• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Why are non-Abelian gauge theories Lorentz invariant quantum mechanically?

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

I seem to be missing something regarding why Yang-Mills theories are Lorentz invariant quantum mechanically.

Start by considering QED. If we just study the physics of a massless $U(1)$ gauge field then by the usual Wigner little group classification one-particle states form representations of the little group for $k^\mu=(k,0,0,k)$ which is just $ISO(2)$. As is standard, we assume that our states only transform non-trivially under the $SO(2)$ subgroup of $ISO(2)$ so that states are labeled by their momentum and their helicity, $h$. That is, under an $SO(2)$ rotation by angle $\theta$ we have $U(\theta)|k,h\rangle=e^{ih\theta}|k,h\rangle$. Correspondingly, the creation operator $a^\dagger_h(k)$ transforms as $U(\theta)a^\dagger_h(k)U(\theta)^\dagger=e^{ih\theta}a^\dagger_h(k)$. Because we assumed that the states transform trivially under the other $ISO(2)$ generators, the same equations will hold true if we replace $U(\theta)$ by $U(W)$ where $W$ is any member of the $ISO(2)$ group.

It's then well known that if we try to write down a field operator $A_\mu$ in the usual manner, we will find that the transformation properties of the creation and annihilation operators force $A_\mu$ to transform under $U(W)$ as $U(W)A_\mu U(W)^\dagger=W_\mu{}^\nu A_\nu+\partial_\nu\Omega$ for Lorentz transformation $W$ and some irrelevant function $\Omega$. This is the standard argument by which Lorentz invariance is found to demand gauge invariance for massless particles.

My question then is what happens when you consider instead a non-Abelian gauge theory? I'd assume the same story holds and all gauge bosons just acquire an internal index, say $a$. That is, I thought states would be labeled like $|k,h,a\rangle$ and field operators would look like $A_\mu^a$ and transform as $U(W)A_\mu^aU(W)^\dagger=W_\mu{}^\nu A_\nu^a+\partial_\nu\Omega^a$ for some function $\Omega^a$.

This seems to be wrong, though, since the YM lagrangian is not invariant under the above and it is instead only invariant under full non-Abelian gauge transformations, $A\to U^{-1}(A+d)U$.

The only way out I can see is that single particle non-Abelian states may change under $U(W)$ as $U(W)|k,h,a\rangle=e^{ih\theta}\sum_b D(W)_{ab}|k,h,b\rangle$, where $D(W)_{ab}$ is a unitary matrix which is rotating the internal index on the gauge states. Previously, I'd been assuming that $D(W)_{ab}$ is trivial. If this is the proper transformation, I could see the $A_\mu^a$ operator inheriting the more familiar non-Abelian gauge transformation behavior.

However, naively it seems wrong that a Lorentz rotation will rotate the gauge indices of states since this would seem to be a mix of spacetime and internal transformations and hence ruled out by Coleman-Mandula. An internal non-Abelian transformation generator $V(X)$ should act on our state as $V(X)|k,h,a\rangle=\sum_b D_{ab}|k,h,b\rangle$ for some unitary matrix $D_{ab}$ and hence $V(X)U(\theta)|k,h,a\rangle\neq U(\theta)V(X)|k,h,a\rangle$ so there would be symmetry generators which do not commute with Poincare.

In summary, my questions are:

1) How does the non-Abelian gauge operator change under Lorentz transformations?

2) Does a one-particle non-Abelian spin-1 state $|k,p,a\rangle$ indeed transform as $U(W)$ as $U(W)|k,h,a\rangle=e^{ih\theta}\sum_b D(W)_{bb'}|k,h,b\rangle$? If so, why doesn't this violate Coleman-Mandula?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-09-16 10:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user user26866
asked Sep 16, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user26866 (60 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

$D(W)_{ab}$ must of course be the unitary matrix corresponding to a spin 1 (i.e., vector) representation of the Poincare group; otherwise the indices wouldn't be Lorentz indices. 

The Coleman-Mandula theorem, see the original paper, was designed to prove the non-unifiability of the Poincare group with an internal symmetry group such as flavor SU(6), not with a gauge group such as color SO(3). 

The Coleman-Mandula theorem depends on some assumptions. Among other conditions, there must be a mass gap, and the symmetry group must be a symmetry group of the S-matrix. Now gauge fields are massless, so the only way there can be a mass gap is that gauge-dependent fields are confined. Thus the gauge group drops out of the symmetry group of the S-matrix. This is indeed what we see for QCD.

answered Sep 16, 2014 by Arnold Neumaier (15,787 points) [ no revision ]

Why does it matter if the group is a gauge group or a global group?  The gauge group contains the global group as a subgroup, so I'm unclear on why that matters.

And if indeed $D(W)_{ab}$ is just a unitary matrix corresponding to a spin-1 representation of Poincare, then do you agree one is led to my "naive" transformation for the gauge field above which makes YM not Lorentz invariant?  

A nonabelian gauge group gives a massless interacting representation, which implies that in the rest frame, its naive spectrum (in the absence of a mass gap) would consist of all nonnegative energies, since the threshold at which the continuous spectrum begins is the smallest mass (times $c^2$).

Since both $\partial_x$ and $A$ transform by the same law, YM (with the unitary matrix corresponding to a spin-1 representation of Poincare) is Lorentz invariant. 

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights