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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlbertEi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Gauge Value
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the behavior of $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ gauge fields within the context of their Lie subalgebra, specifically regarding the field strength tensor $F_{\mu \nu}$. The author initially questions whether all terms in the expression for $F_{\mu \nu}$ reside in the same subalgebra, particularly focusing on the last term involving the Levi-Civita symbol. After clarification, it is concluded that the first two terms indeed belong to the same subalgebra as the field strength tensor, and the last term also aligns with this subalgebra when only one unbroken generator is present, ultimately reducing to the electromagnetic field strength tensor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ gauge theory
  • Familiarity with Lie algebras and their structure
  • Knowledge of field strength tensors in gauge theories
  • Proficiency in mathematical notation, particularly LaTeX
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of $\mathrm{SU(2)}$ gauge fields in detail
  • Explore the implications of the Higgs mechanism on gauge theories
  • Learn about the role of the Levi-Civita symbol in gauge field theory
  • Investigate the relationship between unbroken generators and field strength tensors
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in gauge theories, quantum field theory, and the mathematical foundations of particle physics.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
978
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K