10

If I had 2 pions that were identical, except one was comprised of a red and anti-red, and the other was comprised of a green and anti-green, would I be able to perform an experiment that distinguishes between them?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Izzhov
  • 1,222

2 Answers2

21

Color charge in the sense of "being blue, red, green" is not a quantum mechanical observable because the $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ gauge transformations mix the colors. This means it is meaningless to say "We have a blue particle", because we can perform a gauge transformation and then we "have a red particle". Since physical descriptions related by gauge transformations are equivalent, there is no difference between "having a red particle" and "having a blue particle". You cannot, even in principle, determine the "color" of an object in this sense.

The popular phrasings of "red, blue and green" quarks are actually meaningless. They give a nice heuristic because the "color language" gives a way to draw many intuitive conclusions about otherwise unintuitive group theory, but "red, blue or green" quarks do not exist. Objects in the theory that are related by a gauge transformation are literally the same, there is no difference between a "red quark" and a "green quark" - a quark is a quark is a quark.

What we are able to say (if you manage to deconfine the color-charged stuff, since confinement means that we only see colorless objects) is "I have a color-charged particle", and specify "which kind of color charge" it has, i.e. whether it has merely a color (like quarks), or a color-anticolor (like gluons), or color-anticolor-anticolor (like nothing we know), and so on. (These correspond formally to different $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ representations) This - "color/color-anticolor/color-anticolor-anticolor/..." - is the proper generalization of the $\mathrm{U}(1)$ electric charge to non-Abelian gauge theories.

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
  • 1
    It should be pointed out that a gauge transformation affects the gluons too and not just the quarks. That's what stops you from comparing two quarks at different points by bringing them to the same point---the gluon field conspires to ensure the quarks' colours change as they move. – Brian Bi Apr 17 '15 at 04:23
  • Is this also true about electric charge? If so is that why we never talk about an object being in a superposition of positive and negitive charge? Or have I never heard of a superposition of positive and negitive charge? – Shane P Kelly Jan 10 '16 at 02:00
  • @Shane: No, positive and negative charge are not the analogue to the colors red, green, blue, but to the representations "color", "color-anticolor", and so on. The electromagnetic gauge transformations just "rotate a phase", they do not mix positive and negative. – ACuriousMind Jan 10 '16 at 14:35
  • So what about SU(2), also non-Abelian? If weak isospin/I3 isn't the analogue to positive and negative charge, what is? And why can different weak isospins be isolated and observed, while colors can't? – alexchandel Dec 07 '18 at 08:44
  • @alexchandel The third component of weak isospin is part of the unbroken $\mathrm{U}(1)$ of electromagnetism and hence observable. Note that no one claims that particles have definite first or second components of weak isospin. – ACuriousMind Dec 08 '18 at 13:04
  • Except no one would ever claim that, because the eigenstates of the 3 components/operators under SU(2) are incompatible and indistinguishable in principle. Hence no one claims that a spin-up electron has a definite first or second component of spin either. So that explanation doesn't make sense. – alexchandel Dec 08 '18 at 17:48
  • @alexchandel The point is they're not indistinguishable in this case: The third component of isospin is part of the electromagnetic charge, the other two aren't. – ACuriousMind Dec 08 '18 at 18:01
  • @ACuriousMind do you know anywhere I can read more about this (not the theory explicitly, but how to think physically about colored objects)? In theory I can (if I could deconfine quarks) figure out if something is color charged or anti-color charged, correct? And asymtotic freedom would be a distinct behaviour I notice between these opposite charges that electromagnetism doesn't share. Do you have any advice for thinking about the charged behaviour of gluons? Thanks a million – Craig Dec 19 '18 at 03:33
2

Usually, the charge we refer to in QFT means the Noether charge of some global (i.e physical) symmetry. For example, the Noether charge associated with a global $U(1)$ transformation in QED is called electric charge. One must be careful with this $U(1)$ transformation because lots of people confused it with the $U(1)$-gauge invariance in QED, i.e the redundancy under a local $U(1)$-transformation.

