The State of the Art—Gauge Theories

Howard Georgi

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 23, 575 (1975); doi: 10.1063/1.2947450

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2947450
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/23/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
Chapter 7. Gauge Theories 575

THE STATE OF THE ART--GAUGE THEORIES

Howard Georgi
Lyman Iaboratory of Physics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

I'm supposed to tell you about the state of the art

in gauge theories. That's an impossible task. If I
tried to do justice to all the models and interesting
technical developments of the la~t year, I would be here
all day. Instead, I will concentrate on a class of
models which I think is one of the most amusing develop-
ments in gauge theories since the Weinberg model, the
class of unified theories of the weak, electromagnetic
and strong interactions. By this I mean gauge models
describing the weak, electromagnetic and strong inter-
actions in terms of a single gauge coupling constant,
so that the gauge group of the w o r l d is either simple
or a product of isomorphic simple factors.
At first hearing, the whole idea sounds like non-
sense. How can a single gauge coupling describe the
weak and electromagnetic interactions, w h i c h are
presumably characterized by dimensionless coupling con-
stants of order e, and the strong interactions,
presumably characterized by coupling constants of order
i? The answer is asymptotic freedom. If the strong
interactions are described by a nonAbelian gauge field
theory, the effective coupling constant decreases as
the momentum at which it is measured increases. At some
very large momentum, it may be small enough to fit into
a unified gauge theory.
Consider, for example, a gauge model based on a
simple gauge group G and a single irreducible represen-
tation of scalar mesons which develops a v a c u u m expecta-
tion value. This vacuum expectation value sets the
mass scale for the theory. Say the magnitude of the
vacuum expectation value is M. Some of the scalar
mesons will be Goldstone bosons and the rest will
typically have mass of order M. Some subgroup of G may
remain as an unbroken gauge symmetry after the spontane-
ous symmetry breaking. It will be a direct product of
U(1) and simple factors, G 1 X G 2 X G 3 . . . . The
vector bosons corresponding to generators of GI~ Gz, G 3
576

etc. remain massless while all others will get a mass of

order gM where g is the gauge coupling constant.
Now let me consider experiments in the world des-
cribed by this model such t ~ t all relevant momenta are
of the order of some arbitrary mass ~. If ~ >> M and gM,
I will see the full G symmetry of the world. There will
be a single gauge coupling g(~) describing the G invari-
ant interactions. Its value may depend on ~ in some
complicated way because the presence of renormalizable
scalar meson self-couplings complicates the renormaliza-
tion group equations.
If ~ ~< M and gM~ things will be very different.
There is not enough energy to produce the massive scalar
and vector bosons. The Goldstone bosons decouple a s
usual in the Higgs m e c h a n i s m So in this region in
momentum scale, the only relevant fields are the massless
gauge fields associated with the G. X G Z X G_3... sub-
group. More precisely, a theorem ~ue to Appelquist and
Carrazone on infrared structure of renormalizable field
theories implies that to zeroth order in ~/M, this world
is described by a renormalizable gauge field theory based
on the subgroup G] X G 2 X G 3 .... The only effect of the
massive fields is-to renormalize the coupling constants
in this effective field theory, so that the coupling
constants g l ( ~ ) g~(~), g3(~) of the G , G , G sub-
groups are no longer equal. All otherleffects3are
suppressed by factors of ~/M. Furthermore, if the
coupling constants are small in the region ~ << M and
g M their ~L dependence can be easily calculated by renor-
malization group arguments. The couplings of the non-
Abelian subgroups decrease logarithmicly with ~ (that
is they are asymptotically free).
In the intermediate region ~ ~ M or gM, the masses
complicate the picture. But if all the couplings are
small in this region, it can be analyzed perturbatively.
Clearly, what must happen is that the different couplings
gl (~), gl (~) ' g3 (~) for ~ << M must coalesce smoothly
into the"single coupling g(~) for ~ >> M.
If there are also fermions in the theory, the
picture is essentially the same. The only difference
is the effect of the fermions on the ~L dependence of
the effective couplings. Couplings of Abelian subgroups
will increase logarithmicly with ~ whLle nonAbelian
subgroups may increase or decrease depending on the
 577

fermion representations involved.

