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

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...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top