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 QCD, the gauge-invariant lagrangian under the trasformation

$ \psi \to \psi' = e^{ig T^a \theta^a(x)} \psi$

is written as:

$\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}(i\gamma^\mu D_\mu - m)\psi - \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu\nu}G_a^{\mu\nu}$

where the covariant derivative is:

$D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ig T^a G^a_\mu$

and the field strength tensor is defined as:

$ G^a_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu G^a_\nu - \partial_\nu G^a_\mu + g f_{abc} G^b_\mu G^c_\nu $

If I impose the gauge-invariance, I find that the gauge field transforms as:

$ G^a_\mu \to G'^a_\mu = G^a_\mu + \partial_\mu \theta^a $

Am I correct? I think I am, but if I look at how the field strength transforms, I expect it to remain invariant, but instead I find an extra term:

$ G^a_{\mu\nu} \to G^a_{\mu\nu} + g_s f_{abc}(\partial_\mu \theta^b \partial_\nu \theta^c + \partial_\mu \theta^b G^c_\nu + \partial_\nu \theta^c G^b_\mu) $

Does this term vanish? Why? Or am I totally wrong on the transformation of the gauge field...?

share|cite|improve this question
For nonabelian gauge fields the gauge field should transform as $A^a_\mu \rightarrow A^a_\mu + (D_\mu \theta)^a$. – DJBunk Jan 12 '13 at 0:39
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The Gauge field transforms as $$ G_{\mu}^{i}\frac{\lambda^{i}}{2} \rightarrow G_{\mu}' = uG_{\mu}u^{-1}+\frac{i}{g}u\partial_{\mu}u^{-1} $$ with $u \in SU(3)$ such that $$ u^{-1}(x)=\exp (-i\alpha^i \lambda^i /2) $$ this can be expanded in a series for infinitesimal transformations.


expanding $u^{-1}$ $$ u^{-1} \approx 1 -i\alpha^i \lambda^i/2 + \mathcal{O}(\alpha^2) $$ you can preform this expansion for both $u$ and it's inverse to first order and make sure to keep everything to first order in $\alpha$, it will include a commutator.

share|cite|improve this answer
Can you elaborate the expansion? Is the usual expression for the derivative of an exponential not valid for matrix exponentials? – Ganondolf Jan 11 '13 at 22:32
@Ganondolf see the update. – kηives Jan 11 '13 at 23:18
Uhm, I think I sorted out... Most probably I missed a commutator in the interaction term, which accounts for an extra term in the transformation of G. More important, as you suggested I should keep everything to first order, that should be the way to transform correctly the field strength tensor. I still don't know how exactly, but now I should be on the right way... Dropping the problem now for lack of time, but at least I saw the light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you. – Ganondolf Jan 12 '13 at 0:32

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.