The point of all this is that, if M is a very large
mass, the. effective,, couplings, gl (~)~ g2(~), g3(~) at
some "orainary momentum scale ~ << M, may be very
different, so that one unified theory can describe both
strong and weak interactions.
In a realistic unified theory, the light vector
bosons and fermion~ cannot all be massless since they
must include the W-- and the leptons. So the G 1 X G X
G .... subgroup must be further broken down. One
J
possibility is that there are additional scalar mesons
which develop ordinary vacuum expectation values of the
order of a few hundred Gev. This seems unattractive
because it is very hard to find a natural explanation
for the existence of the two very different mass
scales (M and ordinary) in the theory. An attractive
speculation is that the ordinary spontaneous breakdown
is dynamical, occurring at a mass scale where the coup-
ling constant of the most asymptotically free subgroup
is large enough for non-perturbative effects to be
important.
Such questions are interesting and hard, but what
I really want to talk about today is interesting and
easy, the construction of unified theories. Evidently
the procedure is as follows: Take your favourite
gauge theory of the weak and electromagnetic interactions.
Include strong interactions as an asymptotically free
non-Abelian gauge theory. The simplest possibility is
just to gauge a color SU(3) group. Check to make sure
that the resulting theory satisfies all the usual
phenomenological and theoretical constraints (for
instance that strangeness changing neutral current
effects are suppressed and that the theory is anomaly
free~ And then look for an anomaly-free simple exten-
sion of the gauge group, with the appropriate fermion
representation content.
Let me illustrate this procedure with the s~mplest
possible example. Suppose that the weak and electro-
magnetic gauge group is Weinberg's SU(2) X U(1) and the
strong gauge group is color SU(3). The quark states
are fractionally charged p, n, k and the charmed quark
p', each in three colors (in Cambridge, these are
referred to as the 12 observed quarks). Consider the
transformation properties of the fermion fields under
578

the SU(2) X SU(3) subgroup. It is usually conveDient in

constructing unified theories to use a Weyl notationz in
which all fields are left-handed. Then the v and e
fields transform like a doublet under the wear SU(2) and
a singlet under color SU(3) wh.ile e is a singlet under
both groups. The v , ~- and ~ fields transform simi-
larly, so in an obvious notation, the lepton fields are
two (2,1)'s and two (i,i)'s. The (left-handed) quark
fields are doublets under SU(2) and triplets under SU(3),
while the antiquark fields are singlets under SU(2) and
3's under SU(3) (they are the charge conjugates of the
right-handed quark fields which are SU(3) ~'s). So the
quarks are two (~,3)'s and four (1,3)'s. It is easy to
check that this theory is anomaly free.
It helps in looking for simple extensions of this
theory to notice that the fermion representation is
complex, not equivalent to its complex conjugate. So
the unifying group must have complex representations.
Furthermore it must be at least rank 4 since the
SU(2) X U(1) X SU(3) subgroup is rank 4. The only rank
4 groups with complex representations and only one
gauge coupling constant are SU(3) X SU(3) with a dis-
crete symmetry that interchanges the SU(3) factors and
SU(5). It is easy to see that SU(3) X SU(5)
doesn't work ( you can't put in the needed fermion con-
tent), so we must look at SU(5).
Consider the fundamental 5 dimensional representa-
tion of SU(5), generated by the traceless, hermetian
5 X 5 matrices. Under the obvious SU(2) X SU(3) sub-
group, the 5 transforms like (2,1) + (i,~). The 5 is
complex and its complex conjugate, the 5- transforms
like (2,1), + (1,3). Now consider the irreducible I0
dimensional representation which is the antisymmetric
tensor product of two 5's. It t~ansforms like (i,i) +
(2,3) + (i,~). It looks like two 10's and two 5's nave
just the transformation properties we need under the
SU(~) X SU(3) subgroup. We still have to check that
the electric charges work out correctly, but that is
easy and they do. SO SU(5) is a simple extension of
our SU(2) X U(1) X SU(3) subgroup. It turns out that
it is the unique anomaly free simple extension. In
SU(5) the anomaly of the i0 cancels the anomaly of the
~, but any larger simple extension has anomalies. Notice
that the simple extension depends not just on the choice
 579
of the subgroup but also on the particular fermion
representations involved. For instance, if the original
theory had included some unobserved charged lepton
fields, the extension to SU(5) would have been impossible.
In fact, an anomaly free theory does not necessarily have
any anomaly free simple extension, co the fact that the
simplest possible theory works is all the more remarkable.
Now we cad go back and see how this example fits
into our general picture. Let g](~), g.(~) and g3(~) be
the gauge coupling constants of The U(l~, SU(2) and SU(3)
subgroups respectively for ~ << M, and g(~) be the
single gauge coupling of SU(5) for ~ >> M. If g(~) is
small for ~ M, we can idealize the transition region
~ M by writing g, (M) = g2 (M) = g3(M) = g(M), ignoring
corrections of order g2(M)/4~. It is then a simple
excercise in renorma~izatioD group techniques to calcu-
late gi(~) for ~ < M, and so find the consequences of
the unlfication for experiments at ordinary momenta.
The coupling constant g3(~) can in principle be measured
directly by observing 16garithmic violations of scaling
in electroproduction and deep inelastic neutrino scatter-
ing. The couplings gl(~) and g~(~), when appropriately
continued into the ti~elike reglon are related to e and
the Weinberg angle. Up to electromagnetic corrections
associated with this continuation, the renormalization
group arguments give
In M ~ 47F
2 F1
ii ~ 2 3 z J
e g~ (u.)
i0 ez
sin % - l+
g3Z (~)
where ~ is some typical ordinary mass, say i0 Gev. , If
g3 is known, M and s i n 2 ~ a r e determined by the unifica-
tlon. For reasonable values of g3, the predictions are
summarized in the following table:
2
g3 (i0 GeV)/47[ M (GeV) sin 8 w
.5 ~ X 1017 .175
.z z X 1016 .187
.I 5 X 1014 .z07
.05 z X i0 II .Z4~
58O

