. Thus. . which gives a contribution of the right sign.3. This term splits the s quark mass from the u and d masses by an amount 2f mm2 K ∆m 150 MeV.February 10. it explains the sign and magnitude of the Σ − Λ diﬀerence.15) (6. Presumably. then f is indeed of order 1. This picture of the baryons is attractive for several reasons. (6. The leading contribution to the baryon mass in the nonrelativistic limit is just the sum of the constituent quark masses. The spin– 2 octet and spin– 3 decuplet are 2 interpreted as color–singlet bound states of three quarks in a ground–state wave function with total angular momentum equal to zero.1) arises primarily from gluon exchange. on the basis of the arguments (and assumptions) of Section 5.4.4 Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model The hope is that now that we have included the eﬀect of chiral symmetry breaking in the constituent quark mass.8 to include quark couplings. The ﬁrst striking success is that 1 the baryon masses are given correctly by this picture.16) Λ2 CSB The 150 MeV is a rough estimate of the mass diﬀerence from quark model phenomenology. the quarks are bound by conﬁning QCD interactions. Λ2 CSB (6. We would expect. these are higher dimension operators than those that we have considered so far. Their matrix elements are proportional (roughly) to powers of fπ . while their coeﬃcients are suppressed by powers of 1/ΛCSB . we may try to identify the low–lying hadrons with nonrelativistic bound states of the quarks described in Section 6.1) where Si and mi are the spin and mass of the ith quark and κ is a parameter that depends on the detailed dynamics.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . along with eﬀects of multiquark and multigluon operators that appear in high orders of 1/ΛCSB in the eﬀective Lagrangian. we will usually ignore such operators. the interquark forces will be correspondingly weakened in our eﬀective theory. The most interesting relativistic correction is a spin–dependent contribution to the mass of the form of a sum of quark pairs κ ij Si · Sj .3. for 1 example. Thus.

95. The f1 values for the vector currents are guaranteed to work at zero momentum to the extent that the wave functions are SU (3) symmetrical.1: Baryon magnetic moments.4. Roberts in the same publication. Nonrenormalizable terms.1 (in nuclear magnetons).4. We can also use the quark model to calculate the matrix elements of the vector and axial currents.91 −0.1 is an indication that these renormalizable terms are small. AIP Conference Proceedings. in context. The success of (6. No.2) where Qi is the quark change. (6.6) .35 −0.79 −1.02 −0.2) depends on the approximate renormalizability of the eﬀective chiral theory.3) (see Problem 6–5).4.25 ± 0.5) (6. we can understand the success of the magnetic moment predictions of the quark model. Pondrom. We would expect an anomalous magnetic moment term of the form mf Fµν qσ µν q. the octet baryon magnetic moments are those given in the second column in Table 6. L. (6.4.15 ± 0.February 10. A good picture of the baryon masses is obtained if we take mu md ≈ m = 360 MeV. seems to me to be very signiﬁcant.97 −1. µS = i µi S i = i Qi Si /mi . 2 ΛCSB where f is of order 1. 1982.36 ± 0.02 −1.61 2. Handler.61 n Λ Σ+ Σ− Ξ0 Ξ− −1. Mariner. Other nonrelativistic terms and relativistic corrections give similar contributions to the moments. such as terms describing anomalous magnetic moments for the quarks. This is what we expect if ΛCSB is of the order of 1 GeV.4. ms 540 MeV. and B. CSB (6. This gives an anomalous moment of order m2 /Λ2 . The agreement with the data shown in the third column is excellent. With these masses.01 −1. The interesting thing about it is that (6.4. but even their overall scale. If we had built our quark model naively. A second success of the quark picture is the prediction of the magnetic moments. J. In leading order in v/c. The axial vector currents are more subtle.4) which we expect to be about 10%. without thinking about spontaneously broken chiral symmetry. C. ∗ Source: L.2) in giving not only the ratios of the baryon magnetic moments. Thus.4.48 µExp ∗ 2. the success of (6.4. complicate the expression for µ of the baryons. New York: AIP.69 ± 0. (6. 2009 — Baryon µQuark model p 2.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .2) shown in Table 6. the baryon moment is simply the sum of the contributions from the individual quarks.04 99 Table 6.58 2.51 −0. Thus.74 −0. we might have expected the axial currents to be given by qTa γ µ γ5 q. See also articles by R.

it is a good sign that in a properly constructed chiral theory. at least for the meson states. we get a nice simple picture of the mesons as well as the baryons.1) Σ+ : Σ + → + Σ+ : Σ + → 0 Σ− : Σ − → − Ξ0 : Ξ0 0 Ξ− : Ξ− − → → We can write the invariant amplitude for a nonleptonic decay as M = GF m2 [uf (pf )(A + Bγ5 )ui (pi )]. The pion is an elementary Goldstone boson.February 10.2) where ui (uf ) is the spinor describing the initial (ﬁnal) baryon state with momentum pi (pf ) and mπ is the π ± mass. π (6. The A amplitude describes the parity–violating s–wave decay. Presumably. and Xi. consider the nonleptonic decays of the strange baryons. whereas the experimental value is 1. what happens is that s–channel pion exchange in the quark–antiquark interaction produces a repulsive force that pushes up the qq state. I say this because in a nonchiral quark model. over 30% oﬀ. the hyperons Λ. As in the baryon sector.1) splits these states. The neutron decay value determines gA to be gA = .5 Hyperon Nonleptonic Decays As an example of the application of chiral–quark–model ideas to weak interactions. Σ. Thus.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . 6. If we bravely apply the same sort of nonrelativistic reasoning to this system. this prediction works rather well. But the ratio D/F must now be ﬁxed because we have no further freedom to change the form of the axial vector current (see Problem 6–6).4. Thus.7) In the language of Section 6. the spin–0 bound state of quark and antiquark is not the pion.3. one naturally interprets the π and the ρ.5.5. the connection between ρ and π is not very useful.25. . And it has the right sign to make the ρ heavier. the normalization of the axial current can be diﬀerent. for example. however. In our picture. the overall scale of D and F are related to gA . Again. The observed decays are (along with the conventional shorthand): Λ0 : Λ 0 Λ0 : Λ − → → π0n π−p π+n π0p π−n π0Λ π − Λ. as the spin–1 and spin–0 states of a quark–antiquark pair in a zero orbital angular–momentum state. the B amplitude the parity–conserving p–wave. But this model is probably not the most useful way of thinking about the low–lying mesons. We have seen that a chiral nonlinear quark model gives a very attractive picture of the properties of the octet and decuplet baryons. (6. the spin–dependent interaction (6.4.75 (6. The mystery of the connection between QCD and the quark model remains. 2009 — 100 This would give a value 5/3 for g1 neutron decay.

as we will see in Chapter 9. 2 3 f= . There are two such operators involving only two baryon ﬁelds whose matrix elements are not proportional to momenta or µM . 2 (6. looks like GF √ s1 c1 c3 uγ µ (1 + γ5 )sdγµ (1 + γ5 )u. we can order the terms in increasing numbers of derivatives. Before we discuss the chiral–quark model. Ψ} + f [ξ † hξ.5. The interesting thing about the chiral baryon theory is that there are operators that do not involve any derivatives or µM . ignoring QCD and other radiative corrections.2.5.4) j which is a symmetry–breaking parameter whose coeﬃcient is the operator of interest. Ψ] .3) will appear as a sum of operators that transform the same way. with 1 d=− .6) which involve derivatives or explicit symmetry breaking (note that the second term can be absorbed into a redeﬁnition of the π masses. i 3 hi = δ2 δj . the leading octet contributions are tr h(∂ µ U )∂µ U † tr [hU µM ]. (6.5. In the eﬀective chiral–quark Lagrangian.5. 2 (6. (6.5. It is reasonable to suppose that (6. It transforms as a linear combination of SU (3)L 8 and 27.7) gives the dominant contribution to the baryon nonleptonic decays (assuming octet enhancement).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . This assumption gives the standard current algebra results for the nonleptonic decays. (6. symmetry–breaking parameters. so it does not contribute to decays). along with the experimental value (where the signs have been chosen consistent with the conventions used in the particle data book). 2009 — 101 All these decays are produced by the ∆S = 1 weak Hamiltonian that.5.5. That is. It works very well for the s–wave amplitudes.5) and build all the SU (3)L × SU (3)R invariants that are linear in h. what is important is its transformation property under SU (3)L × SU (3)R .8) (6. with the eﬀect of operators like (6. For example.3) We will see in Chapter 9 how this is modiﬁed by QCD. it may be useful to set the historical context by discussing the nonleptonic decays in the chiral mode of baryons discussed in Sections 6. we will have the operators that we want. We will concentrate on the SU (3) octet operator because.1–3. (6. They contain an implicit factor of the symmetry breaking. As with the terms in the Lagrangian. . there is reason to believe that it is enhanced by the QCD interactions.5.5. such as tr Ψγ5 ξ † hξΨ. At the moment.7) But their matrix elements vanish in the symmetry limit because of the γ5 . (6. They can be written as GF m2 fπ tr Ψ d{ξ † hξ.9) the result for the s–wave decay amplitudes is shown in Table 6. in the chiral Goldstone–boson theory.8) suppressed by powers of pπ /ΛCSB . π There are other terms that involve no explicit derivatives. and quark ﬁelds.February 10.5. For example. It is helpful to consider a matrix h. or pion momentum. is we imagine that h transforms under SU (3)L as h → LhL† .

The pion emission is accompanied by a factor of pion momentum.5. No ﬁt has been attempted here. we can now take (6. in this picture.7) before or after a pion is emitted.February 10. ψξ † hξψ.10) We expect (6.14) 3 A(Σ+ ) + A(Λ0 ) = 2A(Ξ− ) − − 0 (6.13) With four quark ﬁelds. The p–wave decays.14). which is all we can expect from the eﬀective theory (see Problem 6–7).5.01 1.44 2.06 ± .13) is chirality–violating.07 ± .12) All are satisﬁed as well as we could expect (or better).5.15 0 1.5.01 1. + (6. The only trouble is that the predictions for the p–wave decay look absolutely nothing like the data (see Problem 6–7).04 A(exp) 1.7) dominates the nonleptonic decays? Can we ﬁnd our way out of this diﬃculty in the chiral–quark model? As in the baryon theory.13) to be more important than (6.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Three of these are ∆I = 1 relations. But this is compensated by the pole in the baryon propagator that is inversely proportional to the symmetry breaking.93 ± .05 1. Is this a general problem for the eﬀective Lagrangian idea.55 ± .47 ± .5.5. or is there something more speciﬁc wrong with the assumption that (6. This has been a puzzle for nearly twenty years. the detailed power–counting analysis of Section 5.5.48 ± .5.00 1. 2 √ A(Λ0 ) = − 2 A(Λ0 ) − 0 √ A(Ξ− ) = − 2 A(Ξ0 ) − 0 √ One is the Lee-Sugawara relation √ and one is the simple relation A(Σ+ ) = 0. 2009 — Decay A(Th) Λ0 1. there are a variety of operators.2: Baryon decay amplitudes.9) from the s–waves and predict the p–waves. arise from so-called pole diagrams in which the hyperon changes strangeness through the ψψ term in (6.11) 2 A(Σ+ ) + A(Σ+ ) = A(Σ− ).5.01 102 Table 6. proportional to symmetry breaking.01 0.5. (6.63 − Λ0 0 Σ+ + Σ+ 0 Σ− − Ξ0 0 Ξ− − −1.03 2.04 ± . but because (6.8 (and Problem 5–4) suggests that the suppression .5. such as ψξ † hξγ µ Ta ψψγµ Ta ψ. Unfortunately. The theoretical predictions exhibit ﬁve relations among the seven amplitudes that follow from (6.7).01 −1.5.41 2. With two quark ﬁelds there is a unique operator. (6. so the contribution is large. + − 0 (6. there are octet operators in the quark theory that do not involve derivatives or µM . but it is clear that everything works to 10% or so.

