Quadratic Casimir Operator of SU(3)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction of the quadratic Casimir operator for the group SU(3). Participants explore various mathematical relations and properties related to the operator, including commutation relations and the coefficients involved in its formulation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants present equations related to the Casimir operator, including the expression for T2 and its commutation relations.
  • There is a discussion about the normalization of the system and the implications of defining certain indices.
  • One participant suggests that the coefficients C_{ij} must be antisymmetric for i ≠ j, while others challenge this assertion, arguing that it leads to contradictions in the definition of the Casimir operator.
  • Another participant proposes that the quadratic Casimir operator can be expressed as a sum of squared generators, indicating that C_{ij} = 0 for i ≠ j and C_{ii} are constants.
  • There is mention of the trace of the generators and its role in determining the coefficients C_{ij}.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions and implications of certain terms and equations, leading to requests for clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the coefficients C_{ij} and their implications for the quadratic Casimir operator. Disagreements arise regarding the definitions and mathematical properties involved in the construction of the operator.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the normalization of indices and the specific conditions that the coefficients C_{ij} must satisfy. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and mathematical reasoning that have not been definitively settled.

torehan
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Hi all,
I need to construct the Casimir op. of group SU(3).
I have these relations;

T2=[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] i,j=1,2...,8 ...eq1
[Ti , Tj]= [tex]\sum f_{i,j,k} T_{k}[/tex] ...eq2

[T2 , Ti]=[[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] , Ts]=[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}[T_{j}, T_{s}] + \sum C_{i}_{j}[T_{i}, T_{s}]T_{j}[/tex]=0 ...eq3

[Tj,Ts]=[tex]\sum f_{j,s,m} T_{m}[/tex] ...eq4
[Ti,Ts]=[tex]\sum f_{i,s,m} T_{m}[/tex] ...eq5

[T2 , Ti] = [tex]\sum C_{i}_{j} \sum f_{j,s,m} T_{i} T_{m} + \sum C_{i}_{j} \sum f_{i,s,m} T_{m}T_{j}[/tex]=0 ...eq6

by the way;
* I normalized the system. i=1
** I'm still improoving my mathematical skills because of that i might use more sum operator that i need. sorry for that.
*** All the indexes are in [1,8] range, i,j,k,s,m = 1,2,...,8
**** f coefficients are known!

I have the Ti matrices but i need to compute Ci,j constants to construct the quad. Casimir op.

1. Is the eq6 right?
2. If it's right , can i collect all of components in ONE sum operator? how the indexes change?
3. How could i compute the Ci,j constants?

Thanks for you patience and advices.

ToreHan.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
torehan said:
Hi all,
I need to construct the Casimir op. of group SU(3).
I have these relations;

T2=[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] i,j=1,2...,8 ...eq1
[Ti , Tj]= [tex]\sum f_{i,j,k} T_{k}[/tex] ...eq2

[T2 , Ti]=[[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] , Ts]=[tex]\sum C_{i}_{j}T_{i}[T_{j}, T_{s}] + \sum C_{i}_{j}[T_{i}, T_{s}]T_{j}[/tex]=0 ...eq3
you mean T_s on the left side, not T_i. Otherwise it looks good.
[Tj,Ts]=[tex]\sum f_{j,s,m} T_{m}[/tex] ...eq4
[Ti,Ts]=[tex]\sum f_{i,s,m} T_{m}[/tex] ...eq5

[T2 , Ti] = [tex]\sum C_{i}_{j} \sum f_{j,s,m} T_{i} T_{m} + \sum C_{i}_{j} \sum f_{i,s,m} T_{m}T_{j}[/tex]=0 ...eq6
Again, it's T_s pn the left side nsteas of T_i
[/quote]
by the way;
* I normalized the system. i=1
[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean by this. i is an index ranging over the number of generators.
Normalization has to do with defining the trace of a product of two generators to have some specific value, for example [itex]Tr (T_a T_b) = \delta_{ab}/2[/itex]

** I'm still improoving my mathematical skills because of that i might use more sum operator that i need. sorry for that.
*** All the indexes are in [1,8] range, i,j,k,s,m = 1,2,...,8
**** f coefficients are known!

I have the Ti matrices but i need to compute Ci,j constants to construct the quad. Casimir op.

1. Is the eq6 right?
2. If it's right , can i collect all of components in ONE sum operator? how the indexes change?
3. How could i compute the Ci,j constants?

Thanks for you patience and advices.

ToreHan.

