2
$\begingroup$

I've done my share of QFT, but as a mostly condensed matter person I'm unfamiliar with any discussion of how the gauge invariance of Maxwell theory might depend on the manifold which it's defined on. I imagine this has been discussed somewhere but I can't find any clear discussions online.

My question is the following: we know that the Maxwell Lagrangian with sources is

$$\mathcal{L}_{M} = -\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}-A_{\mu}J^{\mu}$$

The resulting equations of motion are of course

$$\partial_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}=J^{\nu} \Rightarrow \partial_{\nu}J^{\nu}=0$$

Under a gauge transformation $A_{\mu}\rightarrow A_{\mu}+\partial_{\mu}\Lambda$, the field strength is invariant, so we have

$$\mathcal{L}_{M}'=\mathcal{L}_{M}-\left(\partial_{\mu}\Lambda\right)J^{\mu} = \mathcal{L}_{M}-\partial_{\mu}\left(\Lambda J^{\mu}\right)$$

The usual story is that this is a total derivative, so we don't need to worry about it if the boundary terms behave nicely at infinity. But what if we define our theory on, say, a sphere with finite extent? Then what happens? It seems that the story has to be modified, much as the discussion of gauge invariance in Chern-Simons theory becomes somewhat delicate. Can someone point me to a reference discussing this, or perhaps say what's wrong with my logic? I've never heard discussion of this point which seems odd to me.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/175047/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jan 27 '17 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic - sorry, is there a discussion of gauge invariance there? I'm not seeing it. $\endgroup$ – miggle Jan 27 '17 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ @mflynn I think Qmechanic was referring to the "comma goes to semicolon rule", which basically says if you promote all partial derivatives in a flat spacetime equation (or theory) to covariant derivatives (using the Levi-Civita connection), then the equation (or theory) generalizes to arbitrary spacetime. Maxwell theory generalized to arbitrary spacetime is discussed in the links given by Qmechanic. Using differential forms $A\to A + d\Lambda$ for the gauge makes the generalization even more immediate... $\endgroup$ – Alex Nelson Jan 27 '17 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexNelson Right, I'm familiar with that story. I certainly agree that this works for the source-free theory. But I can't see how promoting derivatives to covariant derivatives "soaks up" the boundary terms that comes from the sources; I'm less concerned with how the geometry affects the dynamics than I am with how we can justify throwing away the boundary terms. $\endgroup$ – miggle Jan 27 '17 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ @mflynn Oh, sorry, my error. Isn't it that we're really working with the integrand of the action, which includes a factor of $\sqrt{|g|}$? Then one can use integration by parts and the identity $\partial_\mu (\sqrt{|g|} J^\mu) = \sqrt{|g|} \nabla_\mu J^\mu$...I think, it's been a while since I've looked at the gory details... $\endgroup$ – Alex Nelson Jan 27 '17 at 19:53
3
$\begingroup$

Maxwellian, and indeed arbitary Yang-Mills, gauge theory is indeed gauge invariant on all manifolds $M$. One may write the action in a manifestly geometric way as $$ S[A] = \int_M \mathrm{tr}(F\wedge{\star} F) + \mathrm{tr}(A\wedge{\star}j)$$ and $F = \mathrm{d}A + A\wedge A$, so no replacement of ordinary derivatives by covariant derivatives is necessary anywhere (recall that the exterior derivative $\mathrm{d}$ and the wedge products $\wedge$ are always properly covariant because the antisymmetrization in their definition kills off the symmetric terms spoiling covariance for an ordinary derivative $\partial_\mu A$).

Now, a gauge transformation is $A\mapsto gAg^{-1} + g^{-1}\mathrm{d}g$, inducing $F\mapsto gFg^{-1}$, so the kinetic term is gauge invariant, and the coupling term behaves as $$ A\wedge{\star}j\mapsto gAg^{-1} \wedge g{\star}jg^{-1} + g^{-1}\mathrm{d}g\wedge{\star}j$$ Writing $g^{-1}\mathrm{d}g = \mathrm{d}\chi$ for $g =\exp(\chi)$, we remain with checking that $$ \int_M \mathrm{d}\chi\wedge{\star}j = \int_M \mathrm{d}(\chi\wedge{\star}j) - \int_M \chi\wedge\mathrm{d}{\star}j$$ vanishes, which it indeed does: The first term vanishes by Stokes' theorem and the fact that manifolds have no boundary, the second because the conserved current has vanishing divergence, and $\mathrm{d}{\star}j$ is just the divergence of the current.

Non-trivial topology of the manifold can have interesting effects (e.g. Aharonov-Bohm effect), but never spoils gauge invariance.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see now! Thank you very much! I failed to see that Stokes' theorem saved us. This makes a lot of sense - I know that we don't usually worry about the gauge transformation piece which comes from sources in Chern-Simons theory, and this explains that as well. Very nice! $\endgroup$ – miggle Jan 27 '17 at 23:19
0
$\begingroup$

The obvious generalisation to curved spacetime is $F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_\mu A_\nu-\nabla_\nu A_\mu$, but in a torsion-free theory such as general relativity the Christoffel symbols cancel, giving the usual formula with $\partial$ and hence the usual gauge invariance. Note that if a transformation effects $\delta S = \int d^n x \partial_\mu V^\mu$ in $n$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime then the general case multiplies the integration measure by $\sqrt{|g|}$ and replaces the $\partial $ with $\nabla$, giving $$\delta S = \int d^n x \sqrt{|g|}\nabla_\mu V^\mu = \int d^n x \partial_\mu \left( \sqrt{|g|} V^\mu\right),$$ which is still an integral of a total derivative.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that much was clear to me - my concern was that the boundary term wouldn't vanish for a manifold with finite spatial extent. The answer above addressed this concern for me. $\endgroup$ – miggle Jan 28 '17 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ While the theory remains gauge invariant, there are surprising effects in spaces with non trivial topology. Consider the situation shown on the cover of Theodore Frankel's "Geometry of Physics": space is a cube with periodic boundary conditions. A wire carries constant curent from the center of the bottom face to the center of the top (and so back though the bottom face). The current is time independent , but there are no time independent solution of Maxwell's equations in this topological non-trivial space. $\endgroup$ – mike stone Nov 29 '17 at 18:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.