Undergrad Unraveling Representations of SU2 & SU3 in Particle Physics

Josh1079
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm recently reading some text on particle physics and there is a section on symmetries and group theory. It gave the definition of SU2 as the group of unitary 2*2 matrices and that SU3 is the group of unitary 3*3 matrices. However, it kind of confuses me when it mentioned representations of higher orders. What's the difference between a 3*3 representation of SU2 and SU3? Also, I don't really understand what it means when it mentioned something like "invariant under SU2 transformations", can anyone give an example of a vector that's invariant under SU2 transformations?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Josh1079 said:
Hi, I'm recently reading some text on particle physics and there is a section on symmetries and group theory. It gave the definition of SU2 as the group of unitary 2*2 matrices and that SU3 is the group of unitary 3*3 matrices. However, it kind of confuses me when it mentioned representations of higher orders. What's the difference between a 3*3 representation of SU2 and SU3? Also, I don't really understand what it means when it mentioned something like "invariant under SU2 transformations", can anyone give an example of a vector that's invariant under SU2 transformations?

Thanks!
A representation is a mapping from the given group into a group of (regular, invertible) transformations of a vector space. In mathematical terms: A representation ##(G,V,φ)## of a group ##G## is a vector space ##V## together with a group homomorphism ##φ: G \longrightarrow GL(V).##
So the number you mentioned, "##3 \times 3## representation" refers to the dimension of the vector space (here ##3##), not to the group! Thus it has nothing to do with whether you consider ##SU(2)## or ##SU(3)##. An invariant vector ##v## under ##SU(2)## transformation means, that ##φ(X)(v) = v## for all ##X \in SU(2)##, here unitary ##2 \times 2##-matrices with determinant ##1##. The mapping ##φ## in this context is often omitted and the equation is noted ##X.v = v## or ##v^X = v##. Things become a bit messy if the vector space ##V## itself is a vector space of (not necessarily regular, since ##0 \in V##) matrices.

An example for a representation of ##SU(n)## would be ##φ: SU(n) \longrightarrow GL(\mathfrak{su}(n))## where ##φ: u \longmapsto uAu^{-1}## for ##u \in SU(n) \, , \, A \in \mathfrak{su}(n).##
It shouldn't be too difficult to find invariant vectors here or in a simplier representation ##V##.

One last remark: A representation ##(G,V,φ)## is often simply called by "##G## operates on ##V##".
 
Thanks a lot! So I guess I've mixed up the definitions.

But for the invariant vector question, I think that's what I thought initially until I saw a line stating that (1, 1, 1) is invariant under SU3 transformations. Actually, it stated η = (u(ubar) + d(dbar) + s(sbar))/√3 is invariant under SU3. This really confuses me.
 
Josh1079 said:
But for the invariant vector question, I think that's what I thought initially until I saw a line stating that (1, 1, 1) is invariant under SU3 transformations. Actually, it stated η = (u(ubar) + d(dbar) + s(sbar))/√3 is invariant under SU3.
I'm not sure here, what ##u,d,s## are. Unipotent, diagonal, symmetric matrices? And I haven't generators of ##SU(3)## in mind to verify that ##(1,1,1)## is invariant under ##SU(3)## by its natural representation (matrix multiplication / application on ##\mathbb{C}^3##) ##u.(1,1,1) = (u_{1i},u_{2i},u_{3i})##, i.e. all the row sums of ##u## should be equal to ##1##. Seems wrong to me, so either it's another representation on ##\mathbb{C}^3## or the diagonal matrix ##\mathbb{1} = (1,1,1)## is meant, which is of course invariant under ##SU(3)##.
 
Actually, since I'm reading a particle physics text, the u d s refers to quarks. Maybe I should raise this on the physics section.

Thanks for the reply!
 
Oh crap... Just found that I've got wrong idea about that issue...

Thanks again, the explanation is very nice and clear!
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K