Electric charge as ##Q = T_{3} + Y##

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formula ##Q = T_{3} + Y## in the context of a complex scalar field transforming as a triplet of ##SU_{L}(2)##. Participants explore how to derive the electric charges of the component fields ##\psi_{1}##, ##\psi_{2}##, and ##\psi_{3}##, particularly focusing on the normalization of the generators and the implications for unitary gauge transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to obtain the electric charges of the fields given the formula and the assumption that the hypercharge ##Y## is zero.
  • Another participant corrects the normalization of ##t_3##, stating that the eigenvalues should be -1, 0, and +1 instead of the previously suggested values.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the unitary gauge transformation and seeks clarification on its explicit form.
  • There is a reiteration of the calculation method for electric charges, emphasizing the need to add the hypercharge to the diagonal values representing ##T_3## charge.
  • One participant challenges the correctness of a previous answer, asserting that the normalization of ##t_3## should not involve ##1/\sqrt{2}##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the normalization of ##t_3## and the corresponding eigenvalues. There is no consensus on the correct values or the implications for the electric charges derived from the formula.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved aspects regarding the normalization of the generators and the assumptions made about the hypercharge. The implications of these factors on the electric charge calculations remain unclear.

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
My question is about the formula ##Q = T_{3} + Y##.

Let us say that there is some complex scalar field that transforms as a triplet of ##SU_{L}(2)##; i.e.

##\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \psi_{1}\\ \psi_{2} \\ \psi_{3} \end{pmatrix}##

and

##\delta_{2}\psi = i\omega_{2}^{a}t_{a}\psi##

with

##t_{1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
t_{2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -i & 0 \\ i & 0 & -i \\ 0 & i & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
t_{3} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}##

Let us suppose also that the hypercharge, ##Y##, of the field ##\psi## is zero.

How do we now obtain the electric charges of the component fields ##\psi_{1}##, ##\psi_{2}##, and ##\psi_{3}##?

Is it ##1/\sqrt{2}##, ##0## and ##-1/\sqrt{2}##, because these are the eigenvalues of the eigenstates ##\psi_{1}##, ##\psi_{2}## and ##\psi_{3}## of ##\psi##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have gotten the normalisation of ##t_3## wrong. The eigenvalues should be -1, 0, and +1.
 
Ah! I see!

So, now if you wanted to transform to unitary gauge, how would you do so?

I have difficulty understanding what the unitary gauge transformation explicitly looks like.
 
spaghetti3451 said:
Is it ##1/\sqrt{2}##, ##0## and ##-1/\sqrt{2}##, because these are the eigenvalues of the eigenstates ##\psi_{1}##, ##\psi_{2}## and ##\psi_{3}## of ##\psi##?

Yes! (EDIT: sorry, it seems according to Orodruin's reply to this post that I haven't made my yes clear enough: let's suppose you had the normalisation right, it would indeed be the way you would calculate the charges: the diagonal values give you the ##T_3## charge of each component, to which you just have to add the hypercharge)

spaghetti3451 said:
Ah! I see!

So, now if you wanted to transform to unitary gauge, how would you do so?

Unitary gauge is usually defined when you have Goldstone bosons and want to get rid of them. For instance, for the Higgs field, which you can write ##h=e^{(-i\eta_at^a)}(0, h+v)##, then the change to unitary gauge would be one of parameters the ##\eta##'s to make them disappear. But it does not change anything to the generators of your group.
 
Last edited:
Q.B. said:
Yes!
No. Why would you bother to give a wrong answer to a question that has already been answered? The normalisation of ##t_3## should not involve the ##1/\sqrt{2}## and the third isospin component of the same multiplet differ by one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K