What Are the Best Mathematical Introductions to Yang-Mills Theory?

paweld
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
Could anyone give me a reference to a good mathematical introduction to Yang-Mills theory.
I'm interested mainly in a formulation of this theory in terms of connections of principal bundles.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what level you're looking for, but I find Differential Geometry - Cartan's Generaization of Klein's Erlangen Program by R.W. Sharpe to be an excellent text. You could also try, Geometry, Topology, and Physics by M. Nakahara.
 
Last edited:
The book "Modern differential geometry for physicists" by Chris Isham is a very good place to start. It explains what you need to know about bundles, Lie group actions, etc. Unfortunately it doesn't go all the way. It doesn't cover integration on manifolds and the YM Lagrangian.

If you don't know integration on manifolds already, the book "Introduction to smooth manifolds" by John M. Lee is a good place to learn it.

I don't know what's the best place to continue after Isham. The one that looks the best to me (judging only by the table of contents) is "Topology, geometry and gauge fields" Gregory Naber. It seems to cover a lot of the stuff that's covered in Isham too, so you may not even need Isham (but it can't be a bad idea to get both). A few other books that look interesting:

"The geometry of physics" Theodore Frankel
"Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity" Baez & Muniain
"Differential geometry and Lie Groups for physicists" Marián Fecko

There's also a review article called "Preparation for gauge theory" by George Svetlichny. I found it too hard to read, so I can't really recommend it for anything other than the quick intro to group actions on the first few pages.
 
Last edited:
I'd add the following reference: Drechsler & Mayer : <Fiber Bundle Techniques in Gauge Theories>.
 
Thanks a lot.

After I've learned the needed mathematics where can I find a formulation of YM theory
in this language?
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top