These values of sin28 are not unreasonable, but it is

probably too soon to pick a best value from the neutrino
scattering data. The really amusing thing about this
table is that we are led to contemplate such enormous
values of M. The reason, of course, is that the differ-
ence in strength between the strong and electromagnetic
interactions depends only logarithmicly on M.
Since M is so large, our neglect of terms of the
order of ~/M is almost always justified. There is
only one place where such effects might be observable.
That is in the proton lifetime. The superheavy vector
bosons in the SU(5) theory couple to currents which are
sums of quark-quark and antiquark-lepton pieces (this
happens because quarks, leptons and antiquarks all
appear in the same irreducible representation). These
couplings conserve color triality but not baryon number,
so the vector bosons can mediate proton decay into
lepton plus pions. I can't calculate the proton life-
time because it involves the details of the strong
interactions at low momentum A bu~ on dimensional grounds,
it must be of the order of M1/m . For a typical value
of M, 5 X 1015 GeV, this is 6 xPI031 years. The present
experimental lower limit is 1030 years.
I think that the prediction of nonconservation of
baryon number with this characteristic strength is one of
the most interesting feature o~ the SU(5) model, because
it is suggestive of some connection with the gravita-
tional interaction. We might expect nonconservation of
baryon number in the presence of gravity because baryons
can fall into black holes and effectively disappear.
Furthermore the Planck mass, G -I/2 ~ 1019 GeV, is not
so far from the M we expect in a unified theory. So
it seems an attractive if somewhat wild speculation that
the spontaneous breakdown of the simple group in a
unified gauge theory has something to do with the gravi-
tational interaction.
Before returning to more mundane matters, I want
to make one more comment about proton decay, this time
in connection with the Pati-Salam model. In
the Pati-Salam model, lepton number is treated as a
fourth color. The gauge group is SU(4) X SU(2) X SU(2).
It is sometimes said that the Pati-Salam model is a
unified model of weak, electromagnetic and strong inter-
actions and that it predicts proton decay. I disagree
 581

