Yang-Mills 3 boson Lagrangian term in Peskin and Schroeder

  • #1
1
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi all,

I'm not certain if this is the correct section of the forum for this thread but I'm trying to understand ghosts and BRST symmetry and my starting point is chapter 16 of Peskin and Schroeder where I've found a nagging issue. My issue is regarding the derivation of equation (16.6) on page 507. The starting point is the Yang-Mills Lagrangian (16.1)

\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F^{a}_{\mu\nu}F^{a\mu\nu}+\overline{\psi}\left(i\displaystyle{\not}{D}-m\right)\psi
\end{equation}

where we have the field strength defined as (16.2)
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu\nu}^a = \partial_{\mu}A^{a}_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A^a_{\mu}+gf^{abc}A^b_{\mu}A^c_{\nu}
\end{equation}

and the covariant derivative is (16.3)
\begin{equation}
D_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} - i g A^{a}_{\mu}t^{a}
\end{equation}

where I've already dropped the r subscript on the representation matrix.

From this the book goes on to equation (16.6) for the Lagrangian, my issue is with the 3 boson vertex term which is given as
\begin{equation}
-gf^{abc}\left(\partial_{\kappa}A_{\lambda}^a\right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c}.
\end{equation}

My issue is that the 3 boson vertex term I get is
\begin{equation}
- \frac{gf^{abc}}{2}\left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda}-\partial_{\lambda}A^a_{\kappa}\right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c}.
\end{equation}

So what this boils down to is that I can't immediately see why
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda}-\partial_{\lambda}A^a_{\kappa}\right) = 2\left(\partial_{\kappa}A_{\lambda}^a\right).
\end{equation}

I feel I'm missing something obvious or a previously stated result/assumption but I've scoured the internet for more verbose versions of these steps and read through relevant earlier sections of the book to no avail (not to say I haven't overlooked something). Of the other texts I've checked, Srednicki's draft QFT text does the exact same as Peskin and Schroeder where as Muta's "Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics" and Kaku's "Quantum Field Theory (A Modern Introduction)" leave it in the form I find.

Thanks for any help.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,661
6,439
Is there perhaps some convenient property of the structure constants ##f^{abc}## that you can use?
 
  • #3
2
0
your eq.6 is wrong, eq.5 comes from following simple trick:

$$ f^{abc} \partial_\mu A^a_\nu A^{b\nu}A^{c\mu} = f^{abc} \partial_\nu A^a_\mu A^{b\mu}A^{c\nu} = f^{acb} \partial_\nu A^a_\mu A^{c\mu}A^{b\nu} = -f^{abc} \partial_\nu A^a_\mu A^{c\mu}A^{b\nu} $$
 
  • #4
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,277
634
Is there perhaps some convenient property of the structure constants ##f^{abc}## that you can use?

It's been a while for me (a long, long while :P ), but isn't this just because [itex]f^{abc}[/itex] is antisymmetric in b and c? So,

\begin{equation}
f^{abc} \left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda}-\partial_{\lambda}A^a_{\kappa}\right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c} = \\
f^{a[bc]}\left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda}-\partial_{\lambda}A^a_{\kappa}\right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c} = \\
f^{abc} \left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda}-\partial_{\lambda}A^a_{\kappa}\right)A^{[\kappa |b|}A^{\lambda] c} = \\
2f^{abc} \left(\partial_{[\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda]} \right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c} = \\
2f^{abc} \left(\partial_{\kappa}A^{a}_{\lambda} \right)A^{\kappa b}A^{\lambda c}
\end{equation}

You can do this because both indices b and c (and kappa and lambda) are on the same field A. (the | b| denotes that you obviously don't antisymmetrize over b in the third line)
 
  • #5
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,661
6,439
It's been a while for me (a long, long while :P ), but isn't this just because fabcfabcf^{abc} is antisymmetric in b and c?
Yes, which is the "convenient" property I wanted the OP to find and do the computation for himself, but #3 let the cat out of the box.
 
  • #6
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,277
634
Yes, which is the "convenient" property I wanted the OP to find and do the computation for himself, but #3 let the cat out of the box.
Ok. I read your post like you weren't sure.
 
  • #7
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,661
6,439
Ok. I read your post like you weren't sure.
I teach this stuff and leading questions have been a modus operandi at PF as long as I can remember ...
 
  • #8
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,277
634
Ok, then it's my bad.
 

Related Threads for: Yang-Mills 3 boson Lagrangian term in Peskin and Schroeder

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
912
Replies
8
Views
427
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
Top