3

Let's say I've got 2 different fields $a, b$ and I want to compute its covariant derivative $D_\mu = \partial_\mu + iA_\mu^a T^a$ where $\{A_\mu^a\}$ is the set of gauge fields and $\{T^a\}$ the algebra of the corresponding group under which $a$ and $b$ transform. Then,

$$ D_\mu(ab) = \partial_\mu(a)·b + a\partial_\mu b + iA_\mu a b = (D_\mu a)b + a\partial_\mu b = a(D_\mu b) + (\partial_\mu a)b, \quad A_\mu \equiv A_\mu^aT^a \tag1$$

So first of all we see an ambiguity because I can place $D_\mu$ either on $a$ or $b$. Nonetheless, we see something worse: the term in right hand side that goes with the partial derivative does not transform as the left hand side under the group because $(\partial_\mu a)b$ is not transformed into $U(\partial_\mu a)b$ while $D_\mu(ab)$ does.

An alternative expression for Eq. (1) would be to consider that Leibniz rule holds. In that case, left and right hand sides would transform in the same way, but how is that compatible with the definition $D_\mu = \partial_\mu + iA_\mu$ that leads to Eq. (1)?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Vicky
  • 1,577
  • 1
    Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/514399/2451 – Qmechanic Apr 13 '20 at 05:54
  • 1
    @Qmechanic so your suggestion is that for products I should use $D = \partial + i[A, ·]$ with $[·,·]$ the commutator? – Vicky Apr 13 '20 at 06:08
  • It is a commutator for matrix valued fields, and it all works out once you use $[A,ab]=[A,a]b+a[A,b]$. I find it a bit strange that you found a product of two matrix valued fields, and not a commutator $[a,b]$. For the latter case it still works, you would need to use the Jacobi identity. – myorbs Oct 19 '20 at 16:36

1 Answers1

1

If you have two tensor field on which the covariant derivative acts, the covariant derivative of their tensor product is

\begin{equation} \nabla (a \otimes b) = a \otimes \nabla b + b \otimes \nabla a \end{equation}

So that in coordinates, this is

\begin{eqnarray} D_\mu (a^\alpha b^\beta) &=& a^\alpha (\partial_\mu b^\beta + A_\mu b^\beta) + b^\beta (\partial_\mu a^\alpha + A_\mu a^\alpha)\\ &=& a^\alpha \partial_\mu b^\beta + b^\beta \partial_\mu a^\alpha + 2 A_\mu b^\beta a^\alpha \end{eqnarray}

The form is indeed slightly different from the original definition, but this is the general rule for covariant derivatives, similarly to how tensors of order 2 have two Christoffel symbols.

Edit : Sketch of a proof as of why :

Consider that our two fields transform under some gauge group :

\begin{eqnarray} a &\to& e^{\alpha(x)} a\\ b &\to& e^{\alpha(x)} b \end{eqnarray}

If you apply a derivative on their tensor product, you obtain

\begin{eqnarray} \partial_\mu (e^{\alpha(x)} a e^{\alpha(x)} b) &=& \partial_\mu (e^{2\alpha(x)} a b)\\ &=& 2 e^{2\alpha(x)}(\partial_\mu \alpha(x)) + e^{2\alpha(x)} \partial_\mu ( a b) \end{eqnarray}

Much like the usual derivatives for a gauge transformation, there is an extra term that prevents it from being invariant, but here that term has an extra factor of two. This is why you need a factor of two on your gauge field, to absorb the extra factor.

Slereah
  • 16,329
  • 1
    But you have started by assuming that Leibniz holds... my question is about to prove it and make it consistent with the definition of $D_\mu$ – Vicky Apr 13 '20 at 05:42
  • What kind of proof do you want? I can show you that this is the correct thing if you consider this as the connection on a principal bundle, but I'm not sure that will be very satisfying – Slereah Apr 13 '20 at 05:44
  • Let me rephrase it: you have given a formula qith a factor 2 in the gauge part while my gauge part hasn't it. How do you make the connection among those 2 things? What am I doing wrong in my calculation? Because there must be something wrong, otherwise the definiton of $D_\mu$ is not compatible with Leibniz rule – Vicky Apr 13 '20 at 05:46
  • 2
    The error here is assuming that your definition of $D$ extends to a different space. The covariant derivative as you wrote it is only defined on the associated bundle $P \times V / G$, but the tensor product of two such objects does not belong to that space, therefore it cannot act on it. – Slereah Apr 13 '20 at 05:49