Charge quantization problem solved?

Tags:
1. Jan 17, 2016

vonZarovich

I am no mathematician, not even an expert in Gauge Theories, but I came across this article

http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6716
(published here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0393044015002284)

when I was looking for some "condensed-matter-type-monopoles", and the author claims to have found a way to explain why electric charges are quantized without the need to magnetic monopoles.

As far as I understood the author uses an analogy between bundles and the electromagnetic field, which seems quite similar to the U(1) gauge formulation of electromagnetism, but he uses sort of high level mathematics (taking into account my own level on the subject) preventing me to tell if his theory explains charge quantization.

Can someone tell me if this is a solution to the problem?

I would also appreciate if someone could explain what he is doing using lower level mathematics, so I can actually follow (I am a graduate physics student working with applications of QFT in condensed matter).

2. Jan 22, 2016

Greg Bernhardt

Thanks for the post! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?

3. Jan 24, 2016

andresB

I would also appreciate an insight from the more mathematical knowledgeable guys of the forum.

4. Jan 29, 2016

vonZarovich

I'm afraid that I'm still lost, Greg. I didn't dedicate a lot of time on this because I'm just curious, this is not related to the things I'm studying.

I've got a copy of Wald's book, and I was able to follow his section 2 (not the bit about the Lorentz force, though). Apart from some minus signs, my guess is that he isn't using the tensor F as everyone else, but he's using the dual tensor *F to be his differential form omega.

As I think I'm getting to understand, I realize that he doesn't even mention the word gauge in his text or potentials. He also uses complex line bundles instead of principal U(1)-bundles, but I've seen people using both for EM fields.

The common idea is to use dF=0 to give dA=F, where the potential A is going to be U(1)-connection. And the other equation is d*F=4pi*j. He is using omega to be the curvature of the connection, but d(omega)=*(alpha), and not zero...

His approach to topological charges in section 3 reminded me the whole business of instantons, but I though that Abelian theories had no such a thing.