The Standard Model Lagrangian

Abstract
The Lagrangian for the Standard Model is written out in full, here.

The primary novelty of the approach adopted here is the deeper analysis of the fermionic space. Analogous
to the situation in the 19th century in which Maxwell inserted the “displacement current” term in the field
law for electromagnetism in order to retain a charge conservation law and bring out the symmetric
structure of the equations, the right neutrinos play the corresponding role in the present situation. Here,
the symmetric structure that emerges is that, with the inclusion of the extra terms, the fermion space factors
significantly. By employing this symmetric structure, the Lagrangian may be written in a substantially more
transparent fashion. Two bases for fermion space will be developed here: the “hypercolor basis” and the
“Casimir basis”. The Standard Model, itself, is included as a special case within an enveloping
generalization of Yang-Mills-Higgs theories that provides room for future extensions. In particular, the
Yukawa sector is developed from first principles.

1. Yang-Mills-Higgs Lagrangians
The Standard Model is an instance of a Yang-Mills-Higgs system which may also be extended below to
include both curvilinear systems and, going further, the gravitational interaction. Fundamentally, it is a
theory of spin ½ fermionic matter under the influence of a Yang-Mills field which is mediated by spin 1
gauge bosons. The full symmetry of the interaction is broken at the state space level, with the vacuum
retaining only a residual symmetry. The broken symmetries lead to extra scalar modes out of which arise
the Higgs field, which is minimally coupled to the gauge field, as well. The interaction of the Higgs and
fermion fields can be determined primarily by the requirement that it be trilinear in the fields. As shown
below, this is nearly sufficient to prove that the coupling must be of the Yukawa type. Both this derivation
and the reduction of the fields to mass eigenmodes will be carried out in detail below.

With respect to the notation to be developed below, the Lagrangian for a Yang-Mills-Higgs theory may be
written as
2
1 µρ νσ  v2 
( ( ( ) ))
L = ε ψ , iγ µ ∂ µ + A µ − G (φ) ψ −
4
(( ) )
g g k (F µν , F ρσ ) + g µν χ ∂ µ + A µ φ, (∂ ν + A ν )φ − λ χ (φ, φ) −  .
2 

An interesting possibility, not further developed here, arises of pulling the Lagrangian back to a square
root, by making use of a fermion “potential” to generate the field ψ . This development has been discussed
in another writeup, but is not fully developed here. It requires an interaction that is parity-symmetric, which
ties in closely with the issue raised below in the section on the Casimir basis. Though the Standard Model,
itself, is not parity symmetric, it admits a possible extension to an interaction that is, where parity is a
broken symmetry. This is an issue that falls squarely in line with the See-Saw model of neutrino physics.

1.1. Yang-Mills Sector

The gauge field A µ associated with a symmetry group G may be written in terms of a basis
(Ya : a = 0, K , dim G − 1)
of the corresponding Lie algebra L = Lie(G ) as
dimG −1
Aµ = ∑A
a=0
a
µ Ya .

In a U (1) field, such as the Maxwell field, in a Minkowski frame, the kinetic momentum Pµ of a test
charge, its canonical momentum p µ and the potential Aµ assume the respective forms
 dr dt 
Pµ = m − , , p µ = (− p, H ), A µ = ( A , − φ) ,
 ds ds 
and are related by
dr dt
p=m + eA, H = m + eφ ,
ds ds
where s is the proper time of the test charge. These relations generalize in arbitrary coordinate frames to
p µ = Pµ − eAµ .
Through the Equivalence Principle, they are generalized further to local coordinate frames for curved
spacetimes. For a Yang-Mills field with a Lie group G and corresponding Lie algebra L , a similar relation
holds, with the scalar charge e replaced by a charge co-vector θ a and the simple product replaced by an
inner product in the vector space of the Lie algebra L ,
dimG −1
p µ = Pµ − ∑θ
a =0
a Aµa .

The charge is, thus, replaced by a multi-dimensional variant that possesses a magnitude and what may be
termed a complexion.

Under quantization, the canonical and kinetic momentum are replaced respectively by the ordinary
derivstive ∂ µ and covariant derivative D µ ≡ ∂ µ + A µ through the correspondences,
p µ ↔ ih∂ µ , Pµ ↔ ihD µ
This leads to the following representation for the charge
θ a = ihYa .
The charge operators are Hermitean and gauge generators anti-Hermitean,
+ +
Ya = −Ya , θ a = θ a .
It is common practice to normalize the charge generator by explicitly bringing out whatever coupling
constants are involved, so that one may then write
Ya = −igθ a ,
instead. For a simple gauge group, there will only be one coupling, whereas for a semi-simple gauge group
there will be a different coupling for each factor. By convention, units are generally chosen such that h = 1 ,
though we may equally well regard the extra h as having been absorbed in the definition of the coupling,
g.

Classically, a Yang-Mills charge is governed by Wong’s equations, which includes not only a version of
the Lorentz force law generalized to incorporate the Lie-valued charge, but a second law that governs the
precession of this charge, when the gauge group is non-Abelian
dθ a dx ν
= − f abc Aνb θ c .
ds ds
Though the charge, itself, need not be conserved, an important property of Wong’s equation is that the
magnitude of the charge
2
θ = k ab θ a θ b .
is conserved. Exploiting the analogy with Maxwell’s consideration in the 19th century of charge
conservation, we should expect to find quadratic invariants in the Standard Model for the fermion
spectrum, as well. It turns out that the Standard Model, itself, does not possess any such invariants.
However, if we add in the right neutrino sector, two invariants will arise. In turn, a striking regularity in the
fermion spectrum will suddenly emerge. Thus, we will find an analogy with the 19th century, with right
neutrinos playing the role of the displacement current. This issue will come up when we deal with the
Casimir basis.

The gauge field for the Standard Model is that for the Lie group S (U (2) × U (3)) . By convention, it is
written as
3 8
A µ ≡ −ig ′B µ Y − ig ∑ W µi I i − ig s ∑ G µa Λ a .
i =1 a =1

The charge generators are those of the covering group U (1) Y × SU (2) I × SU (3) Λ with the respective charge
operators of the corresponding Lie algebras
u (1) Y su (2) I su (3) Λ
 Y
I1 , I 2 , I 3 Λ1 , Λ 2 , Λ 3 , Λ 4 , Λ 5 , Λ 6 , Λ 7 , Λ 8
The commutators for the su (2) I and su (3) Λ subalgebras are, respectively,
3 8
[I i , I j ] = ∑
, =1
kl
iε ijk δ kl I l , [ Λ a , Λ b ] = ∑
, =1
cd
if abc δ cd Λ d .

[ ]
The corresponding trilinear forms I i , I j , I k ≡ ε ijk and [Λ a , Λ b , Λ c ] ≡ f abc are completely anti-symmetric,
with
3
[I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ] = [Λ 1 , Λ 2 , Λ 3 ] = 1, [Λ 4 , Λ 5 , Λ 8 ] = [Λ 6 , Λ 7 , Λ 8 ] = ,
2
[Λ 1 , Λ 4 , Λ 7 ] = [Λ 1 , Λ 6 , Λ 5 ] = [Λ 2 , Λ 4 , Λ 6 ] = [Λ 2 , Λ 5 , Λ 7 ] = [Λ 3 , Λ 4 , Λ 5 ] = [Λ 3 , Λ 7 , Λ 6 ] = 1 .
2

The field strengths are defined by

3 8
[ ]
F µν ≡ ∂ µ A ν − ∂ ν A µ + A µ , A ν = −ig ′B µν Y − ig ∑ W µνi I i − ig s ∑ G µν
a
Λa ,
i =1 a =1
with the components given explicitly by
B µν ≡ ∂ µ B ν − ∂ ν B µ ,
3
W µνk ≡ ∂ µ Wνk − ∂ ν W µk + ig ∑ δ kl ε lij W µi Wν j ,
k , l =1
8
c
G µν ≡ ∂ µ G νc − ∂ ν G µc + ig s ∑
, =1
cd
δ cd
f dab G µa G νb .

The gauge group metric1 is given in terms of the Lie algebra by

 3 8 3 8
 b′*b 3 δ 8
δ
k  b ′Y + ∑ w ′ i I i + ∑ g ′ a Λ a , bY + ∑ w i I i + ∑ g a Λ a  = 2 + ∑ 2 w ′ i w j + ∑ ab2 g ′ a g b .
ij * *

 i =1 a =1 i =1 a =1  g′ i , j =1 g a .b =1 g s

The field Lagrangian is given in terms of this metric by

1
L 2 ≡ − g µρ g νσ k F µν , F ρσ .
4
( )
An adjoint invariant metric is one satisfying the property
(
k UuU + , UvU + = k (u, v ) , )
which implies,
k ([u, v ], w ) + k ( v, [u, w ]) = 0 .
The most general non-degenerate adjoint invariant metric for S (U (2) × U (3)) must take on the form just
given, provided that the U (1) mode is orthogonalized with respect to the other fields. This is accomplished
by a transformation of the form
I i → I i + wi Y , Λ a → Λ a + g a Y ,
which will not affect the underlying Lie algebra. The coupling coefficients are directly related to the gauge
group metric, yielding its independent components.