5.5.5.5.5. But here the correspondence is not exact.16) The four–quark operators like (6. Similar operators ∼ ∼ are possible in the quark theory. . in the pole diagram with an intermediate N .13) and (6. while all the same diagrams exist. there is no reason to believe that the p–wave amplitudes produced by (6. The moral is that we cannot avoid such terms in both theories simultaneously.14) produce similar terms. If this is correct. while the quark theory with operators (6. This produces a baryon matrix element like (6. or both.14) gives s–wave amplitudes that can be interpreted in a baryon theory as coming from the operator (6. Thus (6. Typically.13).5.14).17) where A µ (deﬁned by (6.5.7). in the baryon theory.5. the transition induced by (6.7) with d = 0. But in the quark model. the s to d transition and pion emission are not independent. 1 Thus.14) compared to (6.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .February 10. we expect a slight suppression of the d amplitude. The leading contributions must involve an explicit Goldstone–boson ﬁeld with vector coupling because the mismatch does not occur in the s–wave amplitudes. For example.3. For example. Thus. Any s quark can emit a π 0 or π − and turn into a d or u. but with both f and d contributions. ∼ (6. Their coeﬃcients must be inversely proportional to the symmetry breaking. the QCD binding forces must redistribute the energy produced in the transition in order for the decay to take place. ξ † hξ. then one theory or the other. γµ γ5 Ψ. These extra contributions are peculiar in the sense that they involve a derivative but are designed to produce an eﬀect that is not proportional to the symmetry breaking.5. The momentum redistribution that must take place to get from the initial– state to ﬁnal–state baryons is quite diﬀerent in the two cases.13) are obtained by acting with ψ[h.5. A µ.14) and the pion emission are uncorrelated events.5. the matrix elements that give rise to the s–wave amplitudes in the quark theory from the two–quark operator (6. in the decay Λ → π 0 N .5.7).13) is only ∼ Fπ m 1 . there are the six such SU (3) singlets that we can make by taking traces in various orders of the four octets Ψ. but because the quark–ﬂavor dependence is like that of an SU (3) generator.5. 2009 — of (6. and (6. Now we must keep track of the energy and momentum of each quark.13) makes a contribution to (6. and it is hard to see how they could get induced in the transition to the chiral–quark model.14) give rise to p–wave amplitudes through pole diagrams in both the baryon and quark theories. Π]ψ on each of the ∼ quark lines. For example.5.7).5.5. The same terms.5. 3 103 (6. it clearly makes a diﬀerence whether the transition and the emission occur on the same quark line or not.14) are the same as those produced by (6.7). must contain additional contributions to the ∆S = 1 octet operator that makes up the diﬀerence. by a factor of about 3 (from (6.5.5. which is just what is observed (in (6.5. the matrix is pure f . (6. If we look at the baryon pole diagram in the quark–model language with the operator given by (6.15)).9)). (6.5. They are certainly absent in the fundamental QCD–quark theory.15) The most penetrating way to analyze the chiral–quark theory is to use it to construct a chiral– baryon theory by comparing the matrix elements of the corresponding interactions between various states.5. the π 0 emission amplitude is a coherent sum of π 0 emission from each of the three quarks in the N . (6.7) is the chiral version of the derivative of the Π ﬁeld. For example.

Then the coeﬃcients of the extra terms level oﬀ so that they can approach ﬁnite but large limits as the symmetry breaking vanishes. Derive a Goldberger-Treiman relation for constituent quark masses.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Note that µ in the nonrelativistic limit. Problems 6-1.7) and compare with the data in the “Review of Particle Properties. . which are well satisﬁed. Derive the Goldberger-Treiman relations.5. Use the meson Lagrangian including the chiral symmetry-breaking term. Of course.17) to appear with large coeﬃcients.3.3) gives a good ﬁt to the octet and decuplet masses. The result of all this is what we expect. and no more than two quark ﬁelds. the operators constructed out of (6.6). the matrix elements of j5a are nonzero only for the space components. we will content ourselves with the negative result that the p–wave amplitudes cannot be simply predicted. For now.5. If we include only the spin-dependent relativistic corrections.3. 6-4. Four of these contribute independently to the p–wave decays.” You will need to understand their sign conventions.5.4. and these have the form quark Ta σ 6-7.13) and (6.7) and (6. the masses of the groundstate baryons have the form Si · Sj mi + κ mi mj i i. this doesn’t make much sense in the limit in which the symmetry breaking goes to zero. it should be possible to ﬁnd relations among some of these extra parameters and test these ideas in detail. With LB = LB + LB . In a suﬃciently explicit quark model.7). in the baryon theory.14) dominate in the chiral–quark model.5. then the extra operators with large coeﬃcients will be induced in the baryon theory. Derive (6.11). 6-3. Calculate the s-wave and p-wave amplitudes for the observed hyperon nonleptonic decays from (6. Find the quark-current contribution to the vector and axial-vector currents from Lq = q q L0 + L1 .3.5. Use the chiral-quark model to ﬁnd d/f in the chiral-baryon Lagrangian (6. Find all the SU (3) × SU (3) invariant terms in the chiral-quark Lagrangian with two derivatives or one µM .j Show that (6.5. This eliminates all relations for the p–wave amplitudes except the isospin relations.17) that contribute to the observed decays. When the quark mass diﬀerences become very small compared to typical momenta in the baryon bound state. calsulate the axial vector currents.5. 6-6.February 10.9) they give a reasonable picture of both s-wave and p-wave amplitudes. 6-2. 2009 — 104 If (6. the distinction between diﬀerent energy and momentum redistributions in the decay disappears. (6. Find the four operators built from (6. and calculate their matrix ele0 1 ments between baryon states. 6-5.5. Calculate their contributions and ﬁnd the coeﬃcients such that together with (6.2) and (6.

not weak interactions.1. (6a.1.3) has a variety of eﬀects.1.1) Q=0 0 0 1 −3 0 0 0 .1 Electromagnetic Interactions and π 0 → 2γ The π 0 decay into two photons obviously involves electromagnetic interactions. We thus expect a variety of symmetry–breaking terms proportional to the quark charges.2) In our chiral Lagrangian. I cannot resist discussing it here. 1 −3 (6a. the electromagnetic charge is in the ordinary SU (3) subgroup of SU (3) × SU (3) . (6a. Nevertheless. It would seem fairly trivial to incorporate the eﬀects of electromagnetism into our chiral Lagrangian. we can simply impose electromagnetic gauge invariance in the same way.3) with one that incorporates the photon ﬁeld Dµ → Dµ + ieQAµ .3) The commutator in (6a.5) 105 . From angular momentum and parity considerations. for example. we merely replace the usual color SU (3) covariant derivative (3.1. In the underlying QCD theory. an interaction of the form π3 µνλσ F µν F λσ (6a. where Q is the quark charge matrix 2 3 (6a. For example. In Section 5. it is clear that the two photons in the π 0 decay are in an l = 1.4) For example.1.4) to argue away the axial U (1) symmetry). these classical electromagnetic eﬀects are not very eﬃcient in producing the decay π 0 → 2γ.Chapter 6a . U . It aﬀords a beautiful illustration of the chiral Lagrangian technique together with a good excuse to study some of the history of the axial anomaly (which we used in Section 5. These arose because the electromagnetic interactions explicitly break the chiral (and ordinary) isospin and V –spin symmetries. However. That is. j = 0 state associated with the pseudoscalar operator µνλσ F µν F λσ .Anomalies 6a.1.1.1.5. we discussed the eﬀect of such interactions on the pseudoscalar masses. we replace ∂ µ U with Dµ U = ∂ µ U + ieAµ Q.3) arises because Q acts on both left-handed and right-handed quarks. The replacement (6a.

1.February 10.c. If there is no derivative acting on the π ﬁelds.1. The resolution of this puzzle is the anomaly.1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . rµ = ra Ta (6a. (6a. 2009 — would produce π 0 decay. This is not trivial to implement. The axial T3 current is not conserved. as we did in (5. Thus. For any reasonable CSB coeﬃcient.1. (6a. we can see that there are possible interaction terms with derivatives.5) is ruled out! This reasoning is called the Sutherland theorem.1. the chiral symmetry associated with π3 is broken by the electromagnetic interaction.1. Wess and Zumino (Physics Letters 37B:95–97.1. electromagnetism doesn’t break the chiral symmetry associated with the π3 ﬁeld. 1971) determined the form of the extra term by imagining a theory in which not only the electromagnetic U (1) is gauged.5). the unbroken chiral symmetries can be taken to be local. and the corresponding Goldstone bosons can be transformed away. The argument should by now be familiar.5. such as i µνλσ F µν F λσ tr Q2 µM U + h. the Goldstone bosons have only derivative interactions. they are just too small to account for the observed decay rate. (6a.11) . Quite generally. as before. such as i µνλσ F µν F λσ tr Q2 U † ∂ α ∂α U + h. (6a. such terms never contain the interaction (6a. Rather it satisﬁes µ ∂µ j 5 = 3e2 tr T3 Q2 · 16π 2 µνλσ F µν F λσ . This follows simply from the fact that. (6a.3).9) The factor of 3 in (6a. Thus. there must be an extra term in our chiral Lagrangian with the property that under a T3 chiral transformation this extra term changes by 3e2 tr T3 Q2 µνλσ F µν F λσ . in the limit of exact chiral symmetry. The quark charge matrix QCD commutes with T3 because both are diagonal. after David Sutherland who derived an equivalent statement using current algebra.7) There are also terms involving the explicit chiral symmetry breaking. In our modern language. The form of the anomaly in this theory.1. In fact.8) But the contribution of these terms to the π 0 decay amplitude is suppressed by a power of m2 π (over Λ2 .c.5) are impossible. presumably) compared to the contribution of a term like (6a. The pseudoscalar photon operator is contained in terms like ieµνλσ tr U † Dµ Dν Dλ Dσ U + h.1. at least if current–algebra reasoning was correct.1.1. but also the full SU (3)L × SU (3)R .5). It worried people for a long time because it seemed to imply that electromagnetism could not account for the π 0 → 2γ decay. is determined by the algebra of the inﬁnitesimal gauge transformations.1. 106 (6a.3. The reason is the commutator (6a. but only through a triangle diagram like (5. terms like (6a.10) − c3 16π 2 The extra term must also have appropriate transformation properties under all the other SU (3)L × SU (3)R transformations.9) comes from the sum over the three colors of the quarks.1).4) with the gluons replaced by photons. with all of its dependence on the non-Abelian structure of the group.6) However. Let µ µ lµ = la Ta . The anomaly equation can then be formally integrated to give the extra term. at least classically.c.

14) . Then an SU (3)L × SU (3)R gauge transformation in the eﬀective theory has the form: U → LU R† lµ → Llµ L† − iL∂ µ L† rµ → Rrµ R† − iR∂ µ R† It is convenient to work with the vector and axial vector ﬁelds that we introduced in (5. aµ An inﬁnitesimal chiral gauge transformation looks as follows: L = R† = 1 + i ∼ c δc U = i ∼ . (6a. the commutation relations of the SU (3)L × SU (3)R gauge algebra take the form δ 1δ 2 − δ 2δ 1 (6a.February 10.15) = δ 3. v µ = lµ + rµ /2. respectively. the algebra (6a.1.16) ∼ = −i ∼ 1 . ∼ 2 . ∼ 3 = −i = −i ∼ 1.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .12) which are gauge ﬁelds for the ordinary and chiral SU (3) transformations. ∼1 c (6a.1. In the notation of Wess and Zumino. =δ.2). But the extra term that we must add to incorporate the .13) (6a.1.1. aµ c δc aµ = i ∼ . vµ − ∂µ ∼ ∼ δ aµ = i ∼ . = δc2 .1. aµ = lµ − rµ /2. U c .1. U . which is simply invariant. 2009 — 107 be conventionally normalized SU (3)L and SU (3)R gauge ﬁelds. δc v µ = i ∼ . (6a. ∼ 2 δ δc1 − δc1 δ δc1 δc2 − δc2 δc1 ∼ c 2 ∼ .3. v µ − ∂ µ ∼ c c In this notation. an inﬁnitesimal SU (3) gauge transformation looks as follows (with all space–time variables evaluated at the same point): L = R = 1 + i∼ δU =i δ vµ =i ∼ .16) is realized trivially on the eﬀective action of the chiral theory. c c In the absence of the anomaly.

