• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,911 answers , 20,875 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
519 active unimported users
More ...

  What's a concrete example where groupoids are better suited to describe conventional gauge theory?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

I've recently started reading about groupoids. I understand that they (higher-groupoids) are useful in the context of speculative theories, like string theory, where we are dealing with branes etc. However groupoids are also valuable in conventional gauge theories like, for example, the standard model. To quote from the book What is a Mathematical Concept?

 From […] to the objects of field values for gauge field theory, which need to keep track of gauge equivalences, we find we are treating geometric forms of groupoid. If in the latter case instead we take the simple quotient, the plain set of equivalences classes, which amount to taking gauge symmetries to be redundant, the physics goes wrong in some sense, in that we cannot retain a local quantum field theory. Furthermore, in the case of gauge equivalence, we do not just have one level of arrows between points or objects, but arrows between arrows and so on, representing equivalences between gauge equivalences. 

What's a concrete example to demonstrate this? So far, I've only found very abstract examples that talk about some gauge transformations $g$ and $h$ abstractly

So what I'm looking for, is an example that is really explicit. For example, let's take a concrete structure group like $U(1)$. Then let's specify some gauge transformations $g(x)= ...$ and $h(x)= ...$, where the dots should be replaced by concrete functions of $x$. 

  • So how, can we demonstrate concretely that in gauge theories, "arrows between arrows", i.e. gauge transformations of gauge transformations are also important?
  • And how can we see that something goes wrong if we naively factor out local gauge transformations from the description?
asked Nov 13, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by JakobS (95 points) [ no revision ]

Hi JakobS. I believe all this is saying is that when you take a quotient of a QFT by a symmetry group G it is naturally understood as a "homotopy" or "(higher) groupoid" quotient, obtained by "adding arrows" to the configuration space of the theory, ie. we introduce a new degree of freedom, the G gauge field, rather than take degrees of freedom away. Then we have arrows between arrows which are the gauge transformations and things can get even hairier if you start with something like a 2-group action instead of just a group action.

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The core of the easy argument of how groupoids are necessary to retain both locality as well as instanton sectors in gauge theory is in my talk notes "Higher field bundles for gauge fields". For more elementary technical background see the master thesis "Stacks in gauge theory"  that I supervised. For the latest developments see the references at "homotopical AQFT".

But the quickest route to see that groupoids already are all over the place in gauge theory is to notice that the BRST-complex is nothing but the dual incarnation (the Chevalley-Eilenberg algebra) of the infinitesimal approximation of the gauge groupoid: Just like every Lie group is infinitesimally approximated by (and under good conditions reconstructible from) a Lie algebra, so every Lie groupoid is infinitesimally approximated (and in good situations reconstructible) by a Lie algebroid . This Lie algebroid for gauge theory is embodied by the BRST complex.

Hence when you open books on "Quantization of Gauge Theories", such as that by Henneaux-Teitelboim, which tell you that such quantization proceeds by the BRST complex, they are secretly saying that it proceeds by Lie algebroids, hence by Lie groupoids. Only that they don't say these words, but that's exactly what it is.

This is discussed in geometry of physics -- A first idea of quantum  field theory in the sections 10. Gauge symmetries  11. Reduced phase space and 12. Gauge fixing .

answered Nov 18, 2017 by Urs Schreiber (5,875 points) [ revision history ]

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):
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:
Then 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.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights