I am trying to understand the gaps in my knowledge that prevents me from completely understanding quantum field theory. Sometimes I ask pretty basic questions, but please excuse me if I make a blunder.
Suppose we have a part of a generic Lagragian: $$\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L} &=\ ...\ - \frac{1}{2}\phi_a M^2_{ab}\phi_b\ + \ ...\ , \end{eqnarray}$$
where $M^2_{ab}$ is Real, and symmetric, and $\phi_a$ is a collection of Real scalar fields.
By linear algebra we know that a Real and a symmetric matrix $\mathrm{A}$ can be diagonalized by the similarity transformation $R^\mathrm{T}AR = A_{diagonal}$. $R$ is an orthogonal matrix. This transformation will change the basis of the initial matrix. Therefore, if I redefine the fields as $\varphi = R\phi$, I can obtain the following: $$\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L} &=\ ...\ - \frac{1}{2}\varphi_a m^2_{a}\varphi_a\ + \ ...\ . \end{eqnarray}$$
In this example we used an orthogonal matrix to change the basis to write the Lagrangian in terms of mass eigenstates. My questions here:
What was the basis of the initial fields $\phi_a$? I know it is generic, but why do we need to define such a generic matrix and work with generic basis in the first place? Why do we bother about diagonalization, but not start with already diagonalized matrix and mass eigenstates? I know that I gave you this example, so I must explain it to you, but I ask for examples in QFT why this is important? What are the use cases of similarity transformations in various examples?
We usually say symmetry transformations are active transformations. Here, there is no symmetry transformation but rather a change of basis (similarity transformation). I think this is a passive transformation. Could you tell me if there is nothing wrong with my understanding here?
Even though I know that similarity transformations and symmetry transformations are two different things, I cannot stop noticing the following connection: Here, I told you that $\phi_a$ is a collection of Real scalar fields, and we know that if I write them as a column vector I want to talk about a symmetry, and this symmetry is an $SO$ symmetry. Its group elements are orthogonal matrices. Just as the change of basis matrices that we used to diagonalize $M^2_{ab}$. Is there a connection, or is this just a coincidence because I also told you that $M^2_{ab}$ is Real and symmetric? If it is just a coincidence can you give me some examples that falsifies this, and also where they are used?