Invariant combination of SU(3) states

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on constructing invariant terms in the Lagrangian using quark fields under the SU(3) gauge group. The mass term ##\bar{q}q## is identified as both Lorentz and SU(3) invariant. The construction of gauge-invariant terms involving three quarks and a lepton, such as $$\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\bar{u}^c_\alpha \, u_\beta \, \bar{d}^c_\gamma \, e$$, is explained through the necessity of using the anti-symmetric tensor to achieve invariance. Additionally, parallels are drawn with SU(2) invariants, specifically in the context of the Higgs field and Yukawa terms, highlighting the role of complex conjugation and contraction with anti-symmetric tensors in forming these invariants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of SU(3) gauge theory and its representations
  • Familiarity with Lorentz invariance in quantum field theory
  • Knowledge of quark fields and charge conjugation
  • Basic concepts of the Standard Model, particularly the Higgs mechanism
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the construction of SU(3) invariants in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the role of anti-symmetric tensors in gauge theories
  • Explore the implications of charge conjugation in particle physics
  • Investigate the relationship between SU(2) and SU(3) invariants in the Standard Model
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in particle physics and quantum field theory, as well as graduate students seeking to deepen their understanding of gauge invariance and the structure of the Standard Model.

Luca_Mantani
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone,
this is something i know because i saw it many times, but i have never fully understand it. Suppose i have a quark field (singlet under SU(2) let's say) ##q## and i would like to build an invariant term to write in the Lagrangian. The obvious choice is to write a mass-term ##\bar{q}q##. This is both Lorentz invariant and SU(3) invariant, since

$$q'=Uq \\ \bar{q}'=\bar{q}U^\dagger$$

This is okay, but sometimes i encounter other terms, that involve 3 quarks and a lepton. I heuristically know that to make a color singlet you need a anti-symmetric combination of 3 quarks or 3 anti-quarks. So we can write a term like:

$$\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\bar{u}^c_\alpha \, u_\beta \, \bar{d}^c_\gamma \, e$$
where e is the electron field and c means that it is the charge conjugated field ##u^c=C(\bar{u})^T##. Why this term is gauge invariant under SU(3)? Why do we have to combine them like that to obtain an invariant, with the anti-symmetic tensor?

Also there is something else that i think it is related to this, but with SU(2). If i have an object L that is a doublet, i know that the invariant is something like ##L^\dagger L##. However, in the Standard Model for example, we have the Higgs field ##H## but we also need the field ##\tilde{H}_i=\epsilon_{ij}H^*_j## that is a field with opposite hypercharge. So for example, we can build the yukawa term

$$\bar{q} \, \tilde{H} \, u_R$$

and the first part is basically from an SU(2) point of view ##\bar{q}_i H^*_j \epsilon_{ij}## that looks exactly like the counterpart of the SU(3) singlet above.

So i guess, my question is: why can we build these kind of invariant terms in SU(N), basically taking the complex conjugated of a field and then contracting them with the anti-symmetric tensor?

If you also have some references that explain in detail why we can build such kind of terms in the Lagrangian it could be very helpful.

Thanks in advance for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Luca_Mantani said:
Why do we have to combine them like that to obtain an invariant, with the anti-symmetic tensor?
In general, the product of the SU(3) irreps under which the quarks transform can be decomposed into irreps. When you take the product of three fundamental SU(3) representations, the resulting representation contains a singlet representation which is the completely anti-symmetric product (there is only one way of taking the completely anti-symmetric product and so that representation is one-dimensional and must be the singlet representation).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K