How Does Covariant Derivative Relate to Curvature in Nonabelian Gauge Fields?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wac03
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Gauge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between covariant derivatives and curvature in the context of nonabelian gauge fields, specifically focusing on proving a mathematical relation involving these concepts. The scope includes theoretical aspects of gauge theory and representations of Lie algebras.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Wissam presents a mathematical problem regarding the validity of the relation \([D_{m},D_{n}]F_{ab}=[F_{mn},F_{ab}]\) for any representation of a nonabelian Lie algebra, particularly seeking proof for the fundamental representation.
  • Daniel expresses confusion about the notation and asks for clarification on the curvature and gauge fields, indicating a lack of understanding of the terms used.
  • Wissam clarifies that the gauge field refers to the nonabelian gauge field \(A_{\mu}\) and the field strength is \(F_{\mu\nu}\), distinguishing between abelian and nonabelian theories.
  • Daniel suggests that the problem can be simplified by focusing on the two fundamental irreducible representations of the gauge group, the fundamental and its contragradient representation.
  • Wissam elaborates on the definitions of \(F\) and the covariant derivative in terms of differential forms and generators of the Lie algebra, reiterating the need for proof in the fundamental representation.
  • A participant posts a mathematical expression to clarify their understanding, indicating a technical engagement with the content.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and clarity regarding the mathematical notation and concepts. There is no consensus on the proof of the relation for the fundamental representation, and multiple viewpoints on the approach to the problem are presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion about the notation and terminology used, indicating potential gaps in foundational knowledge. The discussion includes references to specific representations and mathematical structures that may not be universally understood.

wac03
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Dear friends
I am here with mathematical physics question:
we know tha if i have a compact Lie group G with g its Lie algebra, and a connection A on the fibre,
For nonabelain Lie algebra
The relation between covariant derivative and the curvature of A is
Code:
[ tex ]\begin{equation*}[D_{m},D_{n}]F_{ab}=[F_{mn},F_{ab}]\end{equation*}[ /tex ]
for any representation of g the Lie algebra
with
D is the covariant derivative
F the curvature of the connection A
my problem:
I will be so grateful if someone could help me to prove that
Code:
[ tex ][D_{m},D_{n}]F_{ab}=[F_{mn},F_{ab}][ /tex ]
is valid for any representation of the Lie algebra g especially for the fundamental (defining) representation, because i already did it for the adjoint representation of g.
thank you in advance wissam
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You got me all lost here.Why doesn't the curvature have 4 suffixes...?What are the gauge fields (potentials) and the field tensors...?

Daniel.
 
the gauge field is the yang-mills

dextercioby said:
You got me all lost here.Why doesn't the curvature have 4 suffixes...?What are the gauge fields (potentials) and the field tensors...?

Daniel.
Dear daniel
Thank u for your interest in my question, the story here, physically talking means that the gauge field is the non-abelain gauge field "A_{mu}, and the field strength is the F_{mu nu}.
the gauge field is not the one of the gravidation
PS: please make difference between abelian( Maxwell theory), and non abelian (yang-Mills).
thank u
wissam
 
Do you know how to build any finite representation of the gauge group...?

In the case u do,u'll find that your problem reduces to checking the validity of that equality only in the case of the 2 fundamental (possibly inequivalent) irreps of the gauge group:the fundamental and its contragradient one.

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Do you know how to build any finite representation of the gauge group...?

In the case u do,u'll find that your problem reduces to checking the validity of that equality only in the case of the 2 fundamental (possibly inequivalent) irreps of the gauge group:the fundamental and its contragradient one.

Daniel.
Dear daniel
we know that
F=dA+1/2[A,A]=dA+A^A (differential forms)
F_{mu nu}=[D_{mu},D_{nu}] in any local basis.
F here is g-valued
F_{mu nu}=F^a T_{a} where T_{a} is the generator of g.


In the irre. adjoint representation of g gives C_{ab}^{c}=(T_{a})^{c}_{b}
where C is the structure constant of g,
in the adjoint irr.rep the covariant derivative is
D=d+[A,-]

So using these facts, the equality in question is feasible.

my problem once again is:
i know that this relation is valid in any irr.rep of the algebra,
i will be so grateful if i can see the proof at least for the irr. fundemantal representation.
PS:
In any arbitrary representation, the covariant derivative written as
D=d+A without the commutator
A, F are G-valued
In components language for any field Q the covariant derivative is
(D^_{mu}Q)^{i}=\partial_{mu}Q^{i}+A^{a}(T_{a})_{j}^{i}Q^{j}
thank you
Wissam
 
[tex]\begin{equation*}[D_{m},D_{n}]F_{ab}=[F_{mn},F_{ab}]\end{equation*}[/tex] Sorry, I can't view this code, so I posted it to see what it looks like
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K