Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

July 11, 2006

Freed, Moore, Segal on p-Form Gauge Theory, II

Posted by Urs Schreiber

On Heisenberg groups in the quantization of pp-form gauge theory.

As I mentioned last time, the claim is that quantizing an abelian chiral pp-form connection field (meaning one with Hodge self-dual curvature) on a 2p2p-dimensionsal space of the form M=X×M = X\times \mathbb{R} leads to the phase space

(1)H^ p(X) \hat H^p(X)

of p1p-1-form connections on XX modulo gauge tranformations (aka differential characters, aka Deligne cohomology, aka connections on p2p-2-gerbes), whose quantization amounts to passing from the group H^ p\hat H^p to a Heisenberg group central extension controlled by the (“cup product”) pairing

(2)(A^ 1,A^ 2) YA^ 1A^ 2 (\hat A_1, \hat A_2) \mapsto \int_Y \hat A_1 \star \hat A_2

which on topologically trivial conections is the Chern-Simons term

(3)(A 1,A 2) YA 1dA 2. (A_1, A_2) \mapsto \int_Y A_1 \wedge \, \mathbf{d}A_2 \,.

In fact, one important point made in [FMS II] (p. 33) is that in order to get “level 1” central extensions this way, one needs to correct this pairing slightly.

In order to see this, first notice that the cup product pairing is graded commutative. For A^ 1H^ p 1\hat A_1 \in \hat H^{p_1} and A^ 2H^ p 2\hat A_2 \in \hat H^{p_2} we have

(4)A^ 1A^ 2=(1) p 1p 2A^ 2A^ 1, \hat A_1 \star \hat A_2 = (-1)^{p_1 p_2} \hat A_2 \star \hat A_1 \,,

which can immediately be checked for topologically trivial connections.

Next, one needs some facts about Heisenberg groups [FMS II, section 3.1] .

Heisenberg groups.

Heisenberg groups are maximally noncommutative central extensions G˜\tilde G of abelian groups GG by U(1)U(1)

(5)0U(1)G˜G0, 0 \to U(1) \to \tilde G \to G \to 0 \,,

in the following sense.

All these central extensions have elements that are pairs (g,a)G×A(g,a) \in G\times A, with the product essentially that of G×AG\times A, but twisted by a function

(6)c:G×GU(1) c : G\times G \to U(1)


(7)(g 1,a 1)(g 2,a 2)=(g 1g 2,c(g 1,g 2)a 1a 2). (g_1,a_1)\cdot(g_2,a_2) = (g_1 g_2,\; c(g_1,g_2)a_1 a_2) \,.

Of course for this to be associative cc has to satisfy the cocycle equation

(8)g 1,g 2,g 3:c(g 1,g 2)c(g 1g 2,g 3)=c(g 1,g 2g 3)c(g 2,g 3) \forall g_1,g_2,g_3 : \; c(g_1,g_2)c(g_1g_2,g_3) = c(g_1,g_2g_3)c(g_2,g_3)

and cc may differ by a coboundary

(9)(g 1g 2)f(g 1g 2)f(g 1)f(g 2) (g_1g_2) \mapsto \frac{f(g_1g_2)}{f(g_1)f(g_2)}

without changing the central extension.

There is a more invariant object than cc which controls these extensions, namely the quotient

(10)s(g 1,g 2)=c(g 1,g 2)c(g 2,g 1), s(g_1,g_2) = \frac{c(g_1,g_2)}{c(g_2,g_1)} \,,

which appears as the group commutator of G˜\tilde G:

(11)(g 1,a 1)(g 2,g 2)(g 1,a 1) 1(g 2,g 2) 1=(0,s(g 1,g 2)). (g_1,a_1)(g_2,g_2)(g_1,a_1)^{-1}(g_2,g_2)^{-1} = (0, s(g_1,g_2)) \,.

This ss is in particular invariant under transformations of cc by group coboundaries. Furthermore, it has the following three properties. It is

1) alternating: s(g,g)=1s(g,g) = 1

2) bimultiplicative: s(g 1g 2,g 3g 4)=s(g 1,g 3)s(g 1,g 3)s(g 2,g 3)s(g 2,g 3)s(g_1 g_2, g_3 g_4) = s(g_1,g_3) s(g_1,g_3)s(g_2,g_3) s(g_2,g_3).

As a consequence of these two properties, it is also skew: s(g 2,g 1)=s(g 1,g 2) 1s(g_2,g_1) = s(g_1,g_2)^{-1}.

