SU(3) defining representation (3) decomposition under SU(2) x U(1) subgroup.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the decomposition of the SU(3) defining representation under the SU(2) x U(1) subgroup, exploring the methods and reasoning behind this process. Participants engage with theoretical concepts related to group theory in particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Georgi's book, noting that the SU(3) defining representation decomposes into an SU(2) doublet with hypercharge (1/3) and a singlet with hypercharge (-2/3), expressing confusion about the reasoning behind this.
  • Another participant asks if the original poster is familiar with splitting representations into irreducible representations.
  • A participant explains that decomposition can be achieved by transforming to block diagonal form or using tensor products and Young tableaux methods.
  • It is noted that the defining representation of SU(3) is not irreducible under SU(2)xU(1) but can still be represented, suggesting that decomposing it into irreducible representations will yield the desired results.
  • A hint is provided to consider a basis where SU(2) is generated by specific Gell-Mann matrices and U(1) by another, to aid in understanding the decomposition.
  • Another participant requests further details on the choice of the SU(2)xU(1) basis and seeks additional reading materials beyond Georgi's book.
  • A suggestion is made that familiarity with the Pauli matrices of SU(2) can clarify the generation of the subgroup, with a reference to Tinkham's book as a potential resource.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and familiarity with the decomposition process, and while some methods are discussed, there is no consensus on the reasoning or the choice of basis for the decomposition.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention different methods for decomposition, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the specifics of the representations and the mathematical steps involved in the process.

Karatechop250
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
I have been reading Georgi "Lie Algebras in Particle Physics" and on page 183 he mentions how that the SU(3) defining representation decomposes into an SU(2) doublet with hyperchage (1/3) and singlet with hypercharge (-2/3). I am confused on how he knows this. I apologize if this is not the right place to put such a question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with how to split a representation into irreducible representations?
 
Yes you decompose it into block diagonal form. Or another way you can do it is do tensor products of the fundamental rep and decompose it using young tableaux methods.
 
So, when you break SU(3), the defining representation of SU(3) is not an irreducible representation of SU(2)xU(1) but is naturally still a representation (just map any element in the subgroup to the element it would have been mapped to in the SU(3) defining representation). Decomposing this representation into irreducible representations should give you the desired result.

Hint: If it helps you think about it, pick a basis such that the SU(2) is generated by ##\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3## and the U(1) by ##\lambda_8## (where ##\lambda_i## are Gell-Mann matrices).
 
Is there anyway you could go into a little more detail. And how did you know in the first place to pick such an SU(2)xU(1) basis. Also do you know of any good reading material besides Georgi's book which I could look at that would include this.
 
Well, if you are familiar with the Pauli matrices of SU(2), it is fairly straightforward to see that those four matrices will generate a subgroup which is SU(2)xU(1). The first three are just the Pauli matrices in the upper left block and the last is the only remaining generator which commutes with those as it is proportional to unity in this block.

Tinkham's book Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics seems fairly popular (although I must admit not having read it) and is published by Dover and so is available at a very reasonable price.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K