Why is the color invariant in equation 18.38 a linear combination?

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ndung200790
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Qft
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
7 replies · 3K views
ndung200790
Messages
519
Reaction score
0
Please teach me this:
In the book writing: ...consider the color invariant:
(t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{ij}[/itex](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex](18.38).The indices i,k transform according to to 3 representation of color; the indices j,l transform according to
3[itex]^{-}[/itex].Thus,(18.38) must be a linear combination of the two possible way to contract these indices,
Aδ[itex]_{il}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kj}[/itex]+Bδ[itex]_{ij}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kl}[/itex](18.39).
The constant A and B can be determined by contracting (18.38) and (18.39) with δ[itex]_{ij}[/itex] and with δ[itex]_{jk}[/itex]...
I do not understand why (18.38)must be a linear combination as (18.39)?
Thank you very much for your kind helping.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here t[itex]^{a}[/itex] is generator of SU(3).
 
To get started with an argument, what would happen if you acted on all ijkl indices with an arbitrary matrix U in the fundamental of SU(3). In other words, what can you say about [itex](U t^a U^+)_{ij} (U t^a U^+)_{kl}[/itex]?
 
Please help me to consider Chapter &18.2 QFT book of Peskin & Schoeder.
 
The book writing:...and adjusting A and B so that the contractions of (18.39) obey the identities: tr[t[itex]^{a}[/itex]](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex]=0;(t[itex]^{a}[/itex]t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{il}[/itex]=(4/3)δ[itex]_{il}[/itex] (18.40).
This gives the identity:
(t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{ij}[/itex](t[itex]^{a}[/itex])[itex]_{kl}[/itex]=(1/2)(δ[itex]_{il}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kj}[/itex]-(1/3)δ[itex]_{ij}[/itex]δ[itex]_{kl}[/itex]) (18.41)
 
Now I think that (18.41) is correct because (18.40) are more loosely conditions than the conditions that t[itex]^{a}[/itex] make themself the Lie algebras.Is that correct?
 
If t[itex]^{a}[/itex] are satisfied (18.41)(in #5) then are t[itex]^{a}[/itex] still the generators of SU(3)?
 
I have heard that this can be solved by 't Hooft's double line formalism.Then what is this?