Pauli Matrices and Structure Constants

robousy
Messages
332
Reaction score
1
Hey folks,

I am trying to generate the Pauli matrices and am using the following formula taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU(3 )

"In the adjoint representation the generators are represented by (n^2-1)×(n^2-1) matrices whose elements are defined by the structure constants"

(T_a)_{jk} = -if_{ajk}

ok - I'm fine up to here. Now it says, "For SU(2), the generators T, in the defining representation, are proportional to the Pauli matrices, via:"

T_a=\frac{\sigma_a}{2}

So here is my problem. I am assuming that j and k run from 1:2. This way T_a is a 2x2 matrix. But let's try this for the first Pauli matrix:

(T_1)_{11} = -if_{111}=0
(T_1)_{12} = -if_{112}=0
(T_1)_{21} = -if_{121}=0
(T_1)_{22} = -if_{122}=0

<br /> \sigma_{1} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}0 &amp; 0\\0 &amp; 0\end{array}\right)

Clearly I am doing something wrong...but what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
first of all here's a friendly advise : one might not want to truly learn something from wikipedia. democracy has its own problems.

anyways, please note that the smallest non-trivial matrix representation of dim n^{2}-1 is for n=2, and the dim is 3. Pauli matrices are 2d reps. So you see all that follows this point need to be re-thought.


cheers
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top