24

From what I read about on instantons (Zee, QFT in a Nutshell, pg 309-310), an instanton is a vacuum solution that maps $S^3 \rightarrow S^3$ (the boundary of Euclideanized spacetime), which comes from minimizing the Euclidean action for some Lagrangian with a nontrivial vacuum structure. I've also read (for example in Muckanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology, pg 180-199) about how instantons can mediate quantum tunneling from one vacuum state to another.

My question is: how are these two ideas/definitions of instantons related? All of the simples examples that I have looked at of nontrivial vacuum solutions involve solitons, vortices, or hedgehogs, which as far as I know cannot mediate decay from a metastable vacuum. Solitons etc are defined on spacial infinity so I know (suspect?) that the fact that an instanton lives on the boundary of space$time$ is related to its connection to rate of vacuum decay. I would greatly appreciated some simple examples/links to references as well.

1 Answers1

31

Let us look at the instantons of an ordinary pure Yang-Mills theory for gauge group $G$ in four Euclidean dimensions:

An instanton is a local minimum of the action

$$ S_{YM}[A] = \int \mathrm{tr}(F \wedge \star F)$$

which is, on $\mathbb{R}^4$, precisely given by the (anti-)self-dual solutions $F = \pm \star F$. For (anti-)self-dual solutions, $\mathrm{tr}(F \wedge \star F) = \mathrm{tr}(F \wedge F)$. The latter is a topological term known as the second Chern class, and its integral is discrete:

$$\int \mathrm{tr}(F \wedge F) = 8\pi^2 k$$

with integer $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ (don't ask about the $\pi$). For given $k$, one also speaks of the corresponding curvature/gauge field as the $k$-instanton. Now, how does this relate to the things you have asked about?

Instantons as vacua

Since the instanton provides a local minimum of the action, it is a natural start for perturbation theory, where it naturally then represents the vacuum. We have infinitely many vacuua to choose from, since $k$ is arbitrary.

Instantons and the three-sphere

(The motivation here is, that, for the vacuum to have finite energy, $F = 0$ at infinity, so we seek actually a solution for the field equations on $\mathbb{R}^4 \cup \{\infty\} = S^4$ such that $F(\infty) = 0$)

Take two local instanton solutions $A_1,A_2$ (for same Chern class $k$) on some open disks $D_1, D_2$´. Now, glue them together by a gauge transformation $t : D_k \cap D_{k'} \rightarrow G$ as per

$$ A_2 = tA_1t^{-1} + t\mathrm{d}t^{-1} $$

(we are essentially defining the principal bundle over $S^4$ here) and observe that $\mathrm{tr}(F_i \wedge F_i) = \mathrm{d}\omega_i$ with $\omega_i$ the Chern-Simons form

$$ \omega_i := \mathrm{tr}(F_i \wedge A_i - \frac{1}{3} A_i \wedge A_i \wedge A_i) $$

Take the two disks as being the hemispheres of an $S^4$, overlapping only at the equator. If we now calculate the chern class again, we find:

$$ 8\pi^2 k = \int_{D_1} \mathrm{d}\omega_1 + \int_{D_2} \mathrm{d}\omega_2 = \int_{\partial D_1} \omega_1 + \int_{\partial D_2} \omega_2 = \int_{S^3} \omega_1 - \int_{S^3} \omega_2$$

due to Stokes' theorem and different orientation of the hemisphere boundary w.r.t. each other. If we examine the RHs further, we find that

$$ k = - \frac{1}{24\pi^2} \int_{S^3} \mathrm{tr}(t\mathrm{d}t^{-1} \wedge t\mathrm{d}t^{-1} \wedge t\mathrm{d}t^{-1})$$

so the $k$ is completely determined by the chosen gauge transformation! As all $k$-vacua have the same value in the action, they are not really different. This means we can already classify an $k$-instanton by giving the gauge transformation $t : S^3 \rightarrow G$. The topologist immediately sees that $t$ is therefore given by choosing an element of the third homotopy group $\pi_3(G)$, since homotopic maps integrate to the same things. For simple Lie group, which we always choose our gauge groups to be, $\pi_3(G) = \mathbb{Z}$, which is a nice result: $t$ is (up to homotopy, which is incidentally the same as up to global gauge transformation here) already defined by the $k$-number of the instanton.

Instantons and tunneling

Now we can see what tunneling between an $N$- and an $N + k$-vacuum might mean:

Take a $[-T,T] \times S^3$ spacetime, that is, a "cylinder", and fill it with a $k$-instanton field configuration $A_k$. This is essentially, by usual topological arguments, a propagator between the space of states at the one $S^3$ to the other $S^3$. If you calculate its partition function, you get a tunneling amplitude for the set of states belonging to $\{-T\} \times S^3$ turning into the set of states belonging to $\{T\} \times S^3$.

