1

For $SU(2)$, we can contract two spin-1/2 indices and they break apart into two irreducible representation as (math notation) - $$ 2\otimes2 = 3\oplus 1 $$ that is the triplet and the singlet sector. The triplet and singlet projection operators are given as $$ P_t = \vec{S}_1.\vec{S}_2 + \frac{3}{4}\mathbb{I}\\ P_s = -\vec{S}_1.\vec{S}_2 + \frac{1}{4}\mathbb{I}.\\ $$ Now, for the general $SU(N)$ scenario, we have $$ N\otimes \bar{N} = (N^2-1) \oplus 1 $$ where $N^2-1$ is the adjoint representation and $1$ is the singlet representation. What is the projector onto these sectors in terms of $\vec{T}_1.\vec{T}_2$ where $T_1$ and $T_2$ are the vectors with elements being the elements of the lie algebra of $SU(N)$. I have been using approaches using the Young Tableaux but I am not getting anywhere. It seems like there is an easy way to do this. What is that?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • You might profit from Appendix 29.2.7 of Okun's Leptons & Quarks. – Cosmas Zachos Feb 15 '24 at 20:00
  • I guess the projections operators come from different values taken by the second Casimir operator. On the product representation the second Casimir operator $C_{2\otimes 2}$ is given as $(S_{1x}\otimes I +I \otimes S_{2x})^2+(S_{1y}\otimes I +I \otimes S_{2y})^2+(S_{1z}\otimes I +I \otimes S_{2z})^2$ which can also be written as $C_2\otimes I + I\otimes C_2 + 2 \vec{S}_{1}.\vec{S}_2$ where $C_2$ is second Casimir on the fundamental representation. This must equal $C_3$ on 3 and 0 on 1. Similar logic can be applied to SU(N). – user10001 Feb 15 '24 at 20:35
  • @user10001 right. Not sure what you mean by $C_3$, but surely not the cubic Casimir, since the adjoint and the singlet are real reps. If the OP wishes, I could illustrate this for SU(3)... – Cosmas Zachos Feb 15 '24 at 22:23
  • It would be helpful to see it for SU(3) yes @CosmasZachos - thanks in advance! – CondensedChatter Feb 15 '24 at 23:15
  • 2
    @CosmasZachos By $C_2$ and $C_3$ I meant the value of second Casimir for the two and three dimensional representations respectively. – user10001 Feb 16 '24 at 05:53

1 Answers1

4

Indeed.

Review for su(2), in your notation, where $\vec S$ are the normalized 3-vector generators, so $\vec \sigma /2$ for the fundamental and anti fundamental, so you have $$ \vec{S}_1\cdot \vec{S}_2=\tfrac{1}{2}((\vec S_1+\vec S_2)^2-\vec S_1^2- \vec S_2^2)= -3/4 + \tfrac{1}{2}((\vec S_1+\vec S_2)^2, $$ hence $=-3/4+0= -3/4$ for the singlet (spinless) and $= -3/4+1=1/4$ for the triplet (adjoint), as detailed in most QM texts.

Hence, these eigenvalues plug into the projectors below to confirm they are that, $$ P_s = -\vec{S}_1\cdot \vec{S}_2 + \tfrac{1}{4}\mathbb{I},\\ P_a = \vec{S}_1\cdot \vec{S}_2 + \tfrac{3}{4}\mathbb{I}\qquad \leadsto \\ P_sP_a=0; \qquad P_s+P_a={\mathbb I}. $$ The two projector relations on the last line serve as checks of the above, but could determine the spin/quadratic Casimir of the adjoint, if you were oblivious of it!!

Now repeat this for su(3), for normalized 8-vector generators $\vec F$ ($= \vec\lambda /2$ for the 3 and its conjugate), and quadratic Casimir 4/3 for the triplet and 2 for the adjoint. (Note this differs from the 3 of Wikipedia, because of the different normalization involved here, different by a factor of 3/2, the ratio of rep indices. As mentioned above, you don't really need it, as the Casimir for the fundamental will suffice.)

