1
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

Why do we use the group $SU(3)$ and not $SL(3, \mathbb{R})$ for color charge?

As far as I can tell, the $SL(3, \mathbb{R})$ is volume and orientation preserving, by the fact that it has unit determinant, and if I'm not mistaken the only thing that $SU(3)$ adds is that it is inner product conserving?

And now to play devils advocate, does that still matter? Ever since the Klein-Gordon equation we have stopped viewing fields as wave-functions, and the expectation values come from calculating things like

$$< F > = \frac{\int \mathcal{D}\phi F[\phi] e^{i S[\phi]}}{\int \mathcal{D}\phi e^{i S[\phi]}},$$

so wouldn't such differences be divided out?

I've also calculated the structural constants and noticed that the anti-symmetric ones are all identical apart from a sign change in $f_{257}$, although for the symmetric ones there are actually a lot of sign changes.

Also, I kind of struggle to see why $SL(3, \mathbb{R})$ would not be norm conserving, is it possible to show this fairly easily?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Qmechanic Jul 4 at 10:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jul 4 at 17:35