• 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.


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

202 submissions , 160 unreviewed
4,981 questions , 2,140 unanswered
5,339 answers , 22,619 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
813 active unimported users
More ...

  How does defining the curvature in Yang-Mills as $F = d_A A$ make sense?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

In Yang-Mills theory, the covariant differential is defined as

$d_A \phi = d\phi+[A,\phi].$

The curvature is defined as

$F = dA + \frac{1}{2}[A,A],$

note the factor of $\frac{1}{2}$. Yet, I often see authors define the curvature as

$F = d_A A.$

How does this definition make sense, given the factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ difference?

asked Mar 18, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by Zoe (15 points) [ no revision ]
reshown Mar 18, 2017 by Dilaton

Notice that this factor is mostly a matter of convention. By simply rescaling the structure constants in the Lie algebra (which may always be done) it may be changed at will

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

This corresponds to the case that the G-bundle over which you consider the connection 1-form $A$ and hence the curvature $F$ is non-abelian. That is, in the case you consider, say a $U(1)$-bundle the curvature on the associated bundle will be just 

$$ F = dA$$

The symbol $d_A$ means you are dealing with the non-abelian case and hence you get the extra commutator. The factor of $1/2$ is there due to antisymmetry. Try to expand the brackets by picking a trivilization over frame and you will see that the factor is needed so that all is good. 

answered Mar 18, 2017 by conformal_gk (3,625 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:
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