8

In three dimensions, the well known Lorentz Chern-Simons action is $$ S_{\text{CS}}=\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\bigg(\omega_{\mu}{}^{ab}R_{\nu\rho ab}+\frac{2}{3}\omega_{\mu a}{}^{b}\omega_{\nu b}{}^{c}\omega_{\rho c}{}^{a}\bigg) \tag{1} $$ where $\omega_{\mu ab }$ is the Lorentz spin connection and $R_{\mu\nu ab}$ is its corresponding field strength, $$ R_{\mu\nu ab}=\partial_{\mu}\omega_{\nu ab}-\partial_{\nu}\omega_{\mu ab}+\omega_{\mu a}{}^{f}\omega_{\nu fb}-\omega_{\nu a}{}^{f}\omega_{\mu fb}. \tag{2} $$ I would like to obtain the equation of motion corresponding to an arbitrary variation in the vielbein $e_{a}{}^{\mu}$, which is related to the spin connection via the zero torsion condition (or equivalently the vielbein compatibility condition). Following the instructions on the foot note of page 438 in [1] (page 30 from the title page), I vary (1) with respect to the spin connection to obtain, $$ \delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}R_{\nu\rho}{}^{ab}\delta\omega_{\mu ab}.\tag{3} $$ Now by varying the vielbein compatibility condition, we can obtain $\delta\omega_{\mu ab}$ in terms of a variation in the vielbein, \begin{align} 0=&\nabla_{\mu}e_{\nu}{}_a=\partial_{\mu}e_{\nu a}+\omega_{\mu ab}e_{\nu}{}^{b}-\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\rho}e_{\rho a}\implies \delta\omega_{\mu ab}=e_{b}{}^{\nu}\big(\delta\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^{\rho}e_{\rho a}-\nabla_{\mu}\delta e_{\nu a}\big). \tag{4} \end{align} After we insert (4) into (3), the second term from (4) does not contribute because after integrating by parts, we have a term of the form $\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}(\nabla_{\mu}R_{\nu\rho}{}^{ab})e_{b}{}^{\sigma}\delta e_{\sigma a}$ which vanishes by virtue of the second Bianchi identity on $R$. Therefore the total variation is $$ \delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}R_{\nu\rho\alpha}{}^{\sigma}\delta\Gamma_{\mu\sigma}^{\alpha}\tag{5} $$ which can now be completely expressed in terms of the variation of the metric. Everything I have done until now has followed the instructions of the aforementioned footnote. The authors now state that by expressing $\delta\Gamma_{\mu\sigma}{}^{\alpha}$ in terms of $\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ one can show that the result is $$ \delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=\int\text{d}^3xC^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\tag{6} $$ where $C^{\mu\nu}$ is the Cotton tensor defined by $$ C^{\mu\nu}=\varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\widetilde{R}_{\beta}{}^{\nu},\qquad \widetilde{R}_{\alpha\beta}=R_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha\beta}R, \tag{7} $$ ($\widetilde{R}$ is the Schouten tensor). However, despite the authors comments I am not able to arrive at (6) from (5). The reason is the following. Upon applying the well known formula $$ \delta\Gamma_{\mu\sigma}^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha\beta}\big(\nabla_{\mu}\delta g_{\beta\sigma}+\nabla_{\sigma}\delta g_{\beta\mu}-\nabla_{\beta}\delta g_{\mu\sigma}\big) \tag{8} $$ to (5) and integrating all three terms by parts, the first vanishes due to the Bianchi identity again, whilst the second is equal to the third. This leads me to the following result, $$ \delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta}{}^{\sigma}\delta g_{\mu\sigma}\tag{9} $$ which, after using the identity $$ \nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta\sigma}=\nabla_{\nu}R_{\sigma\rho}-\nabla_{\rho}R_{\sigma\nu},\tag{10} $$ reduces to $$ \delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=2\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\nabla_{\nu}R_{\rho}{}^{\sigma}\delta g_{\mu\sigma}\tag{11}. $$ One would have also arrived at the same conclusion had they used the observation that in D=3, $$ R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=g_{\alpha\gamma}\widetilde{R}_{\beta\delta}+g_{\beta\delta}\widetilde{R}_{\alpha\gamma}-g_{\alpha\delta}\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}-g_{\beta\gamma}\widetilde{R}_{\alpha\delta}. \tag{12} $$ The integrand in (11) clearly is not equivalent to that of (6), the terms proportional to the Ricci scalar are not apparent. What went wrong?

[1]: S. Deser, R. Jackiw, S. Templeton; Topologically Massive Gauge Theories (1982).

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

1 Answers1

1

Note that the term that is missing is $$ -\frac14\varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}\nabla_\alpha(\delta^\nu_\beta R)\delta g_{\mu\nu}=-\frac14\varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\nu}\nabla_\alpha R\,\delta g_{\mu\nu} $$ which vanishes due to $\varepsilon^{\mu\cdot\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}\equiv 0$, inasmuch as the first tensor is skew-symmetric and the second one is symmetric. Thus, the result in the OP and the one in the paper are identical.

AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
  • If this is the correct explanation then doesn't that mean that the resulting equation of motion is ill defined in that I could add to to the integrand any term of a similar type? – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 14:26
  • No: if $\delta S=\int A^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ the equations of motion are not $A^{\mu\nu}=0$, but $A^{(\mu\nu)}=0$. The EoM are insensitive to the skew part of the variation; only the symmetric part is set to zero. You can add whichever skew tensor you like to $A^{\mu\nu}$, and this won't affect the EoM. – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 13 '18 at 14:28
  • But the equation of motion is supposed to be $C^{\mu\nu}=0$, which can only be obtained by adding the antisymmetric tensor in your answer to the integrand. Implying that the EoM is sensitive to the addition of an antisymmetric tensor? – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 14:51
  • Nope. In general terms, when you perform the variation of the action, you end up with $\delta S=\int A^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}$, for some tensor $A^{\mu\nu}$. The equations of motion are, then, $A^{(\mu\nu)}=0$. You can add any skew tensor to $A$, and the EoM remain the same, $A^{(\mu\nu)}=0$. In your case, you don't need to "add" an antisymmetric tensor to obtain $C^{\mu\nu}$. Instead, you have to symmetrise whatever tensor you end up with. This is precisely what the authors did (note that the Cotton tensor is symmetric!). – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 13 '18 at 15:00
  • Hmmm, i tried to symmetrize the tensor in the integrand yesterday and it didn't yield the Cotton tensor. Could you please add more details to your answer? – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 15:03
  • I.e. could you please show how to arrive at the equation of motion $C^{\mu\nu}=0$ from equation (9). – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 15:06
  • $$\delta[S_{\text{CS}}]=\int\text{d}^3x\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta}{}^{\sigma}\delta g_{\mu\sigma}\ \Rightarrow\ \varepsilon^{(\mu|\nu\rho}\nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta}{}^{|\sigma)}\equiv 0$$. 2) $$\varepsilon^{(\mu|\nu\rho}\nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta}{}^{|\sigma)}=...=C^{\mu\nu}$$ Which of these steps is unclear?
  • – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 13 '18 at 15:08
  • There is something else which you might be able to answer. As we discussed, only the symmetric part of the integrand will survive if we are varying with respect to a symmetric field. What happens if the field we are varying w.r.t. is both symmetric and traceless? I think only the symmetric and tracesless part of the integrand should survive. But I can force the integrand (and EoM) to be symmetric, but how can we force tracelessness in the integrand? Do we manually deduct the trace? – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 15:14
  • I ask because I tried to obtain the EoM's of the action (1) by converting (1) all into frame indices and then perform an infinitesimal variation of the vielbein generated by a symmetric and traceless tensor (which I can do since I have shown elsewhere that (1) is locally Lorentz and Weyl invariant. – NormalsNotFar Jun 13 '18 at 15:16
  • Rearrange the definition of $C^{\mu\nu}$ as $$
  • \varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha} R_\beta{}^\nu=C^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{4}\varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\nu}\nabla_{\alpha} R $$ 2) Symmetrise the indices $$ \varepsilon^{(\mu|\nu\rho}\nabla_{\nu}R^{|\sigma)}{}\rho=C^{\mu\sigma}+\frac{1}{4}\varepsilon^{(\mu|\alpha|\sigma)}\nabla{\alpha} R=C^{\mu\sigma} $$ 3) Plug this into $$ \varepsilon^{(\mu|\nu\rho}\nabla^{\beta}R_{\nu\rho\beta}{}^{|\sigma)}= \varepsilon^{(\mu|\nu\rho}(\nabla_{\nu}R^{|\sigma)}{}\rho-\nabla{\rho}R^{|\sigma)}{}_\nu) $$ and 4) conclude that this equals $C^{\mu\sigma}$.

    – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 13 '18 at 15:25
  • I wish I had of noticed this earlier, there goes a lot of wasted time. Thank you! – NormalsNotFar Jun 14 '18 at 01:18
  • I wonder If you might know something about the question I asked in comment #9 ? – NormalsNotFar Jun 14 '18 at 01:19
  • @NormalsNotFar I'm glad I could help :-) Taking derivatives with respect to constrained tensors is a little bit tricky. One alternative is to introduce a Lagrange multiplier. For example, if you want the variation with respect to a traceless tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, then you introduce a term $\lambda \mathrm{tr}(g)$ in the action, where $\lambda=\lambda(x)$ is a new field and $g$ is unconstrained. Variation with respect to $\lambda$ enforces $\mathrm{tr}(g)=0$. An alternative is to use a Dirac-like approach, cf. this PSE post. – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 14 '18 at 01:48
  • Cheers for that. Do you know of any good references which discuss this particular application of Lagrange multipliers? – NormalsNotFar Jun 14 '18 at 02:19