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

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top