Explicitly, the Lagrangian takes the form

1
4
(
L B = − g µρ g νσ B µν B ρσ + δ ij W µνi W ρσj + δ cd G µν
c d
G ρσ . )
In the classical field theory, the gauge group metric is assumed to be constant, though the assumption is not
a necessary ingredient of classical gauge theory. In the quantized theory, the requirements of
renormalization force one to endow it with a “scale dependency”. In general, “scale dependency” refers to
the resolution at which the point-like sources represented by interacting quantum fields are probed in

1
The metric, here, is defined over the complexified Lie algebra, and is anti-linear in the first argument.
scattering experiments. In effect, the metric becomes dependent on the distance from a point-like source,
making it (in fact) a function of position that tends toward a constant asymptotically.

In virtue of the close relation of the couplings to the gauge metric, this translates into “vertex”
renormalization or (equivalently) associated with the scaling of the gauge fields.

In a more general setting, one may assume that the Lagrangian for a gauge field Aµa . In 3+1 dimensional
( )
terms, with r = x 1 , x 2 , x 3 and x 4 = t , the potentials and fields generalize those seen in electromagnetic
theory with the inclusion of the extra Lie index:
( ) ( )
A a = A1a , A2a , A3a , φ a = − A4a , E a = F14a , F24a , F34a , B a = F23a , F31a , F12a . ( )
The dual fields and sources
( ) ( ) (
D a = Ga41 , Ga42 , Ga43 , H a = Ga23 , Ga31 , Ga12 , J a = J a1 , J a2 , J a3 , ρ a = J a4 )
are related through the derivatives of the underlying Lagrangian density L by,
∂L ∂L
Gcµν = − c
, J aµ =
∂F µν ∂Aµa
which in 3+1 form yields the constitutive relations
∂L ∂L ∂L ∂L
Da = a
, Ha = − a
, Ja = , ρa = − .
∂E ∂B ∂A a ∂φ a

The requirement that the stress tensor

( )
T ji = D ai E aj + H aj B ai − δ ij L + H ak B ak , T4i = ε ijk E aj H ak = E a × H a , ( )
i

(
T j4 = ε ijk D ai B ak = B a × D a j ,) T44 = D ak E ka − L
be symmetric when reduced to T µν = g µρ Tνρ by the metric
g ij = δ ij , g i 4 = 0 = g 4 j , g 44 = −c 2
is given in vector form by
D a × E a + B a × H a = 0, E a × H a = c 2 D a × B a .
A more general (but not the most general) quasi-linear relation that follows from this is of the form
D a = ε ab E b + λab B b , H a = ε ba c 2 B b − λba E b , ε ab = ε ba , λab = λba ,
with the terms involving λ ab representing a remnant of electric-magnetic duality symmetry. The
Lagrangian integrates to a total differential
( ) ( )
δL = D a ⋅ δE a − H a ⋅ δB a = ε ab E b + λ ab B b ⋅ δE a + λab E b − c 2 ε ab B b ⋅ δB a = ε ab δI ab + λab δJ ab ,
of the field invariants
Ea ⋅Eb − c 2Ba ⋅Bb E a ⋅ Bb + B a ⋅ Eb
I ab = , J ab =
2 2
ab ab
thus showing that L = L ( I , J ) . The Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian in the effective field theory for
QED, for instance. The extra term involving λ ab is seen, also, in QCD and is directly related to the θ term
θ
ε µνρσ δ ab F µνa F ρσb ,
(8π )2
summed over all QCD modes a, b = 1, K ,8 . Here,
θ
λ ab = δ ab .
(8π )2
We could therefore add terms of this form to the overall Lagrangian.

The appearance of the extra terms involving J and λ is specific to 4 dimensions and cannot occur in
higher dimensional gauge theory. However, a more general notion of gauge fields based on n forms exists,
and a similar type of duality will occur for such fields in 2(n + 1) dimensions. The n form gauge field is
the form of the gauge field that couples to n -brane sources. For, for instance, for 10 dimensions, n = 4 and
the sources would be 4-branes.

Further invariants exist at higher order. The cubic invariants are

1
( )
K abc = E a × E b ⋅ E c − c 2 E a × B b ⋅ B c − c 2 B a × E b ⋅ B c − c 2 B a × B b ⋅ E c ,
6
1
( )
Labc = E a × E b ⋅ B c + E a × B b ⋅ E c + B a × E b ⋅ E c − c 2 B a × B b ⋅ B c .
6
This leads to the following additional contributions
1
( )
D a = (K) + ε abc E b × E c − c 2 B b × B c + λabc E b × B c ,
2
1
( )
H a = (K) + c 2 ε abc B b × E c + λabc c 2 B b × B c − E b × E c .
2
If one requires the Lagrangian be Lorentz-covariant with respect to the local Lorentz frame, then it will be a
( )
function L = L I ab , J ab , K abc , Labc of these invariants.

Further reductions result if one also requires the field Lagrangian to be gauge invariant. For instance, for an
SU (2) gauge field, the 14 Lorentz invariants will reduce to the following 9 gauge-invariant combinations:
( )
Tr I 2 , Tr (IJ ), Tr J 2 ,( )
Tr (I ), Tr ( J ), det K ,
det I , det J , det L.

1.2. Fermion Sector

The fermions are found in the following sectors
(1,1)1 (1,3)2 3 (1,3 )
13 (1,1)0
(2,1)1 2 (2,3)1 6 (2,3 )−1 6 (2,1)−1 2 ,
(1,1)0 (1,3)−1 3 (1,3 )−2 3 (1,1)−1
corresponding to
Left Positrons Right Up Quarks Left Anti-Down Quarks (Right Neutrinos)
Right Anti-Leptons Left Quarks Right Anti Quarks Left Leptons
(Left Anti-Neutrinos) Right Down Quarks Left Anti-Up Quarks Right Electrons
Lepton refers collectively to electrons and neutrinos; anti-lepton to positrons and anti-neutrinos.

In the notation we use, here, the sector (2,3 )1 6 belongs to the 2 representation of SU (2) I , the 3
representation of SU (3) Λ and has Y = 1 6 .

The two (1,1)0 sectors are neutral and therefore do not participate in interactions, unless they have non-
zero mass. There are not included in the Standard Model, but they will be retained here for the sake of
simplicity. These correspond to the right-handed neutrino and left-handed anti-neutrinos. The question
whether and how these sectors exist is wide open, particularly with the discovery of neutrino oscillation
indicating the existence of non-zero neutrino masses. Also, because the additional sectors have zero charge,
it turns out that there are more ways to endow them with mass than equating neutrinos with Dirac fields.
This includes the possibility of Majorana fields or a combination of Majorana and Dirac fields.

There is also a 3-fold degeneracy of the charge spectrum, corresponding to what is called “generation”. So
the spectrum extends to equivalents involving two other varieties of neutrinos and with the following
replacements { Electron, Up, Down } ↔ { Mu, Charm, Strange } ↔ { Tau, Top, Bottom }. The
generations may be identified by their “charge eigenstates”, which are defined as the normal modes of
interaction with the gauge field. They may also be defined by their “mass eigenstates”, defined as the
normal modes of interaction with the Higgs field. The gauge field, itself, also has a similar dichotomy of
representation. The names just mentioned refer to the mass eigenstates. The description immediately to
follow, however, refers to the charge eigenstates.

Since the gauge field associated with SU (2) I is non-abelian, and includes part of what we call
electromagnetism, then the corresponding field equations are non-linear and inhomogeneous, containing on
the right-hand sides of the equations governing both electric and magnetic sources constructed entirely
from the fields. Magnetic monopole solutions can thus be derived.

In order for the classical theory to be consistently quantized, it must be free from anomalies. The one
anomaly that occurs is directly associated with the left-right asymmetry of the SU (2) I sector. If the extra
neutrino sectors are neutral, the requirement that the anomaly be absent uniquely specifies the U (1) Y
charge up to the choice of unit. If the extra neutrino sectors are included, then the anomaly removal
condition allows for up to 2 separate U (1) sectors (or combinations thereof), the second being associated
with baryon number.

The spectrum is split between the Dirac spinor ψ and its conjugate ψ respectively into the “matter” and
“anti-matter” sectors
− (1,3)2 3 − (1,1)0 (1,1)1 − 1,3 1 3 − ( )
ψ↔− (2,3)1 6 − (2,1)−1 2 , ψ ↔ (2,1)1 2 − (2,3 ) −1 6 −.
− (1,3)−1 3 − (1,1)−1 (1,1)0 − (1,3 ) −2 3 −

The symmetries of the Standard Model also include SO(3,1) → SU (2) L × SU (2) R , which pertains to the
changes in the local spacetime frame, and is expressed in the decomposition respectively, for left and right
handed states. The fermions occupy the Lorentz sector (2,1) ⊕ (1,2) . Extending the notation to explicitly
incorporate these sectors, the fermion spectrum may be written as
( )
(1,1)1 (2,1) (1,3)2 3 (1,2) 1,3 1 3 (2,1) (1,1)0 (1,2)
(2,1)1 2 (1,2) (2,3)1 6 (2,1) (2,3 ) (1,2) (2,1) (2,1) .
−1 6 −1 2

(1,1)0 (2,1) (1,3)−1 3 (1,2) (1,3 ) (2,1) (1,1) (1,2)

−2 3 −1

The matter-antimatter splitting is not unique, other splittings are possible; for instance, into left and right
components
(1,1)1 − ( )
1,3 1 3 − − (1,3)2 3 − (1,1)0
ψ↔ − (2,3)1 6 − (2,1)−1 2 , ψ ↔ (2,1)1 2 − (2,3 ) −1 6 − .
(1,1)0 − ( )
1,3 − 2 3 − − (1,3)−1 3 − (1,1)−1
The important element is that the Dirac spinor is being used to embody a metric
ε (ψ 1 , ψ 2 ) ≡ ψ 1ψ 2
that effects the following association between the sectors
(2,1)−1 2 (2,1) ↔ (1,1)0 (2,1) ⊕ (1,1)1 (2,1), (1,3)2 3 (1,2) ⊕ (1,3)−1 3 (1,2) ↔ 2,3 ( ) (1,2),
−1 6

(2,3)1 6 (2,1) ↔ (1,3 )− 2 3 (2,1) ⊕ (1,3 )1 3 (2,1), (1,1)0 (1,2) ⊕ (1,1)−1 (1,2) ↔ (2,1)−1 2 (1,2).
The same comments made about the gauge metric apply here. In classical field theory, the fermion metric is
constant, but renormalization in quantum field theory endows it with a scale dependency that makes the
metric dependent on the distance from point-like sources, making it (in fact) a function of position that
tends toward a constant away from the sources.

