text:
# Untitled Document

Why do Bell experiments?

by

Ian C. Percival

Department of Physics

Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London

Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, England

Experiments over three decades have been unable to demonstrate weak nonlocality in the sense of Bell unambiguously, without loopholes. The last important loophole remaining is the detection loophole1,2,3, which is being tackled by at least three experimental groups4,5,6. This letter counters five common beliefs about Bell experiments, shows the importance of these experiments, and presents alternative scenarios for future developments. Figure here.

The figure shows the bare bones of a system designed to test Bell inequalities7. It may be considered as a black box at rest in a laboratory frame, with two input ports $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and two output ports $`a`$, $`b`$. The input port $`\alpha `$ and the output port $`a`$ are parts of a subsystem $`A`$ on the left of the box, and $`\beta `$, $`b`$ are parts of a subsystem $`B`$ on the right. The minimum distance between $`A`$ and $`B`$ is $`L`$.

One run of an experiment on the black box starts with inputs labelled $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ which end before time $`t=0`$ in the laboratory frame. The outputs are labelled $`a`$, $`b`$ start after time $`t=T`$. The inputs and outputs are entirely classical, but the system has entangled quantum components.

A sufficient number of runs provides transition or conditional probabilities denoted

$$\mathrm{Pr}(\alpha ,\beta a,b)$$
(1)
for the outputs $`a,b`$ of the whole system, given the inputs $`\alpha ,\beta `$. Following Wigner’s formulation8, locality implies that they satisfy the Bell inequality

$$\mathrm{Pr}(1,2+,)+\mathrm{Pr}(2,0+,)\mathrm{Pr}(0,1+,)0,$$
(2)
together with two more inequalities given by cyclic permutations of $`0,1,2`$.

The subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ are so far apart that

$$L>Tc,$$
(3)
where $`c`$ is the velocity of light, so it is not possible to send signals from $`\alpha `$ to $`b`$ or from $`\beta `$ to $`a`$. Without this condition, the experiment has a loophole, sometimes called the locality loophole9. All early experiments had this loophole, but Aspect’s group10 and more recently Zeilinger’s and Gisin’s groups11,12 have removed it.

In Bell’s original thought experiment, there are three possible values of $`\alpha `$ and corresponding values of $`\beta `$, denoted $`0,1,2`$. They might be three settings of the angle of a polarizer, or of the angle of measurement of a particle of spin one-half. There are two possible values of each separate output, denoted $`+`$ and $``$. They are typically two orthogonal directions of polarization of a photon, or two opposite spins of an atom. In an ideal Bell experiment, the inputs $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are determined by completely independent random variables. If they are not random, as for the Aspect and Gisin experiments, there is a further loophole, which was removed by Zeilinger’s group in an experiment in which the locality loophole was also overcome11.

The detection loophole1,2,3 described below has proved to be the most difficult of all, and has never been overcome in any published experiment, though the groups of Fry and Walther4, of Wineland5 and of Blatt6 are trying. Fry and Walther aim to close the locality loophole in the same experiment.

Bell experiments, or experiments of the Bell type, are experiments to test the original Bell inequalities, or one of the many other inequalities that follow from locality. Here are five common beliefs about them.

1 Their only purpose is to exclude local hidden variable theories, which are of little interest anyway.

2 Violation of the inequalities follows inevitably from the laws of quantum mechanics and their interpretation.

3 Experiments have already shown that the Bell inequalities are violated, apart from the detection loophole, which is so unbelievable that it is not worth considering seriously.

4 Einstein’s view that all physical laws are local was his one definite major mistake.

5 Bell experiments are therefore no longer worth doing.

Reasons are presented here for rejecting all of these beliefs, and replacing them by the alternatives:

1 There are more important reasons for doing Bell experiments, including Bell’s weak nonlocality.

2 Neither the violation nor the nonlocality follow inevitably from quantum mechanics.

3 There are at least two good reasons why the detection loophole should be taken seriously.

4 Einstein has been right before, when many in the physics community were wrong, and we need conclusive experimental evidence of nonlocality before judging him on this issue.

5 Bell experiments are among the most important in physics.

Why do Bell experiments?

Guinness, Bass and Worthington are brands of beer. It is questionable whether, if Guinness is good for you, Bass is bad and Worthington is worse. These are matters of taste and prejudice. Forward, nonlocal and backward causality are brands of causality. If forward causality is good for you, nonlocal causality is bad and backward causality is worse. These are matters of experience. We are particularly concerned with the question of nonlocal causality, in which cause and effect are spatially separated in spacetime, so that a signal from cause to effect would have to go faster than the velocity of light. According to classical special relativity, an event can affect a future event, in or on its forward light cone, but not a spatially separated event, and certainly not a past event.

But apparently, according to quantum theory, classical events that are linked by quantum systems are different. For them, there is a sense in which causality might act nonlocally, but without any signalling faster than light. This is Bell’s weak nonlocality, which can be formulated in terms of the classical inputs and outputs of a black box 13.

An electrical engineer’s black box consists of a circuit with input and output terminals. He may not know what circuit is inside, but it is assumed here to be classical. If there is no noise in the circuit, then the black box is deterministic. The outputs then depend on the inputs through a unique transfer function $`F`$, and by experimenting with different inputs and looking at the outputs, engineers can find $`F`$. In practice the resistors in the circuit produce noise, which we assume to be classical noise. The system is then stochastic. The noisy circuit can be represented by a probability distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}(F)`$ over the transfer functions $`F`$, in which the unknown values of supposedly classical background variables, like the coordinates of thermal electrons, determine the particular $`F`$ that operates.

A physicist’s black box contains an evolving physical system, such as a classical electrical circuit, or an entangled quantum state with classical inputs and outputs. She may not know what physical system is inside, but by experimenting with different inputs and looking at the outputs, she can find out something about it.

For deterministic systems, special relativity distinguishes between local transfer functions $`F`$ in which the influence of an input on an output goes at no more than the velocity of light, and nonlocal transfer functions $`F`$, for which the influences can act over spacelike intervals. It is possible to determine whether the transfer function of a system is local or not by experimenting with different values of the inputs, and observing the outputs. There is no need to look inside the black box. All real classical systems have local transfer functions, as required by special relativity.

When classical or quantum systems are stochastic, special relativity distinguishes between three types of black box system, defined in terms of probabilities $`\mathrm{Pr}(F)`$ of transfer functions. The first are local systems, for which the transition probabilities of the outputs given the inputs can be obtained from a probability distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}(F)`$ in which only local $`F`$ contribute. It is therefore not possible to send signals faster than the velocity of light. For the second type, the transition probabilities can only be obtained from $`\mathrm{Pr}(F)`$ in which at least one nonlocal transfer function has nonzero probability, so there is an element of nonlocality. But nevertheless it is not possible to send signals faster than the velocity of light. The system is then said to be weakly nonlocal, or nonlocal in the sense of Bell. For the third type, which has never been seen, it is possible to send signals faster than the velocity of light.

The stochasticity of classical systems comes from background variables that are not included in the system, but for quantum systems it does not come from any background variables that we can see, so either they are assumed not to exist, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, or they are called hidden variables.

A Bell experiment is a black box with classical terminals and an entangled quantum system inside, where the source of entanglement is inside the box. For photon polarization the setting of the orientations of the polarizers is an input, and the detection of the directions of polarization is an output. All the inputs and outputs are classical events.

Real laboratory Bell experiments are treated in the next section. In this one we treat only ideal Bell thought experiments in which the entangled quantum system is sufficiently close to a pure state, and the measurements sufficiently good, that the black box is weakly nonlocal.

