Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm getting a bit confused about the adjoint representation. I learnt about Lie algrebras using the book by Howard Georgi (i.e. it is very "physics-like" and we did not distinguish between the abstract approach to group theory and the matrix approach to group theory). He defines the adjoint as follows:

\begin{equation}

[T_a]_{bc} = i f_{abc} T_c

\end{equation}

where $T_i$ are the generators and $f_abc$ are the structure constants. This definition clearly means that matrix in the adjoint representation must have the same amount of dimensions as there are generators. However, recently I have reading some papers where they talk about the adjoint representation of for instance the Higgs field $\phi$ as follows:

\begin{equation}

\phi=\phi^a T^a

\end{equation}

with the following transformation properties:

\begin{equation}

\phi \mapsto g \phi g^{-1}

\end{equation}

where the generators do not necessarily have to be of the same dimensions as the number of generators. I understand that this basically just means that $\phi$ always takes values in the Lie algebra, but I think it is really odd that two very different properties of the Lie algebra have been given the same name. My confusion even grows further when they discuss roots/weight. More specifically, are the eigenvalues of the latter generators called roots or weights?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Confusion about the definition of adjoint representation and roots.

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**