Calculate again the Chern class (or winding number or Poyntragin invariant - this thing has more names than cats have lives):

$$ 8\pi^2 k = \int_{[-T,T] \times S^3} \mathrm{d}\omega = \int_{\{T\}\times S^3} \omega(-T) - \int_{\{-T\}\times S^3} \omega(T)$$

If the $S^3$ represent vacua, the field strength vanishes there and $A(-T),A(T)$ are pure gauge, i.e. $A(\pm T) = t_\pm \mathrm{d} t_\pm^{-1}$, so we have the Chern-Simons form reducing to the Cartan-Maurer form $\omega(\pm T) = \frac{1}{3} t_\pm \mathrm{d} t_\pm^{-1} \wedge t_\pm \mathrm{d} t_\pm^{-1} \wedge t_\pm \mathrm{d} t_\pm^{-1}$. But now the two boundary integrals for the winding number are simply determined by the homotopy class of $t_\pm : \{\pm T\} \times S^3 \rightarrow G$, let's call them $k_\pm$. Therefore, we simply have $k = k_+ - k_-$.

So, we have here that a cylinder spacetime with a $k$-instanton configuration indeed is the propagator between the space of states associated with a spatial slice of a $k-$-instanton and the space of states associated with a spatial slice of a $k_+$-instanton, where $k_\pm$ differ exactly by $k$, so you would get the amplitude from the partition function of that cylinder. To actually calculate that is a work for another day (and question) ;)

Danu
  • 16,302
ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
  • Ah, I guess I was just used to seeing $\Lambda$ used instead of $t$ as the element of the gauge group. Point 2 makes more sense now as well. My last question about your (quite helpful) answer is: how is calculating the Chern class related to the partition function (e.g. I don't see how the $k$ is related to your discussion about the partition function of the transition from ${-T} \times S^3 \rightarrow {T} \times S^3$). – physics_researcher Jul 24 '14 at 16:05
  • 2
    @Lloyd: It's not related to the partition function directly, but it tells what kind of vacua are at the ends of the propagator - namely those whose winding numbers differ by $k$ from each other. Note that I did just put a $k$-instanton on the cylinder without assuming anything other than "vacuum" about the ends, and got that difference from calculating the Chern class of the cylinder. – ACuriousMind Jul 24 '14 at 16:23
  • 1
    @ACuriousMind There's a step in this argument I've never understood: you start with describing instantons on $\mathbb{R}^4$ compactified to $S^4$, but then consider an instanton in $X = I \times S^3$ where $I$ is an interval. But $X$ is not topologically the same as $S^4$ unless you demand more stringent boundary conditions, i.e. that the gauge field be constant on the two spatial slices as well. But then that would ruin the argument. – knzhou Jul 27 '18 at 17:15
  • @ACuriousMind What step am I missing here? Would it be worth asking a separate question about that? – knzhou Jul 27 '18 at 17:15
  • 1
    @knzhou I never claim that $S^4$ and the 3-cylinder are the same. I'm just saying that if you put a k-instanton on the 3-cylinder then it mediates between two spatial slices of instantons on $S^4$ (spatial slice is $S^3$) that differ by k. – ACuriousMind Jul 27 '18 at 17:22
  • @ACuriousMind Maybe to rephrase the confusion a bit: if you literally copy-pasted the usual instanton in $S^4$ into the cylinder (i.e. some variation of the gauge field in a region of size $a$, and a constant gauge field for $r \gg a$), and the cylinder was much larger than $a$, then the gauge field should be roughly constant on the edges of the cylinder. But we know it can't be, because at least one of the vacua on the edges has nontrivial winding and hence a non-constant $A_\mu(\mathbf{x})$. How are these compatible? – knzhou Jul 27 '18 at 21:35
  • @knzhou I'm not saying that you should paste the $S^4$-instanton to the 3-cylinder. I'm saying that an instanton configuration on the 3-cylinder mediates between two $S^3$-slices of instantons of different winding numbers. There is no obvious relation between the instanton on the 3-cylinder and the instanton on the $S^4$. – ACuriousMind Jul 29 '18 at 11:49
  • @ACuriousMind If this is so, then why do we spend time classifying instantons on $S^4$, when the ones we care about for all physical purposes are on the $3$-cylinder and look completely different? Why do any of the results derived on $S^4$ carry over? – knzhou Jul 29 '18 at 13:11
  • @ACuriousMind For example, I don't see how the 3-cylinder instantons should have even the same action as the $S^4$ ones, or why they should be classified topologically the same way. – knzhou Jul 29 '18 at 13:13
  • @ACuriousMind could you provide a reference for this construction last? I have the same confusion as knzhou... Though I think the confusion starts at the point where you say that $k$ labels vacua, is this accurate? – Michael Angelo Apr 09 '19 at 18:08
  • @MichaelAngelo The classic is Coleman's "The use of instantons", where he finds that states labeled by the winding number are not eigenstates by a very similar argument for a 4-cube instead of my cylinder. Look at https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1862 for a different and more careful argument of how an Euclidean instanton on a cylinder corresponds to the tunneling between vacua in Minkowski space. – ACuriousMind Apr 09 '19 at 21:55
  • @ACuriousMind OK, good, I get the argument. I think what's missing and what is confusing us is that you say 'fill a cilinder', while what you actually do is work in the axial gauge and deform the boundary into a cilinder since there will be no contributions from the sides in this gauge. – Michael Angelo Apr 10 '19 at 09:35
  • @knzhou all you care about is the configuration on the boundary of $R^4$, so configurations on $S^3$. Apparently you have to compactify the hyperplanes at the ends of the cylinder so you can again interpret the configurations on them as having a certain winding number. See Weinberg volume 2, p. 455. – Michael Angelo Jun 13 '19 at 20:25