Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: uncertainty of fluxes

Bottom of Page

1 to 8 of 8

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2023

    starting a page on Poisson/commutator brackets of flux observables in (higher) gauge theory.

    The title of the entry follows the title of Freed, Moore & Segal 2007a because that’s a good succinct description of the subject matter, but I don’t mean the entry to be restricted to their particular perspective (in fact, is their uncertainty relation not ultimately a definition – their Def. 1.29 – rather than a derivation from first principles?)

    The most insightful discussion of the matter that I have seen so far is that in Cattaneo & Perez 2017, which is motivated by application to first-order formulation of gravity (where this has found a lot of attention), but I think the arguments apply verbatim to Yang-Mills theory, too (where however I haven’t seen it find any attention yet(?)).

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2023
    • (edited Dec 1st 2023)

    I have spelled out (here) full details of the computation of Poisson brackets between electric/magnetic fluxes in 𝔤\mathfrak{g}-Yang-Mills for semisimple 𝔤\mathfrak{g}.

    The first Proposition (here), on the bracket among electric fluxes, is the result of Cattaneo & Perez 2017 (7), who left the computation implicit.

    (Of course, it’s a standard-type and straightforward computation — their substantial contribution is not this computation but the identification of the correct form of the flux observables in the first place.)

    The second proposition (here) may be new (but let me know if not):

    It says that an electric flux observable always Poisson-commutes with any magnetic flux observable.

    This is somewhat curious.

    (In the abelian case this is stated in Freed, Moore & Segal 2007b (3.6), p. 19, — though their proof does not seem to take care of the subtlety highlighted by Cattaneo & Perez 2007).

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2023
    • (edited Dec 1st 2023)

    Ah, of course my very last step was wrong, where I use Stokes’ theorem: Since we are integrating over a manifold with boundary, the result is not 0 but is that boundary term. Have fixed it now (here).

    [edit: in fact, I don’t need Stokes at all, can collect terms already before, as shown now]

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2023

    various little amendments and improvements, such as adding more comments on the role of the Gauss law.

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2023

    I have summed up the computation of the Poisson brackets more succinctly in a theorem (now here)

    stating that the reduced phase space of integrated electromagnetic fluxes through a surface SS in 𝔤\mathfrak{g}-Yang-Mills theory is the Lie-Poisson manifold of the Lie algebra of smooth maps from SS into the semidirect product Lie algebra (𝔤,[−,−])⋉ ad𝔤\big(\mathfrak{g}, [-,-] \big) \ltimes_{ad} \mathfrak{g}.

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2023

    started a section (here) on the non-perturbative quantization of fluxes in Yang-Mills.

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2023

    added a remark (here) on how we should really be using differential forms with values in an adjoint bundle 𝔤 P\mathfrak{g}_P instead of just 𝔤\mathfrak{g}, but that in the end it does not matter for the discussion here.

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2023
    • (edited Dec 9th 2023)

    We now have a write-up on the matter, behind this link:

    \,

    Abstract. While it has become widely appreciated that defining (higher) gauge theories requires, in addition to ordinary phase space data, also “flux quantization” laws in generalized differential cohomology, there has been little discussion of the general rules, if any, for lifting Poisson-brackets of (flux-)observables and their quantization from ordinary phase spaces to the resulting higher moduli stacks of flux-quantized gauge fields.

    In this short note we present a systematic analysis of (i) the canonical quantization of flux observables in Yang-Mills theory and (ii) of valid flux quantization laws in abelian Yang-Mills. We observe (iii) that the resulting topological quantum observables form the homology Pontrjagin algebra of the loop space of the moduli space of flux-quantized gauge fields.

    This is remarkable because the homology Pontrjagin algebra on loops of moduli makes immediate sense in broad generality for higher and non-abelian (non-linearly coupled) gauge fields, such as for the C-field in 11d supergravity, where it recovers the quantum effects previously discussed [I, II] in the context of “Hypothesis H”.

    \,

    Comments are welcome.

1 to 8 of 8

  1.