This translates into the renormalization factors associated with fermion scaling.

The fermion metric is not gauge invariant

 ε (Uψ 1 , Uψ 2 ) ≠ ε (ψ1 , ψ 2 ) ,
unless the gauge group acts in a parity symmetric way.

1.3. The Hypercolor Basis

We will, here, adopt the “matter + anti-matter” decomposition expressing the associated Hilbert space in
the following product basis
{ + , − }⊗ { l , r }⊗ { u , d }⊗ { w , x , y , z }⊗ { 1 , 2 , 3 }.
Later, we will switch over to the 6-bit representation, which is better suited to factoring out the natural
2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 structure contained within each generation of the fermion spectrum that, in turn, is
strongly suggestive of an underlying basis in SO(10,1) .

The corresponding identity operators will be denoted by

IS ≡ + + + − − , IP ≡ r r + l l , II ≡ u u + d d ,
IC ≡ w w + x x + y y + z z , IG ≡ 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 .
In the following, tensor products will be written as ordinary products, with the identity operators omitted.
Thus, for instance,
r r − l l = I S ⊗ ( r r − l l )⊗ I I ⊗ I C ⊗ I G .

The first two factors { + , − }⊗ { l , r } account for the SO(3,1) decomposition with the respective
assignments
{ + , − }⊗ l ↔ (2,1), { + , − }⊗ r ↔ (1,2) .
With respect to this basis, the Dirac matrices assume the form
γ 0 = l r + r l , γ i = σ i ( l r − r l ) (i = 1,2,3) ,
with the Pauli matrices assuming the form
σ 1 = + − + − + , σ 2 = i ( − + − + − ), σ 3 = + + − − − .
From this, we get
γ 5 ≡ iγ 0 γ 1 γ 2 γ 3 = r r − l l .
This is the Weyl representation and it corresponds to the decomposition of the Dirac spinor into Weyl
spinors as follows, using van der Waerden notation
ψ0 
 
 ψ R   ψ1 
ψ =
εψ
 (
 =  ψ 0&  = (ψ 0 + + ψ 1 − ) r + ψ + + ψ − l ∈ (1,2) ⊕ (2,1) .
0& 1&
)
 L  
 ψ 1& 
 
with indices raised by
 0 1  ψ 0&   ψ 1&   ψ 0 
&

εψ L =    =  = & .

  1
 − 1 0  ψ 1&   − ψ 0&   ψ 
The Dirac adjoint is given in terms of η = l r + r l by

ψ = ψ + η =  ψ 0

( ) ( )
& * &
ψ1
*
(ψ 0 )* (ψ1 )*  =

( &
r ψ 0 + + ψ1 −
&
) + l (ψ
*
0 + + ψ1 − ),
*

which defines the fermion metric

( ) & *
( ) & * * & * & * & * &
ε (ψ ′, ψ ) ≡ ψ ′ψ = ψ ′ 0 ψ 0 + ψ ′1 ψ 0 + (ψ 0′ ) ψ 0 + (ψ 1′ ) ψ 1 = (ψ 0′ ) ψ 0 + (ψ 1′ ) ψ 1 − ψ 0 ψ ′ 0 ( ) − ψ (ψ ′ ) .
& *
1
1&
* 2

2
The classical fermion field is a Grassmann number field, so its products anti-commute.
The third factor { u , d } accounts for the electroweak sector, whose symmetry group is given by U (2) I ,Y ,
with the 2-fold covering group SU (2) I × U (1) Y . For matter states, the basis effects a decomposition into
the following quadruplets
 u {u , d } d   u {u , d } d 
   ;
(1,1)0 (1,2 ) (2,1)−1 2 (2,1) (1,1)−1 (1,2) (1,3 )2 3 (1,2 ) (2,3 )1 6 (2,1) (1,3)−1 3 (1,2)
and for anti-matter states, into the following quadruplets
 d {d , u } u   d {d , u } u 
   .
( ) ( ) ( )
(1,1)1 (2,1) (2,1)1 2 (1,2) (1,1)0 (2,1)  1, 3 1 3 (2,1) 2, 3 −1 6 (1,2 ) 1, 3 − 2 3 (2,1)

With respect to this basis, the SU (2) I generators are

τi
Ii = l l , (i = 1,2,3) ,
2
where
τ 1 = u d + d u , τ 2 = i ( d u − u d ), τ 3 = u u − d d .

The fourth factor { w , x , y , z } accounts for the SU (3) decomposition with the assignments
Λ

w ↔ 1, ( x , y , z ) ↔ 3 .
In this basis, the SU (3) Λ generators become
λa
Λa = , (a = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) ,
2
where
λ1 = x z + z x , λ 2 = i ( z x − x z ), λ3 = x x − z z ,
λ 4 = x y + y x , λ5 = i ( y x − x y ), x x −2 y y + z z
λ8 = .
λ6 = z y + y z , λ7 = i ( y z − z y ), 3
The U (1) Y generator becomes
τ3
Y= r r +G ,
2
where
x x + y y + z z −3 w w
G≡
6
is the baryon number operator (an additional factor of 1 2 is added for future covenience).

Finally, the last factor { 1 , 2 , 3 } accounts for the generational degeneracy.

No theoretical weight is necessarily being given to this particular representation, but it is the most
convenient way to write out the “matter + anti-matter” assignment of the fermion spectrum to the Dirac
spinors. The explicit correspondence for the basis is
 (1,3)2 3 (1,2) ↔ ur{x, y, z} (1,1)0 (1,2 ) ↔ urw 
 
ψ : (2,3)1 6 (2,1) ↔ {u, d}l{x, y, z} (2,1)−1 3 (2,1) ↔ {u, d}lw  ;
 (1,3) (1,2) ↔ dr{x, y, z} (1,1)−1 (1,2) ↔ drw 
 −1 3

and for the dual basis

 (1,1)1 (2,1) ↔ dlw ( )
1,3 1 3 (2,1) ↔ dl{x, y, z} 
 
ψ : (2,1)1 2 (1,2) ↔ {d, u}rw ( )
2,3 −1 6 (1,2) ↔ {d, u}r{x, y, z}  .
 (1,1) (2,1) ↔ ulw 1,3 − 2 3 (2,1) ↔ ul{x, y, z} 
( )
 0
With this background established, the fermion part of the Lagrangian may be simply written as
(
L ψ = ψ iγ µ ∂ µ + A µ ψ ; )
or explicitly in terms of the fermion metric, as
( (
L ψ = ε ψ , iγ µ ∂ µ + A µ ψ . ))
1.4. The Casimir Basis
The appearance of a right analogue to I 3 in the representation of Y and decomposition of fermion
quadruplets, and the appearance of the baryon number in Y strongly suggests a more fundamental role
should be played by these two operators.

The argument used in the standard model to arrive at the hypercharge spectrum involves a condition to
remove a chiral anomaly present in the field theory. As shown by R.A. Bertlmann (1996) {Anomalies in
quantum field theory. Clarendon Press. Oxford.} the gaussian constraint
Ga = ∇ ⋅ D a − ρ a ≈ 0
classically satisfies the Poisson bracket relation
{Ga ( x), Gb ( y)} = f abc Gc ( x)δ ( x, y) ,
but, upon quantization, acquires an extra term corresponding to what is known as the “Triangle Anomaly”
in perturbation theory
[Ga ( x), Gb ( y )] = f c G ( x)δ ( x, y ) + γ 5 Tr ({Y , Y })ε µνρ ∂ A ∂ δ ( x, y) .
ab c a b µ ν ρ
ih 24π 2
Ultimately, the requirement for removal comes down to the condition that
( { })
Tr γ 5 Yk Yi , Y j = 0 .
That is, these cubic combinations of the weights summed over each of the left-hand modes should add up to
the corresponding cubic combinations summed over the right-hand modes.

