Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Gauge invariant Chern-Simons Lagrangian

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
83 views

I have to prove the (non abelian) gauge invariance of the following lagrangian (for a certain value of $\lambda$): $$\mathcal L= -\frac14 F^{\mu\nu}_aF_{\mu\nu}^a + \frac{k}{4\pi}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\operatorname{tr}[A_{\rho}\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} + \lambda A_{\mu}A_{\nu}A_{\rho}]$$ Is there an easier way than expliciting every component of A, going to first order gauge transformation, ... ? Cause it seems really ugly to me.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
asked Jan 17, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by toot (445 points) [ no revision ]
retagged May 1, 2014
I made your Lagrangian into a display style equation so it'd be easier to read - hope you don't mind.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z
Thank you, much pleasant to read indeed ;)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
Homework...? Quite an advanced one, chuckle ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

3 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

There is a nice reason for this, which Witten often explains. Imagine that your three dimensional space is the boundary of a four-dimensional space, for example, you can imagine that space is the surface z=0 of regular four dimensional space x,y,z,t. Further, you can imagine that space is closed into a sphere, which doesn't affect things except for some boundary conditions at infinity (the physics shouldn't care about such things, also note that this is implicitly Euclidean). If you close the three dimensional space-time into a sphere, the interior of the sphere is like the rest of the values of z for the plane case.

You can extend any 3 dimensional gauge field configuration to the imaginary fourth dimension arbitrarily, so that any gauge field on the surface of the sphere can be extended to many different gauge fields on the interior.

On the interior, you can construct the manifestly gauge invariant operator:

$$ \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} F^{\mu\nu}F^{\lambda\sigma} = F\tilde{F}$$

It is important to note that this quantity is a perfect divergence:

$$ F\tilde{F} = \partial_\mu J^\mu_\mathrm{CS} $$

where J is the Chern-Simons current in 4-dimensions. Using Stokes theorem, for any four-dimensional gauge field configuration

$$ \int F\tilde{F} = \int d(*J) = \int_\partial *J $$

Where the last equality is Stoke's theorem, and the previous equality is writing the diverence of a current as the Poincare dual of a three-form.

So the manifestly Gauge invariant $F\tilde{F}$ integral on any gauge field on the interior of the sphere is equal to the integral of the three form *J on the boundary of the sphere. So the integral of *J must be gauge invariant. I didn't work out the actual form of *J, but it is the quantity you are trying to prove gauge invariant.

Although Witten's argument is conceptually illuminating, so it is the correct argument, verifying gauge invariance explicitly is not much more difficult than understanding all parts of the argument. Still, it is good to know the conceptual reason, because the reason the Chern-Simons style things are important is exactly because they are the boundary terms of integrals of those gauge invariant field tensor combinations which are perfect derivatives.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
answered Feb 16, 2012 by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ no revision ]
This nice argument of course requires that the 3-manifold we are interested in is "co-bounding" (the boundary of a 4-manifold) in the first place. Depending on which extra structure one has (e.g. spin structure etc.) this is not always the case. But the good message is that essentially this argument goes through fully generally if one refines it "locally" as expressed in the language of stacks. An exposition of this is at the beginning of this article: ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Usually when you're doing this sort of thing, you try to group the operators into combinations which have simple gauge transformation properties. For instance, I would suggest rearranging the trace factor into $\operatorname{tr}[A_\rho(\partial_\mu + \lambda A_\mu)A_\nu]$, and see what you can figure out about the derivative operator $\partial_\mu + \lambda A_\mu$.

But when it comes down to it, the tricks take you only so far. Proving gauge invariance "from scratch" always entails a certain amount of tedious algebra.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z
answered Jan 17, 2012 by David Z (660 points) [ no revision ]
Ok I will try with this tip.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

The value of lambda must be fixed if you want gauge invariance, written in differential forms is $1/3$, $$S_{CS}=\frac{k}{4\pi}\int \langle A\wedge dA+\frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A \rangle\,,$$ where $A=A_\mu dx^\mu$ and $\langle \rangle$ is an invariant quadratic trace (so you will normally work with particular types of Lie algebras, see the killing symmetric tensor for instance). You can see that $dL_{CS} \sim \langle FF \rangle$ where $F=dA+A\wedge A$ and $d\wedge A=\partial_\mu dx^\mu \wedge A$. The volume measure is $d^4x=dx^0 dx^1 dx^2=\frac{1}{3!}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho}dx^\mu\wedge dx^\nu\wedge dx^\rho$. You can either work with covariant indices $\mu, \nu, \cdots$ or in terms of differential forms. A gauge transformation is given by $$A \longrightarrow A'=g^{-1}Ag+g^{-1}dg\,,$$ where $g=\exp{G}$ and $G=a^I T_I$ lives in the Lie algebra $[T_I,T_J]=C^K{}_{IJ}T_K$. The 'parameter' of the transformation is a 0-form $a^I=a^I(x)$. The infinitesimal form of the gauge transformations is $$A'=[A,G]+dG=DG\,,$$ where $DG$ is the covariant derivative acting on the zero form $G$.

Cheers!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user phys
answered Feb 19, 2014 by phys (15 points) [ no revision ]

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):
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$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
Then 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.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...