Quantcast
  • 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.

News

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  gauge-invariant 6-quark order parameter

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
1468 views

In this Review paper in p.1462, bottom left: Rev.Mod.Phys.80:1455-1515,2008 -- Color superconductivity in dense quark matter

It says that "There is an associated gauge-invariant 6-quark order parameter with the flavor and color structure of two Lambda baryons, $$ \langle\Lambda\Lambda\rangle $$ where this order parameter distinguishes the color flavor locking (CFL) phase from the quark gluon plsma QGP.

I suppose that it means the 6 quark condensate is $$ \bigl\langle(\epsilon^{abc}\epsilon_{ijk}\psi^a_i\psi^b_j\psi^c_k) (\epsilon^{a'b'c'}\epsilon_{i'j'k'}\psi'^a_i\psi'^b_j\psi'^c_k)\bigr\rangle, $$

  1. but how does this distinguish CFL from QGP?

  2. Is this operator precise? And is this gauge invariant under SU(3)???

  3. It is a Lorentz scalar or pseudo scalar?

It seems that the claim is not clear.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
asked Dec 25, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by annie marie heart (1,205 points) [ no revision ]
It looks gauge invariant, because $\epsilon$ tensor is SU(3) invariant. About the Lorentz structure, there is a problem with your expression. You have $6$ $\psi$ fields and no $\bar \psi$. Therefore I think this correlation function vanishes. Perhaps you meant something like $\bar \psi^3 \psi^3$. In this case you still need to specify what you do with bispinor indices of $\psi$ and $\bar \psi$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user Blazej
can we show ϵ tensor is SU(3) singlet?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
Yes, the $\epsilon$ tensor is how one constructs a singlet out of fundamentals. Georgi's group theory book might be a useful place to check this out if it isn't familiar.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Schaich

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
  1. It breaks $U(1)_B$, and therefore distinguished QGP from CFL.

  2. Yes, this is a gauge invariant operator.

  3. This is a Lorentz scalar if the spinors are contracted appropriately, for example $$ \phi \sim \epsilon_{\alpha\alpha'}\epsilon_{\beta\gamma}\epsilon_{\beta'\gamma'} (\psi_\alpha\psi_\beta\psi_\gamma)(\psi_{\alpha'}\psi_{\beta'}\psi_{\gamma'}) $$ In 4-component notation this can be written in terms of a (positive parity) baryon current $$ \phi \sim \Psi C\gamma_5 \Psi, \qquad\Psi_\alpha = \psi_\alpha (\psi C\gamma_5\psi) $$

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user Thomas
answered Dec 25, 2017 by tmchaefer (310 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
@ Thomas, I am also curious about the L and R handness indices and properties of parity here. Thanks a lot.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
@ Thomas : In particular, I thought we are considering the Dirac spinor, how does $$\epsilon_{\alpha\alpha'} (\psi_\alpha )(\psi_{\alpha'})$$, $$Ψα=ϵ_{βγ}ψ_αψ_βψ_γ$$ represent which part of Dirac spinor? Or should the baryon composed by three of 2-component Weyl spinor $(\psi_\alpha )$ instead of 4-component Dirac spinor? Thanks!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
@ Thomas, also how is the parity $P$ property of the condensate? (under $L \to R$?) Are there choices?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
@annie heart Added a postscript

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user Thomas
can it be negative parity, too? accepted, but please clarufy.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
Most recent comments show all comments
@ Thomas, one more clarification, in this $ \epsilon_{\alpha\alpha'}\epsilon_{\beta\gamma}\epsilon_{\beta'\gamma'} (\psi_\alpha\psi_\beta\psi_\gamma)(\psi_{\alpha'}\psi_{\beta'}\psi_{\gamma'}) $, must I have $(\psi_\alpha\psi_\beta\psi_\gamma)$ as the 1st baryon and $(\psi_{\alpha'}\psi_{\beta'}\psi_{\gamma'})$ as the 2nd baryon?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
Can I have instead $$ \epsilon_{\alpha\alpha'}\epsilon_{\beta \beta'}\epsilon_{\gamma\gamma'} (\psi_\alpha\psi_\beta\psi_\gamma)(\psi_{\alpha'}\psi_{\beta'}\psi_{\gamma'}) $$ while the color/flavor indices are given as above? (p.s. am going to accept you as the answer after this)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-05 13:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart

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:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
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
...