The classic Bell was proposed to test whether local hidden variable theories are possible7. But quantum black boxes also tell us something about the world: there are correlations between classical events that can only be produced by quantum links. These correlations are important in their own right. They demonstrate weak nonlocality. They also show that the properties of our world cannot be explained using local hidden variables, but that is not their main significance, which persists independently of any theory, local or nonlocal. An experimenter who has never seen the apparatus before can tell by experimenting with the inputs and outputs, and without looking inside, that the black box contains a quantum system. This property of quantum black boxes comes from weak nonlocality.

So Bell experiments and weak nonlocality are important for all quantum physicists, whether they support hidden variable theories or not. The weak nonlocality of quantum measurement is unique in modern physics: classical dynamics, quantum dynamics and general relativity are all local. Today only ideal experiments are weakly nonlocal, though tomorrow they could be real.

In modern quantum computation it is proposed to put quantum correlations to good use. Violation of Bell inequalities is a benchmark experiment for quantum computers, and for this reason alone would be worth doing even if there were no interest in weak nonlocality.

Nonlocality and quantum mechanics

Real experiments, with or without loopholes, are approximations to ideal experiments without them. There are possible limits on the approach to the ideal that are explored by attempts to carry out an experiment without loopholes. Theoretically it appears that it is possible to approach arbitrarily close to the ideal, by improving the efficiency of detectors, collimation, etc., but there appears to have been a ‘conspiracy’ of nature that prevented this. Such conspiracies in physics have a long history.

For example, the first law of thermodynamics says that heat is a form of energy. In the early 19th century there appeared to be a conspiracy that prevented anyone from extracting all this energy from a system and using it. We now call this conspiracy the second law of thermodynamics. Bell’s opinion, ‘It is hard for me to believe that quantum mechanics works so nicely for inefficient practical setups and is yet going to fail badly when sufficient refinements have made.’ may be right, but irrelevant. Quantum theory does not have to fail. The necessary refinements may not be possible. Current quantum theory would then be incomplete, just as the first law of thermodynamics is incomplete. Einstein thought that quantum mechanics is incomplete14, but this was not the kind of incompleteness he described.

Santos has suggested earlier that the laws of quantum measurement might be compatible with locality 15. This idea can be illuminated by an analogy, comparing the second law of thermodynamics and the possible breakdown of the nonlocality argument. Classical systems obey the laws of Hamiltonian dynamics, despite the second law, which limits energy transfer from real systems with many particles. Similarly quantum systems might obey all the laws of quantum dynamics and quantum measurement, despite a supplementary law which excludes weakly nonlocal systems, thus ensuring that physics remains local. No one yet knows any such supplementary law.

In thermodynamics, the second law was discovered as a result of many trials showing practical limitations on getting useful energy from heat. Locality holds for all Bell experiments to date, but it is on much weaker ground, as Bell experiments are relatively few, so experiments designed to test it are among the most important in physics.

Experiments and the detection loophole

A Bell experiment without loopholes would be an experiment from which we could deduce weak nonlocality without further assumptions. It is nearly four decades since the inequalities were obtained and experiments tentatively suggested, and three decades since the first experiments. There is still no published clear experimental demonstration of weak nonlocality, because of the detection loophole, which follows.

Real experiments have outcomes that are excluded in ideal experiments. For example, a photon or an atom may be detected at $`A`$, but not at $`B`$, as a result of imperfect detectors, or losses due to absorption or bad collimation. These outcomes affect the inequalities, and the tests of nonlocality. There are further assumptions that have to be made in order to obtain the probabilities that appear in the inequalities. One such assumption is that the detector efficiency is independent of the local ‘hidden’ variables, as discussed by Clauser and Horne16 and by Gisin and Gisin17. If the possibility of such a dependence is accepted, nonlocality cannot be demonstrated until the detection efficiency reaches a threshold. This is the loophole.

At first sight such a dependence seems unlikely, but there are two good reasons why the detection loophole should not be ignored.

The first reason lies in the definition of efficiency, for which the analogy with thermodynamics is useful. If only the first law of thermodynamics applied, then it would be reasonable to measure the efficiency of a heat engine as the proportion of the total energy that is extracted. But once the second law is recognized, this definition is inappropriate, and we revise the definition to take temperature differences into account. Similarly, if there are values of local hidden variables that play a role in determining whether or not there is a response from a particle detector, it is no longer appropriate to measure the efficiency of the detector in the conventional way. The measure of efficiency should take into account the values of the hidden variables. With such a new definition, the dependence seems natural17.

The second reason lies in the alternative. The dependence appears unlikely to some people, but the alternative is nonlocality, which is a break with the whole of the rest of physics. We must not base conclusions about such an overwhelmingly important universal issue on some prejudice about the properties of mere detectors.

We cannot dismiss the detection loophole. We have to try to close it by improving the experiments.

Einstein’s mistake?

Einstein introduced light quanta in 1905, but leading physicists still did not accept them as late as 1913, so we should be careful before rejecting his other ideas, whatever the majority thinks18. He believed that nature obeys local laws, and Bell showed that this assumption might be tested experimentally. It appeared that weak nonlocality followed from the laws of quantum dynamics and quantum measurement, but this is not so.

What now?

Quantum technology has advanced so much during the last decade that the detection loophole might soon be closed, using spin states of atoms or otherwise. For the future, there are several possible scenarios, of which two are the most likely:

EITHER

1. The inequalities cannot be violated. The apparent conspiracy is due to a new law of nature, consistent with current quantum theory, but limiting the accessible states of matter to those for which locality reigns. The common view is wrong and Einstein was right.

OR

2. The inequalities can be violated. The apparent conspiracy that has prevented the unambiguous experimental confirmation of Bell nonlocality is due to practical difficulties that can be overcome. Experiments will close the detection loophole. This would be a significant advance, a benchmark on the way to quantum computation. Simultaneous closure of both the detection and locality loopholes would confirm the common view that the laws of nature are weakly nonlocal and that Einstein was wrong.

This issue can only be resolved by experiment. That is why Bell experiments are so important.

References

1. Pearle, P., Hidden-variable example based on data rejection Phys. Rev. D, 2 1418-1425 (1970).

2. Clauser,J.F.,Horne, M.A., Shimony,A. & Holt, R.A., Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, 880-884, (1969).

3. Garg, A. & Mermin, N.D., Detector inefficiencies in the EPR experiment, Phys. Rev D, 35, 3831-3835 (1987).

4. Fry, E.S. & Walther,T., Fundamental tests of quantum mechanics, Adv. Atom. Molec. and Opt. Phys., 42 1-27 (2000).

5. Private communication, D. Wineland.

6. Private communication, R. Blatt.

7. Bell, J.S., On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics, 1 195-200 (1964)

8. Wigner,E.P. , On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities Am. J. Phys., 38, 1005-1009 (1970).

9. Bohm, D., Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1951).

10. Aspect,A. Dalibard,J. & Roger,G., Experimental test of Bell inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1804-1807, (1982).

11. Weihs,G. et al, Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict locality conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 5039-5043 (1998).

12. Tittel,W. et al, Long-distance Bell-type tests using energy-time entangled photons, Phys. Rev. A 59,4150-4163 (1999).

13. Percival,I.C., Quantum transfer functions, weak nonlocality and relativity , Phys. Lett. A, 244, 495-501, (1998).

14. Einstein,A. Podolsky,B. &Rosen,N., Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935).

15. Santos,E., Critical analysis of the empirical tests of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646-3656, (1992).

16. Clauser, J.F. and Horne,M.A. Phys. Rev. D 10, 526-535, (1974).

17. Gisin,N. & Gisin,B. Local hidden variable model of quantum correlation exploiting the detection loophole, Phys. Lett. A 260, 323-327, (1999).

