Commutator of Charges of the charged Weak Currents

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on evaluating the commutator \(\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]\) in the context of weak currents, specifically within the framework of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The expressions for \(T^{+}\) and \(T^{-}\) are defined using left-handed neutrinos and electrons, leading to the conclusion that \(\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=2T^{3}\). The discussion highlights the importance of using anticommutation relations and the Dirac delta function correctly, as well as referencing Paschos's "Electroweak Theory" for guidance. The final resolution emphasizes the correct application of QFT principles to derive the result.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Fermionic algebra and anticommutation relations
  • Knowledge of the SU(2) gauge symmetry
  • Familiarity with the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of commutators in Quantum Field Theory
  • Learn about the role of the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of SU(2) gauge symmetry in electroweak theory
  • Review Paschos's "Electroweak Theory" for deeper insights into weak currents
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on Quantum Field Theory, electroweak interactions, and particle physics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to understand the mathematical foundations of weak currents and gauge symmetries.

karkas
Messages
131
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I'm having a bit of trouble evaluating the following commutator

$$ \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right] $$

where T^{+}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\bar{\nu}_{L}\gamma^{0}e_{L}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\nu_{L}^{\dagger}e_{L}

and

T^{-}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\bar{e}_{L}\gamma^{0}\nu_{L}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:e_{L}^{\dagger}\nu_{L}

a step necessary to prove that the \text{SU}(2)_L is a part of the GWS Electroweak gauge symmetry group. Discussing with my professor I've been confused as to how I should proceed with this. Initially, I wrote:

\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:d^{3}y\:\left[\nu_{L}^{\dagger}\left(x^{\mu}\right)e_{L}\left(x^{\mu}\right),e_{L}^{\dagger}\left(y^{\mu}\right)\nu_{L}\left(y^{\mu}\right)\right]\delta^{3}\left(x-y\right)

according to Paschos (Electroweak Theory) where my something of an unfamiliarity with QFT leaves me wondering exactly how I inserted that Dirac delta, but I see it's necessary.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I thought of using the fermionic algebra, the anticommutator \left\{ a(y),a^{\dagger}(x)\right\} =1 \Rightarrow a(y)a^{\dagger}(x)=\left\{ a(y),a^{\dagger}(x)\right\} -a^{\dagger}(x)a(y) along with the Dirac delta should let me reach \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right] = \frac{1}{2}\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\left(\nu_{L}^{\dagger}\nu_{L}-e_{L}^{\dagger}e_{L}\right)

and therefore

$$\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=T^{3}$$

but my professor says that this is wrong. I also tried \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=\left[\bar{\chi}_{L}\gamma^{0}\tau^{+}\chi_{L},\bar{\chi}_{L}\gamma^{0}\tau^{-}\chi_{L}\right] but I got weirded out by the u\bar{u} factors and lucked out.

Could someone construct the proof or guide me addressing some of these issues?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
karkas said:

Homework Statement


I'm having a bit of trouble evaluating the following commutator

$$ \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right] $$

where T^{+}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\bar{\nu}_{L}\gamma^{0}e_{L}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\nu_{L}^{\dagger}e_{L}

and

T^{-}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\bar{e}_{L}\gamma^{0}\nu_{L}=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:e_{L}^{\dagger}\nu_{L}

a step necessary to prove that the \text{SU}(2)_L is a part of the GWS Electroweak gauge symmetry group. Discussing with my professor I've been confused as to how I should proceed with this. Initially, I wrote:

\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=\int_{M}d^{3}x\:d^{3}y\:\left[\nu_{L}^{\dagger}\left(x^{\mu}\right)e_{L}\left(x^{\mu}\right),e_{L}^{\dagger}\left(y^{\mu}\right)\nu_{L}\left(y^{\mu}\right)\right]\delta^{3}\left(x-y\right)

according to Paschos (Electroweak Theory) where my something of an unfamiliarity with QFT leaves me wondering exactly how I inserted that Dirac delta, but I see it's necessary.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


I thought of using the fermionic algebra, the anticommutator \left\{ a(y),a^{\dagger}(x)\right\} =1 \Rightarrow a(y)a^{\dagger}(x)=\left\{ a(y),a^{\dagger}(x)\right\} -a^{\dagger}(x)a(y) along with the Dirac delta should let me reach \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right] = \frac{1}{2}\int_{M}d^{3}x\:\left(\nu_{L}^{\dagger}\nu_{L}-e_{L}^{\dagger}e_{L}\right)

and therefore

$$\left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=T^{3}$$

but my professor says that this is wrong. I also tried \left[T^{+},T^{-}\right]=\left[\bar{\chi}_{L}\gamma^{0}\tau^{+}\chi_{L},\bar{\chi}_{L}\gamma^{0}\tau^{-}\chi_{L}\right] but I got weirded out by the u\bar{u} factors and lucked out.

Could someone construct the proof or guide me addressing some of these issues?

Where did you get the delta function from? And you don’t need it because the anticommutation relations produce the delta function for you. Just use the following identity, which relates commutators with anticommutators
<br /> \begin{split}<br /> [AB,CD] =&amp; A \big\{ C , B \big\} D - C \big\{ A , D \big\} B \\<br /> &amp; + \big\{ A , C \big\} DB - AC \big\{ B , D \big\} .<br /> \end{split}<br />
Now, take A = \nu^{\dagger}(x), B = e(x), C = e^{\dagger}(y) and D = \nu (y). Then, the only non-zero anticommutators are
<br /> \big\{ \nu^{\dagger}(x) , \nu (y) \big\} = \big\{ e^{\dagger}(x) , e(y) \big\} = \delta^{3}(x-y) .<br />
So, you get
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> [T_{+},T_{-}] &amp;= \int d^{3}x d^{3}y \left( \nu^{\dagger}(x)\nu(y) \delta (x-y) - e^{\dagger}(y) e(x) \delta(x-y) \right) \\<br /> &amp;= \int d^{3}x \left( \nu^{\dagger}(x)\nu(x) - e^{\dagger}(x) e(x) \right) \\<br /> &amp;= 2 \int d^{3}x \left( \nu^{\dagger}(x) , e^{\dagger}(x) \right) \left( \frac{\tau^{3}}{2} \right) \begin{pmatrix} \nu(x) \\ e(x) \end{pmatrix} \\<br /> &amp;= 2 T^{3} .<br /> \end{align*}<br />
 
I wrote the delta function just plain following Paschos's book, assuming I should be doing it according to some QFT rule. Didn't really make much use of it and pretty much ignored it, but getting the x=y properties along the way.

Now that's more like it samalkhaiat, that's along the lines of what I thought it would be. I missed a factor of 2 in my own work, which I will check again, but I'm all in all glad not to see it get much more complicated. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K