To make progress, I would take the trace of you rfinal result and use the fact that the trace of two generators is chosen to be [itex]Tr(T_a T_b) = C \delta_{ab} [/quote] where is an irrelevant constant. Then you shoul dbe able to show that the coefficients [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] must be antisymmetric when [itex]i \neq j[/itex] and there is no restriction when [itex]i = j[/itex]. So a possible choise is [itex]C_{ij} =0[/itex] for [itex]i \neq j[/itex] and [itex]C_{ii} = 1[/itex] which is the conventional choice. <br /> <br /> At first sight, I don't see more restrictions on the coefficients but I haven't looked at the problem in detail.[/itex]
 
[Ti , Tj]=[tex]\sum i f_{i,j,k} T_{k}[/tex] i is a complex number.

I use the word "normalization" in simplification meaning. I took the complex i=1 to simplify the equation.


Last part of your post is not so clear. could you please repost it again?
 
Last edited:
torehan said:
[Ti , Tj]=[tex]\sum i f_{i,j,k} T_{k}[/tex] i is a complex number.

I use the word "normalization" in simplification meaning. I took the complex i=1 to simplify the equation.


Last part of your post is not so clear. could you please repost it again?

Sorry if my post got garbled.
I was saying that if we take the trace on both sides of your result and we use that
[itex]Tr (T_a T_b) = C \delta_{ab}[/itex] where C is an irrelevant constant, then one can show that for [itex]i \neq j[/itex] we must have [itex]C_{ij} = - C_{ji}[/itex].
 
I'm done with it.
Thanks for the help.
 
Last edited:
torehan said:
I'm done with it.
Thanks for the help.

You're welcome. What did you find? What conditions did you find the C_ij must obey? I am wondering if I missed some trick.
 
nrqed said:
You're welcome. What did you find? What conditions did you find the C_ij must obey? I am wondering if I missed some trick.

As you said,

for [itex]i \neq j[/itex] [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] Cij = -Cji

That's enough to define the C coefficients.
Using [ T2 , Ts ] = 0 [s=1,2,...,8] commutation relations I get the coefficient equations like -C12 - C21= 0 and more of them. With theese equations I define all Cij = 0 for [itex]i \neq j[/itex] and also I define that C11=C22=C33=...=C88.
 
torehan said:
As you said,

for [itex]i \neq j[/itex] [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] Cij = -Cji

You are making a very big mistake! If [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] is antisymmetric, then the second term in

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} [T_{i},T_{j}] + \frac{1}{2} C_{ij}\{T_{i},T_{j} \}[/tex]

is zero, and you end up with

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} f_{ijk} T_{k}[/tex]

Obviously, this is neither QUADRATIC nor Casmir operator, because it is LINEAR in the generators and [itex][T^{2},T_{n}] \neq 0[/itex]

Indeed, for su(3) [itex]C_{ij} = c\delta_{ij}[/itex], I will explain this to you later.

regards

sam
 
samalkhaiat said:
You are making a very big mistake! If [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] is antisymmetric, then the second term in

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} [T_{i},T_{j}] + \frac{1}{2} C_{ij}\{T_{i},T_{j} \}[/tex]

is zero, and you end up with

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} f_{ijk} T_{k}[/tex]

Obviously, this is neither QUADRATIC nor Casmir operator, because it is LINEAR in the generators and [itex][T^{2},T_{n}] \neq 0[/itex]

Indeed, for su(3) [itex]C_{ij} = c\delta_{ij}[/itex], I will explain this to you later.

regards

sam


Sorry Sam,

I think there is a missunderstanding in definition of T2.

how do you get this [tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} f_{ijk} T_{k}[/tex] ?

[tex]T^{2} = \sum C_{ij} T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] that is the definition of Quad. Casimir Op.

for [itex]i /neq j[/itex] Cij = 0 that we have C11=C22=C33=...=C88.

and Quadratic Casimir Operator becomes [tex]T^{2} = \sum C_{ii} T_{i}^{2}[/tex]

Expanded version of quadretic Casimir Op. is , [tex]T^{2} = C_{11} T_{1}^{2} + C_{22} T_{2}^{2} + C_{33} T_{3}^{2} + ... + C_{88} T_{8}^{2}[/tex]

It's QUADRATIC and CASIMIR OP.

By the way thanks for your interest.

ToreHan
 
  • #10
samalkhaiat said:
You are making a very big mistake! If [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] is antisymmetric, then the second term in

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} [T_{i},T_{j}] + \frac{1}{2} C_{ij}\{T_{i},T_{j} \}[/tex]

is zero, and you end up with

[tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} f_{ijk} T_{k}[/tex]

Obviously, this is neither QUADRATIC nor Casmir operator, because it is LINEAR in the generators and [itex][T^{2},T_{n}] \neq 0[/itex]

Indeed, for su(3) [itex]C_{ij} = c\delta_{ij}[/itex], I will explain this to you later.

regards

sam

You were a bit too hasty... He didn't say that [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] was completely antisymmetric, only that his off-diagonal terms are. This matches your definition of the structure constants.