18. Pais,A. Subtle is the Lord …, (Oxford University Press, 1982) p382.

Acknowledgements

I thank Roberto Basoalto, Ed Fry, Nicolas Gisin, Serge Haroche, Thomas Walther and Ting Yu helpful and stimulating communications and Leverhulme, the ESF and PPARC for support.


format: text

text:
# The Wess-Zumino term for a harmonic map

## 1 Introduction

The Wess-Zumino term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ is an invariant with values in $`𝐑/2\pi 𝐙`$ associated to a smooth map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ from a closed oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to a compact, simply connected, simple Lie group $`G`$. From the author’s preferred perspective this is the holonomy around $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the canonical gerbe on $`G`$ , but in this paper we shall use the more conventional definition in terms of the integral of the invariant $`3`$-form on $`G`$ over an extension of $`g`$ to a $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. When $`G=SU(2)=S^3`$ and $`g`$ is an embedding, $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)/2\pi ]`$ is the fraction of the total volume of $`S^3`$ enclosed by $`g(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Our purpose in this paper is to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ when the map $`g`$ is harmonic.

One motivation for this is the once-held belief  that a minimal surface in $`S^3`$ should divide the sphere into two halves of equal volume, just like the equatorial $`2`$-sphere. This would be the statement that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=\pi `$. The conjecture is now known to be false – there is a counterexample in genus $`11`$  – but nevertheless the questions of how one actually calculates this invariant, and what properties it has, are clearly of interest in this concrete setting. Moreover, given the knowledge we now possess on harmonic maps from the $`2`$-sphere or the $`2`$-torus, one feels that there must be an explicit formula in those cases. We shall give one.

We begin by deriving various properties of the Wess-Zumino term, without the harmonicity assumption. In particular we show that if the map $`g`$ takes values in a maximal torus, or a canonically embedded symmetric space of $`G`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ can only be equal to $`0`$ or $`\pi `$.

The starting point for most work on harmonic maps of surfaces to groups is the interpretation of the equations as the vanishing of the curvature of a family of flat $`G`$-connections $`A(\theta )`$ parametrized by the circle $`e^{i\theta }`$, with $`A(0)`$ being the trivial connection and $`A(\pi )`$ a connection trivialized by the map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$. For the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^2`$, any flat connection is trivial and we get this way a family of maps $`g_\theta `$. Here, by a simple integration, we find two results: the known integrality of $`|\beta |^2E/16\pi `$ where $`E`$ is the energy of the map $`g`$ and $`|\beta |^2`$ the square of the length of the highest root $`\beta `$ of $`G`$, and then the formula $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=|\beta |^2E/16`$. Thus for $`S^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ is again $`0`$ or $`\pi `$.

For a higher genus surface holonomy obstructs the trivialization of the flat connection $`A(\theta )`$, and we require a different approach. The most effective one for us is classical Chern-Simons theory viewed as a topological field theory as in . From this point of view, the one-parameter family of connections $`A(\theta )`$ describes a path in the moduli space $``$ of all flat $`G`$-connections on the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times G`$. From $`\theta =0`$ to $`\theta =\pi `$ this is a closed path $`\gamma `$ starting and ending at the gauge equivalence class of the trivial connection. Our result relates the Wess-Zumino term to the holonomy of the natural connection on the Chern-Simons line bundle over $``$. In fact we show that

$$H(\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}(16i|\beta |^2Ei\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

The usefulness of this formula lies in the fact that we only need to know the gauge equivalence class of $`A(\theta )`$ to be able to calculate the holonomy. We apply this to the well-established integrable systems method of describing harmonic maps from a $`2`$-torus to a group $`G`$ and obtain for $`G=SU(2)`$ a formula in terms of hyperelliptic integrals. Together with the known formula for the energy, we determine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We consider some simple examples and show that in general $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vary independently of each other.

The author wishes to thank D. S. Freed, J. H. Rawnsley and A. Pazhitnov for useful discussions and EPSRC for support.

## 2 The Wess-Zumino term

Let $`G`$ be a compact simple, simply-connected Lie group. If $`B(X,Y)`$ denotes the Killing form on the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, then the alternating form $`B(X,[Y,Z])`$ defines a bi-invariant closed $`3`$-form on $`G`$, whose de Rham class generates $`H^3(G,𝐑)`$. A particular multiple of this gives a form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ generates $`H^3(G,2\pi 𝐙)𝐙`$. For $`G=SU(n)`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{12\pi }tr(g^1dg)^3.$$

For a general Lie group the Lie algebra-valued $`1`$-form $`g^1dg`$ is replaced by the Maurer-Cartan form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(G,𝔤)`$ and for some constant $`c`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=cB(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ]).$$

To determine $`c`$, we note (see ) that the generator of $`H_3(G,𝐙)\pi _3(G)`$ can be realized by the inclusion of a distinguished subgroup $`K`$ isomorphic to $`SU(2)=S^3`$. Its Lie algebra $`𝔨`$ is generated by the root spaces $`𝔤^\beta ,𝔤^\beta `$ of a highest root $`\beta `$, and multiples of the dual element $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }𝔤`$. The Killing form $`B`$ on $`𝔤`$ restricts to a multiple $`\lambda `$ of the Killing form $`b`$ on $`𝔨`$, and so if $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]/2\pi `$ generates $`H^3(G,𝐙)`$, we must have

$$2\pi =_K\mathrm{\Omega }=c\lambda _Kb(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ])$$
(1)
For $`S^3`$ the Killing form is $`8g`$ where $`g`$ is the induced metric from $`𝐑^4`$ and the $`3`$-form $`b(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ])=96vol_g`$ and so

$$2\pi =96c\lambda vol(S^3)=192\pi ^2c\lambda $$
(2)
But $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }`$ generates the lattice of a Cartan subalgebra of $`S^3`$ so $`b(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })=8`$, and

$$B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })=\lambda b(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })=8\lambda $$

and hence from (2) we have

$$c=\frac{1}{12\pi B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })}$$
(3)
For $`G=SU(2)`$ this gives $`c=1/96\pi `$.

An alternative way of writing this is to use $`B`$ to identify the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ with its dual, and then for each root $`\alpha `$,

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }=\frac{2\alpha }{B(\alpha ,\alpha )}$$
(4)
The quadratic form $`B`$ then defines a positive definite inner product $`(,)`$ on $`𝔥^{}`$ and

$$B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })=\frac{4}{|\beta |^2}$$

which gives

$$c=\frac{1}{48\pi }|\beta |^2$$
(5)
Now let $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ be a smooth map of a closed oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`G`$. Since $`G`$ is $`2`$-connected, if $`M`$ is an oriented $`3`$-manifold with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we can extend $`g`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{g}:MG`$. The Wess-Zumino term  is then defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=_M\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(6)
To see the dependence on the extension $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ to $`M`$, suppose $`g_0`$ is another such extension to $`M_0`$, then we form the closed $`3`$-manifold $`N=MM_0`$, and the two maps fit together to give a map $`h:NG`$. It follows that

$$_M\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_0}g_0^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=_Nh^{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

but this is of the form $`2\pi n`$ for an integer $`n`$ since the cohomology class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ lies in $`H^3(G,2\pi 𝐙)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ is well-defined modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$ by the map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$. We shall henceforth regard $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ as taking values in $`𝐓=𝐑/2\pi 𝐙`$.

* Example: The simplest example is for the group $`G=SU(2)=S^3`$ and a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in $`S^3`$. The invariant $`3`$-form on $`S^3`$ is a multiple of the volume form. The orientation on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^3`$ determines a choice of interior $`MS^3`$ and then for the inclusion map $`i:\mathrm{\Sigma }S^3`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)=2\pi \frac{vol(M)}{vol(S^3)}$$

The equatorial 2-sphere $`S^2S^3`$ bounds a hemisphere and thus in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(i)=\pi `$. More generally, a map $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ gives by composition a map $`g=if`$ and then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=(degf)\pi `$.

