A Non-unitary gauge transformation

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
What happens for non-unitary gauge transformations when it comes to fermion factors?
You see in the literature that the vector potentials in a gauge covariant derivative transform like:
A_\mu \rightarrow T A_\mu T^{-1} + i(\partial_\mu T) T^{-1}
Where T is not necessarily unitary. (In the case that it is ##T^{-1} = T^\dagger##)
My question is then if T is not unitary, how is ##\bar{\psi}## transforming?
Since
\psi \rightarrow T\psi
\bar{\psi} \rightarrow (T\psi)^\dagger \gamma_0 = \psi^\dagger \gamma_0 \gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0 = \bar{\psi} \gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0
This seems to necessitate that \gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0 = T^{-1}
This can only be the case if ##T^\dagger = T^{-1}##, or if ##T^\dagger## is a 4x4 matrix that multiplies with ##\gamma_0## matrices to give the inverse.
Otherwise, in general, you are left with something like:
\bar{\psi} (\partial_\mu + i A_\mu) \psi \rightarrow \bar{\psi} \gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0 (\partial_\mu + i T A_\mu T^{-1} - (\partial_\mu T)T^{-1} ) T\psi
=\bar{\psi} (\gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0 T) (\partial_\mu + i A_\mu) \psi
So to be gauge invariant, this object \gamma_0 T^\dagger \gamma_0 T = 1 but that is not the case in general.
Can this be simplified more, maybe for cases where T is a 2x2 matrix that commutes with ##\gamma_0##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is $\psi$? A Dirac spinor?

The $\gamma_0$ and $T$ are matrices in different spaces, the $\gamma_0$ acts on spinor index and $T$ on group "space" index. So you do not need to worry about the generator matrix for the group commute with $\gamma_0$ or not.

What group do you have in mind? SO(N)? G_2 ?
 
malawi_glenn said:
What is $\psi$? A Dirac spinor?

The $\gamma_0$ and $T$ are matrices in different spaces, the $\gamma_0$ acts on spinor index and $T$ on group "space" index. So you do not need to worry about the generator matrix for the group commute with $\gamma_0$ or not.

What group do you have in mind? SO(N)? G_2 ?
Yes, of course they are acting on different spaces in most cases. Was trying to keep things very generalized in an attempt to "rescue" invariance, but I think that may be overkill.
And, Psi is indeed a dirac spinor.
My question still remains on what to do about T being non-unitary.
As ##A_\mu \rightarrow T A_\mu T^{-1} +i (\partial_\mu T) T^{-1}##
But ##\bar{\psi} \rightarrow \bar{\psi} T^\dagger##
So it is not clear why literature asserts that the transformation on A is for non-unitary transformations, because ##\bar{\psi}## tranforms by ##T^\dagger## not ##T^{-1}##.
The transformation is something like:
##\bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu + iA_\mu)\psi \rightarrow \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu T^\dagger T(\partial_\mu + iA_\mu)\psi## which is not invariant if T is not unitary. So what can remedy this if anything?
 
But you have to choose which representation the dirac field must transform under. And most (compact) Lie Groups have complex representations, but not all of them. This is why ##E_8## is never considered as a model for GUT's because it has no complex representations and you can not couple them to dirac fermions.
 
Jacobson’s work (1995) [1] demonstrated that Einstein’s equations can be derived from thermodynamic principles, suggesting gravity might emerge from the thermodynamic behavior of spacetime, tied to the entropy of horizons. Other researchers, such as Bekenstein [2] and Verlinde [3], have explored similar ideas, linking gravity to entropy and holographic principles. I’m interested in discussing how these thermodynamic approaches might apply to quantum gravity, particularly at the Planck...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K