A Gauge theory on a lattice: intertwiners, gauge potentials...

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the equivalence of two definitions of spin networks using the Lie group G = SU(2). Both methods involve coloring edges with G representations, but differ in how nodes are colored: one uses elements of G^N, while the other uses intertwiners between incoming and outgoing links. An example demonstrates that for a single node, both approaches yield the same coloring, confirming their equivalence. In cases with trivalent nodes, the presence of a single intertwiner means the choice of G^N is redundant, yet the two definitions remain consistent. Overall, the equivalence holds regardless of the node's trivalence.
Heidi
Messages
420
Reaction score
40
Hi Pfs
i am interested in spin networks (a pecular lattices) and i found two ways to define them. they both take G = SU(2) as the Lie group.
in the both ways the L oriented edges are colored with G representations (elements of G^L
the difference is about the N nodes.
1) in the first way the coloring of the nodes is like the links: elements of G^N
2) in the second the nodes are colored with intertwiners between the ingoing links and the outgoing links from the node
How to see that they are equivalent
i would appreciate an example with one or two nodes
I have doubts because when the nodes are trivalent there is only one intertwiner and in that case is the coloring of the nodes still a choince,
thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The two ways of defining spin networks are equivalent because they use the same Lie group (G = SU(2)) and the same representations for the edges (elements of G^L). In the first way, the nodes are colored with elements of G^N, while in the second way the nodes are colored with intertwiners between the incoming and outgoing links from the node.To illustrate the equivalence, let's consider a simple example with one node. In the first approach, the node is colored with an element of G^N, say, g. In the second approach, the node is colored with the intertwiner between the incoming and outgoing links, which is also g. Thus, the two approaches yield the same coloring for the node and are therefore equivalent.When the nodes are trivalent, there is only one intertwiner, so the choice of a specific element of G^N is not necessary. However, in this case the two approaches are still equivalent since the intertwiner is the same as the element of G^N.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...

Similar threads