On the Impossibility of Deriving Quantitative Intra-Multiplet Splittings from Symmetry-Complete Dynamics Alone

Abstract

During repeated attempts to derive the observed three-generation flavor hierarchy solely from an exact graph symmetry, every construction either preserved exact multiplet degeneracy or required external symmetry-breaking input. This suggested that the obstruction was intrinsic to symmetry-complete theories rather than to any particular graph construction, motivating the general no-go theorem proved here. A recurring claim across several research programs - discrete flavor-symmetry model building (Aₙ, Sₙ, Δ(27) family symmetries), Froggatt–Nielsen-type charge assignments, and combinatorial or graph-based approaches to emergent spacetime and particle content - is that the observed hierarchy of fermion masses, mixing angles, or analogous multiplet splitting’s can be derived from symmetry considerations alone, without an independently motivated symmetry-breaking sector. We show this is impossible in a precise, model-independent sense. If a theory is defined entirely by a symmetry group S, a covariant representation Γ of S, and dynamics Hₘᴇ covariant under S, then no numerical value can be derived within that theory for the splitting between components of a non-trivial irreducible multiplet of observables, beyond the trivial statement that the splitting is exactly zero when the theory's distinguished state is S-invariant. If the distinguished state instead spontaneously breaks S, the direction of breaking is undetermined by the theory, and even granting a direction, the typical magnitude of splitting predicted by a symmetry-neutral (Haar-random) prior is O(1) between multiplet components — so any large observed hierarchy is itself evidence of a further, non-symmetry input. The result is an exact operator-level sharpening of Curie's symmetry principle (1894) via the Wigner–Eckart theorem (1927), together with the standard vacuum-selection problem of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Goldstone 1961; Goldstone, Salam & Weinberg 1962). It applies to any “symmetry-complete” theory - continuum or discrete, field-theoretic or lattice-based and identifies exactly which additional, non-symmetry ingredient any such theory must supply.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Gauge symmetry breaking in gauge theories—in search of clarification.Simon Friederich - 2013 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2):157-182.
How is spontaneous symmetry breaking possible? Understanding Wigner's theorem in light of unitary inequivalence.David John Baker & Hans Halvorson - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (4):464-469.
Deciphering the algebraic CPT theorem.Noel Swanson - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 68:106-125.
Les brisures de symetrie du temps.Alexandre Laforgue - 1993 - Acta Biotheoretica 41 (1-2):105-117.
Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking.Katherine Brading & Elena Castellani - forthcoming - The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP
2026-07-18

Downloads
8 (#2,124,644)

6 months
8 (#1,296,679)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references