Undergrad Do the SU(n) generators represent any observables?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the SU(n) generators, such as the Pauli and Gell-Mann matrices, represent observable quantities in Yang-Mills gauge theory. It is clarified that while these Hermitian operators act on the relevant particle representations, they do not directly correspond to measurable observables like scattering cross sections. Instead, they serve as input parameters for calculations within the theory. The importance of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of these matrices is questioned, with some suggesting they provide insights into the structure of the theory and concepts like weak isospin and color charge. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the distinction between theoretical constructs and measurable physical quantities.
tomdodd4598
Messages
137
Reaction score
13
Hey there,

I've recently been trying to get my head around Yang-Mills gauge theory and was just wandering: do the Pauli matrices for su(2), Gell-Mann matrices for su(3), etc. represent any important observable quantities? After all, they are Hermitian operators and act on the doublets and triplets of the theories, but have bizarre eigenvalues that I can't get my head around. If so, what are they, and if not, why not? What about the adjoint operators?

Thanks in advance :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Quantum Field Theory, "observables" really stands for something (mathematical quantity) which can be measured in the lab. Scattering cross sections or scattering probabilities are the observables of the theory. Matrices (Pauli, Dirac, Gell-Mann) are just calculation input parameters.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
dextercioby said:
Matrices (Pauli, Dirac, Gell-Mann) are just calculation input parameters.
Ok, perhaps I should ask a slightly different question then - are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of these matrices important? Do they not tell us anything useful about the structure of the theory, and do they not tell us about weak isospin, hypercharge, colour charge, etc? Forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 311 ·
11
Replies
311
Views
167K