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:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Many of us have heard of "twistors", arguably Roger Penrose's biggest contribution to theoretical physics. Twistor space is a space which maps nonlocally onto physical space-time; in particular, lightlike structures in space-time, like null lines and light cones, become much more "local" in twistor space. For various reasons, Penrose thought that twistor space was possibly a more fundamental arena for theoretical physics than space-time, and for many years he and a hardy band of mostly...
Back
Top