What is the motivation for including the compactness and semi-simplicity assumptions on the groups that one gauges to obtain Yang-Mills theories? I'd think that these hypotheses lead to physically "nice" theories in some way, but I've never, even from a computational perspective. really given these assumptions much thought.

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Compactness is needed for the bilinear form on the adjoint representation to be positively definite. For example, $SO(2,1)$ would be no good because the signature on the adjoint is ${+}{-}{-}$. If we had an indefinite form, the norm of the different colorful polarizations of the gauge bosons would have different signs (ghosts, negative probabilities). In a similar way, some Lie algebras (not semisimple etc.) have "zero norm" directions. Ultimately, we decompose the gauge group to simple compact pieces - the factors behave independently and decouple. $\endgroup$ – Luboš Motl Jan 29 '13 at 7:34

As Lubos Motl and twistor59 explain, a necessary condition for unitarity is that the Yang Mills (YM) gauge group $G$ with corresponding Lie algebra $g$ should be real and have a positive (semi)definite associative/invariant bilinear form $\kappa: g\times g \to \mathbb{R}$, cf. the kinetic part of the Yang Mills action. The bilinear form $\kappa$ is often chosen to be (proportional to) the Killing form, but that need not be the case.

If $\kappa$ is degenerate, this will induce additional zeromodes/gauge-symmetries, which will have to be gauge-fixed, thereby effectively diminishing the gauge group $G$ to a smaller subgroup, where the corresponding (restriction of) $\kappa$ is non-degenerate.

When $G$ is semi-simple, the corresponding Killing form is non-degenerate. But $G$ does not have to be semi-simple. Recall e.g. that $U(1)$ by definition is not a simple Lie group. Its Killing form is identically zero. Nevertheless, we have the following YM-type theories:

  1. QED with $G=U(1)$.

  2. the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model for electroweak interaction with $G=U(1)\times SU(2)$.

Also the gauge group $G$ does in principle not have to be compact.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ First link dead: In lack of better, use e.g. this link instead. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 5 '13 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a reason you did not add "symmetric" to your bilinear form? $\endgroup$ – ungerade Sep 23 '16 at 17:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Symmetric is usually implicitly implied by the definition of being positive (semi)definite. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 23 '16 at 17:43

I recommend that you to read the chapter 15.2 in "The Quantum Theory of Fields" Volume 2 by Steven Weinberg, he answers precisely your question.

Here a short summary
In a gauge theory with algebra generators satisfying $$ [t_\alpha,t_\beta]=iC^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}t_\gamma $$ it can be checked that the field strength tensor $F^\beta_{\mu\nu}$ transforms as follows $$ \delta F^\beta_{\mu\nu}=i\epsilon^\alpha C^\beta_{\gamma\alpha} F^\gamma_{\mu\nu} $$ We want to construct Lagrangians. A free-particle kinetic term must be a quadratic combination of $F^\beta_{\mu\nu}$ and Lorentz invariance and parity conservation restrict its form to $$ \mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha\beta}F^\alpha_{\mu\nu}F^{\beta\mu\nu} $$ where $g_{\alpha\beta}$ may be taken symmetric and must be taken real for the Lagrange density to be real as well. The Lagrangian above must be gauge-invariant thus it must satisfy $$ \delta\mathcal{L}=\epsilon^\delta g_{\alpha\beta}F^\alpha_{\mu\nu}C^\beta_{\gamma\delta}F^{\gamma\mu\nu}=0 $$ for all $\epsilon^\delta$. In order not to impose any functional restrictions for the field strengths $F$ the matrix $g_{\alpha\beta}$ must satisfy the following condition $$ g_{\alpha\beta}C^\beta_{\gamma\delta}=-g_{\gamma\beta}C^\beta_{\alpha\delta} $$ In short, the product $g_{\alpha\beta}C^\beta_{\gamma\delta}$ is anti-symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\gamma$.
Furthermor the rules of canonical quantization and the positivity properties of the quantum mechanical scalar product require that the matrix $g_{\alpha\beta}$ must be positive-definite. Finally one can prove that the following statements are equivalent

  1. There exists a real symmetric positive-definite matrix $g_{\alpha\beta}$ that satisfies the invariance condition above.
  2. There is a basis for the Lie algebra for which the structure constants $C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}$ are anti-symmetric not only in the lower indices $\beta$ and $\gamma$ but in all three indices $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
  3. The Lie algebra is the direct sum of commuting compact simple and $U(1)$ subalgebras.

The proof for the equivalence of these statements as well as a more in-detail presentation of the material can be found in the aforementioned book by S. Weinberg.

A proof for the equivalence for $g_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ (actually the most common form) was given by M. Gell-Mann and S. L. Glashow in Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 15, 437 (1961)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1: Thanks Stan I'll definitely take a close look at Weinberg as well. $\endgroup$ – joshphysics Sep 18 '13 at 9:34

It's because you want the kinetic part of the Yang Mills action $$ \int Tr({\bf{F^2}}) dV$$ to be positive definite. To guarantee this, the Lie algebra inner product you're using (Killing form) needs to be positive definite. This is guaranteed if the gauge group is compact and semi-simple. (I'm not sure if it's only if G is compact and semi simple though. Maybe someone else could fill in this detail).

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ for non-compact groups, the Killing form is indefinite; for compact ones, the Killing form is negative definite or negative semi-definite, depending on whether the Lie algebra is semi-simple or reductive, respectively $\endgroup$ – Christoph Jan 29 '13 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Christoph : I think it's worthwhile to add here that you require the Killing Form to be (semi-) negative-definite since you are implicitly using a Russian metric (+,-,-,...,-). $\\$ I just spent a while getting confused between your answer and that above, which is implicitly using a mostly-plus metric (-,+,+,...,+). Please correct me if this is wrong. $\endgroup$ – Flint72 May 1 '14 at 16:05

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.