The point of all this is that there is a theorem [FMS II, p. 23] whose proof is given in [FMS I, prop A.1, p. 22], that central extensions by U(1)U(1) of topological abelian groups are, up to noncanonical isomorphism, bijectively specified by such continuous maps s:G×GU(1)s : G\times G \to U(1) which are alternating and bimultiplicative.

Hence it’s the bihomomorphisms ss which allow us to conveniently describe central extensions.

The standard example to keep in mind is that of textbook quantum mechanics, where we have some vector space VV thought of as an addtitive group of translations, as well as its dual V *V^*, thought of as the group of translations in momentum space, and the central extension of VV *V \otimes V^* is given by the canonical symplectic form Ω\Omega as the cocycle (q,p)e 2piΩ(q,p)(q,p) \mapsto e^{2pi\Omega(q,p)}.

This gives rise to a Heisenberg group, and of course this is the example that gave the name to Heisenberg groups. In general, a Heisenberg group is a U(1)U(1)-central extension of an abelian group, for which the above map s:G×GU(1)s : G\times G \to U(1) is nondegenerate, in the obvious sense.

Coming back to the cases we are interested in, one is tempted to define a central extension of the group of connections H^ p\hat H^p by taking ss to be the cup product pairing.

However, this is not alternating! While the cup product pairing is indeed skew in 4k+24k + 2 dimensions, this only implies that

(12)A^A^=A^A^, \hat A \star \hat A = - \hat A \star \hat A \,,

which, in the presence of torsion subgroups, does not suffice to make A^A^\hat A \star \hat A vanish, but only says that A^A^\hat A \star \hat A is two torsion. In fact, Gomi has shown in

Kiyonori Gomi
Differential characters and the Steenrod squares


(13)exp(2πi XA^A^)=(1) Xν p1[A^], \exp(2\pi i \int_X \hat A \star \hat A) = (-1)^{\int_X \nu_{p-1}\smile [\hat A]} \,,

where ν p1\nu_{p-1} is some characteristic class known as the Wu class of XX, and [A^][\hat A] is the characteristic class of A^\hat A.

There are two ways out of this. One is the one followed by Gomi, the other is the one followed by FMS.

1) Instead of letting the cup product define the map ss, we let it define directly the group cocylce of the central extension [Gom, Lemma 3.2].

Due to the graded commutativity of the cup-product, one finds from this [Gom, Lemma 3.4]

(14)s(A^ 1,A^ 2)=exp(2πi XA^ 1A^ 2)exp(2πi XA^ 2A^ 1)={exp(2πi X2A^ 1A^ 2) forpodd 1 forpeven, s\left(\hat A_1,\hat A_2\right) = \exp\left(2\pi i \int_X \hat A_1 \star \hat A_2\right) \exp\left(-2\pi i \int_X \hat A_2 \star \hat A_1\right) = \left\lbrace \array{ \exp\left(2\pi i \int_X 2 \hat A_1 \star \hat A_2\right) & \text{for} p \text{odd} \\ 1 & \text{for} p \text{even} } \right. \,,

where (as hopefully before) pp is the degree of the curvature form of A^ 1\hat A_1 and A^ 2\hat A_2, with XX being (2p1)(2p-1)-dimensional.

Hence we find two things:

i) Using the above theorem on how ss classifies central extensions, we see immediately that for pp even the central extension is trivial [Gom, Theorem 3.5].

ii) Moreover, for pp odd the central extension is “level 2” in the sense that we have an extra factor of 2 in the exponent. As we noticed above, this factor ensures that the form ss is indeed alternating.

2) In [FMS II, p. 35] it is argued that for physical applications we do need Heisenberg groups with “level one” central extensions. Hence FMS remove the above factor of 2 and instead add another term to the exponent, such that the form ss becomes alternating.

The failure of the original guess for ss to be alternating is measured by the Wu class ν p1\nu_{p-1} of XX, and the claim is that switching the sign of ss by

(15)(1) ϵ(A^ 1)ϵ(A^ 2) (-1)^{ \epsilon(\hat A_1)\epsilon(\hat A_2) }


(16)ϵ(A^)= X[A^]ν p1 \epsilon(\hat A) = \int_X [\hat A] \smile \nu_{p-1}

makes ss a nondegenerate alternating bihomomorphism s:H^ p×H^ pU(1)s : \hat H^p \times \hat H^p \to U(1), and hence gives rise to a Heisenberg group extension of the phase space H^ p\hat H^p of self-dual connections.