February 10. later in this chapter.1. The point of (6a. then δ W = 0.21) (6a. 2009 — 108 eﬀect of the anomaly is not annihilated by the δ’s. there is no way of removing the anomaly entirely by such manipulations. (6a.1. . ∼ ∼ (6a. c (6a. vν .1. v ν + i aµ .19) −8i(aµ aν v αβ + aµ v να aβ + v µν aα aβ ) −32aµ aν aα aβ with v µν = ∂ µ v ν − ∂ ν v µ + i v µ . aµ (s) . δc W = F ∼ . aµ (s) = lµ (s) − rµ (s) /2. aµ ). aµ = c where f =− 1 16π 2 µναβ f ∼ (x). a µ .18) tr ∼ 3v µν v αβ + aµν aαβ c (6a. In particular ∼ d W U (s). If we renormalize the theory so as to maintain invariance under ordinary SU (3) gauge transformations. Call this term W (U. v µ (s).1.1.1. There are other forms that are not what we want because they do not satisfy ordinary SU (3) gauge invariance. (6a.19) with the addition of polynomials in v µ and aµ to the action. but they can be obtained from (6a. which depend on the Goldstone boson ﬁeld Π.1.17) Now. These correspond to diﬀerent schemes for renormalizing the underlying theory. v µ (s) = lµ (s) + rµ (s) /2.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . aµ (s) ds ds = δds Π /f W = ds F Π/f. (6a. aµ (x) d4 x .10) are suﬃcient to determine the full non-Abelian anomaly. and the Abelian anomaly (6a.1. v µ (x). lµ (s) = ξ † (1 − s)lµ ξ(1 − s) − iξ † (1 − s)∂ µ ξ(1 − s). v µ .16). However.1. This is Bardeen’s form for the non-Abelian anomaly. v µ (s).21) is that the diﬀerent values of s are related by chiral gauge transformations. We will give a more elementary derivation of parts of this. Now we can integrate the anomaly to obtain W . v µ . using Feynman graphs.22) . The result of a straightforward but tedious calculation is (again ala Wess and Zumino) F ∼ .17). aν .20) aµν = ∂ µ aν − ∂ν aµ +i vµ. ξ(s) = e ∼ . Deﬁne 2is Π /f U (s) = e ∼ is Π /f .1. v µ . aν +i aµ . c ∼ (6a. and will show you how to derive the rest.1. rµ (s) = ξ(1 − s)rµ ξ † (1 − s) − iξ(1 − s)∂ µ ξ † (1 − s).

**Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 — This we can integrate to obtain W U, v µ , aµ = W U (1), v µ (1), aµ (1)
**

1

109

=

0

F Π/f, v µ (s), aµ (s) ds − W U (0), v µ (0), aµ (0) . ∼

(6a.1.23)

The second term on the right-hand side is actually an SU (3)L × SU (3)R invariant. To see this, note that U (0) = 1 lµ (0) = ξ † lµ ξ − iξ † ∂ µ ξ rµ (0) = ξrµ ξ † − iξ∂ µ ξ † , where ξ 2 = U. (6a.1.25) A local SU (3)L × SU (3)R transformation on U deﬁnes a local SU (3) transformation u on the ξ’s as follows: U → LU R† (6a.1.26) ξ→ Lξu† = uξR† . This deﬁnes the u matrix as a local SU (3) transformation that depends on L, R, and ξ. From (6a.1.24)–(6a.1.26) it follows that lµ (0) → ulµ (0)u† rµ (0) → urµ (0)u† −u∂ µ u† (6a.1.27) −iu∂ µ u† . (6a.1.24)

But (6a.1.27) has the form of an ordinary SU (3) gauge transformation, and W (1, lµ (0), v µ (0) is invariant under ordinary SU (3) gauge transformations. Thus, it can be absorbed into the ordinary terms in the action that are invariant under SU (3)L × SU (3)R . Hence, we can write the extra term that incorporates the eﬀect of the anomaly as W U, v µ , aµ =

0 1

F Π, v µ (s), aµ (s) ds . ∼

(6a.1.28)

Now that we have solved the problem (at least formally) for a general SU (3)L × SU (3)R gauge theory, we can specialize to the case in which we are actually interested by setting v µ = eQAµ , aµ = 0 (6a.1.29)

in (6a.1.21) and (6a.1.28) to obtain the eﬀect of the electromagnetic anomaly. Speciﬁc interaction terms (such as (6a.1.5) can be obtained by expanding ξ(s) in a power series in Π before doing the s integration. ∼ That was a lot of work, but the result is rather remarkable. Not only does it answer the question that we posed originally, but several others. It gives a term of the form(6a.1.5) (see Problem 5–6), but also a term which produces a γ → 3π transition. Even when the gauge ﬁeld is turned oﬀ

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

110

completely, an eﬀect of the anomaly remains like the Cheshire cat’s smile. The leading operator that does not involve the gauge ﬁeld is 2 5π 2 f 5

µναβ tr

Π∂ µ Π∂ ν Π∂ α Π∂ β Π . ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼

(6a.1.30)

This term is interesting because it is the leading term in the eﬀective Lagrangian that requires the Goldstone bosons to be pseudoscalars (note that it is absent in SU (3)L × SU (3)R because of G parity). No such term with only four derivatives can be built simply as an SU (3)L × SU (3)R invariant function of the U ’s. There is a subtlety hidden in the Wess-Zumino analysis, Our expression for the extra term seems to depend on our ability to deﬁne the Goldstone boson ﬁeld Π. But in general, the U ﬁeld ∼ does not uniquely determine the Π ﬁeld. In perturbation theory, this doesn’t bother us. We always ∼ assume that the Π ﬁeld is “small”. In fact, E. Witten (Nuclear Physics B223, 422–432, 1983) has ∼ shown that the analysis makes sense even for large ﬁelds, provided the coeﬃcient of the anomaly (and therefore of the extra term in the action) is properly quantized. His analysis clariﬁes the signiﬁcance of the Wess-Zumino term.

6a.2

The Steinberger Calculation

Jack Steinberger is an outstanding experimental physicist. He did one important piece of theoretical physics. He considered a ﬁeld theory in which pions are coupled to massive fermions (proton and neutron at the time, although they could just as well have been quarks) with the interaction term − igψ γ5 Ta πa ψ . (6a.2.1) Steinberger calculated the contribution of a fermion loop to the decay π 0 → γγ — from the diagram

.. . ............................... ...... ...... . γ ....... . ..... .. .. .... ... .. . .. . . . . ... . π 0 ..... ..... ..... .. .. . . ... ..... ... ..... ..................................................... γ ...

Figure 6a-1: He found a result that (for the case of three colors of quarks) reproduces the result of the Wess-Zumino calculation, (6a.1.28) (see also problem 6a-1). This has caused some confusion. If the π 0 → γγ decay can be produced either by the anomaly or by a quark loop, what happens in the chiral quark model? And for that matter, what about baryon loops? In particular, what does this do to the discussion at the beginning of chapter 6 of how the baryons transform. Thus we must answer the following question. When should we include the Wess-Zumino term? The way to think about it is to note that the term always appears when the quarks are integrated out of the theory to produce a low-energy theory of the Goldstone boson ﬁelds alone. What happens when the quarks are left in the theory as in the chiral quark model depends on how the quarks transform under the chiral symmetry. If the quarks transform nonlinearly as discussed in above, so that all their interactions explicitly involve derivatives, then the Wess-Zumino term must be there,

Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft - February 10, 2009 —

111

just as in the case when the quarks are integrated out. The reason is simply that in this case, the quark interactions go away at low momentum, so quark loops are harmless at low momenta — they do not produce any new interactions. We can ﬁgure out what happens for other transformation laws by actually building the ﬁelds with the desired transformation laws using the Goldstone boson ﬁelds. For example, suppose we want to from quark ﬁelds, q, transforming nonlinearly under SU (3) × SU (3) , to quark ﬁelds, q , transforming linearly as qL → L qL , qR → R qR . (6a.2.2)

The q quarks are related to the q quarks by a chiral transformation qL = ξ qL , In terms of the q quarks, the mass term becomes − mqq → −mqR U † qL − mqL U qR (6a.2.4) qR = ξ † . (6a.2.3)

which contains nonderivative couplings of the Goldstone bosons to the quarks. You can check that the couplings are determined by the Goldberger-Trieman relation, in its naive form, (2.6.25) (with no factor of gA ). But we saw in the previous section that the Wess-Zumino term is precisely the response of the Lagrangian to such a chiral transformation. The transformation (6a.2.3) precisely cancels the Wess-Zumino term. Thus we expect the Steinberger calculation to reproduce the eﬀects of the Wess-Zumino term when the nonderivative coupling is given by (6a.2.4).

6a.3

Spectators, gauge invariance and the anomaly

Here is a diagramatic way to determine the form of the anomaly. It is really just another way of seeing that the Steinberger calculation must give the right answer, but is perhaps a little cleaner and more convincing than the argument we gave in the previous section. Suppose that we add to the QCD theory of three massless ﬂavors, three sets of three spectator fermions, to cancel the chiral ﬂavor anomalies. Speciﬁcally, add to the theory of colored quarks,

u s

**q = d a set of three massless spectator fermions Uj j Q = U j for j = 1 to 3. Uj
**

(6a.3.1)

(6a.3.2)

These massless fermions have their own chiral symmetries, but we can break the symmetry down to SU (3) × SU (3) with a four-fermion interaction of the following form: 1 qR Qj L Λ2 Qj qL + h.c. R (6a.3.3)

This term ensures that qL and Qj rotate under the same SU (3)L , and that qR and Qj rotate under R L the same SU (3)R . It is not renormalizable, but that doesn’t matter to our argument. We could

3). as usual.3. Notice also that this term is constructed to be a color singlet. as we did in the ﬁrst section.3.3. below the spectator mass. They are µναβ µναβ tr Π Vµν Vαβ . where Vµν = ∂µ vν − ∂ν vµ + i vµ . Thus to get a contribution that is independent of M .3. Aµν = ∂µ aν − ∂ν aµ + i vµ . Thus the spectator loops must give minus the WZ term. Spectator loops must cancel any gauge variant eﬀects in the low energy chiral theory. µναβ µναβ tr Π Aµν Aαβ . This analysis shows that we can get any coupling in the Wess-Zumino term from a Steinbergerlike loop calculation.3. but since we will only use it a low energy scales. vν . and also a singlet under a global SU (3) acting on the j index (this global symmetry is unneccesary. so if we couple in classical ﬂavor gauge ﬁelds. we must get a gauge invariant theory involving only Goldstone bosons.4) appears in the same way as s + ip appears in (5. Thus only the three-.c. L R (6a. (6a.1).and ﬁve-point functions can contribute on dimensional grounds (any operator with dimension higher than ﬁve will be suppressed by powers M ). so the only things that can matter are the terms that are independent of the mass.3. the theory is guage invariant. Now QCD gets strong and the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken. What graphs can contribute? The Goldstone boson coupling is proportional to 1/f . Now what happens to the term (6a. This is a spectator mass term in the low energy theory.4. µναβ µναβ tr Π Vµν aα aβ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .5) where M = v 3 /Λ2 . and that should give the conventional WZ term. vν . aν + i aµ . We can now take the spectator mass. But we can also just calculate the coupling of a single Goldstone boson to the external gauge ﬁelds. The leading term a low energies that does not involve derivatives of Π is therefore one in which the term (6a. four. M . The point is that because the spectator fermions do not carry the color SU (3). 2009 — 112 generate such a term by exchange of a scalar ﬁeld.3) in the low energy theory? This is actually easy to see from (5. Now as we go down further down in energy scale.3. because the theory has to make sense at arbitrarily long distances. (6a. This is actually equivalent to ﬁnding the result of an inﬁnitesimal chiral transformation. Thus this should reproduce the Wess-Zumino analysis that leads to Bardeen form for the anomaly.7) .3). but simpliﬁes the tableaux).3.1) and (5. There are only a few possibilities that are proportional to µναβ and consistent with the vector SU (3).6) tr Π aµ Vνα aβ . we need a dimension ﬁve operators. This has the virtue that we can regularize it to preserve the vector symmetry. parity and Lorentz invariance. because that is what the Goldstone boson ﬁeld represents. Thus the term is M Qj U Qj + h. it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. the term 1 j j (6a. Now there are no anomalies to break the chiral ﬂavor symmetries. to inﬁnity. tr Π aµ aν aα aβ .4. it also must appear in the same way as s + ip. Thus in the low energy theory.February 10. The we can get the rest of the Wess-Zumino term by integrating the anomaly.4) Q Q Λ2 L R enters into the theory in exactly the same way as s + ip in (5. tr Π aµ aν Vαβ . along with a speciﬁc set of Goldstone bosons couplings consistent with the Goldberger-Treiman relation. and realized nonlinearly.