In the absence of the right neutrino and left anti-neutrino sectors (or equivalently, if one assumes that their
charges are all 0), this constraint uniquely assigns a generation-invariant charge up to an overall scale.
However, everything changes when the extra neutrino sectors are brought in. Then one also finds that the
baryon number is allowed. The most general resolution is a linear combination of the baryon number and
hypercharge or (equivalently) the “right isospin”,
τ
X = I 3R ≡ 3 r r .
2
Indeed, we may separate out the right isospin, and write
(m, n) x + g → m x n g .
The fermion spectrum then takes on a more revealing form as
 (1,1)1 (1,3)2 3 ( )
1,3 1 3 (1,1)0   11 211 2 11 2 3 1 6 11 2 3 −1 6 11 2 1 −1 2 
   
(2,1)1 2 (2,3)1 6 ( )
2,3 −1 6 (2,1)−1 2  →  2 0 11 2 2 0 31 6 2 0 3 −1 6 2 0 1 −1 2  .
 (1,1) (1,3)−1 3 1,3 − 2 3 (1,1)−1  1 −1 2 11 2
( ) 1 −1 2 31 6 1 −1 2 3 −1 6 1 −1 2 1 −1 2 
 0

thereby revealing the factoring

(1
12 ) (
⊕ 2 0 ⊕ 1 −1 2 ⊗ 11 2 ⊕ 31 6 ⊕ 3 −1 6 ⊕ 1 −1 2 . )
Writing down the weights for the U (2) I , X factor
11 2 20 1 −1 2
2
I 0 34 0
I3 0 (1 2 − 1 2) 0
X 12 0 −1 2
we then find the following Casimir invariant and two “spin” operators
 3 a ≡ X + I 3  1
I 2 + 3X 2 = ,  =± .
4 b ≡ X − I 3  2

It will turn out that the 3-fold generational degeneracy will be tied to the generators I 1 , I 2 , so that the full
spectrum will consist of 12 members, rather than just four. This will lead to the Isocolor Lattice, depicted
below:

The weights and invariants of the Isocolor Lattice are consistent with the inclusion of X = I R 3 in a right-
handed analogue SU (2) IR of isospin SU (2) I , with SU (2) I × SU (2) IR ⊃ U (2) I , X and
 11 2 
  → (1,2 ), 2 0 → (2,1) .
1 −1 2 
The apparent absence of I 1R , I 2 R could then be explained, at least in part, by assuming the parity violation
of isospin is a broken symmetry. The key points of unexplained regularity that lead toward this direction
are
(a) the zero mass mode of the electroweak symmetry breaking is also the parity-symmetric mode
(b) the gauge-dependency of the fermion metric, in the absence of overall parity-symmetry,
distinguishing it in contrast to the Higgs and gauge metrics, which are both gauge-invariant.
The most significant regularity that would emerge if parity-symmetry is restored at the level of interactions
is that the fermion sector of the Lagrangian would factor into a form given by
(( ) )((
Lψ = ∂ µ + A µ χ ∂ µ + A µ χ ))
where the field ψ , itself, is treated as the “curvature” associated with a “fermion gauge potential” χ .

The overall decomposition mixes with the local symmetry group SO(3,1) , leading to a twisted
representation respectively for the matter and anti-matter sectors as follows
11 2 (1,2 ) ⊕ 2 0 (2,1) ⊕ 1 −1 2 (1,2), 11 2 (2,1) ⊕ 2 0 (1,2 ) ⊕ 1 −1 2 (2,1) .
Within
(SU (2) I × SU (2) IR )× (SU (2) L × SU (2) R )
the corresponding representations would be
(1,2)(1,2) ⊕ (2,1)(2,1), (1,2)(2,1) ⊕ (2,1)(1,2) .
For U (3) Λ ,G , explicitly writing out the table of weights
 11 2 31 6 3 −1 6 1 −1 2
2
Λ 0 43 43 0
 3  
Λ 0  1 2 0 − 1 2   1 2 0 − 1 2    ,
0
      
 
  

 Λ 8   0   1 12 − 1 3 1 12   − 1 12 1 3 − 1 12   0 
G 12 16 −1 6 −1 2
we find a second Casimir invariant and three more “spin” operators
 Λ8 
c ≡ G − + Λ3 
 3 
2 2 3  2Λ 8  1
Λ + 6G = , d ≡ G + =± .
2  3  2
 Λ8 
e ≡ G − − Λ3 
 3 
This results in a factoring out from fermion space of the Fermion Cube,

The weights and invariants, here, are consistent with the inclusion of G = 2Λ 15 6 in a “hypercolor”
group SU (4) ⊇ U (3) Λ ,G . The U (3) Λ ,G quadruplets 4 = 3 1 2 ⊕ 1 −1 6 and 4 = 11 6 ⊕ 3 −1 2 would correspond
to the fundamental quadruplets within SU (4)

The 32 combinations of the ± 1 2 values of the 5 “spin” operators will produce the charge eigenstates of
each generation. As discussed later, the mass-energy eigenstates of a given isocolor, will be mixtures
formed of the members of each isocolor triplet. The assignment of the units for the operators is given in the
following table
Unit X I3 Λ3 Λ8 G
a 12 12 0 0 0
b 12 −1 2 0 0 0
c 0 0 12 − 1 12 13
d 0 0 0 1 3 13
 e 0 0 −1 2 − 1 12 13
These correspond to the the following multipliets
(a, b) : 2 1 2 in U (2) I , X
(c, d , e) : 31 3 in U (3) Λ ,G .
The triplet c, d , e is an instance of the 3 representation of SU (3) Λ with G = 1 3 and may be identified
respectively with the colors amber, magenta and cyan. The doublet a, b is an instance of the 2
representation of SU (2) I with X = 1 2 . This will turn out to be the characteristic of the Higgs doublet
which, therefore, may be identified as the fundamental charges corresponding to these units.

This leads to the decomposition of fermion space

{ } {
+ a, − a ⊗ + b, − b ⊗ + c, − } { c
}⊗ { + d
, − d
}⊗ { + e
, − e
}⊗ { 1 , 2 , 3 },
in terms of what may be called the Casimir basis. The basis elements ± x
are those corresponding to the
spin operator x = a, b, c, d , e , and the elements {1,2,3} are, as before, those accounting for generation.

Parity is related to the other “spin” operators by the relation

γ 5 = sgn( abcde) ,
and the one “spin” operator that changes with parity is b , which effectively represents the parity operator
of the combination of the local spacetime frame and internal gauge bundle. As a consequence of this, parity
is already encapsulated by the 5 “spin” operators. Therefore, to specify the SO(3,1) subspace, instead of
using the product basis { l , r }⊗ { + , − }, one needs only the latter subbasis { + , − }. Alternatively, one
of the “spin” operators may be eliminated in favor of the parity operator γ 5 .

We may therefore replace the b operator by parity p = sgn( γ 5 ) and write the basis as acdeps with
a, c, d , e, p, s ∈ {+,−} . This suffices to either define the 64 real components of the 32-component fermion
spinor, or otherwise 64 complex components with a conjugacy relation. We adopt the latter approach,
expressing a fermion spinor in the form
ψ ≡ ∑ ψ acdeps acdeps ,
a ,b , c , d , e, s

with the conjugacy operator Kψ and charge conjugacy operator Cψ relating the components. We will
adopt the following conventions
Cψ ≡ ∑ ψ bcdeps a ′c ′d ′e ′p ′s ′ ,
a ,b , c , d , e , s

and
Kψ ≡ ∑ψ
a ,b , c , d , e , s
bcdeps
*
acdeps = ∑ psψ
a ,b , c , d , e, s
bcdeps a ′c ′d ′e ′p ′s ′ ,

where we use the signs of the respective bits as factors, e.g. ps = sgn( ps ) and the prime to denote sign-
(
reversal. That is, ψ acdeps )
*
= psψ ( − a )( − c )( − d )( − e )( − p )( − s ) . The characteristics of the various states are given in
the following table
Matter cde < 0 ,
Anti-Matter cde > 0 ,
Leptonic c=d =e,
Baryonic c = − d , d = −e or e = −c ,
Right p = sgn( abcde) > 0 ,
Leftp = sgn( abcde) < 0 .
The spinor components for each flavor are arranged as
 ψ 
a + cde +  ψ (−a) + (−c )(−d )(−e) − 
   
ψ 
a + cde −T  − ψ (−a) + (−c)(− d )(−e) + 
ψ acde =  , ψ acde =  .
ψ a − cde +
  − ψ (−a) − (−c)(− d )(−e) − 
ψ 
a − cde −  ψ (−a) − (−c)(−d )(−e) + 
   
The effect of the Dirac matrices on the basis is given by the following
γ 5 acdeps = p acdeps , γ 0 acdeps = acdep ′s ,
γ 1 acdeps = p acdep ′s ′ , γ 2 acdeps = ips acdep ′s ′ , γ 3 acdeps = ps acdep ′s .
The effect of parity and time-reversal are given by
(Pψ )(r, t ) acdeps = ψ (−r, t ) acdep ′s , (Tψ )(r , t ) acdeps = ipψ (r,−t ) a ′c ′d ′e ′p ′s .