Noether's theorems only applies for global symmetries. You can try applying it to a gauge (i.e local) transformation and find a conserved quantity, but it is not an physical observable because it is not gauge invariant.

More specifically, the conserved quantity you have for a $U(1)$-gauge transformation $A^{\mu}\rightarrow A^{\mu}+\partial^{\mu}\Lambda$ is $$J^\mu=\frac{\partial\mathcal L}{\partial(\partial_\mu A_\nu)}\delta A_\nu=-\frac12 F^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu\Lambda,$$

which is indeed conserved, but is not gauge invariant.

The same thing goes to $SU(3)$-gauge theory. The colors of quarks are conserved, but are not gauge invariant. In QED, one can essentially view the global U(1) symmetry of a charged fermion as the "global part" of the $U(1)$-gauge invariance. However, in the non-Abelian case, one can easily see that the "global part" of $SU(3)$ is its center, which is a discrete subgroup. In other words, one should not expect a conserved current associated with it.

Instead, given the Lagrangian of a $SU(3)$-gauge theory, $$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})+\bar{\Psi}(iD\!\!\!\!/-m)\Psi,$$

one finds a current $$J^{\mu}=\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left(\bar{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}T_{a}\Psi\right)T_{a}$$

which is covariantly conserved, i.e $D_{\mu}J^{\mu}=0$, following its equations of motion. Notice that this current is not locally conserved because of the covariant derivative. In other words, it is not a Noether current.

On the other hand, in QCD there are still global symmetries, i.e. Baryon number conservation (i.e global $U(1)$ symmetry) and flavour number conservation etc.

Since @octonian mentioned this, it should be emphasized that here the current $$J^{\mu}=\sum_{a=1}^{N}\left(\bar{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}T_{a}\Psi\right)T_{a}$$

for non-Abelian gauge theory is not gauge invariant. First of all, the current comes from equations of motion $$D_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}=J^{\nu} \tag{1}$$ $$(iD\!\!\!\!/-m)\Psi=0 \tag{2}$$

where equation (1) is the Yang-Mills equation, which is the non-Abelian version of the inhomogeneous pair of the Maxwell equations. Under a $SU(3)$-gauge transformation, one has $$F^{\prime}=UFU^{-1},\quad D^{\prime}=UDU^{-1},\quad\mathrm{and}\quad J^{\prime}=UJU^{-1},$$

which implies that the equations of motion is invariant under the gauge transformation, i.e $$D^{\prime}\star F^{\prime}=J^{\prime}.$$

The covariant-conservation of $J$ can be easily checked:

\begin{align} D\star J&=DD\star F \\ &=F\wedge\star F-\star F\wedge F \\ &=F^{a}\wedge\star F^{b}[T_{a},T_{b}] \\ &=F^{a}\wedge\star F^{b}f_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,c}T_{c} \\ &=\left\langle F^{a},F^{b}\right\rangle f_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,c}T_{c} \\ &=0, \end{align}

where in the last line the fact that $f_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,c}$ is anti-symmetric wrt $a$ and $b$ has been used.


To avoid any further misunderstandings, please notice that here the curvautre 2-form is $F=dA+A\wedge A$. Since it was mentioned by @octonion in the comment section, it should be emphasized that $F=0$ does not imply flat connection $A=0$!This is true even in Abelian gauge theory. This is easy t understand if one calculates the Christoffel symbols in spherical coordinates of Minkowski spacetime. That the current $J$ is covariantly conserved is a special property for non-Abelian gauge theory. In contrast, in Abelian gauge theory the non-homogeneous pair of the Maxwell equations read $$\star d\star F=j,$$

and the current $j$ is always locally conserved, i.e $d\star j=0$, regardless of whether the curvature $F$ vanishes or not.