.... ...9) (6a........ γ5 Π(−p1 − p2 ) The ΠV V term is k.... ....... (6a... ...... Let us start by calculating the terms proportional to two ﬁeld-strengths. ... ...Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft ......13) ...... One of the propagators must contribute an M and the two others must contribute γs...... 2009 — In terms of the these objects.... γ5 Π(−p1 − p2 ) 2M tr Π(−p1 − p2 ) vµ1 (p1 ) vµ2 (p2 ) f tr γ5 / / / / / k − p1 + M k + M µ2 k + p2 + M γ µ1 2 γ 2 − M2 2 (k − p1 ) k −M (k + p2 )2 − M 2 d4 k (2π)4 (6a...February 10... .....3.. ... k.. ..... .6)..... ...... γ µ2 vµ2 (p2 ) (or γ5 aµ2 (p2 )) ........... .......... because there is no other way to get a term with an symbol in it that will survive as M → ∞..3..3........3... γ µ2 vµ2 (p2 ) .. ....... .... . ..... ..... k − p1 k + p2 ... ... ............ ...... ....... ... the Bardeen anomaly... . ... we will verify each of these terms. .10) (6a... ... with ∼ → Π becomes c f =− 1 16π 2 tr Π 3V µν V αβ + Aµν Aαβ 113 µναβ −2i(aµ aν V αβ + V µν aα aβ ) − 8iaµ V να aβ + +4aµ aν aα aβ ............ ......12) We can do the trace before performing the diﬀerentiations.. k − p1 k + p2 .1......3......... ........ Using tr γ5 γ µ γ ν γ α γ β = 4i µναβ (6a. .... .. ....... .... . .... ....... ........ .19)... we can write the integrand as − tr γ5 pν 1 / / / ∂ k+M k + M µ2 λ ∂ k + M γ µ1 2 γ p2 ν k2 − M 2 2 λ k2 − M 2 ∂k k −M ∂k (6a. γ µ1 vµ1 (p1 ) .3..... γ µ1 vµ1 (p1 ) (or γ5 aµ1 (p1 )) . ..8) Below... . ... (6a.. ...... .. ... . ............. . . the ﬁrst two terms in (6a........... ..3..... To do that we consider the three point function for SU (3) × SU (3) vector and axial currents and a Goldstone ﬁeld... . ... .. ..... .. Expanding in powers of momentum and keeping only the relevant term. .... ...... . .. .11) We are interested in a term in the integrand which is linear in each of the momenta. .

3.18) 4π f .15) −2 −2 (k 2 k2 +2 gλβ M kν kα 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 −M 1 Now since 2 kα kβ → 2 k 2 gαβ .3.17) Using this and putting in the factors from (6a. and multiplying by three. in momentum space.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3.16) are 1 d4 k 1 = −i 2 − M 2 )3 (2π)4 2 M2 (k 32π k2 d4 k 1 = −i 2 − M 2 )4 (2π)4 2 M2 (k 48π (6a. this is −2i M µ1 µ2 αβ p1 α p2 β − k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 + +2 1 (k 2 − M 2 )3 k2 (6a.3.11).16) − k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 (k 2 − M 2 )4 The integrals in (6a.3. otherwise the vanishes. 3 − 2 tr Π(−p1 − p2 ) vµ1 (p1 ) vµ2 (p2 ) µ1 µ2 αβ p1 α p2 β (6a.3.14) + − At least one of the derivatives must act on the k with an index in each term. 2009 — we have −4i − µ1 µ2 αβ 114 pν pλ 1 2 kβ kα ∂ M ∂ ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 ∂k kβ ∂ kα M ∂ ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 ∂k kβ ∂ M kα ∂ ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 ∂k (6a. we get.3. so we can write this as −4i 2 µ1 µ2 αβ pν pλ 1 2 kβ gνα M kλ k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 (k 2 − M 2 )2 gλβ gνα M k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 k2 kλ kβ gνα M 2 k 2 − M 2 (k 2 − M 2 )2 −M kν kα M 2 )2 k 2 − M 2 −M k2 gλβ − M2 + (6a. because we need three diﬀerent kinds of spectators because there are three colors of quarks.February 10.

3. 2009 — which corresponds to 115 3 µναβ tr Π Vµν Vαβ .21) and (6a.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3. The relevant integral is − 2M tr Π(−p1 − p2 ) aµ1 (p1 ) aµ2 (p2 ) f tr γ5 / / / / / k + p2 + M k − p1 + M k + M µ2 γ µ1 γ5 2 γ γ5 2 − M2 2 (k − p1 ) k −M (k + p2 )2 − M 2 d4 k (2π)4 (6a. Thus the terms proportional to this factor of M just change sign: −4i − µ1 µ2 αβ pν pλ 1 2 kβ ∂ kα M ∂ ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 ∂k kβ M ∂ kα ∂ ∂k ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 kβ ∂ M kα ∂ ν k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 ∂k λ k 2 − M 2 ∂k (6a.20) We can proceed as before.19) 16π 2 f The calculation of the term with two axial vector currents proceeds similarly.3.23) +2 kλ kβ gνα M 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 (k 2 − M 2 )2 k M kν kα (k 2 − M 2 )2 k 2 − M 2 k2 gλβ k2 − M 2 +2 +2 gλβ M kν kα 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 −M .3.3.21) The only diﬀerence between (6a.3.February 10.12) by moving the γ5 s around — − tr γ5 pν 1 / / / ∂ k+M k − M µ2 λ ∂ k + M γ µ1 2 γ p2 ν k2 − M 2 2 λ k2 − M 2 ∂k k −M ∂k (6a. In fact. we can immediately turn (6a. (6a.3.3.12) is the sign of the M in the middle propagator.3.22) − − which we can write this as −4i 2 µ1 µ2 αβ pν pλ 1 2 kβ gνα M kλ k 2 − M 2 k 2 − M 2 (k 2 − M 2 )2 k2 gλβ gνα M 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 −M − (6a.20) into something very like (6a.

......27) γ5 Π(−p1 ) The Feynman integral is 2M tr Π(−p1 ) vµ1 (p1 ) aµ2 (0) aµ3 (0) f / / / / / k+M k − p1 + M k + M µ2 k+M tr γ µ3 γ5 2 γ5 γ µ1 2 γ γ5 2 k − M2 (k − p1 )2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 Begin by writing the integrand as follows: −tr γ µ3 +tr γ µ3 / / 1 k + M µ2 k+M γ µ1 2 γ γ5 2 (k − p1 )2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 d4 k (2π)4 (6a... ...25) 1 µναβ tr Π Aµν Aαβ ..3. µ1 .26) 16π 2 f Now let us look for the terms proportional to one ﬁeld-strength.... .3. the terms would either vanish or reproduce what we already calculated in (6a. . ... We could do all of these at once by putting in a general momentum dependence...24) + Thus the result is − corresponding to k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 (k 2 − M 2 )4 1 tr Π(−p1 − p2 ) aµ1 (p1 ) aµ2 (p2 ) 4π 2 f − µ1 µ2 αβ p1 α p2 β (6a.....3. .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . . 2009 — Now since 2 kα kβ → 1 k 2 gαβ .. .. we look at the following graph: ....... γ µ2 γ5 aµ2 (0) (6a... .. .. ......... .. .. . ....... . .. k − p1 k ...... ... ... ....3...3. . k ... For that we need to look at four-point functions......... .. .. but it is a little simpler to keep track of what is going on if we restrict ourselves to external momentum dependence that picks out a single term in (6a...28) (6a..........3. .... .... .29) / / / / k−M p1 k + M µ2 k+M γ µ1 2 γ γ5 2 2 − M 2 (k − p )2 − M 2 2 k k −M k − M2 1 . γ vµ1 (p1 ) ..February 10.. this is 2 −2i M µ1 µ2 αβ 116 p1 α p2 β + k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 + −2 (k 2 k2 1 − M 2 )3 (6a.. .... (6a........ . .3.... So for example............ k . ...6)...... . We can do this by having the external momentum carried only by the Π and v ﬁelds... ...26). because we know from (6a... ......3... .. ....... . ..6) that if picked out terms proportional to the momenta of the a ﬁelds... .. .3...... . γ µ3 γ5 aµ3 (0) ..

31).February 10. replacing k µ k ν → obtain and dropping terms odd in k to / 1 p1 M 1 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 )2 2 2 (k − M k −M k − M2 / 1 1 M p1 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 2 (k − M 2 )2 k − M2 k − M2 / 1 γµ p1 γµ M + k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 k2 − M 2 2 4 k −M k −M k − M2 1 + k 2 tr γ µ3 4 / γµ p1 M γµ γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 2 k k −M k − M2 (6a. γ µ γ α γ β γµ = 4g αβ .3. we can use the standard identities.30) / / / / k−M p1 k + M µ2 k+M γ µ1 2 γ γ5 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 1 µν 4g We now average over the k directions.3.32) . In the ﬁrst term.3. γ µ γ α γ5 γµ = 2γ α γ5 . 2009 — 117 In the second term. (6a.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .31) / 1 M p1 γµ γµ − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 4 k − M 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 −tr γ µ3 k2 / p1 M M M γ µ1 2 γ µ 2 γ5 2 2 k2 − M 2 2 −M k −M k − M2 In the third through ﬁfth terms in (6a. because the numerator is explicitly proportional to p1 and since we are looking for a term involving only one power of p1 we can drop the p1 dependence in denominator. we must expand in powers of p1 and pick out the ﬁrst term: −tr γ µ3 +tr γ µ3 2k µ p1 µ / / k + M µ2 k+M γ µ1 2 γ γ5 2 2 − M 2 )2 2 (k k −M k − M2 (6a. γ µ γ α γµ = −2γ α .3.

.... to obtain / 1 1 p1 M − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 )2 2 2 (k − M k −M k − M2 / 1 M p1 1 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 (k − M 2 )2 k − M2 k − M2 +k 2 tr γ µ3 1 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 p1 µ1 M γ µ2 γ5 2 2 − M 2 )2 (k k − M2 118 (6a.. .. .......Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .... .34) µµ1 µ2 µ3 Now using 1 d4 k 1 =i 2 − M 2 )4 (2π)4 2 M4 (k 96π we get (putting in the color factor) − which corresponds to i 8π 2 f Now look at the following graph: µµ1 µ2 µ3 (6a.... In the rest..13) to obtain 4i µµ1 µ2 µ3 p1 µ M k2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 = 4i 1 1 1 1 − − + + 2 2 2 2 p1 µ M3 (k 2 − M 2 )4 ...... . ....... .. . . γ µ2 vµ2 (p2 ) (6a.... . . .... k − p2 k .. ..3. .3... ... .........36) (6a. 2009 — to get rid of pairs of γs.. .......... . µ1 ............ .... .......... . µµ1 µ2 µ3 (6a..3. ...... .. . µ3 γ a (0) . . γ γ5 aµ1 (0) . . .. we can use (6a...... . .3.35) 1 tr Π(−p1 ) p1 µ vµ1 (p1 ) aµ2 (0) aµ3 (0) 4π 2 f tr Π Vµµ1 aµ2 aµ3 . ...... ..33) / 1 p1 M 1 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 k2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 / 1 p1 1 1 M − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 γ5 2 2 k2 − M 2 2 2 k −M k −M k − M2 −tr γ µ3 k2 / M p1 M M γ µ1 2 γ µ 2 γ5 2 2 k2 − M 2 −M k − M2 k − M2 The third term vanishes.... ..... .. . γ 5 µ3 ...3.........February 10.. . k − p2 k ....... ... ... .37) .. ..... .... + M3 (k 2 − M 2 )4 (6a....... ....3....38) γ5 Π(−p2 ) ...3. ...

