Register

Adv. Query

Q&A (4871)

Reviews (203)

Open problems (47)
Meta (439)

Site Statistics

206 submissions , 164 unreviewed
5,103 questions , 2,249 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,798 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

Why is a superposition of vacuum states possible in QCD, but not in electroweak theory?

1961 views

There are two standard stories floating around in modern particle physics:

Spontaneous symmetry breaking can only happen in a QFT, like in the electroweak theory, because no tunneling between the degenerate vacuum states of the scalar field are possible. Otherwise we the ground state would be a superposition of the degenerate ground states. The reason for the non-tunneling is that we assume that the spatial volume is infinite an thus the tunneling amplitude is zero.
When we investigate the vacuum of QCD, we observe that there are infinitely many degenerate vacua. However here the correct vacuum state is a superposition of all these possible degenerate vacua.

How does 2.) fit together with 1.)? Why is tunneling suddenly allowed in QCD while otherwise it is stated strongly that there is no tunneling between degenerate ground states in a QFT?

(My guess would be that the tunneling in QCD is localized (= hence the name instantons) and thus the tunneling amplitude is non-zero. However, I can't see why the same argument wouldn't hold in the electroweak theory. Shouldn't it be equally possible that there is localized tunneling? Is the reason that we haven't found any electroweak instanton solutions that could describe such tunneling?)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user JakobH

asked Mar 28, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by JakobH (110 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 10, 2017 by Dilaton

Aren't these vacua related by unitary generators of $SU(3)$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user Solenodon Paradoxus

commented Mar 28, 2017 by Solenodon Paradoxus (85 points) [ no revision ]

You can look at this book, in particular around equation (27.4.1) : books.google.es/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user user40085

commented Mar 28, 2017 by user40085 (5 points) [ no revision ]

Which type of "many different vacua" are you talking about in the second point? The ones associated to spontaneous chiral breaking, the ones associated to instantons, something different? You should find that the vacua you're superposing, regardless of the QCD vacuum model, are not the same "type" of vacua as in your first point, i.e. are not associated to SSB.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind

commented Mar 28, 2017 by ACuriousMind (910 points) [ no revision ]

@ACuriousMind I'm talking about the vacua that are connected by instanton (which is also wrote in the OP). Yes it is a different kind of vacuum, but the question still remains unanswered

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user JakobH

commented Mar 28, 2017 by JakobH (110 points) [ no revision ]

@user40085 I actually have Volume 2 of Leader Predazzi on my desk :D however as far as I see, they only talk about the standard QCD vacuum picture and do not draw conclusions to the scalar vacuum of the electroweak theory

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-04-10 21:55 (UTC), posted by SE-user JakobH

commented Mar 28, 2017 by JakobH (110 points) [ no revision ]

Your comment on this question:

To answer, leave an answer instead. Comments are usually for non-answers.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
To alert a user, please use the "@" command and remove spaces from the username, example, the user "John Doe" should be pinged as "@JohnDoe", while the user "Johndoe" should be pinged as "@Johndoe". The post author is always automatically pinged (unless you are the post author).
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if a comment is added after mine:

Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Anti-spam verification:

[captcha placeholder]

Please complete the anti-spam verification

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on:

Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Anti-spam verification:

If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).

Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights

...