How does a scalar transform under adjoint representation of SU(3)?

arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
I read this in a paper: Suppose there is a theory describing fermions transforming nontrivially under SU(3) gauge symmetry.
L = \Psi^{\bar}(\gamma^A D_A+Y(\Phi))\Psi. The covariant derivative is: D_A\Psi=(\partial_A-i E_A^{\alpha}T_{\alpha})\Psi. Where E_A^{\alpha} are SU(3) gauge fields, T_{\alpha} are SU(3) generators and \alpha=1,2,...8. Then the author says \Phi=\Phi^{\alpha}T_{\alpha} is
a scalar field that transforms in the adjoint representation
of SU(3). I do not understand why should a scalar field transform that way. I thought scalars are invariant. Can one construct such a theory with one scalar instead of eight scalars? Can anybody explain? Since I do not know much of group theory, it may be helpful to refer me to some appropriate book also. What is meant by Cartan generators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks to me like it's saying that \Phi is a space-time scalar, not an SU(3) scalar. That is to say that it takes on a single value at each point in spacetime, which does not transform at all under Lorentz transformations, but that it carries SU(3) charge.
 
Parlyne is correct - when you say "scalar field", you are referring to the space-time transformation rules. A (complex) scalar field can transform any way it wants, but consider: if it is a *real* scalar field, it must transform under a *real* representation of the gauge group. Therefore it can be a singlet (doesn't transform at all) or an adjoint (like the gauge bosons). If \Psi is in the fundamental of SU(3), then \bar{\Psi}\Psi is already real, so therefore \phi must also be real (since the action must be Hermitian). That's why they make it transform in the adjoint rep.

"Cartan Generators" are the standard basis for the su(n) Lie Algebra. Check out Georgi's textbook for an in-depth explanation of this.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top