Consequently, $$ \vec F_1\cdot \vec F_2= -4/3 ~~~~\hbox {for the singlet, and}\\ \vec F_1\cdot \vec F_2= -4/3 +2/2=-1/3 ~~~~\hbox {for the adjoint}, $$ hence $$ P_s = -\vec{F}_1\cdot \vec{F}_2 - \tfrac{1}{3}\mathbb{I},\\ P_a = \vec{F}_1\cdot \vec{F}_2 + \tfrac{4}{3}\mathbb{I}\qquad \leadsto \\ P_sP_a=0; \qquad P_s+P_a={\mathbb I}. $$ $P_a$ projects out the singlet, and $P_s$ projects out the adjoint. $P_sP_a$ is a quadratic polynomial in the $F\cdot F$ with roots at the right places, -1/3 and -4/3.

You may extend this for the su(N) algebra, given the normalizations, in, e.g., this, $$ P_s = -\vec{T}_1\cdot \vec{T}_2 - \tfrac{(N-1)^2-2}{2N}\mathbb{I},\\ P_a = \vec{T}_1\cdot \vec{T}_2 + \tfrac{N^2-1}{2N}\mathbb{I}\qquad \leadsto \\ P_sP_a=0; \qquad P_s+P_a={\mathbb I}. $$


Edit in response to last comment (geeky): Bypassing the charge conjugation stunt, here is the su(3) case displaying the P&S conventions you use. Start with $3\otimes 3= 6\oplus \bar 3$, which is more similar to the su(2) one! Using "=" signs to indicate obvious "up to a total-vs-uncoupled 9×9 matrix basis changes", you have $ 2\vec F_1\cdot \otimes \vec F_2 = \tfrac{4}{3} {\mathbb I}_{3} +\tfrac{10}{3} {\mathbb I}_{6} - 2\cdot \tfrac{4}{3} {\mathbb I}_{9} ~~\implies ~~ \vec F_1\cdot \otimes \vec F_2 =-\tfrac{2}{3} P_{\bar 3}+ \tfrac{1}{3} P_6. $ With the condition $P_{\bar 3}+P_6={\mathbb I}_9$, it yields $P_{\bar 3}=(- \vec F_1\cdot \otimes \vec F_2+1/3); ~~~P_6=( \vec F_1\cdot \otimes \vec F_2 +2/3$).

Now on to $3\otimes \bar 3= 8\oplus 1$. As you wish, call the 9×9 matrix $ \vec F_1\cdot \otimes (-\vec F_2)^* \equiv G$. As above, $2G= 0 {\mathbb I}_{1} + 3 {\mathbb I}_{8} - 2\cdot \tfrac{4}{3} {\mathbb I}_{9} ~~\implies ~~ G=-\tfrac{4}{3} P_ 1+ \tfrac{1}{6} P_8.$ As before, it implies $P_1=\tfrac{2}{3}(-G +1/6); ~~~P_8=\tfrac{2}{3}(G +4/3)$. So your comment was trenchant and my glib scaling in the answer was off! See how $P_1 +P_8={\mathbb I}_9$ is satisfied now!

