A Is the kinetic mixing gauge-invariant for non-Abelian gauge fields?

Ramtin123
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Consider two non-Abelian gauge fields ##A_\mu^a## and ##A_\mu^{'a}## belonging to the same symmetry group. An example could be the SM electroweak isospin fields and another exotic SU(2) hidden sector where ##a=1, \dots 3##.
Is the kinetic mixing of the following form gauge-invariant?
$$ F_{\mu\nu}^a F^{'a\mu\nu} $$
where ## F_{\mu\nu}^a## and ## F_{\mu\nu}^{'a}## denote the corresponding field strength tensors.
What is the difference between this case and a usual non-Abelian kinetic term ## F_{\mu\nu}^a F^{a\mu\nu}##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to have a different "gauge index" on the F' tensor than a. I think... But gauge fields always transform under the fundemantal representation, so I think FF' should be gauge invariant. Here is a paper on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00044

We do have kinetic mixing if we have more than one abelian gauge symmetry.
 
Last edited:
malawi_glenn said:
You need to have a different "gauge index" on the F' tensor than a. I think... But gauge fields always transform under the fundemantal representation, so I think FF' should be gauge invariant. Here is a paper on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00044

We do have kinetic mixing if we have more than one abelian gauge symmetry.
That paper discusses kinetic mixing of an Abelian U(1) gauge field with the electroweak isospin fields as shown in equations (1.1) and (1.3). The Abelian field strength tensor ##X_{\mu\nu}## is gauge invariant. This is not true for non-Abelian field strength tensor ##F^a_{\mu\nu}##. But the bilinear ## F_{\mu\nu}^a F^{a\mu\nu}## is gauge-invariant.
In this paper Arxiv 2104.01871 [hep-ph] , in the introduction, it is claimed that non-Abelian kinetic mixing is not gauge invariant. But the author does not explain why.
  • The gauge indices are contracted ##tr (F_{\mu\nu}^a T^a F^{ 'b\mu\nu} T^b) = \frac{1}{2} F_{\mu\nu}^a F^{ 'a\mu\nu}##
  • I think you mean "gauge fields always transform under the adjoint representation".
 
Ramtin123 said:
gauge fields always transform under the adjoint representation".
Yes I did.

I did some calculations, the coupling constant ##g## is included in the transformation matrices, ##U(x) = \text{exp}(- \text{i} g\theta(x)^a T^a)##.

## \text{Tr} ( F^{\mu \nu} B_ {\mu \nu}) \to \text{Tr} (U F^{\mu \nu} U^\dagger V B_ {\mu \nu} V^\dagger) \neq \text{Tr} ( F^{\mu \nu} B_ {\mu \nu})## because ##U^\dagger V \neq I ## and ##U^\dagger V \neq I ## because of different gauge-couplings.
 
Last edited:
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top