I'm reading Chapter 19 of Mandle and Shaw's Quantum field theory. In the first section it is explained that one can go with a $SU(2)$ followed by a $U(1)$ transformation from $$\begin{bmatrix}\eta_1(x) + i\eta_2(x) \\ v + \sigma(x) +i \eta_3(x)\end{bmatrix} $$ to the state $$\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ v + \sigma(x)\end{bmatrix}. $$ I tried to first make of this first vector a 'down isospin' by multiplying with an generic element of $SU(2)$ $$\begin{bmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ -\beta^\star &\alpha^\star\end{bmatrix}, $$ where $|a|^2+|b|^2=1$.

Is there maybe a easier representation if $SU(2)$ which leads to the correct needed transformation?

($v$ is part of $\sigma$ and may be absorbed in it.)


1 Answer 1


There most definitely is, and your text should have used it in defining the unitary gauge more conventionally: the SU(2) group element parameterization of physics, that is the rotation matrix for spinors R. Absorb v into the definition of σ, where it belongs and from where it can re-emerge at will.

$$R=\exp (i\theta ~\hat{n}\cdot\vec{\sigma})=I \cos \theta +i \hat{n}\cdot\vec{\sigma} \sin \theta= \begin{bmatrix}\cos \theta +i n_3\sin \theta & i\sin \theta (n_1-in_2) \\ i\sin \theta (n_1+in_2) &\cos \theta -i n_3\sin \theta \end{bmatrix}. $$

It is easier, and, in fact, more conventional, to work backwards, $$R \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ \rho\end{bmatrix} =\rho \begin{bmatrix} \sin\theta (i n_1+n_2) \\ \cos\theta -in_3\sin \theta\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}\eta_1(x) + i\eta_2(x) \\ \sigma(x) +i \eta_3(x)\end{bmatrix}, $$
that is $$ \eta_1=n_2 \rho \sin \theta, \quad \eta_2=n_1 \rho \sin \theta, \quad \eta_3=-n_3 \rho \sin \theta, \quad \sigma= \rho \cos \theta, $$ so that $~\rho^2=\sigma^2+\vec{\eta}^2~$ and $~\vec{\eta}^2=\rho^2 \sin^2\theta=\sigma^2 \tan^2\theta~$ .

So, then, $R^{-1}$ is the SU(2) group element you were seeking, with $\theta$ and $\hat{n}$ solvable as above. Note $\rho \neq\sigma$, as you sought, as easy to confirm from the modulus/length of the two respective spinors! Your text was being slightly "metaphorical".

Also, the sign of $\eta_3$ in your expression is unconventional: most texts prefer a minus sign, and interchange the roles of $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$, to (only) then have $$ (I \sigma+i~\vec{\eta}\cdot\vec{\sigma}) \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 1\end{bmatrix} . $$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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