* Remark: In the physics literature the Wess-Zumino term is paired with the energy of the map

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }g^1dg^2$$

in the partition function of the Wess-Zumino-Witten model $`Z=Dge^{kI(g)}`$ where $`I(g)`$ is the complex functional

$$I(g)=6cEi\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

Note that the energy $`E`$ depends on the choice of a conformal structure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not.

We now prove some basic properties of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$, concerning maps $`g`$ which take values in some totally geodesic submanifolds of $`G`$. This is important amongst other things because a harmonic map to a totally geodesic submanifold is also harmonic as a map to the ambient space.

###### Proposition 1

: Let $`VG`$ be a submanifold on which the $`3`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ restricts as a form to zero. Then there is a cohomology class $`\gamma H^2(V;𝐓)`$ such that if the image of $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ lies in $`V`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=g^{}(\gamma )[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$.

* Proof: There is a smooth map $`f:GG`$ which retracts a tubular neighbourhood of $`V`$ onto $`V`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes on $`V`$, $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes in a neighbourhood of $`V`$. Since $`f`$ is the identity on $`V`$, we can calculate the invariant by integrating $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over an extension of $`g`$. However, since $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes in a neighbourhood of $`V`$, it defines a relative de Rham class $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]H^3(G,V,𝐑)`$ whose image in $`H^3(G,𝐑)`$ is $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$. Reducing modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$, $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ vanishes, so in the exact relative cohomology sequence

$$H^2(G,𝐓)H^2(V,𝐓)\stackrel{\delta }{}H^3(G,V,𝐓)H^3(G,𝐓)$$

we have

$$[\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]=\delta (\gamma )$$
(7)
for some $`\gamma H^2(V,𝐓)`$. Since $`G`$ is $`2`$-connected $`H^2(G,𝐓)=0`$ so $`\gamma `$ is unique.

Now extend $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$ to a map $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of the $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ to $`G`$. In the relative exact sequence in integral homology we have an isomorphism

$$H_3(M,\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙)H_2(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝐙)𝐙$$

We obtain the Wess-Zumino term by integrating $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over $`M`$, but this is the same as evaluating $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]`$ on the generator of $`H_3(M,\mathrm{\Sigma },𝐙)`$ and from (7), this is evaluating $`g^{}\gamma `$ on the generator of $`H_2(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝐙)`$, which is what we needed to prove. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2

Let $`TG`$ be a maximal torus. Let $`C_{ij}`$ be the Cartan matrix of $`G`$ and $`S_{ij}=\mathrm{min}(C_{ij},C_{ji})`$. Then $`S_{ij}`$ modulo $`2`$ defines a skew-symmetric bilinear form on $`H_1(T,𝐙)`$ with values in $`𝐙/2`$, and thus an element $`\gamma H^2(T,𝐙/2)H^2(T,𝐓)`$. If the image of a map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ lies in $`T`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=g^{}\gamma [\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=0`$ or $`\pi `$.

* Proof: Since $`T`$ is an abelian group, $`[\omega ,\omega ]=0`$ on $`T`$, so in particular $`B(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ])`$ vanishes and therefore from Proposition 1 the Wess-Zumino term is given by pulling back an element $`\gamma H^2(T,𝐓)`$.

Now $`H_2(T;𝐙)`$ is generated by the homology classes of homomorphisms from $`S^1\times S^1`$ to $`T`$, so it suffices to calculate the Wess-Zumino term for the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^1\times S^1`$ and the map $`g:S^1\times S^1TG`$ given by a homomorphism. Such a homomorphism is given by a pair of homomorphisms $`h_1,h_2:S^1T`$, and each of these is determined by a lattice point in the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`T`$ – the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ generated by the simple coroots $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i`$.

So suppose

$$g(e^{2\pi ix_1},e^{2\pi ix_2})=h_1h_2=\mathrm{exp}(x_1\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{exp}(x_2\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_2)$$

Extend $`h_2:S^1T`$ to a map $`\stackrel{~}{h}_2`$ from the disc $`D^2`$ into $`G`$ and take $`M=S^1\times D^2`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{g}=h_1\stackrel{~}{h}_2:MG`$. Now $`\mathrm{\Omega }=cB(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ])`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=6\pi cdx_1B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{~}{h}_2^{}[\omega ,\omega ])$$

But $`d\omega +[\omega ,\omega ]/2=0`$, so

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=12\pi cdx_1B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,d\stackrel{~}{h}_2^{}\omega )=12\pi cd(dx_1B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{~}{h}_2^{}\omega ))$$

Using Stokes’ theorem and the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_2`$ restricts to the homomorphism $`h_2`$ on the boundary circle,

$$_{S^1\times D^2}\stackrel{~}{g}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=24\pi ^2c_{S^1\times S^1}B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_2)𝑑x_1dx_2=2\pi \frac{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_2)}{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })}$$
(8)
from (3). Now identifying $`𝔥`$ with its dual using $`B`$ we have the Cartan matrix for simple roots $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ given by

$$C_{ij}=\frac{2(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)}{(\alpha _j,\alpha _j)}.$$

It follows from (4) that

$$\frac{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_2)}{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })}=\frac{(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}{(\alpha _1,\alpha _1)}\frac{(\beta ,\beta )}{(\alpha _2,\alpha _2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_{12}\frac{(\beta ,\beta )}{(\alpha _1,\alpha _1)}$$

If all roots have the same length (as in $`A_k,D_k,E_k`$), this is half the Cartan matrix. More generally, the highest root $`\beta `$ is a long root and $`C_{12}C_{21}`$ iff the lengths of $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ differ, so if $`\alpha _1`$ is long it has the same length as $`\beta `$ and

$$\frac{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_2)}{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })}=\frac{1}{2}C_{12}$$

Recalling that the off-diagonal terms of the Cartan matrix are negative, this gives in all cases

$$\frac{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_j)}{B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })}=\frac{1}{2}S_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}(C_{ij},C_{ji})$$

and so from (8) the Wess-Zumino term is $`\pi S_{ij}`$ as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

* Remark: The $`𝐙/2`$-valued bilinear form appears in the construction of a central extension of the loop group $`LG`$ in Chapter 4 of . The central extension determines a line bundle on the loop group. In this case it is the natural line bundle on the loop space $`LM`$ defined by a gerbe on $`M`$ . What we are calculating here is in one language the holonomy of a flat gerbe on $`T`$ and in another the holonomy of a flat line bundle on $`LT`$, the loops in the maximal torus.

Another class of totally geodesic submanifolds of $`G`$ consists of symmetric spaces. Suppose $`\sigma `$ is an involution of the group $`G`$ and $`K`$ the fixed point set. A theorem of Cartan (see  Theorem (8.2)) asserts that when $`G`$ is simply connected, $`K`$ is connected. Then (see ) the map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(gK)=g\sigma (g^1)$$

embeds the symmetric space $`G/K`$ as a totally geodesic submanifold of $`G`$. We shall evaluate the Wess-Zumino term for a map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G/KG`$.

###### Proposition 3

Suppose the image of the map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ lies in the canonically embedded symmetric space $`G/K`$ with homology class $`nx`$ where $`x`$ is a generator of the cyclic group $`H_2(G/K,𝐙)`$ (this is either $`𝐙,𝐙/2`$ or $`0`$). Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=n\pi `$ (modulo $`2\pi `$).

* Proof: The submanifold $`V=G/KG`$ is homogeneous under the action $`xgx\sigma (g^1)`$. Since the $`3`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`G`$ is bi-invariant, we can determine its restriction to $`V`$ by looking at $`g=e`$. Here, the $`\pm 1`$ eigenspaces of $`\sigma `$ split the Lie algebra orthogonally as $`𝔤=𝔨𝔭`$ and

$$[𝔨,𝔨]𝔨,[𝔨,𝔭]𝔭,[𝔭,𝔭]𝔨.$$

The subspace $`𝔭`$ is the tangent space of $`V`$ at the identity, so if $`X,Y,Z𝔭`$, $`[Y,Z][𝔭,𝔭]𝔨`$ and by orthogonality of $`𝔨`$ and $`𝔭`$, $`B(X,[Y,Z])=0`$. The form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ thus vanishes on $`V`$ so from Proposition 1, we need to find $`\gamma H^2(V,𝐓)`$.