The FMS claim is that this is the group of observables for chiral (p1)(p-1)-form gauge theory in 2p2p dimensions, where pp is odd.

As a consistency check, one finds that for p=1p=1 the above prescription does in fact reproduce the worldsheet quantization of the bosonic string compactified on a circle [FMS II, p. 34], namely here the Heisenberg group is precisely the level-1 Kac-Moody central extension LU^(1)\hat LU(1) of the loop group of U(1)U(1).

Accordingly, using the “level 2”-quantization Gomi instead arrives at LU^(1)/ 2\hat LU(1)/\mathbb{Z}_2 [Gom, prop. 3.6].

In fact, in remark 5 on p.12 of [Gom] the author mentions the problem of finding a central extension for arbitrary pp that would be to the level-2 central extenion of H^ p\hat H^p like LU^(1)\hat LU(1) is to LU^(1)/ 2\hat LU(1)/\mathbb{Z}_2.

As far as I understand, this problem is solved by FMS as described above.

If the above claim is right, that the Heisenberg central extension of H^ p\hat H^p is the algebra of observables for chiral (p1)(p-1)-form gauge theory in 2p2p-dimensions, then we need to find representations of the Heisenberg group extension of H^ p\hat H^p, because these will be the Hilbert spaces of states of the theory.

Representations of Heisenberg groups.

One central question we may want to ask is this:

Given the quantization of flux observables as above, what are the superselection sectors (\to) of the quantum theory?

In other words

What are the irreducible representations of the Heisenberg central extension of H^ p\hat H^p?

The general answer to that is given in prop. A.5 (p. 26) in [FMS I].

Roughly, the answer is that unitary irreps of the central extension G˜\tilde G are in bijection with irreps of the center of G˜\tilde G.

Applied to finite-dimensional Heisenberg groups, this is essentially the Stone-von Neumann theorem (\to).

For infinite-dimensional groups like the extensions of H^ p\hat H^p we need to have a polarization on G˜\tilde G and demand the irrep to be of “positive energy”.

Now, for a Heisenberg group we demanded the bihomomorphism defining the central extension s:G×G/s : G\times G \to \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} to be non-degenerate. This nondegeneracy implies [FMS I, p. 22] that the center of G˜\tilde G is precisely Z=U(1)Z = U(1). But this means that there is only one group homomorphism ZU(1)Z \to U(1), hence only one (positive energy) irrep (up to a choice of polarization on GG) of G˜\tilde G.

The situation discussed by Gomi is different. As discussed above, Gomi uses a bihomomorphism ss different from that proposed by FMS. As a result, he finds not one irrep (up to equivalence), but

(17)n=2 br n = 2^b r

of them [Gom II, theorem 1.3, p. 3]. Here

(18)b=b p1(X) b = b_{p-1}(X)

is the (p1)(p-1)st Betti number of XX and

(19)r=|Tor 2(H p(X,))| r = |\mathrm{Tor}_2(H^p(X,\mathbb{Z}))|

is the number of elements tH p(X,)t \in H^p(X,\mathbb{Z}) with 2t=02t = 0.

In fact, for the case p=3p=3 and assuming that the second and third integral cohomology of XX are torsion free, the same result had been obtained, by rather different looking means, in

M. Henningson
The quantum Hilbert space of a chiral two-form in d = 5 + 1 dimensions

By what I said, it seems that this is in contradiction to what FMS are claiming (not on the math side, but regarding which cocycles to use in applications to physics). But maybe I am missing something.


Posted at July 11, 2006 10:36 AM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:

0 Comments & 4 Trackbacks

Read the post Gomi on Reps of p-Form Connection Quantum Algebras
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: Gomi on the construction of projective unitary reps of centrally extended groups of p-form connections.
Tracked: July 14, 2006 5:38 PM
Read the post BV for Dummies (Part V)
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: Some elements of BV formalism, or rather of the Koszul-Tate-Chevalley-Eilenberg resolution, in a simple setup with ideosyncratic remarks on higher vector spaces.
Tracked: October 30, 2007 10:09 PM
Read the post (Generalized) Differential Cohomology and Lie Infinity-Connections
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: On generalized differential cohomology and its relation to infinity-parallel transport and Lie-infinity connections.
Tracked: February 27, 2008 8:54 PM
Read the post Charges and Twisted Bundles, III: Anomalies
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: On the anomalies arising in (higher) gauge theories in the presence of electric and magnetic charges.
Tracked: April 25, 2008 10:19 PM

Post a New Comment