39) Again.3. replacing k µ k ν → 4 g µν and dropping terms odd in k to .3.41) / (k + M ) 2k µ p2 µ µ2 k + M / 1 γ µ1 γ5 γ k2 − M 2 (k 2 − M 2 )2 k2 − M 2 / / / / p2 k + M µ2 k + M k−M γ µ1 γ5 2 γ 2 − M 2 k2 − M 2 2 k k −M k2 − M 2 1 We again average over the k directions. we start by writing the integrand as follows: / / / 1 k − p2 + M k+M γ µ1 γ5 γ µ2 2 2 − M2 2 − M2 (k − p2 ) (k − p2 ) k − M2 −tr γ µ3 +tr γ µ3 (6a. 2009 — The Feynman integral is 2M tr Π(−p2 ) aµ1 (0) vµ2 (p2 ) aµ3 (0) f tr γ µ3 γ5 / / / / / / k+M k − p2 + M k − p2 + M k+M γ5 γ µ1 γ5 γ µ2 2 k2 − M 2 (k − p2 )2 − M 2 (k − p2 )2 − M 2 k − M2 d4 k (2π)4 119 (6a.40) / / / / / k−M p2 k − p2 + M k+M γ µ1 γ5 γ µ2 2 2 − M 2 (k − p )2 − M 2 2 − M2 k (k − p2 ) k − M2 2 Now we expand in powers of p2 and pick out the ﬁrst term: −tr γ µ3 2k µ p2 µ / / k + M µ2 k + M γ µ 1 γ5 2 γ 2 − M 2 )2 2 (k k −M k2 − M 2 k2 / / 1 p2 k+M γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 2 2 −M k −M k − M2 +tr γ µ3 −tr γ µ3 +tr γ µ3 (6a.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3.February 10.

45) Finally.44) tr Π aµ1 .42) / γµ p2 M γµ 1 γ µ 1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 + k 2 tr γ µ3 2 4 k − M 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 / 1 M p2 γµ γµ − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ 1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 4 k − M 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 / 1 γµ p2 γµ M + k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ 1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 2 k2 − M 2 2 4 k −M k −M k − M2 In the last three terms in (6a.3.3. so we can take all the ﬁelds to be constant.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . The relevant .6). Then we can perform all the traces (the last term vanishes) 1 1 M k2 M − − 2 2 − M 2 )4 2 2 (k (k − M 2 )3 M3 1 1 M − 2 − M 2 )4 2 2 (k k2 4i µ1 µµ2 µ3 p2 µ k2 (6a. we can again use (6a. Vµµ2 aµ3 (6a.3. there are no derivatives.17) and (6a.35) and putting in the color factor.3. 2009 — obtain / p2 M 1 1 γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 2 )2 2 2 (k − M k −M k − M2 / 1 M p2 1 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 2 (k − M 2 )2 k − M2 k − M2 +tr γ µ3 k2 / 1 p2 M γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 2 2 −M k −M k − M2 120 / p2 M 1 1 γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 2 k − M2 (k − M 2 )2 k − M2 / M p2 1 1 γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 − k 2 tr γ µ3 2 2 2 )2 2 k −M (k − M k − M2 −tr γ µ3 k2 / M p2 M M γ µ1 γ5 2 γ µ2 2 2 k2 − M 2 −M k − M2 k − M2 (6a.3. we get − which corresponds to i 2π 2 f µ1 µµ2 µ3 1 tr Π(−p2 ) aµ1 (0) p2 µ vµ2 (p2 ) aµ3 (0) π2f µ1 µµ2 µ3 p2 µ (6a.3.32) to get rid of pairs of γs.3. let us consider the ﬁve-point function with four a ﬁelds.3. Here.3.42).43) + M 1 1 − + 2 + 2 − M 2 )4 2 2 (k (k − M 2 )4 Now using (6a. the last of the possible terms in (6a.February 10.

47) = −tr γ µ4 Averaging over directions of k gives M M M 1 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 tr γ µ4 1 1 γµ γµ M − k 2 tr γ µ4 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 2 2 2 4 k −M k −M k −M k − M2 1 1 γµ M − k 2 tr γ µ4 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 4 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 1 1 M γµ γµ + k 2 tr γ µ4 2 γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 4 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 The third term vanishes and the second and fourth and equal.3. 2009 — Feynman integral is 2M tr Π aµ1 aµ2 aµ3 aµ4 f tr γ µ4 γ5 The integrand is / / / 1 k + M µ2 k + M µ3 k+M γ µ 1 γ5 2 γ γ5 2 γ γ5 2 2 2 2 −M k −M k −M k − M2 k2 / / / 1 k − M µ2 k + M µ3 k+M γ µ1 2 γ γ γ5 2 2 2 2 − M2 −M k −M k k − M2 / / / / / k+M k + M µ1 k + M µ2 k + M µ3 k+M γ5 2 γ γ5 2 γ γ5 2 γ γ5 2 k2 − M 2 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 k − M2 121 d4 k (2π)4 (6a.February 10.49) + k 2 tr γ µ4 which gives − 4i µ1 µ2 µ3 µ4 (6a.17) and (6a.35) and putting in the color factor.3. we get − 1 tr Π aµ1 aµ2 aµ3 aµ4 4π 2 f µ1 µ2 µ3 µ4 (6a.3.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .3.3.48) tr γ µ4 k2 (6a.50) Now again using (6a.3.46) −tr γ µ4 k2 (6a.3.51) . so this is 1 M M M γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 2 2 2 −M k −M k −M k − M2 k2 1 1 1 M γ µ1 2 γ µ2 2 γ µ3 γ5 2 2 2 2 −M k −M k −M k − M2 M3 M k2 + 2 (k 2 − M 2 )4 (k − M 2 )4 γµ (6a.3.

Do the analog of the Steinberger calculation for the “anomalous” interaction term of (6a. 6a-3. 2009 — 122 Problems 6a-1. Hint: If you think carefully about all the simpliﬁcations that are possible because of the factor of µναβ . 6a-2. Can you suggest any reason why the π 0 rate should be more reliably given by (6a. Compare your results with the data in the particle data book. That is.28) to calculate the decay rates for π 0 → 2γ and η → 2γ.2. Show that it reproduces the Wess-Zumino result. compute the contribution to such a term from a loop of quarks coupled (nonderivatively) to the Goldstone bosons. as in the q quarks of (6a. rather than working too hard.30).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Repeat the Steinberger calculation of π 0 → γγ. Use (6a. the Feynman graph is extremely simple.28) than the η rate? . Think.February 10.4).1.1.1.

..Chapter 7 — The Parton Model 7. q e− q Figure 7-1: The simplest parton-model process is the e+ e− total cross section into hadrons.. ..... ...... .... E/2.. just because we must sum over the three colors in the ﬁnal state. where q is any quark that is light enough to be produced. The relevant Feynman diagram is Figure 7-1 ..1. .. ...... . .. This gives a perfectly adequate description of what happens during the short time that the particles are actually decaying. but these don’t eﬀect the total rate.. ... in the imaginary world). .. ....................2... ... .. Many processes involving quarks in the real world can be characterized by two separate time scales: a short time during which the quarks and gluons interact relatively weakly because of asymptotic freedom. Much later (very much later in the imaginary world) when the decay products separate to distances at which conﬁnement becomes important. ... we see that if the center of mass energy is large compared to the µ and quark masses.... the ratio of the quark to muon total cross sections in lowest order is R= quarks 3Q2 . .. ... ...... Thus. Just calculate in the quark theory using perturbation theory.. . for example. it is easy to calculate........... ...1 Mode Counting The basic idea of the parton model can be easily understood in the toy QCD model of Section 3.. The color produces an extra factor of 3. the only diﬀerence between the Feynman diagrams is the charge and color of the quark.... γ . The same ideas can be applied to our world... When these two scales can be cleanly separated. 123 . . all weak decay rates. In the imaginary world with weak QCD. The charge Q produces an extra factor of Q2 in the quark cross section. .... . .....1) where the sum runs over all quarks with mass less than half the center of mass energy (that is the electron or positron beam energy .. complicated things happen (glueball emission.. . ....... of course) . ....... (7.. .......... . ... and a longer time scale at which conﬁnement eﬀects become important.. ..... ... If we compare this with e+ e− → µ+ µ− (Figure 2-4). .. e+ ... .. we can give the process a parton-model interpretation.

.... In fact. ..... e .... . we expect branching ratios of 20% each into electrons and muons and 60% into primarily nonstrange hadrons. . When the appropriate virtual gluon diagrams are included.. ......2)...... relatively narrow peaks in R.... .. ........ .. . W− . ....1..February 10. q 124 e+ ... .. φ.... ... Except at low energies or near the threshold for production of new quark states. .... complicated things happen. G ..1... Here the appropriate Feynman diagram is shown in Figure 7-3. The subsequent splitting of the virtual W − is precisely analogous to the decay of the virtual photon shown in Figure 7-1. It is somewhat more diﬃcult to see (and interpret) the analogous eﬀects in e+ e− → qq... .......... .................. ..... and they faIl oﬀ like powers of (Λ/E)2 Thus. The coupling in (7. .......... for example.. However. .. QCD corrections will modify this picture slightly by − µ− or νµ or d νe u .1...... the τ − decays into a ντ ... . decay of a heavy lepton such as the τ − . (7. . the simple parton prediction (7.. ... . . τ − ...... ... ... J/ψ........ ........1.. most conspicuously production of quark-antiquark resonances like ρ0 . and a virtual W − ......... .... ..... Thus..... the observed cross sections are always a bit Larger than (7.......... . .... we can take d = d....... ..... .. but it is even easier here because all the couplings are the same. and Υ all of which give rise to large.......... .. . This is rather easy...... Near thresholds...... But these all involve the conﬁnement time scale.1)... ..2) The higher-order terms are harder. ..... as we would expect from the form of the QCD corrections in (7...... .........Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . ...... Figure 7-3: As discussed in Section 2..... There are also corrections to (7.... q Figure 7-2: This prediction for the total cross section can be improved by including QCD corrections. where d is the combination of d and s (the b is too heavy to be produced) that appears in the SU (2) doublet with the u quark............ ω... .. .. weak-interaction eﬀects have already been seen in e+ e− → µ+ µ− ..1......... thus the QCD corrections go to zero as the energy gets Large. but the order (αs /π)2 terms have been calculated.1) should be accurate. the result is R= sQ2 1 + αs /π + 0 (αs /π)2 ..2) that cannot be calculated in perturbation theory in αs . ... . ........ Now the same kind of mode counting applies as in e+ e− annihilation. .. ....... .. the cross section is roughly ﬂat and roughly given by (7... ντ ...... .. . ..... . . . the data bears out this simple picture.. there are processes in which exactly the same parton-model ideas can be employed to predict weak eﬀects..... ..2) should be evaluated at the center of mass energy. .. γ .. at large E. 2009 — e+ ......9.. In this process.. .1..........1).. such as the single-gluon emission diagram (Figure 7-2)......... To ﬁrst approximation.1. ... Indeed.......