This adjusts/morphs mutatis mutandis to the $su(N)$ case you confirmed, $P_1=\tfrac{2}{N}(-G +1/2N); ~~~~P_{N^2-1}=\tfrac{2}{N}(G +(N^2-1)/2N)$.
Cosmas Zachos
  • 62,595
  • This is indeed a convenient way of doing it. Is there a way to do this via Young tableaux ? If so, could you please explain that in a couple of lines in a comment (or maybe give me an appropriate reference where such exercises using YT are carried out)? – CondensedChatter Feb 16 '24 at 13:24
  • Sorry, YT might be overkill, and I'd only go to them after I get the answers. There are a bevy of questions in this site on them, such as this and this and this this, but I'd have trouble adapting them for anything beyond the above, privileged, narrow question... – Cosmas Zachos Feb 16 '24 at 14:03
  • 1
    The Cvitanovic book they mention might get you there... – Cosmas Zachos Feb 16 '24 at 14:03
  • Okay so if we use $\vec{F} = \vec{\lambda}/2$ as per wiki, $P_sP_a \neq 0$ for SU(3), for the operators written above. Instead if one uses $Ps = -\vec{F}1.\vec{F}_2 + \frac{1}{3}\mathbb{I }$ and $P_a = \mathbb{I} - P_s$, $P_sP_a=0$. I think I have the right normalization, that is, $Tr(F_aF_b) = \frac{1}{2}\delta{ab}$ which is the normalization that is used for SU(2) as well – CondensedChatter Feb 16 '24 at 16:13
  • No, for the triplet (fundamental) Casimir 4/3, $P_a$ projects out the singlet, so it's good. Define $P_s={\mathbb I} -P_a$, and $P_sP_a= (-x-1/3)(x+4/3)$ vanishes for either x=-4/3 or -1/3... – Cosmas Zachos Feb 16 '24 at 16:52
  • @ludoft Oops! thanks... – Cosmas Zachos Feb 16 '24 at 18:02
  • Sorry to bother but shouldn't $\vec{F}.\vec{F}$ transform as $3\otimes 3 = 6 \oplus 3$? Taking $\vec{F} = \vec{\lambda}/2$ I get the eigenvalues of $\vec{F}.\vec{F}$ to be -2/3 on the anti-symmetric and 1/3 on the symmetric (that is, there are three eigenvectors with eigenvalue -2/3 and six with 1/3 which seems wrong?). Instead, don't we need to take $\vec{F}.(-\vec{F})^$ (because the lie algebra basis for $\bar{N}$ is $(-\vec{F})^$)? This gives -4/3 as the value on the singlet and 1/6 on the value of the triplet with the right split of one -4/3 and eight 1/6 eigenvalues in the spectrum – CondensedChatter Feb 18 '24 at 03:39
  • 1
    Indeed, you are right in the conventions of Peskin & Schroeder, Sec. 15.4. Above, I have implicitly (-)-transposed $\vec F_2$ in a way that should not matter to make it more similar to the su(2) case, and changed the rep index from 8 to 9-vectors, so, effectively, the Casimir of the octet from 3 to 2. You might choose to flip the sign of F.F. – Cosmas Zachos Feb 18 '24 at 17:34
  • Thanks - this makes sense now. For the $SU(N)$ case, the projectors work out to be $P_s = \frac{2}{N}\vec{F_1}.\vec{F}_2^{T} + \frac{1}{N^2}, P_a = \mathbb{I} - P_s$. This however, messes up the basis states on site 2 since they are no longer those of the fundamental but the conjugate. In other words, the vector that $\vec{F_1}.\vec{F}_2^{T}$ acts on is no longer in the basis $(|1,1\rangle, |1,2\rangle, ..|1,N\rangle, |2,1\rangle,..... |N,N\rangle)$ but something else. What is this basis? For SU(2) - it is $(|01\rangle,-|00\rangle,|11\rangle,-|10\rangle)$. I do not see how this generalizes. – CondensedChatter Feb 19 '24 at 23:22
  • Yes, you did it right. If, instead of T you chose * , you have a freaky * -conjugate without the transpose. That is, some similarity transform of your 8x9 matrix, -F.F*... For su(N), a (NN-1)x(NN-1) one. – Cosmas Zachos Feb 20 '24 at 13:39
  • You would typically write, say SU(3) $3\otimes\bar{3}$ in the basis $(u\bar{u}, u\bar{d}, ....s\bar{s})$. Just making sure - this is no way related to the basis $(uu,ud,....ss)$ right? – CondensedChatter Feb 20 '24 at 14:15
  • 1
    Right. that's why I worked out both cases for su(3). The two 9x9 matrices are very different in each case. Once you segregate the $\bar 3$ into a $3*$, you may transpose it to get the actual $\bar 3$. – Cosmas Zachos Feb 20 '24 at 15:23