1.5. Higgs Sector

The Higgs is found in the SU (2) I × SU (3) Λ × U (1) Y sector: (2,1)1 2 . The hypercolor basis elements
{ u , d } may therefore be used for the space, with the corresponding identity operator I P defined as
before, and with the following decomposition
φ = φ+ u + φ0 d ,
as well as
~ = iτ φ * = φ 0 u − φ − d .
φ 2

The action of the gauge group generators on this sector is thus

τ I
Ii = i , Y = P , Λa = 0 .
2 2
The scalar part of the Lagrangian is
2
 v2 
µν
(( ))
L φ = g ∂ µ + A µ φ (∂ ν + A ν )φ − λ φ + φ −  , ( λ > 0) .
+

2 

The field may be decomposed into polar form by writing
−φ 2 − iφ1 φ + iφ3
φ+ ≡ , φ0 ≡ 0 .
2 2
Then
φ=Φ d , φ ~ = Φ u , Φ = φ~ u + φ d = φ 0 u u − φ − d u + φ + u d + φ 0 d d ,
where
φ − i (φ1 τ 1 + φ2 τ 2 + φ3 τ 3 ) H + v    i 
Φ= 0 = ( )
U Φ , U Φ = exp ∑ λ a Ya  = exp − λ 1 τ 1 + λ 2 τ 2 + λ 3 τ 3  .
2 2  a   2 
The effect of the specific representation is to embody the scalar metric
χ (φ1 , φ2 ) ≡ φ1 φ 2 = χ + Φ 1 Φ 2 χ χ ≡ d .
* *

The vector χ is the cyclic vector generating the representation (2,1)1 2 . The Lagrangian may therefore be
written as
2
 v2 
(( ) )
Lφ = g χ ∂ µ + A µ φ, (∂ ν + A ν )φ − λ χ (φ, φ) −  .
µν

2

An important property implicit in this notation is that the metric is gauge invariant,
χ (Uφ1 , Uφ 2 ) = χ (φ1 , φ2 ) .
The comments made in relation to the fermion and gauge metrics apply here. The classical field theoretic
variant of the scalar field metric will be constant, but under renormalization in quantum field theory, it
becomes scale dependent, effectively making the metric a function of the distance from point-like sources
that tends asymptotically toward a constant, away from sources.

This translates into the renormalization factors associated with Higgs scaling.
1.6. Yukawa Sector
In the theoretical literature, this is the least well-developed part of the Standard Model, in terms of writing
it as an instance of a general form. In general, the interaction between the fermions and scalar field is
assumed to be given by a Lagrangian trilinear coupling of the form
L G = −ψG (φ)ψ .
In order to preserve gauge invariance and for the Lagrangian to remain Hermitean, the coupling G (φ) must
satisfy the following conditions
(γ 0 G (φ)) + = γ 0 G (φ), U + γ 0 G (Uφ)U = γ 0 G (φ) ,
under a unitary gauge transformation
A µ → UA µ U + + U∂ µ U + , φ → Uφ, ψ → Uψ , ψ → ψ γ 0U + γ 0 .

Writing the Higgs in polar form, we find that

 H +v  H +v
γ 0 G (φ) = γ 0 G U Φ χ  =
+
U Φψ γ 0 G ( χ )U Φψ .
 2  2
Decomposing with respect to the { r , l } basis
G ( χ ) = G rr r r + G rl r l + G lr l r + G ll l l ,
U Φψ = r r + U Φ l l
we find
H +v H +v
G (φ) =
+
γ 0U Φψ γ 0 G ( χ )U Φψ = ( + +
U Φ G rr r r + U Φ G rl U Φ r l + Glr l r + G ll U Φ l l . )
2 2
By assumption, this is a trilinear coupling, which means the quadratic and quartic terms are not present.
Therefore G rl = 0 = G lr . Furthermore, the Hermiticity condition implies that
+
G ≡ G rr = G ll .
Therefore, we may write
G (φ) = ΦG r r + G + Φ + l l .
Thus, the interaction Lagrangian is a Yukawa term
(
L G = −ψG (φ)ψ = −ψ ΦG r r + G + Φ + l l ψ )
with a coupling whose decomposition with respect to the 3-fold degeneracy is explicitly written as
3
G≡ ∑G
m , n =1
mn
m n,

( )
G mn ≡ w w ⊗ N mn u u + E mn d d + ( x x + y y + z z ) ⊗ U mn u u + D mn d d . ( )
This is the most general decomposition with respect to the remaining bases that has invariance under the
SU (3) Λ sector.

By supposition,
N mn = 0 .
The term has been retained here, along with the right neutrino sector, for the sake of generality. In extended
versions of the Standard Model, a neutrino mass has to be incorporated in some fashion. The simplest
assumption is that the right-handed neutrino is, indeed, there, but simply unobservable because of its
neutrality. It would interact with the Higgs and through gravity, but the Higgs is still unseen and the virtual
masslessness of the neutrino would mean that its gravity would be difficult to see, as well.

1.7. Boson Spectrum

In terms of the Casimir basis, the gauge generators take on a more interesting and revealing form.
The gauge Bosons form the representation 1 0 1 0 ⊕ 3 0 1 0 ⊕ 1 0 8 0 , the different factors corresponding
respectively to the U (1) Y field B , the SU (2) I fields W i and the SU (3) Λ fields G a . The Higgs forms
the representation 2 1 2 1 0 ⊕ 2 −1 2 1 0 .

The spectrum for the B field, W i fields and Higgs is depicted in the following Iso-Boson Lattice,

The generator for U (1) Y mixes the actions of the right isospin and baryon-lepton number and has the
following action
 a+b c+d +e
Y abcde =  +  abcde .
 2 3 
The SU (2) I generators only act on the a, b indices, with the following results
a −b a−b a−b
I 1 abcde = bacde , I 2 abcde = i bacde , I 3 abcde = abcde .
2 2 2
The generators I 1 , I 2 perform exchanges a ↔ b , when the two qubits differ.

In terms of the Casimir basis, the Higgs coupling may be written

( ) (
G (φ) = G φ 0 + b − b + φ + + a − a + G * φ 0 − b
+ b
+ φ− − a
+ a
),
where G is the mixing matrix, acting on the generational basis { 1 , 2 , 3 } .

The SU (3) Λ generators only act on the c, d , e indices with the following results
c−e c−e c−e
Λ 1 abcde = abedc , Λ 2 abcde = i abedc , Λ 3 abcde = abcde ,
2 2 2
c−d
Λ 4 abcde = abdce , Λ 5 abcde = i c − d abdce ,
2 2 c − 2d + e
Λ 8 abcde = abcde .
e−d e−d 12
Λ 6 abcde = abced , Λ 7 abcde = i abced ,
2 2
The generators Λ 1 , Λ 2 ; Λ 4 , Λ 5 and Λ 6 , Λ 7 respective perform exchanges on c ↔ e , c ↔ d and
e ↔ d , when the qubits in the respective pairs differ. The remaining generators Y, I 3 , Λ 3 , Λ 8 along with
 c+d +e
G abcde = abcde
3
produce the eigenvalue spectrum of the 5 qubits for the basis.

The spectrum for the SU (3) Λ gauge bosons G a , the gluons, is depicted below in the Gluon Lattice

1.8. Yang-Mills-Higgs Lagrangians

Combining these results, we find that the Standard Model is an instance of the general Yang-Mills-Higgs
Lagrangian, which may be defined by
2
1  v2 
( ( (
µ
L = ε ψ , iγ ∂ µ + A µ ) )) (( ) )
− G (φ) ψ − g µρ g νσ k (F µν , F ρσ ) + g µν χ ∂ µ + A µ φ, (∂ ν + A ν )φ − λ χ (φ, φ) −
4 2
 ,

 
where
[
F µν ≡ ∂ µ A ν − ∂ ν A µ + A µ , A ν , ]
such that
χ (Uφ1 , Uφ 2 ) = χ (φ1 , φ2 ) ,
(γ G (φ)) = γ 0 G (φ), U + γ 0 G (Uφ)U = γ 0 G (φ) .
0 +

One important qualifier is worth noting here. In virtue of the neutrality of the right-neutrino sector, a more
general coupling is allowed – thus ultimately leading to variants of the See Saw mechanism. Specifically,
the action of the gauge group on the sector
w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u → U ( w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u )U = w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u
is trivial, so that a mass term of the form
− ψ (m R w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u )ψ
may be inserted into the Lagrangian without violating gauge invariance. The Yukawa coupling will
ultimately endow the both the left and right handed components with the same mass m ν , thereby leading to
a total neutrino mass matrix of the form
 w w ⊗ u u ⊗ (m ν ( l l + r r ) + m R l r ) .
It is also possible to have a Majorana term
( ) (
− ψ M R ( w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u )ψ * − ψ M R ( w w ⊗ l r ⊗ u u )ψ * )
*

which couples the right neutrino to itself, and the left anti-neutrino likewise.

2. Breakdown of the Vacuum

The Standard Model hypothesizes that there is no fundamental mass. Instead, it arises through interaction
with a universal scalar energy field, called the Higgs. In effect, the Higgs renders the vacuum as a dielectric
medium, which impedes some of the components of the electroweak force. The only remaining component
that the vacuum is transparent with respect to is the electromagnetic force, which is a combination of the W
and B bosons. The combination is the only one that is parity-symmetric. The vacuum is not transparent
with respect to the parity-assymmetric components of the electroweak force. The corresponding bosons
therefore have a limited range which (via Yukawa’s mass-range correspondence) effectively translates into
a large mass. The photon remains massless. The resulting field equations (classically) are the Maxwell-
Proca equations. In effect, the massless components of the Higgs become the additional components of the
respective Maxwell-Proca fields.

