# Why is the Yang-Mills gauge group assumed compact and semi-simple?

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
584 views

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.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user joshphysics
asked Jan 29, 2013
retagged Jan 19, 2015
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.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl

## 3 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

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).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user twistor59
answered Jan 29, 2013 by (2,500 points)
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

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Christoph
@Christoph OK thanks for the clarification.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user twistor59
@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.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Flint72
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

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.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Jan 29, 2013 by (3,110 points)
First link dead: In lack of better, use e.g. this link instead.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

## I recommend 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)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stan

answered Sep 18, 2013 by (60 points)
edited Mar 3, 2015
+1: Thanks Stan I'll definitely take a close look at Weinberg as well.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-19 14:11 (UTC), posted by SE-user joshphysics

## Your answer

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.