w i t h this s t a t e m e n t on b o t h counts. The model d i f f e r s

from the SU(5) model in that the gauge group is only
s e m i - s i m p l e and involves at least two i n d e p e n d e n t
gauge c o u p l i n g constants. A l s o w h i l e there are in the
P a t i - S a l a m model, v e c t o r b o s o n s w h i c h c a r r y n o n - z e r o
b a r y o n number, they need not m e d i a t e p r o t o n decay.
Baryon number n o n c o n s e r v a t i o n is a s s o c ~ t e d not w i t h
the gauge group itself, b u t rather w i t h the choice of
the s y m m e t r y b r e a k i n g mechanism, and in p a r t i c u l a r the
imposition of integral c h a r g e s on the q u a r k fields. If
the P a t i - S a l a m q u a r k s are a l l o w e d to have fractional
charges, b a r y o n number can be conserved. In SU(5), on
the other hand, b a r y o n number is d e a d from the start,
just b e c a u s e of the s t r u c t u r e of the gauge c o u p l i n g s
to fermions. I m e n t i o n all this b e c a u s e I think that
the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n SU(5) and the P a t i - S a l a m model
have often b e e n m i s u n d e r s t o o d . There is a c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n the two, b u t it is rather obscure and I w i l l
come b a c k to it in a minute.
I think that the general idea of u n i f i e d m o d e l s
is too p r e t t y to be e n t i r e l y wrong, b u t I w i l l be the
first to admit that the SU(5) model does not e x p l a i n as
much as we w o u l d like. For instance, it does not s e e m
p o s s i b l e to u n d e r s t a n d CP v i o l a t i o n or the a p p r o x i m a t e
isospin s y m m e t r y of the strong interactions. To me,
that simply means that we m u s t b u i l d b i g g e r and b e t t e r
models. I w i l l give you an e x a m p l e that is, at least,
bigger.
Suppose that we start w i t h the w e a k and e l e c t r o -
m a g n e t i c gauge group SU(2) X SU(2) X U(1), w h e r e the
a d d i t i o n a l SU(2) is a sort of chirai p a r t n e r to
W e i n b e r g ' s SU(Z) acting on the r i g h t - h a n d e d q u a r k and
lepton fields. So the right handed q~lark fields are
d o u b l e t s under this SU(2) and the r i g h t - h a n d e d e and
fields are also in d o u b l e t s together w i t h two u n o b s e r v e d
heavy neutral lepton fields. The intermediate v e c t o r
b o s o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h this new SU(2) are p r e s u m a b l y
somewhat heavier than W e i n b e r g ' s W. There may a l s o be
some neutral heavy lepton fields w h i c h are s i n g l e t s
under everything, b u t since they don't e f f e c t the u n i f i -
cation, I w i l l ignore them. This gauge group has
several a t t r a c t i v e features: p and n q u a r k s are treated
symmetrically, as in a ~ model s so it may be p o s s i b l e to
u n d e r s t a n d the a p p r o x i m a t e strong i n t e r a c t i o n symmetries;
If CP is v i o l a t e d in the q u a r k mass matrix, CP v i o l a t i o n
582

will be seen in processes involving one light W and one

heavy W, so the effecLs are of about the right order of
magnitude; Parity violation may be spontaneous rather
than intrinsic to the gauge group.
If the strong interaction group is color SU(2) as
usual, the SU(2) X SU(2) X U(1) X SU(3) model is anomaly
free, so it is a good candidate for unification. Again
the fermion representation is complex, but this time
the subgroup has rank 5. The fermion fields are the
thirty fields of the SU(5) model plus two neutral heavy
lepton fields. It is easy to show that the unique ano-
maly free simple extension is to the gauge group 0(i0)
w i t h the fermions in a pair of 16 dimensional complex
spin representations.
There are two ways of looking at this unified theory
theory. O(i0) has an SU(5) subgroup, under which the 16
transforms like__10 + [ + i. So what we have done is to
put the i0 and 5 of the SU(5) theory together with an
SU(5) singlet neutral heavy lepton field in a single
irreducible 16 dimensional representation of O(i0).
O(10) also has an 0(6) X 0(4) subgroup which is locally
isomorphic to SU(4) X SU(2) X SU(2) which is the gauge
group of the Pati-Salam model. Indeed, the O(i0) model
is the anomaly free simple extension of the Pati-Salam
model. This is the obscure connection I referred to
earlier between SU(5) and Pati-Salam. The two models
have a common ancestor in that they both contain SU(2)
X U(1) X SU(3) and a common offspring in that they are
both contained in O(i0).
Work on O(i0) is still in progress. And some of
us in Cambridge are prepared to investigate even bigger
groups in search of the obviously correct theory we all
dream about. I hope I have convinced you that we are
not completely crazy.

References

H. Georgi and S. I. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Letters 32.

438 (1974).
H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.
Letters 33, 451 (1974).
J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. Letters 31, 661
(1973) .