2
$\begingroup$

Let's say we have a scalar theory with an $O(N)$ symmetry, for which the scalar fields $\phi_{nm}$ transform as a rank $2$ tensor. I can write down an action which spontaneously breaks the symmetry

$$S=-\int d^dx\Big(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi_{nm}\partial^{\mu}\phi^{mn}+\lambda(\phi_{nm}\phi^{mn}-v^2)^2\Big)$$

At tree level, $\phi_{nm}$ acquires a VEV: $$\langle\phi_{nm}\rangle=vM_{nm}$$

Where $M_{nm}$ is any $N\times N$ matrix such that $M_{nm}M^{mn}=1$. Depending on the form of $M_{nm}$, different symmetries are preserved. For instance, if $M_{nm}=\delta_{nm}/\sqrt{N}$, then the full $O(N)$ symmetry is preserved. However it is completely conceivable for $M_{nm}$ to be some matrix which is only invariant under some subgroup of $O(N)$, say $O(K)$ for $K<N$.

What I am wondering is, will this theory inevitably have to pick out one subgroup which is left preserved (perhaps via some other VEV)? Or does this theory have a very complicated moduli space which has regions which have different symmetry breaking patterns?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Are the scalars real? Symmetric? Antisymmetric? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ They are real. I kept it general by not assuming (anti)-symmetry, but you may if you wish. $\endgroup$
    – fewfew4
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 19:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You must first prove/demonstrate that real/arbitrary split into a φ=S+A combination, and then, in the kinetic term, S and A decouple (why?) etc. But then, e.g. the pure S piece is orthogonally diagonalized to a vector model... You have mastered the generic Ling-Fong Li case, no? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ I was not familiar with this paper, thank you for the reference! $\endgroup$
    – fewfew4
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos The author avoids the case at hand here. In their notation, my case is $\lambda_2=0$. Without $\lambda_2$ the potential for the symmetric case is minimum for any VEV of the form in my question. $\endgroup$
    – fewfew4
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 21:03

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let me be more explicit with my suggestion, an extensive comment. Your O(N) representation is reducible, $$\phi= S+A+sI, $$ where S is the symmetric traceless piece, A the antisymmetric piece, and s the singlet, proportional to the trace of $\phi$, which poisons the symmetry breaking in your potential, as you observed already,
$$ \lambda \left (\operatorname{Tr} S^2- \operatorname{Tr} A^2 +Ns^2 -v^2 \right )^2, $$ with $\langle s\rangle= v /\sqrt{N}$.

Check how the traces decouple the irreps in the reduction. All three summands may contribute a piece of v.e.v.

You've already seen this with N=3, breaking up into a quintet, triplet, and singlet. Triplet! So, to explore its v.e.v., take S=0 and s=0, and unfold A, $$ A_{mn}= \epsilon_{mnk} \varphi ^k, $$ hence the O(3) vector linear σ-model, $$ \lambda \left ( 2\varphi^m \varphi^m -v^2 \right )^2. $$ Take $\langle \varphi ^3\rangle= v/\sqrt{2}$ as usual, which breaks O(3) down to O(2).

In the generic matrix language, $$ \langle \phi_{mn} \rangle= \langle A_{mn} \rangle=\epsilon_{mn3} v/\sqrt{2}, $$ retains 1-2 interchange (anti)symmetry.

Likewise, if we took s=0 and A=0, check that the same O(2) subgroup of the O(3) leaves the minimal vev $$\langle S \rangle = \frac{v}{\sqrt{6}} \begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\0& 0& -2 \end{bmatrix} $$ invariant. Note N=3 allows for a common result for the interstitial $\lambda_2=0$ of Ling-Fong Li 1974!!

So this O(2) is always unbroken, but vanishing v.e.v. s for the nontrivial irreps restore the other 2 symmetries. In your case, you should be able to plot the three rep components' v.e.v.s through barycentric coordinates in an equilateral triangle.

Such metastable potentials, "trough potentials" in field space, occur in supergravity theories and rely on minute extraneous for radiative correction terms to trigger a vacuum choice.

It is then not unreasonable to study the structure of all 3 representations scalar-coupled in the potential for generic N.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer is very helpful, however I guess my question was more about what conceptually happens when no subgroup is preferred, even though symmetry breaking occurs. In the case I gave, this is what happens. $\endgroup$
    – fewfew4
    Commented Oct 12, 2020 at 18:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, you should have made that very clear. Such metastable potentials, cf the celebrated "trough potentials" in supersymmetric theories, well worth learning about, do not choose the vacuum. This choice is dictated by extraneous factors, radiative corrections, etc... supplanting the role of $\lambda_2$ you noticed the absence of. Axion physics hinges on them. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 12, 2020 at 19:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.