On a sidenote, the more general identity for the quadratic Casimir operator is:
[itex]\sum_{i,j}\kappa_{ij} T^iT^j[/itex]
where [itex]\kappa_{ij}[/itex] is the Killing metric. This holds for finite dimensional, semisimple Lie algebra's. I think it's also possible (at least in SU(N), but maybe for more general cases as well) to choose a basis of generators such that [itex]\kappa_{ij} \propto \delta_{ij}[/itex]. Your sum of squared generators is quite a general expression.
 
  • #11
torehan said:
samalkhaiat said:
Sorry Sam,

I think there is a missunderstanding in definition of T2.

how do you get this [tex]T^{2} = \frac{1}{2} C_{ij} f_{ijk} T_{k}[/tex] ?

[tex]T^{2} = \sum C_{ij} T_{i}T_{j}[/tex] that is the definition of Quad. Casimir Op.

for [itex]i /neq j[/itex] Cij = 0 that we have C11=C22=C33=...=C88.

and Quadratic Casimir Operator becomes [tex]T^{2} = \sum C_{ii} T_{i}^{2}[/tex]

Expanded version of quadretic Casimir Op. is , [tex]T^{2} = C_{11} T_{1}^{2} + C_{22} T_{2}^{2} + C_{33} T_{3}^{2} + ... + C_{88} T_{8}^{2}[/tex]

It's QUADRATIC and CASIMIR OP.

By the way thanks for your interest.

ToreHan

Sorry for the confusion. So you ment to say that [itex]C_{ij}[/itex] is DIAGONAL. You did not need to write [itex]C_{ij} = - C_{ji}[/itex]. It is more informing to write

[tex]C_{ij}=0, \ \ \mbox{for} \ i \neq j[/tex]


sam
 
  • #12
A very important concept in the study of Lie algebras is the symmetric Cartan metric, defined by

[tex] g_{ij} = f_{ikl}f_{jlk} = \left( ad(X_{i})\right)_{kl} \left( ad(X_{j})\right)_{lk} = Tr \left( ad(X_{i}) ad(X_{j}) \right) = g_{ji}[/tex]

By using the Jacobi identity for the structure constants, we can derive the following (very) important identity***

[tex]g_{ij}f_{jnk} = - g_{kj}f_{jni} \ \ \ \ (R)[/tex]


We use the Cartan metric to construct the second-degree Casimir "operator"

[tex]C_{(2)} = g_{ij} X_{i}X_{j}[/tex]

Now

[tex][C_{(2)} , X_{n} ] = g_{ij}f_{jnk}X_{i}X_{k} + g_{ij}f_{ink} X_{k}X_{j}[/tex]

Changing the dummy indices in the second term leads to

[tex][C_{(2)},X_{n} ] = ( g_{ij}f_{jnk} + g_{jk}f_{jni} ) X_{i}X_{k}[/tex]

It follows from Eq(R) that the LHS is identically zero, i.e.,

[tex][C_{(2)}, X_{n}] = 0, \ \ \forall {n}[/tex]

Thus, according to Schurs lemma, [itex]C_{(2)}[/itex] is a multiple of the identity in any irreducible representation.

For compact, semi-simple or simple Lie algebras like su(3), the Cartan metric can be diagonolized, i.e.,

[tex]g_{ij} = c \delta_{ij}[/tex]

This means that the structure constant is totally antisymmetric. In this case, it is trivially obvious that

[tex][C_{(2)}, X_{n}] = c ( f_{ink} + f_{kni}) X_{i}X_{k} = 0[/tex]

***************

***:
In the non-abelian gauge theories, one takes the Lagrangian for gauge field as

[tex]\mathcal{L} = - \frac{1}{2} g_{ij}F_{i\mu \nu}F_{j}^{\mu\nu}[/tex]

for some real symmetric and constant matrix [itex]g_{ij}[/itex]. In order for this Lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant, the matrix [itex]g_{ij}[/itex] must satisfy the identity of Eq(R).
We can also show that this identity restricts the possible gauge group to be compact (semi-)simple Lie group. This is why I described that identity as "very" important.

regards

sam
 
  • #13
Thanks for the detailed information. As a newbie of Group Theory, I need all info that i can get.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K