Gluon Scattering - Colored Feynman Rules for Yang Mills Theory

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi,

I'm reading Appendix 1 of Section N2 (Gluon Scattering) in "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" by Anthony Zee. The generators for SU(N) have the usual algebra

[T^a, T^b] = i \epsilon^{a b c}T^c

Suppose we adopt the following normalization

\text{tr}(T^a T^b) = \frac{1}{2}\delta^{a b}

Then, we have

\text{tr}([T^a, T^b]T^c) = \text{tr}(i f^{a b e} T^{e} T^{c}) = i f^{a b e}\text{tr}(T^e T^c) = \frac{i f^{a b e} \delta^{e c}}{2} = \frac{i f ^{a b c}}{2}

so that

f^{a b c} = - 2 i \text{tr}([T^a, T^b]T^c)

Also,

\text{tr}([T^a, T^b][T^c, T^d]) = \text{tr}(i f^{a b \alpha} T^{\alpha} i f ^{c d \beta} T^{\beta}) = -f^{a b \alpha} f^{c d \beta}\text{tr}(T^\alpha T^\beta) = -\frac{1}{2}f^{a b e} f^{c d e}

which implies that

f^{a b e} f^{c d e} = -2 \text{tr}([T^a, T^b][T^c, T^d])

However, the author explicitly states that

f^{a b e} f^{c d e} = -4 \text{tr}([T^a, T^b][T^c, T^d])

I don't get this additional factor of 2. What am I missing? Is there an error somewhere?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Right on, the factor should be 2, not 4. For example check it for a = c = 1, b = d = 2. You get

f123f123 = 2 tr(T3T3)

The LHS is 1 and the trace of (T3)2 is indeed 1/2, so your form is correct.
 
Thanks Bill.

How is

\frac{\langle 1 2\rangle^4}{\langle 1 2\rangle \langle 2 3\rangle \langle 3 4\rangle \langle 4 1\rangle} = \frac{p_1 \cdot p_2}{p_2 \cdot p_3}?

For a given set of momenta, doesn't one have to find out what <1|2>, <3|4> etc are explicitly? How does this simple relationship arise? I think I missed it somehow. I can't get the LHS to equal the RHS. Any ideas?

Normally, papers/books seem to derive it up to the LHS..
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top