For the fermions, the effect of the Higgs is to alternate the fermion between left and right handed modes.
The effective zig-zagging is precisely that which characterizes the Zitterbewegung of a massive Dirac
particle. In effect, the fermion is traveling at light speed, but in such a jagged path because of this rapid
alternation that its average motion is that of a massive particle. The strength of the particle’s interaction
with the Higgs determines its mass.

The potential
2
 v2 
V (φ) = λ φ + φ − 

 2 
has a minimum where
v2
φ+ φ = .
2
The Higgs has already been written in polar form
H +v
φ =UΦ χ
2
This eliminates the three degrees of asymmetry of the vacuum – the Goldstone bosons, leaving behind the
one remaining degree of freedom for the Higgs scalar field.

The minimum setting of the Higgs is only determined up to an overall gauge. Each setting defines a
different vacuum state. It is assumed that the gauge degrees of freedom are defined such that for the
vacuum state that defines this world,
vχ
0φ0 = .
2

As a consequence of this transformation, there will emerge 3 non-zero mass eigenmodes in the electroweak
part of the boson spectrum. When massless, a boson has only 2 degrees of freedom; but in a massive state
they have a third degree. The degrees of asymmetry become the respective 3rd degrees of freedom. The
photon, however, remains massless with only its 2 helicity modes, while the Higgs remains unattached as a
scalar field.

The notion of a vacuum as a dielectric medium is discussed more fully in the last section, where the close
connection between the issue of the dielectric vacuum and the gauge metric is discussed.
3. Mass Eigenstates
3.1. Boson Mass
Substituting the Higgs vacuum expectation 0 φ 0 = vχ 2 into the scalar part of the Lagrangian reveals
the emergence of a mass matrix for the bosons,
v 2 µν
(( )
g µν χ ∂ µ + A µ φ, (∂ ν + A ν )φ = ) 2
( )
g χ A µ , A ν = ∑ µ ab g µν Aµa Aνb ,
a ,b

where we write the boson field collectively as

A µ = ∑ Aµa Ya ,
a
and define
v2
µ ab = µ(Ya , Yb ) ≡
χ (Ya , Yb ) .
2
This is the square of the mass matrix. The only non-zero components are those associated with the U (2) I ,Y
electroweak sector, where we find that
2 2
 vg   vg 
( )
µ( gI i , gI j ) =   χ τ i , τ j = δ ij   ,
 2   2 
2 2
v v
( ) ( )
µ g ′Y, gI j =   gg ′ ⋅ χ τ j ,1 = −δ 3 j   gg ′,
2 2
2 2
 vg ′   vg ′ 
µ(g ′Y, g ′Y ) =   χ (1,1) =   .
 2   2 
This leads to the following decomposition
v 2 µν  2 2 2

g χ A µ , A ν = 1 g µν   vg  W 1W 1 + W 2W 2 + W 3W 3 − v gg ′ W i B +  vg ′  B B  .
( ) ( )
2 2  2  µ ν µ ν µ ν
2
µ ν
 2 
µ ν

 
 2 1 2
 vg  W µ − iW µ W ν + iW ν  vg 3 vg ′
1 2
 vg vg ′  
= g µν    +  Wµ − B µ  Wν3 − Bν  .
 2  2 2  2 2  2 2  

From this, we find the respective mass eigenstates and the associated eigenvalues,
W µ1 m iW µ2 gW µ3 − g ′B µ gB µ + g ′W µ3
W µ± ≡ , Zµ ≡ , Aµ ≡ ,
2 g 2 + g ′2 g 2 + g ′2
vg v g 2 + g′2
MW ≡
, MZ = , M γ = 0.
2 2
The effective Lagrangian becomes
 M
2

g µν  M W W µ+ Wν− + Z Z µ Z ν  .
2
 2 
 
If the Higgs is retained, written in polar form, this term becomes
 M
2
 H  2
g µν  M W W µ+ W ν− + Z Z µ Z ν 1 +  .
2
 2  v 
 
The weak mixing angle, θW , is defined as the angle between 0 and 90 degrees for which tan θW = g ′ g .
Then the two neutral boson fields and the mass ratio of the two mass eigenvalues may be written
Aµ = cos θW B µ + sin θW W µ3 ,
M W = M Z cos θW .
Z µ = cos θW W µ3 − sin θW B µ ,
The constant g is ultimately related to the Fermi constant G F = 1.16639(2) × 10 −5 GeV −2 by
 GF g2
= 2
.
2 8M W
The expression for the photon field Aµ yields a coupling e = g sin θW = g ′ cos θW that is parity
independent. Through this, one finds
1 πα
MW = ,
sin θW 2G F
in terms of the fine structure constant α ≈ 1 137.036 . From this, one gets – as a first order estimate – the
values
sin 2 θW ≈ 0.23, v ≅ 246GeV, M W ≅ 78GeV, M Z ≅ 89GeV .
Higher order corrections refine these to values much more closer to their experimental values,
. M W ≅ 83GeV, M Z ≅ 91GeV .
Of particular interest is that the trace of the first-order boson mass matrix is very nearly equal to the
vacuum expectation value of the Higgs,
M Z + 2M W ≈ v .

3.2. Higgs Mass

The Higgs self-potential also leads to a single massive eigenstate, along with the 3 massless eigenstates that
get absorbed into the massive electroweak fields. The kinetic and potential parts of the Higgs sector
become
2 2
 v2  v+H v+H  + (v + H )2 v2 
µν
( )
g ∂ µ φ ∂ ν φ − λ φ + φ −
+

2
 = g µν χ + ∂ µ
 ∂ ν χ − λ 

χ
2
χ −
2
 .

  2 2  
The first term yields
v+H v+H 1 µν
g µν χ + ∂ µ ∂ν χ= g ∂ µ H∂ ν H ,
2 2 2
as expected of a scalar field. The second term yields
2 2 2
 (v + H )2 χ − v 2    2
 = − λ (v + H ) − v
2 2
 
 = − λ vH + H  = − λv 2 H 2 1 + H  ,
2
− λ χ + 

 2 2 


 2 
  2   2v 
resulting in a total
1  µν 
2
2 H 
g ∂ µ H∂ ν H − (m H H ) 1 + 
2   2v 

involving the appearance of a Higgs mass m H = 2 λ v . The lower bound m H > 60GeV is currently known
(it may be higher at the time of writing).

3.3. Fermion Mass

In the following, we will use the projection operators
L≡ w w, B≡ x x + y y + z z, U ≡ u u, D≡ d d .
The mass terms come out of the Yukawa sector, since this is the place where the Higgs mediates between
the left-right Zitterbewegung of the fermion fields. Expanding the Higgs field we may write
v+H
Φ ≡UΦ .
2
The Yukawa term may then be reduced to
 H
( ) +
(
L G = −ψ ΦG r r + G + Φ + l l ψ = −ψ mψ r r + mψ l l 1 + ψ )
 v 
where
 3
v
mψ ≡
2
U ΦG = ∑m
m , n =1
ψ
mn
m n ,

Defining the projection operators

e≡ 1 1, µ≡ 2 2, τ≡ 3 3
the fermion mass matrix mψ may be diagonalized separately over its respective sectors
+ + + +
mψ = Lu mU RuUB + Ld mD Rd DB + Lν mN RνUL + Le mE Re DL,
in terms of 3× 3 matrices unitary over generational space
Lu , L d , L ν , L e , R u , R d , R ν , R e .
and generation-diagonalized matrices
mU = mu e + mc µ + mt τ , mD = md e + ms µ + mb τ , mN = mνee + mνµ µ + mντ τ , mE = me e + mµ µ + mτ τ
which are expressed in terms of the mass eigenvalues, with typical estimates given by
m u ≈ 5.6 ± 1.1MeV, m c ≈ 1.35 ± 0.05GeV, m s ≈ 174 ± 16GeV,
m d ≈ 9.9 ± 1.1MeV, m s ≈ 199 ± 33MeV, m b ≈ 4.7GeV,
m νe ≈ 0, m νµ ≈ 0, m ντ ≈ 0,
m e ≈ .511keV, m µ ≈ 105MeV, m τ ≈ 2GeV.

Since the Standard Model (originally) assumed that the right-neutrino sector was inert or non-existent, the
neutrino mass eigenvalues were all assumed to be zero,
m νe = m νµ = m ντ = 0 .
The other mass eigenvalues are free parameters. However, it is of interest to note that the trace of the lepton
mass matrix satisfies an approximate identity similar to that gauge boson mass matrix, but with an
interesting variation
Tr (m L ) = m e + m µ + m τ ≈ αv ,
where α is the fine structure constant. It is approximately 1/137 of the Higgs vacuum expectation value.