Now from the fibration $`GG/K`$, since $`K`$ is connected and $`G`$ simply connected, $`G/K`$ is simply connected and so using the Hurewicz isomorphism,

$$H_2(G/K,𝐙)\pi _2(G/K)\pi _1(K).$$

The results for the symmetric space $`G/K`$ can be found in : $`\pi _2(G/K)=𝐙`$ if and only if $`G/K`$ is Hermitian symmetric, otherwise $`\pi _2(G/K)=𝐙/2`$ or vanishes.

Since the Wess-Zumino term is in this case the evaluation of a cohomology class, it will be sufficient to evaluate it for the map $`S^2G`$ given by a generator of $`\pi _2(G/K)`$. For this we again turn to : take a long root $`\alpha `$ of the symmetric space and the copy of $`SU(2)G`$ generated by the root spaces $`𝔤^\alpha ,𝔤^\alpha 𝔭`$. Then $`[𝔤^\alpha ,𝔤^\alpha ]𝔨`$ and this generates a circle subgroup $`U(1)K`$. The inclusion $`SU(2)G`$ induces a totally geodesic embedding of the $`2`$-sphere $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ into $`G/K`$ which generates $`\pi _2(G/K)`$.

Put another way, the homotopy class is generated by the canonical embedding of the symmetric space $`S^2=SU(2)/U(1)`$ in $`SU(2)`$ followed by the inclusion homomorphism $`SU(2)G`$. To calculate the Wess-Zumino term, we take the $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ with boundary $`S^2`$ to be a hemisphere in $`S^3=SU(2)G`$. By choice, the $`3`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ integrates to $`2\pi `$ over the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup generated by a highest root. But the highest root is a long root thus the integral over $`M`$ is $`\pi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have seen here that in certain situations, the Wess-Zumino term takes the special values $`0,\pi `$ for any map, whether it is harmonic or not. As we shall see next, these values are taken also by harmonic maps of the $`2`$-sphere.

## 3 Harmonic maps of the $`2`$-sphere

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed surface with a conformal structure. Given a map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ let $`\alpha =g^{}\omega `$ be the pull-back of the Maurer-Cartan form. It is well-known (see ) that if we put

$$A(\theta )=\frac{1}{2}(1e^{i\theta })\alpha ^{1,0}+\frac{1}{2}(1e^{i\theta })\alpha ^{0,1}$$
(9)
where $`\alpha =\alpha ^{1,0}+\alpha ^{0,1}`$ and $`\alpha ^{1,0}=i\alpha ^{1,0},\alpha ^{0,1}=i\alpha ^{0,1}`$ then the condition for $`g`$ to be harmonic is that the connection $`d+A(\theta )`$ on the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times G`$ should be flat for all $`\theta `$. We then have $`A(0)=0`$ and $`A(\pi )=\alpha =g^{}\omega `$.

We use this approach now to calculate the Wess-Zumino term for a harmonic map $`g:S^2G`$.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`g:S^2G`$ be a harmonic map, with energy $`E`$, then

* $`|\beta |^2E/82\pi 𝐙`$
* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=|\beta |^2E/16`$

where $`|\beta |^2`$ is the length squared of the highest root $`\beta `$ of $`G`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=0`$ or $`\pi `$.

(The above integrality property of the energy is well-known (see )).

* Proof: Since the $`2`$-sphere is simply connected, any flat bundle is trivial, so for each $`\theta `$ there is a map $`g_\theta :S^2G`$, (well-defined modulo left multiplication by a constant) such that $`g_\theta ^{}\omega =A(\theta )`$. Choose a smoothly varying family and consider the Wess-Zumino term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_\theta )`$. By definition we evaluate this by extending to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_\theta :MG`$ and, writing $`A=\stackrel{~}{g}_\theta ^{}\omega `$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_\theta )=_McB(A,[A,A])$$

Now differentiate this expression with respect to $`\theta `$. The flatness condition

$$dA+\frac{1}{2}[A,A]=0$$
(10)
gives on differentiating

$$dA^{}+\frac{1}{2}[A^{},A]+\frac{1}{2}[A,A^{}]=0$$
(11)
and hence

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }B(A,[A,A])=3B(A,[A,A^{}])=3B(A^{},[A,A])$$

Now from (11)

$$B(A,[A,A^{}])=B(A,dA^{})$$

and from (10),

$$B(A,[A,A^{}])=B(A^{},[A,A])=2B(A^{},dA)$$

It follows that

$$dB(A,A^{})=B(dA,A^{})B(A,dA^{})=\frac{1}{2}B(A,[A,A^{}])$$

Hence

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_\theta )=3c_MB(A,[A,A^{}])=6c_{S^2}B(A,A^{})$$
(12)
using Stokes’ theorem. But from (9),

$$B(A,A^{})=\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)B(\alpha ^{1,0},\alpha ^{0,1})$$
(13)
Now the energy of the map $`g`$ is given by

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_{S^2}B(\alpha ,\alpha )=i_{S^2}B(\alpha ^{1,0},\alpha ^{0,1})$$

so from (12) and (13)

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_\theta )=3c(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )E.$$

At $`\theta =0`$, $`g_\theta `$ maps $`S^2`$ to a point, so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_0)=0`$, hence integrating we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(g_\theta )=3c(\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta )E$$
(14)
Now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ is well-defined modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$, so since $`g_0=g_{2\pi }`$, putting $`\theta =2\pi `$ in (14) we have

$$6c\pi E2\pi 𝐙$$
(15)
or equivalently from (5),

$$\frac{|\beta |^2E}{16\pi }𝐙$$

Putting $`\theta =\pi `$ in (14) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=3c\pi E$$

In particular, from (15), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=0`$ or $`\pi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Classical Chern-Simons theory

If the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has genus greater than zero, we cannot use the argument above, since the flat connection $`A(\theta )`$ may not be trivial – it could have holonomy. To deal with this we have to understand the relationship between the invariant $`3`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the differential geometry of connections on surfaces and $`3`$-manifolds, and the appropriate setting for this is Chern-Simons theory.

Let $`M`$ be an oriented $`3`$-manifold and consider a connection on the trivial bundle $`M\times G`$. This is given by a Lie-algebra valued $`1`$-form $`A`$, and its curvature is $`F=dA+[A,A]/2`$. Define the Chern-Simons $`3`$-form $`C(A)`$ by

$$C(A)=6cB(A,F)cB(A,[A,A])$$
(16)
In the case that $`G=SU(n)`$, we have

$$C(A)=\frac{1}{4\pi }tr(AdA+\frac{2}{3}A^3).$$

If $`g:MG`$ is a smooth map this describes a change of trivialization (or gauge) of the bundle and we obtain a new connection form. For $`SU(n)`$ it is $`\stackrel{~}{A}=g^1Ag+g^1dg`$ and in general

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=Ad(g)A+g^{}\omega $$

where $`\omega `$, as before, is the Maurer-Cartan form. The Chern-Simons form is not gauge-invariant – for $`SU(n)`$ we have

$$C(\stackrel{~}{A})C(A)=\frac{1}{4\pi }(\frac{1}{3}tr(g^1dg)^3+d(tr(dgg^1A))$$

and in general

$$C(\stackrel{~}{A})C(A)=g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }6cdB(g^{}\omega ,Ad(g)A)$$
(17)
If $`M`$ is a closed $`3`$-manifold, it follows using Stokes’ theorem that

$$_MC(\stackrel{~}{A})_MC(A)=_Mg^{}\mathrm{\Omega }2\pi 𝐙$$

so that the integral – the Chern-Simons invariant – is well defined modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$, independently of the choice of trivialization.

