Linear Sigma Model Invariance Under O(N)

dm4b
Messages
363
Reaction score
4
In addition to my Faddeev-Popov Trick thread, I'm still tying up a few other loose ends before going into Part III of Peskin and Schroeder.

I was able to show that the other Lagrangians introduced thus far are indeed invariant under the transformations given. But, I am hung up on what I think should probably be the easiest - the linear sigma model from page 349, Chapter 11:

L_{LSM} = (1/2) ( \partial_{\mu} \phi^{i} )^2 + (1/2)\mu^2 ( \phi^{i} )^2 - (\lambda/4!) ( \phi^{i} )^4

which is invariant under

\phi^{i} --> R^{ij} \phi^{j},

or, the Orthogonal Group O(N).

To show this, I've been using:

\phi^{j} ^2 --> R^{ij} R^{ik} \phi^{j} \phi^{k}
= \delta^{j}_{k} \phi^{j} \phi^{k}
= \phi^{j} ^2

but, I guess I haven't convinced myself. Seems contrived (with the indices)

Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
ψ'j2=(Rjkψk)(Rjlψl)=δklψkψljlψjψlj2
 
andrien said:
ψ'j2=(Rjkψk)(Rjlψl)=δklψkψljlψjψlj2

Thanks andrien.

Looks like that's exactly what I have above in the OP, so I guess you're confirming that's correct.

Don't know why it still leaves me uneasy. I'll probably work out some explicit examples next, as that usually clears things up.
 
You can see it in a "vectorial way". O(N) are rotations and you know that these kind of transformations leave the value of the square of the vector unchanged. That's the same thing.
 
Einj said:
You can see it in a "vectorial way". O(N) are rotations and you know that these kind of transformations leave the value of the square of the vector unchanged. That's the same thing.

Thanks Einj. I totally get it in a conceptual way like that.

It was just the notation with the math. Wasn't quite sure I had it right!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top