0
$\begingroup$

In the paper A Duality Web in 2 + 1 Dimensions and Condensed Matter Physics,

on page 34, it talks about the periods of a closed $2$-form. Consider the following path integral,

$$\int\mathcal{D}B\;\exp{\left\{-\frac{i}{8\pi}\int\left(\bar{\tau}^{\prime}F^{\prime +}\wedge\star F^{\prime +}-\tau^{\prime}F^{\prime -}\wedge\star F^{\prime -}\right)-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int F^{\prime}\wedge dB\right\}}$$

where $F^{\prime}$ is an arbitrary $2$-form, $F^{\prime\pm}_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(F_{ab}^{\prime}\pm\frac{i}{2}\epsilon_{abcd}F^{cd}\right)$, and $B$ is a $U(1)$-gauge field. It says that path-integral produces a delta functional $\delta[dF^{\prime}]$.

My first question is that how the path-integral produces a delta-functional. Shouldn't there be an extra factor $i$ in front of the second integral $\int F^{\prime}\wedge dB$, so that

$$\int\mathcal{D}B\;\exp{\left\{\frac{i}{2\pi}\int F^{\prime}\wedge dB\right\}}=\int\mathcal{D}B\;\exp{\left\{\frac{-i}{2\pi}\int dF^{\prime}\wedge B\right\}}=\delta[dF^{\prime}]$$

It then says that the $2$-form $F^{\prime}$ is closed and has periods $2\pi\mathbb{Z}$, and so it is the field strength of some gauge field $B^{\prime}$.

What's the definition of periods of a closed $2$-form? Is that related with the fact that $F^{\prime}$ belongs to the second cohomology class $F^{\prime}\equiv F^{\prime}+d\xi$? Why is it $2\pi\mathbb{Z}$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$
  1. Don't forget that the path integral is over $\exp(\mathrm{i}S)$, not $\exp(S)$.

  2. A period of a differential p-form is simply its value when integrated over a matching p-cycle. "The periods" usually refers to a bunch of such numbers obtained by integrating it over each of a set of p-cycles that forms a basis for the p-th homology.

    It is not true that $F'$ necessarily has integral periods if it is truly "arbitrary". We could replace any $F'$ for which this holds by $\frac{1}{2}F',\frac{1}{3}F',\dots$ and it would still have to hold, showing the claim cannot be true unless all periods of $F'$ vanish. Since this obviously does not change closedness, closedness alone is not sufficient to guarantee integrality.

    However, in the case where $F'$ is the field strength of a gauge field, $\frac{1}{2\pi}\mathrm{Tr}[F']$ is a first Chern class, which is always in integral cohomology, which is in turn equivalent to having integral periods.

In case you are wondering where the "$\frac{1}{2}F',\frac{1}{3}F',\dots$ argument" fails for the curvature of a gauge field: The gauge field $A'$ with $F' = \mathrm{d}A'$ only exists locally on contractible patches, and there are no non-trivial p-cycles on such contractible patches by definition of contractibility, meaning all of $F$'s periods vanish anyway there. So trying to mimick the argument by using $\frac{1}{2}A,\frac{1}{3}A$ fails to tell you anything about $F$ globally.

A neat thing to note is that the claim "on contractible patches all periods are zero" for the ordinary electromagnetic field strength tensor is simply Gauß' law for magnetism.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is that correct to say that the gauge potential is globally defined only when monopoles are absent? $\endgroup$ – Libertarian Monarchist Bot Mar 15 '18 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NewStudent Yes for a $\mathrm{U}(1)$-gauge theory, i.e. electromagnetism, no for a general gauge theory since it is not clear what you might mean by a monopole there. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Mar 15 '18 at 22:09

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.