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.
 
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K