The decomposition leads to the mass eigenstates of the fermions

ψ → ψ M ≡ Vψ ,
where
V ≡ (Lu UB + L d DB + L νUL + Le DL ) l l + (Ru UB + R d DB + Rν UL + Re DL ) r r
This leads to the expression of the Yukawa in the mass eigenspace
 H
L 6 = −ψ M (mU UB + m D DB + m N UL + m E DL )1 + ψ M .
 v 

3.4. The Gauge Interactions and CKM Matrices

The transformation matrices do not simply go away. The conversion to the mass eigenstates affects the
remainder of the Lagrangian involving fermions, where a residual of the transformation matrices will
remain. Under the change to the mass eigenbasis, the fermion part of the Lagrangian becomes
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
L ψ = ψ iγ µ ∂ µ + A µ ψ = ψ M V + iγ µ ∂ µ + A µ V + ψ M = ψ M iγ µV ∂ µ + A µ V + ψ M = ψ M iγ µ ∂ µ + VA µ V + ψ M .
The transformation matrix V involves the projections L, B, l l , r r , e, µ, τ which commute with the
gauge generators, but also the projections U , D which commute with the generators for U (1) Y and
SU (3) Λ but not those for SU (2) I . The generator I 3 commutes, but not I 1 , I 2 . Explicitly, for the
corresponding matrices, we have
Dτ i = τ 1U , Uτ i = τ i D (i = 1,2) .
Thus,
( + + +
)( +
Vτ iV + = L d Lu DB + DL + UB + Lν Le UL τ i Lu L d DB + DL + UB + Le L ν UL , (i = 1,2) . )
The matrices that emerge from this are the Kabibbo-Cobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrices,
* *
V Q ≡ L d Lu , U L ≡ L ν L e .
The lepton sector matrix U L is referred to as the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) matrix, though we will
refer to both collectively under the name CKM.

The result of the transformation is,

(
Vτ iV + = VQ DB + DL + UB + U LUL τ i VQ DB + DL + UB + U LUL ) ( )*
(i = 1,2) .
which changes the gauge generators I 1 , I 2 to
τiM
Ii = l l , (i = 1,2,3) ,
2
where
τ 1M = u M
d M
+ d M
u M
, τ 2M = i d ( M
u M
− u M
d M
), τ 3M = u M
u M
− d M
d M
,
and the modified basis elements given by
u M = (U L L + B ) u , d M = L + VQ B d , ( ) u M
= u UL L+ B ,( *
) d M
(
= d L + VQ B .
*
)
If the neutrino has 0 mass, then Lν is arbitrary and may be defined to be Lν = Le , which will then reduce
the leptonic CKM matrix, U L = I . Otherwise, if a right-neutrino (and left anti-neutrino) sector is assumed,
the matrix will be non-trivial.

Since, only the residual gauge invariance is apparent, the transformation between the charge and mass
eigenstates may be considered to involve nothing more than these two matrices. By convention, one takes
Lu = I , L d = V Q , L ν = U L , L e = I ,
Ru = I , R d = I , Rν = I , R e = I .
Explicitly, the transformation between charge and mass eigenstates for the left-handed components of the
fields is then written as
u  uM  d   d M  Vud Vus Vub  d M 
          
   M
c = c ,  
s = V Q  s M  =  V cd Vcs Vcb  s M ,
t t  b  b  V  
   M     M   td Vts Vtb  bM 
 ν e   U e1 U e 2 U e3  ν eM   e   eM 
        
 µ   µ1
ν = U U µ2 U µ 3  µM 
ν ,  µ  =  µ M .
 ν  U   τ τ 
 τ   τ1 U τ 2 U τ 3  ν τM     M 

A parametrization for the CKM matrix in common use is

1 0 0  cos θ13 0 e − iδ13 sin θ13  cos θ12 sin θ12 0
   
VQ =  0 cos θ 23 sin θ 23  0 1 0  − sin θ12 cos θ12 0
 0 − sin θ  iδ13 
 23 cos θ 23  − e sin θ13 0 cos θ13  0 0 1 
or in the Casimir basis
3 3 −1 1 1 1− 3 3
θ 23 ( 2 3 − 3 2 ) iδ13 θ13 ( 1 3 − 3 1 ) iδ13 θ12 ( 1 2 − 2 1 )
VQ = e e 2
e e 2
e .
The rightmost factor mixes the first two generations and is parametrized by the Cabibbo angle θ12 . The
other factors relate the mixing of the third generation with the first two and are parametrized by angles θ13 ,
δ13 and θ 23 . By suitable adjustment of the phases of the mass eigenstates, the CKM matrix can be defined
in such a way that each of these angles lies in the first quadrant. Another parametrization that had been in
use is given by
 1 0 0  cos θ1 − sin θ1 0  1 0 0 
   
VQ =  0 cos θ 2 − sin θ 2  sin θ1 cos θ1 0  0 cos θ 3 sin θ 3  ,
 0 sin θ cos θ 2  0 0 − e iδ  0 − sin θ 3 cos θ 3 
 2

or in the Casimir basis

θ2 ( 3 2 − 2 3 ) θ1 ( 2 1 − 1 2 )+ i (δ + π ) 3 3 θ3 ( 2 2 − 2 2 )
VQ = e e e .
The following estimates on the quark mass mixing matrix are (excluding the phase information),
 .9741 − .9756 .219 − .226 .0025 − .0048 
 
VQ =  .219 − .226 .9732 − .9748 .038 − .044  ,
 .004 − .014 .037 − .044 .9990 − .9993 

are cited in K. Hagiwara et al., Physical Review D66, 010001-1 (2002, revised by F.J. Gilman, K.
Kleinknecht and B. Renk). On the condition that additional generations are present, the estimate refines to
 .9721 − .9747 .215 − .224 .002 − .005 K
 
 .209. − 227 .966 − .976 .038 − .044 K
VQ =  .
0 − .09 0 − .12 .08 − .9993 K
 
 M M M O


An earlier cite was used in Tsun (arXiv:hep-th/0110256), who has proposed a theory accounting for the
generational structure and mass mixing relations whose primary assertion is that the fermion mass matrices
mU , m D , m N and m E are each of rank 1 and are all derivable from a common form by the running of a
small set of parameters (3 of them). Experimental estimates for the lepton mixing matrix (again, excluding
phase information) are cited as well:
 U e1 U e 2 U e3   * 0.4 − 0.7 0.0 − 0.15 
   
U L = U µ1 U µ 2 U µ 3  =  * * 0.56 − 0.83  .
U   
 τ1 U τ 2 U τ 3   * * * 
The values derived theoretically are
 .9752 .2215 .0048   0.97 0.24 0.07 
   
VQ =  .2211 .9744 .0401, U L =  0.22 0.71 0.66  ,
 .0136 .0381 .9992   0.11 0.66 0.74 
   
which fits well, except the “solar neutrino angle” U e 2 .

3.5. The Gauge Interactions with the Mass Eigenstate Boson Fields
The CKM matrices effectively become part of the gauge generators, as just shown. The effect is consonant
with the reduction of the boson fields to mass eigenstates, which works in tandem with the reduction of the
fermion fields. The CKM matrices are attached to the couplings of the W , W fields, while those of the
A, Z fields remain unaffected. The former are, therefore, the only fields to mediate interactions between
the different generations of mass eigenstates. It is only by these interactions that the multiplicity of
generations seen is actually observed. This, of course, leads to an interesting question in its own right: 96 is
a somewhat odd number for the total number of fermion states (32 per generation), while 128 would seem a
whole lot more natural. Could there be a 4th generation that is sterile? While particle scattering experiments
limit the size of the sector mediated by the CKM matrices to 3 generations, they have nothing directly to
say about the existence of other CKM sectors not attached to the 3 known generations, or even sterile
generations.

An interesting hypothesis in this regard is that the old flavor SU (3) may not have been all that far off the
mark. Perhaps the 3 + 1 decomposition seen in the quark-lepton SU (3) is complemented by a 3 + 1
decomposition for the CKM sectors.
The reason 128 is significant is that it is a power of 2. The power of 2 structure already seen within a given
generation is strongly suggestive of an underlying Clifford algebra basis. It is generally only these algebras,
rather than simple or semi-simple Lie groups that lead to power of 2 patterns in the irreducible
representations. Of the simple Lie groups, only SO(10) has the capability of producing such a state space
(it has a 16 ). A 32 × 32 matrix structure is naturally associated with the 11-dimensional Dirac algebra
associated with SO(10,1) . However, to get 128 components requires 14 dimensions or 15.

4. Gravitational Extension
The above account cannot really be considered complete until the full effect of the gravitational field is
brought in, as well. Though it is not strictly a part of the Standard Model, the fact remains that even in the
absence of gravity (or in weak gravity) one would still like to resort to using non-Cartesian coordinates or
even non-coordinate frames. Then there are a few notable differences, not the least of which is that an extra
factor appears in the Lagrangian and participates in the various bilinear forms that we’ve encountered.

The approach adopted here is to treat gravity as a gauge theory for local Poincaré symmetry. The question
of what type of gauge theory it is needs to be addressed. It cannot be a Yang-Mills theory since the
Poincaré group is not even semi-simple. This is essential if we are to assume that the gauge metric is
adjoint invariant, since such metrics can only be non-degenerate when the group is semi-simple.

Others (notably Sardanashvily) have pointed out that since the fermions break the GL(4) world symmetry
down to SO(3,1) in virtue their dependence on the Clifford bundle formed by the Dirac matrices, then
gravity may best be regarded, instead, as a spontaneously broken symmetry, with the vielbein arising as the
Goldstone-Higgs field associated with the symmetry breaking.

However, for the following, we will adopt the approach of treating the vielbein as the gauge field
associated with the translation generators of the Poincaré group. Though the theory may not be a Yang-
Mills gauge theory, it still has the general form of a Poincaré gauge theory whose Lagrangian yields a
variation of the form
1
δL = − G µν ⋅ δF µν + J µ ⋅ δA µ
2
and that
[G µν , F µν ] = 0 .
This will still yield the field equations
∂ ν G µν + [ A ν , G µν ] = J µ ,
and the force law
K ν = J µ ⋅ F µν
will still be integrable into a conservation law
K ν = −∂ µ Tνµ
involving a stress tensor density
Tνµ = G µρ ⋅ F ρν − δ νµ L .
But the question of how to assign the dual fields is unresolved.

