What is the motivation for including the compactness and semi-simplicity assumptions on the groups that one gauges to obtain Yang-Mills theories? I'd think that these hypotheses lead to physically "nice" theories in some way, but I've never, even from a computational perspective. really given these assumptions much thought.
Answer
As Lubos Motl and twistor59 explain, a necessary condition for unitarity is that the Yang Mills (YM) gauge group G with corresponding Lie algebra g should be real and have a positive (semi)definite associative/invariant bilinear form κ:g×g→R, cf. the kinetic part of the Yang Mills action. The bilinear form κ is often chosen to be (proportional to) the Killing form, but that need not be the case.
If κ is degenerate, this will induce additional zeromodes/gauge-symmetries, which will have to be gauge-fixed, thereby effectively diminishing the gauge group G to a smaller subgroup, where the corresponding (restriction of) κ is non-degenerate.
When G is semi-simple, the corresponding Killing form is non-degenerate. But G does not have to be semi-simple. Recall e.g. that U(1) by definition is not a simple Lie group. Its Killing form is identically zero. Nevertheless, we have the following YM-type theories:
QED with G=U(1).
the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model for electroweak interaction with G=U(1)×SU(2).
No comments:
Post a Comment