Yang-Mills Field Strength Tensor

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Yang-Mills field strength tensor, specifically the expression for the field strength tensor defined as F_{\mu \nu} = [D_{\mu},D_{\nu}] = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}+[A_{\mu},A_{\nu}]. A key point raised is the confusion regarding the term A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} and its vanishing nature. It is clarified that this term does not vanish due to the non-commutative nature of the gauge fields A_{\mu} and A_{\nu}. The discussion also highlights the importance of the product rule in the context of derivatives of gauge fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Yang-Mills theory
  • Familiarity with gauge fields and their properties
  • Knowledge of tensor calculus
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Yang-Mills field strength tensor
  • Explore the implications of non-commutative gauge fields
  • Learn about the product rule in the context of differential operators
  • Investigate the role of gauge invariance in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in physics, and researchers focusing on quantum field theory and gauge theories.

neevor
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I was wondering why for
<br /> F_{\mu \nu} = [D_{\mu},D_{\nu}] = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}+[A_{\mu},A_{\nu}]<br /> [\tex]<br /> the term<br /> &lt;br /&gt; A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}&lt;br /&gt; [\tex]&lt;br /&gt; vanishes.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Since no summation is implied, one can simply swap the indices \mu and \nu in the second term of the expression, and hence the result.

Note, to display latex use the [ tex ] and [ / tex ] tags (without spaces inside the square brackets) in place of \begin{displaymath}.
 
Really?
because A_{\mu} is not equal to A_{\nu} in general. So simply swapping the two indecies would just give,
A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} - A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}
leaving me with the same problem.
 
Oh yes, sorry. I just glance at it and typed before I thought really! I'm blaming it on the fact that it's late. With regard to the question, I'm not too sure.. is there anything special about A? Sorry I can't be of more help!
 
The term

<br /> A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}<br />

does not vanish.

There is a similar term, but of opposite sign, that comes from the product rule in terms like \partial_\mu A_\nu.

<br /> \partial_\mu \left(A_\nu \psi \right) = \left( \partial_\mu A_\nu \right) \psi + A_\nu \partial_\mu \psi<br />
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K