* Example: Let $`gG`$ be a harmonic map. We have a family of (flat) connections $`A(\theta )`$ on the trivial bundle, and hence we can think of $`A(\theta )`$ as defining a connection on the trivial bundle over the oriented closed $`3`$-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times S^1`$. We calculate the Chern-Simons form using (16). Since $`A`$ has no $`d\theta `$ terms, $`B(A,[A,A])=0`$, and since $`A`$ is flat on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{\theta \}`$, we have $`F=d\theta A^{}`$. Thus

$$C(A)=6cB(A,A^{})d\theta .$$

Integrating over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times S^1`$, using (13) we find

$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times S^1}C(A)=6_{S^1}𝑑\theta _\mathrm{\Sigma }cB(A,A^{})=3c_0^{2\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )E=6\pi cE$$
(18)

For our application, we shall need to understand the meaning of the Chern-Simons integral for a $`3`$-manifold with boundary. This is described in detail in  in the language of a classical topological field theory. The main features are as follows:

* a connection $`A`$ on a principal $`G`$-bundle over an oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ defines a one-dimensional Hilbert space $`Z(A)`$,
* if $`M`$ is an oriented $`3`$-manifold with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the exponential of the Chern-Simons integral of an extension of the connection to $`M`$ defines a vector $`Z(M)Z(A)`$,
* if $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a different $`3`$-manifold, then $`Z(\stackrel{~}{M})=e^{i\theta }Z(M)`$ where $`\theta `$ is the Chern-Simons invariant for the closed $`3`$-manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$,
* the Hilbert spaces $`Z(A(t))`$ for a connection on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$ define a line bundle $`L`$ over $`[0,1]`$ and the exponential of the Chern-Simons integral defines the holonomy from $`Z(A(0))`$ to $`Z(A(1))`$ of a unitary connection on $`L`$.

* Remark: The Chern-Simons integral on a manifold with boundary as we have defined it is a number, but in order to obtain this number we had to have a priori a trivialization of the bundle. The space of all connections is an infinite dimensional affine space and so we can join any connection by a straight line from $`A`$ to the trivial connection. Parallel translation along this line gives a trivialization of the line bundle $`L`$. With respect to this trivialization, holonomy is a unit complex number and this is the number which is the exponential of the Chern-Simons integral. Without that initial choice of trivialization, the gauge transformation properties (17) basically determine the invariant interpretation given by the TFT viewpoint.

Suppose the family of connections $`A(t)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$ are all gauge equivalent so that we have a smooth family of maps $`g_t:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ with $`g_t(A(0))=A(t)`$. Cap off $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{1\}`$ with a manifold $`M_1`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to form a manifold $`M=M_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1])`$ and extend $`g`$ to $`M`$. From (17), if we integrate the Chern-Simons form over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$ we get

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]}}C(A(t))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle _{M_1}}g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`6c{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{1\}}}B(g^{}\omega ,Ad(g)A)6c{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}}}B(g^{}\omega ,Ad(g)A)`$
We saw in Section 1 that the integral of $`g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over a manifold with boundary the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ only depends modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$ on $`g`$ restricted to the boundary. It follows from (19) that

$$\mathrm{exp}(i_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]}C(A(t)))$$

depends only on the connections at the end points of the interval $`[0,1]`$. In the TFT interpretation this means that the holonomy of the connection on the line bundle $`L`$ is independent of the path of gauge-equivalent connections joining them. (Again see  for details). Put another way, we can say that the line bundle $`L`$ with connection on the space of all connections is pulled back from a bundle with connection on the moduli space $``$ of all connections modulo gauge equivalence.

## 5 Harmonic maps for higher genus surfaces

Let $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ be a harmonic map of a surface of arbitrary genus $`g`$. Consider the flat connection $`A(\theta )`$ as in (9) on the $`3`$-manifold with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,\pi ]`$. Here the connection $`A(\theta )`$ is trivial on the boundary (since $`A(0)=0`$ and $`A(\pi )=g^1dg`$) but not necessarily on the interior: it may well have non-trivial holonomy there.

Choose a smooth family of maps $`g_t:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ for $`t[\pi ,2\pi ]`$ such that $`g_\pi =g`$ and $`g_{2\pi }=e`$, the constant map. Define a closed path $`\gamma `$ in the space of connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times G`$ by

$$a(\theta )=A(\theta )(0\theta \pi ),a(\theta )=g_\theta ^{}\omega (\pi \theta 2\pi ).$$

The holonomy of a line bundle around a closed path is a complex number, independent of any choices. We have

###### Theorem 5

The holonomy $`H(\gamma )`$ of the connection on the line bundle $`L`$ around the closed curve $`\gamma `$ is

$$H(\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}i(3\pi cE\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)).$$

* Proof: The holonomy is the exponential of two terms: the Chern-Simons integral over $`[0,\pi ]`$ and that over $`[\pi ,2\pi ]`$. For the first, we obtain from (18)

$$3c_0^\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )E=3\pi cE$$

For the second cap off $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{2\pi \}`$ with a manifold $`M_0`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to form a manifold $`M`$ and extend $`g_{2\pi }=e`$ by the trivial map. On $`M_0`$ the Chern-Simons integrand is zero, so the holonomy from $`L_{a(\pi )}`$ to $`L_{a(2\pi )}`$ is represented by the Chern-Simons integral over $`M`$. Now when $`A=g^{}\omega `$, the Chern-Simons integrand (16) is

$$C(A)=cg^{}B(\omega ,[\omega ,\omega ])=\mathrm{\Omega }$$

so this integral is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ is the Wess-Zumino term of the map $`g`$.

The holonomy around the closed curve $`\gamma `$ is thus

$$H(\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}i(3\pi cE\mathrm{\Gamma }(g))$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

* Remark: The holonomy we have given here is independent of the path $`g_t`$, and as we argued in the last section, the identification by parallel translation along paths of gauge-equivalent connections is equivalent to producing an identification which makes the line bundle $`L`$ a bundle with connection pulled back from the moduli space $``$. Our holonomy is therefore really the holonomy of the connection on the moduli space  of flat $`G`$-connections around the closed path defined by the gauge-equivalence class of $`A(\theta )`$, $`0\theta \pi `$. This quotient is however singular at the trivial connection, so the reader may prefer to think in terms of the holonomy around the curve in the space of all connections. The important point is that parallel translation around another loop which represents gauge-equivalent flat connections will give the same holonomy, so we can in principle replace this loop by a simpler one to find $`3\pi cE\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$. We shall do this in the case of a torus in the next section.

Note that when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^2`$ the moduli space of flat connections is a point so $`H(\gamma )`$ is trivial and the theorem recovers the result of Theorem 4.

## 6 Harmonic maps from a $`2`$-torus to $`SU(2)`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a $`2`$-torus. First let us examine the moduli space of flat connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The fundamental group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })=𝐙^2`$ which is abelian, so any flat connection has holonomy given by a pair $`(h_1,h_2)`$ of commuting elements in $`G`$, hence a pair of elements in the maximal torus $`T`$. Up to gauge equivalence, a flat connection is classified by its holonomy, so the moduli space $``$ for the torus is the quotient of $`T\times T`$ by the diagonal action of the Weyl group. If we represent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝐑^2/2\pi 𝐙^2`$ then we can write down a concrete representative for each gauge-equivalence class:

$$A=a_1dx_1+a_2dx_2$$

where $`a_1,a_2𝔥`$ are constants. Then the holonomy of this flat connection is $`(h_1,h_2)=(\mathrm{exp}a_1,\mathrm{exp}a_2)`$.

