sextet implementation for 331 model

[antonioc]

Dear Staub,

I'm trying to implement all the possible interaction terms in the minimal 331 model, including the sextet ones.


Gauge[[1]]={B, U[1], xcharge, g1,False, 0, 1};
Gauge[[2]]={WB, SU[3], left, g2,True, 0, 1};
Gauge[[3]]={G, SU[3], color, g3,False, 0, 1};

ScalarFields[[1]] = {rho, 1, {rhopp, rhop, rho0}, 1, 3, 1};
ScalarFields[[2]] = {eta, 1, {eta2p, eta0, eta1m}, 0, 3, 1};
ScalarFields[[3]] = {chi, 1, {chi0, chim, chimm}, -1, 3, 1};
ScalarFields[[4]] = {sig, 1, {{sig1pp, sig1p/Sqrt[2], sig0/Sqrt[2]},{sig1p/Sqrt[2], sig01, sig2m/Sqrt[2]},{sig0/Sqrt[2], sig2m/Sqrt[2], sig2mm}}, 0, 6, 1};


However I'm facing some problems with the term

eta.eta.sig.sig + Hc

in the scalar sector, which is allowed by gauge invariance (also the CheckPossibleTermsPotential agrees with that).

Thanks!

Antonio

[FStaub]

Hi,

yes, there is a problem. This comes from the part which generates the CGC used in the RGEs. If you are not interested in the RGEs at the moment, I can ignore it. Just make sure that

Code: Select all

SA`LagrangianContractions

shows the correct contractions for the Lagrangian terms.

If you need RGEs, than I would need to dig deeper into that problem. However, I can't promise when I'll have time.

Cheers,
Florian

[antonioc]

Dear Staub,
thanks for the suggestion, I've solved the problem. I don't need the RGs at the moment but I'll keep in mind the issue.
Thanks again

Antonio

[antonioc]

Dear Staub,
still having some problems with the parameters.m file.

CheckModelFile
Checking model files: Found problems. Main file: ok. Particle file: ok. Parameter file: buggy

ModelFile::UnknownKeywordParameter: Unknown keyword Symmetry in parameter file.
Symmetry::obsolete: Note, the Definition of the symmetry of a parameter is no longer necessary in parameters.m. This information is now derived by SARAH automatically.

This is what I get when I ask for the Model File check. I can't figure out where is the problem in the parameter file.

Thanks!

Antonio

[FStaub]

It's not a big problem. You just use somewhere the keyword Symmetry->... for some parameter to define if it symmetric or anti-symmetric. Since SARAH checks that by its own now, it just ignores that entry.

Cheers
Florian

[antonioc]

Can this create a problem when I ask for the UFO output?

Best

Antonio

[FStaub]

no