Color currents in classical QCD

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and implications of classical equations derived from the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) Lagrangian, particularly focusing on color currents and their representation in different color charge spaces. Participants explore the relationship between quark and gluon fields, the nature of color charges, and the implications of gauge invariance in the context of these equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant derives Maxwell-like equations from the QCD Lagrangian but struggles with the interpretation of the sources related to color charges.
  • Another participant suggests that color-charge distributions must be represented as linear combinations of adjoint-color matrices to maintain invariance.
  • A later reply clarifies that the equations describe gluon field strengths rather than quark fields, emphasizing the distinction between adjoint and fundamental representations.
  • Concerns are raised about the nonlinear nature of the equations and the implications of certain structure constants being zero, leading to potential linear behavior in the fields.
  • One participant argues that without pre-existing gluon fields outside the (\lambda_3, \lambda_8) plane, the dynamics may not exhibit interesting behavior.
  • Another participant insists that a complete gluon octet is necessary for a self-consistent model, challenging the idea of setting certain gluon fields to zero.
  • Further discussion highlights the role of gauge invariance, with one participant questioning whether specific assignments of quark charges violate this principle.
  • Another participant references a source to clarify the transformation properties of non-Abelian gauge fields, suggesting that the invariance of the Lagrangian is crucial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of setting certain gluon fields to zero and the necessity of gauge invariance. There is no consensus on whether the proposed solutions can be discarded or if they lead to valid dynamics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific assumptions about color charge distributions and the implications of structure constants being zero. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the interpretation of gauge invariance in the context of the derived equations.

Ben Niehoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
170
I've been playing around with the QCD Lagrangian to get a better understanding of how it works. I can derive some classical, Maxwell-like equations; the inhomogenous ones are

\nabla \cdot \vec E^a = -gf^{a}_{bc} \vec A^b \cdot \vec E^c + \rho^a

\nabla \times \vec B^a - \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \vec E^a = \vec J^a + gf^a_{bc} (\Phi^b \vec E^c - \vec A^b \times \vec B^c)

The problem is that I'm not quite sure how to interpret these equations. The (gluon) color indices {a, b, c} run from 1 to 8. But there are three kinds of color charge. So how do I interpret the sources \rho^a and \vec J^a?

One thing I attempted was to multiply both equations by the generators T^a_{ij}. This eliminates the gluon color indices {a, b, c} in favor of the quark color indices ij (which then run from 1 to 3). But now there are two indices on everything! One for a color and one for an anti-color. Again, I can't quite figure out how to interpret what it means.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm...no answers. Maybe I didn't explain the question enough. The problem is that these equations are in the adjoint representation, but the quarks are in the fundamental representation, and I wasn't sure how to relate them.

I think I've figured it out, though. I have to represent some color-charge distribution as the linear combination of adjoint-color matrices (as functions of position and time) that leave that charge distribution invariant. For example, a red point-charge at point \vec x' would be represented by

\rho(\vec x) = \left( \frac12 \mathbf \lambda_3 + \frac{\sqrt 3}{2} \mathbf \lambda_8 \right) \delta^{(3)}(\vec x - \vec x')

where \mathbf \lambda_a are the Gell-Mann matrices.

To anyone more familiar with this stuff: Does this sound right, or have I gone astray?
 
Last edited:
Ben Niehoff said:
Does this sound right, or have I gone astray?

Yes, I had it completely wrong. But now I've figured it out! It comes from the definition of the color currents (of course)

j^{\mu}_a = \bar \psi \gamma^{\mu} \frac12 \lambda_a \psi

Then

\rho_a = j^0_a = \psi^{\dagger} \frac12 \lambda_a \psi = \langle \psi | \; \frac12 \lambda_a \; | \psi \rangle

which for red, green, or blue quarks gives

\rho_R = \frac12 \lambda_3 + \frac1{2\sqrt3} \lambda_8

\rho_G = -\frac12 \lambda_3 + \frac1{2\sqrt3} \lambda_8

\rho_B = -\frac1{\sqrt3} \lambda_8

which form an equilateral triangle in (\lambda_3, \lambda_8) space. Nifty!
 
you answered your own questions, so that's good. Let me just point out one more thing: "E" and "B" are not describing quarks, but they're describing the gluon field strength. So that is why these equations are in the adjoint and not the fundamental - there are eight types of gluons, and these equations are describing those eight fields, regardless of the form of the source.

Just a slightly different (wordy) statement of what you wrote down. :wink:
 
However, I've reached another point of confusion. These equations are nonlinear, but the nonlinear parts depend upon the structure constants. In particular,

f^a_{38} = 0

for all a. So if my quark charges lie in (\lambda_3, \lambda_8) space, they will never set up any nonlinear fields! That is, if the vector potentials \vec A^a for a={1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7} are zero at any time, they are zero for ALL times. The chromoelectric field will behave just as three superimposed Maxwell fields, with completely linear behavior (and hence, no confinement).

There is an equation which rotates the quark charges:

\frac{dQ^a}{dt} = -g f^a_{bc} Q^b \left( \Phi^c - \vec v \cdot \vec A^c \right)

but this too depends on the existence of charges and/or fields that lie outside the (\lambda_3, \lambda_8) plane.

So it appears there are no interesting new dynamics unless one assumes pre-existing gluon fields of the remaining 6 types.

Is this true, or is there something I'm missing?
 
I'm not sure what you are doing exactly, but you need the complete gluon octet to make a self-consistent model. Picking 3 of 8 gluons won't work.
 
I am using 8 gluon fields. The issue is that it appears that I can set 6 of them to zero without any inconsistency:

1. The nonlinear parts of the Maxwell-like equations I posted are all multiplied by the structure constants f^a_{bc}.

2. My color currents, as computed above, all lie in the (\lambda_3, \lambda_8) plane in the 8-dimensional gauge space.

3. f^a_{38} = 0 for all a in {1, ..., 8}.

4. Therefore, unless I assume pre-existing gluon fields along one of the {1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7} axes in gauge space, ALL of the nonlinear terms in the equations are identically zero!

In other words, there are solutions where the quarks interact with an ordinary, inverse-square force (but with three kinds of charge, instead of just one), and never display any "interesting" dynamics.

Am I missing something? Is there some principle by which these solutions can be discarded?
 
Ben Niehoff said:
Am I missing something? Is there some principle by which these solutions can be discarded?
Gauge invariance prevents you from doing that. Your equations are not SU(3)_c invariant !
 
humanino said:
Gauge invariance prevents you from doing that. Your equations are not SU(3)_c invariant !

I was hoping it was something like that. But according to Peskin & Schroeder, p. 491, the non-Abelian gauge field is NOT invariant, but transforms as

F^a_{\mu \nu} \rightarrow F^a_{\mu \nu} - f^a_{bc} \alpha^b F^c_{\mu \nu}

It's the Lagrangian which should be invariant.

But maybe there is some subtlety I'm not getting? The quark charges are not gauge-invariant, so maybe I am not allowed to assign them specific values? (Since that would involve fixing an unphysical degree of freedom). Or something like that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K