A question in QFT book of Peskin&Schoeder?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ndung200790
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a question related to the treatment of color invariants in quantum field theory, specifically in the context of the book "Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin and Schroeder. Participants explore the implications of certain equations and identities involving the generators of SU(3) and their contractions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on why a specific equation (18.38) must be a linear combination of two forms as expressed in (18.39).
  • Another participant notes that \( t^{a} \) represents the generators of SU(3).
  • A suggestion is made to consider the effect of acting on the indices with an arbitrary matrix \( U \) in the fundamental representation of SU(3) to explore the implications for the indices.
  • Reference is made to conditions that must be satisfied for the contractions in (18.39) to hold, specifically identities involving traces and products of the generators.
  • One participant expresses confidence in the correctness of (18.41) based on the conditions outlined in (18.40), suggesting that the latter are less stringent than the conditions defining the Lie algebra.
  • A question is posed regarding whether the generators \( t^{a} \) remain valid if they satisfy the identity in (18.41).
  • A mention of 't Hooft's double line formalism is introduced, with a request for clarification on this approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple viewpoints and interpretations regarding the relationships between the equations and the properties of the generators. No consensus has been reached on the implications of the identities or the correctness of the proposed solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific equations and identities without providing full context or derivations, leading to potential gaps in understanding the assumptions or dependencies involved.

ndung200790
Messages
519
Reaction score
0
Please teach me this:
In the book writing: ...consider the color invariant:
(t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{ij}[/itex](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex](18.38).The indices i,k transform according to to 3 representation of color; the indices j,l transform according to
3[itex]^{-}[/itex].Thus,(18.38) must be a linear combination of the two possible way to contract these indices,
Aδ[itex]_{il}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kj}[/itex]+Bδ[itex]_{ij}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kl}[/itex](18.39).
The constant A and B can be determined by contracting (18.38) and (18.39) with δ[itex]_{ij}[/itex] and with δ[itex]_{jk}[/itex]...
I do not understand why (18.38)must be a linear combination as (18.39)?
Thank you very much for your kind helping.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here t[itex]^{a}[/itex] is generator of SU(3).
 
To get started with an argument, what would happen if you acted on all ijkl indices with an arbitrary matrix U in the fundamental of SU(3). In other words, what can you say about [itex](U t^a U^+)_{ij} (U t^a U^+)_{kl}[/itex]?
 
Please help me to consider Chapter &18.2 QFT book of Peskin & Schoeder.
 
The book writing:...and adjusting A and B so that the contractions of (18.39) obey the identities: tr[t[itex]^{a}[/itex]](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex]=0;(t[itex]^{a}[/itex]t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{il}[/itex]=(4/3)δ[itex]_{il}[/itex] (18.40).
This gives the identity:
(t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{ij}[/itex](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex]=(1/2)(δ[itex]_{il}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kj}[/itex]-(1/3)δ[itex]_{ij}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kl}[/itex]) (18.41)
 
Now I think that (18.41) is correct because (18.40) are more loosely conditions than the conditions that t[itex]^{a}[/itex] make themself the Lie algebras.Is that correct?
 
If t[itex]^{a}[/itex] are satisfied (18.41)(in #5) then are t[itex]^{a}[/itex] still the generators of SU(3)?
 
I have heard that this can be solved by 't Hooft's double line formalism.Then what is this?
 

Similar threads

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