I Yang-Mills Stress-Energy Tensor Explained

ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
1,384
It's given as ##T_{\mu \nu} = - \mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \lambda} {F_{\nu}}^{\lambda} - \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta})##. Can somebody explain the notation, i.e. what is the meaning here of the trace? (usually I would interpret the trace of a matrix as the number ##\mathrm{tr}(a_{\mu \nu}) = {a^{\mu}}_{\mu}##.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The trace is over the group indices that are not explicitly written out.
 
  • Informative
Likes ergospherical
It would have made more sense to just show "a" as a SU(n) adjoint rep. index on those F's, rather than use Tr which becomes problematic when you consider QCD, that is adding gammas and spinors and their trace(s).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ergospherical
ergospherical said:
It's given as ##T_{\mu \nu} = - \mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \lambda} {F_{\nu}}^{\lambda} - \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta})##. Can somebody explain the notation, i.e. what is the meaning here of the trace?

For such questions of notation, it would be helpful to give the reference.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ergospherical
ergospherical said:
It's given as ##T_{\mu \nu} = - \mathrm{tr}(F_{\mu \lambda} {F_{\nu}}^{\lambda} - \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta})##. Can somebody explain the notation, i.e. what is the meaning here of the trace?
Here F_{\mu\nu} is the matrix-valued field tensor: F_{\mu\nu} = \mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^{a}X_{a} , where the X’s are a set (in fact, any set) of matrices satisfying the Lie algebra of the group [X_{a},X_{b}] = i C_{ab}{}^{c}X_{c}.
So \mbox{Tr}\left( F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right) = \mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^{a}\mathcal{F}^{\mu\nu b} \ \mbox{Tr} \left( X_{a}X_{b}\right), and \mbox{Tr}\left(X_{a}X_{b}\right) \equiv \left(X_{a} X_{b}\right)_{ii}, \ \ i = 1,2, \cdots , p where p is the dimension of the representation. For simple compact Lie groups, we can always choose the X’s to be trace-orthonormal \mbox{Tr}\left( X_{a}X_{b}\right) = 2C \delta_{ab} , where C is a constant for each irreducible part of the representation. The matrix notation is useful because it makes gauge-invariance (kind of) obvious: \mbox{Tr}\left(gF_{\mu\nu}g^{-1}gF^{\mu\nu}g^{-1}\right) = \mbox{Tr}\left( F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right).
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ergospherical, vanhees71 and dextercioby
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top