A Non-unitary gauge transformation

DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
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