A Proving BF action is a difference of Chern-Simons actions

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter StarWombat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    chern-simons
StarWombat
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Trying to prove a result about BF and CS actions, and looking for guidance with some of the working and interpretation
I believe this boils down to lack of familiarity on my part with wedge products of forms, so the answer is probably simple - but it's better to ask a stupid question than to remain ignorant! I've been looking at <https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9505027>, and the idea that the BF [1] action
$$S_{BF}=\int_M tr\left(B\wedge F+\frac{\kappa^2}{3}B∧B∧B\right)$$
can be written as proportional to the difference of Chern-Simons [2] terms, i.e. ##2\kappa S_{BF}=(1/2)(S_{CS}(A+κB)−S_{CS}(A−κB))## where
$$ S_{CS}(A)=\int_M tr(A\wedge dA+\frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A)$$
So, when I expand this out, the factor of ##2\kappa## is easy to obtain - it just comes about because there are two Chern-Simons actions - although it's not quite that simple. The second term in each CS action leads to the expected numerical factor, but the first terms give
$$ (1/2)\left(\int_M tr(A+\kappa B)\wedge dA -\int_M tr(A-\kappa B)\wedge dA\right) = (1/2)\int_M tr(2\kappa B\wedge dA) = \kappa\int_M tr(B\wedge F)$$
This doesn't agree with the factor being ##2\kappa## (as the paper I'm looking at claims, and which I do get for the ##B^3## term), rather than just ##\kappa##. So my first question is why am I off by a factor of two in this term?

There's also an extra term proportional to
$$tr(A\wedge A\wedge B+A\wedge B\wedge A+B\wedge A\wedge A)$$
arising from the second term in each CS action. If this were an ordinary product of matrices, the cyclic nature of the trace would mean that the three terms are equal and I'd get ##3tr AAB##. However, this term must be equal to zero, so my second question is am I right in presuming the wedge product version of the Jacobi identity sends this term to zero? Is there another/better way to understand why this term vanishes?

Thanks in advance.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BF_model
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chern–Simons_theory
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...
Back
Top