# $A \wedge A \wedge A$ in Chern-Simons

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
834 views

I am confused with the wedging operations of Lie algebra valued differential forms. Especially, for instance, I have some problems with the Chern-Simons 3-form

$$A \wedge dA + \frac{2}{3}A \wedge A \wedge A,$$

where $A$ is a Lie algebra valued 1-form. My question is "how is the last term $A \wedge A \wedge A$ defined?"

As far as I know, a lot of sources (e.g. Wedge Product of Lie Algebra Valued One-Form, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_algebra-valued_differential_form) define the wedge of Lie algebra valued 1-forms as follows.

$$[\omega \wedge \eta](X_1,\dots,X_{p+q}) := \text{(coefficient)}\times \sum_{\sigma \in S_{p+q}} \text{sgn}(\sigma) [\omega(X_{\sigma(1)},\dots,X_{\sigma(p)}),\eta(X_{\sigma(p+1)},\dots,X_{\sigma(p+q)})],$$

where $\omega$ and $\eta$ are Lie algebra valued $p$-form and $q$-form, respectively. The coefficient differs by authors. Other people utilises local description (e.g. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/315235/reference-for-lie-algebra-valued-differential-forms, and also in the Wikipedia)

$$[\omega \wedge \eta] = [\omega^a \otimes T^a, \eta^b\otimes T^b] := \omega^a \wedge \eta^b \otimes [T^a,T^b],$$

where $T^c (c=1,\dots,\dim \mathfrak{g})$ are generators of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, and the implicit sums understood.

These definitions, as the notations suggest, force you to take Lie bracket explicitly. Therefore it is obvious that wedged one $[\omega\wedge\eta]$ is Lie algebra valued $(p+q)$-form.

Then what about wedged ones without brackets, such as $A\wedge A, A\wedge A \wedge A$?

I can show that $A \wedge A$ is equivalent to $[A \wedge A]$ up to coefficient, using either matrix representation, considering $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{gl}(n)$, or universal enveloping algebra. The basic idea is

$$A \wedge A = (A^a \otimes T^a) \wedge (A^b \otimes T^b) = (A^a \wedge A^b) T^a T^b.$$

This time, by graded commutation relation, the multiplication of generators can be converted to commutators. This seems ok. Then what about $A\wedge A \wedge A$? I could not convert it to an expression only using commutators of generators...

So, what I did was calculating $[A \wedge [A \wedge A]]$, which gave zero. I am totally confused at this stage. Could you point out some pieces that I possibly keep missing??

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user N. Shimode
asked May 27, 2015
retagged Jun 6, 2015

## 3 Answers

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

Option (1) Use the definition $(\omega \otimes S) \wedge (\eta \otimes S) = (\omega \wedge \eta) \otimes (S\otimes T)$ of the wedge product for Lie algebra valued forms. Define Lie bracket and Killing form as bilinear maps $[S\otimes T] = [S,T]$ and $\langle S \otimes T \rangle = \langle S, T\rangle$. Then the formula that you want is $$\langle A \wedge [A \wedge A] \rangle,$$ where the commutator and Killing form apply only to the Lie algebra factors, ignoring the differential form factors.

Option (2) Use the definition $(\omega \otimes S) \wedge (\eta \otimes S) = (\omega \wedge \eta) \otimes ST$ of the wedge product of forms valued in a particular matrix representation of a Lie algebra. Then the formula that you want is $$\operatorname{tr} (A \wedge A \wedge A),$$ where again the trace applies only to the matrix factors ignoring the differential form factors.

The two formulas agree up to a constant factor, as long as your Lie algebra is simple.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user Igor Khavkine
answered May 27, 2015 by (420 points)
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

For Lie algebras of matrices (which is what you really care in Chern-Simmons theory) think of $A$ as a form with matrix coefficients

$$A=\sum_i A_i dx^i,$$

where $A_i$ are $r\times r$ matrices.With this convention, use the usual wedge product

$$\left(\sum_i A_i dx^i\right)\wedge \left(\sum_j A_j dx^j\right)\wedge \left(\sum_k A_k dx^k\right) = \sum_{i,j,k} A_iA_jA_k dx^i\wedge dx^j\wedge dx^k,$$

where you need to recall that the product of matrices is not commutative.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user Liviu Nicolaescu
answered May 27, 2015 by (110 points)
Liviu, just want to note that your formula gives a matrix-valued 3-form. One still needs to take the trace of the matrix coefficients to get an ordinary 3-form that one could use as a Lagrangian density.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user Igor Khavkine
So, do you think that $A\wedge A \wedge A$ does not have to be Lie algebra valued 3-form? Perhaps this is the point that I cannot understand.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user N. Shimode
When the notation is ambiguous, you have to be more precise about the context. If you want a formula for the Lagrangian density of the Chern-Simon's theory, then it cannot be Lie algebra valued.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user Igor Khavkine
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

This is not a direct answer to my question, but I think it is worth noting. The reason why $A \wedge A \wedge A$ without trace should not be a Lie algebra valued 3-form is as follows.

Suppose $A \wedge A \wedge A$ be a well-defined Lie algebra valued 3-form in some sense. Then it must have such a local expression

$$C_{\mu\nu\rho}^a T^a \otimes dx_{\mu}\wedge dx_{\nu} \wedge dx_{\rho}.$$

To make this Chern-Simons Lagrangian density, you have to take trace of it, which gives zero unless the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ in consideration is abelian.

On the other hand, if the algebra were abelian, the expression $A \wedge A \wedge A$ must vanish (due to antisymmetry). This would make the theory useless. Thus the expression should never be a Lie algebra valued form.

P.S. I did not come up this story when I asked my question. But the discussion here uncovered my poor understanding on the subject and enlightened how I should proceed. Thank you everyone!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-06-06 21:05 (UTC), posted by SE-user N. Shimode
answered Jun 1, 2015 by (30 points)

## Your answer

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.