• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Is gravitational Chern-Simons action "topological" or not?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Here are the 2+1D gravitational Chern-Simons action of the connection $\Gamma$ or spin-connection:

$$ S=\int\Gamma\wedge\mathrm{d}\Gamma + \frac{2}{3}\Gamma\wedge\Gamma\wedge\Gamma \tag{a} $$

$$ S=\int\omega\wedge\mathrm{d}\omega + \frac{2}{3}\omega\wedge\omega\wedge\omega \tag{b} $$

A usual Chern-Simons theory of 1-form gauge field is said to be topological, since $S=\int A\wedge\mathrm{d}A + \frac{2}{3}A\wedge A \wedge A$ does not depend on the spacetime metric.

(1) Are (a) and (b) topological or not?

(2) Do (a) and (b) they depend on the spacetime metric (the action including the integrand)?

(3) Do we have topological gravitational Chern-Simons theory then? Then, what do questions (1) and (2) mean in this context of being topological?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-17 16:12 (UTC), posted by SE-user mysteriousness
asked Dec 17, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by mysteriousness (145 points) [ no revision ]
Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/56211, physics.stackexchange.com/q/28888

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-17 16:12 (UTC), posted by SE-user joshphysics

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

The gravitational Chern-Simons action is topological, yes. The gauge connection encodes the field of gravity and since it is being integrated over, the result does not depend on a metric. (In the expressions you write maybe the vielbein contribution is missing? Or maybe you mean to have absorbed it in the notation.) Notice that it's just the usual Chern-Simons term which may be written down for many gauge groups, here specialized to the the Poincaré group or an AdS groups.

What one needs to know to understand what's going on here is this:

  1. The Einstein-Hilbert action functional always has a first-order formulation in terms of vielbeing and spin connections, which are nothing but the componentes of a 1-form with values in the Poincaré Lie algebra. More precisely, the field of gravity may always be written as a Cartan connection for the inclusion of the Lorentz group into the Poincaré group.

  2. Now when one writes down this first-order version of the Einstein Hilbert action in 3-dimensions then a little miracle happens: it turs out to be equal to the Chern-Simons action functional with that gauge group. See at Chern-Simons gravity.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-12-17 16:12 (UTC), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
answered Dec 17, 2014 by Urs Schreiber (6,095 points) [ no revision ]
Maybe to highlight further: gravity is always "topological" in that the background structure that it is defined on is only that of a smooth manifold, not including a background metric. That's how topological field theories were originally introduced: as theories sharing this property with gravity but being possibly simpler and hence easier to analyse.

One should really be speaking of gravity as a "topological field theory", too. At least classically (pre-quantumly). What happens after quantization is famously open. Maybe after quantization it's not a field theory anymore, but a string theory.

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights