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
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top