SciPost Submission Page
Testing the mechanism of lepton compositness
by Vincenzo Afferrante, Axel Maas, René Sondenheimer, Pascal Törek
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Vincenzo Afferrante · Axel Maas |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02301v3 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2021-01-12 11:36 |
| Submitted by: | Afferrante, Vincenzo |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
Strict gauge invariance requires that physical left-handed leptons are actually bound states of the elementary left-handed lepton doublet and the Higgs field within the standard model. That they nonetheless behave almost like pure elementary particles is explained by the Fr\"ohlich-Morchio-Strocchi mechanism. Using lattice gauge theory, we test and confirm this mechanism for fermions. Though, due to the current inaccessibility of non-Abelian gauged Weyl fermions on the lattice, a model which contains vectorial leptons but which obeys all other relevant symmetries has been simulated.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-1-26 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2011.02301v3, delivered 2021-01-26, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.2467
Report
The authors revised the manuscript improving most of the points I suggested. However, there still remain two to be addressed.
>8.) At the end of 2nd paragraph of page 7, "Note that the theory is symmetric under a change of sign of the Yukawa couplings.." But the sign relative to the Wilson term on a lattice should change the physics.
authors> We agree that the hopping parameter has to be positive for a well-defined theory. However, our comment should only reflect that y→−y and X→−X leaves the Lagrangian in lattice (and continuum) notation unchanged.
If so, the authors should clarify X→−X transformation in addition to y→−y.
>10.) *Eq (24) and the analysis follows. The author should use the (numerical) solution of cosh(m(t-T/2))/cosh(m(t+1-T/2)) = lattice data, rather than simply taking log.*
authors>We actually did use the full lattice data without approximation in the fits as the referee suggests. We merely used the log prescription only for the plots to emphasize the onset of finite volume effects.
I know it. But the readers would be interested in the effective mass itself, rather than trivial finite volume effect on the "correlators". The (numerical) solution of cosh(m(t-T/2))/cosh(m(t+1-T/2)) should be used.
Author: Vincenzo Afferrante on 2021-02-10 [id 1220]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2021-01-26)Dear editor and referee,
we are grateful for the report, and followed its suggestions:
@1: We have added a comment on the necessary transformation for the symmetry under sign-reversal of kappa in section IV.C.
@2: We added plots using this alternate definition of the effective mass in figure 1, 2, 4, and 5, and added its definition in section V, as long as a couple of additional comments in the first half of section VI.B, as this way of plotting highlights different aspects.