Yang-Mills Field Strength Tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Yang-Mills field strength tensor, specifically examining the expression for the field strength tensor and the behavior of certain terms within it. Participants explore the implications of the terms involved, particularly focusing on the vanishing of specific components and the conditions under which this occurs.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the term \( A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \) vanishes in the expression for the field strength tensor \( F_{\mu \nu} \).
  • Another participant suggests that swapping the indices \(\mu\) and \(\nu\) in the second term leads to a resolution of the issue.
  • A different participant counters that since \( A_{\mu} \) is not equal to \( A_{\nu} \) in general, swapping the indices does not resolve the problem.
  • One participant admits to an oversight and expresses uncertainty about the properties of \( A \) that might affect the discussion.
  • Another participant asserts that the term \( A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \) does not vanish and points out that a similar term arises from the product rule in derivatives involving \( A_\nu \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the term \( A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \) vanishes, indicating that multiple competing views remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the properties of the gauge field \( A \) and its implications for the terms in the expression for the field strength tensor.

neevor
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I was wondering why for
[tex] 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 /> [tex] A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}<br /> [\tex]<br /> vanishes.[/tex][/tex]
 
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

[tex] A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu} - A_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}[/tex]

does not vanish.

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

[tex] \partial_\mu \left(A_\nu \psi \right) = \left( \partial_\mu A_\nu \right) \psi + A_\nu \partial_\mu \psi[/tex]
 

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
2K