..1. 2009 — 125 enhancing the hadronic modes as in (7......3) 7......1.. This is exactly what is observed... .6) to have a branching ratio smaller by a factor of 20 than the decay τ − → ντ + ρ− (770).. (7.1. Even higher-order QCD corrections.. .... both the parton model and the SU (2) × U (1) model work very well for heavy lepton decay..... ....... and the hadronic modes consist primarily of nonstrange hadrons. with d = cos θ1 d + sin θ1 cos θ3 s. .. ... .... ... ..... b.. . ..18)% while (7. do not depend on the identity of q light .. the leptonic modes should be somewhat smaller than 20% but. In this diagram the q light plays no role............ .. in which gluons are exchanged between q light and everything else... the presence of the other quark or antiquark in the initial state can inﬂuence . we would expect the decay (7..Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . . .2 ± 0.. ...... cos2 θ1 The decay τ − → ντ + K ∗− (892) (7.... ...7) has branching ratio about 25% (the π − π 0 ντ mode. ...2).... There is even some evidence that the d linear combinations of d and s is the same as that measured in decays of strange particles.97.. q light .7) Again........4) so that the ratio of us to rd in the ﬁnal state of hadronic τ − decay should be sin2 θ1 cos2 θs = 0... Thus..05....1.. .. with branching ratio (25.. . The K ∗− (892) is a us bound-state vector meson that is the analog of the ud bound-state ρ− (770). In particular..1. . ...4)% is essentially all ρ− ντ ).....1.... .... the q light is just a spectator. (7.. sin θ1 .1... .. .....22. .. .. Thus... ..2 Heavy Quark Decay One might imagine that the decay of a hadron containing a heavy quark such as a t........6) has branching ratio (1....6) has been observed. We will call processes like that in Figure 7-4 “spectator processes”. this is just what is seen. cos θ3 = 0. still equal... . Thus. (7. . W .... There we found....... ... . Apparently. ... (7. .1............ that cos θ1 = 0... of course. qlight qheavy Figure 7-4: It is clear that lots of other things can happen in the decay of a hadron containing a heavy quark. ....45 ± 0... ... or c might be described in the same way by a diagram such as Figure 7-4..February 10........ qlight . The leptonic branching ratios are about 18% each...5) (7.......1....

.. . .. The most extreme example of this is a purely leptonic decay ...... .... The evidence for this comes from a measurement of the semileptonic branching ratios of the D0 and D+ and from measurements that suggest that the D+ lifetime is longer than that of the D0 ..... there is a class of generalized annihilation processes that are not as suppressed as what we ﬁnd in Figure 7-5.. ... . . . .. ... for example..... ... ..... .. ........... ......Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . ......... ... ...... .... . ..... ... . just like the decay π + → e+ ν...... . ....... .. .. .. ........ .... . but it is suppressed because the angle associated with the cd current is small.... ... W ...... ... ....... .. .. ...... ........ ... ... . .. ... 2009 — 126 the gross structure of the decay.. . ...... .. .. this “annihilation diagram” will be suppressed because of angular-momentum conservation.. ..... that the F + meson will decay occasionally into µ+ ν through a diagram (Figure 7-5) in which the c and s in the F + annihilate into a virtual W + .. .. ............... ...... . .. νµ Figure 7-5: ........ but both spectator and annihilation to be important in D0 decay. ....... ....... ...... .... ....... .............. To understand the evidence. . . ....... . .. The process in Figure 7-6 is possible for D+ decay... ... . ........ ... ..... . ....... ...... .. .. .... .. ..... Thus............... . . . ... ...... .... ........ ... .... .... .... .... . ..... ....... s ...... . ..... ... . .... ..... .. . ... ... .... .. ...February 10........ .. + c ...... ... .... . for example.... . .... ....... ..... .... .... . . .... .. . .. ............. ........ ... ...µ ....... the processes in Figures 7-6 and 7-7... . ... . ............. there is evidence that the process in Figure 7-7 is important in charmed particle decay..... . . .. .......... we expect only spectator interactions to be important for D+ decay. ..... . . . ......... . ....... . notice that in Figure 7-7 the process is possible for D0 decay but not for D+ decay.... However................... .. ............. However....... ........ ............ . ... ............ ........... ................. ... Experiment suggests that the annihilation process is about as important as the spectator process...... .. ............... ... .. . We would expect... .. Figure 7-6: . Figure 7-7: Indeed. . .

But that means that the ratio of the D+ to D0 branching ratios in (7. 2009 — The semileptonic branching ratios are measured to be 127 B(D+ → e+ +anything) (17.9)% (7. about 1.2. This is a real . This is reasonable because the annihilation contribution is suppressed.2. Because of improvement in detector technology.1) B(D0 → e+ +anything) (7. The data from direct measurements of the D+ and D0 lifetimes are now pretty good. No one really knows how to calculate it. We have now gotten used to the experimental ratio. (7. 7. The D+ decay is about what we would expect on the basis of the spectator process. Frankly. the size of the annihilation eﬀect in (7. we would expect a lifetime of order τµ mµ mc 5 · 1 5 8 × 10−13 sec.415 ± 0.3 Deep Inelastic Lepton-Hadron Scattering One reason for the tension that you may have noticed between theorists and experimentalists is a very natural diﬀerence between their short-term goals. τD+ Note that τD+ is roughly consistent with the spectator-model prediction.3) τD0 = (.2)%.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . consistent with the semileptonic decay data. the spectator decay contributes to D0 → e+ + anything at the same rate as D+ → e+ + anything anything. must make the D0 decay rate larger.2) where mc is the charmed quark mass. But the D0 decay is quite diﬀerent. Experimenters want to do experiments that are doable while theorists want to interpret experiments that are interpretable.2). of course. The branching ratio in D0 decay must be smaller because the annihilation process is making a large contribution to the nonleptonic modes. On the basis of the spectator model and mode counting.1) should have been no more than a factor of two. (7. This would imply small values for s2 and s3 in the KM matrix.7 ± 1.2. we can now measure these very short lifetimes.5 GeV.1) is something of an embarrassment. but I still believe that we don’t know how to calculate it. Presumably.004) × 10−12 sec.015) × 10−12 sec (7. But more recent experiments tend to support the view that the D0 lifetime is about a factor of two shorter than that of the D+ . with a lifetime of order 10−12 sec. but theoretical estimates before the measurement put the annihilation contribution as smaller than or perhaps at most equal to the spectator contribution. we expect the spectator model to work well Fragmentary data on b-quark decay suggests that the b is rather long-lived. This. Initially.2. The most recent numbers are: = (1. For the b quark (and heavier quarks). the experiments showed a D0 lifetime much shorter than this.2 ± 1.February 10.2.2.057 ± 0.

.. after scattering. e− (k) ....... so it is positive (the photon energy is sometimes called ν). .... ﬁrst studied extensively with the high-energy electron beam from the two-mile-long linear accelerator at SLAC in Stanford.. antiquark. ...... . ..... ... .... We will study the diﬀerential cross sections d2 σ/dxH dy... (7....3. note that P = P + q and P 2 = m2 + 2P q + q 2 ≥ m2 ............ . y is E−E y= . .......... he wasn’t sure what kind of particles inside the proton were scattering..3.......... To interpret the results............. e (k ) .. .. .... the parts of the proton. The key idea............. ... Gell-Mann.. When y = 0..... or gluon in a short time of order 1/ −q2... ..3..... The product P q is the proton mass m times the virtual photon energy. hadrons ............... .... The momentum P of the hadronic ﬁnal state is determined by momentum conservation. A typical process is electron-proton scattering.1) − Both of these are bounded between zero and one. When y = 1.. ........ It is conventional and useful to deﬁne the dimensionless variables: xH = − q2 ..... P = P + k − k ... 2009 — 128 problem in experiments with hadrons because the quantities that are easy to measure are typically related to the long-distance structure of the theory that is too hard for the theorists to deal with. 2P q y= Pq .. knew all ......... ........ due to Feynman.. The quarks have been bound in the hadron for a long time... γ. ...... .... When Feynman invented the idea. ... Deep inelastic lepton-hadron scattering experiments are a class of experiments about which experimenters and theorists can both be enthusiastic. the quarks recombine into hadrons in a time of order 1/Λ. p(P ) Figure 7-8: The dominant process is the electromagnetic scattering described by the diagram in Figure 7-8.. The hadronic time scale Λ enters in two ways.. no energy is transferred to the hadronic system (which is impossible kinematically...February 10. but one can get very close to y = 0 at high lepton energies).. This is just as well because it is usually very complicated. .... This immediately gives xH ≤ 1.........3) since there is always at least one proton in the ﬁnal state...... Pk (7............ ........ we need a theoretical model that describes the process in QCD.. The virtual photon that is far oﬀ its mass √ shell scatters oﬀ a quark... so −q 2 is positive.... .... the initial lepton energy is almost all transferred...2) E the fractional energy loss of the lepton.... The idea is to scatter a high-energy lepton beam oﬀ a hadron target and measure the four momentum of the scattered lepton but not the details of the hadronic ﬁnal state..... If E and E are the energies of the initial and ﬁnal electron. meanwhile. but no other information about the state is used. ......... which is spacelike..... He just called them partons... and they may be oﬀ their mass shell by a momentum of order Λ..... To see that xH must be less than 1 ... (7. ... . The virtual photon carries momentum q.. .. involving lots of pions.....Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . ..... Also.... is that there are two distinct time scales characterizing this process.... ...........

...5) is the probability of ﬁnding a parton of type j (j runs over each type of quark and antiquark and gluon) with momentum between ξP and (ξ + dξ)P ....... where Qj is the quark j or antiquark charge...... − j Figure 7-9: We will analyze the process in the center of mass frame of the proton and the virtual photon because it is only through the virtual photon that momentum is transferred to the hadronic system... Then we can describe the distribution of parton in the proton as a function of the single variable ξ... the presence of these two scales suggests that we view the scattering as a two-step process in which ﬁrst the short-distance scattering occurs... To calculate it........ but it took almost ten years for the two of them to get together. we need to know two things: the probability of ﬁnding a given parton in the proton carrying a given momentum. The kinematics produces a factor of (1 + (1 − y)2 for reasons that we will describe in detail later.. j e− .. e ...... . As in e+ e− ... where j is a quark or antiquark... however.. .. We can...6) y = pq pk = Pq Pk. .... These cannot be calculated with our present theoretical tools......... δ(p 2 ) = δ(2pq + q 2 ) ∝ δ(1 − x). . (J........... There is also a δ function that expresses the fact that the ﬁnal quark in Figure 7-9 is on its mass shell..Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft ... which we do not understand in terms of QCD perturbation theory....February 10... dσj is clearly proportional to e4 Q2 /q 4 . We write fj (ξ) dξ (7. .... I will not calculate this in detail. .. q x = − 2pq = xH /ξ 2 (7.. and the partons have momenta that are parallel to the proton’s momentum P up to terms of order Λ. and the probability of the parton scattering from the virtual photon.γ......... D..... Bjorken was one of the ﬁrst to put these ideas together............4) where 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1....... . (7...... where x and y are deﬁned in terms of the parton momentum pµ = ξP µ .....3......7) ........... (7..3. and the j-type parton is the target. .. . ...3. then later the scattered parton and the debris of the shattered proton recombine into hadrons. .. ... calculate the probability for parton scattering.. At high P q..... ...... We will ignore these (because they change the cross section only by ∼ Λ2 / − q 2 and write the momentum of the a parton as pµ = ξP µ .... but it is fairly easy to ﬁgure out its general form. we assume that the cross section is determined by the short-distance scattering...... They depend on the structure of the proton. the proton is going very fast in this frame..... The lowest-order diagram contributing to this process is that in Figure 7-9... 2009 — 129 about quarks...3..) At any rate.. We do this just by calculating the cross section dσj /dx dy.. This deﬁnes the distribution function fj (ξ).

