Chern-Simons theory has action $$\tag{1} S = \frac{k}{4\pi}\int_X tr(A\wedge dA + \frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A).$$

Here, $X$ is some compact 3-manifold, perhaps with boundary, and $A$ is a connection 1-form on a principal $G$-bundle for some compact Lie group $G$.

At first glance, the theory seems to be topological, for the simple reason that no background metric appears in the action. But I have two doubts about this (which may well be related, hence my including them both in the same question):

  1. It is standard (e.g. see p3 of Elitzur et al) to split $A$ into "spatial" components $A_i$ and a "timelike" component $A_0$. Then the equation of motion for $A_0$ leads to the constraint $F_{ij}=0$ -- that is, the spatial components of the curvature vanish. But the $F_{0i}$ components are unconstrained. So there's an asymmetry between the "space" and "time" directions, which should be identical as far as topology is concerned.

  2. Chern-Simons on a manifold-with-boundary is supposed to be dual to a chiral WZW theory on the boundary. The WZW theory is a CFT: it is defined on some background conformal structure. But if Chern-Simons is truly topological, where does the necessary conformal structure on the boundary come from?

So, is Chern-Simons really a topological theory? And if not, where does the extra geometric structure come from?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is topological on a manifold with no boundary. On a manifold with boundary, there are edge modes which have non-trivial dynamics described by WZW. $\endgroup$
    – Prahar
    Apr 12 at 18:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To get a CFT you need to add by hand an additional structure on the boundary: i.e. something that in Lorentz signature determines the speed of light. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Apr 12 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Prahar The action (1) is well-defined and manifestly topological regardless of whether there's a boundary. This is just because there's no metric anywhere to be seen. So my question still stands: where does the conformal structure on the boundary come from? $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 22:17

1 Answer 1

  1. This is not necessary. It is just convenient. It is an easy way to quantise a theory when you have some way of choosing a "time direction". E.g. when $X=\mathbb{S}^1\times\Sigma$. Choosing $\mathbb{S}^1$ as (Euclidean) time is just a natural choice. On the other hand, when $X$ is e.g. an $\mathbb{S}^3$, this splitting is not amenable. In both cases you can explicitly perform the path integral, when $X$ is closed (see below for the case with a boundary), without having to appeal to Elitzur et al, and you get simply the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant (normalising $Z(\mathbb{S}^3)$ to 1).

  2. When the manifold has a boundary you can (and have to if you want to get a conformal theory on the boundary) provide boundary dynamics. The dynamics that are usually chosen are of the form (for simplicity I'm laying out the abelian case, but the non-abelian case has the same explanation) $$S_\text{bdy} \sim \int_{\partial X} a\wedge\star_{\scriptscriptstyle \partial X}\; a,$$ where $a$ is the restriction on $\partial X$ of $A$, or some linear combination of its components, that is compatible with the variational principle. It is this $\star_{\scriptscriptstyle \partial X}$ that generates some dependence on the boundary metric, and hence allows for a conformal structure.

In short, Chern-Simons is a topological theory. When you put it on a manifold with boundary the conformal structure comes from the metric dependence of the allowed boundary dynamics that you can append to it.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.