We can calculate the holonomy of the line bundle $`L`$ over $``$ by using the Chern-Simons integral for these simple representatives. Take a path

$$A(t)=a_1(t)dx_1+a_2(t)dx_2(0t1)$$

and consider it as a connection on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$. Then from (16)

$$C(A)=6cdtB(A,A^{})=6cdt(B(a_1,a_2^{})B(a_2,a_1^{}))dx_1dx_2$$

so the connection form for the line bundle $`L`$ is

$$6c(B(a_1,da_2)B(a_2,da_1))$$

Suppose $`A(0)=0`$ and $`A(1)`$ is gauge-equivalent to $`A(0)`$. This will be so if the end-point $`(a_1(1),a_2(1))=(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ where $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ are lattice points in $`𝔥`$. These points determine a homomorphism from the torus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝐑^2/2\pi 𝐙^2`$ to $`T`$ and this map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }TG`$ is the gauge transformation that provides the equivalence. Thus the holonomy around the closed path $`\gamma `$ formed by the path $`A(t)`$ and a path of gauge transformations to the identity is

$$\mathrm{exp}[24\pi ^2ci_0^1(B(a_1,a_2^{})B(a_2,a_1^{}))𝑑ti\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)]$$
(20)
Now

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}(B(a_1,a_2^{})+B(a_2,a_1^{}))𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}B(a_1,a_2)^{}𝑑t`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`B(a_1(1),a_2(1))=B(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$
If $`\lambda _1=m_i\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i,\lambda _2=n_i\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i`$ then

$$B(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=\underset{i,j}{}B(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_i,\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }_j)m_in_j$$

thus from the proof of Proposition 2

$$24\pi ^2cB(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=\pi S_{ij}m_in_j$$

But from Proposition 2 this is the Wess-Zumino term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$, thus using (21) in (20) the holonomy can be written

$$\mathrm{exp}(48\pi ^2ci_0^1B(a_1,a_2^{})𝑑t)$$
(22)
We can use this formula if we know explicitly the holonomy of the flat connections $`A(\theta )`$ given by the harmonic map. In fact, the determination of this holonomy is precisely the starting point for the treatment of harmonic maps from a torus to $`SU(2)`$ in . The approach there is to consider the holomorphic family of flat $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ connections obtained as in (9), allowing the parameter to take values in $`𝐂^{}`$ and not just the circle:

$$A(\zeta )=\frac{1}{2}(1\zeta )\alpha ^{1,0}+\frac{1}{2}(1\zeta ^1)\alpha ^{0,1}$$

For each $`\zeta `$ we obtain a flat connection on the torus and its holonomy is given by commuting matrices $`h_1(\zeta ),h_2(\zeta )`$ in $`SL(2,𝐂)`$. The eigenvalues $`(\mu _1,\mu _1^1)`$, $`(\mu _2,\mu _2^1)`$ of $`h_1(\zeta ),h_2(\zeta )`$ are two-valued functions of $`\zeta `$ but $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ become single-valued on a branched double covering of $`𝐂^{}`$ which can be completed to a hyperelliptic curve $`S`$ double covering $`𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$. The eigenvalues $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ are holomorphic and single valued on $`S\backslash \pi ^1\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$, and the differentials $`d\mathrm{log}\mu _1,d\mathrm{log}\mu _2`$ extend to meromorphic differentials of the second kind on $`S`$.

If the holonomy is trivial for all $`\zeta `$, then the harmonic map is a holomorphic or antiholomorphic map $`f`$ to an equatorial $`2`$-sphere. As we have seen, the Wess-Zumino term for such a map is just $`(degf)\pi `$.

In the general case, the hyperelliptic curve (the spectral curve $`S`$), of arithmetic genus $`p`$, can be described as follows. It lies in the total space of the line bundle $`\pi :𝒪(p+1)𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$ and is defined by an equation $`\eta ^2=P(\zeta )`$ where $`\eta `$ is the tautological section of $`\pi ^{}𝒪(p+1)`$ over $`𝒪(p+1)`$ and $`P(\zeta )`$ is the pull-back of a section of $`𝒪(2p+2)`$ on $`𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$ (it is thus given by a polynomial of degree $`2p+2`$ in the affine coordinate $`\zeta `$). The spectral curve satisfies the following properties:

* $`P(\zeta )`$ is a real section of $`𝒪(2p+2)`$ with respect to the real structure on $`𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$ induced from $`\zeta \overline{\zeta }^1`$,
* $`P(\zeta )`$ has no real zeros (i.e. no zeros on the unit circle $`\zeta =\overline{\zeta }^1)`$,
* $`P(\zeta )`$ has at most simple zeros at $`\zeta =0,\zeta =\mathrm{}`$,
* there exist differentials $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ of the second kind (i.e. with zero residues) on $`S`$ with periods lying in $`2\pi i𝐙`$,
* $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ have double poles at $`\pi ^1(0)`$ and $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{})`$ and satisfy $`\sigma ^{}\phi _i=\phi _i,\rho ^{}\phi _i=\overline{\phi }_i`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the involution on $`S`$ induced by multiplication by $`1`$ in the fibres of $`𝒪(p+1)`$ and $`\rho `$ is the real structure on $`𝒪(p+1)`$ induced from $`\zeta \overline{\zeta }^1`$,
* the principal parts of $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ are linearly independent over $`𝐑`$
* the holomorphic functions $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ on $`S\backslash \pi ^1\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$ satisfying $`\phi _i=d\mu _i/\mu _i`$ and $`\mu _i\sigma ^{}\mu _i=1`$ also satisfy the constraint $`\mu _i(\xi )=1`$ for $`\xi \pi ^1\{1,1\}.`$

The main result is the following:

###### Theorem 6 ()

Given a line bundle of degree $`(p+1)`$ on a curve $`S`$ satisfying the conditions above, and which is quaternionic with respect to the real structure $`\rho \sigma `$, there is a harmonic map from a torus to $`SU(2)`$. Moreover every harmonic map which is not a holomorphic or antiholomorphic map to an equatorial $`2`$-sphere arises this way. The map is conformal if and only if $`P(\zeta )`$ vanishes at $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\zeta =\mathrm{}`$.

We shall show how to calculate the Wess-Zumino term from the spectral curve. Restricted to the unit circle, the functions $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ define us our path in the moduli space of flat $`SU(2)`$ connections. So lift the interval $`\theta [0,\pi ]S^1𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$ to the spectral curve $`S`$ and then $`a_i(\theta )=diag(\mathrm{log}\mu _i,\mathrm{log}\mu _i)`$ give us representatives for the modulus of the flat connection $`A(\theta )`$. We use the formula (22) for the group $`SU(2)`$ and we obtain

$$H(\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{\pi }_0^\pi \mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta )$$
(23)
So from Theorem 5, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi \mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta \frac{1}{32}E$$

so if we know the energy $`E`$ too, we can obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$. From (18), we know that

$$\frac{1}{16}E=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta \mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi 𝐙$$

and this will give $`E/32`$ modulo $`\pi 𝐙`$, but we need to know it modulo $`2\pi 𝐙`$. Fortunately there is another way of finding the energy, derived in  by using the extension of the line bundle $`L`$ to a holomorphic bundle over the space of $`\overline{}`$ operators. We express this result in a more invariant form below, and using $`B`$ as the metric.