though it wouldn’t matter). they are ν µ + u → µ+ + d (7. Thus. 2009 — 130 (where we have neglected the quark mass. The W ± propagator gives a G2 rather than e4 /q 4 . putting the factors of π and 2 in.9) Q2 xfj (x). Here we will work only to zeroth order in QCD and use (7. using the fact that xH = ξx.February 10. The new elements here are W ± or Z 0 exchange rather than photon exchange and the parity-violating nature of the couplings. 7.4. Finally. we need a factor of k · p = ξk · P = ξmE. to obtain (see Problem 7-1) dσH dxH dy dσj dx dy = = j fj (ξ) · δ(xH − xξ) dξ dx (7. We will ﬁrst consider the charged-current process νµ (or ν µ ) + hadron → µ− or µ+ ) + anything. we get e4 Q2 ξmE dσ1 j 1 + (1 − y)2 δ(x − 1). The cross sections for these parton processes are similar to those for e− -quark scattering. the important processes are νµ + d → µ− + u (7.3.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . Higher-order QCD eﬀects change this simple prediction only slightly.4. The rule is the following: when particles of the same handedness scatter. = 4 dx dy 4q π (7. j e4 mE [1 4πq 4 + (1 − y)2 ] j The striking thing about this result is that the dependence on q 2 is like that in electron scattering oﬀ a pointlike target. This is easier to see experimentally than the neutral-current processes we will discuss later. at least at −q 2 small F 2 compared to MW . or ν m u.9).2) ν µ + d → µ+ u. while for ν µ .1) νµ + u → µ− + d. This is just what is observed. to get the dimensions right. And the (1 + γ5 )’s in the weak coupling aﬀect the y distribution. The distribution functions actually are predicted to depend weakly on q 2 . The parton processes diﬀer depending on whether the beam is νµ . This subject is very interesting but should be discussed in a course on strong interactions. but they diﬀer in two ways.4 Neutrino-Hadron Scattering Precisely the same reasoning can be applied to neutrino-hadron or anti-neutrino-hadron scattering. For νµ .8) We now can put this together just by combining the probabilities. as νµ + d (both left-handed) or .3. Something very much like the predicted q 2 dependence has actually been observed.3.

1 (7. Notice that the total cross sections are (with fq = dx 2xq(x). since we have not included heavy quarks or QCD corrections) fq ≈ 0. It is then easy to see that the scattering is allowed by angular-momentum conservation about the beam axis if the parton and lepton have the same handedness.3.4. The distribution functions depend on the target. we ﬁnd the relation (which works) σe = − 5 e4 (σ ν + σ ν ).3. u = d ≡ q.9) and (7.6) + fq ]. we ﬁnd for the hadronic cross sections ν dσH 2mEG2 F = · xd(x) + (1 − y)2 xu(x) dxH dy π (7.3)(7.4.4. The results are (very roughly.4) is a good ﬁrst approximation. but not if they have opposite handedness.4.3)-(7.8)-(7. In the center of mass frame.4. Putting all this together. as νµ + u or ν µ + u.4. .4.7) 4πq 4 3 18 Thus. when particles of the opposite handedness scatter.5.3) ν dσH 2mEG2 F (7. What is seen is that q(x) is smaller than q(x) and vanishes faster as x goes to one. The fact that the parton-lepton scattering vanishes as y → 1 when the lepton and parton have opposite handedness can be seen easily by a helicity argument.4. mE 2 π GF [fq /3 where fq (and fq ) are the fraction of the proton and neutron momentum carried by quarks (and antiquarks).4).3. Things are particularly simple for targets that consist of equal numbers of protons and neutrons. and so on) σν σν = = mE 2 π GF [fq + fq /3] (7.February 10. Then isospin symmetry implies u = d ≡ q.4) = · (1 − y)2 xu(x) + xd(x) .9) The amusing thing here is that the quarks and antiquarks carry only about half of the nucleon’s momentum. 72 q 4 G2 F (7.8) From the observed cross sections. fq ≈ 0. but (7. such as the distribution functions of strange and charmed quarks and the strangeness-changing and charm-changing parts of the u and d currents. y = 1 corresponds to a lepton that loses aIl its energy in the lab frame. and the other eﬀects can be included by the same techniques. 2009 — 131 ν µ + bard (both right-handed).5) We expect q to be much larger than q and perhaps also to have a diﬀerent shape.4. dxH dy π We have ignored various small eﬀects. Most of the rest is carried by gluons. This is the physical reason for the factors of (1 − y)2 in (7. This can be directly compared with the e− cross section n the same approximation of ignoring heavy quarks: e4 mE 4 5 − σe = · (fq + fq ). Heavy quarks and antiquarks carry a small fraction.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .4. the cross section vanishes at y = 1 like (1 − y)2 . the cross section is independent of y. that means the particles are scattered backwards. (7. (7. we can also extract the normalized values of fq and fq .

5. T − 3 → sin2 θQ. Things simplify if we look at the total cross-sections oﬀ matter targets (u = d). The ratios of the neutral to charged-current ˜ .4).3)-(7.R (q) + R (d) is (T3 − sin2 θ Q)2 for the appropriate quark state. This time both left. 2 L (u) = 1 2 − 2 sin2 θ 3 L (d) 1 = − 1 + 3 sin2 θ 2 2 2 (7.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . The cross sections are similar to the charged current but involve the coupling of the Z 0 to the quarks.and right-handed quarks scatter.2) by interchange of the quark σ and antiquark distributions.5.4) and again σ ν is obtained by interchanging q and q.5 Neutral Currents In much the same way. Then σν = mEG2 F π ( L (u) + L (d)) 1 fq + fq + ( 3 R (u) + R (d)) 1 fq + fq 3 (7. we can study neutral-current processes νµ + P or N νµ + P or N → νµ + anything (7.3) R (u) = − 2 sin2 θ 3 = 1 3 R (d) sin2 θ 2 . 2009 — 132 7.4. Thus. + (1 − y)2 L (d) R (d) + (1 − y)2 where L. we have d˜H σ dxH dy = 2mEG2 F π ·{ L (u) + (1 − y)2 + R (u) R (u) x u(x) + (1 − y)2 + L (d) L (u) xu(x) (7.February 10.5.2) x d(x) x d(x)}. The antineutrino cross section d˜ ν /dxH dy can be obtained from (7.5.5. in the same approximation we used for (7.1) → ν µ + anything.4. but T3 is nonzero only for the left-handed quarks.

7. The results are in agreement with the SU (2) × U (1) predictions with sin2 θ 0. 7-2. so the leading electromagnetic contribution to the cross section cancels out in the diﬀerence. The predictions are Rν = σ ν /σ ν = ( L (u) + ˜ Rν = σ ν /σ ν = ( L (u) + ˜ where L (d)) + x−1 ( + x( R (u) + R (d)) (7.3)-(7. which was responsible for most of the early experimental work on e− P scattering that gave rise to the parton model.23. Prescott et al. obviously. Derive (7..5.4. calculate the parity-violating γ − Z 0 interference contribution to the diﬀerence in diﬀerential cross sections for left. The experiment measured the diﬀerence between the scattering cross sections for left-handed and right-handed electrons on protons. By including Z 0 exchange in the e− p-scattering cross section. 1 3 fq + fq (7. ∂σL ∂σR − ∂dxH dy ∂dxH dy . This provides very diﬀerent information from neutrino scattering. Problems 7-1.6 The SLAC Experiment The linear accelerator at SLAC. Physics Letters 84B. 2009 — 133 cross sections are useful because some experimental uncertainties drop out.23 (see C. 1979) (see Problem 7-2).and righthanded electrons.3.5) L (d)) R (u) + R (d)) . was also the site of the crucial experiment that convinced us of the correctness of the SU (2)×U (1) model.6) The measured values of Rν and Rν agree with the predictions of the standard SU (2) × U (1) model and the quark-parton model for sin2 θ 0. 524-528.February 10.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft .4. Y. x = σ ν /σ ν = 1 fq + 3 fq . What is left is a weak-electromagnetic interference that can be calculated using standard parton-model techniques.5.4). This is a parity-violating eﬀect. since it is linear in the quark-Z 0 coupling and probes the structure of the e− neutral current.9) and (7.

and show in what sense the largest corrections are simple. This has become a large industry. experimental tests of the standard model have progressed to the point that there is overwhelming evidence for the basic picture of a spontaneously broken SU (2) × U (1) gauge theory. It this chapter. and 2. We will also brieﬂy discuss two alternatives to the simplest version of electroweak symmetry breaking — technicolor and a composite Higgs boson. The Z and W have been studied extensively. and tightly constrained by the symmetries of the model. We will only know for sure what breaks the electroweak symmetry when we can see the scattering of W s and Z at very high energies. and so on) have been measured. They can be gathered into the values of a few eﬀective interactions. we will review some of the issues involved in the calculation of radiative corrections. In this section. This should be possible at the LHC . The largest radiative corrections are independent of the details of electroweak symmetry breaking. for two reasons: 1. to the level of the radiative corrections.7 is not very convenient for explicit loop calculations. Nevertheless. but in general. the experimental results agree with the theoretical predictions of the simplest version of the standard model not just in the tree approximation but beyond. we will argue that it is still unclear what the physics is that spontaneously breaks the SU (2) × U (1) gauge symmetry. we will discuss a class of gauges in which renormalizability is more explicit. 134 . the unitary gauge that we introduced in Section 2. expected to operate at CERN in the ﬁrst decade of the next millennium. partial widths into various decay channels. We will not attempt to give a complete account of modern calculations of radiative corrections. of the order of 1 TeV. and their static properties (masses. and independent of the details of symmetry breaking. This formalism has the advantage that the only ﬁelds that appear correspond to physical particles.Chapter 8 — Standard Model Precision Tests Since the original version of this text was written. But the resulting Lagrangian involves massive vector ﬁelds coupled to nonconserved currents. depending only on the particle content of the theory below the symmetry breaking scale.the Large Hadron Collider.3. The renormalizability of the theory is not obvious.1 Choosing a Gauge In a theory like SU (2) × U (1) with spontaneously broken gauge symmetry. 8. The leading low-energy eﬀects of the physics of electroweak symmetry breaking are relatively small. There are still details that we are unsure about (such as the precise couplings of the W to quarks). As we discussed in Section 2. and the details are beyond the scope of this course. this is a potentially dangerous situation.

(8. x [dωa (x)] (8.1. Yang-Mills theories.1. But at least for the gauge–ﬁxing terms we will describe below. we need to know ∆(Aµ ) only for Aµ satisfying ∂µ Aµ = 0.1. Thus. A gauge that is simple and convenient for some purposes is Landau gauge.1.1. φΩ )[dΩ] = Ω a.3) (8.6) If we insert (8. (8. which corresponds to δ (∂µ Aµ ) . It was not taken for granted that it would be adequate to properly deﬁne spontaneously broken gauge theories.7) where 1 1 µ Mbc (y. we discussed the necessity of choosing a gauge and the Fadeev-Popov recipe for constructing a gauge ﬁxing term. y Then f (Aµ . and it is certainly not obvious that the result of interchanging order of functional integrations and canceling inﬁnite quantities has anything to do with the gauge theory we started with. z) = − ∂µ ∂ µ δbc − gfbdc Aµ · δ(y − z) = − ∂µ Dbc (y − z).February 10. It yields theories that are unitary and renormalizable in perturbation theory. Ωb b. 2009 — 135 In chapter 1b. d g g ∆(Aµ ) = det M.1.9) Then We could calculate det M directly. x [dωa (x)] . (8. it does work. we can write a ∆(Aµ )−1 = b. Physicists were impressed with the derivation because it incorporated all of the techniques that had been developed (unsystematically) over the years to deal with QED. (8. We will now discuss some explicit gauge–ﬁxing terms. but it is more fun to express it as a functional integral over anticommuting variables ηa and η a in the adjoint representation of the gauge group: det M ∝ exp{iSGhost } [dη][dη] . δ ∂µ Aµ (g) .1.4) (8. and gravity.12). x ∆(Aµ ).1.1. The unitary gauge that we have already discussed in chapter 2 corresponds to a choice of the Fadeev-Popov function f (Aµ .4) into (8.2.1. (8.6) and ignore terms proportional to ∂µ Aµ . y δ Mbc (y.5) and [dωa (x)]. φ) = x broken generators δ φT ga Ta φ . φ) = a x a To calculate note that because of the appearance of the δ function (8.10) .2) in the integral (1b.2) f (Aµ .Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . The Fadeev-Popov “derivation” discussed in chapter 1b was very formal. (8. z)ωc (z)d4 z a.1) In this case ∆ depends only on the surviving Higgs ﬁelds. it is enough to consider a inﬁnitesimal transformations of the form Ω = 1 + iωa Ta + · · · under which 1 Aµ = Aµ − fabc ωb Aµ − ∂ µ ωa a c Ωa g [dΩ] = a.1.1. The functional integral we started with was not well deﬁned.8) (8.1.

