Do non-Abelian gauge fields takes the same value in the Lie subalgebra

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ gauge fields take the same value in the Lie subalgebra as spanned by the field strength tensor. The field strength tensor is defined using the gauge fields and their commutation relations, and it is noted that in the Higgs vacuum, this tensor lies within the subalgebra of unbroken generators. Initially, there is confusion regarding the last term of the field strength tensor's expression, which seems not to belong to the same subalgebra. However, it is concluded that all terms, including the last one, must indeed reside in the subalgebra, particularly when only one unbroken generator is present, leading to the simplification to the electromagnetic field strength tensor. This clarification resolves the initial uncertainty about the relationship between the gauge fields and the Lie subalgebra.
AlbertEi
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Do the $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ gauge fields takes the same value in the Lie subalgebra spanned by the $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ field strength tensor?

I will try to clarify my questions. Define the Lie algebra as:

\begin{equation}
[t^a,t^b] = \varepsilon_{abc}t^c
\end{equation}

where $\varepsilon$ is the usual Levi-Civita symbol. The field strength tensor:

\begin{equation}
F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu + [A_\mu , A_\nu]
\end{equation

In components:

\begin{equation}
F_{\mu \nu}^a t^a = \partial_\mu A_\nu^a t^a - \partial_\nu A_\mu^a t^a + A_\mu^b A_\nu^c \varepsilon_{abc}t^a
\end{equation}

Now I will skip a lot of details, but basically in the Higgs vacuum $F_{\mu \nu}$ lies in the subalgebra spanned by the unbroken generators (in my example there is only one unbroken generator). I will denote the unbroken generators as $t^A$ (i.e. the group index of the unbroken generator is denoted by a capital letter), therefore:

\begin{equation}
\Rightarrow F_{\mu \nu}^A t^A = \partial_\mu A_\nu^A t^A - \partial_\nu A_\mu^A t^A + A_\mu^b A_\nu^c \varepsilon_{Abc} t^A
\end{equation}

Clearly, the gauge fields in the first two terms on the R.H.S. lie in the subalgebra. But I'm confused about the last term. To me it seems that those gauge field do not necessary live in the same subalgebra. However, the sources that I read seem to suggest that I'm wrong. If anybody can help me, then that would be greatly appreciated.

P.s. I've recently learned Latex, so I hope that I have used it correctly.

Edit: It seems that something is going wrong with my formulas, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I hope people can still understand what I've written.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, I think I know where I went wrong in my thought process, the first two terms on the R.H.S. must be in the same subalgebra as the field strength tensor, and the gauge fields in the third term are the same gauge fields. Therefore, they must also lie in the subalgebra. However, if we only have one unbroken generator, then that mean that the last term vansishes and so it reduces to the electromagnetic field strength tensor. Is that correct?
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top