Valac
  • 2,893
  • So that $J$ current is not conserved in much the same way that the energy-momentum tensor in curved spacetime is not conserved. It still seems to me that both are very conservation law like. – octonion May 07 '22 at 14:23
  • @octonion The current $J$ here is in flat spacetime. The covariant derivative here is also in flat spacetime. Here, $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+A_{\mu}$. – Valac May 07 '22 at 15:49
  • @octonion Here the current $J$ is not gauge invariant. Under a generic $SU(3)$-gauge transformation $U$, the current $J$ transforms as $J\rightarrow UJU^{-1}$. On the other hand, the stress energy-momentum tensor is gauge invariant. So it makes no sense to compare the two. – Valac May 07 '22 at 15:52
  • 1
    It makes perfect sense to compare the two. Both involve a conservation law extended by a covariant derivative. The biggest difference is just that general relativity is nearly always considered as a classical field theory, and non-Abelian gauge theories as a QFT. If the curvature vanishes in GR then we can pick a flat connection and the energy-momentum tensor is strictly conserved. If the curvature 2-form vanishes in a non-Abelian gauge theory then we can pick a flat connection and those 8 $J$ currents are strictly conserved. – octonion May 07 '22 at 20:07
  • @octonion Sorry but your last comment makes no sense. Even the curvature 2 form vanishes, that does not make it Abelian. As long as it is non-Abelian, the current always covariantly conserve, and is not locally conserved. Let's assume $F=0$ as you said. Can you write down the Lagrangian of the theory? Notice that here $F=dA+A\wedge A$. Setting $F=0$ does not guarantee that $A=0$. – Valac May 07 '22 at 22:53
  • @octonion To me, it is not clear how GR can be treated as an non-Abelian gauge QFT. Also, you should specify which energy-momentum tensor you are talking about. The canonical energy-momentum tensor? Or the stree energy-momentum tensor. I assume you meant the latter. Then its conservation is a consequence of diffeomorphism invariance, which has nothing to do with the curvature of the spacetime. For example, you can try to calculate the Christoffel symbols in spherical coordinates of a Minkowski spacetime. – Valac May 07 '22 at 23:26
  • Most of your comments seem like you are deliberately trying to not understand my point but let me reply to this: "Then its conservation is a consequence of diffeomorphism invariance, which has nothing to do with the curvature of the spacetime." The conservation of the energy momentum tensor is due to the presence of extra Killing vectors in spacetime (i.e. global symmetries) when the curvature vanishes. The conservation of the $J$ currents is due to the presence of global symmetries transforming the matter fields while leaving the gauge field fixed, which works when the curvature vanishes. – octonion May 08 '22 at 16:04
  • @octonion Just in case you don't know the difference between canonical energy-momentum tensor and stress energy-momentum tensor, check this out: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/283278/185558 – Valac May 09 '22 at 04:03
  • @octonion I am not sure if you understood flat-connections correctly. Let me ask you the following simple questions. Does the Riemannian curvature of Minkowski spacetime vanish? Yes or No? If No, do the Christoffel symbols of Minkowski spacetime in spherical coordinates vanish? Yes or No?

    Your defition of the canonical energy-momentum tensor is wrong either. Killing vectors generates the global isometry group, which by Noether's theorem lead to covariantly conserved currents. You don't need it to be in flat spacetime. Lastly, $J$ is NOT gauge invariant. You can check for yourself.

    – Valac May 09 '22 at 04:10
  • @octonion Please notice that my current $J$ is NOT associated with any global symmetries. As I have written in my answer clearly, "On the other hand, in QCD there are still global symmetries, i.e. Baryon number conservation (i.e global U(1) symmetry) and flavour number conservation etc.", those conserved currents has nothing to do with the current $J$ you obtain from equation of motion of the Yang-Mills Lagrangian. Check "Gauge Field Theories" by Stefan Pokorsky page 35. – Valac May 09 '22 at 05:02