that when we write Φ in terms of shifted ﬁelds.21).Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . They are massless scale fermions that (fortunately) do not appear in the physical states. but eventually we will use them to simplify the propagators. we are left in (8.12). we ﬁnd (see Problem 8–1): ∆(Aµ . Both W and G are independent of ca . In the Landau gauge. Note that ∆ is independent of ca . k2 − M 2 (8. ab (8. also.13) where Φ is the unshifted Higgs ﬁeld. in particular.1. because the whole point of the Fadeev-Popov construction is that when ∆ is properly chosen. we can multiply W and G by the quantity exp − 1 2ξ c2 (x)d4 x a [dca ] (8. ca is an external ﬁeld. so long as g is gauge–invariant. the mixing terms between the gauge bosons and the Goldstone bosons. In such applications.1.16) . at least they do not complicate the gauge–boson propagators. and ξ is a positive constant. for some applications. Now consider the ca dependence of a gauge–invariant Green’s function. a x a (8.1. It may not be obvious why we have added the second and third terms in the δ functions at this point. We start with an f (Aµ . This gauge is extremely convenient for calculations in unbroken non-Abelian gauge theories.14) with a mass term for the ghost ﬁelds.1.14) exp −i µ η a (x) ∂µ Dab + ξ ΦT ga Ta gb Tb Φ ηb (x) d4 x [dη][dη] . and it is also often useful in spontaneously broken gauge theories. Thus. These are the renormalizable ξ–gauges. Clearly there isn’t any. Calculating ∆ by the techniques discussed above.12) where M 2 is the gauge–boson mass–squared matrix. (1b.1.1. φ) ∝ (8. The η and η ﬁelds are the Fadeev-Popov ghost particles. Thus. it is irrelevant which gauge–ﬁxing term we choose.6. it is often useful to use one of a set of gauges which interpolate continuously between Landau gauge and unitary gauge.February 10. The mass–squared matrix is just 2 µ2 = ξ ΦT ga Ta gb Tb Φ = ξMab .2. We will discuss them in some detail.15) 2 where Mab is the gauge–boson mass–squared matrix.1. the gauge–boson propagator is −g µν + k µ k ν /k 2 . φ) of the form δ ∂µ Aµ + iξ ΦT ga Ta Φ − ca . (2. Notice. the appearance of the massless Goldstone bosons and the corresponding appearance of the pole at k 2 = 0 in the longitudinal part of the gauge–boson propagator is inconvenient. However. 2009 — where SGhost = µ η a (x)∂µ Dab ηb (x) d4 x . both because they are often useful and because they will give us some insight into the nature of the Higgs mechanism. In Landau gauge. are irrelevant because they are total divergences.11) Thus. 136 (8. while the Goldstone bosons are not eliminated. this term can simply be added to the action to produce the Fadeev-Popov determinant ∆.

µ2 in (8. the eﬀects of these three gauge artifacts conspire to cancel in all physical processes so that unitarity is maintained in these gauges. 2009 — 137 without changing anything.1. Some physicists prefer to keep ξ arbitrary.1.1.7.1. The second term modiﬁes the longitudinal part of the gauge–boson propagator to make it well-behaved at large k 2 . a a This gives a propagator −g µν + (1 − ξ)k µ k ν /(k 2 − ξM 2 ) [k 2 − M 2 ] or equivalently = −g µν + k µ k ν /M 2 k µ k ν /M 2 − 2 . To underscore this point. it is the most convenient gauge for explicit calculations in a model like SU (2) × U (1). or even eliminate them entirely as in unitary gauge. Indeed. but remember that the Goldstone bosons are gauge artifacts.17) Notice that we can write (8.1.1. k2 − M 2 k − ξM 2 (8.1. But this second term by itself looks as if it is related to propagation of derivatively coupled scalars with mass µ2 = ξM 2 .15). we can get to the physics. . we have succeeded in eliminating the mixing between gauge bosons and Goldstone bosons.22) − 2 k − M2 and the unphysical Goldstone bosons and ghosts have the same masses as the corresponding gauge particles.17) ﬁx the gauge and give mass to the Goldstone bosons. The simplest such gauge corresponds to xi = 1. for which the gauge–boson propagator is just g µν (8. This is the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge.18) Now ﬁnally. I will usually refer to the Goldstone bosons in ξ–gauges as “unphysical Goldstone bosons”. the same mass as the unphysical Goldstone bosons and the Fadeev-Popov ghosts. The ﬁrst term is simply the propagator for the massive vector ﬁelds.February 10.1.17) combines with the term (2. With an appropriate choice of gauge.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . we can give them mass if we choose.20) (8. The mass matrix for the Goldstone boson ﬁelds is the same as that of the ghosts. The other terms in (8.1. but with a gauge–ﬁxing term of the form (in the Lagrangian) − 1 ∂µ Aµ + iξ ΦT ga Ta Φ a 2ξ 2 . (8. The quadratic terms in the gauge ﬁelds are now 1 4 (∂µ Aaν − ∂ν Aaµ )(∂ µ Aν − ∂ ν Aµ ) a a (8.1.1.21) is extremely suggestive.21) (8.19) 1 1 2 − 2ξ (∂µ Aµ )2 + 2 Mab Aµ Abµ .17) in terms of the shifted ﬁeld Φ because of the antisymmetry of Ta : ΦT ga Ta Φ = 0. But then interchanging integration orders.21) from the Higgs meson kinetic–energy term to form an irrelevant total–derivative term.14). Practically speaking. For many purposes. The result is a description of the theory in terms of a Lagrangian with the same ghost term (8.1. Thus. The cross term is (8. the advantage of the ξ–gauges is that all gauge artifacts have nonzero masses. we can do the integration of ca and eliminate the δ functions. (8. It sounds peculiar ab to speak of Goldstone–boson masses.

If we had to know everything about all the particles. It is one of the great unifying concepts in modern quantum ﬁeld theory. but is a composite state. Quantum electrodynamics. one quantitative and one qualitative. for example. even if we ignore the muon. With a completely general quantum ﬁeld theory involving these ﬁelds. Learn the language and it will serve you well. we could describe the most general possible interactions consistent with relativistic invariance. we would never get anywhere. Note that. It does depend on the Higgs mechanism. we will introduce some more machinery. We have already used parts of the idea in Chapters 5 and 6 on chiral Lagrangians. But the existence of the Higgs boson depends on the dynamics of symmetry breaking. the dimensional parameters that appear in the . however. unitarity of the S–matrix. The eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory idea is important because physics involves particles with very disparate masses and because we study physics in experiments involving various energies. we do not give up any descriptive power by going to an eﬀective theory. Quantitatively. that describes how the Goldstone bosons associated with the spontaneous breaking of SU (2) × U (1) become the longitudinal components of the W and Z gauge bosons. Because of this. But this is not quite right for two reasons. there is no Higgs boson at all. The unitary–gauge limit is obtained by simply pushing all the gauge artifacts up to inﬁnite mass. the idea of an eﬀective ﬁeld theory. no matter how heavy. Beginning with this section. Finally. if we know the underlying theory at high energy. we will argue later that in some strong-coupling models of symmetry breaking. the Higgs boson exists. describes the properties of electrons and photons at energies of the order of 1 MeV or less pretty well. It might seem that we have given up predictive power because an arbitrary eﬀective theory has an inﬁnite number of nonrenormalizable interactions and thus an inﬁnite number of parameters. But we don’t. as we will discuss. note that the whole issue of gauge ﬁxing is really not dependent on the assumption that a fundamental Higgs boson exists.2 Eﬀective Field Theories Before we try to apply the results of the previous section to actual calculations. because the cancellation of all ξ dependence provides a useful check for complicated calculations. and other general properties like T CP symmetry. there is a straightforward and useful technology for performing these calculations. The Goldstone bosons are always there whenever a continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken. quantitative calculations can be done in eﬀective theory language.February 10. as promised. all of the nonrenormalizable interactions in the eﬀective theory are due to the heavy particles. While the simplest weak-coupling versions of this dynamics (that we described in chapter 2) involves a fundamental Higgs boson. It will make hard calculations easy and impossible calculations doable.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . 2009 — 138 however. Thus. the weak interactions. so long as the underlying theory makes sense. and anything else that may be going on at high energy. Indeed. 8. In fact. quarks. including arbitrary renormalizable interactions. these gauges interpolate between the Landau gauge (ξ = 0) and unitary gauge (ξ = ∞). The qualitative message is even more interesting. while in others. then we can calculate all the renormalizable interactions. But only the Goldstone bosons are directly involved — not the Higgs boson. This works because we can write an eﬀective ﬁeld theory involving only the electron ﬁeld and the photon ﬁeld. As we will see in detail. There we used it in desperation and ignorance in order to concentrate on that part of the physics that we could hope to understand. the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory idea is much more. we will sharpen the idea to the point where it will become an extremely useful calculational tool. Thus.

To extract the maximum amount of information from the eﬀective theory with the minimum eﬀort. The standard technology of the renormalization group can be used to change from one µ to another. There is another way of looking at it. suppressed by powers of the small mass or momenta over the large masses. The relations between the couplings imposed by the requirement that the two eﬀective theories describe the same physics are called “matching conditions”. we could work our way down to the eﬀective theory appropriate at any lower energy in a totally systematic way. so that in the eﬀective theory including these particles. but we gain an important qualitative insight. In this view. or even that it exists at all. ∼ the nonrenormalizable interactions disappear. It is this feature that explains the success of renormalizable QED. for some mass M > µ. there must exist heavy particles with mass m < M that produce them. In the extreme version of the eﬀective–ﬁeld–theory language. Then we could use the renormalization group to scale µ down to the mass M of the next heaviest particles. We can replace the requirement of renormalizability with a condition on the nonrenormalizable terms in the eﬀective theories.February 10. as we go up in energy scale in the tower of eﬀective ﬁeld theories. We must relate them so that the description of the physics just below the boundary (where no heavy particles can be produced) is the same in the two eﬀective theories. we will use a mass–independent renormalization scheme such as the M S scheme. we obtain a descending sequence of eﬀective theories. For larger momenta. the ﬁeld is included. the eﬀects of the nonrenormalizable interactions will be small. Then we would match onto the next eﬀective theory with these particles omitted and then use the renormalization group again to scale µ down further. If these masses are all very large compared to the electron mass and the photon and electron energies. the eﬀective theory is approximately renormalizable. however. each one with fewer ﬁelds and more small renormalizable interactions than the last. Thus. We can look at this sequence of eﬀective theories from the bottom up.Weak Interactions — Howard Georgi — draft . there will be no large logarithms in perturbation theory. Starting with the mass M of the heaviest particles in the theory. If there are nonrenormalizable interactions with coupling 1/M to a power. The connection between the parameters in the eﬀective theories on either side of the boundary is now rather obvious. the eﬀects of nonrenormalizable interactions grow and become important on . this condition is simply that the coupling constants for the interactions involving the light ﬁelds are continuous across the boundary. we will renormalize the theory to minimize the logarithms that appear in perturbation theory. In the eﬀective theory that describes physics at a scale µ. 2009 — 139 nonrenormalizable interactions in the eﬀective theory are determined by the heavy particle masses. and so on. we do not know what the renormalizable theory at high energy is. we can associate each particle mass with a boundary between two eﬀective