Recall that if $`s,t`$ are holomorphic sections of a line bundle $`L`$ on a Riemann surface, we have a well-defined Wronskian $`W(s,t)=st^{}ts^{}`$ which is a holomorphic section of $`L^2K`$, $`K`$ being the canonical bundle. Take the differentials $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$, which are meromorphic sections of $`K`$, and form their Wronskian $`W(\phi _1,\phi _2)`$, which is a meromorphic section of $`K^3`$. Each differential has a double pole at $`\zeta =0`$, and zero residue, so the Wronskian has a triple pole there. In a local coordinate $`z`$ it therefore has the form

$$C\frac{dz^3}{z^3}+\mathrm{}$$

The coefficient $`C`$, the principal part, is independent of $`z`$, just like the residue of a differential. For the spectral curve, $`\zeta `$ is a local coordinate near $`\zeta =0`$ in the non-conformal case and $`\eta `$ is in the conformal case. The formula for the energy is then as follows:

###### Theorem 7 ()

Let $`g`$ be a harmonic map from a $`2`$-torus to $`SU(2)`$ and $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$ the differentials of the second kind on its spectral curve. Then

* if $`g`$ is non-conformal, the energy is given by

$$E=16iW(\phi _1,\phi _2)|_{\zeta =0}$$
* if $`g`$ is conformal, the energy is given by

$$E=8iW(\phi _1,\phi _2)|_{\eta =0}$$

* Remark: Both the formula for the energy $`E`$ and for the Wess-Zumino term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are independent of the choice of line bundle on the spectral curve in Theorem 6. When the spectral curve is smooth, this line bundle varies on a $`p`$-dimensional real torus and we obtain a corresponding $`p`$-dimensional family of harmonic maps. The constancy of the energy is to be expected as this is a deformation in the critical locus for the energy functional. In the conformal case, there is also a variational reason for the constancy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: recall that the problem of minimizing the area of a surface while fixing the enclosed volume leads to the equations for constant mean curvature. Minimal surfaces, where the mean curvature vanishes, are such surfaces.

## 7 Examples

Let us evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)`$ for some examples, taken from . We shall adopt the spectral curve approach, and restrict ourselves to the case $`p=0`$ of a rational spectral curve. These correspond to harmonic maps of a torus to $`S^3`$ which are invariant under the action of a maximal torus in $`SO(4)`$ acting on $`S^3`$.

We have two formulae at our disposal, one for the energy and one for the holonomy. From Theorem 7 in the nonconformal case if

$$\phi _1=\frac{a_1}{\zeta ^2}+b_1+\mathrm{},\phi _2=\frac{a_2}{\zeta ^2}+b_2+\mathrm{}$$

then the energy is

$$E=32i(a_2b_1a_1b_2)$$
(24)
In the conformal case

$$\phi _1=\frac{a_1}{\eta ^2}+b_1+\mathrm{},\phi _2=\frac{a_2}{\eta ^2}+b_2+\mathrm{}$$

and

$$E=16i(a_2b_1a_1b_2)$$
(25)
From (23) and Theorem 5 we have the formula for the Wess-Zumino term:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi \mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta \frac{1}{32}E$$
(26)
### 7.1 The Clifford torus

This is the simplest example of a harmonic map from a torus to $`SU(2)`$ – it is an embedded minimal surface (therefore a conformal harmonic map) given by

$$g(e^{i\theta },e^{i\varphi })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\theta }& e^{i\varphi }\\ e^{i\varphi }& e^{i\theta }\end{array}\right)$$

this is considered in some detail in Section 6 of . The spectral curve has the simple form

$$\eta ^2=\zeta $$

The two functions $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$ have single-valued logarithms given by

$$\mathrm{log}\mu _1=\frac{\pi }{2}(1+i)(\eta +\frac{i}{\eta })+i\pi ,\mathrm{log}\mu _2=\frac{\pi }{2}(1i)(\eta \frac{i}{\eta })i\pi $$

and so

$$\phi _1=\frac{\pi }{2}(1+i)(\frac{i}{\eta ^2}+1)d\eta ,\phi _2=\frac{\pi }{2}(1i)(\frac{i}{\eta ^2}+1)d\eta $$

The map is conformal so from (25) the calculation for the energy is $`E=16\pi ^2`$. Now

$`\mathrm{log}\mu _1d(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2+i)^2}{\eta ^3}}d\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}(1+i)d(\eta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\eta }})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta +i)^2}{\zeta ^2}}d\zeta +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}(1+i)d(\eta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\eta }})`$
and thus

$$_0^\pi \mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta =\frac{\pi ^3}{2}3\pi ^2$$

Thus from (26),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=3\pi +\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\frac{\pi ^2}{2}=3\pi $$

We deduce that, modulo $`2\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi `$ and the Clifford torus divides the $`3`$-sphere into two halves of equal volume (as can be checked by other means).

### 7.2 The nonconformal rational case

For nonconformal harmonic maps, the spectral curve has the form

$$\eta ^2=\overline{\alpha }\zeta ^2+(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })\zeta \alpha $$

with $`\alpha 0`$. This is a double covering of $`𝐂\mathrm{P}^1`$ branched over the two points $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha }^1`$. Up to a covering (see ) a harmonic map defined by such a curve is given by one where

$$\mathrm{log}\mu _1=\frac{\pi }{r}\eta \left(1\frac{1}{\zeta }\right),\mathrm{log}\mu _2=\frac{i\pi }{s}\eta \left(1+\frac{1}{\zeta }\right)$$

and $`r=\sqrt{(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })+(\alpha +\overline{\alpha })}`$ and $`s=\sqrt{(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })(\alpha +\overline{\alpha })}`$. (One may check easily that the constraints $`\mu _i(\xi )=1`$ for $`\xi \pi ^1\{\pm 1\}`$ are satisfied.)

Using the expansion $`\eta \sqrt{\alpha }(1(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })\zeta /2\alpha +\mathrm{})`$ near $`\zeta =0`$ we find the Wronskian

$$W=\frac{i\pi ^2}{rs}(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha }).$$

The map is non-conformal so from (24) the energy calculation gives

$$E=\frac{32\pi ^2}{rs}(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha }).$$

In this case

$$\mathrm{log}\mu _1d(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)=\frac{i\pi ^2}{rs}\eta (1\frac{1}{\zeta })\left((1+\frac{1}{\zeta })d\eta \eta \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}\right)$$

$$=\frac{i\pi ^2}{rs}\left((1\frac{1}{\zeta ^2})(\overline{\alpha }\zeta +\frac{1+\alpha \overline{\alpha }}{2})+(\frac{1}{\zeta ^2}\frac{1}{\zeta ^3})(\overline{\alpha }\zeta ^2(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })\zeta +\alpha )\right)d\zeta $$

using $`\eta ^2=\overline{\alpha }\zeta ^2+(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })\zeta \alpha `$ and its derivative. We now obtain the integral

$$_0^\pi \mathrm{log}\mu _1(\mathrm{log}\mu _2)^{}𝑑\theta =\frac{i\pi ^2}{rs}(i\pi (1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })+2(\alpha \overline{\alpha }))$$

Thus from (26),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{i\pi }{rs}(i\pi (1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })+2(\alpha \overline{\alpha }))+\frac{\pi ^2}{rs}(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })=\frac{2\pi i}{rs}(\alpha \overline{\alpha })$$

* Remark: It is interesting to calculate in this last case the WZW functional

$`I(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}Ei\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{rs}}((1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })+(\alpha \overline{\alpha }))`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })+(\alpha \overline{\alpha })}{\sqrt{(1+\alpha \overline{\alpha })^2(\alpha +\overline{\alpha })^2}}}`$
We see that as the branch point $`\alpha `$ varies in the unit disc, the real and imaginary parts of $`I(g)`$, which are essentially the energy and the Wess-Zumino term, vary independently. We have finally found examples where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can take a continuous range of values and not just the $`0,\pi `$ previously encountered.

Lastly what do we learn about the Wess-Zumino term of an embedded minimal torus? Unfortunately very little, since an old conjecture of Lawson  – that the only embedded minimal torus in $`S^3`$ is the Clifford torus – remains undecided. The only obvious statement we can make is that an embedded torus cannot have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)=0`$ since it must enclose a positive volume.