With gravity, the difference is lies in the character of relation between the dual fields and “sources” to the
potentials and field strengths.

4.1. Local Spacetime Symmetry Group and Gravity

The full gauge group, in a suitable basis has additional generators for the local spacetime symmetry group
ISO(3,1) : (p a , a = 0,1,2,3); (s ab , a, b = 0,1,2,3) .
Since ISO(3,1) is not compact, an adjoint-invariant metric reduces to 0
k (p a , v) = 0
with respect to the translation generators.

The symmetry group is the subgroup of the general affine group GA(4) that respects the Minkowski metric
η ab . The Lie algebra is given by
[s ab , s cd ] = ih(η ad s bc + η bc s ad − η ac s bd − η bd s ac ), [s ab , p c ] = ih(ηbc p a − η ac p b ),
[p a , s cd ] = ih(η ac p d − η ad p c ), [p a ,p c ] = 0.
This may be simplified by writing this in parametrized form in terms of an anti-symmetric matrix ω and
vector α ,
1
L(ω, α ) ≡ ω ab s ab + α a p a ,
2
yielding the Lie bracket
[L(ω, α ), L(θ , β )] = ihL(ωηθ − θηω, ωηβ − θηα ) .

There is an addition from the gravity field to the gauge field and the corresponding strength, given by
i 1  i  1 ab 
A µ = K −  ω µab s ab + e µa p a , F µν = K −  θ µν a
s ab + τ µν pa  .
h2  h  2 
The gravitational part only acts directly on the fermion sector. The p generators do not act directly
anywhere, though it might be regarded as having already been included in the ∂ µ part of the covariant
derivative operator by the representation p a = ihe aµ ∂ µ , involving the inverse of the gauge field (more on
this below). For spin ½ Dirac fields, the Lorentz generators are just the spin operators,
ih
s ab = γ ab
2
where
γ γ −γ γ
γ ab = a b b a , γ a = η ab γ b .
2

In parametrized form the gravitational part of the field may thus be written
i i
A µ = K − L(ω µ , e µ ), F µν = K − L(θ µν , τ µν ) ,
h h
with
θ µν = ∂ µ ων − ∂ ν ω µ + ω µ ηω ν − ων ηω µ , τ µν = ∂ µ e ν − ∂ ν e µ + ω µ ηe ν − ων ηe µ .

4.2. The Gravitational-Gauge-Higgs Lagrangian

With these preliminaries set, we may address the question of the contribution of the gravitational field to
the Lagrangian. At this point, a generalization of Utiyama’s Theorem may be used (J. Geom. Phys. 6
(1989) 107-125; see also “Gauge-Invariant Characterization of Yang-Mills-Higgs Equations”, Ann. Henri.
Poincare 8 (2007), 203-217). If the Lagrangian, itself, is to be required to be gauge invariant at least with
respect to the Lorentz part of the overall gauge symmetry, then:
(1) the only dependence on the derivatives of the connection must be through the curvature two-form
(2) derivatives must be replaced by covariant derivatives involving the connection.
Ignoring, for the moment, these conditions, one may write out the total variation of the Lagrangian n -form
L = L g = Le 1 ∧ K ∧ e n
as
1 1
δL = δe a ∧ Pa + δω ab ∧ S ab − δτ a ∧ Ta − δθ ab ∧ U ab ,
2 2
defining
1 a µ 1 ab µ
e a ≡ e µa dx µ , ω ab ≡ ω µab dx µ , τ a ≡ τ µν dx ∧ dx ν θ ab ≡ R µν dx ∧ dx ν .
2 2
Expanding on the variationals, we find
( ) ( ) ( )
δτ a ∧ Ta = δ de a + ω a b ∧ e b ∧ Ta = d δe a ∧ Ta + δe a ∧ dTa − ω b a ∧ Tb + δω ab ∧ e b ∧ Ta ,
and
( ) ( ) ( )
δθ ab ∧ U ab = δ dω ab + ω a c ∧ ω cb ∧ U ab = d δω ab ∧ U ab + δω ab ∧ dU ab − ω c a ∧ U cb − ω c b ∧ U ac ,
where indices are lowered using the frame metric:
ω a b = η bc ω ab , e b = η ab e a .
From this, one obtains the total variation
 1  1
δL = −d  δe a ∧ Ta + δω ab ∧ U ab  + δe a ∧ (Pa − DTa ) + δω ab ∧ (S ab − DU ab − eb ∧ Ta + e a ∧ Tb )
 2  2
which involves the covariant derivatives
DTa = dTa − ω b a ∧ Tb , DU ab = dU ab − ω c a ∧ U cb − ω c b ∧ U ac
of the dual terms. From this follow the field equations
DTa = Pa , DU ab = J ab ≡ S ab + e a ∧ Tb − eb ∧ Ta ,
as well as the conservation laws
DPa = −θ b a ∧ Tb , DJ ab = −θ c a ∧ U cb − θ c b ∧ U ac .
The current 3-forms Pa , S ab , J ab are those associated, respectively, with the momentum, spin and orbital
angular momentum. These play the analogous role of J aµ . The 2-forms Ta and U ab are the gravitational
analogue of the dual fields Gcµν of Yang-Mills theory. Here, they function as superpotentials for the current
3-forms.

For the representation of gravity as a gauge theory, the most general Lagrangian we can construct out of
these ingredients, by the generalized Utiyama theorem, may only involve the frame 1-form e a ; its
covariant derivative De e = de e + ω a b ∧ e b = τ e , which is the torsion 2-form; and the curvature 2-form
θ ab . In 4-dimensions, the only 4-forms constructed out of these are the following:
ε abcd θ ab ∧ θ cd , θ ab ∧ θ ab , τ a ∧ τa ,
ε abcd θ ab ∧ e c ∧ e d , θ ab ∧ e a ∧ e b , ε abcd e a ∧ e b ∧ e c ∧ e d .
The first three terms will all either turn out to be boundary terms or terms equal to combinations of the last
three terms plus boundary terms. So, these can be removed from consideration. Therefore, the Lagrangian
reduces to the form
L = Aε abcd θ ab ∧ e c ∧ e d + Bθ ab ∧ e a ∧ eb + Cε abcd e a ∧ e b ∧ e c ∧ e d .
From this, we may directly read off the current 3-forms and superpotential 2-forms,
U ab = Aε abcd e c ∧ e d + Be a ∧ eb , Ta = 0,
bc d b a b c d
Pa = 2 Aε abcd θ ∧ e + 2 Bθ a ∧ e + 4Cε abcd e ∧ e ∧ e , S ab = J ab = 0.
In the absence of other fields, the equation DU ab = J ab = 0 leads to the vanishing of the torsion, τ a = 0 ,
provided that either A ≠ 0 or B ≠ 0 . The equation DTa = Pa will only yield a trivial relation if A ≠ 0 .
Since this leads to the vanishing of the torsion, then the term θ ab ∧ e a ∧ eb also vanishes and we may
assume that coefficient B = 0 . However, when coupled to matter the presence of the term will make a
difference. It corresponds to ε µνρσ R µνρσ , which (in the absence of torsion) is 0 in virtue of the Bianchi
identity R µ[ νρσ ]= 0 . The remaining terms are tied, directly to the curvature scalar R and cosmological
constant Λ . The corresponding coefficients are
1 Λ
A= , C= .
64πG 192πG

Thus, the Lagrangian with the inclusion of gravity may be written out as
 ε abcd e a ∧ e b ∧ θ cd 1 µρ νσ Λ
L= − eg g k (F µν , F ρσ ) + e
64πG 4 8πG
2
 v2 
( ( ( ) )) (( ) )
+ eε ψ , iγ a e aµ ∂ µ + A µ − G (φ) ψ − eg µν χ ∂ µ + A µ φ, (∂ ν + A ν )φ − eλ χ (φ, φ ) −
2


 
where
1
e= ε abcd e a ∧ e b ∧ e c ∧ e d = e 0 ∧ e 1 ∧ e 2 ∧ e 3 .
4!

The gauge field e µa is assumed to be invertible as a matrix, with the inverse e −1 = (e aµ ) . The question of its
invertibility is closely tied to the assumption of the specific form for the local spacetime group. In general,
one can only say over a given n -dimensional manifold that the local symmetry group is GL(n) . The
restriction to SO(n − 1,1) , as opposed, say, to ISO(n − 1) or SO(n) amounts to an implicit assumption of a
certain degree of classical causal background into the underlying spacetime. We’re assuming the signature
of the metric is part of the background.

Though the inverse frame is not present when the Lagrangian is written in the language of differential
forms, the assumption of the signature is still present in the reduction of the world symmetry group GA(4)
to the symmetry group ISO(3,1) associated with Poincaré invariance.

The invertibility issue, therefore, may be regarded as a manifestation of the more general problem: the
signature problem. From the gauge field comes the metric and its dual,
g µν = η ab e eµ e νb , g µν = η ab e aµ ebν .
Notable is that the dual metric or inverse e −1 only appears in the places where the various inner products or
bilinear forms appear.