Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Peskin & Schroder, Introduction to Quantum Field Theory equation (15.82) states that

$$ t^a_{\bar{r}} = -(t^a_{r})^* = (t^a_{r})^T $$

Why is the representation which satisfies

$$ t_{\overline{r}}^{a}=Ut_{r}^{a}U^{\dagger} $$

called real?

Does this real means something physically real?

share|cite|improve this question
Related: – Qmechanic Jun 8 '14 at 11:53
@user49115 : In particular, there is a wikipedia link in the question which Qmachanic mentions on Real Representations. You see the statement in the first sentence of the third paragraph. – Flint72 Jun 8 '14 at 12:19

This means mathematically real, that is, a real-valued representation.

Have you studied the Representation Theory of (Lie) Groups and of Lie Algebras?

A representation may be real, in which the matrices that represent the linear action of the group element are matrices with real-valued elements. We than say that the matrices are in some subgroup of $GL(n,\mathbb{R})$.

Converserly, a representation may be Complex-Valued, and have matrices which are in some subgroup of $GL(n,\mathbb{C})$.

In fact, if you had looked at equation (15.82) in Peskin & Schroeder, which is defining the Conjugate Representation $\bar{r}$ or some representation $r$

$$ t^a_{\bar{r}} = - (t^a_{r})^* = - (t^a_{r})T $$

you would see in the following paragraph he explains his definition of a real representation $r$ to be one for which

$$ r \equiv \bar{r} $$

That is, for $r$ to be real, there must be a unitary transformation

$$ t^a_{\bar{r}} = U t^a_r U^{\dagger} $$

as you say, and the complex-conjugate operation above is trivial. Equivalently, $r$ must be real-valued.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your reply. I would like to also ask the related question about sentence of the below (19.129) at p.678 (Peskin). He explains a gauge-invariant mass term by using the fact of real representation. Do you know how does this related to it? – user49115 Jun 8 '14 at 12:43
@user49115 : If it is a new question then please post it as such, and I'll take a look if I can. Also, if this answered your first question, don't be afraid to accept it! Although in general it is advised to wait a day or two in case anyone else comes along with something better! – Flint72 Jun 8 '14 at 12:46
Thank you for your advice. I use another post for the related question. – user49115 Jun 8 '14 at 12:58
@user49115 : Not at all, I'm happy to help! – Flint72 Jun 8 '14 at 13:01
If the representation r is real, how can we see the invariance of $G_{ab}\eta_{a}\xi_{b}$? – user49115 Jun 8 '14 at 13:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.