Is the Chern-Simons Lagrangian a Lorentz Scalar in a 2D World?

AI Thread Summary
In a 2D spatial world, the Chern-Simons Lagrangian introduces an additional term to the electromagnetic field, which must be a Lorentz scalar to be valid. The discussion emphasizes the need to demonstrate that this Lagrangian is invariant under parity transformations, ruling out it being a pseudo-scalar. Additionally, gauge invariance is established through the transformation of the vector potential A, where changes in the Lagrangian can be shown to result in divergences. Participants express confusion about tensors and seek clarification on forming covariant dot products and applying transformations to verify gauge invariance. Overall, the conversation revolves around understanding the properties of the Chern-Simons Lagrangian in a 2D context.
Rory9
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Imagine a spatially 2d world. The electromagnetic field could be richer here, because you could add to the Lagrangian L an additional term (known as the Chern-Simons Lagrangian)

L_{CS} = \epsilon_{0}\frac{\kappa}{2}\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta})A_{\gamma}​

where

\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma}

denotes the completely antisymmetric unity tensor in a world with 2 spatial dimensions (and time) and \kappa[\tex] is a coupling constant. In order to be suitable as part of the total Lagrangian, L_{CS}[\tex] must be a Lorentz scalar. Explain why the Chern-Simons expression is indeed a scalar. Why is the action generated by L_{CS}[\tex] guage-invariant?<br /> <br /> <h2>The Attempt at a Solution</h2><br /> <br /> I must admit, I'm rather confused by this one, and haven't done much work with the unity tensor before (I've only just begun playing with tensors, really).<br /> <br /> I was hoping to learn something by trying this problem, but haven't got anywhere with it yet, and any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
that sounds like an interesting problem. Firstly, it's obvious that L is either a scaler or pseudo-scaler. You just need to rule out that last possibility. Parity transformation maps
u_0 \rightarrow u_0
u_1 \rightarrow -u_1
u_2 \rightarrow -u_2

it suffices to show that L is invariant under this transformation. As for gauge invariance, this is pretty much the transformation:
A_\alpha \rightarrow A_\alpha + \partial_\alpha V
for scaler V. If L changes by a divergences under this transformation, you get gauge-invariance.
 
tim_lou said:
that sounds like an interesting problem. Firstly, it's obvious that L is either a scaler or pseudo-scaler. You just need to rule out that last possibility. Parity transformation maps
u_0 \rightarrow u_0
u_1 \rightarrow -u_1
u_2 \rightarrow -u_2

it suffices to show that L is invariant under this transformation. As for gauge invariance, this is pretty much the transformation:
A_\alpha \rightarrow A_\alpha + \partial_\alpha V
for scaler V. If L changes by a divergences under this transformation, you get gauge-invariance.

Thank you :-)

Would I be right in thinking that a covariant dot product can be formed in the above (and these are invariant) - another way of looking at it (?)

Regarding the gauge invariance, are you proposing simply to substitute that transformation into the above expression and see if I can kill off all the \partial_\alpha V terms, somehow (?)

Cheers.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top